HE'S ALIVE, ASSHOLES.

Yep, Fidel Castro is still alive!

Here's a photo from Cuba's Granma service, part of a series. While the moron pundits scream that they're "doctored", we get doctored photos from Iraq and Lebanon without any comment. More of that Goebbels touch (of death). There is no press but the blogs! Journalism students, drop out, your degree is worthless...just ask Anderson Cooper.

All the stories put out there by the State Department were wishful thinking since they cannot kill him or the Cuban revolution. I know, it's sad that the Mafia and criminal corporations were run out, what a horrible shame, I know.

Anti-Castro Cubans: you are whores, lapdogs and rubes for people who view you as "spics." We on the Left pity you, you aren't even Cuban; you left the place 50 years ago. Wake up, it's over, and if Raul died after Fidel their children and other Cubans would take their places.

Chavez: how can you dislike a world leader who calls George W. Bush "an asshole"? You'd have to be one, naturally.

Dateline Crawford: The President Screws a Dog

Crawford, TX.
Today, at 11:30 am, Secret Service Agents, and activists located nearby President George W. Bush's Texas-property documented unspeakable-acts by the Command-in-Chief: "It was Lovecraftian...unspeakable," stated associates of Cindy Sheehan, as well as members of a local Peace House. "He uttered these deep-incantations, then sodomized the dog," stated another-source who wishes to speak under condition of anonymity. Other neighbors of President Bush have noted a strange-vortex swirling-above the ranch at various-times. "Hey, he VOLUNTEERED FOR IT", exclaimed a senior staff-member of the President's entourage. But, the press wasn't there, so it didn't happen. If a Bush falls-for a dog, and nobody is there, does it make a sound? Or, did it happen-at-all?

I told-you-so (Lebanon)

It appears the Israeli-military is doing what I predicted they would (YHWH, I'm good): wholesale-destruction before the clock ticks-down on Monday. So, more Lebanese die for no-good-reason, and Israel won't win--even if they had a year. Hizbollah has hardened. You think any of them got combat-experience in Iraq? Nawwwww.

A Scanner Darkly review

1Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass [the original-Greek connotes "mirror," not a window], darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1Cr 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these (is) charity.


Substance-D is a powerful hallucinogen, a drug that when used over a prolonged period causes a bicameral-split in the user's personality. They become psychotics with multiple-personalities. Users call the drug "death," an appropriate moniker that reflects the eventual disintegration of the user's personality--or, at least in Philip K. Dick's science-fiction novel , "A Scanner Darkly" (1977).

Dick's adult life was spent primarily in-and-around Berkeley during the heyday of the antiwar movement and the American counterculture (though it really has continued into now). Many of the characters in his story like Ernie Luckman, Charles Freck, Donna Hawthorne, James Barris, and even Bob Arctor, were based-on real people that Dick had allowed to hang-out at his home while he wrote. Most of them were junkies and losers (and a few robbed him), but Dick felt a real pity and empathy for them. I share this with him, as despicable as addicts can be.

If you have ever truly been a part of the counterculture, this is going to be familiar-territory, and it will be both a funny reminder and a tragic one. I can say with authority that the film and the novel are pretty authentic in depicting the paranoia and the toll that the "lifestyle" takes on people. But, in classic Burroughsian-fashion (Philip K. Dick was an avid reader of William S. Burroughs, like many countercultural writers of that time), he shows that there are facets of the lifestyle that are worse, far-worse than "straight" society. Addicts are victims in more ways than you might suspect.

Think of addiction as a pyramid--as Burroughs enjoined us to do--and you'll understand that the so-called "drug problem" is about social control of rebellious populations and an excuse towards about gradually foisting a totalitarian system onto a democratic one. Dick homes in on this theme with incredible perceptiveness, simplifying it for the average reader. Yet the majority of Philip K. Dick novels are about the elusiveness of the underlying reality that constantly escapes us, the search for meaning within this reality, and the need for empathy in our lives. Like numerous other social observers, Dick saw us all becoming dehumanized by modern consumer culture, even becoming commodities through "reification." Richard Linklater has done this particular theme and story more justice than any other director has or possibly will anytime soon.

Linklater is a product of the American counterculture, which should be obvious glimpsing "Slackers," "Dazed and Confused," "Waking Life," and virtually all of his most personal films. He has also done what few writer/directors have ever attempted which is a story that is basically anti-drug (hard-drugs, not pot) without being preachy and boring.

I have read "A Scanner Darkly," at least six times and I can say that Richard Linklater has nailed the story, its meaning, and the hard lessons learned by Philip K. Dick and people like myself in the counterculture. Unlike many anti-drug films, we are told by the character Bob Arctor why he began his addiction: he hated his conformist daily-grind life with the kids, the wife, and its consumer nightmare of meaninglessness. This is why most people become addicted-to-drugs. They can no longer stand life in the developed world and how controlled and repressed it is. They yearn for empathy, closeness, and community.

When life's options have become constricted by ever-greater concentrations of power (a situation fostered by politicians and lobbyists, and the inaction of most people), you get a society like ours, and the one in A Scanner Darkly. The lives of ordinary people become warped by the distortions in power-relationships, and it poisons society and people's minds and spirits. Before long, nobody trusts one another, it all becomes apparently "normal," and society begins to feed on itself.

After that, collapse comes, inevitably. The body politic crashes and a bloodbath emerges as the system crashes. It wasn't hard to see where things were going in the 1970s, especially after Watergate and earlier--and more important--revelations like the 1971 break-in of an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania that revealed the extent of spying on American citizens at that time. Now, it's become "normal," but at that time the public was alarmed and outraged. Now, the war on terror justifies everything, and up is down.

The NSA's current spying is nothing new. Philip K. Dick's own home was burglarized during the early-1970s and his tax-records were stolen. The likely motive was that he had been a war tax resister during the Vietnam War, which raged into the middle-1970s. It should be noted here that Dick Cheney was a Nixon and Ford administration staffer. We shouldn't wonder why we're back to square one. Because things have only gotten worse, Linklater's version of the Philip K. Dick story is nothing less than a call-to-action and a very radical film in a very good sense. If we continue not to act against these encroachments on our rights, we will end-up with a society that closely resembles the one in A Scanner Darkly. Since 1977, things have gone in this direction. But then, there's the (second) war on drugs again...

There is ample-proof that our government has had involvement in the drug trade with corporate complicity in some areas (think NAFTA). Like any great science-fiction tale, this is a cautionary one, and we ignore the message at our own peril. What Richard Linklater has crafted is a great film based on a great American novel, and it was fun watching Alex Jones be dragged-away by the police (again). If only that part of the movie had been real, but Jones has a tendency to screw-up, so we'll see if he gets popped again. Timeless.

Significantly Revised, 09.13.2008

Tobe Hooper's The Mangler review

"And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among these dark Satanic mills? "

William Blake, "Jerusalem."


"We all have to make sacrifices!" --from the Mangler-screenplay, 1995


Coming from Stephen King's 1978 collection-of-shorts, "Night Shift", Tobe Hooper brings us his very different-take: a parable of 19th Century, proprietary capitalism and the nightmare of the American workplace. This film is what labor conditions were 100-years-ago, and what they could easily become again if we aren't too careful. Since the discovery of a slave sweatshop in El Monte, California a few-years after the release of this film, the story's settings aren't so fantastical.

Maybe some of us were too-comfortable to "get" this film in the Clinton era. Most people don't get this film at all, even just watching it on its surface levels. It's a real hoot! Yep, you can watch it with a beer, and you can watch it with an open-mind thinking about its deeper-meanings, or you can do both. And--shocker!--ALL of them are FUN.

Tobe Hooper has said for decades he wanted to do comedy, and he comes close here, which helps this film from being too-oppressive. I think he understood the story better than Stephen King--it seems King worked in a clothes-pressing plant like this one in the 1960s, which gave-rise to it, but Hooper has always struck me as politically-radical in his approach-to-horror. And radical this story is, and bizarre.

Sometimes I think Tobe Hooper had the idea that this film would be much-bigger, but he still achieves something lasting here. Not only is Mangler a parable of modern capitalism, it is a story of a disease that eats a person's humanity until it's gone, and it is multi-generational. The best horror usually has a real subversive-edge, and this is what makes this a good one. Sure, Mangler can be hokey, but it has its tongue firmly planted in-cheek, and it is a jokey movie. It also has some sub-themes in the lines, "There's a piece of me in that machine--and a piece of it in me." It speaks well of how people are spiritually contaminated by our system. The disease is greed.

If it wasn't for Ted Levine ("Buffalo Bill" in Silence of the Lambs) as the bedraggled town cop John Hunton, Robert Englund would literally steal the show here. Tobe uses some great low-shots and wide-angle lens compositions (ala "Citizen Kane"and Fritz Lang) that lend the film a great comic book look, and make Englund shine as a despicable villain. The irony is, mill owner Bill Gartley is also a victim of the machine, which robs him of the ability to walk, probably the most subversive element of the story.

The proprietor Gartley is hobbled and half-blind, which makes sense for a symbol of a tyrannical employer who is being eaten alive by his role. The characters are pretty well-drawn, and we learn that Detective Hunton has some baggage left-behind from the death of his wife in a car-accident, years earlier. He just doesn't care about being a cop anymore.

The town is run like a virtual-dictatorship by Gartley, who basically represents the "robber barons" of the 19th century (as well as today), completely uncaring about the safety and welfare of his employees. He's a man who has lost his humanity. Sound familiar? Eventually, an accident occurs where the niece of Englund's character spills her own blood on the "Mangler", a clothes-press that must be at least 100-years-old.

Another shop employee spills her belladonna-laced antacids into the guts of the machine, and it begins taking-victims...and parts. Oddly, all the people Bill Gartley "owns" (the Mayor, the Police Chief, Doctors, etc.) have missing-fingers. Of course, the premise of a demonically possessed machine is fantasy, which is what makes the story a parable, but it's fun.

In time, Detective Hunton finds that the Gartley dynasty has been sacrificing their own young to the infernal machine for a century, and now they're "spreading the love". Don't all employers? Some require the blood of a virgin! So, people have been wrong about this one. It's a minor classic of a bad decade for horror. The genre has its fallow periods where interest isn't as high, and 1995 wasn't exactly a banner year for horror buffs.

And quit comparing every film a director does to their most well-known ones, it's emotionally retarded. You know who you are. This is a solid horror-film, and if it had been presented in the proper context, it would have been better appreciated. The short story is good, but this is better, and Stephen King sure isn't Edgar Allan Poe or Lovecraft ferchrissakes.

The New Line DVD is great, it has a perfect widescreen transfer, and even includes the gore that was cut with split-screen comparisons to the theatrical-version. It's a great horror film, and a respectable one for Tobe Hooper. Now you can all go and rewatch the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"--just don't touch-yourself so much this time. We all have to make sacrifices, after all.

Israel to End War in Lebanon Monday

This is because they were ordered-to by the State Department of the United States. Meanwhile, we can guess Israeli-troops and planes will killing to make-up for lost-time. "Yeah, but what-about France?" What-about em'? Yes, Syria used to be a colony of France until the late-1940s, so there are some deep-ties. Oh yeah, the USA has NO DIPLOMATIC-TIES TO SYRIA WHATSOEVER, thanks-to the Bush administration, and earlier State Department policies. This gave us no-leverage or diplomatic-options with Syria. "So, what's all this Syria shit?" Because Syria is a prime-backer of Hizbollah, their proxy-force in Lebanon. "So?" So, if you really don't want Israel surrounded by a ring-of-fire ("Down-down-down, and the flames were gettin' higher!"), potentially setting-off World War III, you use France to contact Syria's government to tell Hizbollah to stop if the Israelis do too. Yes, the Bush administration had to go-running to the "Cheese-eating surrender-monkies" because the French understand diplomacy, while the Bush administration does not. You can see this move as an admission of this fact. "Man, I stopped-reading after High School. This shit makes my head-hurt." I would imagine it does...

The Fairness-Doctrine: Time to Bring-it-Back

What a hoot: with the possibility that the GOP will be washed-out of Congress in the Fall of 2006, Republican-blogs, sites and think-tanks are pushing the notion of a conspiracy to silence their pundits with the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" at the FCC. Yeah, what a horrible-thing, they'll have to put opposing-views on their shows FOR REAL, how anti-democratic. In an undated City-Journal tirade, Brian C. Anderson likens a return of the Fairness Doctrine as..."the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short-run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what’s going on—and resist it." Oh sure, I'll take your word.

Yes Bry, democracy is in wonderful-shape since the GOP's control of Congress since 1994, and all-branches of government since 2000, great-shape. Telecom companies monopolize nearly all major-media outlets, and they even allow the Executive to spy-on Americans illegally. Still clinging-to the myth that there is such-a-thing as a liberal-media monopoly, he claims the right has only had a voice since 1987, when the Reagan administration eliminated the Fairness Doctrine as part of the FCC's mandate. Congress attempted twice to make the Fairness Doctrine a law in 1988, then 1993, unsuccessfully. Anderson--like many of his colleagues on-the-right--inaccurately writes that the Fairness Doctrine began around "1929", when it really began with the Radio Act of 1927, and the Communications Act of 1934. What was the Fairness Doctrine you ask? Here's the ACTUAL SECTION of The 1934 Communications Act that created the Fairness Doctrine as a mandate of the FCC, it's pretty-explicit about censorship:

§ 315. Candidates for public office

(a) Equal opportunities requirement; censorship prohibition; allowance of station use; news appearances exception; public interest; public issues discussion opportunities If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any -
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
(b) Broadcast media rates
The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed -
(1) during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period; and
(2) at any other time, the charges made for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.
(c) Definitions
For purposes of this section -
(1) the term "broadcasting station" includes a community antenna television system; and
(2) the terms "licensee" and "station licensee" when used with respect to a community antenna television system mean the operator of such system.
(d) Rules and regulations
The Commission shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.

Hint: Reagan removed "number 4". How-much of this applied to the the Swifboating of John Kerry? It should be obvious to those who believe in a democratice-media. Any takers? Bringing-back the Fairness Doctrine as law would be a good first-step in retaking our country from right-wing corporatists.

Ken Russell's The Devils (1971) review

Ken Russell is a director you either hate or love--I'm with the latter, and enjoy irritating the same targets Russell does, endlessly. The simple fact that many of Ken Russell's films are hated makes me love them all-the-more. This is arguably his best film, and his only political one.

As a period-piece, this film is stylized, but looks very convincing, and the cinematography by Dick Bush and set designs by late-and-great Derek Jarman (another genius of film) are stellar.

Consider why films like this one aren't made often, and you may have part of the answer as to why this film is still so shocking. Many people dislike Russell's films because of what he reveals about all of us, but that's too bad. People didn't like what Auschwitz said about humanity, but there it is, forever.

Apparently, Warner Brothers has finally-decided to release this film as a director's-cut in 2006, or 2007 [Ed.--2008 and still waiting...]. It is being reported that all footage removed by the BBFC and American censors (mainly at Warners) in 1971 will be reinstated in an "unrated cut" approved by the director. Some very good prints have been circulating around Los Angeles, New York City, and London recently...

The film "The Devils" may have been taken from the Aldous Huxley book, and the 1960s play by John Whiting, but it's squarely Ken Russell's film from-beginning-to-end.

Also likely to be included on a future DVD is the excellent BBC documentary by Mark Kermode ("Hell on Earth"), about the making of the film, and the firestorm it created. The "renegade" DVD by Angelfire is acceptable, and will have to tide us over until then, but there is one by "Trash Palace" that looks even better (though minus the inclusion in the feature film of the deleted scenes). Both the Angelfire version and the Trash Palace edition has the aforementioned Kermode documentary, and a widescreen transfer (1.85:1, the wrong aspect-ratio, the film was lensed in Panavision at 2.35:1) of the film. Only the Angelfire version contains the "Rape of Christ" scene reinstated.

This was a film that Warner Brothers hated after the executives saw the final cut in a studio screening. The Warner pressbook itself even states that it was going to be a hard-sell, with posters marketing the film as horror. It is horrific, but really constitutes a political allegory. Some of the posters warned potential audiences that it was a film "most people won't like"! It did reasonably good business, but wasn't a hit, though it could be assumed that the studio made their money back.

In a film that bombards the viewer with violence, decay, plague, and death, it isn't surprising that people miss some of the film's thematic points: The Devils comments on the eternal threat to individual rights and spiritual liberty from irrationality, social hysteria, and authoritarianism, and that they're often played-out in the same ways in different eras. You can see this in the comparisons made between Oliver Reed's character Father Grandier, and that of the accepted Christology of 17th century France (orthodoxy being represented by the characters of Father Mignon, Sister Jeanne and Cardinal Richelieu--an unholy trilogy?).

Is there much difference in why Grandier is degraded similarly to Christ? Russell (a Catholic)goes radically further: is there any difference between the political scapegoating of Urbain Grandier and Jesus of Nazareth? What's truly degraded is the Gospel of Christ and St. Francis. "The crowd" appears to be swayed in either direction, with a tendency towards hysteria and authoritarianism, making for a grim message indeed. But, this is generally what happened to Loudon, its inhabitants, Grandier, and France, at the time of the story.

Russell tells us that Richelieu's yearnings for theocratic power can only be seen as a threat to liberty, just as they are now in the Middle East and the United States. Russell seems to be saying that these political and spiritual struggles are one-and-the-same, and that they require an eternal vigilance against them. This is not an exploitation film, but it is as dark and horrific as any classic tale of horror. What's most horrifying is that it's true.

Keep-in-mind that not one image is in this film "by mistake," as Russell composes his framing for a specific meaning and purpose just as the old masters did. This film is a warning against the aims of power, and shines a ray of artistic truth on why Christ was crucified to boot. There are numerous tableaux that could have come from Goya or Bosch.

The images of people being tortured, vomiting, acting hysterically--they are not there to merely to shock, but as a warning about social hysterias that have a tendency to recur throughout human history. Repression can lead to greater perversions and tyranny, states Russell, and resoundingly. Set specifically in 17th Century France after the eight Hugenot Wars, "The Devils" should be read as a cautionary tale on how people willingly give-up their liberties during uncertain times...times not unlike our own.

The religious and cultural wars still rage on, and will continue to for the foreseeable future.

Why a restoration is necessary: a long-overdue reassessment will come with the world finally being able see what director Ken Russell intended. World culture might see this film being very influential (it already is), and not just in spawning exploitation fare. Italian genre filmmakers were inspired by this film when they began churning-out "nunsploitation" cinema! Good lapsed Catholics, all, I can assure you. This is what the "Grand Guignol" was based-on, the real deal. From the 1600s-to-now, the threats are essentially the same. Only the technology has changed.

Bother Warner Bros. into releasing this classic at: www.warnerbros.com

What to Remember About the "Heathrow-plot"

'The plot was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale," Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said. The UK's threat warning level has been raised to "critical" -- meaning "an attack is expected imminently."' So-sayeth CNN today--go-team! Yeah, no hype here, none-whatsoever. What bullshit (bollocks in the U.K.). The irony of all of this is: Bush and Blair have claimed all-along that military-adventurism is how you combat terrorism. Well, this wasn't the case, nor was it in the so-called "Tornoto" case, either. It was the use of Police that uncovered these so-called plots, and we don't even know if they are real ones yet. What do we, the public, really know about any of this? Sure, it could be true, but we know the Bush administration and Blair are liars. We know that Police can be corrupt. What do we know? We know one-thing: our rights are being rolled-back. What we have are foreign-policies that have created this environment--we should be focusing our anger on the Ministries that create this context. All of this is about social-control, the real enemy to our rulers is us.

Like the recent so-called plot "uncovered" in Miami, we have only the word of the authorities and informants, with virtually no transparency, and no irrefutable-evidence being trotted-out. Sorry, but talking-about doing a "terrorist" action doesn't make it "actionable" (in intelligence-parlance), nor prosecutable. Add-to-the-fact that the Bush administration has been crying-wolf too-often--usually to raise their now-dead approval-ratings--and you have all the ingredients for another disaster. But, let's look at the above-quote again: 'The plot was "intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale"'. That's inflammatory, and requires ample-proof. Define "unimaginable" after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Define "unimaginable" after tens-of-thousands have been murdered by US foreign-policy in Iraq since March, 2003. What's "unimaginable" after Stalin, Mao, Auschwitz? What? "Unimaginable" is demagogic, a slur, and a lie.
Welcome to the human-race, we're blowing-it.

Duhhhh, hey Rocky, let's invade Cuba!

Let's not, shall we? Or, why not--if you want American-troops on ANOTHER suicide-mission that would be unwinnable, that is. And hey, with all that war-material (sorry, no accents) blowing-up in Cuba, it would cause a demand for MORE! Indeed, Cuba's defenses are made-up-of a "people's defense", and a smaller army...well, don't trust me, look at the implications of this (from globalsecurity.org) :

Since the early 1980's the Cuban military has prepared for an invasion by the US. Miles of tunnels have been built to counter an anticipated invasion. The primary threat is seen as a direct attack from the Guantanamo Naval Base and bases nearby in the United States. Under Castro, Cuba became a highly militarized society. From 1975 until the late 1980s, massive Soviet military assistance enabled Cuba to upgrade its military capabilities and project power abroad. The tonnage of Soviet military deliveries to Cuba throughout most of the 1980s exceeded deliveries in any year since the military build-up during the 1962 missile crisis. In 1990, Cuba's air force, with about 150 Soviet-supplied fighters, including advanced MiG-23 Floggers and MiG-29 Fulcrums, was probably the best equipped in Latin America. In 1994, Cuba's armed forces were estimated to have 235,000 active duty personnel [it's assumed all of the weaponry is still in-place].


Yesss, this has changed since-then, but the thrust is their ability to "project their power", and internationally. Cuba no-longer has troops in Africa or Latin America aiding-insurgencies, but that isn't the issue-at-hand. The issue now is invasion by the United States and her allies. That is another enchilada altogether. Russia and China are providing Cuba with military-advice, and Russia has sealed-the-deal on 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles (aka AK-47s), with promises of a Kalashnikov-factory also agreed-upon. Then, there is Venezuela, a nation now working-successfully to remove Cuba from "isolation" (not-really a genuine-isolation, as Cuba has open-relations and trade with over 150 nations, just not the US, Israel and the UK). The plan is two-pronged: take-down Venezuela, since she is providing oil and military-advisors to Cuba, as noted by James Petras in his March 27th, 2005 Counterpunch article:

"US strategy toward destroying the Cuban revolution is increasingly following a "two step" [cha-cha!] approach: first overthrow the Chavez government in Venezuela [potentially through proxy-forces invading-from Colombia], cut off the energy supply and trade links and then proceed toward economic strangulation and military attack. The "two step" strategy against Cuba, involves the elaboration of a calibrated action plan to overthrow the Chavez government."

Thus-far, it seems the Bush administration is 100%-incapable of even the first-goal--removing the democratically-elected President, HugoChavez. But hey, now we at-least know why Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush have given so-much counterinsurgency and drug-interdiction aid to Colombia's oligarchs! Stay-tuned, the neocons are probably going to HELP in the spread of Leftist states throughout Latin America! Viva la...Bush? Keep screwing-up, boys.

Net-gain for the State Department: Anti-Castro Cubans were caught at the Watergate break-in, have populated terrorist-attacks in Africa, Asia and Cuba, and were probably involved in the JFK-assassination. It's kinda difficult to lie-about "dissidents illegally held-prisoner" in Cuba, when we do it at Guantanamo. It ain't just about Castro, you idiots.

Masters of Horror: "Homecoming" review

"All horror films are political."--Joe Dante

There has been a lot of blogging on this film--none of it matters. What matters is the reality and the truth that this horror-short conveys about our present national-nightmare. People should keep-in-mind that Joe Dante is not known as a political-director, though you could find the subtext in many of his films. But, you'd have to look pretty-deeply. Certainly, "Gremlins" is a criticism of American-consumerism and just how ill-behaved we are as a culture (then-and-now), and surely "The Howling" takes a few jabs at the sexual-revolution--but if-anything, Joe Dante has been known as a director of genre-films, and a damned fine one. He is also noteworthy for his championing of genre-history, and has helped save several films (classics) from oblivion. It's safe to say that Joe Dante is probably one-of horror's best-friends of the last 40-years, period. As he and writer Sam Hamm (scribe of 1988's "Batman") state on the excellent Anchor Bay DVD: this is propaganda, and it is biased towards the Left.

So after-that, there isn't much left to say once a writer and director have made their intentions dramatically-clear. After-that, criticizing the message is just illustrating your own predjudices and bias, which nobody cares-about. It's not controversial to say that Iraq and the entire Middle East is in a mess that should have been avoided. This basic-truth is very difficult to locate in our mainstream-media, it is taboo to acknowledge it. Consider-this: how-many stories like this really get-made in horror nowadays? Actor Robert Picardo--a Republican--states in his interview-featurette that he came to the project partly because he was deeply-concerned that the debate is being limited in this country's media, and that it alarmed him. Yes, this is coming-from a Republican actor. Even Grover Norquist--the ideological-architect of our current-disaster--has stated he is concerned that things have "gone-too-far", and worries that the Democratic Party won't "reign-in the excesses" of the GOP and the Bush administration. What makes "Homecoming" so important is how rare projects like this are. There is no "liberal media-bias", and no Santa Claus either, or films like this would be everywhere. Only an idiot would deny this, and we now know who idiots vote-for now.

The story begins much like our daily-lives: with television "bobble-heads" telling us the daily-lies (and leaving-out more). The main-protagonist David Murch (played with restraint by the excellent Jon Tenney) is a Right-wing pundit and former Presidential speechwriter. While usually representing the "more-moderate" side of the GOP's talking-points, Murch is really a decoy for political talk-shows to Jane Cleaver's far-right comments. This is actually how the media works now: rarely have any genuine people from other political-viewpoints (never-mind a left-leaning one) in the corporate-owned media, and just have two right-wing viewpoints debating. It's all-about narrowing the debate. Enter characters like Jane Cleaver and David Murch. Canadian-actress Thea Gill does an incredible-performance as Cleaver--clearly, she's modeled-after Ann Coulter, though there are other talking-necks who would fit-the-bill. Ironically, the writer and director toned-down the rhetoric of the character from the real-life ones. I honestly found most of the story and scenes very-scary, because they are such familiar North American-settings. This is about our lives, not somebody living-on-Mars, obviously. People are dying. If you don't find this scary, you're probably already dead-inside. Pundit-Murch is put-on-the-spot by a Gold Star mother of a soldier killed in an unpopular-war on a talk-program, and he tells her he wished her son could "come-back" to tell everyone that his sacrifice was worthwhile. Be careful what you wish-for.

Before-long, even the President is mouthing Murch's talking-point, again-and-again, and before-long they get their wish. All the dead-soldiers from the conflict who feel betrayed return, becoming an embarrassment to the GOP and their bobble-heads. Murch is eventually summoned by Kurt Rand (played with vigor and hilarity by the superb Rob Picardo), the guy who makes most of the P.R. and policy-decisions for the President. Some have said that this character is modeled-after Karl Rove, which is true. However, I thought Picardo also bore some resemblance to Vice President Dick Cheney. Check the scene in-which Murch is shown one of the early-returners--the zombie does the usual "grrrrr!", and Picardo returns-in-kind. That's pure-Cheney ("Go fuck-yourself!"). Like the neocons, these are people who don't even care about the suffering of the damned. Shockingly, it becomes-clear that the dead-soldiers merely want to vote. Of course, there's a catch to this: they want to vote-against the criminals who made them "die for a lie". This powerful-moment depicts a zombie-soldier telling the press at a politcal-gathering, "We'll vote for anyone who ends this evil war." It's a real moment of catharsis for anyone who has watched the Iraq war with a healthy-dose of skepticism.

It's sad that fictional-characters have to say this before the politicians, but that's politics. Also moving, was the scene of the dead-soldier being comforted by the black-couple. It made me think of all the lives that have been abused and thrown-away by the Bush administration--though Bush and company are hardly-alone in their guilt. Yes, the Democratic Party got us into our present-quagmire, where young-men and women die for a lie they knew was a lie from-the-start. This is a basic-truth. Their abscence in "Homecoming" is their abscence as a viable opposition-party to the GOP, and the film can be viewed as an Capraesque call to patriotic-duty. But, forgetting all that, it is just a very entertaining and audacious political-satire.You see, this is a story of OUR guilt. We are all-guilty, and if we don't heed the warnings, we'll suffer horribly for it later. When the dead-soldiers vote (then die), it's made-clear the election was stolen (just like in real-life), and the dead from all American-conflicts rise from their graves.

Dante and Hamm make-it-plain that the criminals who stole those elections have betrayed the sacrifices of generations of Americans who gave their lives, sincerely, for their country, and for democracy. What is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon is shameful, and it all dishonors the sacrifices made by all American troops. By ending this evil war and jailing this criminal administration and Congress, we do them and ourselves right by acting. My family has given all the way back to the American Revolution, what have you done for democracy today? We're all guilty, like the villians from the darkest EC comic...THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU. THEY'RE COMING TO DRAFT-YOU, BARBARA.

PS: It is scary, because it is real. Check the pulse. They stole that too? Catch the Masters of Horror series on Showtime, and be sure to check-out the DVDs that are getting a quality-release from Anchor Bay, these are the allegories of our times. Horror is a political-genre.

LEST-we-forget... (Ewige Blumenkraft!)

After-all, his name starts with L-I-E. The ass-kissing photos were done in-private, and now hang in the "white-trash" section of the Bohemian Grove. Suckie-suckie? It's OK, the Republicans will have a job waiting for Joe in the "private-sector"--or not. You will always be a Plebe, never a Patrician. Never.

"Out, damn spot!" : Who Killed Good King Duncan?

Sooo, running as an "independent", Joe? It's obvious that people in Connecticut don't want you anymore, yet you feel you have the right (at least the wherewithal) to impose-yourself on the voters? It won't work, Joe, the majority of voters who voted against-you did it because you STILL support our military-prescence in Iraq. Are you stupid, Joe? Hey Joe, you must feel the voters aren't really your boss, right? Right. Now, the other two-faced scumbags are lining-up behind Lamont, because they know you and your direction is a dead-end. Take Hillary: her www.hillpac.org just-gave $5,000 to Lamont's campaign, and very-publicly! Well, she said she would give it to whoever the winner was--it's good to see her taking-a-stand (hah!). Here's some of her comments from her site:


It is time to move away from influence-peddling [while the gettin's good!], right wing ideology [that I might have to turn-my-bakc on, now] and incompetence that stems from the well-qualified taking marching orders from the well-connected [like Hillary, and John Kerry]. It is incumbent [is this a Freudian-slip, the word has two-applications here] upon us as Democrats [as "incumbents"]to make the case for change, because we have to persuade some of our fellow citizens that they, too, must be ready for a change. Let’s just run through some of the choices that the Washington Republicans made. Now they could have saved the surplus, invested in Social Security and Medicare, paid down the debt, covered the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan [she's still-backing the wars there, here] and paid the modest tax cuts for the middle class and working poor. Instead, they chose massive tax cuts aimed at those who needed them the least [yes, she actually voted-against this, here-here!], tax loopholes [excepting capital-gains taxes] and giveaways for oil companies to top-off their record breaking profits.


You're toast, Joe, it's over. Go ban some Hollywood movies and videogames as a mayor, or City Councilman in some jerkwater, go sell some poor-people a lemon. At least you can do less-damage there. We the people have decided to fire your worthless-ass, and for-good. Yes, you look stupid, too. It was safe to sound-like a Republican from 1994 until last-year, you idiot, but not anymore. It's over. Lamont, while he's rich, at least looks-smart, and he appears willing to take America in a different-direction. You look like a fishmonger, you stink, Joe. If Lamont doesn't deliver, we promise he'll look like you in ten-years--the look of a pathetic-loser, in all-respects. When even two-faced bums like Harry Reid, Obama and Clinton won't back your independent-run, well, you know your politician's class-loyalties only extend so-far. You aren't patrician, Joe, you're a POWER-BROKER. Also playing-it-safe is my own Sen. Evan Bayh, who STILL won't come-out against the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, remember?). But this is OK, since we can beat these people into the direction we want them in. No-spine, no-problem, we're onto you, descendants of snake-oil salesmen. Democratic politicians, take-note of this man's fate.
Americans love a good tarrin'-n-'featherin'. It has been too-long since the last-one.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls review

"Come varlet [meaning "someone who waits on or tends to or attends to the needs of another", or an "evil person"] drink the black-sperm of my vengeance!"--from Beyond the Valley of the Dolls


You've probably read that Roger Ebert wrote the screenplay for this atrocity--it's true. For every film the fat-guy has panned (Brown Bunny)--and even wanted banned--this negates his opinon every-single-time. It is so completely wrongheaded and retarded, that it's almost as annoying as Plan 9 From Outerspace...almost. It's true, the film has been hailed by the likes of John Waters, who is a BIG fan of the late Russ Meyer, but since-when is he always-right? You have to take his praises with-a-grain-of-salt, he likes this kind of movie because it`s really a disaster that the makers thought was great at-the-time. Yep, it's "camp" because it sucks so-badly that it's unintentionally-hilarious. The key-word is "unintentionally". Anyone with a half-baked idea could make a movie in 1969-1970, because the old studio-system was dying. The aging cigar-chompers had no-idea what to release anymore. Nada.

With a dying-industry (sound-familiar?), the rise-of-porn and the counterculture--shute, they were up-for-anything in tinseltown. Anything. This is why such a turd as this got-made. Roger Ebert had been already writing-for the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, but the opportunities were obvious out there in Hollywood. You could almost fall off a truck and get a picture-deal. It has to be understood that at this time porno was beginning to really take-off, even before Deep Throat became a hit. There was a shining-moment when porn nearly became mainstream theatrical- fare. The studios knew who Russ Meyer was from his work in the independent-gutters, so why not risk a feature-film with him?Ebert has had some interesting-things to say about BTVOTD over-the-years, as in this 10th anniversary interview:


"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" seems more and more like a movie that got made by accident when the lunatics took over the asylum. At the time Russ Meyer and I were working on "BVD" I didn`t really understand how unusual the project was. But in hindsight I can recognize that the conditions of its making were almost miraculous...The movie's story was made up as we went along, which makes subsequent analysis a little tricky.


You-bet, Roger, but I'll try. Perhaps my head will explode like in Scanners, though. While Ebert co-wrote the screenplay, it's obvious this is a Russ Meyer vehicle. It's a really cheesey-story about a girl-group called the "Carrie Nations", which is ironic since she was one of the key-players in getting the Prohibition of alcohol instated as a Constitutional-amendment. Not very party-friendly, really, but that's the wrongheaded-part of the movie. Meyer was just another cigar-chomper, just a small-fry indie one.

You see, the story is basically a very-dumb soap-opera surrounding the big-titted girls, and a hangout that is run by the band's manager/producer, "Z-man". In the Russ Meyer universe, it seems gay-men all speak like Shakespearian-actors (aka "iambic-pentameter"). Yup, Z-Man is a ridiculous-caricature of none-other than Phil Spector (he's in the prologue of Easy Rider as a speed-dealer), a guy also known for producing megahits by girl-groups. Spector is also-known for shooting women with big-tits in-the-face, but that's another-story. Anyway, things get out-of-control fast: everyone is fucking everyone-else's boyfriend/girlfriend/hermaphrodite, and jealousy and drug-fueled violence erupts ala the Manson Family--Z-man chops-off the head of a guy he wanted to fuck, but who spurned-him. He states the quote before this article.

BUT WAIT, there's a MORAL to the movie too: Meyer wants us to get-off on the decadence, but has a sad-ending with a dopey-voiceover about the "evils of the counterculture", which was common at that time. He both slams, and panders-to the counterculture at-once. OK, maybe the studios made him do this, I don't know, but the movie is basically-inept, realistically. It DOES look-good, but the music is dumb--like the Archies were--and the acting is very-very wooden. The dialogue is horrible, something an autistic-child could do-better. YET, it is entertaining for all these reasons. Sure, the drug-freakouts are creepy, and Z-man's freakout is, well, freaky. Fuck-it, watch this movie, it's a great-laugh, and if you like boobs as much as I do, you'll love it.

Bob Ney: "Hey man, I got a FAMILY!!"

Washington D.C.--And so did concentration camp guards, Bobbie. Maybe you never read the minutes from the Nuremburg trials--"I was just following orders", isn't a defense. GOP Rep. Bob Ney (Ohio) is now the third GOP scumbag to go down (pun-intended) because he took-bribes from Jack Abramoff.

The Washington Post's Johnathan Weisman is reporting today that Ney was "urge[d]" by House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) not to seek reelection.

Well, Bobbie being the kind of moron to take orders regardless of the consequences did just that since being a congressional representative means mindless obedience to people who are going to fuck you.

It didn't take much persuasion, they just did what all employers do to Americans: they held his family and their future over-his-head, ..."reminding him that with a son in college and a daughter nearing college age, he will need money," according to several congressional Republican aides.

If he lost his House seat for the party, Boehner is said to have cautioned, Ney could not expect a lucrative career on K Street to pay those tuition bills, along with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees piling up." How nice it was for him to sweeten-the-pot, except it was with corn syrup. Like a "good" American, Bobbie bent-over and took it. Hell, we all do.

In his statement issued to the press, he said, “Ultimately this decision came down to my family. I must think of them first, and I can no longer put them through this ordeal." I honestly think this poor dumb schmuck with the horrible hairpiece really did think of his family. Too much, because he put himself and his family above the common good, and the obvious interests of his constituents and this nation. This is hardly unique, most Americans think this way, and it's erroneous and amoral.

Do I think Ney's guilty? Absolutely, he's even had staff-members being subpoenaed about whether-or-not he took free meals (man, these guys come-cheap!) and a Golf trip to Scotland (sound familiar?) from lobbyists.

Wine me, dine me...you know the rest.

This blog wishes the GOP luck in finding someone in Ohio who isn't tainted to take Ney's place, they'll need it. All of this is about distancing liabilities like Bob Ney from the GOP, but when they're all corrupt, where do they turn? On each other--naturally--which is good. Calling another Willy Lohmann, death of a congressman. A-men.

The Brothers Emanuel

MOLOCH, MOLOCH, take this sacrifice, oh desert god! We will feed-you Persian-children to supp-on...oh, hello. Many people would say the brothers Emanuel are vapid, amoral opportunists, but I...well, let's get it from the horse's mouth. Back in November of 2005 (more ancient history, I know), when Congressman Jack Murtha spoke-out against the War in Iraq (remember?), the Hollywood superagent's brother who was once a top-advisor to Bill Clinton--now the muckety-muck Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman--strode that centrist-line. Yep, he's another one of those Hillary/Lieberman-clones who can't take-a-stand on anything, especially when it comes to murdering-Iraqis. Washpo's Charles Babington reported Rahm Emanuel's reactions to Murtha's epiphanies about Iraq in his usual-manner--he deferred to power:

'Murtha's Democratic colleagues reacted warily to his remarks, while Republicans pounced. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said, "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position."'

"At the right time"? Apparently, that means when everyone in Iraq is dead, and the boys at Exxon, Mobil, Chevron (Condi's ex-employer...or are they?), and all the other oil-whores have supped on Iraqi-blood and oil--then, and only then, will his ilk speak-out. Then, we can have NBC or HBO do a miniseries bemoaning the deaths of our victims. The profits will be enormous, wow! I should buy-stock in a media-conglomerate fast...

But, I can't leave it at that, no-no-no. This megalomaniac shuns genuinely-progressive canidates in his 6th District (like Christine Ceglis), as well as voting in the House just like Lieberman does in the Senate. As the Sun Times scribe Lynn Sweet noted in late-march:

Perhaps the NRCC is not aware that Emanuel does not always vote the same way as his other more liberal colleagues in leadership, for example, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).Just March 7, Emanuel and Pelosi divided over a key vote on reauthorizing additional amendments to the controversial USA Patriot Act. Emanuel was one of 66 Democrats to vote with 214 Republicans to pass the measure. Pelosi voted with 124 Democrats and 13 Republicans against passage.Moloch, Moloch, devourer of children. Take this child as your sacrifice to war. Drink the blood of our soldiers, and the Persians...

Ari Emanuel: Hypocrite, Asshole.

Ari Emanuel is a well-known "superagent" in Hollywood who has been blogging on Huffingtonpost over the last year, and is often reasonable in his blogs. However, it seems the Israeli invasion of Lebanon has him sipping the Flavor Aide from Jonestown. Huh?

Cut-to-now: Mel Gibson makes anti-Semitic remarks (while intoxicated) after being pulled-over by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, saying such racist gems as, "The Jews have started every war", and "Are you a Jew?!" to the arresting officers. It's obvious he was intoxicated and anti-Semitic, sigh.

Cut-to a close-shot of Ari Emanuel's photo on Huffpo: The "superagent" (this guy must be an unknown arch-nemesis of mine) calls for a banning of Mel Gibson from Hollywood, demanding that people there stop working with Mel altogether--OK, I've caused some mayhem in my days as an arch-fiend, but this is just hypocritical.

"Why?", you ask? Here's why: Ari Emanuel's brother was a "top advisor to President Bill Clinton" during the 1990s. "Soooooo?", you're saying, as you ponder the information. Ahhhh, here's the whole rub, folks, from imdb:

The youngest of three brothers, Mr. Emanuel grew up in [a] Chicago household headed by a pediatrician (his father) and a psychiatric social worker (his mother). He learned to be competitive from his brothers, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist and chairman of the department of clinical bioethics at the Warren G. Magnusson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health and Rahm Emanuel, a top white house advisor to President Bill Clinton. His career began as an assistant to Robert Lantz, the veteran New York agent who represented Milos Foreman. He moved to Los Angeles in 1987 landing a job in the mail room [Ed.--Where he should have remained, for life.] of the Creative Artists Agency.

Coming from what he felt was a place of moral superiority, Mr. Emanuel rightly criticized Mr. Gibson for his anti-Semitic remarks. If it had ended there, that would have been fine. But no, he didn't end it there.

He called for a removal of Mel Gibson from the Hollywood scene altogether.

"Yeah, but what does that have to do with Clinton's bombing of civilian-infrastructures in 1990s Iraq," you're asking? Simple, the brothers Emanuel probably did nothing in trying to dissuade Clinton from causing the deaths of an entire generation of Iraqi children--nada--and they had direct-access to the president. They're petty and hypocritical regarding their take on Mel Gibson.

Would it have worked? I doubt this, but I would like to know if they ever tried, since they have had direct-access to the halls of power...

[Ed., 11.08.2008: I'd imagine that the Emanuels wanted the air strikes on Iraq in the interests of Israeli security. The problem is, Iraq was never a serious threat to them, and everyone knows it. The only good thing you can say about these two clowns is that they "get the job done." So did Jewish-collaborators at Auschwitz, dragging their brothers and sisters to the gas chambers.]

Why Hollywood Must Die

Well, they make shitty movies, naturally. If you're like me, and you enjoy directors like Orson Welles, Fritz Lang, John Ford, or even directors like John Sayles or Cassavetes, you know that most of these directors had to make awful-compromises to their films--or they got out, and did their REAL works.

Or, remember when you could go to the local theater and see genuinely-independent movies? Or when you could see foreign-films? "What happened?" you might ask? From the late-1970s-on, international cinema began dying.

A lot of great directors simply died (like Fellini, Bunuel, etc.), but a lot of the problem came from federal laws & programs (Congress did it) that paid-for international advertising for big Hollywood studios. This wrecked the national film industries of many European countries, and even Japan's for-a-time. Add-to-the mix the rise of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, and the rise of the American blockbuster movie. Movies took-on more-and-more of an emphasis on the youth-market, and by the early-1990s, international cinema was virtually dead.

Until recently, theaters haven't even begun to be safe for adults, though there seem to be some bright-lights in the rise of documentaries (unthinkable in the 1990s), and even indie players like Lion's Gate and the Weinsteins.

Their renegade distro of Fahrenhit 9/11, and even Mel Gibson's distribution of The Passion of the Christ have shown that indie-productions can be major-hits merely by being indie. Hollywood isn't doing-well. People have grown-tired of mindless-crap, and the kids have grown-up for most of the parents who fed the 1990s family movie boom.

Perhaps directors like Steven Soderbergh, with his now-defunct 29/29 production-company, have shown that Hollywood is only good at distribution. Maybe this was the truth all-along? The future may hold a constellation of indie productions--distributed by the majors. This is a hopeful sign, since they can't generate original content anymore.

Taking-back the theaters, however, can only take-place for the independents if they can help demolish the ratings system, and the ability of newspapers to ban advertising of unrated and NC-17 movies. Then, they are free to provide what Hollywood cannot, and will-not: explicit-sex, and adult-themed films. Helloooo, ACLU, where are you? ZOINKS!

Bozo Buys-stock in Forbes

Hey, you remember that guy who never, ever blinks? You know, Steve Forbes, space-alien. Doctors say an individual who never-blinks is "non-human", kinda like the fish-people in that H.P. Lovecraft story, "The Shadow Over Innsmouth". Well, it appears that Bozo the clown has bought minor-control in the Forbes entertainment-corportation...but where's Cookie?! Sure, back when Bozo and Cookie were cutting-heads in Belfast (they're from Ireland, after-all),
they showed savvy. Anyway, Bozo's "media and marketing-savvy" have proven his mettle in an increasingly tech-friendly world--one that Forbes hasn't done-well with. I mean, you can watch Bozo on your iPods, or even listen-to him! Wait-a-minute...oh-shit, you mean it was "Bono"?!
OK, I need to get a new-prescription, or a bigger-monitor...

KISS MY ASS...uh, KISS.

You know the world is has gone insane when 200-people decide that a protest
is in-order at the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame Museum because KISS hasn't been-inducted.
No, not over the wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan--over KISS, a group whose bassist/singer has stated several-times that he thinks his fans are "stupid", and that he "can't-play". Amazing. But it gets even-worse: Old Gene Simmons has a new reality-show coming. Mhhhh-hmm. A reality-show. I guess that means he gets to trot-out groupies the age of his children (and-younger) onscreen! "Who did KISS influence, and how-much do they suck?", should be the question. OK, as a kid, the Kabuki-makeup was interesting, but not-for-long.
By 1980, not-many people cared, except the diehards. But, they may-as-well put the schmucks in there, the Museum is a joke that is only about money and ego. Most rock is sadly arch-conservative when you really look at it closely. At 50+ years, I think it's safe to reiterate that the genre is no-longer-relevant culturally (dead). Long-live the good artists and their legacies, we know who they are.

Prediction: the Religious Right won't make-a-peep over it, but the show will fail.