My fellow blogger, Jack Jodell, posted a wonderful quote on his blog which reminded me of what conservatism (at least the modern version of it) is all about. It reads like this:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest excuses in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith
Galbraith nailed it. This rapaciousness is at the heart of everything a right-winger holds sacred. Just listen to Republican mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh ranting about how Obama's stimulus package is ruining intitiative and punishing producers. He sees America as a place where it's every man for himself. We are not our brother's keepers (even though the Bible says we are and fundamentalist preachers pound the Bible at their congregations every week). And if businesses fail, workers get fired, families are foreclosed, people go bankrupt, and the nation falls into financial ruin...so what. It doesn't affect Rush and the other landed wealthy. They have theirs; let others fend for themselves.
Who are these people Limbaugh calls "producers"? They're not the rank-and-file workers because he hates blue collar laborers, especially unionists. They're not the middle class which nearly got legislated into oblivion by Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. They're not the richest of the rich...most have inherited their dough...or they have simply bought and sold enterprises and workers as if they were cattle; they have produced nothing.
"Producers" is just an empty phrase used by the wealthy trying to protect their own wealth. In fact, that is the central motivation of all conservative wealth--protect what I have. That's why we went to Vietnam...wealthy conservatives worried that yellow hordes were going to come and take what they had. That's why we went to Iraq...wealthy oil conservatives were afraid that Muslims were going to control all the oil. (There's an added bonus in making war...conservative defense contractors get richer.) That's why conservative wealth wants those who do not have their wealth to remain uninformed, divided, without representation, diverted by gadgetry, and sedated by religion. If there is no God, then the people will revolt for social justice, for then social justice is the only form of heaven one can attain. Therefore, conservatives must force God down our throats.
Yet in their heart of hearts, conservatives are evolutionists. They know it's a jungle out there and only the wealthy survive. It's always been dog-eat-dog and every man for himself in American conservative dogma. That's its ultimate hypocrisy. The conservatives who claim God is at the center of the American dream (and, by the way, the American dream for a conservative is merely to accumulate as much wealth as possible) are the same conservatives who practice Darwinism in their daily lives.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Listen to my interview on BlogTalk Radio Taped 3/5
Kelly Wallace interviewed me about my book, etc. If you'd like to listen, here's the link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/strategic-talk-radio/2009/03/05/interview-with-timothy-fleming-author-of-murder-of-an-american-nazi
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/strategic-talk-radio/2009/03/05/interview-with-timothy-fleming-author-of-murder-of-an-american-nazi
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Top 10 Oscar Snubs
Looking back over the history of the Academy Awards, I find it astounding how many worthy films were overlooked. The most egregious snubs occurred in 1960, when three classic films were not even nominated, and in 1976 and 2008, when the worst of the five films nominated actually won the Best Picture Oscar. But nearly every year had its injustices, and, like any other industry, Hollywood often lets politics, cronyism, and grudges outweigh merit. Here are the Top 10 Best Picture snubs, starting with the least appalling and counting down to the most appalling:
10) Tennessee Williams' steamy stageplay, "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," got a cinematic makeover in 1958, and its exploration of familial hypocrisy and sexual identity was ahead of its time. Burl Ives and Paul Newman were exceptional as Big Daddy and Brick; Elizabeth Taylor, though at times a little too breathless and emotional, made Maggie's sexual hunger palpable. Such memorable scenes as Big Daddy's recollection of his hobo father and Brick's trashing of his father's "worthless" valuables were ignored by the Academy, which inexplicably voted for "Gigi."
9) Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" lost to "My Fair Lady" in 1964. While I admit that "Lady" was one of the best musicals ever made, no film before or since is comparable to "Strangelove." Kubrick infused his masterpiece with exquisite black-and-white photography, black humor, timely Cold War commentary, and unforgettable performances. Peter Sellers' three characters are as distinct and original as if they'd each been played by separate actors, and the other actors--George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, and Slim Pickens--are devilishly funny. The story shatters American military mythology and presages disasters such as Vietnam and Iraq. 45 years later, the film is still relevant.
8) 1951--"An American in Paris" beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire." Sure, Gene Kelly's dance number is a classic, but "American" has not much use for plot or narrative thrust. It is an average film elevated by Kelly and his athleticism. Hollywood must have owed him one. Meanwhile, Kazan and Brando created a landmark in American cinema. Actors and directors today still refer to this movie as a kind of watershed moment in the evolution of film in this country.
7) 1963--"Tom Jones," a British film directed by Tony Richardson, was ground-breaking in many respects (the quick cuts and the liberated sexual attitude), but it beat out a superior film--"Hud." This is possibly Paul Newman's best job on screeen, and James Wong Howe's cinematography has never left me. Newman plays a compelling Texas heel as if he was born to the part. Howe's depiction of the vast barrenness of the Texas landscape is as appealing as Hud's exterior and as desolate as his soul.
6) 1952--"High Noon" lost to "The Greatest Show On Earth." Think about that for a minute. A circus movie beat out one of the all-time greats. Cecil B. DeMille directed "Greatest Show," and maybe this was Hollywood's way of giving him a Lifetime Achievement Award. But Fred Zinneman's western is more than just a shoot-em-up. It was a metaphor for personal integrity in a time when congress was on a witch hunt, persecuting individuals for their personal politics. It took bravery to stand for one's principles when everyone else was running for cover.
5) 1971--"The French Connection" won the Oscar instead of "Last Picture Show." I know I'll get arguments about this one. I admit that "Connection" was highly entertaining, and Friedkin's hard-bitten direction and thrilling car chase stand out. But I prefer the elegant, black-and-white existentialism of Bogdanovich's film. The acting was first-rate, especially Ben Johnson's subdued, sad portrayal of Old Sam. The story of a dying era, embodied in a remote, dusty Texas town, evoked that greatest of all American themes--lost innocence.
4) 2008--"Slumdog Millionnaire" won despite being the worst of the five films nominated. Readers of this blog know my disdain for this movie (see previous posts), so I won't elaborate here...except to say, it lacked the epic, heartfelt sweep of "Benjamin Button," the righteous indignation of "Milk," the credible fiction of "The Reader," and the surprising suspense of "Frost/Nixon."
3) 1939--In a strong year, "Gone With The Wind" beats out "The Wizard of Oz," "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," "Wuthering Heights," "Of Mice and Men," "Stagecoach," and "Good-Bye Mr. Chips." Any one of the losers should have beaten the winner. See my thoughts on GWTW in a previous post.
2) 1960--Before I researched the winners and losers in the Academy archives, I made educated guesses as to the winning film in each year. "The Apartment," 1960's best film, never came to mind. A long-forgotten Billy Wilder/Jack Lemmon film, it contains plenty of overacting, contrived circumstances, and forced humor...just like the Wilder/Lemmon collaboration the year prior--"Some Like It Hot" (maybe the most overrated comedy of all time). Many believed Wilder's Oscar made up for the "Hot" snub in 1959. Also nominated in 1960 was John Wayne's "The Alamo," a bloated, heavy-handed movie that did not deserve the honor. Wayne bullied the Academy into nominating "Alamo" by taking out trade ads claiming it would be un-American to snub "Alamo." But 1960 is most notable for the classics which were not nominated--"Psycho," "Inherit The Wind," and "Spartacus."
1) 1976--The cloyingly heart-warming "Rocky" beats out four worthier films--"Taxi Driver," Martin Scorsese's brilliant exploration of alienation and violence in urban America; "Network," written by one of the great screenwriters of all time, Paddy Chayefsky; "All The President's Men," a timeless and engaging political drama; and "Bound For Glory," the underrated biopic of Woody Guthrie. Rocky's tale of the underdog making good is as old as film itself, but it does not compare with the artistry of the losers.
10) Tennessee Williams' steamy stageplay, "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," got a cinematic makeover in 1958, and its exploration of familial hypocrisy and sexual identity was ahead of its time. Burl Ives and Paul Newman were exceptional as Big Daddy and Brick; Elizabeth Taylor, though at times a little too breathless and emotional, made Maggie's sexual hunger palpable. Such memorable scenes as Big Daddy's recollection of his hobo father and Brick's trashing of his father's "worthless" valuables were ignored by the Academy, which inexplicably voted for "Gigi."
9) Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" lost to "My Fair Lady" in 1964. While I admit that "Lady" was one of the best musicals ever made, no film before or since is comparable to "Strangelove." Kubrick infused his masterpiece with exquisite black-and-white photography, black humor, timely Cold War commentary, and unforgettable performances. Peter Sellers' three characters are as distinct and original as if they'd each been played by separate actors, and the other actors--George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, and Slim Pickens--are devilishly funny. The story shatters American military mythology and presages disasters such as Vietnam and Iraq. 45 years later, the film is still relevant.
8) 1951--"An American in Paris" beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire." Sure, Gene Kelly's dance number is a classic, but "American" has not much use for plot or narrative thrust. It is an average film elevated by Kelly and his athleticism. Hollywood must have owed him one. Meanwhile, Kazan and Brando created a landmark in American cinema. Actors and directors today still refer to this movie as a kind of watershed moment in the evolution of film in this country.
7) 1963--"Tom Jones," a British film directed by Tony Richardson, was ground-breaking in many respects (the quick cuts and the liberated sexual attitude), but it beat out a superior film--"Hud." This is possibly Paul Newman's best job on screeen, and James Wong Howe's cinematography has never left me. Newman plays a compelling Texas heel as if he was born to the part. Howe's depiction of the vast barrenness of the Texas landscape is as appealing as Hud's exterior and as desolate as his soul.
6) 1952--"High Noon" lost to "The Greatest Show On Earth." Think about that for a minute. A circus movie beat out one of the all-time greats. Cecil B. DeMille directed "Greatest Show," and maybe this was Hollywood's way of giving him a Lifetime Achievement Award. But Fred Zinneman's western is more than just a shoot-em-up. It was a metaphor for personal integrity in a time when congress was on a witch hunt, persecuting individuals for their personal politics. It took bravery to stand for one's principles when everyone else was running for cover.
5) 1971--"The French Connection" won the Oscar instead of "Last Picture Show." I know I'll get arguments about this one. I admit that "Connection" was highly entertaining, and Friedkin's hard-bitten direction and thrilling car chase stand out. But I prefer the elegant, black-and-white existentialism of Bogdanovich's film. The acting was first-rate, especially Ben Johnson's subdued, sad portrayal of Old Sam. The story of a dying era, embodied in a remote, dusty Texas town, evoked that greatest of all American themes--lost innocence.
4) 2008--"Slumdog Millionnaire" won despite being the worst of the five films nominated. Readers of this blog know my disdain for this movie (see previous posts), so I won't elaborate here...except to say, it lacked the epic, heartfelt sweep of "Benjamin Button," the righteous indignation of "Milk," the credible fiction of "The Reader," and the surprising suspense of "Frost/Nixon."
3) 1939--In a strong year, "Gone With The Wind" beats out "The Wizard of Oz," "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," "Wuthering Heights," "Of Mice and Men," "Stagecoach," and "Good-Bye Mr. Chips." Any one of the losers should have beaten the winner. See my thoughts on GWTW in a previous post.
2) 1960--Before I researched the winners and losers in the Academy archives, I made educated guesses as to the winning film in each year. "The Apartment," 1960's best film, never came to mind. A long-forgotten Billy Wilder/Jack Lemmon film, it contains plenty of overacting, contrived circumstances, and forced humor...just like the Wilder/Lemmon collaboration the year prior--"Some Like It Hot" (maybe the most overrated comedy of all time). Many believed Wilder's Oscar made up for the "Hot" snub in 1959. Also nominated in 1960 was John Wayne's "The Alamo," a bloated, heavy-handed movie that did not deserve the honor. Wayne bullied the Academy into nominating "Alamo" by taking out trade ads claiming it would be un-American to snub "Alamo." But 1960 is most notable for the classics which were not nominated--"Psycho," "Inherit The Wind," and "Spartacus."
1) 1976--The cloyingly heart-warming "Rocky" beats out four worthier films--"Taxi Driver," Martin Scorsese's brilliant exploration of alienation and violence in urban America; "Network," written by one of the great screenwriters of all time, Paddy Chayefsky; "All The President's Men," a timeless and engaging political drama; and "Bound For Glory," the underrated biopic of Woody Guthrie. Rocky's tale of the underdog making good is as old as film itself, but it does not compare with the artistry of the losers.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Top 10 Most Undeserving Oscar Winning Pictures of All Time
My lack of enthusiasm for "Slumdog Millionnaire" got me thinking. Surely there have been worse pictures to win an Oscar, right? Yeah, but just barely. Here's my list, with the worst of all time ranked #1:
10) 1949--"All The King's Men." I loved this film when I was a kid, because it's story of corruption and intrigue was compelling. But I viewed it again recently (not the lugubrious re-make with Sean Penn and Jude Law a few years ago) and was shocked at how dated it was. Today we expect our politicians to be seriously flawed, and government contract money is always dirty. Moreover, Broderick Crawford's performance is so over-the-top that it's laughable in retrospect.
9) 1956--"Around The World in 80 Days." The story of a 19th century balloonist who is on the run from authorities, but still has time to vacation in exotic lands, seems such a trifle that Price-Waterhouse must have miscounted the Oscar ballots. David Niven underplays as always, and that's good, but some actor named Cantinflas ruins every scene they are in together. This is a mess, and I have no idea what Hollywood was thinking when honoring this film.
8) 1958--"Gigi." The first of a whole slew of musicals ("West Side Story," "My Fair Lady," "The Sound of Music," etc.) to win Best Picture in the following decade, this is by far the worst of the lot. If you consider Maurice Chevalier warbling "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" entertaining, well...I don't know what to say. This held no appeal for me.
7) 2003--"The Lord of the Rings: Return of the Kings." Did you ever see those dorky kids, dressed in medieval costumes, playing "Dungeons and Dragons" in the park on a Sunday afternoon? That's what I felt like when I went to see this film. I walked out as soon as Wizard Gandalf made his first appearance. Elijah Wood played the hobbit Frodo...oh, hell, I'm embarassed to just say these names out loud.
6) 1952--"The Greatest Show on Earth." Beware of talkies made by Cecil B. DeMille. This picture is hopelessly dated. It might have worked as a documentary on circus carnies, but DeMille had to inject his heavy-handed melodrama. It is hard to watch Charlton Heston and Dorothy LaMour emote. And Jimmy Stewart, for some reason, plays a circus clown.
5) 2008--"Slumdog Millionnaire." Contrived, manipulative, and predictable...Dev Patel is not the worst actor I've ever seen, but close. (See my full review of this movie in a previous post).
4) 1992--"Unforgiven." Okay, I know this is Clint Eastwood's masterpiece, and his mea culpa to his violent past in films. But, when broken down, it is little more than a conventional oater. Gene Hackman, who was nominated in a supporting role, is simply awful. And the final shootout is too stylized and fake.
3) 1983--"Terms of Endearment." Though well-acted by all, this film is too "precious" for me. It would have been an amusing romantic comedy had the writers not taken the easy way to the Academy Awards by having the young mother die of cancer. Forced and cloying, this device makes all performances just too precious for words. Even Jack Nicholson, who, by the end, is sufficiently neutered to be palatable to the soap opera lovers.
2) 1996--"The English Patient." Skewered by a classic "Seinfeld" episode this film has become an homage to self-parody. It is too long, too contrived and too weepy to be taken seriously.
1) 1939--"Gone With The Wind." I watched the first ten minutes recently, and I was dumbstruck by the light-hearted playfulness of the opening sequence. As if David O. Selznick was returning us to the happy-go-lucky days of slavery. I've never been a southern sympathizer, yet GWTW tries to induce this sentiment in the viewer. Besides this, the acting is the epitome of superficial exteriorizing.
Next post will be the 10 most deserving films that got overlooked.
10) 1949--"All The King's Men." I loved this film when I was a kid, because it's story of corruption and intrigue was compelling. But I viewed it again recently (not the lugubrious re-make with Sean Penn and Jude Law a few years ago) and was shocked at how dated it was. Today we expect our politicians to be seriously flawed, and government contract money is always dirty. Moreover, Broderick Crawford's performance is so over-the-top that it's laughable in retrospect.
9) 1956--"Around The World in 80 Days." The story of a 19th century balloonist who is on the run from authorities, but still has time to vacation in exotic lands, seems such a trifle that Price-Waterhouse must have miscounted the Oscar ballots. David Niven underplays as always, and that's good, but some actor named Cantinflas ruins every scene they are in together. This is a mess, and I have no idea what Hollywood was thinking when honoring this film.
8) 1958--"Gigi." The first of a whole slew of musicals ("West Side Story," "My Fair Lady," "The Sound of Music," etc.) to win Best Picture in the following decade, this is by far the worst of the lot. If you consider Maurice Chevalier warbling "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" entertaining, well...I don't know what to say. This held no appeal for me.
7) 2003--"The Lord of the Rings: Return of the Kings." Did you ever see those dorky kids, dressed in medieval costumes, playing "Dungeons and Dragons" in the park on a Sunday afternoon? That's what I felt like when I went to see this film. I walked out as soon as Wizard Gandalf made his first appearance. Elijah Wood played the hobbit Frodo...oh, hell, I'm embarassed to just say these names out loud.
6) 1952--"The Greatest Show on Earth." Beware of talkies made by Cecil B. DeMille. This picture is hopelessly dated. It might have worked as a documentary on circus carnies, but DeMille had to inject his heavy-handed melodrama. It is hard to watch Charlton Heston and Dorothy LaMour emote. And Jimmy Stewart, for some reason, plays a circus clown.
5) 2008--"Slumdog Millionnaire." Contrived, manipulative, and predictable...Dev Patel is not the worst actor I've ever seen, but close. (See my full review of this movie in a previous post).
4) 1992--"Unforgiven." Okay, I know this is Clint Eastwood's masterpiece, and his mea culpa to his violent past in films. But, when broken down, it is little more than a conventional oater. Gene Hackman, who was nominated in a supporting role, is simply awful. And the final shootout is too stylized and fake.
3) 1983--"Terms of Endearment." Though well-acted by all, this film is too "precious" for me. It would have been an amusing romantic comedy had the writers not taken the easy way to the Academy Awards by having the young mother die of cancer. Forced and cloying, this device makes all performances just too precious for words. Even Jack Nicholson, who, by the end, is sufficiently neutered to be palatable to the soap opera lovers.
2) 1996--"The English Patient." Skewered by a classic "Seinfeld" episode this film has become an homage to self-parody. It is too long, too contrived and too weepy to be taken seriously.
1) 1939--"Gone With The Wind." I watched the first ten minutes recently, and I was dumbstruck by the light-hearted playfulness of the opening sequence. As if David O. Selznick was returning us to the happy-go-lucky days of slavery. I've never been a southern sympathizer, yet GWTW tries to induce this sentiment in the viewer. Besides this, the acting is the epitome of superficial exteriorizing.
Next post will be the 10 most deserving films that got overlooked.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
"Slumdog Millionaire": Most Unworthy Oscar Winner Of All Time?
At about about 11 pm (CST) tonight, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences will hand out its Oscar for Best Picture to "Slumdog Millionaire," and I will throw my popcorn at the TV because I don't get the "Slumdog" phenomenon. The film was trite, contrived and predictable (did anyone really believe that Jamal and Latika would not hook up in the end?). The performances were pedestrian. And the "Bollywood" ending shattered any illusion that this film was to be taken seriously.
Don't get me wrong. There was some merit to the film. The graphic scenes of abject poverty in the slums of Bombay were moving and evocative. Ultimately, though, the director, Danny Boyle, used these scenes for his own exploitative purposes. The audience is hit broadside with the images of pitiable suffering, not to raise consciousness as part of an admirable character study or sociocultural epic, but merely to evince easy sympathy for hardscrabble kids who inevitably fall into pots of gold--one criminal, one coincidental. The irony is, the child stars, Azrahuddin Mohammed Ismail, 10, and Rubina Ali, 9, still live in grinding poverty. They want money, not Oscars.
The older stars, Dav Patel and Freida Pinto, were sufficiently superficial to facilitate the laughable happenstances of the plot. Patel, apparently, has only two expressions--wide-eyed bewilderment and wide-eyed wonder. Even he is stunned by his success, "I have been absolutely amazed at the reaction." Pinto, though a show-stopping beauty, is not much better. Her character seems largely unfazed by her rags-to-ill-won-riches-to-true-love journey.
This is almost overshadowed by the exhilarating direction. Fast cuts, provocative angles, and memorable images might have saved the day. But in the end, it was only an attempt to disguise the wooden performances and the ridiculous contrivances. Nonetheless, Boyle is a shoe-in for Best Director.
