Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Fox News’ Criminal Pundits

By JAMES THINDWA
www.inthesetimes.com
MAY 20, 2008

Conservatives have created a two-tier system of accountability: one for progressives, the other for themselves and their claimed moral rectitude.

The sensationalist media inquest into Sen. Barack Obama’s associations has cheapened the national debate. It has also exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of the conservative media.

Fox News, which has championed this “guilt by association,” questions Obama’s fitness for office because of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. But if Fox News truly believed in guilt-by-association, the network would have severed ties with some of its pundits and consultants.

Mark Fuhrman — of O.J. Simpson infamy — is now one of its talking heads. Fuhrman, if you remember, was convicted of lying under oath during Simpson’s murder trial when he denied having used the word “nigger.” For right-wingers unburdened with racial sensitivity, Fuhrman’s easy use of the “n” word was probably not a big deal. And for Fox News, flouting the law is OK as long as the cause is right. O.J. Simpson was guilty, legalities be damned.

G. Gordon Liddy, sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate break-in (he served almost five), enjoys a post-prison celebrity status among conservatives. Liddy turns up on Fox News as a respected commentator, and has cultivated a fan base as a right-wing talk-radio jock.

While Fox’s pundits froth at the mouth condemning Ayers for his membership in the Weather Underground 40 years ago, Liddy, whose crimes created a constitutional crisis, is embraced and celebrated as a conservative hero.

How about Oliver North? His claim to fame was the Iran-Contra affair in the ’80s, when he illegally sold weapons to Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and transferred the money to Nicaraguan Contras, in violation of U.S. law. He was charged with 16 felonies and convicted of three, which were later overturned because the prosecution had used testimony given under a grant of immunity. For his mockery of the Constitution, North became a right-wing folk hero, eventually landing a job at Fox News as an Iraq War correspondent. He was subsequently given his own television show, “War Stories.”

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove is now a paid commentator on Fox News. Though Rove has not been convicted of any crimes, he has had an uneasy relationship with ethics and the law: reportedly the mastermind of the political firing of nine U.S. attorneys; allegedly outing CIA operative Valerie Plame; spreading rumors in 2000 about Sen. John McCain having fathered a daughter with a black woman; and selling the Iraq War for political advantage. But to Fox News and its conservative base, Rove is a hero.

William Kristol is not a former convict, but as salesman-in-chief for the Iraq War he has committed crimes of conscience. Kristol has a permanent seat on Fox News Sunday. Despite his discredited claims about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear programs and his many attempts to link Hussein with al Qaeda, Kristol continues to be featured as an expert on the war.

Bill O’Reilly, the big daddy of Fox News, reached a settlement in November 2004 with a colleague who had reportedly recorded him attempting to have phone sex with her as he masturbated with a vibrator. This history contradicts the self-righteous protestations in his book Cultural Warriors and his screeds against “liberal” wrongdoers.

Newt Gingrich, Fox News’ most erudite and self-righteous pundit, has a checkered past that includes reportedly serving divorce papers to his cancer-stricken wife while she lay in her hospital bed. The former House Speaker also admitted to an affair with an aide while he was still married, even as he championed President Clinton’s impeachment. Most liberals believe these private matters should not disqualify people from public office. However, the pedantic moralists at Fox News cannot exempt themselves from the standards they apply to others. Their hypocrisy needs exposing.

Conservatives have created a two-tier system of accountability: one for progressives, the other for themselves. But their claimed moral rectitude belies an indulgent attitude toward questionable legal and ethical conduct. Mark Fuhrman, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North betrayed the rule of law that conservatives like to crow about.

Fox News and its right-wing functionaries threaten the fabric of our electoral system. The push back should start with denying them legitimacy. That means exposing their hypocritical invocation of the “rule of law,” challenging their simplistic “anything goes” standard of patriotism and denouncing their use of guilt-by-association.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3686/fox_news_criminal_pundits/

Documentary Channel to Premiere Robert Kennedy Assassination Program

Nashville Business Journal
May 15, 2008

The Documentary Channel will showcase the U.S. premiere of a documentary on the assassination of Bobby Kennedy June 9.

The Nashville-based channel's release of the investigative documentary, "RFK MUST DIE: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy," will air at 8 p.m., Monday, June 9. The documentary commemorates the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination.

The 102-minute documentary was written, directed and produced by BBC reporter, author and filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan in 2007.

It is the result of a new, three-year investigation into the controversies surrounding the assassination of Bobby Kennedy on June 5, 1968 as he campaigned to challenge Richard Nixon for the White House, a Documentary Channel release says.

The Documentary Channel acquired exclusive U.S. television rights to the film through London-based distributor 3DD Entertainment. An encore telecast is slated for 9 p.m., Wednesday, June 25.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2008/05/12/daily23.html

The Failure Of Public Opinion

By Maryam Sakeenah
21 May, 2008
Countercurrents.org

The paradox in today's world is that alongside the loudly professed commitment to democracy, public opinion still does not 'have a say', especially in the domain of international affairs. American diplomat John Bolton said in a recent interview:

Interviewer: You do not seem to doubt the 'go-it-alone' approach of the United States although anti-Americanism is rising across the world. Doesn't such a negative view of America in world public opinion weaken US power?

John Bolton: I do not think so. I have looked at public opinion polls in France in the late 1940s and early 1950s during the height of the Marshall Plan aid. They had a very negative attitude towards the United States then. But did it make a difference? There were also negative attitudes about the United States because of Vietnam. There were negative attitudes about the US when Reagan wanted to deploy intermediate range ballistic missiles. I do not think the president should base his foreign policy on American public opinion polls, let alone foreign opinion polls. (Der Spiegel)


'DEVIOUS MEANS'

A frequently used ploy to control public opinion is through manipulation and state control of media as well as using propaganda mechanisms. A pertinent case in point is the manipulation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction spectre. The propaganda and the outrage against the 'axis of evil' it kicked up helped create a justification to launch the War in Iraq. The media played ally and tool, creating terror of the heinous weapons hidden somewhere in the dark corners of Saddam's backyard. Most people accepted the Bush administration's depiction of the War on Terror as a campaign against Weapons of Mass Destruction. Too little critical examination of the way events, issues, threats and policies were framed was done, and no alternative perspectives were given to the people apart from the official line. Hence public opinion in the US and elsewhere was effectively kept tame and any possibility of expression of outrage over the attack on Baghdad was successfully diminished. Public opinion, in such cases, shows itself to be extremely malleable, mould-able, manipulate-able.

One strategy of controlling and weakening public opinion is creating and nurturing misperceptions and building on them. Stephen Kull has gathered interesting information to illustrate this. A convenient and oft-used misperception is to justify foreign policy by proving it to be in the 'supreme national interest'. Stephen Kull writes, "The public must be able to see the link of foreign policy with national interest. If Americans are told and explained to by their president that a certain policy is in the vital interest of the government and give a compelling argument, the people will withstand all the casualties in the process. Military losses should not be publicized."

THE ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA

In order to promote propaganda, the State needs to use the mass media, which is easy in totalitarian states. However, in democratic societies, a conflict between the free media and the government may result as the media tries to bring to light what the government prefers to conceal. This clash has heightened due to the advent of new technologies, especially the internet where free information inflow and exchange is available.

However, the media is dependent on the government also for information. The government is more empowered and resourceful to be able to control information inflow, to manipulate journalists by feeding them information and 'shaping' the news. This can lead to curbs on the media and strict censorship to control public opinion, such as in the case of emergency in Pakistan. Media coverage of the military operations is usually prohibited or strictly censored, for example the ongoing war in Pakistan's restive tribal belt receives little attention, owing to a hostile environment for the media in the heavily militarized region. Similarly, during the Red Mosque Operation in Islamabad, the media was safely kept out, given little to cover and let in only much later for a cosmetic 'display' of the huge 'arsenal' recovered from the debris of the dilapidated masjid. By 'not showing the dead bodies,' as the government had demanded from the media before the crackdown began, public sympathies were kept in check and a popular backlash averted.

THE PARADOX OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TRADITION

According to 'worldpublicopinion.org', 73% of Americans reject American policy in Iraq. 70% agree that Guantanamo prison camps are illegal, 77% want USA to renounce its nuclear weaponry and 76% want the United Nations, not United States to have the pre-eminent role in world politics.

Human Rights abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have been highlighted and widely condemned. Peace movements like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Citizens for Peace etc. turned vociferous and organised themselves for a forefront role. The effort to show the world a forgotten human cost of war which is expediently cast aside as 'collateral damage', was commendable indeed and was helped greatly by a free media.

The tragedy that sets one thinking, though, is that the US still carries on with Afghanistan and Iraq; that Guantanamo still harbours prisoners clandestinely where torture goes unabated and scores go missing at the hands of state agencies on the hunt for the 'elusive terrorist.' The fact that stares one in the face is that Liberalism spearheaded by Western societies and their values of freedom and individual liberty ring hollow in the face of the appalling apathy towards the overwhelming public opinion against the unjust crusade shown by those at the helm of affairs.

The quality of thought in democracies has reached the lowest ebb of impoverishment with a mass naivete or even apathy running wild, leaving public opinion quite inconsequential and easy to dismiss by the foreign policy makers.

An interesting case in point is that of Cindy Sheehan, the American peace activist who was stirred into action following the death of her son serving the US army in Iraq. The sense of futility in the life lost for a vainglorious end made her organize a campaign to pressurize the government to stop the War. Despite a swift gathering of support, Sheehan suffered hostile, sneering and apathetic responses, leaving her frustrated and disappointed. Announcing officially that she was calling it quits, Sheehan presented a vociferous, unplugged critique of the American attitude:

"Hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies, that is supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude. We are rapidly descending into a fascist corporate wasteland… My son was killed by his own country which is run by a war machine and even controls the way we think. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed as we play politics with human lives. It is so painful. We are worried more about elections than about human beings."

STEREOTYPES

The Communist stereotype was swiftly replaced by the Muslim stereotype after the Cold War. To create a subdued, unquestioning and unprotesting mindset that accepts the logic and 'nobility' of a 'crusade' to wipe out the evil 'terrorist' and teach some civilization to the barbarians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Muslim stereotype proved useful. The media helped create the stereotype, to the extent that today 3 in 4 Americans say they would prefer not living in a neighbourhood where a Muslim family lives. To neutralize opposition to the ongoing war, hatred and fear of the enemy is created.

Yet it is also the media which has the power to undo stereotypes through objectivity, information, awareness, understanding and sympathy. For example, the stereotype of the 'black' in the West was undone largely by the media and a number of works of art and literature as well as movies came onto the scene humanizing the 'black' and creating sympathy for his predicament_ for instance, 'Roots' by Alex Haley, the works of Toni Morrison and Maya Angelou, and more recently 'Blood Diamonds.'

INEFFECTIVE PUBLIC OPINION

The modern man is dependent on others to formulate his own opinion, and is conformist in behaviour, avoiding risk and playing safe to go on comfortably. This makes him a cog in the machine of the system, an agent of continuing the status quo, a strength for the establishment's policies_ without perhaps being aware of it.

The ignorant mass-man is instrumental to policy making_ the more of such men, the better. Like the Pakistani President Musharraf who, in his bold defection from democratic, traditional norms and values, sought strength (in his own words), from 'the support of the silent majority.'

THE CULTURE OF CONSUMERISM

This process is aggravated by the commercial consumerist culture. Erich Fromm has mentioned the emergence of the 'marketing personality' in the modern age, incapable of genuine opinion-making and effectively expressing it. The 'marketing personality' grows out of "the experience of oneself a commodity and of one's value as exchange value. To be a social success as a 'commodity' one has to be an empty vessel into which one can pour in the right trait at the right time." The consumerist, brand-conscious, brand-suffocated culture creates passive recipients of information. It makes people with limited self-awareness as the fast-paced life pattern leaves little time to reflect and introspect. Life is too full of luxuries and comfort to desire a change in the status quo. The consumerist individual gets his Mac Donald's hamburgers everyday, has a two-room apartment, a girlfriend and Levi's jeans, and is likely to continue like this… so Iraq does not count, nor does the noise Ms. Sheehan makes.

The consumerist culture goes on producing 'mass man' by the dozen. The mass men help perpetuate the order, maintain the status quo, sterilize and deaden public opinion and make the world full of George Orwell's 'sheep' of 'Animal Farm', chanting the State's slogan 'Four legs good, two legs bad,' but switching over to 'Four legs good, two legs better' when expedient propaganda woos their simple, comfort-choked intellects. Winston White sums up this psychological phenomenon thus: "Every individual wants to fit in and be accepted. He strives for this by being like what most of the members of this reference group consider standards of behaviour (other direction) and acts accordingly; he conforms. Since in conformity, he is careful not to do or say something that will rub the others the wrong way, the idiosyncratic rough edges of his personality are rubbed away; in consequence, he becomes scarcely distinguishable from those whose approbation he seeks." It is this conformism that renders public opinion impotent and sterile.

It has been argued and proven by Mc Clelland that Americans, much more than others, want to associate themselves with majority opinion (and are hence more 'other-directed') because it bears the stamp of 'being right.' An American voter said, "Just before the election it looked like Bush would win, so I went with the crowd. It didn't make any difference to me who won, but I just wanted to vote for the winner." Despite the quagmire in Iraq, President Bush won a second term because the war statistics were perhaps still not enough to radically change the public opinion of a people who are increasingly conformist.

Foreign policy, in particular, is one aspect which carries little importance to the average voter in stating his choice. According to a survey, only 19% Americans consider foreign policy perspective of the presidential candidate when making their choice… and this about a country whose foreign policy embraces the entire globe!

THE 'DUMBING DOWN'OF AMERICA

As a result, the average American is both ignorant of and insensitive to America's manoeuvring of global politics and its adventures abroad. A progressive economy, individual liberty and personal comfort are all that matter. He cannot see beyond his two-room luxury apartment. Christopher Lasch calls this a malaise of 'narcissism' gripping the West. 'Narcissism' is an obsession with the self. The narcissist believes that his personal comfort guaranteed by brand labels makes him satisfied with the system as a whole, and so his country's unjust foreign policy elsewhere does not bother the individual. Literary critic Harold Bloom has called it a 'dumbing down' of the American public, for which he blames the media and the education system. Public opinion in the US, the world's greatest democracy, is impotent. This is the paradox of liberal democracy. Ironically, however, it is also this nation which, by virtue of an adventurous, domineering and interventionist foreign policy, influences global politics profoundly. It has managed to insulate its foreign policy making process from public opinion, safely and exclusively reserving it for lobbyists, interests-groups, inner-circle diplomats, the CIA and FBI to carry on clandestinely, without the burden of the public sanction. The 'dumbing down' is complete. The information level of the American public is rather low_ a lot less adequate to its grand agenda.

POST-ELECTIONS PAKISTAN: 'THE GREAT BETRAYAL'

Any 'democracy' is meaningless and hollow if public opinion is not empowered. This is especially true in the case of Pakistan today. Following the elections, the public reposed great hope and trust in the elected representatives to a bring a change in the country's ill-thought role in the War on Terror which justifies the brutal onslaught on our own people by characterizing the victim as 'terrorist' and demonizing him sufficiently so that questions are not asked, sympathies not provoked. However, with a lack of will shown by the government to negotiate the problems instead of taking up the military alternative has dimmed hope. After a welcome lull, the spate of maniacal reactive suicide attacks engineered by shady characters seems to be in the offing. This time, however, it has been our own choice. We failed to commit to justice and peace and let go of the opportunity to make amends and stop the madness that has brought in its wake so much hurt. This time, again, we chose to betray the public trust, to sideline public opinion.


Public opinion is the voice of the human sensibility and must not be perverted through manipulation. It is sacred and sovereign and carries within it the potential to rehumanize the morass we call 'international politics.'

It is only when lobbying, expediency, secrecy, manipulation and Machiavellian diplomacy is replaced with the basic democratic value of inclusion of the genuine 'vox populi' into foreign policy making will the cutthroat international order be replaced with a more humane and egalitarian order on the basis of the principles set by international law, and embodied in the universal human values that exist in little corners of men's hearts. It is about time we realize the potential and promise in the human voice that holds in it the amplitude capable of ushering in a newer, better world for all.

http://www.countercurrents.org/sakeena210508.htm

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

ADVERT - MEDIABISTRO: QUIRKY, ARGUABLY WELL-DRESSED ACCOMPLICES IN MURDER AND CIA DATA MINING

THE ADS ARE STIMULATING, THE OPINIONS BENT TO THE CIA'S PROPAGANDA AGENDA - HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FAR-LEFT HOLLYWOODIANS HAVE DISCOVERED THE JOYS OF MEDIABISTRO LIES AND DATA MINING!

IT'S TRES CHIC. ALL OF HOLLYWOOD IS LINING UP TO BE PART OF THE CIA DATA MINING OPERATION WITH THE TRENDY HANDLE: MEDIABISTRO.

"WE TRACK 400,000 PAID SUBSCRIBERS EVERY DAY," BISTRO HOSTESS LAUREL TOUBY SHOULD SAY.

"CIA ROGUES WITH A SEXUAL INTEREST IN SMALL CHILDREN KILLED DUNCAN AND BLAKE - AND WE DON'T PIDDLE WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING OUR PEDOPHILE BUDS AT THE CIA. WE SPAT AND SPAT ON DUNCAN AND BLAKE WHEN THEY WERE DEAD SO NO ONE WOULD ASK ANY QUESTIONS. AREN'T WE TOO CLEVER BY HALF?"

WHY DATA MINING AND INTERNET PSYOPS? "WE SIMPLY CAN'T STAND LIBERALS. SOMEONE HAS TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE PINK SQUADS AND BOMB-MAKERS AND SADDAM LOVERS AND USELESS EATERS OF BABYLON, AND THAT'S HOW MEDIABISTRO EARNS ITS CLAIM TO FAME," MS. TOUBY SHOULD SAY. "HELL, I'M A THRILLIANNAIRE. SPYING ON THE LEFT-WING GARBAGE IN HOLLYWOOD PAYS OFF HANDSOMELY, I'M HAVING GOBS OF FUN, WEARING HOT NEW CLOTHES - AND SUBVERTING THE STALINIST INFLUENCE ON COMMIEWOOD AT THE SAME TIME!"

DON'T WORRY, MURDER WON'T HAPPEN TO YOU. IF YOU KEEP YOUR NOSE CLEAN. BIG SISTER IS WATCHING. LINE UP FOR THE JOB LISTINGS - PAY MEDIABISTRO TO SPY ON YOU. HELL, THE JEWS PAID FOR THEIR TRAIN TICKETS TO AUSCHWITZ ... SAME PRINCIPLE. ORDER UP AN ESPRESSO AND SIGN ON ...

TOUBY: "THERE'S NOTHING PC ABOUT US!"

BE A GOOD GERMAN - SUBSCRIBE TO THE CIA'S MEDIABISTRO DATA MINING FRONT. ALL YOUR MOVEMENTS ON THE INTERNET WILL BE TRACKED BECAUSE ....

BIG SISTER IS WATCHING OVER YOU (HOLLYWOOD DUPE SUBSCRIBERS TO MB).

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ...

- AC

Monday, May 19, 2008

CONSPIRACY: The Year Was 1928

Headlines in History
Posted by: DIGTHEHEAVY

William Paley (Council on Foreign Relations) will begin the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) and hire Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, as his chief adviser. In the same year, Bernays authors Propaganda, in which he reveals:

Those who manipulate the organizes habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country......It remains a fact that almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons.

......It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.....As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.

P.45 of Secret Records revealed by Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D.


http://www.granitebaypt.com/detail/84529.html

NBC's Matt Lauer Maintains Only "the Far Left" is Concerned about Bush's Civil Liberties Abuses

Summary: On Today, during an interview with former CIA agent Michael Sheehan about his new book, Matt Lauer said, "You say we've got to use more undercover agents, informants, wiretapping, email surveillance, the works. The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls, 'cause they say, you're going to do this, you're going to trample civil liberties." In fact, Americans across the political spectrum have denounced the Bush administration for alleged violations of civil liberties.

mediamatters.org

On the May 14 edition of NBC's Today, during an interview with former CIA agent Michael Sheehan about his new book, Crush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves (Crown, May 2008), host Matt Lauer said, "You say we've got to use more undercover agents, informants, wiretapping, email surveillance, the works. The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls, 'cause they say, you're going to do this, you're going to trample civil liberties." In fact, despite Lauer's suggestion that it is only "the far left" that is concerned about "trample[d] civil liberties," Americans across the political spectrum have denounced the Bush administration for alleged violations of civil liberties, including conservatives such as former congressman (and current Libertarian Party presidential candidate) Bob Barr, former Reagan administration associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, other members of the conservative American Freedom Agenda, and members of the libertarian Cato Institute.

In addition, Lauer did not challenge Sheehan's assertion that the wiretapping and investigative authorities of the CIA, FBI, and NYPD have not "been abused over the last seven years." Sheehan stated: "What you need is good oversight involved. You need oversight within the agencies; you need congressional oversight; oversight from the press -- and make sure that when we give our CIA or FBI or NYPD the authority to do wiretaps or do investigations, that they're not going to abuse it. I don't think it has been abused over the last seven years." Lauer did not point to any of the reports of abuses of authority by the Department of Justice inspector general or to the reports of dissent from within the administration regarding the warrantless domestic surveillance program run by the National Security Agency (NSA).

As Media Matters for America has noted, in a March 2007 report, the Justice Department inspector general (IG) found many "instances of illegal or improper use of national security letters [NSLs]" by the FBI between 2003 and 2005. ...

Story continues

Original headline: "NBC's Lauer falsely suggested only 'the far left' is concerned about Bush's alleged civil liberties violations"

Sunday, May 18, 2008

On John Lennon's Death: Don't Softsoap Me - Gimme Some Truth

By Alex Constantine

"Martin Lewis ... replays the well-known Nixon-era Hoover harassment scenario ... and manages to skirt verifiable CIA ties to the political murder in Manhattan - not to mention Lennon's infiltrated household, the CIA's alteration of Lennon's journals for purposes of discreditation (they are useless to historians today for that reason), the many attempts on Yoko's life, the subsequent court judgment swayed by mind control psychiatrists on the Agency payroll, the "Operation Walrus" theft of his intellectual property, the disinformation that appears in the press, the many false books that smear his name - a Beatle dead ... "

Martin Lewis has an article that he wrote in 2000, intended for Time magazine, plastered at the Huffington Post, on the death of John Lennon. Lewis is an approved media "expert" on the Beatles (among the many CIA-Mockingbird shows that have featured multiple appearances by Martin Lewis discussing the Fab Four, count CNN’s Talkback Live; Fox News Channel’s O’Reilly Factor, Judith Regan Tonight, Fox Newswatch and Beyond The News; CNBC's Rivera Live and Equal Time; MSNBC’s Hardball, InterNight, NewsChat, NewsFront, Today In America and News With Brian Williams; and Court TV's Crier Report and Cochran & Co. Lewis was also a special correspondent on Court TV's Pros & Cons - offering "satirical takes on the legal news"), doing his level best to hide the truth about John Lennon's death, and discredits the Huffington Post, IMHO:

"It is certainly true that when John Lennon was shot he was immediately eulogized, mythologized and indeed canonized. And if you weren't a follower - or were too young to experience the Lennon impact in 'real time' - you could be forgiven for reacting suspiciously to all the hoopla on every anniversary of his death. I mean he was just a pop singer right? Married to that kooky Japanese woman. 'I'm sorry he died - but why the fuss?' Did we over-react to Lennon's death in 1980? Are we pining for a mythological cipher now? Those are healthy questions ... "

Are these healthy questions when there is an ongoing CIA campaign to discredit Lennon and cover up his murder in the "mainstream" press, as I detailed in The Covert War Against Rock? "Causes." What were those causes? Lewis again: "For several key years in the late 60s and early 70s - he and Yoko Ono consciously turned their lives into a virtual 'Truman Show' to promote the issues they believed in." If we are going to remember Lennon, shouldn't some discussion of those "causes" and "issues" take place?

Afraid not, let's have only the celebrity image - an ego-syntonic projection of ourselves as spiritual savants of good will - and forget the substance of the man, all he represented.

"I don't begrudge them. The weight of 27 years of soliloquies hangs heavy on the uninitiated. ... "

Who hasn't listened to Beatle music? I've never heard anyone complain that Lennon receives more attention than is his due, with the possible exception of neo-Nazis, but "soliloquies" are precisely my problem. Fans of Lennon revere his memory - they SAY - BUT ASK NO HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS DEATH.

Easier to cry, sentimentalize, mourn a celebrity image pasteurized by the press. Lennon's overriding political concern was fascism. "Imagine ... ".

Lewis: "John Lennon was not God." Is this distinction necessary? Is this entire article necessary?

Now the sentimentality - and complete disregard, even disdain for the TRUE LENNON and his message: "But he earned the love and admiration of his generation by creating a huge body of work that inspired and led rather than simply following. The appreciation for him deepened because he then instinctively decided to use his celebrity as a bully pulpit for causes greater than his own enrichment or self-aggrandizement."

Yes, he did. Let us wring our hands, "appreciate" John, who "was not God," but who we "deeply appreciated." Yes? If so ... WHY IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE CIA MURDERED HIM? Why the saccharine sentimentality?

WHY NOT GET DOWN TO WHO ACTUALLY MURDERED HIM?

All evidence is ignored by the fuzzy, warm creatures who "appreciate" John. Few people actually care about Lennon at all, in fact. If they did, there would be widespread insistence on the TRUTH about his death. There isn't.

There are candles. There are songs. There are eulogies. Aren't we all just wonderful people, holding hands and crying in the dark, "remembering" a Beatle who was murdered in cold blood by the repressive state he opposed.

No truth concerning the circumstances of his death. Candles. That is how much the fans actually care about Lennon. They care about warm, sentimental feelings, attach themselves vaguely to ideals that Lennon believed in and have a good cry ...

Cry over this, Good Germans: John Lennon hated fascism.

That is why he died.

Where is the hatred of fascism in those eulogies?

Let's save the the morbid, tear-stained soliloquies for later, and ask those hard questions about Lennon's murder. Lewis: " ... today my eyes are red. My heart is heavy. I will play John Lennon music today. I will watch the video of Lennon insouciantly chewing gum as he sang 'All You Need Is Love' live to 400 million people worldwide by satellite in June 1967. I will laugh as I watch him tweak stuffy pomposity again and again: 'Those in the cheaper seats clap. The rest of you just rattle your jewelry...' And I will weep still more tears at the loss of a man who inspired me in my childhood - and who inspires me to this day ... I'm still inconsolable... '

If so, Lewis - a darling of the CIA-Mockingbird media - should undertake a diligent investigation of Lennon's death for the Huffington Post. Instead, he replays the well-known Nixon-era Hoover harassment scenario (in fact, the entire piece is a redundant hash of events in the life of Lennon everyone already knows), and manages to skirt verifiable CIA ties to the political murder in Manhattan - not to mention Lennon's infiltrated household, the CIA's alteration of Lennon's journals for purposes of discreditation (they are useless to historians today for that reason), the many attempts on Yoko's life, the subsequent court judgment swayed by mind control psychiatrists on the Agency payroll, the "Operation Walrus" theft of his intellectual property, the disinformation that appears in the press, the many false books that smear his name - a Beatle dead ... " Don't softsoap me ...

All of the rest is vapid, depressing, self-congratulatory gloss.

What Lennon actually SAID in that song: Imagine that we face fascism and defeat it, so the world can live in peace ...

The fuzzy, hand-holding spiritualists can rattle their jewelry ...