The Top Mysteries Surrounding The Beatles

By MARC McDONALD

I've long been a fan of The Beatles. And I've long been fascinated by the topic of unexplained historical mysteries. So for this article, I thought I'd combine the two.

As one of the 20th century's biggest pop cultural phenomena, The Beatles have been endless analyzed and discussed in literally thousands of books over the years. But for all the analysis, there remain a few lingering mysteries about this band. And with the passing of the decades, it's unlikely a lot of these mysteries will ever be explained.

So, here, in my opinion, are the top mysteries surrounding The Beatles:

1. What was the origin of the song title, "Eleanor Rigby"? Not long after this 1966 song was released, Paul discussed its origins in an interview. The title, he claimed came from two sources. "Eleanor" was the first name of an actress, Eleanor Bron, who'd worked with the band on the film, Help!. And the name "Rigby" came from a shop sign that Paul once spotted in Bristol. And for many years, that was the accepted explanation for the song's title.

Then, in the 1980s, fans discovered the grave of an "Eleanor Rigby" in the graveyard of St. Peter's Parish Church in Liverpool. Rigby, who'd died in 1939, was buried on a site close to where Paul had first met John in 1957. (In fact, as teen-agers, both Paul and John had spent time sunbathing near the spot). The grave's discovery was an amazing, spooky coincidence, and Paul has since admitted that the name "Eleanor Rigby" may have stuck in his subconsciousness for years and inspired the title of his 1966 song. But if that's the case, then why in 1966 did Paul give interviews specifically citing other sources for the origin of the song's title? A definitive answer on this mystery remains elusive.

2. When The Beatles recorded their swansong album, Abbey Road in 1969, did they know at the time that it'd be their final studio album? This is a mystery that has long divided Beatles historians. The Beatles themselves in interviews over the years have given contradictory answers to this question---the answer to which has been lost in the haze of time. Note that The Beatles did record a few studio sessions in 1970 to put the finishing touches on the Let It Be album, which (although it was released after Abbey Road) was actually mostly recorded in January 1969, before the summer sessions that produced Abbey Road.

3. What was going on with all those wild and crazy studio sessions in 1967?. The year 1967 was a tremendously productive period for The Beatles. The band generated an enormous amount of creativity during the sessions that produced the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album. And yet, if you look at the day-by-day studio logs (as has been noted by Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn), there were a number of truly strange sessions in 1967 that never produced anything other than highly disorganized noise. During a number of these sessions, the band spent many hours doing endless takes of "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)," a true oddity of a song. During other sessions, the band aimlessly jammed in lengthy sessions that produced nothing but unlistenable noise (often played on out-of-tune instruments). One of these sessions was on June 1, the very day the Pepper album was released. (One might have thought that after the exhausting marathon Pepper sessions, The Beatles would have taken a break from the studio).

What was going on at these wacky sessions? And what was the point? Why the strange obsession with the throwaway ditty, "You Know My Name?" It's odd how the band's 1967 sessions alternated between the extremes of tightly focused, disciplined sessions and other sessions that were anarchic, sloppy and totally unproductive.

4. What ever happened to The Beatles' infamous lost recording, Carnival of Light? Long considered the holy grail of unreleased Beatles recordings, Carnival of Light was recorded in 1967 during a session in which the band also worked on "Penny Lane." The existence of Carnival was brought to wide public attention in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions book. Supposedly the song is an experimental piece that lasts around 13 minutes. There have been repeated hints over the years that the piece is on the verge of release. But these never pan out. In 1996, Paul McCartney sought to include the piece on the band's "Anthology" set, but the other band members vetoed this decision. Then, in 2008, McCartney indicated that the piece was nearing release, but nothing further has been heard since.

5. Who was behind the cryptic voice that repeated the words, "Number 9," in John Lennon's "Revolution 9," the musique concrete piece that has baffled many a listener of the band's 1968 album, The Beatles (popularly known as "The White Album"). To get the various sounds used in the recording, Lennon and collaborator George Harrison rummaged through the sound effects vaults at Abbey Road studios. The most prominent sound fragment features a voice repeating the phrase, "Number 9." As Lewisohn noted in his The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions the identity of that mysterious voice has been lost to history.

6. Why, exactly, did The Beatles break up? Nobody seems to be able to fully agree on why the most popular and successful musical act of the 20th century broke up at the height of their commercial and creative success. Ask any Beatles expert (or member of the band, for that matter) and you'll get conflicting and contradictory answers. Was it because of Yoko? Or was it the usual "musical differences" clash that has driven many bands to split? Was it a desire to simply move on and do something different? Or was it money disputes? A case could be made for any and/or all of these reasons. But the definitive answer remains elusive.