What clinched it for me was the sudden and shocking dance number at the film's climax. It shredded the last remnant of melodramatic sweep. I've been informed that this number has theatrical precedence, but for me it rendered all that preceded it unreal and inconsequential.
In this day of heightened Muslim-Christian tensions, is Hollywood reaching out to Islamic artists? Or is this just AMPAS's lame attempt to have life imitate pseudo-art? Whatever; maybe a real dog is finally having its day.
Don't get me wrong. There was some merit to the film. The graphic scenes of abject poverty in the slums of Bombay were moving and evocative. Ultimately, though, the director, Danny Boyle, used these scenes for his own exploitative purposes. The audience is hit broadside with the images of pitiable suffering, not to raise consciousness as part of an admirable character study or sociocultural epic, but merely to evince easy sympathy for hardscrabble kids who inevitably fall into pots of gold--one criminal, one coincidental. The irony is, the child stars, Azrahuddin Mohammed Ismail, 10, and Rubina Ali, 9, still live in grinding poverty. They want money, not Oscars.
The older stars, Dav Patel and Freida Pinto, were sufficiently superficial to facilitate the laughable happenstances of the plot. Patel, apparently, has only two expressions--wide-eyed bewilderment and wide-eyed wonder. Even he is stunned by his success, "I have been absolutely amazed at the reaction." Pinto, though a show-stopping beauty, is not much better. Her character seems largely unfazed by her rags-to-ill-won-riches-to-true-love journey.
This is almost overshadowed by the exhilarating direction. Fast cuts, provocative angles, and memorable images might have saved the day. But in the end, it was only an attempt to disguise the wooden performances and the ridiculous contrivances. Nonetheless, Boyle is a shoe-in for Best Director.
What clinched it for me was the sudden and shocking dance number at the film's climax. It shredded the last remnant of melodramatic sweep. I've been informed that this number has theatrical precedence, but for me it rendered all that preceded it unreal and inconsequential.
In this day of heightened Muslim-Christian tensions, is Hollywood reaching out to Islamic artists? Or is this just AMPAS's lame attempt to have life imitate pseudo-art? Whatever; maybe a real dog is finally having its day.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Kelly Wallace Interviews Me on BlogTalk Radio 2/23
In order to promote my book, Murder Of An American Nazi, my publisher has arranged for an Internet Radio interview of me on Mon. Feb. 23, 2 pm (central time). It will air on BlogTalk Radio, hosted by Kelly Wallace. Should be a fun 30 minutes, so listen in if you can. Here's the link for the live audio feed or streaming on your computer. A preview of the show has already been posted at this site:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Strategic-Talk-Radio/2009/02/23/Interview-with-Timothy-Fleming-author-of-Murder-of-an-American-Nazi
I think listeners can call in to ask questions also...so fire away if you want.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Strategic-Talk-Radio/2009/02/23/Interview-with-Timothy-Fleming-author-of-Murder-of-an-American-Nazi
I think listeners can call in to ask questions also...so fire away if you want.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Origins and Consequences of Operation Mockingbird
So I'm sitting with friends yesterday, sipping coffee and eating breakfast, at a local cafe. It's a Saturday morning ritual attended by a select few from the neighborhood who form our inner circle. Coincidentally, they had all just finished reading my book, and the questions flew at me fast and furious. I took them one at a time and wound up going on at length about the CIA's subversion of the free press in America after World War II. My friends could not grasp the concept of mainstream media spouting CIA/military-industrial propaganda. They could not wrap their heads around the fact that the press, TV, publishers, and radio airwaves have been complicit in covering up the truth about the real history of this country, circa 1945 until...well...even today. Like children who had just been told there was no Santa, these friends scoffed at the notion. I laughed heartily, and then I figuratively held their hands and took them on a truncated journey through the labyrinth. I began with a quote from Jim Garrison, the brave soul who was reviled and character-assassinated for daring to take the CIA into court for the JFK murder: "In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line."
