Who needs private sector experience in a “hope and change” world? Apparently not too many cabinet members in the Obama administration.

This graphic certainly explains alot.    It would explain the vast growth in government jobs made available, the lack of understanding or concrete plans for generating private sector jobs, and the disdain for capitalism that sits like a never-ending virus in the Obama administration.

Another couple of interesting tidbits:

Among President Obama, his Vice President and 15 Cabinet officers, number with military experience:  2 (Gates at Defense and Shinseki at Veterans Affairs).

Number of lawyers:  8.

This is the change that NO ONE was waiting for!

Even though Obama is clearly setting a new low standard here, in a broader sense, this graph also depicts how far from their constituents many in Washington can be, even as far back as 1909.  I mean don’t you think at least a comfortable majority of public sector experienced individuals should be a common statistic in cabinet picks?  But that hasn’t happened much in the last 100 years. 

I’m sure the Founders didn’t much count on “career politicians” and lawyers running our country.  Seems in the last hundred years, only Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes understood the need for a big dose of private sector experience when running this country….

(H/T: The American Thinker - Private Sector experienc in Obama’s cabinet…graph of the day)

Richard C. Cook
November 29, 2009

The United States does not control its own destiny. Rather it is controlled by an international financial elite, of which the American branch works out of big New York banks like J.P. Morgan Chase, Wall Street investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, and the Federal Reserve System. They in turn control the White House, Congress, the military, the mass media, the intelligence agencies, both political parties, the universities, etc. No one can rise to the top in any of these institutions without the elite’s stamp of approval.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon removed the dollar’s gold peg.

This elite has been around since the nation began, becoming increasingly dominant as the 19th century progressed. A key date was passage of the National Banking Act of 1863, when the system was put into place whereby federal government debt was used to collateralize bank lending. Since then we’ve paid the freight through our taxes for bank control of the economy. The final nails in the coffin came with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

In 1929 the bankers plunged the nation into the Great Depression by constricting the money supply. With Franklin D. Roosevelt as president, the nation struggled through the decade of the 1930s but did not pull out of the Depression until the industrial explosion during World War II.

After the war came the Golden Age of the U.S. economy, when the working man, protected by strong labor unions, became a true partner in the prosperity of the industrial age. That era lasted a full generation. The bankers were largely spectators as Americans led the world in exports, standard of living, science and space exploration, and every measure of health, longevity, and culture.

Roosevelt had kept the bankers subservient to the interests of the economy at large. The Federal Reserve was part of the New Deal team, and interest rates were held at historic lows despite a large federal deficit. One main impact was the huge increase in home ownership. After World War II, the G.I. Bill allowed home ownership to grow further and millions of veterans to attend college. The influx of educated graduates led to productivity growth and the emergence of new high-tech industries.

But the bankers were laying their plans. In the early 1950s they got the government to agree to allow the Federal Reserve to escape its subservience to the U.S. Treasury Department and set interest rates on its own. Rates rose throughout the 1950s and 1960s. By the time of the interest rate hikes of 1968, the economy was slowing down. Both federal budget and trade deficits were beginning to replace the post-war surpluses. High interest rates were the likely cause.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon removed the dollar’s gold peg, allowing the huge inflation resulting from oil price increases that the international bankers engineered through control of U.S. foreign policy when Henry Kissinger was national security adviser and secretary of state. Nixon’s opening to China resulted in early agreements, also overseen by banking interests, to begin to transfer U.S. industry to overseas producers like China which had cheap labor costs.

By the mid-1970s, the U.S. had been taken over by a behind the scenes coup-d’etat that included events in 1963 when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy that could only have been instigated by the highest levels of world financial control. In the election of 1976, David Rockefeller succeeded in placing fellow Trilateral Commission member Jimmy Carter in the White House, but Carter upset the banking community, thoroughly Zionist in orientation, by working toward peace in the Middle East and elsewhere.

I was working in the Carter White House in 1979-80. Unbeknownst to the president, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, another Rockefeller protégé, suddenly raised interest rates to fight the inflation the bankers had caused by the OPEC oil price deals, and plunged the nation into recession. Carter was made to look weak and uninformed and was defeated in the election of 1980 by Republican candidate Ronald Reagan. It was through the “Reagan Revolution” that the regulatory controls over the banking industry were lifted, mainly in allowing the banks to use their fractional reserve privileges in making mortgage loans.

Volcker’s recession shattered American manufacturing and hastened the flight of jobs abroad. Under the “Reagan Doctrine,” the U.S. military embarked on an unprecedented mission of world conquest by attacking one small nation at a time, starting with Nicaragua. Global capitalism was also on the march, with the U.S. armed forces its own private police force. With the invasion of Iraq under George H.W. Bush in 1991, mainland Asia was revealed as the principle target.

The economy was floated by productivity gains through computer automation and a huge sell-off of assets through the merger-acquisition bubble of the late 1980s which ended in a recession. This resulted in the defeat of Bush by Bill Clinton in the election of 1992. Clinton was able to create another bubble through a strong dollar policy that attracted foreign capital.

The dot-com bubble that resulted lasted all the way through to the crash of December 2000. Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force led the way in the destruction of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, whereby the international bankers took over the resource wealth of the entire Balkan region, and the U.S. military gained forward bases for further incursions into Asia.

Do we need to say that none of this was ever voted on by the American electorate? But they bought into it nevertheless, both with their silence and through participation in a generally favorable job market in the emerging service occupations, particularly finance.

By the time George W. Bush was inaugurated president in January 2001, the U.S. was facing a disaster. $4 trillion in wealth had vanished when the dot.com bubble collapsed. NAFTA caused even more American manufacturing jobs to disappear abroad. The Neocons who were moving into key jobs in the Pentagon knew they would soon have new wars to fight in the Middle East, with invasion plans for Afghanistan and Iraq ready to be pulled off the shelf.

But the U.S. had no economic engine available to generate the tax revenues Bush would need for the planned wars. At this moment Chairman Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve stepped in. Over a two year period from 2001-2003 the Fed lowered interest rates by over 500 basis points. Meanwhile, the federal government removed all regulatory controls on mortgage lending, and the housing bubble was on. $4 trillion in new home loans were pumped into the economy, much of it through subprime loans borrowers could not afford.

The Fed began to put on the brakes in 2003, but the mighty work of re-floating a moribund economy had been accomplished. By late 2006 another recession loomed, but it would take two more years before the crisis of October 2008 brought the entire system down.

The impact on the job market was immediate and profound. By the time Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, the U.S. was mired in seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the worst recession since the Great Depression was picking up speed. In order to prevent total disaster, the Bush administration ended its eight years of catastrophic misrule with a flourish, by allocating over $700 billion in financial system bailouts to cover the bad loans the banks had been making since Greenspan gave the housing bubble the green light.

It is now November 2009. Since Barack Obama was inaugurated in January, unemployment has soared from 7.9 percent to 10.2 percent. A few hundred billion dollars were allocated for “stimulus” purposes, but most of that went to pay unemployment benefits and to keep state and local governments from laying off more employees.

A fraction has been distributed for highway improvements, but largely through the bank bailouts the federal deficit has been running at an annual rate of $1.5 trillion, by far the largest in history, with the national debt now topping $12 trillion. Ironically, those Americans who still have productive jobs continue to grow in efficiency, with productivity up over five percent in the last year.

So much federal money has been spent that the Obama administration has been struggling to make its health care proposals budget-neutral through a raft of new taxes, fees, and penalties, and by announcing in recent days that the government’ first priority must now shift to deficit reduction. The word “austerity” has been mentioned for the first time since the Carter administration. Yet Congress voted $655 billion in military expenditures to continue fighting in the Middle East. A U.S. military attack on Iran, possibly in conjunction with Israel, would surprise no one.

So where do we now stand?

At present, the Federal Reserve is trying to prevent a total economic collapse. Interest rates are near-zero, to the chagrin of foreign investors in U.S. Treasury securities, and close to half of new Treasury debt instruments have been bought by the Federal Reserve itself as a way of providing free money for federal government expenditures.

But the U.S. economy shows no signs of coming back, with no economic driver emerging that could bring it back. For all the talk about alternative energy, there has been no significant growth of any home-grown industry that could possibly make up so much lost ground in either the short or the long-term.

The industries in the U.S. that are holding up are the military, including arms exports, universities that are attracting large numbers of students from abroad, especially China, and health care, especially for the aging baby boomer population. But the war industry produces nothing with a long-term economic benefit, and health care exists mainly to treat sick people, not produce anything new.

None of this provides a foundation that can bring about a restoration of prosperity to 300 million people when the jobs of making articles of consumption are increasingly scarce. On top of everything else, since government inevitably looks to its own requirements first, the total tax burden continues to increase to the point where the average employee now pays close to 50 percent of his or her income on taxes of all types, including federal and state income taxes, real estate taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, government fees, etc. Plus the cost of utilities continues to rise steadily and threatens to skyrocket if cap-and-trade legislation is passed.

The Obama administration has no plans to deal with any of this. They have projected a budget for 15 years hence that shows the budget deficit decreasing and tax revenues going way up, but it is all lies. They have no roadmap for getting us there and no plans for following the roadmap if it portrayed a realistic goal. And yet the U.S. military is still trying to conquer Asia. It is madness.

And it is madness because the big decisions are not made by the U.S., by Congress, or by the Obama administration. The U.S. has, for half-a-century, been marching to the tune played by the international financial elite, and this fact did not change with the election of 2008. The financiers have put the people of this nation $57 trillion in debt, according to the latest reports, counting debt at the federal, state, business, and household levels. Interest alone on this debt is over $3 trillion of a GDP of $14 trillion. Failure of our political leadership to deal with this tragedy over the past three decades is nothing less than treason.

But then again, at some point the decision was made that the U.S. and its population would be discarded by history, the economic status of the nation reduced to a shadow of what it once was, but that its military machine would be used for the financial elite’s takeover of the world until it is replaced by that of some other nation. All indications are that the next country up to bat as military enforcer for the financiers is China.

There you have it. That, in my opinion, is the past, present, and future of this nation in a nutshell. Great evils have been done in the world in the last century, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Except…. and that’s what each person caught up in these travesties must decide. What are you going to do about it?

In mulling over this question, it would be wise to recognize that the dominance of the financial elite has largely been exercised through their control of the international monetary system based on bank lending and government debt. Therefore it’s through the monetary system that change can and must be made.

The progressives are wrong to think the government should go deeper in debt to create more jobs. This will just create an even deeper hole of debt future generations will have to crawl out of.

Rather the key is monetary reform, whether at the local or national levels. People have lost control of their ability to earn a living. But change could be accomplished through sovereign control by people and nations of the monetary means of exchange.

This control has been stolen. It is time to take it back. One way would be for the federal government to make a relief payment to each adult of $1,000 a month until the crisis lifted. This money could be earmarked for goods and services produced within the U.S. and used to capitalize a new series of community development banks. I have called this the “Cook Plan.”

The plan could be funded through direct payment from a Treasury relief account without new taxes or government borrowing. The payments would be balanced on the credit side by GDP growth or be used by individuals to pay off debt. It would be direct government spending as was done with Greenbacks before and after the Civil War without significant inflation.

Another method increasingly being used within the U.S. today is local and regional credit clearing exchanges and the use of local currencies or “scrip.” Use of such currencies could be enhanced by legislation at the state and federal levels allowing these currencies to be used for payment of taxes and government fees as well as payment of mortgages and other forms of bank debt. The credit clearing exchanges could be organized as private non-profit regional currency co-operatives similar to credit unions.

These would be immediate emergency measures. In the longer run, sovereign control of money and credit must be returned to the public commons and treated as public utilities. This does not mean exclusive government control to replace bank control. As stated previously, it would be done in partnership between government and private trade exchanges. Nor does it mean government takeover of business, industry, or the banking system, though all should be regulated for the common good and fairly taxed.

This program would lead to a new monetary paradigm where money and credit would be available by, as, when, and where needed, to facilitate trade between and among legitimate producers of goods and services. In this way trade and commerce will come to serve human freedom, not diminish it as is done with today’s dysfunctional partnership between big government trillions of dollars in debt and big finance with the entire world in hock.

Such a change would be a true populist revolution.

Read more…

There is some GREAT things at www.surfstitch.com at the moment. I was going to suggest the below items to help you with your Christmas shopping but then I realised that if you are anything like me, shopping for others usually turns into – one for you, one for me. So enjoy either way!

Bonus – Free shipping at the moment!

So they say that this ceramic body is 5 times harder than steel, hmmmmmmmm? so that’s why the guys at Nixon have used it on their new 51-30 watch. Waterproof to 300 metres below with rotating ceramic bezel with count down timer, scratch resistant sapphire crystal, custom numbered caseback with hardened mineral crystal. and also a little adjustment for all you left handed cats out there, they’ve put the screw crown on the 9′o clock position, but with a $2,400 price tag, it’s a little out of my price range, but hell does it look dope.

Hit it below for more flicks.

“Japan’s accomplished DJ Kentaro work woth Nixon worked with Nixon to release a new version of the watch, The Private. ‘The Private’ watch(October 2009) features a durable, water-resistant canvas strap(I love its multi-colors) and a black/green face. Only 100 units will be made. Now it is available in Samurai for JPY 15,750(about $165).”
Like Cool

– Mikeezy

Nixon-Frost, de Peter Morgan. Teatre Lliure
Teatre Principal, 27 de noviembre

Los lenguajes se entrecruzan a la búsqueda de la obra total, aunque sean necesarios dos híbridos para hacer la suma: la película Frost/Nixon (Ron Howard, 2008) con pretensiones teatrales y esta narración teatral con recursos audiovisuales. Resultado: un pupurri que parece suspirar por lo que fue uno de los grandes espectáculos de la historia de la televisión. Viaje formal a través de distintos recursos y géneros para la reconstrucción transversal de algo que no llega a ser ni una cosa ni otra: la nostalgia nunca es buena compañera. Un canto a la televisión que se fue hace ya décadas, un tributo que es pronto devorado por el mito que pretende revivir. Mucha parafernalia en forma de puesta en escena, para asir lo inasible que ya forma parte de una dimensión heroica plagada de anécdotas elevadas a la categoría de imágenes para la eternidad. Nos quedamos pues ante un desfile de caricaturas presuntamente resucitadas mediante un ritmo pseudo frenético y una superposición de planos e imágenes para abducir nuestra atención. Pero poca, muy poca aproximación crítica, pobre estudio de personajes o perspectiva histórica propia de magazine: galería de héroes de la mala conciencia norteamericana. Una de tantas incursiones terapéuticas en el pecado original de no haber dado la talla de superpotencia bendecida por Dios, contadas en clave de espectáculo. ¿Cómo creernos este panfleto que nos queda tan lejos? Buen trabajo de escenografía pero resultado más bien discreto porque la fórmula no da más de sí. Personajes planos y diálogos que sólo resultan creíbles porque forman parte de la memoria histórica del imperio que nos han exportado. Demasiado cartón piedra envuelto con el celofán de aquella televisión que atraía audiencias multimillonarias. Los actores hacen lo que pueden para salvar un encargo sin matices ni desarrollo, consiguiendo un play back casi perfecto. De eso se trataba, ¿no?

Crítica publicada en el diario Ultima Hora

TRUCAJ – “Forrest Gump” (1994) – întâlnirea cu… John Lennon (decedat în… 1980)

ORIGINAL – John Lennon & Yoko Ono în Tony Cox’s Show

TRUCAJ – “Forrest Gump” (1994) – întâlnirea cu… John F. Kennedy (decedat în… 1963)

***

© Alexandru Dan Mitache • 2009

]]> http://corecompany.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/whats-the-death-toll-of-the-drug-war/ Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:26:05 +0000 corecompany http://corecompany.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/whats-the-death-toll-of-the-drug-war/

Google “Death toll in the drug war”. Not much comes up, mostly the content is about the number of people killed in Mexico. What about here in The US?

It was Nixon who declared war on drugs, which means the war on drugs has been going on for a very long time now. Sure there are statistics or records of some kind kept as to the numbers of people who die in the drug war. What is the body count? Does anyone know, and if not, how come? Why is there no discourse in political arenas about this?  It’s staggering, really. I can’t come up with a good answer. How did the “just say no” culture win over science, logic, personal freedoms?  Have we just accepted this as the way it is? Will we ever have a cultural first step?

An article in Esquire by John H. Richardson tries to come up with some numbers about the death toll in the drug war. The numbers, rough unresearched, and speculative are amazing. With overdoses the estimate is 15,223 dead, annually. The number in Iraq is 4,684 over the last seven years.  The estimate for what the drug war costs is $52 billion, yes, billion. That seems like a lot of money to spend trying to control a personal choice. More offending then the cost of life and financial resources is that the war is completely ineffective. In other words, we pay a huge tab to kill people, shatter families, incarcerate our own people, all because we don’t like that people get high?

I am never quite sure which layer of the drug war bothers me the most. At the moment I think it’s that we just keep accepting this, keep letting government leaders brush it under the rug and not really take on the issue. Will there be a time in history when we look back on the drug war with shame? Will future generations look at it as a form of genocide? They might. ‘There was an era when we used to shoot drug users or try to incarcerate them, we denied them fourth amendment protection because we didn’t like them.”  Email your senator, your congressman, and while you’re at it, shoot an email to Gil Kerlikowske and ask: “What is the death toll of the drug war?” Go on, just ask.

Um clássico!

Talvez esse nome não diga nada à maioria das pessoas. Mas eu nunca esquecerei daquela tarde de terça-feira depois de enfrentar a longa maratona “Escola-Videoshow-Vale a Pena Ver de Novo” (a novela era Pedra Sobre Pedra) quando a inimitável Sessão da Tarde apresentou este clássico para mim pela primeira vez: Mestres do Universo.

Possivelmente alguém já saiba do que estou falando e possivelmente já fez a associação. Mestres do Universo é a adaptação cinematográfica de outra maravilha da infância, o seriado animado He-Man, o guerreiro de Greyskull, aquele que tem a força quando a espada está erguida.

O motivo da lembrança foi trombar com este filme e perceber coisas que me escapavam na época como toda a sua roupagaem kitsch, sua história sem pé nem cabeça e seu elenco estelar.

Primeiro a história: o vilão Esqueleto toma o castelo de Greyskull e quer o poder absoluto do lugar. He-Man e as forças do bem, acuadas, fogem através de um portal mágico e acabam parando em… Los Angeles! Lá, He-Man e seus amigos precisam achar a chave do portal perdida pela cidade, bolar um plano para voltarem a Eternia e derrotar Esqueleto. Só que Esqueleto também consegue uma chave do portal e localiza He-Man. Esqueleto vai até Los Angeles (dizendo assim parece que ele pegou um avião, mas é muito mais irado) e captura He-Man. Seu amigos precisam, então, com a ajuda dos humanos, voltar a Eternia e libertar He-Man para que este acabe com Esqueleto. Pura dramaturgia dos filmes de fantasia.

Cara, muitas coisas são inesquecíveis: os cenários de Eternia com toda a sua opulência e cafonice, que depois influenciariam Power Rangers: o Filme; os figurinos e objetos pensados como uma mistura kitsch de ficção científica e medievalismo de Dungeons & Dragons (o ponto alto é a chave do portal: um daqueles potes que se usava para jogar aquele negócio da vareta com bolinhas de gude pintado de preto com uns botões e metais que faziam sonzinho de sintetizador mequetrefe e umas luzinhas meio gays); os cabelos e roupas dos californianos dos anos 80, que sempre despertam um misto de euforia e constrangimento; e claro a pergunta que não quer calar: que caralhos foi essa idéia de colocar He-Man em Los Angeles?!

A cereja do bolo é o elenco. Eu não tinha idéia de quem eram essas pessoas na época que vi pela primeira vez, mas hoje a ficha de estrelas sob a batuta de Gary Goddard (um parente distante do mestre do cinema françês?) diz muita coisa. A começar por Dolph Lundgren, o gigante huno, o Ivan Drago de Rocky IV, o primeiro a interpretar o Justiceiro no cinema e o vilão de Soldado Universal, de Van Damme. O vilão Esqueleto é ninguém mais, ninguém menos que Frank Langella, ator importante do teatro americano, indicado ao Oscar deste ano pelo papel de Richard Nixon em Frost/Nixon. Fora isso, quando He-Man perde a chave do portal em Los Angeles, esta é encontrada por uma jovem representada por… Courtney Cox, a Monica de Friends, cuja mãe no seriado é Christina Pickles, a Feiticeira do Castelo de Greyskull neste filme.

E para fechar com chave de ouro, James Tolkan. Não é fácil associar o nome à pessoa, mas com certeza você já viu este cara em algum lugar. Ele sempre é o coadjuvante representante das forças oficiais que, no fim das contas, é só a peça descaratável dentro de um contexto muuuuuito maior.

James Tolkan como o indefectível Sr. Strickland

Tolkan é o Napoleão (e o sósia do imperador) no filme de Woody Allen de 1975, A Última Noite de Boris Grushenko, e o oficial Stinger em Top Gun. Contudo, ele é bem mais conhecido como Sr. Strickland, o diretor do colégio de Hill Valley em De Volta Para o Futuro.

Aqui, ele é o policial de Los Angeles que vê a guerra entre o bem e o mal e não desconfia que isso é mais do que apenas um bando de arruaceiros causando desordem. É o alívio cômico, o policial pateta.

Tolkan é um típico eterno coadjuvante. E dos mais xiitas. Podemos dizer que ele é um grande ator? Não. Ou então que ele será lembrado pela história do cinema como alguém de primeira grandeza? Também não. Mas é de atores como James Tolkan que nossos filmes preferidos da Sessão da Tarde são tão inesquecíveis.

***

Pra fechar um pedido. Ou melhor, uma súplica: não deixem clássicos como Mestres do Universo morrer. É o mínimo que podemos fazer por estas pérolas da cultura ocidental que nos alegraram durante tantas tardes. Se achar o DVD compre; se não, baixe na net. Só não deixe os poderes de Greyskull se acabar.

Viaggio all’interno dei sottili meccanismi che dominano le logiche del potere e la manipolazione dell’informazione.

Il grande circo mediatico, è risaputo, ha delle regole ben precise. Una di queste è “dare in pasto” al pubblico ciò che più lo fa sentire appagato, lo soddisfa, ne stuzzica la curiosità, anche se spesso ciò significa scendere a compromessi con il potere per non intralciarne il relativo operato.
David Frost, conduttore navigato di talk show, il pubblico lo conosce bene.
Per cercare di imprimere una svolta alla propria carriera decide di mettersi in gioco e di dare vita a quello che potrebbe essere il più grande scoop di tutti i tempi o, con più probabilità, un flop colossale, che ne sancirebbe il prematuro tramonto.

L’occasione è offerta dalla voglia di rivincita dell’ormai ex presidente degli Stati Uniti Richard Nixon, che dopo le ombre gettate sul suo mandato dallo scandalo Watergate, è deciso a risalire alla ribalta, ricostruendo la propria immagine pubblica e lasciando nell’animo degli americani un ricordo di sé positivo prima del definitivo ritiro dalla scena politica.

L’idea, sicuramente azzeccata, del regista Ron Howard, è quella di portare sul grande schermo un dibattito televisivo realmente accaduto nel 1977 e che influenzò notevolmente l’opinione pubblica, cambiando per sempre il ruolo dell’informazione nel mondo politico.
L’impresa non è sicuramente delle più agevoli, ma Ron Howard, grazie anche alla straordinaria recitazione dei due protagonisti, è stato capace di dare al film quella tensione che in molte occasioni manca alle pellicole che raccontano fatti già noti.
Il dibattito in questione è, per l’appunto, quello tra il giovane Frost e l’ex presidente Nixon.
Chi pensa ad una commedia noiosa deve presto ricredersi.
I tempi lenti, con cui deve inevitabilmente fare i conti un’intervista televisiva di questo genere, vengono compensati da una trama avvincente, che avvicina lo spettatore ad entrambi i protagonisti, mostrandone i lati del carattere più oscuri e delineandoli dal punto di vista umano.
David Frost, interpretato da Michael Sheen, è un giovane brillante, pieno di iniziativa, abile intervistatore, ma inesperto nell’ambito politico, cosa che lo renderà facile bersaglio della critica.
Frank Langella indossa, invece, i panni di Richard Nixon, ex presidente logorato dall’opinione pubblica, che dimostra di non aver perso lo smalto dei tempi migliori e la capacità oratoria che contraddistingue ogni personaggio politico che si rispetti.
Gli scheletri nell’armadio emergono man mano che la pellicola scorre, conferendo alla trama quel brio che rende questo film coinvolgente.
Come in un incontro di pugilato i due contendenti si affrontano a viso aperto su di un ring di telecamere, con i rispettivi tatticismi, senza esclusione di colpi, permettendo allo spettatore di entrare nei sottili meccanismi che sottostanno a qualunque intervista.
Chi la spunterà?
Chi dei due otterrà la consacrazione ed imprimerà un indelebile marchio nella storia della televisione?
Chi, invece, naufragherà in un triste anonimato?
Per conoscere le risposte non resta altro che gustarsi il film Frost/Nixon – Il duello.

UPDATE: Snopes has now indirectly confirmed that the letter is correctly attributed.

Here’s the latest in chain email warfare I received the other day. First, let’s get the premise out of the way.

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organization and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.

He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

When a 95 year old hero of the “the Greatest Generation” stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.

Whether or not the actual Harold Estes wrote this is not yet verified, but that’s not really the point. Some idiot obviously did write it, and although its infamy as a public screed in the form of a chain email originated in Florida rather than Hawaii; and even though the exact same out of context misquotes appeared in a Pat Boone tirade in WorldNetDaily, let’s just assume that it did originate from the source claimed in the preamble above.

The author clearly does have a political bone in his body contrary to the claim. And just because he is a member of “the greatest generation” and served in WWII, that does not give the dittoheads who pass this crap on a reason to do so. Guess who else was a WWII vet? Holocaust museum shooter and neo-NaziJames von Brunn. Thankfully, I don’t see many people passing on his rants.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

More set up, folks. I think the key point here is that the author claims only to be “pretty much” mentally alert. Good thing we have that caveat.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

That’s not really a benefit of age. Five year olds don’t have this issue either. Come to think of it, neither do I.

So here goes..

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

Uh oh, looks like this guy must have just watched 2012.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of.

That would be the United States of America. And now we know what he meant by only “pretty much” mentally alert.

Now comes the Pat Boone rehash:

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

“We’re no longer a Christian nation”

Well, Obama never exactly said this. He did say, in 2006:

“Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.“

One little word does wonders for actual meaning doesnt it? Not to mention the entire context of a quote. And demographically speaking, it’s not untrue. In fact the only thing possibly wrong with Obama’s statement is that we cannot “no longer” be what we never were.

See, it’s not like he said something like:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion“

Because, you know, that would just be a silly statement that happened to be part of a treaty begun under George Washington’s administration, signed by John Adams, and voted unanimously by the Senate after being read aloud on the floor and published in major newspapers without complaint.

Does our nation have moral roots that come partly from Christianity? Sure. But we are a nation of laws, not a theocracy. That would be what those of us with 100% mental alertness call “entirely different”.

“America is arrogant” – (Your wife even announced to the world, “America is mean-spirited.”

Again, this is not something Obama said. What he did say, during a townhall in France, was:

“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth.”

Yeah, real scathing anti-American sentiment there. If you live in an alternate reality devoid of context, history, or objectivity.

Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)

Let’s test Mr. Pretty Much Mentally Alert’s math skills. A generation is roughly 25 years. 23 generations takes us back to before Columbus. Fail.

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

I’ve seen several occassions on which Obama has expressed gratefulness and humilty over the position he has attained. But it’s absolutely a true statement that to be without shame is dangerous for the man in the White House. Perhaps he should have written his letter to our last president, the one who couldn’t think of a single mistake he ever made.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Another fake quote. Firstly, it seems “after 9/11″ means eight years after. And still, it’s not very close to the actual quote from a speech in Cairo:

“And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.”

That’s not a condemnation of, nor an apology for America. It’s an affirmation. To think otherwise is simply ignorant.

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

Now it starts to get even more confusing. Apparently casualty numbers from selected wars (all 23 generations worth!) have some bearing on… well… some sort of argument. And interestingly, the author seems to include Confederate soldiers in his figures for the civil war. I think I can safely say that Obama was probably not talking about the ideal of seceding from the Union. Sorry. I guess you win a point there. Or something.

But since you ask, perhaps he was refering to the whole suspending habeas corpus thing, effectively slashing the bill of rights, and then torturing those we detained. Just a guess.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination.

Quite an egalitarian ideal there. Downright socialist.

You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

What does race have to do with anything? Does this guy realize that more than just white people can vote now?

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue.

And so start the veiled threats. Since there is no question this fellow wouldn’t be voting for Obama in the next election, the only conclusion is that he must be referring to something else.

You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their
people like slaves.

Oh really. Having already established that he has no understanding of what the president is elected to do (i.e preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States), the author now claims enough credibility to opine on what the president is elected not to do. I mean we all know Bush Sr didn’t apologize for barfing on the Japanese Prime Minister, and Dick Cheney didn’t apologize for dressing like he was about to shoot somebody in the face while remembering the horrors of Auschwitz. Because that’s what Americans do.

At least he has precedence on his side. Here is Eisenhower not bowing to Pope John XXIII:


He’s just checking out his wrinkle free skin and admiring his mental alertness. Pretty much.

And here’s W after Pope Benedict XVI apparently advised him to XYZPDQ:


Decidedly not bowing.

Oh, here’s Nixon admiring Hirohito’s kicks. He can’t possibly be bowing to the Japanese leader who bombed Pearl Harbor, can he? Of course not.

Here’s Eisenhower again, after Charles de Gaulle just disappeared a quarter from his hand!! Not photographed is when he reproduced it from behind Ike’s ear.


I tell you, that Eisenhower was a man who loved not to bow. A real American he was.

Then of course, there’s W again, playing kissy face and holding hands with Saudi King Abdulluh. They make a cute couple:

And though only a presidential special envoy for Reagan, here’s Donald Rumsfeld either giving Saddam Hussein a stink palm or shaking his hand in the course of making a deal to supply him with weapons of mass destruction for use against Iran.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more.

He probably thinks he’s the President of the United States. That could be because he is, or it could be for some other reason. And since when is jumping to conclusions a good thing?

You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that
black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight?

Yeah, that’s the same thing. And as a matter of fact, yes, that’s exactly what he wants you to not do. By the way, you forgot the ‘in his own house’ part. Funny how there are people on Harold Estes’ side of the political spectrum who claim to stockpile ammunition in the event of just such a scenario.

You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

Firstly, saying a department acted stupidly is not the same as calling police stupid. And I believe that issue was resolved quite amicably. Secondly, the definition of terrorist is not “Muslim fanatic”. No really. Look it up.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job.

You mean like Dick Cheney and W? Oh, I guess you don’t. And, wow, why don’t you just call him ‘boy’? Haven’t we already covered the job part?

When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him.

Unlike the troops Bush-Cheney dithered about until Obama was finally about to grant them. And as the author should know, completing the mission requires a strategy, not just a number. War is not magic, and 40,000 women can’t have a baby in ten minutes anymore than the presence of 40,000 troops can automatically complete a mission that isn’t effectively defined. And that is what has been missing the past eight years. Furthermore, didn’t you just admit that Obama was Commander-in-Chief (of the country you can’t identify)? Then, that is where the decision rests, unless I missed a military coup somewhere.

But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

See Iraq, invasion of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

Finally, the first reasonable thing said throughout that entire rant. Hmm, I wonder what challenge(s) he refers to? Oh, it must be all the ones the last guy completely screwed up and left for the rest of us. Thanks for the reminder

You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy.

Sooo, you want the economy to fail?

That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

Sooo, we aren’t living up to our ideals or something. But didn’t you just… yeah, nevermind

And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

And it’s back to the subtle violent rhetoric. As if there is any question this guy doesn’t already see the President as “the enemy”. The corollary of course, is that this guy is an enemy of the President and an enemy of America. See, most people get the benefit of the doubt for simply being misinformed, wrong, or stupid; but this guy has intentionally phrased his rhetoric as part of “the final battle”. Maybe, like Sarah Palin or Roland Emmerich, he believes the rapture or the Mayans are upon us one way or the other. But the fact is it’s dangerous to talk of the President as an enemy using war imagery in a country with a long history of political violence and civil unrest. And passing it along will make you culpable when one of the idiots out there does decide to act.

J’ai toujours aimé Michael Moore, surtout avant de voir ses films. Il faut parfois savoir apprécier le « buzz » (quel affreux terme, au passage !) qui court autour du film avant même de se rendre dans les salles obscure pour jauger la valeur dudit « buzz » et juger la qualité dudit film. Car Moore, ce n’est une surprise pour personne, se traîne derrière lui une réputation bien gratinée, aussi bruyante qu’une armada de casseroles en téflon usagées, qui lui ouvre une quantité de cœurs et lui ferme une aussi importante quantité de portes. C’est qu’il a tendance à titiller un peu trop les puissants, les technocrates, les nantis, les démagos, les arrivistes, les carriéristes, enfin tous ceux qui font le système (cette « bête sauvage » dont parlait Nixon) et ceux qui en profitent en jurant leurs grands dieux qu’ils ne font rien de mal ; c’est qu’il aime particulièrement, le Moore, aller caresser la barbichette des décideurs, des législateurs, des hauts responsables, des élites, bref des politiques, afin de les confronter à ces aberrations qu’ils ont concouru à créer – ne serait-ce que du fait de leur inaction chronique. Même ceux qui n’ont pas vu Fahrenheit 9/11, à savoir les aveugles, les lapons et les manchots du pôle sud, se « souviennent » d’un gros bonhomme chaussé de lunettes et de casquette allant ennuyer ces messieurs-dames les représentants du Congrès, à Washington, histoire de leur proposer d’envoyer leurs propres rejetons en Irak pour faire la guerre aux vilains. Enfin, nuance : allant ennuyer ces représentants qui votèrent en faveur de l’invasion. Si Moore possède bien une qualité, c’est de savoir comment désigner du doigt les coupables, et il ne se gêne nullement pour cela. Une fois désignés, la curée commence.

Ces « victimes » montrées du doigt par le pamphlétaire le plus célèbre et le plus admiré de l’industrie du cinéma sont aisées à reconnaître puisqu’elles font partie du titre. Car le capitalisme est l’affaire des capitalistes, et potentiellement un cas de conscience pour une majorité des êtres humains qui foulent le sol de cette terre. Nous sommes donc tous concernés. Même le chaland qui subit les foudres de l’inexorable profit ; oui, même cet agriculteur, trapu et bonhomme, aussi beauf que savent l’être les Américains de la campagne, qui prépare tristement son déménagement après avoir reçu sa notification d’expulsion. Sa ferme, l’achat d’une vie, vient d’être rachetée par d’autres Américains qui en ont les moyens, et qui n’auront sans doute pas à débourser toujours plus afin de rembourser un prêt à taux expansif. Déménager pour où ? La question se pose d’autant moins qu’elle ne souffre aucune réponse. Le voilà, l’ami « capitalisme » : c’est l’ange monétaire qui descend du dernier étage des Goldman Sachs, Bank of America et autres pour vous offrir le seul ciel étoilé comme toit de maison. Et de cela, l’agriculteur un peu bourru est tout autant responsable que les puissants : parce que, d’une certaine manière, il a laissé faire le système. Comme nous tous. C’est sur cette position que campe un Moore légèrement désabusé, indubitablement fatigué par ses années de pérégrinations idéologiques depuis Roger et moi. Avec l’impression que rien n’a changé.

A sa façon, Moore ressemble à notre hexagonal postier Olivier Besancenot, le talent pour le montage en plus. Lui aussi pourfend sans égards le système tel qu’il s’est installé et pérennisé ; lui aussi monte à l’assaut de ces puissants qui sont autant de châteaux forts à prendre par les armes ; lui aussi souligne avec raison – et un chouia d’idéalisme – les aberrations de notre économie mondialisée. Et lui non plus ne propose in fine aucune solution valable de rechange. En même temps, la différence c’est que Besancenot est un politicien dont le rôle est d’agir, tandis que Moore n’est qu’un pamphlétaire hyperdoué dont les prérogatives se résument à étaler et faire connaître les scories systémiques. Chacun à sa place. Il me semble néanmoins qu’un Moore, pour ces mêmes raisons, aura toujours plus d’impact que tous les Besancenot du monde : parce qu’il cherche moins à convaincre (votez pour moi) qu’à persuader (accompagnez-moi dans le projet d’un changement profond des mentalités). Le champ d’action du cinéaste s’arrête à la porte des institutions et des bastions de la finance ; en attendant, il aura tracé le chemin pour des politiques plus avisés et, surtout, plus réalistes que celles des anti-tout.

Car Moore, et ce n’est pas la moindre de ses qualités ici, nous donne à voir une chose étonnante, en fin de film, une chose bien plus juste que tous ces exemples de dérives capitalistes livrés les uns à la suite des autres comme on enfile des perles (qui a-t-il besoin de convaincre, d’ailleurs, de l’iniquité des traitements infligés à une population qui souffre quotidiennement dans le « pays de la liberté » ?) ; cette chose, c’est la capacité du politique à dépasser l’institutionnel – les clivages idéologiques, les disparités sociales, les pressions lobbyistes – pour puiser sa force dans une inspiration humaine. Il est incroyable de voir ces images de représentant(e)s du Congrès qui harangue leurs collègues et, par-delà les murs, leurs électeurs, afin de les pousser à la révolte ; il y a de l’émotion dans cette façon qu’a le procureur de Chicago d’intimer l’ordre à ses concitoyens de ne pas quitter leur maison lorsque le représentant de la banque vient les expulser. Le rôle du politique n’est-il pas de protéger ses ouailles, tel un messie civil ? Et qui pourrait contredire l’idée que l’on est mieux protégé entre quatre murs et sous un toit ? Logiquement, presque naturellement, Moore change alors d’époque et nous emmène au temps de Franklin Roosevelt, quand le plus grand des immenses présidents américains (exit Lincoln et Kennedy) envoyait l’armée non pour déloger les manifestants dans les usines, mais pour les protéger. Situation rocambolesque ? Certes, mais qui dans un monde idéal ne devrait être qu’une norme. Difficile de dire si le propos de Moore peut être ici compris comme une légitimation de Barack Obama (dont l’espoir diffus se propage dans les allées filmiques de ce Capitalism), que le cinéaste a eu largement le temps de reconsidérer politiquement depuis la réalisation de son film. Toutefois, il est clair que le nouveau président américain suscite l’enthousiasme de l’originalité chez les hommes et les femmes qui ont subi, un moment ou un autre, les foudres du système.

Gare, pourtant, à la tentation de placer Moore sur un piédestal ! Toutes les qualités de son dernier opus (qui n’a que médiocrement marché aux USA malgré un lancement savamment orchestré par Paramount), depuis l’audace physique du cinéaste, qui n’hésite pas à aller en personne taquiner les agents de surveillance des banques afin de réclamer l’argent versé par les contribuables via le plan Paulson, jusqu’à l’excellente pédagogie visuelle qui fait de toute œuvre de Moore un objet à la fois passionnant et ludique, ne peuvent pas éternellement dissimuler ses défauts. Ces défauts sont connus, ils sont récurrents depuis les débuts de sa carrière ; d’une part, le fait que Moore utilise à sa convenance les mêmes armes que ses ennemis (la propagande), d’autre part ce risque constant de la simplification abusive que personne, même doté de la meilleure foi possible, ne peut complètement éviter. En réalité, l’importance de ces défauts varie selon les yeux qui les regardent et les oreilles qui les entendent. Je veux croire que le public possède cette vivacité d’esprit suffisante pour prendre une certaine distance vis-à-vis des images. Mais pour des spectateurs dénués de tout sens critique, le danger est grand de prendre pour argent ( ! ) comptant les propos du cinéaste, parmi ceux qui frôlent au plus près le révisionnisme. Il arrive parfois que les arguments du cinéaste flirtent avec l’exagération stupide d’un Thierry Meyssan, tout occupé à créer de toutes pièces sa future théorie du complot. Différence essentielle tout de même : dans tous les cas Moore a parfaitement conscience de cette tentation à franchir la limite, ce que les conspirationnistes n’imaginent même pas.

Plus qu’un film sur la conspiration, plus qu’un film révolutionnaire (l’appel final résonne comme un cor de chasse destiné à tous les guévaristes convaincus), Capitalism est pour Moore un exutoire autobiographique. On aurait pu penser que le bonhomme de Roger et moi cesserait rapidement d’importuner le spectateur en se présentant devant la caméra et en allant enquiquiner les passants. Pourtant, le cinéaste a continué à se mettre en scène, et plus encore, à mettre en scène sa ville natale, Flint, dans le Michigan, réceptacle de toutes les dérives du système américain (on la retrouve dans une majorité de ses documentaires, y compris Bowling For Columbine). Il y retourne encore une fois pour quelques scènes parmi les plus émouvantes de sa carrière, particulièrement ce passage où, observant le terrain vague que fut autrefois l’usine automobile où il travailla toute sa vie, le propre père de Michael Moore ressasse la nostalgie d’une époque meilleure. Moore ne s’est jamais autant impliqué personnellement dans son projet de mise en scène, allant jusqu’à montrer des images de son enfance heureuse. Un brin d’égocentrisme ? Dans ce cas précis, le terme exact est plutôt : humanisme.

Eric Nuevo

> Film sorti en salles le 25 novembre 2009

> Lire aussi : notre dossier sur la politique catastrophique de G. W. Bush vue par Moore dans VERSUS n° 14, notre dossier sur la crise financière et le milieu (mafieux !) bancaire dans VERSUS n° 15, et notre dossier sur les world companies dans VERSUS n° 17, actuellement disponible

So just wanted to let everyone know that Sideways has Hoodies, but no Snuggies. Our hoodies, from brands like Element, Volcom, WeSC, Nixon, and Nomis also allow you to work the remote, talk on the phone, enjoy a snack with ease. But unlike Snuggies, which make you look like a crazy person, hooded sweatshirts look great! Plus you can wear hoodies when walking, snowboarding, skateboarding, partying, pretty much anything. So yeah. No Snuggies here.

Here are some acceptable alternatives.

Written by the two journalists who uncovered the Watergate scandal, All the President’s Men is part detective story, part political thriller and part first-draft of history.  Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein ended up on the Watergate story by accident, stayed on it despite personal difference, and ultimately uncovered one of the greatest political scandals the US has ever known, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

The book was written and published before the full story of Watergate was known, and so it’s sometimes a bit confusing.  It’s slow to start with, the significance of events and people are not clear, and the two journalists seem to uncover a lot of information that doesn’t make sense. There are a lot of names to remember, and many of these characters don’t appear again.  However, these are all natural consequences of the book being an account of real events, rather than fiction.  Once it becomes clear to the journalists who the major players are, the story begins to make more sense and the pace picks up.

The journalists are like detectives in the way they collect and assemble information, but unlike detectives, they can’t compel anyone to talk to them, which makes their job harder and the story more frustrating.  Everything they publish has to be verified by at least three sources, and many times it’s ‘obvious’ what is going on but the story can’t advance until things are verified.  The journalist’s frustration at times like these is evident.

Because the book ends before the full extent of the Watergate scandal is known, the end is a bit ambiguous and unsatisfying, I suppose because we now know what happened, and because the thread of events now looks clearer than it would have at the time.

What I found most interesting about this book was the background it gives about American politics and political institutions.  To someone from a country that is at best ambiguous and at worst deeply cynical and government and institutions, the reverence that Americans (even investigative journalists) have for the office of President seems strange. For a reader used to the Westminster system, the executive system of government looks opaque and ripe for cronyism.

The other interesting aspect of the book is the window it gives onto the world of investigative journalism and news in the days before computers, mobile phones, and internet.  The journalists meet with sources in person, they use ingenious things like reverse telephone directories to track down people, and records (both the journalists’ and those of their investigative subjects) are all single-copy paper documents that can disappear quite easily.  On the other hand, their sources in government are happy to talk on the phone from their offices – obviously the days of manual switchboards, untraceable calls, and office doors rather than open plan layouts made it safer.

All the President’s Men is a good read, and highly recommended.  I’m keen to see the movie and perhaps read Woodward and Bernstein’s other Watergate book, The Final Days.

All the President’s Men
Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward
Bloomsbury, 1974

You may be surprised at the scope of this week’s topic because when it comes to Elvis Presley, well nearly everyone’s got an opinion. The iconic nature of Elvis Presley in music and popular culture, has often made him a subject of, or a benchmark, in numerous songs. We launched the show with CALLING ELVIS by Dire Straits. Written by Mark Knopler and released in 1991, the song is about an Elvis fan that can’t believe that Elvis Presley is dead. Based on some of the bizarre ’sightings’ over the years, I fear he is not alone.

A song from one of my favourite films followed: Public Enemy’s groundbreaking FIGHT THE POWER from the soundtrack of DO THE RIGHT THING, directed by Spike Lee in 1989. Like the film, the song broke at a crucial period in America’s struggle with race. Unabashedly political, FIGHT THE POWER was confrontational in the way that great rock has always been. It attacks a whole roster of American icons including Elvis and John Wayne in what amounts to a virtual flag burning. Because who better embodies the American ideal than the King? The song goes so far as to call Elvis racist. I don’t agree with that. But what I do know from the National Archives is that in 1970 Elvis wrote a six-page letter to Richard Nixon asking him to make him a ‘Federal Agent-At-Large’ in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. And amongst the gifts that Elvis presented to the then President was a Colt-45 pistol. So what do we make of all this? Maybe only that, like a lot of his countrymen, Elvis was a misguided patriot who defended the nation’s order – an order from which blacks, in particular, had been routinely barred. The irony, of course, is that Elvis was the first artist to successfully blend black and white music: country music and the blues. And didn’t he do it well?

It was time for a change of tone: The very whimsical and wonderful Kirsty McColl with THERE’S A GUY WORKS DOWN THE CHIP SHOP SWEARS HE’S ELVIS. The song made an appearance on the FAMOUS PEOPLE show, but definitely deserved another spin. We followed with Richard Thompson’s FROM GALWAY TO GRACELAND.

Robbie Williams’ ADVERTISING SPACE is a song not only about Elvis but, also, about the price of fame.  Emmylou Harris followed with BOY FROM TUPELO. In case you weren’t aware Elvis was born in Tupelo Mississipi on January 8, 1935. And then it was the great Roy Orbison with HOUND DOG MAN.

Living Colour funked it up with their critique of the tabloids. The song  ELVIS IS DEAD ups the ante with an appearance by Little Richard. Check it out.

We dived into the second hour of the program with Ann Margret singing the title song of the film BYE BYE BIRDIE. Based on the stage musical of the same name, the story was inspired by Elvis Presley being drafted into the US Army in 1957. Jesse Pearson played the role of teen idol Conrad Birdie, whose character’s name is a wordplay on another singer of the era, Conway Twitty.  The film is credited with making Ann-Margret a superstar during the mid-1960s, leading to her appearing with Elvis Presley in Viva Las Vegas in 1964.

A couple of great songs were suggested to me by BayFM’s very own Cowboy Sweetheart, Carrie D. First up, Bap Kennedy with GLADYS & VERNON about Elvis’s parents and the night that Elvis was born. And then it was the great Waylon Jennings with the very entertaining NOBODY KNOWS.

I absolutely adore BLACK VELVET by Allanah Myles and have played that before. But, hey, when a song’s as good as this one it deserves a replay!

U2’s song ELVIS ATE AMERICA illustrates the many personas of Elvis, both good and bad. And then it was the romantically delusional Scouting For Girls with ELVIS ISN’T DEAD: ”Elvis isn’t dead ’cause I heard him on the radio….. and you’re coming back to me.”  Yeah, sure guys.

Time to get serious: First up, Kate Bush with her hit song about Elvis – KING OF THE MOUNTAIN. And then, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds transported us into a disturbing world with their song about the night that Elvis was born. Elvis was a twin but his brother was still-born. The song is TUPELO from the album THE FIRSTBORN IS DEAD. Here’s the totally mesmerising clip:

John Fogarty likens Elvis to the BIG TRAIN (FROM MEMPHIS). Neil Young reminded us that it’s “better to burn out than to fade away “, with his song MY, MY, HEY HEY.

Another of my faves followed: Cowboy Junkies with BLUE MOON REVISITED, otherwise known as SONG FOR ELVIS. And then it was Paul Simon’s song about travelling to Elvis Presley’s home, GRACELAND, with the Everly Brothers helping out on vocals. Don’t have a clip with the Everlys in it, but you can’t do much better than this concert performance of the song in Zimbabwe. Enjoy.

There was time for a little more mjusic dedicated to Elvis before signing off and what better than ELVIS HAS JUST LEFT THE BUILDING by the one and only Frank Zappa. And, of course, I had to play some of the King himself so we went out with BURNIN’ LOVE. Here’s what all the fuss is about:

Next week’s show will be dedicated to the patron saint of Theme Park, Roy Orbison, who died 21 years ago this December 6. So songs by Roy Orbison, The Travelling Wilburys, duets with Roy and covers of Roy Orbison songs. Anything connected to Roy Orbison qualifies. Personally I can’t wait!

Here’s this week’s playlist:

Black Friday is going to be crazy here at Belmont Army (and you dont have to wait in the cold like these peeps). We have sales starting at 20% and up!!
((Store hours 11 A.M.-8 P.M.))

*1st Floor- Fashion Clothes
(1st floor only) 15% off entire purchase, including sale items!!

Brands Carried:
Rayban (we have the largest selection in Chicago), Nice Collective, Ben Sherman, OBEY, BB Dakota, Spiewak, Free People, Penfield, Insight, RVCA, and much more.

*2nd Floor- Shoes
Sweet sale from 20%-75% off select shoes!!

Brands Carried on the shoe floor:
Frye, Red Wings, H by Hudson, Timberland Boot Co., Bear Paw, Tretorn, Ben Sherman, Palladium, Nike, Nike SB, Adidas, Vans, Puma, Converse, TOMS, Common Projects, Spring Court, 80/20, Dr. Marten’s, Generic Surplus, Keep, Chrome Shoes, Zuriik, New Rocks, Schmoove, Macbeth, and many many more.

*3rd Floor- Army Surplus
20% off of Carhartt, Filson, and Pendleton clothing

In addition to vintage, authentic military items from around the world, as well as mil-spec reproductions, the third floor carries Spiewak, Schott, Chrome, Dickies, Dickies Girl, Filson, Woolrich, Wigwam, Pendleton, Cockpit, Alpha, Smith & Wesson, Leatherman, Zippo and much much more.

*4th Floor- Vintage
Gravis bags, Burton bags, Timbuk2 bags, and Chrome bags 20% off. Leather belts 30% off
Vintage Cloting includes sweaters, knit vests, jeans, winter hats, vintage concert shirts, purses, cardigans, dresses, skirts. There is also vintage winter gear and sweet knick-knacks (including original movie posters from 1950’s-1980’s).

Basement- SKATE SHOP
We have decks, wheels, and everything in between. Plus we just got in new Nike SB apparel.

Love always,
belmont staff

Nel 1973 la fragile democrazia cilena guidata da Salvador Allende, un onesto socialista cileno di cui si parla sempre troppo poco perchè a mio avviso uno dei pochi uomini per bene del secolo passato, fu spazzata nel sangue dai militari dell’assassino Pinochet grazie agli aiuti, alle trame della CIA sotto l’egida dell’accoppiata Nixon-Kissinger.

Oggi, a distanza di 35 anni, si hanno le conferme  delle gravi responsabilità degli  States in  quello storico golpe.

Ecco alcuni passi degli archivi segreti  della NSA (National Security Archive di Washington) oggi finalmente resi pubblici.

Kissinger  convoca il direttore della CIA Richard Helms e gli dice: “ Noi non permetteremo che il Cile diventi una fogna” ed Helms risponde: “Io sto con voi”

Donald Kendall, direttore esecutivo della Pepsi Cola nonchè amico e socio in affari di Augustin Edwards, banchiere ed imprenditore cileno, proprietario del quotidiano El Mercurio e acerrimo nemico dell’Unidad Popolar che ha vinto le elezioni, esercita grosse pressioni per un intervento americano contro Allende.

Edwards incontrerà sia Nixon che Kissinger.

Nixon,  di fronte  ad ipotesi    attendiste ,   afferma   arrabbiato   : “ Vogliamo ripetere ciò che è successo con Castro ? “

Dopo il golpe Nixon chiede a Kissinger : “ La nostra mano è rimasta nascosta?”  e Kissinger risponde :    “ Abbiamo creato le migliori condizioni possibili affinchè il golpe riuscisse. Fossimo ai tempi di Eisenhower saremmo considerati due eroi”

Questi erano gli USA nel 1973 e oggi, a 35 anni, non è cambiato molto. Sempre in prima linea nel destabilizzare, colonizzare e assoggettare economicamente e culturalmente, sempre in prima linea con  pesanti ingerenze assolutamente indifferenti alle sovranità di vari stati e popoli. Ora poi anche nell’inventare il terrorismo internazionale per giustificare ulteriori interventi, guerre e pressioni e controlli territoriali.

☼ 15 settembre 2008

Ieri sera a casa di amici ho rivisto per l’ennesima volta il film Forrest Gump , io lo considero talmente speciale da meritare una rivisitazione . Faccio prima una premessa : io credo che  la filmografia statunitense ( Hollywood) è una filmografia di stato , controllata fin nei minimi dettagli dalla United States Information Agency (USIA) , un agenzia federale pubblica nell’esistenza ma segreta nell’operatività ( come la CIA) istituita nel 1953 allo scopo di creare nel pubblico internazionale una precisa ancorché falsa immagine degli USA. L’agenzia non si occupa solo di Hollywood ora conta sui 30.000 dipendenti e ha sede al 301 IV South West Street di Washington. Ma veniamo al nostro Forrest Gump. È un film inquietante e pericoloso , perchè non solo oltremodo carico di propaganda politica e culturale , ma anche costruito con tecniche subliminali sopraffine e atte ad arrecare danni significativi. Racconta la singolare vita di un americano di Nome forrest Gump ,semiritardato e , da bambino poliomielitico, cui capita di avere contatti sia pure fugaci con molti grandi personaggi e di partecipare ad eventi storici nodali del suo tempo. In pratica una carrellata di 30 anni di storia americana , diciamo dal 1955 al 1985, dandone senza farci accorgere una valutazione precisa. Il film è del 1994 lo conoscono tutti per cui evito di dilungarmi nella trama. Ecco allora gli elementi di propaganda intenzionale che sono presenti nel film.

1)Forrest è descritto come gli USA vorrebbero che il mondo credesse l’americano tipico : forse poco intelligente ma onesto e ben intenzionato , candido sino all’ingenuità ; uno che se fa del male lo fa per stupidità o per eccesso di zelo ( tipo i bombardamenti”intelligenti” o le due bombe atomiche sul Giappone o le oltre cento guerre dichiarate ai vari paesi di tutte le latitudini, da quando questo paese e nato……..loro sono cosi per nulla cattivi solo un po’ bamboccioni) E’ propaganda culturale , perché l’americano tipico è l’opposto : astuto , cinico e malintenzionato , e quando fa il male — pur ridendo , come in genere — sa di farlo. Serve perché gli americani amano fare gli sprovveduti per non “pagare il dazio” . Dopo aver compiuto una delle nefandezze varie, mettiamo un colpo di stato o una strage di civili ( esempi ce ne sarebbero a iosa) sono dispostissimi a d attribuirli al loro “zelo anticomunista” forse eccessivo; a “informazioni sbagliate o incomplete” ; a “bombe intelligenti” delle quali con falsa ritrosia ammettono qualche volta i difetti: ma anche a pura e semplice dabbenaggine . Tutto pur di non dire “ABBIAMO SOVVERTITO , UCCISO perché COSI AVEVAMO PROGRAMMATO. Non dico che non esistono americani come Forrest del film. Esistono in verità , e si possono prendere a modello per un film. Frank Capra lo ha fatto molte volte . Ma averne inserito uno come protagonista di un film come questo non può non che essere una scelta precisa e maliziosa.

2)Attraverso l’abile montaggio di filmati d’epoca vediamo Forrest in contatto con i presidenti Kennedy,Johnson e Nixon . Ci sono più strati di falsità. Questi episodi sono presentati come incontri di un uomo comune con il potere incarnato , e cosi si dice implicitamente che i presidenti americani comandano.

3) I presidenti americani invece non contano proprio niente. Il potere negli USA è detenuto dall’establishment imprenditoriale , in particolare dalle multinazionali , e il presidente, è solo un impiegato incaricato di fare i loro precisi interessi nel mondo, il che è la definizione di sempre della politica estera americana. Gli USA in effetti sono UNA DITTATURA IMPRENDITORIALE . Dire o suggerire che i presidenti americani comandano è pura propaganda. Quindi si presentano i tre presidenti secondo i soliti cliché ; Kennedy idealista, democratico,benintenzionato;Jhonson populista , democratico ,benintenzionato;Nixon disonesto ,poco democratico male intenzionato ( e perciò sarebbe stato allontanato dalla carica,e cioè licenziato). Tutto falso erano dei presidenti americani e perciò erano tutti uguali , tutti dediti a fare gli interessi all’estero dell’establishment , con i soliti metodi spietati .kennedy fece uccidere Ngo Din Diem ; tentò di fare altrettanto con Castro ( per venti volte secondo quest’ultimo) ; diede impulso alla sovversione in Indocina ; fece preparare l’orrendo programma –quadro di manipolazione pscicologica di massa che fu chiamato in suo onore Camelot ( come i media americani chiamavano Kennedy, perché era nobile e senza macchia come un cavaliere della tavola rotonda ; il programma per chi non lo sapesse , THE QUARTER MAN che fu usato dalla CIA per il colpo di stato in Cile del 1973 faceva parte di Camelot) Johnson fece mettere in scena l’incidente del golfo del Tonchino e poi iniziò i bombardamenti di civili in indocina che alla fine tirate le somme , avrebbero provocato 6 milioni di morti . Nixon era come loro , appena un po’ meno simpatico , e fu licenziato solo perché aveva sancito la sconfitta nella guerra del Vietnam.

4) La sensazione della democraticità del sistema americano pervade tutto il film. Lo fa in maniera indiretta , dandola per talmente scontata da non meritare evidenziazioni . Come si è detto , gli USA non sono affatto una democrazia . Sono un sistema totalitario , che si regge sull’esclusione del voto di più della meta della popolazione e sulla repressione del dissenso . Sopra l’ho chiamata una dittatura dell’imprenditoriato , e questo è. Dire o suggerire che sono una democrazia è propaganda

5) Durante una manifestazione hippies e di neri a Washington un uomo un po’ anziano e in divisa stacca goffamente la spina del megafono dell’oratore di turno. E’ una inserzione di propaganda sublimale: suggerisce che gli eventuali boicottaggi alle manifestazioni progressiste degli anni 60 –dei pacifisti , dei figli dei fiori ,dei neri-furono dovute ad iniziative estemporanee e personali di singoli benpensanti , sia pure magari appartenenti a qualche corpo statale o federale. Abbiamo invece avuto modo di vedere a proposito del movimento dei diritti civili dei neri che si trattò di ben altro, che si trattò di una repressione ufficiale , e violentissima benché surrettizia , ordinata dal Congresso.

5) Nel film i movimenti degli hippies pacifisti o dei neri per i diritti civili sono potentemente diffamati . I loro happenings sono tutti disordine , ubriacatezza, droga e intemperanze sessuali. Non è certo la parte “buona” dell’america. La parte buona è evidenziata da Forrest , che casualmente capita in una di queste manifestazioni vestito in alta uniforme (è in licenza dal Vietnam , dove faceva il suo dovere ;mantiene la divisa perché — ci suggerisce la regia –ne è orgoglioso) . Viene proposto un party delle pantere nere ,cui partecipa Jenny l’amata di Forrest : alcol, droga e tutto il resto .Un giovane presentato come comunista , segretario di cellula ,picchia Jenny senza apparente motivo: si sa come sono i comunisti .La salva Forrest , nella sua divisa . Non sono opinioni del regista o dei produttori ; è propaganda dell’USIA.

6) Nel 1978 l’USIA ha stabilito con molta precisione come Hollywood deve rappresentare la guerra del Vietnam , sia dal punto di vista politico che tecnico-militare. Politicamente va detto , o dato per sottointeso , ch egli Usa intervennero per difendere il sud dalla minaccia comunista. Dal punto di vista militare non andavano assolutamente mostrati i bombardamenti di civili e tutta la guerra andava ridotta a una guerriglia nella foresta , con piccole pattuglie americane che si difendevano dai da proditori attacchi di elementi non in divisa .Panzane naturalmente, propaganda. Gli usa intervennero per assicurare a tutte le loro multinazionali le risorse del paese e dell’Indocina tutta ; interessavano particolarmente le foreste di alberi della gomma buoni per fare i pneumatici . I bombardamenti di civili erano quotidiani , e cosi fu per anni . E la guerra fu una classica guerra moderna, risolta non dai guerrieri Vietcong ma dalle artiglierie , e dalle divisioni corazzate, meccanizzate e di fanteria dell’esercito regolare del Vietnam del nord . E’ importante invece far credere che si sia trattato unicamente di guerriglia : si giustifica in qualche modo l’esito del conflitto .Invece ammettere una guerra regolare rivelerebbe una verità che gli usa vogliono tenere nascosta , la congenita e stupefacente debolezza delle loro forze di terra , che non sono in grado di battere nessun avversario , praticamente( nel 1968 , l’anno dell’offensiva del Tet , quando i carri armati del Vietnam del nord giunsero a Saigon , 540,000 equipaggiattissimi soldati americani appartenenti a 51 divisioni,appoggiati da una potentissima aviazione e serviti da 850.000 ascari Sudvietnamiti , avevano a che fare con il seguente avversario : 87400 regolari nord-vietnamiti ripartiti in 10 divisioni , 56000 Vietcong , altri 69000 guerriglieri sciolti , e 50800 elementi non combattenti addetti ai trasporti ,sanità propaganda e cosi via) Forrest va alla guerra in Vietnam e le sue vicende concordano con la versione USIA , COME è PER TUTTI GLI ALTRI FILM di Hollywood ,è ovvio . Non si parla dei motivi della guerra, ma se ci fosse stato qualcosa di losco l’intelligente e democratico tenete Dan lo avrebbe detto no? Quindi il combattimento a cui partecipa Forrest e tipico di quanto prescritto dall’Usia : la sua pattuglia cade in un’imboscata .Di carri armati Nordvietnamiti che avanzano in file serrate e di carri armati americani abbandonati dagli equipaggi in fuga non c’è traccia.

7)A parte come un cammeo va trattata una scena di Forrest in Vietnam. In una sequenza di pochi secondi si vede la pattuglia di F avanzare in perlustrazione col fucili spianato in una risaia , fra i contadini sud vietnamiti che rimangono chini a lavorare tranquilli sulle loro piantine , come se niente fosse .E’ una scena subliminale. Trasmette un messaggio preciso: che i contadini sud vietnamiti in generale –si fidavano degli americani , li consideravano amici e alleati. Una falsità; i sud vietnamiti , e i contadini in particolare , erano terrorizzati dai soldati usa . Basti ricordare l’episodio di May Lai , dove nel novembre 1968 la compagnia Charlie sterminò tutti gli abitanti perché nei pressi erano attivi guerrieri ; le vittime furono 500 , ed erano donne e bambini perché gli uomini erano a pesca. Esiste un filmato di tale operazione , girato da uno dei soldati .Da notare che Hollywood non ha mai tratto un film da tale episodio , che pur si presterebbe.

Analoga la scena in cui il reduce tenente Dan presenta la nuova moglie a F: nel doppiaggio italiano è definita una latino americana, ma ha i tratti somatici indocinesi , addirittura vietnamiti ( messaggio subliminale: i vietnamiti non ci tengono rancore , perchè non gli abbiamo fatto nulla di male) Nell’originale inglese la donna è definita “vietnamita”e cosi è il doppiaggio nei paesi meno evoluti.

9)Una sottile propaganda culturale è propinata da F podista .F corre a piedi per gli States senza mai dire nulla .La gente pensa che abbia qualche messaggio da comunicare e diversi giovani cominciano a trotterellargli dietro in attesa . Dopo tre anni e due mesi F si ferma ed i giovani pendono dalle sue labbra, ma lui dice “sono un pò stanchino”. penso che tornerò a casa . E’ una irrisione per coloro che attendono qualcosa dai pensatori , dagli ideologi , da tutti quelli che non ritengono soddisfacente il sistema americano e continuano a cercare. Per l’ USIA il sistema usa è perfetto e chi spera di trovare alternative è un illuso.

10) Nel film c’è un chiaro elogio al capitalismo americano . Dopo il Vietnam Forrest e il tenente Dan, uno semiritardato e l’altro senza gambe, diventano miliardari con la Budda Shrimp Company .Messaggio subliminale : sono due meritevoli e il sistema — che è giusto —- immancabilmente li premia , sia pure dopo averli fatti penare un po’. Si fa di più .Si suggerisce infatti — sempre per via sublimale – che è Dio stesso a guidare tale sistema : provoca una tempesta che elimina la flotta peschereccia della concorrenza. E’ l’dea fondamentale del Calvinismo , la religione americana : Dio fa arricchire i meritevoli , o gli insondabili prediletti , e manda a ramengo gli altri. Segue un po’ di propaganda subliminale della Apple Computers :Forrest e Dan si arricchiscono ulteriormente investendo in azioni di questa multinazionale , che diventa veicolo di positività e quindi positiva essa stessa. Diventati capitalisti consolidati i due fanno beneficenza : elargiscono donazioni alla parrocchia protestante locale, soccorrono finanziariamente la madre dell’amico nero Budda morto in Vietnam , e fondono un ospedale a Bayoula , il paesino dei pescatori di gamberetti rovinati dalla tempesta divina. .Nella vicenda è contenuta ( in via subliminale) una diffamazione dei neri : i pescatori di Bayoula ( paesino della Luisiana sul delta del Missisippi) sono tutti neri e sempre stati in miseria, ma ecco , arrivano due bianchi a fare il loro mestiere e diventano miliardari.

11) Forrest ha una vita punteggiata da contatti personali, benché fugaci con grandi personaggi pubblici : conosce Elvis Presley (cui addirittura ispira le tipiche movenze) ; incontra i presidenti J.F.K,L Jhonson e R.Nixon ( e ne innesca la caduta) partecipa casualmente ad una intervista televisiva di J. Lennon ; assiste all’attentato del governatore Wallace. Occorre in qualche modo rendere verosimile tale sequela di eventi pubblici e si ricorre ad altri strumenti sotterranei , che riguardano accettabili concatenazioni di eventi sul piano privato e predispongono ad accettare anche quello a livello pubblico . Il filo conduttore sono gli arti inferiori del corpo umano .Forrest bambino guarisce dalla poliomielite e diventa valido maratoneta .In Vietnam il tenente Dan lo ammonisce come prima cosa a tenere i piedi asciutti ( le risaie) Lo stesso tenente perde proprio le gambe .Il collegamento con la sfera pubblica avviene con il governatore Wallace , rimasto paralizzato nell’attentato , e su una sedia a rotelle , come il tenente Dan. Il tenete alla fine cammina con delle protesi che richiamano gli apparecchi portati da Forrest bambino.

12) Ma questa la lascio trovare a voi………vi do giusto un suggerimento. Andate a vedere la biografia di una certa Jean Seberg ( attrice assai nota negli usa ma anche in Europa ) e confrontatela con la figura di Jenny Curran l’amata di Forrest e vi stupirete delle analogie tra le due……………………

Molti lettori Italiani potranno obiettare di non aver mai sentito parlare della Seberg.Può darsi, ma altri si

Ci sono paesi poi dove la vicenda ebbe un eco maggiore che in Italia , inducendo strascichi più lunghi nella memoria .In Francia ad esempio e senz’altro negli USA. Non tutti i critici cinematografici europei inoltre sono come quelli italiani , o come Paolo Limiti odoratore di Hollywood e delle sue bionde star del passato ben si guarda dal citare anche minimamente la vicenda “ Seberg” .Povera Jean Seberg .Le diffamazioni dell’FBI la uccisero .Ora anche le diffamazioni di Hollywood pesano sulla sua tomba.

Giusto per solleticare la vostra curiosità fate qualche ricerca sul programma : COINTELPRO, oppure su qualche nome del tipo Huey Newton, Abbie Hoffaman, Bobby Seale, Holly Maddox o sul quel “ buon uomo” di Robert Maheu e della sua passione per certi filmetti pornografici ( ne sa qualcosa , sua malgrado il compianto M.L.King) e se non bastasse il “buon uomo” si ripete anche nei confronti del presidente dell’indonesia Sukarno e della cantante Eartha Kitt. Ma si sa …è tutto roba fatta in buonafede e che diamine !!

When the neo-cons, a group of liberal democrats realized Margret Thatcher was right in saying, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” they decided liberalism is as Michael Savage contends a mental disorder. In the 1970s and 80s they abandoned the Good Ship Democrat proclaiming themselves Born-Again Republicans. Generally they still carry the baggage of their former psychosis when it comes to social issues but when it comes to foreign affairs and military matters they sound like Errol Flynn playing George Custer in They Died With Their Boots On, “Don’t wait for orders from headquarters. Mount up everybody and ride to the sound of the guns.”
These neo-cons not only flew high into the circles of on-air talking-heads they swirled through the Bush White House leading us into Iraq. Now they’re beating the drums for massive reinforcements in Afghanistan.
The War in Iraq was a preemptive war, meaning we hit them back first. Preemptive war has a long history, the Romans and the Germans used it but this was the first time America climbed on the get-in-the-first-whack bandwagon. The mission of rolling the big rock up that steep hill has not yet been fully accomplished. Due to the tireless and valiant sacrifices of our heroic military the Iraqi theater is winding down into a perpetual garrison to make sure our now friendly ally remains friendly joining the list of American military garrisons in over 63 countries.
The War in Afghanistan is a completely different situation. The Taliban managed to subdue most of the country once the Soviet armies retreated in defeat. These purveyors of religious purity and peace killed tortured and maimed anyone with the chutzpa to disregard any of their religiously inspired rules such as little girls who tried to learn how to read or women who dared to leave the house without a male escort or without wearing a tent. Unable to curb their enthusiasm they didn’t forget to kill torture or maim any man who didn’t grow a long enough beard, boys who didn’t memorize their rule book fast enough and of course any member of the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendered society who happened to be trapped in their society. Under these turbaned and bearded fascists Saturday night soccer games were transformed into ritual be-headings and mutilations. Then for fun they would destroy historic works of art and crush people under walls as they waited for the Sunday stoning.
Stoically we considered all of these barbarous atrocities their own affair and never made a move to clean up this cesspool of 13th century evil until after the 9-11 war crimes. Then we politely asked them to kick the culprits out and we would let them go back to their celebration of depravity but they wouldn’t listen. They stood by their man and in retaliation we sent in the Special Ops, bribed anyone who would take a dollar in the hand in place of a bullet in the head and in short order drove Omar, Osama and their disciples of peace into Pakistan to fester and plot an encore performance. A confusing post-invasion coalition eventually morphed into the corrupt but pro-American Karzai regime.
Then our friends the neo-cons expressed their belief that the mistake we’d made after the proto-Taliban Mujahedeen we supported defeated the Soviets was that we didn’t stay and do some nation-building. So this time we stayed to do some nation-building. Today the regrouped Taliban are using the surge strategy to overwhelm our scattered troops. We’re trying to build a nation where none exists. Afghanistan is a fiction of western minds. We created it as single entity instead of a region. We drew it on a map and piously repeat that it exists like a mantra or a fever dream. To the medieval tribal people who actually inhabit the region their loyalty is to their family, their clan and their tribe.
It is apparent to everyone except seemingly the people American presidents ask for advice that no matter how much we want a nation to be built we don’t have the raw material as in identifiable citizens of a nation, the treasure or the patience to invest another decade or two to get electricity outside Kabul or democracy in Kabul. The whole world knows we are going to eventually bail-out, either declaring victory à la Nixon or admitting defeat à la Gorbachev and coming home. Why should one more American lose their life for a cause that has been stretched out way past our initial victory into our present morass?
On the campaign trail Mr. Obama claimed this war for himself. Since his inauguration he has repeated Afghanistan is a war of necessity. He’s installed his own commanders and almost immediately sent more troops. Now he hesitates to the point that everyone can see he doesn’t have the desire or the will to do what would be necessary to win. Let’s hope he has the political courage to withdraw before Afghanistan becomes the Little Big Horn with our brave troops as the Seventh Calvary. Please, Mr. Custer, we don’t want to go!
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College and History for the American Public University System. Contact Dr. Owens http://robertrowens.com/, http://twitter.com/Drrobertowens, http://drrobertowens.wordpress.com/ © 2009 Robert R. Owens

or: I’ll trade you civil liberties circa 1980, for the right to beat your wife circa 1920

or: If Glenn Beck were a decade, which one would he be?

For almost a year now, and even further back possibly, I have been fascinated with politics and punditry. I have become a self-proclaimed politico and I follow politics and media pretty closely, as closely as my tenuous hold on sanity will allow. In following politics my liberal mind has always been perplexed by the conservative party line of ‘returning to traditional American values’ and trying to recapture the ‘lost spirit of what it is to be an American’. In recent months it as been the loud ram’s horn call of Glenn Beck, and his ever growing audacity matched only by his ever growing audience, that has caused me to pontificate further on this subject. For the past few weeks this idea of lost values and traditional American fundamentals has led me to research where we might have gone wrong. Is there a specific time and place, a particular era that the GOP and other right-leaning hard-liners would want us to return to? If I can put my finger on the ethos that these guiding principles existed in, can we get back there? I delve in to this quagmire of American history to try and find “Glenn’s America”, so that he and others can stop preaching in general broad strokes and say, “we need to get back to what we believed in 19XX (or 18XX as it may be).”

When examining the general party ideas of what I understand to be the GOP’s fundamental idealogical structure I take my understanding from some 25 years on this planet, though you can’t count the first 16. I think that until you turn 17 and start trying to find yourself and begin to shape your views and identity in preparation for voting and contributing to society you are more of a blank slate in terms of personal free thought; up until this point you do not question a source but only try to fit in to the general parameters of ‘normal’ life as to not rock the boat and interfere with the indoctrination that American public schools instill in our youth. My true views have been shaped in my most recent years and as such I have adopted a view of the world quite different from my parents’, a direct result of informing myself for the first time in my life. In my home growing up as a small boy liberal leaders and democratic ideals warranted venom and crass, lewd criticism. The views I set forth will be of my own creation, independent of those I was raised on, either despite or in spite of them, I cannot tell. A crazy person isn’t crazy if he knows he’s crazy. Indeed.

The GOP seems to feel that gays should not marry, and are sinful. This makes no sense to me as sinful is a religious idea, not a political one; though it seems one position is quite often the result of the other. Gun rights should be protected at all costs to personal safety and public responsibility. Abortion is a no-no, ‘nuff said. They want smaller government, tax cuts, reform to let states decide things, though not gay marriage rights or any of the other items I just mentioned. They are for fiscal responsibility. GOP feels that a free market should regulate itself, again smaller government. They claim to fight for the middle class but public programs and universal anything is bad, that’s more government. They hate the environment as far as I can tell. Campaign finance reform (yeah right), education in America (no child left behind has gone so well after all). Prayer in school is ok, capital punishment and the death penalty are pretty much thumbs up, and the Ten Commandments should be at the steps of a courthouse flying the confederate flag. I am pretty close on this, right? So, basically it is a small government that has an abridged copy of the constitution, a cliff’s notes of the Bill of Rights, and a bible as it’s guiding principles. Hmmm, ok.

So, in American history, where can we find this utopia we strive for every day? This shangri-la we lost so long ago would obviously be the one saving grace for this country of godless sodomites. If we could only return to this point in time then everything would be fine. As far as I can tell it is the GOP that can save us if you believe the rhetoric. The liberals and the liberal media have scattered us across the nation and we are divided along partisan lines and are all doomed unless we jump on the Republican band wagon like some lifeboat after the Titanic sank. This is what self proclaimed “libertarian” Glenn Beck would like you to believe. I will give him credit for criticizing the government as a whole, even in the Bush days, though not in such inflammatory terms, but in reality he is like a Liber-publican. So, let’s take a step, Glenn, in to the way back machine and start a search for the time in American history you would like us to return to, as well as all of the Republican nay-sayers.

I want to start by saying that I am skipping the nineties completely being that he wasn’t happy with Clinton either, and it is far too close to the 21st century and the liberal progress this country has made; there is no way anyone wants to get back to how we were in the nineties, not even me and I loved my teen years in the nineties. And I am going to come back to the eighties later, they were too soon as well, but I will look at them briefly. We are sending our way back machine to a time when I think this country went bat-shit crazy and we were in maybe the most turmoil as a nation than anyone today can recall. I want to start out in the era that good old Glenn was born in, and that many of our current figure heads today, that make our decisions, can remember very ‘fondly’…the sixties.

Well I start here, in this decade of utter unrest by trying to illustrate that this can’t possibly be the America Glenn wants back. This cannot be the period in American history we want to recapture. This was a time that the late Strom Thurman must have hated with more zeal than any other period in history. It is hard to decide where to start. The sixties started out innocent enough, Kennedy beat Nixon and became the President, what followed was the Bay of Pigs incident, rumors about Marilyn, the meager beginning of Vietnam, the cuban missile crisis, then the man is assassinated. Further Vietnam BS, Malcolm X is killed, the Compton Cafeteria Riots in San Fran, then Nixon and all his Vietnam BS and his ‘secret plan to end the war’, the massive inflation crisis, MLK Jr. is killed, Bobby Kennedy is killed, the Stonewall riots of ’69, oh and a little thing who was named Manson did some killing. Great decade.

The sixties were a time of massive riots in the black and gay communities. Civil rights on all fronts tore the fabric of this country apart from women liberation, blacks, gays, even the Chicano revolution in this country. Outside of that was the acid wave of the sixties, a complete change in television, film, art, and especially music. The counterculture as it came to be known galvanized this country after the death of JFK, I think. The nice, homely manners of the 50’s were gone in a big way and now came very free thinkers, revolutionaries, protests exploded, demonstrations, inflation choked the middle class as they tried to compete with the changes in the landscape. The sixties were an ugly, hate-filled time, the emerging civil rights movement after the death of JFK was really the catalyst for it all. There is no way we want to return to the sixties as a country. America was in a violent turmoil and unsure of it’s identity and where the road we were on was going to lead us and people were strung out or scared for their lives, or both. I don’t think Glenn wants that back, so let’s move on.

How about we take a step forward and find Glenn in the seventies as a small boy, maybe these are the innocent and moral times he wants back…but I doubt it. Well in the seventies music really got good including the first ‘rap’ song, movies got weird, TV got lewd, and the country just got fucked up worse. This country started watching shows like All In The Family and the Brady bunch, dealing with some of the issues of the day. Vietnam choked the first few years while a little thing called Watergate slipped by the news press during Nixon’s re-election campaign and then killed him by ’74. It was the most embarrassing and shocking scandal in American political history, which in my opinion was the death of politics. I think that Nixon and his escalation of the doomed Vietnam war and his scandal killed the American political system. Outside of the US revolution was abundant across the world. Woodstock was a shining beacon of what drugs and music and mud can do for young people, a complete change from how we started the decade on the campus of Kent State where the National Guard gunned down peaceful protestors of the war on a college campus; unthinkable today, one would hope. The draft was the height of outrage, an unbelievable moment when Ali fought the draft and Elvis went in. Protest and anti-war sentiment was as widespread in this country as pant legs were flared. The Cold War ramped up a bit and this country got really scared, really fast. Our involvement in a few revolutions and military coupes as well as an assassination or two was a continuation of poor foreign affairs decisions. The middle east started down the road to where we are today with Israel, Egypt, Syria, the Soviet Union, and Afghanistan, all starting to kick each others asses.

The seventies brought women’s rights to the forefront as the sixties had civil rights for minorities eclipsing women’s rights to some extent. Vietnam ended finally, well our involvement, leaving the North to just wait for us to leave and drop Saigon to it’s knees and claim the country unified again. A sad end to a war we should have not been in and an end that was mostly our fault. Oh and lest I forget the massive recession we were in mixed with oil crises a couple of times resulting in rationing and further middle class stresses that included a very high unemployment rate. Then of course there was Jonestown, about 900 dead there. Idi Amin started his tyrannical, violent rule of Uganda as well. Is this the era we should return to? Hatred, war, violence, and tragedy pock marked this era. The seventies hold within their years scandal, racism, and fear-mongering, of the most epic scale one can imagine. There is no way we want to return to the moral or political views of this era. The seventies were the time for change for sure, but it came at great expense on the heels of a decade of radical change and upheaval. The 70’s continued the massive crime rate spikes that the sixties brought and the country still sat on the edge of it’s seat every day as nothing seemed to get better. Surely we don’t want the seventies back.

Ok, the eighties might be better, the days of Reagan and Bush, this might be the most likely time we want to return to. The eighties would be the most formidable years of Beck’s life; the decade of excess. The eighties brought the yuppie, and with it, all the coke, parties, and BMW’s we could handle. We saw great multinational growth and wall street was glamorous, they were kings then, still total scum, but they had better PR people then. Of course Reagan declared a War on Drugs, the Cold War raged to a massive scale. Sure, communism fell apart as did the Berlin Wall, but we saw the further mishandling of the middle east that is the source of our problems and involvement there today, can’t argue with that. Reagan put a major black eye on his presidency with the discovery of the Iran-Contra debacle that Oliver North was the mastermind behind. This country saw massive economic growth against the backdrop of very complicated and protracted battles all over the world including Asia, the middle east, central and south america, and ever Ireland with ‘the troubles’ brewing. (Only badass Irish would call a modern, religious civil war ‘the troubles’, an understatement to say the least)

The eighties, I think were a time of thinking that we could not be beaten, being the short attention span of Americans forgetting the seventies. We were coked out of our minds, living beyond our means, and we were kicking Commie ass. But the eighties, world wide, were complicated, painful growth, some democratic, but on the whole we saw massive famine and destruction abroad as the industrialized countries were making head way. The middle class of nations was being evaporated as the gap between rich and poor nations grew drastically. Domestic issues were tough though, as it seemed we were trying to use our power for good as a people with things like LiveAid and becoming more aware of issues in Africa and other countries, the eighties saw the rise of the religious right. They really got fired up on the gay issue and the discovery of AIDS, ‘the gay plague’. This country grew in many way, a decent decade I guess, I don’t really remember much of it but it seemed like a lot of people were having a lot of fun, safer fun.

Glenn probably liked the eighties, he used to be a liberal and an alcoholic, he draws a fine parallel between the two in a Katie Couric interview you should look up on YouTube, and this might have been his favorite time. Old enough to enjoy and understand it, he probably had a great time. Conservatives in power, strides made internationally, excess and money everywhere. The eighties were a wild party time, a decade that seemed to be a release of the past twenty years of hard work, growing pains, and controversial conflict. The 60’s and 70’s were going to lead inevitably to a time when we finally just cut loose and took a deep breath after so much bloodshed, upheaval, and serious talk. It was the decade we all remembered fondly on VH1. Music was weird, movies were great, TV was filled with classics we all watched, and standup comedians were making it big; the country was having a good laugh, a bump, and some beer. Not too bad.

I discount the nineties entirely so let’s jump back to a more general era I don’t think we can reasonably go back to, the 50’s to the 30’s. This was another era of massive wars, depression, civil rights injustice, bigotry, no women’s liberation, industrialization, organized crime, et al. These were times when blacks were openly hung from gallows, women were expected to be barefoot and pregnant in front of the stove, except when they were making tanks for the troops overseas for next to nothing wages. A time where minorities were rightfully scared at night of police or white boys out for a joyride. The prohibition, crime in the streets, Bonnie and Clyde, the Tommy gun, the B.A.R., saloons, speakeasy’s, and rampant bank robberies and crooked cops on the beat. This was a different time for this country and I don’t think we can agree with many of the ideals that were held to in this time and apply it today, the role of women alone is too much inequality to bare, let alone the rest.

OK, let’s take a big jump to my favorite era, the old west. You know the times, I’m talking post manifest destiny, pre-FBI. A time of no gun laws, showdowns in the streets, legal prostitutes, and riding in to town on a horse. Tombstone, San Francisco, Indian and cowboys. A time where gold was rushing and crazy white drunks ran amok and contracted TB and polio. Yes, when there were still a few Indians around, you had ranchers with thousands of acres, cattle drives, train robberies, and the men of storied legend lived and died by Winchester, Colt, and Smith&Wesson. I like to think I lived in the times with a town sheriff, shitty beer, floozies, and general martial law over most of the country. A time where you could shoot a man in the street in broad daylight in front of 50 people, and they might actually clap and then go about their day. The good times.

I think this might not be far enough back though. When I hear Glenn speak, he talks about the founding father’s principles. The true foundation of the country as he sees it with the men who earned America through blood, sweat, and tears. Jefferson’s America. OK, well let’s first examine the fact that we are talking late 1700’s and early 1800’s. These are pre-electric, pre-phone times. We are talking Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere, plantations, etc. If this is the time Glenn thinks we need to get back to I want to highlight a couple of things. First off, slavery was alive and well…need I say more? Secondly, this country treated women like shit, there were no civil rights, and it was unindustrialized. This country was populated and run by rich, white land owners, and then there was everybody else. I don’t want anyone to romanticize this era. This country was created, founded, and declared on the bodies of millions of natives and the death and suffering of minority races of people removed from their homes and treated worse than dogs in the time period.

America has never been truly righteous. We revolted for selfish reasons, nothing simpler than that. We turned against the imperialism of the Queen and her rule and declared our independence; the worst “dear John” letter ever. Up to that point we had slaughtered, tricked, infected, raped, and pillaged our way to the Mississippi and thought very highly of white skin and could kill a black man for any reason at any time, or sell them, whatever struck our fancy. What I am about to say is going to piss off the right, but if I could meet George Washington I think I would take the opportunity to shake his hand and then slap the wooden teeth out of his head. These were racist white bigots with an knack for the written word and hard on for ‘freedom’ by their definition as it applied to them as an emerging nation of first class citizens at the top of the shit pile. All due respect, but their ideas and principles were fundamentally offensive and their beliefs of equality were for themselves and those they agreed with. How many minorities or women were running around enjoying their freedom of speech or right to bare arms…or even read? I rest my case.

So maybe Glenn does have a time in mind. Maybe he wants the scandalous, violent 70’s, or the civil unrest and inequality of the 60’s. The old west certainly had smaller/non-existent national government, and the 40’s sure were good times to be a gangster, Nixon would have done well, that’s for sure. The eighties surely had the best coke, and some unprecedented growth, outside of post-industrialized America (without all of these pesky labor laws we got). Maybe he wants the great depression era, maybe to live amongst the greatest generation, or rub elbows with white men who raped their slaves on their plantation as a matter of principle and patriotism. The history of America is short, embarrassing, and seemingly without a lesson learned throughout. Glenn, I dare you and your constituents to point out that shining beacon in American history that is so much better than now, ‘cause I must have missed it. All those moments have led up to now, and I’ll be damned if where we are isn’t a hell of a lot better than where we were; you can pry this progress from my cold dead hands, pal.

Kolme vuotta sitten silloinen liittovaltion syyttäjä John McKay oli lähellä etulinjoja valtion huumeiden vastaisessa sodassa.

McKay johti läntisessä Washingtonissa liittovaltion syyttämistoimia kunnes hänet erotti sama hallinto, joka oli hänet nimittänytkin. McKayn toimisto lähetti kannabiksen salakuljettajia ja kasvattajia vankilaan kärsimään vuosikymmenien pituisia tuomioita. He syyttivät myös erästä tiettyä suurisuista kanadalaista kannabisaktivistia, joka oli myynyt kasvin siemeniä postimyynnillä.

Joten Edmonds auditorion yleisö oli ymmärrettävästi yllättynyt kun McKay julisti lavalla yhdessä matkailukirjailijan ja dekriminalisaation puoltajan Rick Stevesin kanssa, että “tietenkin hän vastustaa typeriä lakeja”. “Olen sitä mieltä, että ajatusmallin on pakko muuttua”, sanoi McKay, nykyinen Seattlen yliopiston professori. “Oikeanlainen käytäntöjen muutos tarkoittaisi valtiomme huumelakien perinpohjaista läpikäymistä.”

McKay oli mukana Stevesin ja Amerikan kansalasoikeusliiton (ACLU) järjestämässä keskustelutilaisuudessa, jossa etsittiin järkevää tapaa puhua Yhdysvaltojen huumelaeista. Mukana keskustelemassa oli Egil “Bud” Krogh, entinen Nixonin hallinnon virkamies, joka niitti kyseenalaista mainetta Watergate-skandaalin yhteydessä ja Demokraattien kongressiedustaja Mary Helen Roberts, joka vitsaili kollegoiden nimittäneen häntä “Luoteis-Washingtonin kannabiskuningattareksi” hänen pyrkimyksistään lääkekannabislakien uudistamiseen.

Vaikka keskustelijat eivät olleet yhtä mieltä kaikista kysymyksistä, kaikkien mielestä  tarvitaan huomattavaa muutosta kannabiksen säännöstelemisessä ja siitä jaetuissa rangaistuksissa. Jokainen heistä myös puhui vaaleilla valittujen virkamiesten peloista, tai rohkeuden puutteesta, aineeseen liittyvissä kysymyksissä. Steves ja ACLU aloittivat viime vuonna kampanjan osaksi vastauksena noihin pelkoihin. “Kannabis: on keskustelun aika” -tietoiskun ympärille rakentuva hanke koettaa rohkaista kansalaisia puhumaan asiasta avoimesti.

“Tämä aihe on on monien mielestä pelottava”, Steves sanoi. “Minulla on ystäviä jotka vastustavat sitä mitä teen, koska he ovat huolissaan lapsistaan. Asia, jota he eivät ymmärrä on se, että niin olemme mekin.”

Kaiken ikäisistä ja tyylisistä ihmisistä koostuvalle yleisölle puhuessaan Roberts sanoi, että nykyinen laki kohdistuu epäoikeudenmukaisella tavalla vähemmistöihin. Pohjimmiltaan laki hänen mukaansa ajaa lainvalvonnan viranomaiset jahtaamaan ihmisiä, jotka ovat helpointa saalista, vaikka heidän toimensa tulisivat tehokkaammin käytetyksi muualla.

Samaan aikaan Robertsin mukaan lainsäätäjät, jopa ne, joiden mielestä lait ovat epäoikeudenmukaisia kannabiksen kohdalla, pelkäävät leimaantuvansa pehmeiksi rikoksia vastaan. “Yhteisönä ja yhteiskuntana me pelkäämme rikoksia”, Roberts sanoi. “Ja jos sitä mitä teemme, nimitetään ‘lepsuksi’ rikosten vastaisessa taistelussa, jopa ilman yksityiskohtaista keskustelua, lainsäätäjät reagoivat siihen kielteisesti.”

Roberts sanoi myös, että lainsäädäntöelinten on pakko muuttaa Washingtonin osavaltion lääkekannabislakia, koska se ei hänen mukaansa suojele potilaita asianmukaisella tavalla. McKayn mukaan sellaiset muutokset eivät tosin käsittele valtion kannabislakien laajempia ongelmia.

Vaikka Obaman hallinto on ottanut samanlaisen kannan lääkekannabikseen kuin mitä hän ajoi liittovaltion syyttäjänä, eli että liittovaltion toimijat eivät sekaantuisi osavaltioiden lääkekannabislainsäädäntöön, McKayn mukaan se, että liittovaltion virastot jättävät kongressin säätämät lait huomioimatta, ei riitä. “Liittovaltion laki tekee minkä tahansa kannabismäärän hallussapidosta rikollista”, McKay sanoi. “Eli vaikka jollakulla on suositus lääkäriltään, liittovaltion viranomainen saattaa pidättää hänet. Se on yksinkertaisesti huonoa käytäntöä.”

McKay syytti kongressia kyvyttömyydestä tehdä aloitetta asiassa. Ei ole liittovaltion syyttäjien tai viranomaisten paikka tehdä politiikkaa, hän sanoi, eikä valkoisen talon yksin pitäisi myöskään tehdä sitä. Loppujen lopuksi, McKay esitti, kannabista ei pidä niputtaa yhteen kokaiinin, metamfetamiinin ja heroiinin kanssa, osana huumeiden vastaista sotaa. Kannabislakien pitäisi hänen mukaansa olla “paljon enemmän alkoholisäännösten tapaisia ja paljon vähemmän kokaiini- ja metamfetamiinilakien kaltaisia”.

Lähde:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412363_pot16.html?source=mypi

I was a kid for most of the fabulous Sixties, but by the very end of the decade I was in high school, and by the time the Seventies began I was at university. So I missed some of the good parts—the free speech movement, the early days of the civil rights movement, the free love movement—and what I remember best about the years of 1968 through 1974 was how tense everybody was, all the time.

Divisive politics—hardhats versus hippies—were on everybody’s mind, and back then the stakes were high. Tens of thousands of mostly blue-collar kids went off to fight a war without the support of the citizens they were serving; many of those kids never got the chance to grow up. Other kids, smart enough or at least well-off enough to go to college, used student deferments to postpone or avoid the draft. From that latter group, here and there sprang up groups such as SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and the Weathermen. Most of the men and women in these organizations were not terrorists of the Bill Ayers-Bernadine Dohrn variety, but they were passionate in their opposition to the Viet Nam War, vehemently “anti-establishment,” and united in their hatred of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, who inherited the mess President Kennedy made when he diddled with the balance of power in Southeast Asia.

I shared none of these deep emotions, and I did not understand them. I’d flee the campus scene if a large demonstration was in the offing. I never chanted “hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.” I didn’t feel the visceral, soul-draining hatred of Richard Nixon that ate at the gut of so many of my contemporaries even unto today. For me, politics was somewhere between a sport and an intellectual challenge: I watched, I listened, I formed opinions, I mouthed off—but I did not dwell in a house of doom. It seemed to me that the United States had weathered centuries of good interrupted by bad, very bad, times and would therefore continue as at always had, an imperfect union ruled by imperfect law imperfectly administered at times but with built-in mechanisms for righting wrongs.

When the Sixties finally wound down in the mid-Seventies, with Nixon “in exile in San Clemente” and President Carter presiding over eighteen percent inflation rates, I’d occasionally wonder why Nixon was still a punching bag, but occasional wonder was about it. When Reagan ran for president I was skeptical and a little embarrassed to tell the truth that an actor could aspire to “the highest office in the land.” So I was at least prepared for the spew of venom that drenched him and Nancy Reagan after the election. In 1980 it seemed as if the end of days were at hand. The country was being governed by an “out-of-touch” “Teflon” old geezer and his shrew of a wife. Reagan delegated too much. As old as he was, he nevertheless provided fresh meat for the Sixties squad—Nixon’s history, now let’s hate Reagan. Reagan’s “morning in America” became “mourning in America,” for many a clever leftie.

George Bush was elected on Reagan’s coattails and suffered much of the same irrational emotional response. His notion of a “kinder, gentler nation” was ridiculed; his ideas about community service—“A Thousand Points of Light”—mocked or ignored by the left, who prefigured their portmanteau “[GW] BushHitler” with “ReaganBush,” as if the two administrations were a monolith of fat-cat politics out to get the little guy. By this time I was working and living in a community that prides itself on politics so left-of-center that it once declared Linda Jenness its patron saint. So President Clinton’s election was greeted with joy in the streets, and sweetness and light obtained until nasty Congressional Republicans took out their “contract on America.” Newt Gingrich was evil incarnate, and forget about monsters like Henry Hyde, Bob Barr and other Republicans in the House and Senate who ganged up on the president to impeach him for—well, you know what for.

The eight years of BushHitler that followed President Clinton’s two terms in many ways brought me back to the Sixties, more so certainly than any of the preceding decades. Bush was stupid. Bush was evil. Bush was crooked. Bush was a cokehead. Bush was Cheney’s puppet. Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing to prevent it. Bush suspended our civil liberties. Bush wanted to know what library books you were checking out. Bush wanted to avenge his daddy in Iraq. Bush dodged the draft. On and on and on…if you could say it, think it, or make it up, about George Bush it was probably true…after all, he was a traitor to his class: in spite of two Ivy degrees, he’d somehow avoided drinking the Kool-Aid of socially acceptable leftism, so that was strike one. And he espoused bourgeois values of home, hard work and religion so that was strike two. No matter that he wore none of them on his sleeve. And he pretty much didn’t give a damn about America’s enemies, excepting for wanting them stopped. Strike three. The pulsating, consuming, ice-hot hatred lavished on Richard Nixon at long last had a new prince of darkness on which its practitioners could fixate.

No matter how hard I tried, I could not wrap my mind around the genuine emotional investment of the haters. Many of them were colleagues, some friends. In other areas of life they seemed like good people, stable and kind, but mention the B(H)-word and they’d start foaming at the mouth. Although I did not understand them, I did not doubt the sincerity or the depths of their emotions. These people really and truly thought one man and his gang of political cronies were using the United States as their piggy bank and plaything. I didn’t get it.

But now of course I do, and I owe all of them an apology. For what I had been reading as hatred for forty years was something else entirely: terror. These people weren’t eaten up on the inside from hatred; they were terrified for the future of their country. Afraid of the fragility of their American way of life. Anxious that their Constitution was imperiled. I am sorry that I didn’t understand these people. Ces’t moi.

“A opinião de um círculo de pessoas que mentem é apenas um monte de rostos vazios. Houve uma época em que as pessoas morriam antes de mentir, mas hoje em dia qualquer pessoa que é verdadeira é vista como um estúpido, um palhaço tolo, até mesmo pelos olhos das crianças. Mentir é o modo americano de vida, e em poucos anos tudo se tornou amargo. Nós esperamos que os criminosos mintam, mas apenas um criminoso honesto, que não mente, é capaz de fazer parte do crime. Em negócios com drogas e coisas assim, a sua palavra precisa ser boa, ou você morre. Por outro lado, para se tornar grande no governo e na política você precisa mentir. A coisa toda na política é enganar o público. Eu sabia quando Nixon disse ‘Eu não sou um criminoso’ que ele iria se esconder e jogar a culpa sobre os criminosos.

A justiça de Deus, a justiça do homem, e a justiça do dinheiro. As pessoas que fazem as regras as fazem porque elas passam as suas vidas correndo em círculos, quebrando essas leis. Elas quebram todas as leis que elas fazem, elas contam mentiras, enganações, e depois elas fazem tudo de novo e assim o vórtex continua. Se eu pudesse descobrir como as leis de visitação são, seria um truque interessante. Eu vejo alguns policiais por aí, mas é difícil achar um que me olhe nos olhos, e muito menos que converse comigo mais de 30 segundos. Medo e culpa nesse nível são muito altos. Eles me fazem parecer ruim para que eles possam parecer bons. Quantos mais erros eles cometem contra mim, mais eles acobertam tudo.

A justiça de Deus entra em cena, e eles tem acidentes com carros, pernas quebradas, ataques cardíacos, mas o dinheiro recruta mais uma leva de lavadores de prato e pessoas que são incapazes de fazer mais do que isso, e se eu lhe contasse as regras, até você chegar aqui eles já teriam mudado elas de novo, se eles não gostassem do seu chapéu, ou se os seus tênis fossem engraçados, ou qualquer outra besteira assim. Mas se você viesse, eu seria colocado em correntes, e passaria por onde os outros andam desacorrentados, levado por uma mocinha de um metro e meio que trabalha aqui há somente duas semanas, ou algo assim. A minha vida seria colocada na linha, levado em meio aos corredores abertos algemado. Ao mesmo tempo, eu sou mantido longe dos corredores abertos, e eles dizem que é porque eles temem pela minha segurança. Eles não esperam que todos se comportem de acordo com as leis – isso os deixaria sem emprego. Eles precisam de medo e crimes para oferecer proteção ao público. É você quem paga e precisa de proteção. E depois que eles mentem para vocês, e dizem o quão ruim eu sou, eles se sentem culpados, e pensam que eu estou indo atrás deles, e aí são eles quem precisam de proteção. Aí eu fico nervoso com as pessoas que pagam para os policiais me matarem para que elas possam se sentir seguras em suas próprias mentiras.

E isso continua em um ciclo até que eu seja morto, e aí todos vão para a igreja e dizem que Deus deu o seu único filho. Eles dizem que eles não mataram CM, porque foi o juiz quem fodeu com tudo em algumas regrinhas. Eu teria saído andando daquele tribunal, mas havia muito dinheiro para ser feito. E para condenar um babaca por 900 milhões de dólares eles venderam ao público esse homem louco, e me fizeram ser isso, e me destruíram. E na justiça de Deus isso retorna no círculo em que todos correm. As notícias têm todos me odiando e tentando me matar. Eu tenho sido a última galinha na fila, e toda vez que o círculo passa por mim, ele produz mais medo, mais culpa, e todas as regras são quebradas. Quando eu morrer, uma nova religião existirá, e o balanço da justiça não permitirá sobrar muita carne. A justiça dos homens foi perdida em troca da justiça do dinheiro, e quem não mentiria por 400 milhões de dólares? Um livro fez 12,50 dólares por cópia vendida, e vendeu 27 milhões de cópias, sem contar os filmes, etc. Se eu tivesse algum dinheiro, eu não estaria em uma jaula agora. Mas eles até fizeram leis falando que eu não posso fazer dinheiro.

-Charles Manson”

© 2009 ATWA Brasil