Whatever the reason for the breakup was, though, it was such a powerful reason that the band remained split forever. To get an idea of just how decisive the band's breakup was, consider this: not only did The Beatles never record together again, it's possible that all four members of the band never even met up once in all the years after 1970. The band's final photos were taken at Lennon's Tittenhurst Park estate on Aug. 22, 1969 and not one single photo has ever emerged that show the band members together after that date. In the years since the split, two or three members would occasionally meet here and there, but never all four together at the same time. Band members collaborated on a few of Ringo's solo albums, but it appears unlikely that all four were ever together in the same spot at the same time. At around noon, on Aug. 22, 1969, a photographer snapped a photo of the band standing on the southern balcony at Tittenhurst, not knowing that this was literally the final photo that would be ever taken of The Beatles together.

The answer to some of these mysteries may be cleared up in Lewisohn's upcoming official biography of the band, a book that Lewisohn has been working on for decades. This massive work will be released in three volumes, starting in October 2013. In a recent interview, Lewisohn promised that the book will offer many new revelations and insights. The signs are good that Lewisohn can deliver on this promise. After all, his Recording Sessions book is one of the definitive works on The Beatles and itself was a fascinating source of new insights about the world's most famous band.

One thing Lewisohn's past work has revealed is that The Beatles' story is so rich that, the closer you look at their work, the more fascinating it becomes. It's the total opposite of the old saying, "If you like sausage, you should never watch how it is made." With The Beatles, the closer you look, the more intriguing their story is. Virtually every song has a fascinating behind-the-scenes story. But for all the books written about the band over the decades, Lewisohn has noted that The Beatles' story "has been told often, but rarely very well." Here's hoping that Lewisohn's labors will finally produce a biography worthy of the band.

Rick Santorum At Odds With Catholic Church On Many Major Issues

By MARC MCDONALD

If you Google "Rick Santorum Devout Catholic," you'll get over 130,000 results. Indeed, the MSM routinely refers to Santorum as a "devout Catholic."

But is he?

In reality, Santorum is at odds with the Catholic Church on many major issues.

On Saturday, Santorum challenged President Obama's Christian beliefs and claimed White House policies were motivated by a "different theology."

All of this was reported by a straight-faced MSM, which has in turn given Santorum a free pass on the fact that many of his positions are in direct conflict with the Catholic Church.

The brilliant Juan Cole at Informed Comment recently rounded up the Top Ten Catholic Teachings Santorum Rejects while Obsessing about Birth Control:

1. "So for instance, Pope John Paul II was against anyone going to war against Iraq I think you'll find that Rick Santorum managed to ignore that Catholic teaching.

2. The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. I.e., Rick Santorum’s opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of the Catholic faith he is always trumpeting.

3. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost all situations. (Santorum largely supports executions.)

4. The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage.

5. The bishops want welfare for all needy families, saying "We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children." Santorum is a critic of welfare.

6. The US bishops say that "the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions...". Santorum, who used to be supportive of unions in the 1990s, has now, predictably, turned against them.

7. Catholic bishops demand the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Rick Santorum denies that there are any Palestinians, so I guess he doesn't agree with the bishops on that one.

8. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops ripped into Arizona's law on treatment of immigrants, Cardinal Roger Mahony characterized Arizona's S.B. 1070 as "the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law," saying it is based on "totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources." He even suggested that the law is a harbinger of an American Nazism! Santorum attacks 'anchor babies' or the provision of any services to children of illegal immigrants born and brought up in the US.

9. The Bishops have urged that illegal immigrants not be treated as criminals and that their contribution to this country be recognized.

10. The US Conference of Bishops has denounced, as has the Pope, the Bush idea of 'preventive war', and has come out against an attack on Iran in the absence of a real and present threat of an Iranian assault on the US. In contrast, Santorum wants to play Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove and ride the rocket down on Isfahan himself."

Go here to read Cole's full piece. As always, he nails it with a precision that is utterly absent from the misleading and dishonest MSM reporting about Santorum's "devout" Catholic faith.

John Gehring, who is Senior Writer and Catholic Outreach Coordinator at Faith in Public Life, has also written an excellent piece that sums up: The Catholic Case Against Rick Santorum.

With his bizarre fixation on homosexuality and birth control, Santorum has seemingly given the Catholic Church a bad name for many people. However, if one actually takes a look at the Catholic Church's positions on many social issues, one finds that the Catholic Church actually has more in common with progressives on many social issues than it does with Santorum's creepy, hypocritical, and twisted beliefs.

Progressive Music Classics. "No More Auction Block" by Paul Robeson

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.

In 1963, Bob Dylan released the song, "Blowin' in the Wind," on his album, The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan. Not longer after, Peter Seeger identified the song's melody as having come from the old Negro spiritual, "No More Auction Block," (a song that was sung by former slaves in Canada after Britain abolished slavery throughout most of the British empire in 1833).

In this version of "No More Auction Block," the great Paul Robeson performs a moving version of this classic song.

A true American musical giant, Robeson was persecuted throughout his career and he was often taken to task for his attacks on U.S. racism and his perceived refusal to condemn Communism during the era of McCarthyism hysteria.

