"Still super-hip (and all lip) at 66, The Pretenders’ Chrissie Hynde tells Event why she swears at fans, enrages sex abuse victims . . . and has swapped the wild life for walks in the park"

Chrissie rocks on.

This year, she says with mild astonishment, is the band’s 40th anniversary. ‘The Beatles only made records for ten years, Van Gogh only painted for ten years – not that I’m comparing myself to those guys, but 40 years is amazing. No one really thought this was going to last that long.

‘My friend John McEnroe will back me on this. Sports people have to stay in shape all the time, but rock musicians are the least in-shape members of the human race. We do everything possible to be out of shape. And we’re still doing it when we’re 70. I mean, define irony.’


I never knew there are restaurants in New York City named after the late, great economist.

Friedmans was named after the famous economist Milton Friedman who popularized the phrase, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. This phrase has gone on to be used in science, economics, finance, statistics, technology, sports, & now food. However, to put it simply, “to get one thing we like, we usually have to give up another thing we like.”

Link via Economics Job Market Rumors.

"The Great White Culture War"

David French makes some important points. Here's just one:

To understand different outcomes of the white culture war, consider California and Texas. Both states are firmly majority-minority. Yet the leaders of both states are still disproportionately white and male; they’re just culturally very different kinds of white males. Conservative white Americans eagerly move to majority-minority Texas. Those same people would be far more reluctant to live in majority-minority California, because of its profoundly different treatment of religious freedoms, gun rights, and of course tax rates.

"The New Racism, Part I: How ‘Race and Ethnic Studies’ Made Color Blindness a Bad Thing"

I'd say the most amazing thing about our current milieu--among, to be sure, many amazing things--is some members of the Left sacrificing the Left's most substantial achievement. The tremendous force of the civil rights movement, force that became overwhelming and in relatively short order dramatically changed this country, stemmed from a simple idea: it was wrong, unjust, even immoral to judge someone or hold someone responsible for things beyond that person's control. Hence, a person's skin color, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, handicap by birth or accident, and age (after reaching adulthood) should play no role in how that person is treated. 

But now we're told that a male, or a white, or--heaven forbid!--a while male can be assessed and judged just on those characteristics. It's astonishing. As Instapundit writes, "And yet they can't seem to help themselves."

I doubt any of my regular readers needs any correctives, but if you know someone who does, Thomas Sowell is an excellent place to start.

"Where Title IX Went Wrong"

Christina Hoff Sommers reviews R. Shep Melnick's new book, The Transformation of Title IX: Regulating Gender Equality in Education. I haven't read the book, but assuming Ms. Sommers's description is correct, it sounds like it provides details on a classic case of how government comes to overreach.

Responsibility for administering Title IX falls to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This small agency has the power to issue rules and regulations and to deny federal funding to schools that fail to meet them. But Congress has placed clear constraints on OCR rule making. New rules must be approved by the president after a “notice-and-comment” proceeding that allows affected parties—colleges and universities, civil liberties organizations, policymakers, activist groups, students, parents—to ask questions, raise objections, and request clarifications and revisions to proposed rules before they become binding policy.

But as Melnick shows, OCR officials found a way to rewrite the rules while sidestepping this process, simply by labeling a modification not as a formal rule change but as a “clarification” or “guidance.” Such changes were then announced as faits accomplis through friendly-but-firm “Dear Colleague” letters. When someone protested, OCR administrators would dig in their heels and insist they had merely clarified what was already in the law.

In a process Melnick calls “leapfrogging,” federal judges would often treat OCR “clarifications” as settled law, deferring to them in their rulings and sometimes even expanding them slightly. OCR could then refer to its clarifications as court-approved—and extend them a bit further. By this method, OCR officials have built an elaborate and aggressive regulatory empire—all the while denying that a single rule has been changed. . . .

The Transformation of Title IX is a disturbing tale of how, even in a rule-of-law nation like ours, bureaucrats and ideologues can subvert the law, wreak havoc on lives and civil liberties, and divert millions of dollars to harmful ends. Melnick’s book is an act of intellectual due process—it is scrupulous and nonpartisan. In these hyperbolic and hyper-partisan times, he has provided a model for how to address complex and contentious issues with reason and restraint.