Then I gave them a history lesson. James Forrestal, Defense Secretary under Truman in 1948, implored the president to grant the CIA unlimited power to control or suppress freedoms in foreign lands. Truman, against his better judgment, relented because he was promised that this would reduce the possbility of communist takeovers and, thus, help avoid another world war. The CIA, of course, had no intention of only controlling information abroad. It created Operation Mockingbird to control the media at home. It was dreamed up by Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner, whose intention was to influence, through coercion, threat, blackmail, recruitment, or any other means, all branches of the American media. Wisner recruited Phillip Graham of the Washington Post to be his point man inside the newspaper industry. Graham, proud to do his patriotic duty, recruited journalists who had worked for military intelligence during the war--Russell Wiggins, C.D. Jackson, John Hayes, Alan Barth, and James Tritt. Eventually, Stewart and Joseph Alsop, the Luces (Henry and Clare Boothe) of Time/Life/Newsweek, Bill Paley of CBS, and A.H. Sulzberger of the New York Times joined the operation. Under no circumstances would these people investigate, print, or broadcast negative stories connected with the CIA. This despite the fact that the CIA was overthrowing duly elected leaders, both foreign and domestic; was drugging, brainwashing, and torturing its own unsuspecting citizens (MK-ULTRA); importing, protecting, and providing jobs to ex-Nazis (Operation Paperclip) who should have been tried and hanged at Nuremberg for war crimes; acting as procurement agents for large Wall Street interests; funding and training secret militias for right-wing paramilitary operations; and many more secret atrocities. The press and TV, instead, ran cute, fluffy stories about Ike's golf scores and LBJ's hounds. The only reason they turned on Joe McCarthy is because McCarthy tried to bring down one of their own--Cord Meyer. Meyer posed as a leftist so that he could infiltrate left-wing organizations and report on them to the CIA. McCarthy, a drunken, bilious mouthpiece for the right, was unaware of the line he had crossed...and so he became dispensable.
At this point my audience looked dazed and incredulous. So I wrapped it up with Wisner's own words: "I can play America like a grand Wurlitzer organ. The people will follow along with any tune I wish to play"; and I gave them a list of books to do their own research.
Next Saturday? More questions, I'm sure.
Then I gave them a history lesson. James Forrestal, Defense Secretary under Truman in 1948, implored the president to grant the CIA unlimited power to control or suppress freedoms in foreign lands. Truman, against his better judgment, relented because he was promised that this would reduce the possbility of communist takeovers and, thus, help avoid another world war. The CIA, of course, had no intention of only controlling information abroad. It created Operation Mockingbird to control the media at home. It was dreamed up by Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner, whose intention was to influence, through coercion, threat, blackmail, recruitment, or any other means, all branches of the American media. Wisner recruited Phillip Graham of the Washington Post to be his point man inside the newspaper industry. Graham, proud to do his patriotic duty, recruited journalists who had worked for military intelligence during the war--Russell Wiggins, C.D. Jackson, John Hayes, Alan Barth, and James Tritt. Eventually, Stewart and Joseph Alsop, the Luces (Henry and Clare Boothe) of Time/Life/Newsweek, Bill Paley of CBS, and A.H. Sulzberger of the New York Times joined the operation. Under no circumstances would these people investigate, print, or broadcast negative stories connected with the CIA. This despite the fact that the CIA was overthrowing duly elected leaders, both foreign and domestic; was drugging, brainwashing, and torturing its own unsuspecting citizens (MK-ULTRA); importing, protecting, and providing jobs to ex-Nazis (Operation Paperclip) who should have been tried and hanged at Nuremberg for war crimes; acting as procurement agents for large Wall Street interests; funding and training secret militias for right-wing paramilitary operations; and many more secret atrocities. The press and TV, instead, ran cute, fluffy stories about Ike's golf scores and LBJ's hounds. The only reason they turned on Joe McCarthy is because McCarthy tried to bring down one of their own--Cord Meyer. Meyer posed as a leftist so that he could infiltrate left-wing organizations and report on them to the CIA. McCarthy, a drunken, bilious mouthpiece for the right, was unaware of the line he had crossed...and so he became dispensable.
At this point my audience looked dazed and incredulous. So I wrapped it up with Wisner's own words: "I can play America like a grand Wurlitzer organ. The people will follow along with any tune I wish to play"; and I gave them a list of books to do their own research.
Next Saturday? More questions, I'm sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