It's ironic that Robeson himself was blacklisted and persecuted in his own country and has since been essentially scrubbed out of U.S. musical history, Stalin-style. But then, the U.S. has always enjoyed lecturing other nations about "human rights" while abusing the rights of its own citizens.

If you're a talented African-American musician in the U.S., it is, of course, possible to find fame and fortune---but it helps greatly if you keep your political opinions to yourself.

Hence, apolitical mediocrities like Michael Jackson can enjoy vast success and riches, while true musical giants like Robeson languish in obscurity. (Of course, it didn't help that Robeson was persecuted by the FBI, the CIA, and the House Un-American Activities Committee, or that he was blacklisted from performing or even from traveling overseas).

Robeson's big "crime" was that he refused to keep his mouth shut and he dared to speak uncomfortable truths that White America would prefer not hear.

How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism

By MARC McDONALD

Thanks to tireless efforts by historical revisionists over the past two decades, Ronald Reagan has gotten a lot of credit for achievements that he had nothing to do with. "Winning" the Cold War is a good example.

In reality, Reagan's policies had little or nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the last thing the Military Industrial Complex ever wanted was to see the Cold War's end (and with it the trillion-dollar gravy train of "defense" contractor funding).

On the other hand, Reagan should get credit for something that he actually did achieve: laying the groundwork for the death of capitalism as we know it.

Capitalism had its first near-death experience during the Great Depression. Ironically, it was saved by the most progressive president that the U.S. ever had: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although attacked by the business community at the time, FDR's New Deal in fact resurrected capitalism and gave it new life. The New Deal created the Great American Middle Class: tens of millions of well-paid workers that actually had the money to buy the products that the system produced.

It was a wonderful arrangement that made America a superpower and the most envied nation on the planet for decades to come.

However, America's wealthy never got over their hatred of FDR and the New Deal---despite the fact the latter saved capitalism from itself. The Rich & Powerful constantly plotted to abolish the New Deal. And in 1980, with Reagan's election, the wealthy class finally saw its chance to begin the attack on the New Deal---a process that continues to this day.

Under Reagan, middle class entitlements were slashed, as were programs to assist the poor. And sweeping changes in tax policy began to favor the very wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Also, labor unions and labor laws were gutted. Lastly, under Reagan's disastrous "free trade" policies, America started shipping all its good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas.

The result of all this was that, under Reagan, the Great American Middle Class began to shrink---a process that continues to this day. And with a much-weakened middle class, U.S. capitalism has hit a major crisis in that fewer and fewer consumers are able to buy the products that the system produces.

The latter is a crucial component of capitalism that has long been curiously overlooked by the "free market" Chicago School zealots who've long championed a completely deregulated economy. I find it interesting how these zealots are always so concerned about the plight of the "over-taxed, over-regulated" rich (who they claim are the only necessary ingredient for successful capitalism).

Of course, what these ivory tower zealots overlook is that capitalism as we know it simply can't function unless there is a strong, prosperous middle class around to buy the products created by the system.

Although Reagan's policies gutted the U.S. middle class, the resulting devastation to capitalism didn't become readily apparent until much later on. This was because the whole crisis was masked by America's increasing embrace of credit-fueled consumption, which created the mirage of prosperity.

Under Reagan, America simply stopped paying its bills. The government started borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from the likes of Japan. And consumers increasingly started pulling out their credit cards to pay for purchases, rather than using cash.

Finally, a series of bubbles came along to further create the illusion that the American economy was much more prosperous that it really was. These included the Dot Com bubble and the more recent housing bubble.

Of course, the whole Ponzi scheme all came crashing down in 2008. Since then, the U.S. economy has remained on life support. The nation continues to plunge further into debt, even as the U.S. dollar continues to hit new all-time lows. The middle class is all but extinct these days, as are the good-paying jobs that once help make the American economy the mightiest on earth.

Virtually all of this is a legacy of Reagan's policies. And unlike capitalism's first near-death experience, in the 1930s, it's extremely unlikely that we'll see another FDR ever come along to give the whole system a new lease on life. In our Citizens United era, that's simply not ever going to happen.

Reagan (or more specifically, his wealthy backers) originally aimed to crush the New Deal and return the U.S. to an unregulated 19th century dog-eat-dog form of capitalism. They hoped that this would propel capitalism to new heights. But by ignoring the key role of middle class consumption in their calculations, they unwittingly severely damaged capitalism itself and turned America into a second-rate power.

We continue to see the corrosive effects of the Reagan legacy to this day. The serious problems that began to emerge during his presidency (out-of-control fiscal and trade deficits, a shrinking middle class, the loss of good manufacturing jobs, and a plummeting dollar) continue to this day.

Of course, the wealthy class to this day continues to live in denial that the whole capitalist party is now over. They continue to cling to the hope that the crisis caused by the 2008 economic collapse will eventually be fixed and the capitalism will somehow continue.

The problem is that the good-paying manufacturing jobs are gone for good. And the much-hyped service economy jobs that were supposed to replace the latter have in fact been poor substitutes, offering vastly lower pay and benefits, for the most part. In fact, to this day, America continues to bleed what few good manufacturing jobs it has left, thanks to the utter absence of any kind of intelligence trade policy.

What's more, given the ever-weakening dollar and the ever-growing trade and fiscal deficits it faces, America has less and less clout on the world stage. For the entire post-World War II era, America could simply print more dollars to bail itself out of fiscal crises, given that the dollar was the world's international reserve currency. That era, clearly, is near an end.

With the demise of the dollar, America will be a much weaker and less wealthy nation. For the entire post-World War II era, America has been the standard-bearer for capitalism. With the latter now discredited, it's clear that the rest of the world is increasingly rejecting the U.S. model of economics and is instead turning to the regulated, technocrat-led economies of China and Singapore as the new role model.

Not only did Reagan's era doom capitalism, but his toxic legacy ensured that America will find it extremely difficult to remedy the crises that resulted from his administration. These range from the deterioration of public education that resulted from Reagan's budget cuts to America's crumbling infrastructure. These two factors alone will make it increasingly difficult for America to compete globally in the years to come.

But perhaps the most toxic legacy of all was Reagan's abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine. This ensured that America's mainstream media would increasingly do little more than parrot the official corporate line. Americans today are hopelessly misinformed on the issues these days. And a nation that is misinformed is going to find it difficult to ever take the necessary steps needed to fix the crises unleashed by Reagan's policies.

Progressive Music Classics: The Best Protest Songs Of The Margaret Thatcher Era

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.

The era of Margaret Thatcher was a grim time to be alive in Britain, except in one respect: there was loads of fantastic music around. And a number of top musicians were inspired by Thatcher's rule to create some of the best protest music of any era.

A good example, featured in the video above, was The Beat's "Whine and Grine/Stand Down Margaret," featured on the Birmingham neo-ska band's classic 1980 album, I Just Can't Stop It. It was that rare song that made you want to get up and dance and gave you food for thought as well.

Thatcher, of course, has been back in the news lately, on account of the acclaimed new bio film, The Iron Lady, starring Meryl Streep. The film has sharply divided opinion in the U.K., where Thatcher is not remembered fondly.

I've always detested Thatcher myself (almost as much as I hate her contemporary, Ronald Reagan). Among their many other crimes against humanity, both leaders gutted organized labor in their respective nations. As a result, both countries have seen income inequality sharply rise over the past three decades.

A big irony of both Thatcher and Reagan is that they both set back the cause of the capitalist system they both admired.

The fact is, First World capitalism really can't survive without a strong, prosperous middle class. Given that Thatcher and Reagan seriously damaged the middle class in their nations, they unwittingly inflicted serious long-term damage to capitalism itself.

After all, capitalism only works if there is a strong, healthy middle class around to buy the products that the system creates. It's a lesson that the likes of Henry Ford once learned a long time ago (but has been long since forgotten by today's industrialists).

In America since 1980s, the reality of a shrinking middle class has been masked by consumers going into ever-deeper debt. It's a cycle that is unsustainable.

I would maintain that whatever "prosperity" Britain and the U.S. have seen since 1980 has been largely a credit-card-fueled mirage, boosted by occasional other smoke-and-mirrors phenomenon, like the recent housing bubble. It's only a matter of time before the whole Ponzi scheme system comes crashing down on our heads.

But back in the 1980s, this side effect of Thatcherism wasn't yet apparent. Back then, people were just appalled at her all-out assault on working people. Decades later, it has become apparent that Thatcherism was even worse than its 1980s critics believed.

There are many other classic anti-Thatcher songs out there. I also recommend Elvis Costello's 1989 song, "Tramp the Dirt Down," (perhaps the most savage song Costello has ever cut). For sheer rage, though, nothing tops the anti-Falklands War protest song, "How Does It Feel to Be the Mother of a Thousand Dead?" by anarchist band, Crass.

Also, be sure to check out Morrissey's no-holds-barred assault on the Iron Lady, "Margaret on the Guillotine" (see below). Sadly, the eight horrific years that Geoge W. Bush inflicted upon America never inspired any of the dullards who clog up our pop charts to create anything as memorable as these U.K. anti-Thatcher songs.
.

Check Out the "Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2011"

By MARC McDONALD

My March 10, 2011 piece, "How Unions Make a Nation Competitive," was featured in Vagabond Scholar's "Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2011." If you haven't already, be sure to check out this roundup, which offers a lot of great articles from many of the Web's top progressive blogs. And also, be sure to check out Vagabond Scholar itself, which is one of our favorite liberal blogs. Here's to a great 2012 for all progressive bloggers everywhere.

Why Jesus Would Call Tim Tebow a Hypocrite

.
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

--The words of Christ, as quoted in Matthew 6:1, The Bible, New International Version.

By MARC McDONALD

Denver Broncos football star Tim Tebow seems like a nice, likeable fellow. It seems harsh to say anything negative about him.

But for years, Tebow has been outspoken about his Christian faith, instead of keeping it (as millions of Christians do) as a personal, private matter. Indeed, with his extremely public displays of prayer, Tebow wants the whole world to know that he's a Christian. And frankly, if you take a look at the actual words of Jesus Christ, it becomes clear that Christ regarded people like Tebow as hypocrites.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers the following definition for hypocrite: "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings."

Now, let's turn to the Bible and look at the actual words of Christ in Matthew 6:5-15. This is one of those Bible passages that I've never, ever seen any mainstream or evangelical "Christian" quote.

In fact, the vast majority of "Christians" always carefully tiptoe away from this passage and just try to pretend it doesn't exist. It shouldn't really surprising why. The passage very clearly questions the need for organized church services---and, for that matter, churches, period. Given that churches are an enormously profitable (and tax-free) cash cow that sustain the gigantic industry known as organized religion, it shouldn't be surprising that most "Christians" ignore Matthew 6:5-15.

Matthew 6:5-15 quotes Christ's actual words and reads as follows:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

The fact is, Christ very clearly disapproved of public displays of prayer. In fact, he specifically called people who do so "hypocrites."

This year, Tebow has captured endless headlines and publicity for his trademark habit of "Tebowing" (kneeling and praying) during key moments of football games. As a result, tens of millions of NFL viewers have repeatedly watched Tebow pray during football games.

It's difficult to imagine a more high-profile, public way of praying than "Tebowing." Tebow is not content with simple prayer in private. Instead he turns it into a "Hey, look-at-me!" public spectacle, before the television cameras.

Whatever one thinks of this spectacle, it's clear that Tebow is completely ignoring Christ's own words about how to pray. Once again: Jesus said when you pray, you should go into your room and close the door and pray in secret. To do otherwise, as Jesus notes, is to be an attention-seeking "hypocrite."

Speaking of hypocrisy, Tebow recently signed a contract that will pay him tens of millions for playing football in the years to come. Whatever one thinks of the inflated, obscene pay packages that today's pampered athletes make, there's one thing that is clear: once again Tebow has been ignoring the words of Christ that condemn wealth.

In Mark 10:21, Jesus states that the only way a rich person can enter heaven is to sell all his assets and give the money to the poor. And in Matthew 19:24, Jesus says that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." In Matthew 6:24, Jesus says, "You cannot serve both God and money."

These are three Bible passages that quote Jesus and that specifically condemn mega-millionaires like Tebow. The Bible, in fact, is full of passages that condemn wealth (which is the reason that the early Christians, as described in the Book of Acts, lived a socialist lifestyle).

Tebow may well regard himself as a fine, upstanding Christian. But his version of "Christianity" in fact has little to do with the actual words of Christ.

And it's also clear that Christ himself would have regarded Tebow as a hypocrite.

Film Review: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," Another Unnecessary, Inferior Hollywood Remake

By MARC McDONALD

Once again, Hollywood takes a perfectly fine foreign film and thinks it can do better, simply by throwing an enormous amount of money at a remake and hiring top actors and an acclaimed director. I'll bet the catering budget alone for this bloated, unnecessary remake was bigger than the entire budget of the Swedish original.

What Hollywood can't do, though, these days, is originality. I very rarely even bother to go to the movie theater. Most U.S. movies are terrible. The only movies I watch are the occasional indie film, as well as European and, especially, East Asian movies. It's not because I'm an elitist, or a hipper-than-thou fanboy. It's simply because I'm bored stiff by 99 percent of what Hollywood does.

The best of Hollywood these days may be polished and technically accomplished. And there may be some good acting, here and there. But there is no real originality. And most importantly, there is little soul.

Today's Hollywood moguls only focus on a bland movie-by-committee approach that cynically has no other aim than to appeal to as many customers world-wide as possible. It makes for very lucrative business----but lousy art.

For me, the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has its moments. But overall, it's just another depressing example of a Hollywood industry that is creatively bankrupt. Hollywood has become a parasite industry that just leeches off the ideas of other cultures. (Thank God for off-the-wall films like Tokyo Gore Police and Martyrs that are so extreme and uncompromising that it'd be impossible for Hollywood to remake them).

I realize that there are a lot of Fincher fan-boys who lap up everything he does. But to me, he's overrated.

For me, The Social Network was dull. Just the story of a bunch of pampered Ivy college kids without a care in the world, going to endless parties and expensive clubs.

Hmmm, interesting. When I worked my way through college, my life wasn't anything like this. Just a lot of brutal 16-hour shifts, misery, and constant worry about finding the money to pay the electric bill. And I was hardly the only one. (Actually, the struggles of working-class kids in college would make for a much more interesting film, in my opinion).

Oh, and I know a thing or two about building a popular Web business, too. The Social Network isn't anything like what I went through (or what anyone I know in the biz went through) in building a Web site business. There was little partying, or hanging around in clubs with beautiful models. Instead, there was just an enormous amount of tedious, grueling work, hunched over a computer terminal far into the night. No alcohol---but enormous amounts of coffee.

To be sure, my Web business is a mosquito, compared to the all-conquering behemoth that is Facebook. But I know enough about the biz to know that The Social Network is a fantasy (and an overrated, crap movie as well that is nothing like the real world of building a successful Web biz from scratch).

And as for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo---it's a totally unnecessary and inferior Hollywood remake of what was a perfectly fine original Swedish film.

Facts That Republicans Have A Hard Time Grasping: No. 1 In A Series

By MARC McDONALD

Republicans these days inhabit a world that is different from the rest of us. Their world is a hermetically-sealed unit through which certain facts can never penetrate. Argue with Republicans all you want, but you will never break through this barrier.

This is one reason you simply can't argue with Republicans on many issues of the day, from Global Warming to the missing WMDs in Iraq. No matter how many indisputable facts you toss into your argument, you'll simply never get anywhere.

In my experience, the Republican will simply deny the existence of facts. If that's not possible, he or she will claim that your source is unreliable (even if your source is rock-solid numbers from, say, the U.S. Treasury Department). If all else fails, the Republican will simply start screaming and shouting his point of the view (as though simply raising one's voice enhances one's argument). Finally, as a last resort, the Republican will simply try to change the subject, or just walk away.

I saw the above tactics in action during a recent argument with a right-wing friend. He was peddling the standard GOP line that "Obama's 2009 stimulus was a failure and a waste of taxpayer money." I pointed out to him that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million. The CBO also noted that the stimulus raised GDP by between 0.3 and 1.9 percent in the third quarter of 2011. In other words, the stimulus was a success and it prevented the Second-Great-Depression-in-the-making that Obama inherited from Bush from ever happening.

My right-wing friend disputed the CBO report. The CBO, he claimed is a Liberal partisan group and in any case, their numbers are suspect. (This is probably what Rush has been peddling to his audience lately).

Earth to GOP: the CBO is hardly "partisan." Basically, it's the government's own statistics agency and its numbers are widely used by both the Republicans and the Democrats. The CBO is a mainstream government agency that is about as partisan as the phone book. All it does is crunch numbers, compile them and then release them to the public.

It speaks volumes about the GOP mindset that my friend would even attempt to attack the CBO as a "partisan" and "non-reliable" source. I mean, if a mainstream government agency like the CBO is unreliable, then who, exactly, is a reliable source?

While he bashes the CBO as "partisan" and "unreliable," my friend, during his arguments, routinely quotes anything and everything Rush Limbaugh says as the absolute gospel truth. If Rush said it, it must be true. Yes: this drug-using, obese, fact-challenged, racist, serial liar is a "reliable" source---and yet a mainstream non-partisan statistics agency like the CBO is "suspect."

Such is the alternate universe in which Republicans live.

Trying to inform these people about basic, fundamental facts that challenge their Rush-twisted world viewpoint is like trying to teach a shark to appreciate Mozart.

One of the hardest facts to try to get a Republican to accept is that the GOP in reality is NOT the fiscally conservative party that it sells itself as. In fact, the Democrats are America's fiscally conservative party as this chart (see below) clearly reveals.

Despite this, the GOP succeeds in continuing to sell their party as America's "fiscally conservative" party. By simply repeating this lie, over and over, they've managed to convince tens of millions of America of this---not just Republicans, but millions of independents, and even many Democrats.

Go to any encyclopedia and look up "Republican" and you'll consistently find the GOP described as America's "fiscally conservative" party. It's incredible that this image endures, despite decades of hard evidence to the contrary.

In this case, not only are Republicans oblivious to the facts. But so is virtually everyone else in America, from encyclopedia authors to the mainstream media. By simply repeating their mantra of "we support fiscal conservatism" over and over, the GOP has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

I'm sure that future historians, when they survey the wreckage of the collapsed American empire, will marvel that Republicans managed to fool so many people for so long.

Marc's Jukebox: The Anti-Nowhere League: "Let's Break the Law"

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

Sometimes a society passes bad laws. And bad laws deserve to be broken.

For example, take the law that enabled New York City's Michael Bloomberg to send in his heavy-handed cops to break up OWS's peaceful protest.

That was a bad law. And it was meant to be broken.

So was the law (the 2002 Iraq War Resolution) that enabled Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the NeoCon goons to launch their war of aggression against Iraq.

U.S. soldiers were obligated by U.S. law to participate in this war. But what they should have done is laid down their weapons and refused to fight. (Actually, some of them did just that---and they, in my opinion are the true heroes in the U.S. military).

The bottom line is that if the law of the land is a bad law, then We The People not only should break it, we have an obligation to do so.

Fighting against the oppression of the oligarchy that currently rules this nation is going to inevitably involve breaking some laws. I suspect that OWS is only the beginning. And the more the working class is oppressed today, the higher the odds that the People's Revolution that inevitably follows will turn violent someday.

Speaking of breaking laws, the British punk band The Anti-Nowhere League are a crew that I want on my side of the barricades, come the revolution. Actually, I'm not sure how politically aware these guys are. But there is definitely no mistaking their sincerity to the cause of creating mayhem in the streets, as a listen to their song, "Let's Break the Law" reveals.

The Anti-Nowhere League initially made a splash in the U.K. in 1982 with their classic album, We Are...The League, which soared up the independent charts that year. The album had many classic tunes, including a high-octane cover of Ralph McTell's "Streets of London," a celebration of the downtrodden, the oppressed, the lonely, and the forgotten members of society.

Today's Nazi Of The Day Award Goes To Rush Limbaugh

By MARC McDONALD

Today marks the inaugural edition of our Nazi of the Day Award. The first recipient of this award is: Rush Limbaugh.

True, any one of the right-wing talk show hosts that pollute our nation's airwaves with their toxic bile could be eligible for this award. (For example, Mark Levin is a truly creepy, twisted fascist who actually makes Limbaugh sound like a moderate and reasonable fellow at times, by comparison).

But let's face it: Herr Limbaugh is in a different league by virtue of the fact that he's been doing this so effectively and for so long. His racist, bigoted, Nazi ramblings long ago short-circuited the outrage meters of Liberals (and for that matter, anyone who isn't seriously mentally disturbed).

It's gotten so bad that Limbaugh can call First Lady Michelle Obama "uppity" and his use of that racially charged insult is only good for a moderate 12-hour news cycle before it is forgotten.

Quick question: in the past half-century has anyone ever used the word "uppity" in anything other than a Ku Klux Klan-like context? Has anyone ever used the word "Uppity" who wasn't a angry white bigoted male who was slamming African-Americans? If so, I've certainly never heard about it.

But using racially charged language is what Limbaugh excels at. His brief, after all, is to act as a matador of sorts for the Rich and Powerful in America. As a matador, he waves a red flag as a distraction to trick millions of gullible angry white working class people into voting against their own interests.

But how does Limbaugh achieve this feat of manipulating his audience into voting for the party of billionaires? It's simple. He does it by shamelessly scapegoating African-Americans.

Hence, tens of millions of Limbaugh's listeners are convinced that the source of all their problems is that the government supposedly is stealing their hard-earned dollars and handing it out to lazy black people who don't work.

Never mind that America's social safety net for the poor is already embarrassingly threadbare for a First World nation. Never mind that millions of low-income people never receive a dime of welfare in this country. Never mind that corporate welfare and welfare for the rich and powerful is vastly more costly than our nation's skimpy programs for the poor.

I've long believed that, for all his hundreds of millions of dollars in income, Limbaugh has the easiest job in America. All he does is sit on his fat ass and spew lies into a microphone for three hours a day.

The Pig-Man does zero research and zero fact-checking. Of course, none of this matters, as his audience laps it all up with a spoon. They dismiss Media Matters and other fact-checking sites that expose Limbaugh's many daily lies and his blatant racism.

"It's all a Librul conspiracy to hurt Rush," the Ditto-Heads claim.

But while Limbaugh has an easy job, one thing he does do very well is the way he skillfully dances around the "N" word. Although he doesn't actually ever use the "N" word to demonize blacks, he very artfully dances around saying the word "n*gger" on the air.

In doing so, Limbaugh can use the language of the KKK in calling First Lady Michelle Obama "uppity" and then claim with a straight face that he is no racist. (This, despite, an established decades-long track record of making outrageously racist and bigoted statements).

You know, on a certain level, I think I actually have more respect for the likes of the KKK than I do for Limbaugh. After all, the KKK openly admits its racism. It doesn't try to hide anything. Give the KKK credit for one thing: they're honest and upfront about it. By contrast, Limbaugh truly sickens me the way he uses KKK-like language and then disingenuously claims that he not a racist.

So in addition to being a racist, he's also a liar.

Oh, and he's also a Nazi. In fact, I have no doubt that Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels would find much to admire in Limbaugh's technique.

After all, Limbaugh is scapegoating African-Americans in much the same manner that Goebbels scapegoated the Jews.

Just as Limbaugh manages to convince his gullible audience than black people are somehow to blame for their problems, Nazis like Goebbels managed to convince millions of people that the Jews were the cause of many of Germany's woes. (The "stab-in-the-back legend" in which people like the Jews were blamed for Germany's World War I defeat is a good example of the latter).

Like Goebbels, Limbaugh is spewing his toxic nonsense in a decaying, declining nation. And I believe that, as was the case in the Third Reich, it's a situation that could eventually turn tragic.

After all, the more Limbaugh convinces his audience to vote against its own interest, the more we'll see the U.S. increasingly turn into a Third World nation. And the more the latter happens, the angrier and more bitter Limbaugh's audience will become. It's a vicious circle---and I believe it could someday lead to serious violence. These people are already heavily armed and they're very bitter and angry.

After all, America already has a sinister history of racial violence (although most Americans remain unaware of tragedies like the deadly 1921 Tulsa race riot).

Thanks to the legacy of three decades of increasingly extreme GOP policies, the U.S. today is a fading power. America's corrupt political leadership and the criminals run many of our largest corporations and financial institutions have driven this nation into the ground. Although the Top One Percent have never been a bunch of angels, I believe that today, they're more corrupt than ever. And, tragically, they now exercise total control over our government more than they ever have in our nation's history, thanks to Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United.

In previous decades, America's rich realized that while it's OK to gorge themselves at the banquet table, it's smart to occasionally brush off a few crumbs onto the floor for the rest of us. Today's wealthy elite don't even bother to do that. I mean, why bother when you have the likes of Limbaugh to poison the minds of millions of working-class people and to persuade them to vote against their own interests?

As Bill Maher once said, democracy doesn't work when people vote against their own interests. So, in addition to his other crimes, Limbaugh is playing a key role in the dismantling of democracy in America. Clearly, Limbaugh, with his outspoken support for wars of aggression, stolen elections, state-sponsored torture, and his contempt for democracy, would feel right at home in the Third Reich.

So there you have it: today's Nazi of the Day Award goes to Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure that Adolf Hitler would be proud.

Christopher Hitchens: A Champion of Reason Or A NeoCon Toady?

By MARC McDONALD

On the excellent Infidel753 blog, I recently noticed that the site owner was paying tribute to Christopher Hitchens with a YouTube video that praises the man and his work.

Personally, I believe Hitchens' work on atheism and other topics is commendable--but outweighed by his despicable support for the Iraq War and his shameful propagandizing on behalf of Bush/Cheney and the rest of the NeoCons who have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on their hands.

The comment thread below, which originally appeared on the Infidel753 blog, sums up my thoughts about this. I'd be curious to know: do readers of this blog agree or disagree? Does Hitchens' fine and intelligent body of work outweigh his support for the Iraq War? Or does Hitchens' parroting of Bush/Cheney lies damage his integrity and his reputation for intellectual honesty?

The comment thread, from Nov. 13, 2011:

I like this blog and you have a lot of good content. But frankly, I must disagree with all this praise for Christopher Hitchens.

Personally, I will always despise Hitchens for his outspoken support for the Iraq War. That horrific gang-rape of the Iraqi people was probably the world's greatest tragedy since Vietnam.

And every step of the way, Hitchens had his nose firmly up Bush's ass and loudly supported that fiasco.

I consider what Hitchens did to be even more reprehensible that the war-mongering coverage at "news" networks like Fox.

Hitchens' cheerleading for the war was actually more sickening than the likes of Limbaugh. After all, to any sensible, informed person, Limbaugh is a clown and his words carry little weight.

But many Americans (even the well-informed) bizarrely seem to believe that anyone who speaks with a British accent is somehow more intelligent than the rest of us.

As Hitchens is regarded as an "intellectual", his words on Iraq were far more influential to reasonable, intelligent opinion-makers than the likes of Fox News.

What's worse, is that Hitchens downright LIED about Iraq on many occasions. It's one thing to support this evil war. But to lie through his teeth about it was just downright evil. Memo to Hitchens: there was NO CONNECTION between Al Qaeda and Saddam--despite what you and Bush claimed otherwise on many occasions.

Hitchens may have done some good in his philosophical writing. But these were far outweighed, in my opinion, by his support for the evil that was the Iraq War.

A message to the many middle-class people in this video, sitting in their cushy, comfortable homes sipping scotch: please, spare a thought for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians---all senselessly slaughtered in a war of lies that Hitchens passionately supported.

A response from site owner, "Infidel753":

MM: I consider Hitchens a great intellectual because of his writings and speeches against religion, not because of his accent. Yes, he was wrong about Iraq, but there is no one out there who has never been wrong about something.

To me, his contribution to the central struggle -- the struggle against religion -- far outweighs his errors on Iraq.

My response:

re:
>>Yes, he was wrong about Iraq,
>>but there is no one out there
>>who has never been wrong about
>>something.

Yes, I agree with you here. However, eight long years after the invasion of Iraq, it'd be nice to finally hear Hitchens say, "OK, I was wrong on this issue."

I don't expect to ever hear that from the likes of Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. But it'd be nice to hear Hitchens say it after all this time. It'd be nice to also hear an apology for the vicious attacks he made on the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and other anti-war figures.

Having said that, I did read Hitchens' God is Not Great some time back and I do admit, it was a very good book.

BTW, sorry about the tone of my previous comment. I do tend to get blinded by rage over all matters, re: Iraq War. Rather than "despising" Hitchens, I guess the more accurate term would be that I'm disappointed in him, at least on this issue.