Thursday, August 20, 2015

The Radicalization of Iran: How the U.S. Sparked the Islamic Revolution

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902-1989)





















It's difficult to reason with a roomful of hysterical people who are convinced they are about to die. But that's essentially what's happening in the public discussion over the Iranian nuclear weapons agreement, which is called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). For reasons beneath justification, and to the exclusion of virtually everyone else on the planet, a small mob of Israelis and hyperventilating Republicans--along with one or two turncoat Democrats--are beside themselves with terror at the prospect of a negotiated weapons deal with Iran. Congress is acting like a bunch of white-knuckled drunks, and Netanyahu is waving a bottle under their nose. To hear them rant, you'd think Barack Obama's presidential pen is equipped with a doomsday device that'll send Iranian missiles screaming toward Washington the instant the ink is dry. The hysteria would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous and irresponsible.

I won't bore the reader by attempting to mount a point-by-point defense of the agreement. Others have already done a masterful job of it, including President Obama, Israeli columnist Akiva Eldar, Iranian journalist Mohammad Ali Shabani, and New Mexico senator Martin Heinrich. I encourage you to read them and draw your own conclusions. However, it should be pointed out that the JCPOA has already been unanimously approved by the U.N. Security Council, the European Union, and the P5+1, which consists of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany. If that's not good enough for the Israelis and the Republicans, I suggest they restrict their apocalyptic fantasies to some kind of online role-playing game, if not in the interests of international harmony, then certainly to avoid further embarrassment to themselves.

I don't know how much simpler to make this. Let's suppose for a moment that everyone in the world except the Israelis and Republicans turn out to be wrong--a profound unlikelihood--and that those sneaky Iranians decide to thumb their noses at us and develop a nuclear weapon anyway. If that occurs, two things will happen in rapid succession: (1) Israel will immediately know it, since they have the best intelligence infrastructure in the Middle East--let's not forget, these are the guys who penetrated and destroyed the Iranian centrifuges with a diabolically clever Stuxnet virus--and (2) the Iranian nuclear weapons facility will surrender its corporeal integrity in massive fireball, thanks to Isreali war planes. Israel has already made it explicitly, abundantly clear that the instant Iran begins developing a bomb, they will launch preemptive airstrikes without the niceties of a coalition approval or U.N. sanction. I take them at their word, as should the Iranians.

We have nothing to lose, but a great deal to gain by building a working diplomatic relationship with Iran, which we have not had in many years.  

I must've dozed off at the precise moment when Iran replaced ISIL as our chief threat to global stability. However, it's worth mentioning that if it weren't for Iran, ISIL would already have swept through Syria and Iraq. The heroic Kurds have fought valiantly against ISIL, and U.S. air strikes have inflicted devastating casualties, however the most effective ground forces in the war on ISIL have been the fierce, Iranian-backed Shi'a militias, without whom the Iraqi army would already have been decimated, and without whose protection Baghdad would long ago have fallen to the black flag. Iran is the most potent enemy of our enemy.

In spite of our adversarial history, Iran is willing to negotiate a nuclear weapons agreement. In spite of the occasional incendiary rhetoric, Iran understands that it has vital interests at stake, and an important role to play in the future of the Middle East. ISIL does not. Unlike Iran, the Islamic State will never negotiate; if they ever manage to obtain a nuclear weapon--or any weapon of mass destruction--they will not hesitate to deploy it against Israel or the United States. ISIL literally views itself as the holy engine of the apocalypse. They simply want to see the world burn. Like the mad tyrant Caligula, they would that all of humanity had but one neck that they might cut it.

Without Iran, we cannot beat ISIL. So, Republicans need to make up their minds. Would they rather defeat ISIL or pucker up to Netanyahu? To me, it's not even a choice. I'd rather have Iranian-backed Shi'a militia boots on the ground than American troops any day. I suspect the Iranians and Iraqis feel the same way.    

But amid all of the high-pitch anti-Iranian rhetoric, what Netanyahu and the Republicans have forgotten is that none of this happened in a vacuum. Iran may once have been a designated "state sponsor of terror," but long before anyone heard of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, the United States sponsored its own kind of terror, which ultimately cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iranians.

In 1952, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency staged a coup d'état in Iran, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, primarily because Mossadegh was planning to nationalize Iranian oil reserves, which would have been very bad for U.S. oil and business interests. In Mossadegh's place we installed the monstrous Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, a Saddam Hussein-like despot whose notorious secret police--the dreaded Savak--subsequently tortured and murdered thousands of political prisoners.

The brutality, savagery, and corruption of the Shah's U.S.-backed regime eventually sparked a massive Islamist uprising known as the Iranian Revolution, led by prominent opposition clerics such as the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Military and clerical leaders of the uprising later formed a powerful political and military organization called Hezbollah, who would later provide training, weapons, and organizational support for a fledgling, ragtag group of militants known as Al Qaeda. Who, a few years later, would fly a pair of Boeing jumbo jets into the World Trade Center.

Call it what you will. Payback. Karma. What goes around comes around. In any case, the circle of agony was complete.

Now, we have a chance to make amends for our past sins in Iran. We owe it to the Iranians to give them a chance.

Diplomatic agreements, like interpersonal relationships, are rarely all-or-nothing propositions. Life simply doesn't work that way. It involves compromise and finesse, especially among former adversaries. Diplomacy is the art by which civilized nations agree to settle their differences without having to go to war, however in the kindergarten playground free-for-all of American politics, such subtleties are lost on the Luddites.

The object of the Iranian agreement is not simply to dissuade Tehran from developing its nuclear weapons program, but to do so in a way that allows Iran's leaders to save face. This is vitally important, and it is the only way forward. Iran has a potentially vibrant economy that does not depend exclusively on oil. They have enormous human capital, and a highly educated population. Because of their people, they have the potential to come out from under the shadows of the past and become not only a great nation, but the predominant stabilizing force in the Middle East. And we're going to have to help them, regardless of what Netanyahu says.

The government of Iran is slowly, grudgingly, moving into the 21st century. Change is happening within Iran's political system. A lively opposition exists, and many of the Iranian people do not agree with the policies of the current government. We have allies and friends among the Iranian people, but seismic, society-wide changes will not happen overnight, and we cannot force it. It must happen organically, when the Iranian people are ready for it. Hopefully by then, their government will be, too.

RELATED LINKS:

"The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran From Acquiring A Nuclear Weapon," Whitehouse.gov

"Israel increasingly isolated as Iran opens up to region," Akiva Eldar, Al-Monitor, Aug. 18, 2015

"The most incredibly lucid explanation, by a US Senator, of why the Iran Deal MUST be supported," flitedocnm, Daily Kos, Aug. 17, 2015

"Nuke deal won't change Iran's approach to region," Mohammad Ali Shabani, Al Monitor, Aug. 7, 2015 

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Newly Released Photos Show Dick Cheney's Candid Reactions to 9/11

A bored Dick Cheney shoots a spitball at Secretary of State Colin Powell.




















The U.S. National Archives has just released a trove of snapshots taken of Vice President Dick Cheney in the minutes and hours following the 9/11 terror attacks. The photos were captured by the vice president's official staff photographer, and were released on the National Archives' flickr page in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Frontline filmmaker Colette Neirouz, who previously covered the Bush/Cheney administration in the documentaries, Bush's War, Cheney's Law, and The Dark Side.

Below are a few samples of the newly released photographs. 

Cheney listening to C.I.A. director George Tenet shortly after the 9/11 attacks


















The Cheney photographs, many of which were taken in the secure President’s Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) show an extremely calm and composed--one might even say sleepy--vice president.  

Portrait of composure: Vice President Dick Cheney
















Cheney demonstrates his legendary calm by napping during the crisis.












Prior to addressing the cabinet, Vice President Cheney takes one of his standing "power naps" (left), a technique he reportedly learned from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The full collection of photographs may be seen here

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Why I'm Going Republican and Voting for Donald Trump

















It's hard to say anything about Donald Trump that hasn't already been said, but no matter which side of the fence you're on, you must admit, The Donald has livened up the political season in a way that nobody expected. My favorite Donald moment so far was when he dismissed conservative Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer--a paraplegic--as a "loser," who just "sits there." Whenever I'm having a rough patch, I think about that moment, and it's like a soothing comedy balm on my tortured soul.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, reporter Chris Cillizza points out six inconvenient truths about Donald Trump. Cillizza is right on most counts, however I vociferously disagree with his injunction for the Republican party to "get away from Trump--immediately." On the contrary, with Trump surging even higher in the polls in spite of his uncharitable comments about John McCain, it's clear that Trump is the true populist of the Republican party. The GOP should stop pussyfooting around and just start lovin' up on the man. They know they want to. Republicans have never been afraid to take Trump's millions, and in our post-Citizens United world of "pay to play" politics, Trump has more than earned his right to be the official ̶h̶a̶i̶r̶p̶i̶e̶c̶e̶ mouthpiece of the Republican party.

