Cat Stevens: And that is why Rock and Roll is a pile of crap and not really worth anything.

OK, this is a “pet peeve” of mine, If you think it is OK to kill somebody because of what they write, sing, or whatever, I think you are full of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-wjxwpvqps

And if you give explicit, complicit or implicit, assent to said action, you too are full of shit.

Rock and Roll, Punk or whatever, it should mean standing up to “the MAN”

I am not a musician, critic, hip, with it, cool, or anything...but even I know any kind of rebellion means standing up to convention. And if you accept rewards from establishment entertainment on the same stage as somebody who says, or refuses to deny it is wrong, to kill somebody for a novel....well then you have no rebellion, ethics, rightness, goodness, or I don't know what.

I watched the Rock and Roll hall of fame enroll Cat Stevens....and nobody said a thing about how he says it it fine to kill someone because of a novel. So screw you all, Bruce Springsteen, Hall and Oates, Nirvana, and especially Art Garfunkel. You either praised him, or said nothing while you got your gold.

Screw you and your freakin' rock and roll. It turns out it was a bunch of crap anyway.

Things People Ignore #1

Just so I have this reference


At a pivotal meeting of the highest officials in the Reagan Administration [on June 25, 1984], the President and Vice President [George H.W. Bush] and their top aides discuss how to sustain the Contra war in the face of mounting Congressional opposition. The discussion focuses on asking third countries to fund and maintain the effort, circumventing Congressional power to curtail the CIA's paramilitary operations. In a remarkable passage, Secretary of State George P. Shultz warns the president that White House adviser James Baker has said that "if we go out and try to get money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense." But Vice President George Bush argues the contrary: "How can anyone object to the US encouraging third parties to provide help to the anti-Sandinistas…? The only problem that might come up is if the United States were to promise to give these third parties something in return so that some people could interpret this as some kind of exchange." Later, Bush participated in arranging a quid pro quo deal with Honduras in which the U.S. did provide substantial overt and covert aid to the Honduran military in return for Honduran support of the Contra war effort.
 
The Iran arms-for-hostage-deal was also illegal--or so Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger thought. At a December 7, 1985 White House meeting, Weinberger argued the Iran missile deal was wrong and criminal, according to his notes of the session. Weinberger pointed out to Reagan that selling missiles to Iran would violate a U.S. embargo on arms sales to Iran and that even the president of the United States could not break this law. Nor, Weinberger added, would it be legal to use Israel as a cutout, as was under consideration. Both Secretary of State George Shultz and White House chief of staff Donald Regan, who were each present, agreed that a secret weapons deal with Iran would be against the law. Reagan, though, insisted on proceeding, noting he could answer a charge of illegality but not the charge that he had "passed up a chance to free hostages." Weinberger then quipped, "Visiting hours are Thursdays"--meaning the deal could land someone in jail. After the meeting, Regan told Weinberger he would try to talk Reagan out of the deal. He failed to do so. 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156284/irancontra-20-years-later-and-what-it-means#

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm