Friday, June 22, 2007

The image “http://joewalker.blogs.com/felixhominum/images/captbb92890acf8f49a29d4661c4b5520da8mide.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
The Martyr of Mosul
by Patrick J. Buchanan


On April 1—Palm Sunday—after bullets were fired into the Church of the Holy Spirit in Mosul, Iraq, during mass, the pastor, Father Ragheed Ganni, a Chaldean Catholic, e-mailed friends at the Asia Times:

“We empathize with Christ, who entered Jerusalem in full knowledge that the consequence of His love for mankind was the cross. Thus, while bullets smashed our church windows, we offered our suffering as a sign of love for Christ.”

The attacks continued. Father Ragheed wrote again: “Each day we wait for the decisive attack, but we will not stop celebrating mass; we will do it underground, where we are safer. I am encouraged in this decision by the strength of my parishioners. This is war, real war, but we hope to carry our cross to the very end with the help of Divine Grace.”

As the bombings in Mosul and Baghdad rose during April and May, and priests were kidnapped, Father Ragheed grew weary. In his last e-mail, May 28, he wrote, “We are on the verge of collapse.”

A day before, Pentecost Sunday, a bomb exploded in his church, and Father Ragheed seemed dispirited: “In a sectarian and confessional Iraq, will there be any space for Christians? We have no support, no group who fights for our cause; we are abandoned in the midst of the disaster. Iraq has already been divided. It will never be the same. What is the future of our church?”

Though tempted by despair, Father Ragheed did not give up hope.

“I may be wrong, but I am certain about one thing—one single fact that is always true: that the Holy Spirit will enlighten people so that they will work for the good of humanity, in this world so full of evil.”

Following mass on Trinity Sunday, a week after Pentecost Sunday, Father Ragheed and three sub-deacons were seized, taken away and murdered. Their killers placed vehicles loaded with explosives around the bodies so no one would dare approach them.

The story of “The Last Mass of Father Ragheed, a Martyr of the Chaldean Church,” is related by Sandro Magister of www.Chiesa.

Father Ragheed had completed his studies in Rome in 2003, Magister writes, and returned full of hope. “That is where I belong, that is my place,” he said of Iraq. “Saddam has fallen, we have elected a government, we have voted for a constitution.”

Since 2003, an immense tragedy has befallen the Iraqi Christians. In 2000, Chaldeans, Syro-Catholics, Syro-Orthodox, Assyrians from the East, Catholic and Orthodox Armenians, and Greek-Melkites together numbered 1.5 million. Today, perhaps 500,000 remain. Hundreds of thousands have found sanctuary in Syria and Jordan, tens of thousands in Egypt and Lebanon. Among the refugees are many of Iraq’s professionals—doctors and teachers who could have helped build a better future for all in Iraq.

The region around Mosul and Nineveh, writes Magister, is the “cradle of Christianity in Iraq. There are churches and monasteries that go back to the earliest centuries. . . . Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is used in the liturgies.”

As the war has dragged on, life has become hellish for the remaining Christians. Yet they have never resorted to bombings or assassinations.

Father Ragheed is neither the first nor last of the Iraqi martyrs.

After Pope Benedict gave his speech in Regensburg, Germany, touching on Islam, Father Paulos Iskander was kidnapped and beheaded in retaliation by the “Lions of Islam.” Father Joseph Petros was murdered. A Catholic nun told the Vatican news agency: “The imams preach in the mosques that it is not a crime to kill Christians. It is a hunting of men.”

In May, St. George’s Assyrian Church in the Dora neighborhood, a Christian enclave of Baghdad, was burned down, destroying what had survived a firebombing in 2004. The Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) reports it was the 27th church destroyed by Muslim gangs since the liberation of Iraq.

Now the ancient practice of the jizya—the “head tax” Muslims have traditionally imposed on Christians, Jews and religious minorities—is being reinstituted. According to AINA, “Al-Qaida is demanding that Christians pay 250,000 dinars (around $200) for the right to remain in their own homes, a sum equivalent to an average month’s salary in Iraq.”

All this, and the news of Father Ragheed’s murder, moved Benedict XVI to raise the issue with President Bush.

For when Bush left the Vatican, he told reporters: “He (the pope) is worrisome about the Christians inside Iraq being mistreated by the Muslim majority. . . . He was concerned that the society that was evolving would not tolerate the Christian religion.”

For the martyrdom of Christianity in its birth cradle, blame must fall heavily upon the men who conceived this misbegotten war.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
The image “http://espn.go.com/media/nba/2005/1024/photo/sas_g_finley_395.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
NBA suffering from U.S. basketball's ills
By Jason Whitlock


Sat, Jun. 16, 2007

It’s going to take more than tweaking the playoff format to fix what is ailing the NBA.

The league that just 15 years ago thought it was on the cusp of catching the NFL in terms of U.S. and global relevance has now spiraled below baseball and could once again find itself a very distant third behind the NFL and MLB.

The just-completed NBA finals was the most-ignored championship series in the post-Magic-Larry-and-Michael era. The Spurs vs. the Cavaliers sparked little discussion, little drama and little television interest.

There are lots of theories about why this happened, including the one-sidedness of the series, the Spurs’ boring style of play, the weakness of the Cavaliers and the Eastern Conference, “The Sopranos” series finale, the overall number of cable viewing options. There is more than a kernel of truth in all of the theories.

But I think there is a bigger truth that is not being widely discussed on a consistent basis.

Basketball in the United States is in poor health. Our entire system needs to be overhauled to improve play and increase the passion of fans.

What has happened to American basketball is a prime example that freedom without vision is a dangerous thing. You can have too much freedom, and clearly the NBA is suffering the consequences of the freedom overload granted our players.

The good thing is that eventually the rank-and-file NBA players will begin to suffer financially, too. The current TV ratings are going to damage David Stern’s ability to negotiate the kind of TV contracts necessary to support the salaries of the average NBA player.

Yeah, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan will always get their money. The shoe companies will see to that. It’s the non-superstar — most of the league — who is going to get hurt, and that will force the NBA players association to work with Stern and the owners to fix basketball.

There are two major things, in my opinion, killing basketball right now: 1. AAU basketball; 2. early entry into the draft.

See, you can’t fix the NBA without first fixing college basketball. The players and David Stern must realize the healthier college basketball is the easier it will be for the NBA to regain its $ignificance.

Basketball fans are losing passion for the NBA because they haven’t been properly introduced to the league’s players.

LeBron James, allegedly, is a big star. He has a huge shoe contract. He’s featured in clever commercials. His face is recognized around the world. So why didn’t people tune in to see him play in the NBA finals?

Because basketball fans in Lawrence and Bloomington, Ind., and Durham, N.C., and all the other little basketball hotbeds don’t care about LeBron James. He didn’t play their game. Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan built gigantic college followings and brought those passionate fans with them to the NBA.

Today’s players bring posses. The NBA players who visited a college campus for one or two years leave their disappointed fan bases behind.

Many college basketball fans hate the NBA. They see the league as an institution that undermines the college game by stealing its underdeveloped players. There are people who want to see the NBA fail. That’s not good. It’s not healthy for basketball.

Rather than whining that an age limit is racist, NBA players need to understand that requiring players to go to college is good for the league and will put money in everyone’s pockets down the road.

This year’s NBA draft has created more excitement and more discussion than any NBA draft since Patrick Ewing came out of Georgetown. Why?

Because the Florida Gators — Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah and Al Horford — stayed in college and won back-to-back titles before jumping to the NBA. Because Greg Oden and Kevin Durant were forced to spend one year in college.

We’re actually familiar with many of the players who will be in this year’s draft. We’ve seen them play. We listened to Dick Vitale overhype them for five straight months. Durant and Olden will help drive TV ratings when they hit the league.

The NBA needs an age limit of 21 and/or a rule requiring three years of college participation.

The league and the players association also should work with the NCAA on doing something to eliminate AAU basketball. Our players are too raw and too difficult to coach because AAU basketball — and its undisciplined style of play — has become more important and influential than high school basketball.

I hate to keep using LeBron James as the example because I absolutely love his mental maturity and willingness to be coached, but he is an AAU player. AAU is the reason he doesn’t have a jump shot. AAU is the reason he’s so unskilled in the low post.

AAU is the reason Carmelo Anthony is one of the worst teammates you could have. Yes, he got lucky and won a national championship in college. Trust me, it was luck. His game isn’t about winning. It’s about putting up numbers. He can’t see the floor and what his teammates are doing because that’s not necessary in AAU ball.

Anyway, the NBA — players, owners and Stern — should think big picture when trying to fix what ails the league.

http://misunderestimation.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/JuiceBoys.jpg
Sosa getting a pass after No. 600
Bonds, Giambi command the public's attention

Greg Stoda, The Palm Beach (Fla.) Post


WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. - How wonderful everything went so nicely for Sammy Sosa when he hit the 600th home run of his career Wednesday night.

There was more than a little symmetry to the moment, too, being as Sosa these days is wearing the duds of the Texas Rangers team that drafted him back when he was a skinny 16-year-old kid. The opponent also happened to be the Chicago Cubs, which was swell considering Sosa made most of his homer bones playing for them.

Anyway, there was Sosa -- now a 38-year-old shell stained by lingering suspicion of steroid use -- doing his signature hop out of the batter's box while watching the ball he hit sail away.

There he was thumping chest with fist in acknowledging the Cubbies in the other dugout three years after their acrimonious divorce. There was Chicago manager Lou Piniella pointing to Sosa in his own salute accompanying the crowd's two curtain-call "Sammy! Sammy! Sammy!" chants. There was Sosa blowing kisses.

Piniella later offered this summation: "You like to see professionals do what they do, and Sammy's been a professional all these years. All baseball fans should be happy for Sammy."

Oh, really?

Why?

How does Sosa, who once had a corked bat splinter during a game and looks as though he has lost half of himself across the chest in recent years, get off so easily? Because he isn't the BALCOnized Barry Bonds?

Because he isn't Jason Giambi answering former Sen. George Mitchell's questions as part of Major League Baseball's sham investigation of steroid use?

Well, yes. And yes.

Bonds' celebrity in his pursuit of Henry Aaron's career home-run record has given Sosa cover. There's a bunch more interest in The Chase, after all, than there is in Sosa sliding into the 600 Club with Bonds, Aaron, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. And the timing of Giambi's appointment provides Sosa even deeper camouflage.

Sosa is able to hide in plain sight, perhaps because the first general assumption is that he's a cheat and the second general assumption is that the masses -- those consumers who buy tickets to watch the games -- don't much care if he is. Mr. and Mrs. Bleacher, thank you very much, will make their own judgments about which players' statistics are tainted and which players' statistics aren't -- and that will do. It's a make-your-own-asterisk kind of deal.

Let's take our own test by using four current and very notable players as example. The study includes Bonds, Sosa, Ken Griffey Jr., who'll soon get to 600 home runs, and Alex Rodriguez, who'll someday probably challenge for the top spot on the homer list. Who you think is dirty and who do you think is clean?

My guess is that your answers match mine. Bonds and Sosa, dirty; Griffey and Rodriguez, clean. And unless or until the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth comes out -- yeah, right -- nothing else counts. It will, as sign-holders have pointed out in stadium after stadium, be a matter of B*nds and S*sa having to live with the insults and likely knowing they come dipped in justifcation.

As for Sosa, well, never was he an all-round player equal to Bonds, Griffey or Rodriguez. He'd be the last into the Hall of Fame among the group, if he gets in at all.

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.
The image “http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D06A01_2.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Our Terrorists Are Better Than Your Terrorists
Supporting Fatah, the Bush administration
makes a deal with the devil.


By Andrew C. McCarthy

President Bush’s stirring post-9/11 message that regimes the world over have to choose between aligning with civilization or with terrorists should officially be interred in war-torn “Palestine.” Seriousness about the doctrine is the only realistic way to defeat our enemies, and now we make a mockery of it. A mockery built on the trifecta-fiction that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is an avatar of peace, that his Fatah faction has aligned with civilization, and that the Palestinian people — the ones who freely chose to install Hamas as their parliamentary majority and who have trademarked “Intifada” as an instrument of statecraft — are somehow worth prostituting ourselves over.

In the Palestinian civil war, the Bush administration has unabashedly cast its lot with Fatah. The United States, in the midst of its own global war against Islamic radicalism, is promising additional millions in foreign aid for a cabal which maintains its own jihadist wing, and which is so thoroughly corrupt — having pocketed much of the foreign aid billions that poured in over the last two decades — that Palestinians opted for the more transparent Hamas terrorists when given the option.

Fatah is the creation of the late terror master, Yasser Arafat. It is currently led by Abbas, formerly Arafat’s close aid. When last we left Abbas, the administration’s favorite “moderate,” he was laying a wreath at The Great Man’s grave — the Palestinians, by the way, have turned the site into an Arafat shrine, telling us everything we need to know about them.

Abbas proceeded to urge a throng of 50,000 Palestinians to re-aim their guns at the “occupation” (that would be Israel) instead of turning them on each other: “[W]ith the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue,” he brayed. “We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation.... We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation....”

That was less than six months ago — despite administration assertions on Monday that Abbas is “
a partner who is committed to peace.” And none of it was a surprise. When Abbas was seeking election in 2005, he declared to a cheering mob in Gaza that Palestinian terrorists being sought by Israel were “heroes fighting for freedom.”

FATAH’S CONSTITUTION
And just what are these Fatah principles that the moderate was referring to at the founder’s tomb? Abbas’s American boosters don’t talk about them much, but Fatah itself is not so bashful. They are spelled out, for all to see, in the Constitution of Fatah (the name, by the way, means “Conquest” … and would anyone want to take a wild guess against whom?).

Here is what we’re getting for millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars:


... We all must sacrifice ourselves, our effort and time; these are the weapons of honest patriots. Don't, therefore, dear brother bring your march to a halt! Proceed in your march, armed with the patriots’ resolution, the true believers’ determination, and the fighters’ patience... Let’s not forget for a while that our enemy is strong, and that the fight is fierceful [sic] and long... Consequently, determination, patience, confidentiality, commitment, and abiding by the revolution’s goals and principles keep our march unremittingly steady and makes [sic] our road to victory much shorter. Proceed, then my brother, forward... to the revolution. Long live Palestine, a free Arab state.

“FATEH” is a national, revolutionary movement and its membership is top confidential. … The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism. … The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organisation and method. … The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism. … Liberating Palestine and protecting its holy places is an Arab, religious and human obligation. … Palestinian National Liberation Movement, “FATEH”, is an independent national revolutionary movement representing the revolutionary vanguard of the Palestinian people. … The crowds which participate in the revolution and liberation are the proprietors of the Palestinian land.

[Our “Goals” include:] Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. … Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city[.] …

(Bold in original, emphasis in bold-italics added.)

Sure, Fatah, like Arafat, makes the occasional feint at peace-making, or, to be more precise, at the “Peace Process,” invoking the biggest snow-job of all time — one that enriched Fatah leaders with piles of cash while “the Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence” received the bulging body-count of a second Intifada™.

But we oughtn’t be fooled: Fatah is still avowedly dedicated to the destruction of its neighbor (or, by Fatah’s lights, its trespasser) by any means necessary, including terrorizing, inducing outside political pressure on, and gradually out-breeding the Israelis. For the purpose, Fatah-controlled school systems and media continue without surcease to inculcate a virulently anti-Semitic martyrdom culture in the young. (See, e.g., this report from Palestinian Media Watch on the stunning curriculum through which Fatah, in the rhetoric of radical Islam, delegitimizes Israel and Jews.)

And, of course, Fatah maintains its own terrorist wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in addition to maintaining close ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization — both of which are Iran-friendly, Hezbollah-friendly, and formally designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the United States.

SECULAR MODERATES?
These ties put the lie to the myth that Fatah is a moderate political movement that is secular in nature. Yes, Fatah is not a self-identified Muslim fundamentalist movement as Hamas is. But it demonstrates vibrant streaks of Islamic radicalism, as illustrated, for example, by its Brigades named for the al-Aqsa mosque in coveted Jerusalem, and the frequent admonitions on Fatah websites that prying that city from Zionist clutches is a religious obligation.

The terror ties also reveal the illogic of the Bush administration rationale (echoed in a recent National Review Online editorial, here) that Fatah, whatever its flaws, merits our support because its rival, Hamas, is in the pocket of Iran. There are divisions within Fatah, and it may be freely conceded that some of them, historically, have been anti-Iranian. But, on balance, Fatah’s ties to Iran are longstanding, and operational. It is no wonder that the al-Aqsa Brigades, beneficiaries of Iranian largesse, speak glowingly of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his call to wipe Israel off the map.

Fatah may not love Iran, but it will work with Iran. After all, it has a lot more in common with the mullahs than it does with us — beginning, of course, with their mutual goal of eliminating our ally, Israel. The wager that, if Fatah ultimately beats back Hamas, Iran will have suffered a serious set-back is wishful thinking, not strategy. What Iran cares most about is Israel, not Hamas. To terrorize Israel it will work with whoever is left standing.

Finally, even if, with several grains of salt, we were to accept the stop-Iran line of argument as well as the party line that Abbas himself has evolved into a trustworthy peace partner, there is still the 800-pound gorilla in the equation: the Palestinian people.

Such is the delusional U.S. looking-glass on Palestinian society that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the administration’s staunchest Abbas booster, told columnist Cal Thomas last October, “[Y]ou can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they’re perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace.”

Come again? As it happens, recent polling actually turns out to be more reflective of common sense, which says that when you systematically rear a people on hatred and a cult of death, as Fatah has been so instrumental in doing, they grow up to be hateful and instinctively resort to savagery to settle their disputes.

Thus we find that up to 93 percent of young Palestinian adults (aged 18 to 25) deny Israel’s right to exist — as compared with “only” 75 percent when the total population is factored in. Thus we find, moreover, that when not brutalizing Israelis, Palestinians now brutalize each other. The cold truth is exactly the opposite of the idyllic picture painted by the administration — and given the bile that Abbas’s Fatah spoon-feeds Palestinian children, how on earth could it be otherwise?

ENABLING TERROR
Why is the administration supporting Fatah without demanding that it shred its Constitution and unambiguously recognize Israel’s right to exist, as Israel, in perpetuity? Why isn’t President Bush demanding that Abbas not only order the disarming of Hamas in the West Bank (which Abbas did only because Hamas is fighting Fatah, not because Hamas is a terrorist organization), but that he also disarm the al-Aqsa Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad? Because Abbas would be finished the minute he tried any such things. They are not what Palestinians want.

The Palestinians are a backward people, indoctrinated toward brutality. They don’t rate a sovereign state or anyone’s help until they civilize themselves. Sovereignty is a privilege that implies acceptance of civilized norms — that is why we speak of states like Iran and North Korea as “rogues.” Regardless of whether there really are scattered Palestinian moderates, it is a dangerous fantasy to assume the Palestinian people, as a whole, are ready to be anyone’s peace partner.

We are enabling their hatred when we provide support without insisting that the Palestinian people — not just Abbas and Fatah, but the people — convincingly foreswear revolution, terrorism, violence, ethnic-cleansing, and the goal of eliminating Israel. We are a generation or more, at least, from any hope of such developments. In the meantime, as long as we subsidize the hatred, we shall be buying more of it, while giving the Palestinians no incentive to reform.


— Andrew C. McCarthy directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
http://www.johnedwardsisgood.com/images/319_JEIG_Text_Logo.jpg
From The New York Times:
Nonprofit center benefited Edwards
By Leslie Wayne


CHAPEL HILL - John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and -- unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fundraising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show.

But a spokesman for Edwards on Thursday defended the center as a legitimate tool against poverty.

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Edwards said the organization's purpose was "making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation," its federal filings say it financed "retreats and seminars" with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors -- as political action committees and other political fundraising vehicles do -- and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

Edwards, a one-term former senator from North Carolina, set out to keep his political options open by promoting issues he cared about, like poverty.

"He wanted to learn, travel and be in a position to be a viable candidate," said J. Edwin Turlington, a Raleigh lawyer and manager of Edwards' 2003 presidential exploratory committee. "He had the ability to raise money to fund his activities. He had a vision, and he knew it would take money."

Beyond the norm

But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status.

Because the organization is not required to disclose its donors -- and the campaign declined to do so -- it is not clear whether those who gave money to it did so understanding that they were supporting Edwards' political viability as much or more than they were giving money to combat poverty.

The money paid Edwards' expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants and attacked Bush. He led minimum-wage initiatives, went frequently to Iowa and appeared on TV. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia.

"He was not a U.S. senator; he had no office," said Ferrel Guillory, a political program director at the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. "So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it."

Edwards on defense

The Edwards campaign defended the activities of the nonprofit.

"One of the Center for Promise and Opportunity's main goals was to raise awareness about poverty and engage people to fight it," said Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager. "Of course, it sent Senator Edwards around the country to do this. How else could we have engaged tens of thousands of college students or sent 700 young people to help rebuild New Orleans? It's patently absurd to suggest there's anything wrong with an organization designed to raise awareness about poverty actually working to raise awareness about poverty."

The Edwards campaign declined to disclose the amounts raised or spent by the two similarly named nonprofit agencies -- the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation -- since their 2005 tax filings, which are the most recent to have been filed.

The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which started with $70,000 in 2005, gave $300,000 in college scholarships in 2006, said Pamela Garland, the executive director of the College for Everyone Program that is part of the foundation. The center, often praised for helping poor students in Greene County, N.C., get into college, is on track to give $476,000 this year, Garland said.

Edwards broke his ties to that charity once he announced his candidacy for president.

At the same time, the larger nonprofit group had a more politically active agenda. The $1.3 million it raised and spent in 2005 paid for travel, including Edwards' tour of 10 college campuses, consultants and a Web operation.

Nonprofit groups can engage in political activities and not endanger their tax-exempt status so long as those activities are not its primary purpose. But the line between a bona fide charity and a political campaign is often fuzzy, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies.

"I can't say that what Edwards did was wrong," Owens said. "But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he'd fall over it."

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/es-George_II_The_King-.jpg

The Democracy Worshiper

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Of the Bourbons, restored to the throne after the French Revolution, the guillotining of Louis XVI and the Napoleonic interlude, Talleyrand said, they had “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

Unfortunately, so may it be said of our own George II.

Last week, at Czermin Palace in Prague, George Bush delivered his latest epistle on democracy as mankind’s salvation, as though he had learned nothing since ordering the invasion of Iraq—to bring the blessings of democracy to Mesopotamia and the Middle East.

President Bush began by paying tribute to the founding father of Czech democracy. “Nine decades ago, Tomas Masaryk proclaimed Czechoslovakia’s independence based on the ‘ideals of democracy.’”

Well, that may be what the Masaryk said, but it is not exactly what he did. In 1918, he did indeed proclaim the independence of Czechoslovakia, confirmed by the Allies at Paris. But inside the new Czechoslovakia, built on the “ideals of democracy,” were 3 million dissident Germans who wished to remain with Austria and half a million Hungarians who wished to remain with Hungary. Many Catholic Slovaks had wanted to remain with Catholic Hungary. Against their will, all had been consigned to Masaryk’s Czech-dominated nation.

Query for Bush? If 3 million Germans were put under alien rule without their consent and against their will, and they wished to exercise their right of self-determination, as preached by Woodrow Wilson, did they not have a right to secede peacefully and join their German kinsmen?

Because that is what Munich was all about.

Between 1938 and 1939, dissident Germans, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians and Ruthenes—abetted by Berlin, Warsaw and Budapest—broke free of Masaryk’s multinational democracy. Rather than let them secede from Prague, Churchill thought Britain should go to war.

Was Winston right, or were the Sudeten Germans right?

In 1945, liberated Czechoslovkia solved its dissident German problem by wholesale ethnic cleansing.

“Freedom,” declared the president, “is the design of our Maker and the longing of every soul. … Freedom is the dream … of every person in every nation in every age.” Interesting.

Did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Fidel, Uncle Ho and Pol Pot long for freedom in their souls? Did Churchill long for freedom, as he fought to preserve the British Empire and British rule in India?

“Expanding freedom,” said Bush, “is the only realistic way to protect our people in the long run.” That is another way of saying that, if we abandon the Bush crusade for global democracy, we can never be secure.

Yet America has always been among the most secure nations on earth, even when the world was unfree. Has invading Iraq to expand freedom made us more secure? For it has surely gotten more Americans killed than died on 9-11 and served as the No. 1 recruiting poster for al-Qaida.

“Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other,” said Bush. This may come as a surprise to descendants of those who fought for Southern independence from 1861 to 1865. Does Bush think Mr. Lincoln’s government or those of the CSA, the Confederate States of America, were not “accountable” to their people? Yet 600,000 Americans died in that war between two democratic republics.

Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan are democratic, but they appear ready to have a go at each other. Last summer, democratic Israel, enraged by a Hezbollah kidnapping, bombed democratic Lebanon for five weeks, killing a thousand Lebanese and rendering 10,000 homeless.

In 1914, the most democratic nations in Europe plunged into the bloodiest war in history. Free people in European capitals cheered lustily as their sons marched off to die.

Democratic peoples are not immune to blood lust.

“Young people who can disagree openly with their leaders are less likely to adopt violent ideologies,” said Bush.

But Weimar was the freest government Germany ever had. Yet Nazis and communists battled constantly, and in 1933, a majority voted for them. Puerto Rican terrorists tried to kill Harry Truman, shot up the House and dynamited Fraunces Tavern in New York in the freest country on earth.

The anarchists, the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhoff gang, the IRA, the Basque ETA and the Islamist subway bombers of Britain all operated in democratic societies.

“(E)very time people are given a choice, they choose freedom,” said Bush. Oh. In Iran in 2005, the people chose Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 2006, free elections gave victories to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollh, Hamas and anti-American radicals in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, who joined forces with twice-elected Hugo Chavez.

The German people chose Hitler and the Nazi Party.

It is one thing to believe democracy is a superior form of government. It is another to worship it, or ascribe to it powers or attributes that can ensure permanent peace among nations. As Douglas MacArthur said, citing Plato, “Only the dead know the end of war.”

Democracy means rule by the people, and peoples can be as corrupt and bloodthirsty as tyrants and kings. Today in Moscow, Beijing and Hanoi, Lenin, Mao and Ho—mass murderers all three—lie in honor.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Lasting injuries mar NFL image
Chicago Sun-Times


June 17, 2007

With its emphasis on discipline and strategy, its investment in violence and its heightened appreciation of those who cope with pain and adversity, professional football is frequently talked about in military terms. Its head coaches are given the prominence of four-star generals. Most of these similarities can be tossed aside based on the fact that football, whatever Bears fanatics think, is only a game. No one in shoulder pads is defending their country or liberating the oppressed. But one tie that does bond the National Football League and the armed forces is the neglect each has shown in taking care of its wounded.

Earlier this year, we were shocked to learn of grievously substandard outpatient conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the country's best-known facility for the treatment of veterans. Now, in the wake of sobering studies about retired football players suffering not only from permanent physical damage as a result of the poundings they took on the field, but also depression and dementia and suicidal tendencies, we're learning about the NFL's and NFL Players Association's failure to help them sufficiently with their expensive medical care.

Last week, the issue hit home, hard, when Mike Ditka was targeted by the NFLPA for speaking out on it. Ditka spearheads the Gridiron Greats Assistance Fund, which helps out former players in need -- players like onetime Cincinnati Bengals lineman Brian DeMarco, who at 35 can barely walk as the result of injuries sustained on the field and has been unable to work, causing his family to slip in and out of homelessness. After DeMarco came forth to criticize the union, he and Ditka were attacked by NFLPA trustee Dave Duerson, a former Bears safety who played for Ditka. He said the small amount of money DeMarco was getting from the union was more than enough. As for Ditka, he "was not one who gave a damn about the players or their injuries when he was coaching."

Was Iron Mike, as Duerson said, "disrespectful of guys who got hurt?" If he took their injuries lightly -- and no other Bears have come forward to support that claim -- he was only reflecting a common fault of football culture at a time when no one knew how damaging or difficult overcoming concussions could be and when bad knees were a badge of honor. What matters is the concern Ditka is showing now for the treatment of men who sacrificed more than anyone should to a game. Last week, it was revealed former Pittsburgh Steelers offensive lineman Justin Strzelczyk, who died in a car crash three years ago, had suffered irreversible, abnormal brain damage as a result of head traumas -- the fourth ex-player to be so diagnosed. "There are guys out there losing their life inch by inch every single day," said DeMarco. Some have, in fact, taken their lives.

Football is a dangerous sport -- OK, a dangerous business. Anyone who plays it, and makes gobs of money doing so, knows the risks. They also know the people who buy tickets and merchandise and pump up TV ratings like their hits hard, harder and hardest. How quickly conditions will change with the knowledge of what those hits can do remains to be seen. But the NFL and NFLPA have a moral duty to stop counting the money, help the needy and prevent more of these tragedies from occurring.
http://www.playingpolitics.com/print-cartoons/illegal-invasion.jpg
Silent Amnesty
By Michelle Malkin


As you follow the debate over the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, keep this cardinal rule in mind: 99.99 percent of the lawmakers who promise you that they'll ensure the deportation of anyone who doesn't follow their new "guest-worker" regulations are either A) lying or B) completely clueless.

Rule No. 2: Anyone who plays the Enforcement equals Kicking-Down-Doors-And-Depriving-Babies-of-Mother's-Milk card (yes, that's you, Geraldo Rivera) is either A) lying or B) completely clueless.

As I've reported many times over the last several years, the nation's deportation abyss is governed by one reality: "It ain't over 'til the alien wins." Immigration lawyers and ethnic activists run a massive, lucrative industry whose sole objective is to help illegal aliens and convicted criminal visa holders evade deportation for as long as possible. Entry into this country should be a privilege, not a right. The open borders lobby has turned that principle on its head.

Look no further than New York, where four convicted criminal aliens -- a child molester, two killers and a racketeer -- just won a federal lawsuit to remain in the country after all being ordered deported. The stunning decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Blake v. Carbone, came down on June 1 as the shamnesty debate was bubbling in Washington. The ruling, which hinges on convoluted due process arguments, will greatly expand the number of criminal aliens convicted of certain aggravated felonies who can now receive relief from deportation. This is happening despite the passage of two federal immigration reform laws in 1996 severely restricting deportation waivers for criminal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies.

The lead winning plaintiff, Leroy Blake, is a Jamaican national convicted of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor in 1992. The feds began deportation proceedings in 1999. An immigration judge ruled Blake deportable in 2000. Blake took his case to the federal Board of Immigration Appeals, which remanded the case back to the immigration judge, who granted him relief from deportation. The then-INS appealed the judge's ruling. In 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the INS and ordered Blake removed from the U.S. Blake filed a motion to reconsider, then took his case to the Second Circuit.

The other plaintiffs who've successfully gamed the system include:

Aundre Singh, a native of Guyana, who was convicted of second-degree murder in 1986. In 1997, the then-INS moved to deport him. In 1998, an immigration judge ordered him deported. In 1999, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Singh's appeal. In 2003, Singh filed a motion to reconsider, which the appeals board denied. Singh filed for reconsideration of that ruling, which was denied in 2004. Singh tried again to appeal the board's ruling in 2005 and was denied again before heading to the Second Circuit for relief.

Errol Foster, a Jamaican national, who killed a man with a pistol in 1990. He pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter. He was released from prison in 2002. The feds began deportation proceedings while he was still in custody. An immigration judge ordered his removal in 2000, which Foster appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his appeal in 2001. Four years later, Foster was still in the country -- appealing the rejected appeal and filing three separate federal lawsuits before getting lucky with the Second Circuit.

And Ho Yoon Chong, a South Korean national, who was sentenced in 1995 for racketeering related to his participation in the "Korean Fuk Ching" crime ring. In 1998, the then-INS moved to deport him. In 2002, an immigration judge ordered him deported. In 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the judge. Like his fellow criminal aliens, Chong didn't give up, and now he's won the immigration litigation lottery.

Immigration lawyers representing criminal aliens like these four menaces have gummed up the court system with 11 years of litigation over the 1996 laws banning deportation relief for felons. Meanwhile, when all else fails, deportable aliens can appeal directly to their member of Congress to circumvent immigration laws through special legislation. More than 50 bills have been introduced this year that would grant special, private relief to individual immigrants fighting deportation. Past and present beneficiaries have included smugglers, illegal aliens and a convicted murderer, Mohuiddin A.K.M. Ahmed, who is wanted in Bangladesh for engaging in terrorist activity and participating in a 1975 assassination plot that left the prime minister and dozens of his family members dead.

These individual bills are ripe for corruption. Indeed, the Abscam scandal in the 1970s involved payoffs for the sponsorship of exactly these kind of private immigration laws. Democrats and Republicans alike continue to sponsor these "private relief" bills seeking to sabotage deportation efforts. Every time a private relief bill passes, the number of available visas for that year is reduced by the number of illegal alien/deportable immigrant recipients granted legal status/deportation relief through the special legislation. The bills needn't pass for the recipients to gain benefits. Mere introduction of the bills buys the deportable aliens time that ordinary, law-abiding citizens can't buy in our court system.

Open-borders Democrats led by Ted Kennedy bleat about the lack of "due process" for downtrodden aliens, but immigration lawyers and their clients know the deal. Whether the Bush-Kennedy bill passes or not, it ain't over 'til the alien wins.

This is the real "silent amnesty" that no one in Washington will talk about. Go ahead. Ask them.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
http://pinkdome.com/archives/recruiting-thumb.jpg
Immigration bill is a fraud
By MARK STEYN

June 17, 2007

I forget where I was when I first heard the phrase ''undocumented worker.'' Possibly it was after swimming the Rio Grande and emerging dripping on the northern shore to be handed a fake Social Security number and a driver's license. But I assumed, reasonably enough, that this linguistic sleight of hand was simply too ridiculous to fly even with the American media. I underestimated my colleagues, alas.

The ''undocumented'' are, as it happens, brimming with sufficient documents to open bank accounts or, on the other hand, rent a Ryder truck, as Mohammad Salameh did in 1993 when he and his pals bombed the World Trade Center first time round. Being ''undocumented'' means being documented up to the hilt as far as everyone else is concerned but ''undocumented'' only to the U.S. government. Which, when you think about it, is a very advantageous status to have.

Anyway, about five years or so back, I started making references in columns to ''fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community.'' But from the lame Steyn joke of yesteryear to the reality of tomorrow is a mere hop and a skip. A few days ago, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, declared: ''This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong.''

Talk about ''a fast track to citizenship''! Never mind probationary visas, Z-visas and green cards, in the eyes of the Democrat steering ''comprehensive immigration reform'' through Congress, these guys are already ''undocumented Americans.'' Was it simply a slip of the tongue? (Speaking of which, I thought thanks to George W. Bush we had ''the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.'' When did it get ''strong''?) Or did Sen. Reid mean it?

If he did, the very concept of citizenship is dead, and the Senate might as well opt for ''really comprehensive immigration reform'' and declare everyone on the planet a U.S. citizen with backdated Social Security entitlements. As Le Monde's famous headline of Sept. 12, 2001, put it, ''Nous sommes tous Americains.'' Literally.

I don't know whether this sham of a bill is dead or just resting ''in the shadows'' like a fine upstanding member of the Vampiric-American community. But, if it rises on the third night to stalk the land once more, I would advise its supporters to go about their work more honestly. First of all, the only guys ''living in the shadows'' are the aides of American senators beavering away out of the public eye to cook up this legislation and then present it as a fait accomplis to the citizenry (if you'll forgive the expression). That is an affront to small-r republican government, and, if intemperate hectoring mediocrities like Trent Lott and Lindsay Graham don't understand that, then their electors should give them a well-deserved lesson.

Second, the bill's supporters should stop assuming the bad faith of their opponents. On Fox News the other night, I was told by NPR's Juan Williams, ''You're anti-immigrant!'' Er, actually, I am an immigrant -- one of the members of the very very teensy-weensy barely statistically detectable category of ''legal immigrant.'' But perhaps that doesn't count anymore. Perhaps, like Colin Powell's blackness, it's insufficiently ''authentic.'' By filing the relevant paperwork with the United States government, I'm not ''keepin' it real.''

I wouldn't presume to speak for the millions of Americans who oppose this bill, but it's because I'm an immigrant myself that I object to the most patent absurdity peddled by the pro-amnesty crowd. The bill is fundamentally a fraud. Its ''comprehensive solution'' to illegal immigration is simply to flip all the illegals overnight into the legal category. Voila! Problem solved! There can be no more illegal immigrants because the Senate has simply abolished the category. Ingenious! For their next bipartisan trick, Congress will reduce the murder rate by recategorizing murderers as jaywalkers.

Back in the real world far from those senators living in the non-shadows of their boundless self-admiration, the truth is that America's immigration bureaucracy cannot cope with its existing caseload, and thus will certainly be unable to cope with millions of additional teeming hordes tossed into its waiting room. Currently, the time in which an immigration adjudicator is expected to approve or reject an application is six minutes. That's not enough time to read the basic form, never mind any supporting documentation. It's certainly not enough time for any meaningful background check. Under political pressure to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' the immigration bureaucracy will rubberstamp gazillions of applications for open-ended probationary legal status within 24 hours and with no more supporting documentation than a utility bill or an affidavit from a friend. There's never been a better time for Mullah Omar to apply for U.S. residency.

America has an illegal immigration problem in part because it has a legal immigration problem. Anyone who enters the system exposes himself to an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical bureaucracy: For example, one of the little-known features of this bill is that in order to ''bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows,'' millions of legal applicants are being hurled back into outer darkness. Law-abiding foreign nationals who filed their paperwork in the last two years would be required to go back to their home countries and start all over again. Not only does this bill reward law-breaking, it punishes law-abiding.

The people who are truly ''anti-immigrant'' are the folks who want to send that immigrant from Slovenia or Fiji who applied in May 2005 back to the end of the line. But then ''comprehensive immigration reform'' is about everything but immigration, including subverting sovereignty and national security. Remember the 1986 amnesty? Mahmoud abu Halima applied for it and went on to bomb the World Trade Center seven years later. His colleague, the aforementioned Mohammad Salameh, was rejected but carried on living here anyway. John Lee Malvo was detained and released by U.S. immigration in breach of its own procedures and re-emerged as the Washington sniper. The young Muslim men who availed themselves of the U.S. government's ''visa express'' system for Saudi Arabia filled in joke applications -- ''Address in the United States: HOTEL, AMERICA'' -- that octogenarian snowbirds from Toronto who've been wintering at their Florida condos since 1953 wouldn't try to get away with. The late Mohammed Atta received his flight-school student visa on March 11, 2002, six months to the day after famously flying his first and last commercial airliner.

All the above passed through the U.S. legal immigration system. And, whether they were detained, rejected, approved or posthumously approved, in the end it made no difference. Because U.S. immigration had no real idea who these men were.

But, don't worry, they'll be able to handle another ''12 million undocumented Americans'' tossed in for express processing.

The real ''immigration fraud'' is not Mahmoud abu Halima's or John Lee Malvo's or Mohammed Atta's, but that of the politicians who attempted to foist this sham bill on the nation.

© Mark Steyn 2007
Mark Abrahams The singer Ryan Adams in May 2007.

From The New York Times:
Ryan Adams Didn’t Die. Now the Work Begins.
By ANTHONY DeCURTIS

ONE afternoon, as Ryan Adams was recording his new album, “Easy Tiger” (Lost Highway), at Electric Lady Studios in Greenwich Village, the singer-songwriter Steve Earle dropped by to visit. Jimi Hendrix had built Electric Lady in the late 1960s, and Mr. Earle pointed out that “there are some good ghosts here.”

“Yeah,” Mr. Adams blithely responded. “There are the ghosts of about 45 speedballs from when I was recording here a year or two ago,” referring to a mixture of heroin and cocaine.

At once self-deprecating and self-mythologizing, the remark is characteristic of Mr. Adams, who is in the process of shoring up a career — and a life — that he had done his best to blow up. “There was intense loneliness, end-of-the-world stuff going on in my mind, bottomless depression,” he said, describing an extended period of substance abuse that ended a little over a year ago. “Without exaggerating, it is a miracle I did not die.

“I snorted heroin a lot — with coke. I did speedballs every day for years. And took pills. And then drank. And I don’t mean a little bit. I always outdid everybody.”

Among Mr. Adams’s friends, colleagues and fans the hope is that “Easy Tiger,” a title that speaks wryly for itself, will complete his restoration. It is focused — read: not insanely self-indulgent — in a way that recalls albums of his like “Heartbreaker” and “Gold,” high points in a catalog that defines the term checkered. In one among many orchestrated signs of Mr. Adams’s stature, Stephen King wrote the record company bio that will accompany the album’s release on June 26. Mr. King calls it “maybe the best Ryan Adams CD ever.”

The plan is for it to be his biggest seller as well. Mr. Adams is touring to promote it, and “Two,” which features a harmony vocal by Sheryl Crow, has been released as a single. Starbucks will carry “Easy Tiger,” and pre-order campaigns have been set up with iTunes, Amazon and other outlets. For an artist whose notoriety has far exceeded his sales to date, it’s a full-on marketing push.

Mr. Adams has also reunited with his former manager, John Silva, a veteran who has worked with the independent-minded likes of Nirvana, Sonic Youth and the Beastie Boys. ”I just crawled back and said, ‘Look, I made a mistake, many mistakes — I don’t know what to do,’ ” Mr. Adams said.

“I got good advice on what tunes seemed to be working, and how to pace myself,” he said about Mr. Silva’s help in putting together “Easy Tiger” from the dozens of songs he was considering. “He led me to view that process as a type of discipline — like going to the gym or something. Focus. Work on one thing. Make the one thing really good.”

Meanwhile Mr. Adams’s contract with Lost Highway is coming to an end, and his erratic and willful ways, while enhancing his status as a cult figure, haven’t exactly made him an industry darling. Nor, for that matter, have his public denunciations of his label, which is generally known for being sympathetic to artists. In that context “Easy Tiger” is a virtual case study of Mr. Adams’s ability to make the sort of record that people once routinely expected of him: smart, accessible, fun, poignant and potentially commercial. It’s an advertisement for the once-unthinkable possibility that, at 32 and sober, Mr. Adams might finally have matured.

Luke Lewis, the chairman of the Nashville division of the Universal Music Group, of which Lost Highway is a part, seemed wistful as he pondered the departure of his old nemesis. “He’s like a kid to me,” Mr. Lewis said. “I’ve always loved him. We’ve had a couple of fights, and we’ve actually contrived a few fights, to be honest. It wasn’t lost on either of us that it’s not a bad thing for him to be the petulant child of a record label.”

So will he try to convince Mr. Adams to stay with Lost Highway? “If you love him, set him free,” Mr. Lewis said with a laugh that suggested a former partner who recalled the bad times as well as the good. “Do I want to stop being friendly with him? Never. Is he a valuable asset to a label? Yes, no question. Did we make money? Yes, both of us. I have no sour grapes about it at all.”

A native of Jacksonville, N.C., where he played in punk-rock bands as a teenager, Mr. Adams became an alt-country sensation with the group Whiskeytown in the mid-’90s. After going solo in 1999, he briefly flirted with “next big thing” status with the release of “Gold” in 2001 — on Sept. 11, to be exact. “Gold” coincidentally featured Mr. Adams posing in front of an American flag (albeit an upside-down one) as well as a rousing anthem to his adopted hometown, “New York, New York.” His irresistible optimism, energy and sheer talent provided a bracing tonic.

Then things began to get weird. He started making records at a blazing clip, at least by the rules of an industry that at the time preferred releases every two or three years. He put out at least an album a year — three in 2005 — and vilified Lost Highway for not releasing even more. Mr. Adams posted dozens of songs on his Web site, some ridiculous and some drawing comparisons to his best work. Whether he could tell the difference began to emerge as a question.

His official albums drew similarly polarized responses. “Heartbreaker” (2000), “Gold” (2001), “Cold Roses” (2005) and “Jacksonville City Nights” (2005) live up to his promise. His other four albums — “Demolition” (2002), “Rock N Roll” (2003), “Love Is Hell Pt. 1” (2003) and ”Pt. 2” (2004) and “29” (2005) — are mixed bags at best. “Gold,” his most commercially successful album, has sold fewer than 400,000 copies; “29,” his most recent, sold about 81,000.

More disturbing was Mr. Adams’s strange behavior. A heckler’s sarcastic request for the Canadian rocker Bryan Adams’s “Summer of ’69” at a New York show in 2002 incited an onstage meltdown. A negative concert review prompted Mr. Adams to leave a caustic message on a critic’s answering machine, which widely circulated on the Web. Mr. Adams’s shows took on a shambling quality that left many fans befuddled or angry. By the time he fell off a stage in Britain in 2004 and shattered his left wrist, both supporters and detractors began to worry about him. With good reason, as it turned out.

MR. ADAMS sat on a chair on the tar roof of Electric Lady, as traffic sounds blared from the street below. Wearing a red MTV T-shirt and torn jeans, he squinted in the sunshine as he struggled to recount his descent.

“My behavior was getting extreme,” he said, smoking an American Spirit. “I was running the risk of becoming one of those people who talks to himself all the time. I was about to walk over this line that there was no coming back from, and I could feel it. I was seeing ghosts and hearing stuff. Having horrible nightmares. I was creating as much distance from people as possible so that, in the event that something terrible happened, it wouldn’t hurt them.”

Mr. Lewis of Lost Highway worried that he was going to die. “I think anybody who knew him well and cared for him went there,” he said.

Mr. Adams said that people were imploring him to clean up. “I got a call one day from two people who have looked out for me for a long time,” he said. “They said, ‘We think you need to go away.’ I said: ‘Look, I can do this myself. And if I don’t succeed, I’ll agree to that.’ ”

So he did not enter a rehab program; instead he did a modified cold-turkey cure with the help of his girlfriend, Jessica Joffe, a writer who has also modeled, most notably in a prominent Banana Republic campaign. “I could have done it alone, but it would have been harder,” Mr. Adams said. “I got some valium, which sounds like cheating, but it really wasn’t.”

As the agony of withdrawal kicked in after a few days, he went out, got drunk and then called Ms. Joffe. She fetched him from the bar and brought him back to the apartment they share. “That was it,” Mr. Adams said. “That was the last time.” He now occasionally attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

With more than a year’s sobriety under his belt, a new album and an open road ahead of him in terms of how he chooses to release his music, Mr. Adams nonetheless continues to dream of a world better able to accommodate his particular brand of unfiltered creativity. It’s evident that a conventional record contract will never satisfy him. It’s even possible that he could end up epitomizing the recording artist of the future: making music available online at will, performing theater-size shows for a devoted core of fans and leaving it up to his audience to decide which of his songs they care to own.

“It’s not, like, ‘He’s over-prolific because he’s wasted,’ ” he explained. “No, man, you haven’t heard anything. You think that’s prolific? That’s just what trickled through. But that’s the whole thing. It’s a marketplace. I wish it was more like a museum of wack ideas.”

Those wack ideas were prominently on display at Electric Lady as Mr. Adams grew distracted while working on “Easy Tiger.”

“Obviously keeping up with him is a big part of the job,” said Jamie Candiloro, who produced the album. Mr. Adams was preparing to record his guitar part for “Locust Pocus,” a song he’d written minutes earlier for “Numb Chunks” (or maybe it’s “Gnome Chunks”?), a fake-metal album he’d conceived a few minutes before that.

Mr. Adams, Mr. Candiloro and the drummer Brad Pemberton had been listening to the background vocal Sheryl Crow had recorded for the ballad “Two.” Mr. Adams had first been enthusiastic and obsessive during the playback (“God, she can sing. Take my vocal down, and bring hers up”), then restless, then bored. As he listened over and over, he drew a caricature of himself holding an acoustic guitar and singing lyrics that parody the song’s aching chorus. The caption read, “Blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine/It takes two when it used to take one.”

It was midafternoon, at least two hours before rehearsals at another studio. By Mr. Adams’s standards, that’s easily enough time to get a couple of new songs written and recorded.

As Mr. Candiloro adjusted settings at the console, Mr. Adams stood at the microphone, played a blistering riff and screeched a placeholder vocal: “This is where the verse is gonna go/And it’s gonna be emo.” He came back into the control booth, wrote the song’s actual lyrics (“I am the wizard ... . The world is at your command”), recorded the vocal and the song was done. On to the next one: “Cobra Kadabra.”

A week after the conversation on the roof of Electric Lady, Mr. Adams vanished from a rehearsal minutes before a reporter was set to arrive for an interview. No one could locate him, and he never reappeared.

While par for the course a couple of years ago, this is precisely the sort of thing the new, improved Mr. Adams is supposed to have grown out of. A few days later at his apartment in a Greenwich Village brownstone, he is, if not apologetic, at least at pains to manufacture some sort of comprehensible excuse, an effort at which he pathetically fails. Yawning between manic bursts of words, he was clearly uncomfortable. “All these different lines of communication got messed up,” he said sheepishly.

When Ms. Joffe entered the room, he brightened. “I met someone who has become my closest friend,” he had said of her earlier. “She’s nothing like me — two different worlds. She’s a person rooted in reason. Imagine that. She’s very kind.” She said she had gotten sober a short time before Mr. Adams did. “It sounds so cheesy, but we have these miniature A.A. meetings with each other,” said Ms. Joffe, who agreed to discuss their relationship at his request.

In jeans and a black top that she fiddled with constantly, Ms. Joffe struggled in a perfectly enunciated British accent to find the terms in which to encapsulate their relationship. Mr. Adams, meanwhile, repeatedly left and re-entered the room, flattered and teased her and succeeded in derailing her train of thought.

“We went from being Sid and Nancy ...,” Ms. Joffe began at one point, alluding to one of punk’s most famous doomed couples.

“Not that cool,” Mr. Adams insisted.

“No, darling, not that cool,” Ms. Joffe agreed, laughing. “More like, a low-rent, mall version of Sid and Nancy. Or, like, romanticizing that sort of debauchery and excess. At least for me there was a weird aesthetic enjoyment of it. Then we flipped it over 180 degrees.”

Mr. Adams said: “We were holding each other together. Or should I say you got me through it? It was sweet, even though it was messed up. But we had skills.”

Ms. Joffe acknowledged, “Toward the end it was getting a little worrying.”

“Everybody says that!” Mr. Adams declared in cheerful frustration, the prospect of his own demise having become, at least for the moment, merely a punch line.