 Frankly, it's a little hard to buy into the GOP's outraged virtue. The Republican backlash against Donald Trump is a comedy of such soaring hypocrisy, it's like listening to a group of serial killers standing around worrying what to do about this Lecter guy...


















Everybody knows--even Donald himself--that Trump can't possibly win in the general election. Which is why he needs to stay in the race as long as possible. Frankly, I'm enjoying the spectacle. Trump is immensely entertaining. But even more important, he's making the Republicans far crazier than any Democrat could hope to do. In fact, I may temporarily switch to the Republican party, just so that I can vote for Trump in the primaries...

Hellzapoppin' when Scalia Meets Obamacare!


American Terrorists


It's the Law...



It's the Law...


Red States


"Chumps on the Bench"


Dr. Obama and the Monster From Hell...

Monday, May 25, 2015

An Open Letter to a Newtown Conspiracy Theorist



The following is a transcription of my response to a Youtube user who vigorously took me to task for criticizing conspiracy theorist John B. Wells' claims that the Newtown massacre was a "false flag" operation calculated to justify a government plot to declare martial law and seize everybody's guns.

You are right, ***** (username redacted), people do have rights to their opinions, and the right to express them. Much as I may disagree with you, I would defend your right to express yours as well. The purpose of the first amendment was not to protect speech that I agree with, but to protect speech that I disagree with.

It's important to challenge authority, and to question those in power, regardless of whether that power is a government or a private corporation. Lord knows, history is full of examples of bad behavior by both. We are living at a time when people are more mistrustful than ever of the rich and powerful, and that's as it should be. Dissent is healthy, and at the end of the day, it's probably good to have the Alex Joneses of the world out there, railing at the powers that be, even if sometimes he's completely wrong.

I should say, by the way, that I'm willing to admit that I could be perfectly wrong. However, the preponderance of empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

When it comes to controversial claims of unusual behavior or phenomena, I'm not on one "side" or the other. I'm only interested in the truth. There's an old saying in the skeptic community that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That's a good rule of thumb for anyone.

If you tell me there's an ant crawling up the outside wall, I will probably believe you without requiring much in the way of proof. Why? Because it's not an extraordinary claim. Ants climb up walls all the time. It's a very common occurrence that I've seen with my own eyes. Moreover, you have nothing to gain by telling me about it. So I'm likely to believe you. And there's also not a lot at stake. An ant crawling up the wall is not going to affect the structural integrity of the house, so even if I don't believe you, the consequences will be minimal.

On the other hand, if you tell me there's a widening crack snaking up the outside wall, I will immediately check it out. Why? Because it's an extraordinary claim, with potentially extraordinary consequences. Based on what I know about walls and cracks (and what causes them), the cost of ignoring your warning could be catastrophic.  The house might be on the verge of collapsing. There's a lot at stake. Lives and property, etc.

In any case, it's easy enough to verify. I'll simply go outside and and look at the wall. If I see a widening crack, I'll immediately evacuate the house and call 911. If there is no crack, I'll assume that you were hallucinating or playing a prank on me.

The point is, before evacuating the house and calling 911, I want to see the crack for myself, to verify what you're saying is true. I'm not going to call Aunt Joan in Chattanooga and ask her if she thinks there's a crack in my wall, or even neighbor Bob down the street. I'll want to see it for myself. And if you knock on the door of any house in America and tell the homeowner there's a crack moving up their wall, he or she will do exactly the same thing. They will want to see it for themselves, to verify that it's true. Why? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is the essence of skepticism and critical thinking: verification.

Suppose there's a guy in Indiana who claims to be a master engineer. You've never met him, and as far as you know, he's never even been in your state. But a lot of your friends say that he's really brilliant. And one day, he sends you an email saying that your house is about to collapse into a sinkhole. He includes impressive drawings, and graphics, and animations, along with links to videos and articles by other "sinkhole experts" just like him, about the history of sinkhole activity in your area, with a dire warning that your house is sitting directly on top of a giant sinkhole that's about to collapse. He ends the email with a urgent plea to immediately sign over your house to him or one of his colleagues, so that they can do what needs to be done to prevent the disaster.

I'm only guessing here, but I suspect that no matter how convincing his argument (or the arguments of his various "colleagues"), the last thing you'll probably do is sign your house over to him. Why? Because it is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary proof. Before signing over your house, you're going to investigate the claim. You'll go on the Internet to learn everything you can about sinkholes. You'll contact your state geologist, or local engineers, who have the skill, knowledge, experience and equipment to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty whether there really is a giant sinkhole under your house. But what you won't do is accept the Indiana "engineer's" word as gospel. On the contrary, you'll do everything within your power to find out the truth, one way or another. Terrified as you may be of sinkholes, the last thing you're likely to do is to sign your house over to some guy in another state, sight unseen, simply because he made a frightening and persuasive argument.

Let's say the family next door goes missing, and your neighbor Cecil claims they were abducted by aliens, while the police say that it looks like a home invasion and kidnapping. Knowing that lives are at stake, which line of inquiry should the police pursue: alien abduction or criminal kidnapping?

I'm not saying that aliens couldn't exist, or that if they did, they couldn't kidnap people. But in my entire life, neither I nor anyone I know has ever seen an alien, nor has a single alien abduction ever been reported by a credible agency. On the other hand, home invasions happen all the time. Experience tells us that the missing family was mostly likely kidnapped by terrestrial criminals, not alien interlopers.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Question everything, regardless of whether it comes from the Pentagon or John B. Wells. And especially John B. Wells. Challenge his sources. Contact people in Newtown. But don't accept someone else's claims just because they sound good, or happen to reinforce your mistrust of officialdom. Get rid of the confirmation bias and check it out for yourself, objectively and with an open mind. If you're really, honestly seeking the truth, you will find it. And it may surprise you.

Finally, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that you're absolutely right about the parents of Newtown. Let's say they're making great piles of cash from speaking engagements, and book deals, etc. And let's further assume that, instead of funneling that money into their efforts to stop gun violence against kids (which they're actually doing), they're putting that money into their bank accounts. To that I would say, "so what?" Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I've never lost a child to gun violence, but I can imagine that it must be devastating. So I'm not going to try and read the hearts and minds of the parents of Newtown, and I'm certainly not going to sit in judgment of them, or what they do with their money. If we condemn the parents of Newtown for exploiting the Sandy Hook shootings in order to stop gun violence, we must also condemn the NRA--the most powerful corporate lobby in America--for exploiting those very same deaths in order to raise money and boost gun sales. Trust me, the NRA has made far more money from the Sandy Hook shootings than those poor parents ever did.

If you're really looking for a worthwhile cause to champion, get involved with the effort to to stop Congress from renewing the Patriot Act, or the urgent struggle going on right now to stop President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which he's trying to "fast track" through the Congress as fast as he can.

These are far more noble and worthwhile pursuits than attacking the parents of a bunch of dead kids...

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

LINDSEY GRAHAM TO U.S. TROOPS: "SCREW YOU"















Presidential candidate Senator Lindsey "I will drone you" Graham has given a slobbery wet kiss of approval to another giant legislative "screw you" to U.S. servicemen and women. It's not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last under the South Carolina Republican's tenure on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee.

As reported by Brendan McGarry in Military.com, the SASC's nine-member Subcommitte on Personnel, which Graham chairs, recently approved a disastrous plan to privatize military pensions while gutting a modest pay increase for active duty personnel--a plan that had already received almost unanimous bipartisan support in the House of Representatives.

What a shock--not! Once again, the Senate Armed Services Committee gives a giant hosing to the people they're supposed to be  looking out for. This has become such a common occurrence, I'm beginning to wonder whether they're secretly on Alex Jones's payroll.

Not long ago, Graham and his Republican cronies killed the $1 billion Veterans Job Corps Act, which would have helped returning vets retrain for civilian employment. (Veterans currently have the highest rate of unemployment and suicide of any demographic in the U.S.) Instead, they chose to give that $1 billion to BAE and General Dynamics to develop the useless, doomed GCV (Ground Combat Vehicle) program, which the Army eventually got sick of and cancelled due to budget overruns and technical failures. (Why waste $1 billion helping returning vets find jobs when we can use that money to enrich defense contractors with projects that never even make it off the ground?)

Now, the SASC is offering what amounts to a slap in the face by suggesting a measly 1.3% pay raise (I use "pay raise" in its loosest possible sense)--a downgrade from the slightly more reasonable 2.3% already approved by the House--which they justify by saying their "hands are tied" due to things like budget cuts and sequestration. Blah, blah, blah.

I've often wondered how they can walk, with balls that big. When I was married as a young submariner, the first thing my chief told me was how to apply for foodstamps and WIC, because it was impossible to support a family on what I was making at that time, even with sub pay and hazardous duty pay. That was 20 years ago. Nothing has changed. Much as the bureaucrats in Washington love to spend billions on defense contracts, and much as they like to send us in harm's way, they're still notorious cheapskates when it comes to pay.

According to the Pentagon and the SASC, the lower 1.3% pay raise will save taxpayers $4 billion over the next five years compared with the 2.3% pay raise. They say this with a perfectly straight face and a furrowed brow, as if we're supposed to take them seriously after they spent $9 billion on the Navy's fleet of lightly-armed puddle skippers called "littoral combat ships" that look cool, but are essentially useless in a heavy engagement.

Perhaps they need that extra $4 billion to help defray the cost of the F-35, which is still lethally unreliable, and which is expected to exceed $300 billion, or over half of the entire national defense budget. Or the $22 billion we spent on the killer goose--sorry, V-22 Osprey--which also killed 30 perfectly good marine pilots. (31 if you count the marine who was just killed in Hawaii.)

I love military hardware as much as the next guy, but it's immoral and unconscionable to spend billions on bloated, sketchy (translate: failed) defense projects while nickel and diming our people to death.

As if that isn't enough, Graham and his bureaucrats are deep-sixing the old government-guaranteed retirement and insurance plans in favor of privatized programs, like 401Ks. Not that there's anything wrong with that if you're a Wall Street hedge fund manager, but our men and women in uniform deserve better; if the economy craps itself again the way it did in 2008--or worse--our veterans will be screwed.

Not that that's anything new...

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

eSkeptic: "Why is Critical Thinking so Hard to Teach?"

Christopher Hitchens
There's an interesting article by Kevin Mccaffree & Anondah Saide in this month's eSkeptic, called Why is Critical Thinking so Hard to Teach?, which vindicates my long-held dismay over the observation that a belief in some sort of mumbo-jumbo is hardly confined to the superstitious primitive, and that even ostensibly highly intelligent people are sometimes capable of believing the most preposterous nonsense, and often stubbornly so. Between 67 and 73 percent of adults in the U.S. still subscribe to at least one paranormal belief (UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, Satan, talking snakes, God, etc.)

According to sociologist Erich Goode, author of The Paranormal: Who Believes, Why They Believe, and Why It Matters, contrary to conventional wisdom, one's educational level doesn't preclude a belief in demonstrably false "supra-empirical ideas," but rather appears to moderate it. College educated people are likelier to believe in psychic healing and déjà vu, for example, while those with only a high school education are likelier to believe in astrology and traditional religion. It seems that educated people still believe in nonsense, they just believe in different sorts of nonsense. Mccaffree & Saide's article suggests that our resistance to critical thinking has far less to do with willful stupidity than a desire for social acceptance. (you can read the article here)

The good news is that Americans appear to be gradually abandoning the old religious superstitions that have been handed down to us from what Christopher Hitchens called the "bawling infancy" of humanity. According to a Harris survey, the number of adults in the U.S. who professed to believe in God dropped from 82 to 74 percent between 2009 to 2013. It's a start.

Monday, July 28, 2014

"Black Jesus" Looks Righteously, Wickedly Funny


As if in response to Megyn Kelly's smugly nonsensical reaction to the very idea of a black Santa Claus ("For all you kids at home, he just is white"), Aaron McGruder, subversive genius behind The Boondocks, ups the ante with an irreverent new comedy called Black Jesus, premiering Thursday, Aug. 7 at 11/10C on Adult Swim. The new show stars Gerald "Slink" Johnson (Grand Theft Auto V) as an African-American Jesus--or at least somebody who thinks he's Jesus--who strolls into modern-day Compton in sandals and robes to spread his gospel of love and compassion. It is, as the tagline says, "the most anticipated comeback in history," albeit one that is robustly infused with hilariously inappropriate ghetto profanity, much of it courtesy of "Jesus" himself.

McGruder's outrageous new show promises to be the most devastatingly funny religious satire since Monty Python's The Life of Brian. As far as Megyn Kelly and Fox News are concerned, Black Jesus will likely amount to a virtual carpet bombing in the secular media's relentless war on Christmas; one can only hope that Bill O'Reilly remembers to take his blood pressure medication before seeing the trailer. Or not, depending on how one feels about Mr. O'Reilly.

There is a scene in the trailer where one of the new "apostles" complains to Black Jesus, "You smoked all the motherf---in' weed!", to which Jesus replies, "You do know I died for your motherf---in' sins, right?" To which another of Jesus's homeboys replies, "That shit's getting old! That was two thousand fourteen years ago!"

In another hilarious moment, an older follower becomes disgruntled when Jesus refuses to tell him the winning lottery numbers: "He is Jesus Christ, God's only begotten son, sent down here to save our mortal souls from eternal damnation. But you know what? That negro ain't done shit for me!"

"...McGruder's outrageous new show promises to
be the most devastatingly funny religious satire
since Monty Python's The Life of Brian."

It is that level of outrageousness--some would say blasphemy--that has sparked a volcanic reaction from conservatives, who are now giving Black Jesus the kind of international publicity it could never otherwise afford, by calling for a massive boycott of the show before it has even aired. Based on the ugly tenor of some of the more racist Youtube comments--which I won't dignify by repeating--the white Christian right seems to be more furious over the fact that Jesus is black than whether he uses the word "motherfucker." I only pray that Adult Swim and its parent company, Sony Pictures Television, will have the nuts to stand up to the ideologues when they launch their inevitable campaign to stop the rest of us from exercising our constitutional right to watch the show. (Funny, how conservative "freedoms" usually demand restrictions on the freedoms of others: the Orwellian irony is inescapable.)  

Aaron McGruder was not involved with the latest season of The Boondocks due to irreconcilable differences with Sony. I suspect it was difficult to have a large corporation like Sony calling the shots for a show that McGruder had created. Nevertheless, Black Jesus is already attracting massive attention, and if the show is as funny as it looks, it's a safe bet that McGruder will have the last laugh.

Personally? I can't wait. 

RELATED LINKS

"'Boondocks' Creator Brings 'Black Jesus' to Adult Swim," Lesley Goldberg, The Hollywood Reporter 
( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/boondocks-creator-brings-black-jesus-687190 )

"Black Jesus" episodes at Adult Swim
( http://video.adultswim.com/black-jesus/?cid=yt_blackJesusOffTrailerDescrip )

"Black Jesus" Facebook Page
( https://www.facebook.com/BlackJesus )

Aaron McGruder's Twitter Account
( https://twitter.com/aaronmcgruder23 )

Adult Swim
( http://www.adultswim.com/ )

The Boondocks
( http://video.adultswim.com/the-boondocks/season-4/ )

Thursday, June 12, 2014

"BONECRUSHER"

South Florida has one of the highest densities of exotic animals in the country, with hundreds of zoos, breeders, and private collectors licensed to own everything from baboons and tigers to cobras and crocodiles. Most of these animals are safely contained and pose no threat to the public. But sometimes they escape.

When Hurricane Andrew slammed into Dade County in 1992, nearly 16,000 non-indigenous animals were released into the wilds of South Florida. Of these, 3,000 were never seen again.

Bonecrusher is a screenplay in progress about a wildlife officer whose love for the outdoors is tested when an escaped Saltwater crocodile--the world's largest living reptile, and a notorious maneater--stakes out the waters around a sleepy Florida tourist town and begins hunting humans.


Naturally, carnage ensues.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Telefone - Walter Wanderley Trio




The iconic "Telefone" song, with a high energy arrangement by the legendary Walter Wanderley Trio...

The Bossa Nova Genius of Sylvia Telles



Probably nobody did more in the 1950s and 60s to popularize samba and bossa nova music than the Brazilian singer Sylvia Telles, who was already a star on the Latin American music scene, and was on the verge of international stardom when she was tragically killed in a car accident at the age of 32, after recording her fifth album. Though many people aren't familiar with her name, she was a brilliant singer and performer who had an enormous influence on other Latin American singers, such as Astrud Gilberto.

The legendary singer/musician/songwriter Antonio Carlos Jobim wrote one of his most famous songs, "Dindi" specifically for Sylvia, because that was her nickname in Portuguese. (The word is pronounced "Jin-Jee.") The song has been recorded many times over the years, however the best version is still the plaintive and heartfelt version that Sylvia herself recorded before she was killed.

Above is a very rare film clip of a live 1967 concert with Slyvia singing two iconic Samba songs, "Samba Torto" and "One Note Samba," accompanied by Rosinha de Valenca, who was considered one of the greatest acoustic guitarists in Brazilian music.

Below is Sylvia singing "Dindi," the song that was written specifically for her by Antonio Carlos Jobim.

Guitarist Rosinha de Valenca went on to record with such music heavyweights as Sergio Mendes, Stan Getz, Sarah Vaughan, and Henry Mancini, making records well into the late 1970s. She eventually had to stop performing due to health problems, and in 1992 suffered a major heart attack that left her severely brain damaged. She lived for 12 more years in a vegetative state, finally dying of respiratory failure in 2004.

Here's to Sylvia Telles and Rosinha de Valenca, two of the amazing women of music who've made our world a better place for having been a part of it.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Charlie Bronson is still fighting


 

A Letter From Charlie Bronson to his Supporters on
the Occasion of His Latest Parole Denial, 5 May 2013
 
Charlie Bronson
Well, that's it, parole over for another two years. All that's expected. It's a complete farce. A joke. Another 2 years, for what? Behaving myself! Doing a Violence Reduction Programme. But where's it all got me? That was 7 months ago, I passed the course. All this system does is drag up the past. They never let it lie. It's no big deal to me, I actually expect it. I actually expect it--and always will. Now it's all systems go for this 3rd appeal. It's time to get real and face reality. I either walk out of court a free man or it's really over for me. That's how it is. They won't free me on parole until I am on a walker. They can let out sex killers and tag Islamic terrorists but they refuse to let me have a chance. So it's time to wake up and for my supporters to get their voices heard for me, please. We need to expose this evil Penal System for not allowing me a chance.

Bear in mind I have not committed a serious offence since 2000. I am now 11 years over my tariff. I am now being unlawfully detained, with no access to progression or courses--THAT is illegal, as was recently ruled by the Court of Human Rights. IPP prisoners must be allowed access to courses to progress. I am being denied this.


   "They can let out sex killers and tag
Islamic terrorists but they refuse
to let me have a chance."
 - Charlie Bronson

The fact is my life, my world, has been cages and boxes for years and years and years, and the truth is that they would like me to be forgotten and die an old man to make an example of me. I am shortly due a move back to Woodhilll. Obviously, I am excited at being moved out of this concrete coffin, but it is a move that is badly planned, and I believe it's being done in the hope that I will kick off. Woodhill to me has a bad history. I've taken a hostage there, attacked the No. 1 governor, taken over the wing and even had a rumble with an Alsatian. I've had so much trouble there, and it's where they will be sending me back to progress! Have I not earned better than that? But sadly, that's how it worked, test after test, hurdle after hurdle, stitch-up after stitch-up. It pisses me off. Even the screws here say it's a crazy move and the governor here agrees it's a silly move. It's as if they want me to fuck up. It's like sending me back to Broadmoor and expecting me to forget the treatment they gave me there. How do you forget torture? It's ok for the authorities to keep going on about the past, but as soon as I do it, I'm bitter and hateful.

We all have a past, and this system's past is full of shame and brutality. They've actually destroyed men, with violence, with drug control and decades of solitary with psychological games. Don't forget, I am going back decades to an era when young offenders hung themselves to escape the bullying from screws, in places like Armley and Risley and Wandsworth. I was there and I saw it for myself. The despair, the misery, the fear. And the ones they couln't bully and intimidate, they would send to Broadmoor for a dosh of the liquid cosh. I've got a horrible past, a tortured memory. How do I forget when these clowns at prison Headquarters won't allow me? I'm serving a life sentence...for what?
 

I see the news every single day. Kids getting hurt and killed and chopped up. Look at the Woolwich incident...a soldier getting his head cut off by two Muslim nutters. The world's gone nuts, and it's Charlie in a coffin who's considered too dangerous to walk our streets! It seems to me that the worse your crime is today, and particularly if you're a foreigner or a Muslim, this government are too scared to come down hard on them. So how am I considered so dangerous they are allowed to suck my life away? Why can't I be tagged and allowed a chance? My days of violence and crime ended well over a decade ago. I could make a good living out of my art. I would be one of the first to help the youth of today from turning to a life of crime. How can I be so bad that I cannot be let out? What am I going to do that's so bad? Eat your kids? Or chop up your granny for a curry? This government is letting killers out every day. Some have served HALF my time. Some kill again. They're letting out pedophiles, rapists and terrorists, they are out there living amongst you good people.

It is time to really have your say, NOW. Because after my appeal, it will be too late if I lose. Now is the time to get the petition to 10,000 signatures so it can go to Downing Street and the Ministry of Justice. And get writing letters of protest to the Home Secretary. It's time the British public know what's going on with my case. You are all being put at risk with the real scum hitting the streets, living alongside you. There's no logic to keeping me in, it's just pure evil vindictiveness. To make an example of me.

I can't win any longer. They will do everything in their power to fuck me up. I know this. Only through the Appeal Court can I get real justice (the only reason I am moving from Wakefield is because they can no longer legally justify holding me here without progression). They'd love me to kick off at Woodhill and come back so they can say 'we told you so!'

Well, it's not gonna happen. I've come too far to fall into their trap. I also owe it to my partner Lorraine, my family and my fantastic supporters to keep up my good behaviour.


I personally do predict a victory this time around. Third time lucky? Well, my legal team are ready so it's on, it will be a good fight. To lose, well, it would then go to the House of Lords, and then on to the European Court of Human Rights. The Bronson fight will never go away. But sadly, it can and will take years. Probably another decade. Sure, I can survive it, but where's the justification for this? Where's my human rights? I've never had any.


I keep reading about victims with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Well, an independent psychologist has just assessed that I was suffering from it when I took the art teacher hostage, as well as a paranoid personality disorder. But I'm still caged up. There's no justice for a man like me, not yet...but hopefully it's coming. And when it does, I hope the media will give me as much coverage and headlines as they have covering my past. THIS needs exposing, and it's not about compensation. I don't want a penny from these hypocrites, I just want my life back. That's all I want. And to prove to people that I AM a changed man. I have earned my freedom. I should never have gotten a life sentence.

Anyway, a massive thanks and my deepest respects to all of you who still believe in me. It means a lot. With your support we can win the appeal and change things around. Just ask yourself one question...why won't they tag me and give me a chance? There's a lot worse than I EVER was in your community on a tag, on parole, on home leave. It's time to crack this case open, because it's just one big piss-take.

CHARLIE
20th May 2013

P.S. - It's Charles BRONSON, not Charles Manson!



 
 
RELATED LINKS:
http://thecharliebronsonappealfund.co.uk/

 http://www.charliebronsonart.co.uk/

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl472AGp373u3Z8f3iMjUOg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/charles-bronson-campaign-release-britains-2240866

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Santa Claus is a Black Man




The spectacle of Megyn Kelly, with her staccato machine-gun delivery--she always seems to be channeling Jane Curtin's 'Saturday Night Live' impression of Tom Snyder's mom--publicly arguing the ethnicity of a pair of mythic characters the likes of Santa Claus and Jesus was a little like listening to a butthurt 10 year-old explaining how Jar Jar Binks ruined Star Wars, or a pair of Comic Con attendees arguing over who has the best super powers, Superman or Thor. (Or, in this case, the mighty Son-o'-God.)

If, by "white," Kelly meant Palestinian Jew and Turkish Greek, she would be correct regarding the original Jesus and Santa's respective ethnicities, however I expect her image of Santa Claus was more of the Coca-Cola variety, and that there's probably far more of Ted Neely than Semite in her fantasy image of Jesus.

Had Kelly's comments been tongue-in-cheek she'd have won points for cleverness, however there wasn't an atom of subtlety or irony about them. Which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Fox News, where the closest approximation of irony are those bizarre moments when Bill O'Reilly pretends to be reasonable. The aggressive witlessness of Kelly's nonsensical jeremiad about Jesus and Santa being white because it "just is," typifies both the network she works for and Kelly's tenure as the most obnoxious of all the obnoxious, sexed-up, big-boobed women at Fox News, next to Gretchen Carlson--and that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

Below is a 1973 Christmas song just for Megyn Kelly, called Santa Claus is a Black Man, from music producer Teddy Vann, sung by his daughter Akim: