Search Episodes (Read Write Government)

Added 01/30/12
0 Views

The Dalit Massacre of Paramakudi

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 11:57:20 01/30/12
Tamil Nadu Police uses teargas, lathi and guns on unarmed dalit protesters. 11th September, 2011 was the day Paramakudi resident Valiswamy’s wife Gayatri gave birth to their first child. He was a dalit while she was from an upper caste family. In a caste sensitive area like Paramakuddi, inter-caste marriages are rare and they have to survive immense social pressure to come together. Valiswamy and Gayatri had fought hard and negotiated a truce with these forces. He was on his way to the hospital when he was caught in the Paramakudi firings, a widely reported incident in which the Tamil Nadu police opened fire on a group of unarmed dalits who were staging a peaceful protest. Valiswamy would not survive to see his newborn. “The families of the bereaved have received their compensations from the government but other than that, nothing has happened. The perpetrators are scot free. In fact, the chief minister has since been effusive in her praise for the state police. And the dalits are continuing to live in a stifling atmosphere of violence and fear. The incident has been a backlash to dalit morale in Tamil Nadu.” Dalit activist and IndiaUnheard Community Correspondent Mani M. aka Makkal Sevakan sounds angry and weary as he describes the situation in Paramakudi 5 months after the police’s attempts to disband a peaceful protest against the incarceration of popular dalit leader John Pandian resulted in the murder of 6 dalits and injuring many others. The incident caused uproar in the country. Dalit and Human Rights Organizations from across the nation condemned the attack and called for investigation. The media covered the incident extensively. The fact finding team set up to probe the incident made a strong case against the actions of the police but still as Mani puts it ‘nothing has happened.’ 54 years ago, Paramakudi was witness to one of the biggest caste riots in the country, a skirmish that cost the life of dalit iconoclast and leader, Immanuel Sekaran who was amongst the first Tamil Nadu dalits to advocate for dalit empowerment and rights against 3000 years of upper caste oppression. On 11th September, John Pandian was scheduled to arrive to pay his respects at Sekaran’s memorial. But using the sensitive atmosphere caused by recent murder of a dalit high school boy for allegedly writing offensive graffiti against the upper castes as a pretext, the police pre-emptively arrested him. When the crowd gathered to receive Pandian heard news of the arrest, they protested by peacefully occupying the road. The police’s diplomatic response was teargas and a lathi charge. The mood soured and the crowd turned unruly. A few protestors began pelting stones against the police. The police responded with gunfire. “It is not like the police could not handle the situation. There is an upper caste festival in Paramakudi each year that goes smoothly without the need to resort to pre-emptive arrests and lathi and gunfire. But the first time the dalits try to get together and organize a festival, it ends in tragedy,” says Mani. Mani was in Chennai on the fateful day when he heard of the Paramakudi firings. He immediately got on the first train. When he arrived, he saw a wasteland of police barricades, empty streets and burning vehicles. Some of Mani’s friends who had been part of the protest had managed to record footage of the police bashing in the heads of the people and shooting at unarmed civilians. The footage, which offers a birds eye view of the incident, justifies the statements of the fact finding group but there has been similar footage before and witness accounts and reports and photographs and yet, ‘nothing has happened.’ Of all the cases filed in the Tamil Nadu Courts under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Protection Act, 95% are acquitted. It is a disturbing figure that makes the atrocities seem insignificant or routine. In the 1969 Kilvenmani massacre, 44 landless dalit labourers were burnt alive for demanding better wages. In 1997, the dalit panchayat president and others were murdered in Melavalau. In September 2002, at Kaundampatti in Dindigul district, a dalit worker was forced to drink urine for having lodged a complaint of trespass with the police. In May 2002, two dalits were forced to eat human excreta in Thinniyam village in Tiruchi district. In 2011, on the 54th anniversary of a dalit massacre and the subsequent murder of Immanuel Sekaran, 6 dalits are killed in broad daylight by the state police. And not a single perpetrator has been brought to justice. Almost as if nothing had happened. ——————————————- For a brief account of the dalit struggle in Tamil Nadu, read http://www.pragoti.in/node/3947

Syrian Protesters Parody Arab League Observers

Added 01/05/12
1 Views

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

Added 12/19/11
5 Views

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 12/19/11
Former President Havel addresses a European cultural congress on the economics of culture On a warm evening in 1991, a colleague and I found an out-of-the-way café in the old part of Prague. Two men with blank expressions stood outside. The interior was dim and close, with room for only eight or nine tables. The place was almost empty. Just a sleepy waitress, a bartender polishing glasses, and a single patron who sat alone drinking wine and chain-smoking cigarettes. The President of Czechoslovakia wasn't reviewing official papers. He was reading a book, a startlingly un-Presidential act to our American eyes. My companion, a neoconservative State Department official, already admired him for defying and defeating a Communist state. He'd impressed me by bringing a writer's sensibility and an affinity for true underground culture to his role as head of state. Václav Havel even tried to appoint Frank Zappa as his Minister of Culture. "We're not rock musicians," Zappa told a reporter back in the sixties. "We're electronic social workers." The State Department wouldn't let Zappa assume the post, but Havel had made his point to the Czech public by offering this apparatchik's position to the composer of songs like "What's the Ugliest Part of Your Body?" ("Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind .") We never spoke to Havel that night. It didn't seem polite to offer anything more than the curt nod of acknowledgement any café patron gives another at that hour. But Havel spoke to us, to all of us. And on the occasion of his death, the real lessons of his life's work are in danger of being lost. Today we're told that the Occupy movement is too idealistic, too naïve. Naïve? Try Havel's words if you want naïve: "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred." Think of that as the Velvet Revolution's "one demand." Portrait of the President as a Young Freak As millions of people know, the underground playwright Havel first made his political mark in Charter 77. That group was formed to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, a banned and imprisoned rock band working in the Zappa mold of musical dissonance and cultural dissidence. The Occupy movement is not on the cultural fringe, despite what its detractors say. But Havel's movement began as a Yippie-like creature of the underworld. Charter 77 rarely had more than a thousand members. It was a strange blend of political idealism and the hippie subculture where people proudly labeled themselves "freaks" to the conventional world. Despite its later alignment with economically conservative forces, it was more Allen Ginsburg than Alan Greenspan. And it was created to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, whose grating music makes Occupy's drum circles seem like a children's choir serenading the bored residents of a home for aging veterans. Words Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - what wonderful words! And how terrifying their meaning can be! Freedom in the shirt unbuttoned before execution. Equality in the constant speed of the guillotine's fall on different necks. Fraternity in some dubious paradise ... Havel addressed the liberal democratic West on words in the 1970s, noting that the suppression of speech can give language enormous power: > I ... live in a country where a writers' congress speech is capable of shaking the system ... a manifesto served as one of the pretexts for the invasion of our country one night by five foreign armies ... a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions. When a system has become inflexible and is in danger of collapsing, what it fears most is words. Think about that the next time you see a phalanx of cops tear down a tent city on television. Havel had been burned by language, too: > The same word can at one moment radiate great hope, at another it can emit lethal rays ... true at one moment and false the next, at one moment illuminating, at another, deceptive. On one occasion it can open up glorious horizons, on another, it can lay down the tracks to an entire archipelago of concentration camps. And as we approach an election year that will be filled with the rhetoric of freedom, this observation still resonates: > The same word can at one time be the cornerstone of peace, while at another time machine-gun fire resounds in its every syllable. Control In 1975 Havel had the presumption to write directly to Czechoslovakian head of state Gustáv Husák with a few suggestions. There's more than a passing resemblance between the fear-driven Communist society Havel condemned in that letter and the financial anxiety many Americans endure today: > The technique of existential pressure is ... universal. There is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable. Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste... down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens. Today, one out of two Americans lives in financial insecurity. Even many upper-middle-class citizens live from month to month, just one layoff notice away from medical bankruptcy or home foreclosure. "Everyone has something to lose," observed Havel. Havel's description of his 20th Century Communist society echoes our own: > The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising influence in an 'outward' direction, the more one's energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, that is, 'inwards.'" People today are preoccupied far more with themselves ... They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort ...They turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives. Havel concluded that "Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, and conformity to routine (political) performance - which is then quoted as evidence of 'mass political involvement.'" Ambition Havel understood the psychology of greed and power, too. From his letter to Husák: > If it is fear which lies behind people's defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism. It is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied more than ever before by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record. From Prague to Washington, from Moscow to lower Manhattan, the opportunities change. But human nature never does: > Seldom in recent times has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors' and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power. Technocracy It's a historical irony that those who claim they'll govern with the most efficiency usually wind up governing with the least effectiveness. Today corporate-funded politicians from both parties argue that the country should be led by "technocrats' who'll govern without messy "ideologies." That's a false premise Havel knew well. He called it the "process by which power becomes anonymous and depersonalized, reduced to a mere technology of rule and manipulation." Washington's technocratic "bipartisans" dream of a world where, in Havel's words, the "professional ruler is (seen as) the 'innocent' tool of an 'innocent' anonymous power ... legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity - that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors." Havel's Prague is our Beltway: > States grow ever more machinelike; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers, (where) in politics good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning (and where) the sole method of politics is quantifiable success. Havel condemned a system of state-orchestrated political theater, and the self-perpetuating failures of imagination which mistook the indifferent and pro forma participation of its citizens for genuine democracy. And he saw its universal nature: > (It) has a thousand masks, variants, and expressions. Essentially, though, it is the same universal trend ... the essential trait of all modern civilization, growing directly from its spiritual structure, rooted in it by a thousand tangled tendrils and inseparable even in thought from its technological nature, its mass characteristics, and its consumer orientation. "The contemporary concept of 'normal' behavior is," Havel wrote, "deeply pessimistic." Responsibility "I favor 'antipolitical politics,'" said Havel, "politics not as the technology of power and manipulation, of cybernetic rule over humans or as the art of the utilitarian, but politics as one of the ways of seeking and achieving meaningful lives, of protecting them and serving them." > I favor politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans. None of us--as an individual--can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so. Decades later he said this to the leaders of Western countries: > Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, everything is interrelated ... Because of this, the future of the United States or the European Union is being decided in suffering Sarajevo or Mostar, in the plundered Brazilian rain forests, in the wretched poverty of Bangladesh or Somalia. Havel had glaring faults. American neocons offered him small favors during his final rise to power. He reciprocated, consciously or unconsciously, by aiding their destructive military ventures and adopting their foolish economic policies. He succumbed to the politics of personality, both his own and those of the leaders who courted him. But it would be a shame if that's all the world remembered. Havel seemed unhappy in the role of leader. It's possible than he lost sight of his deepest insights, his truest gifts. It was the outsider Havel, the dreamer of the impossible, the surrealist and absurdist, we should remember. That's the Havel who can and should inspire dissidents everywhere. "Is the human word truly powerful enough to change the world and influence history?" he once asked. With his life and his words, Václav Havel gave us his answer. He showed us the power in each individual and the responsibility that accompanies that power. At his best, and above all else, Havel was a dissident outsider who realized his power and used it. Now it's our turn.

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Ira...

Added 11/06/11
3 Views

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 23:45:47 11/06/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Watch and see how it's done on today's edition of This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour feeds Condoleezza Rice some softballs that reflect the wise foreign policy agenda of the Beltway bobbleheads, and Condi hits them out of the park by 1) damning Obama's centrist foreign policy decisions with faint praise and 2) pushing the latest neocon agenda of the reasonableness of going to war with Iran. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar: > AMANPOUR: A deadly morning in Baghdad today, as three bombs exploded in a sprawling market. The attack came as shoppers were preparing for the Muslim festival of Eid. And it comes just hours after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told his security forces to prepare for stepped-up violence. The backdrop, of course, is the U.S. decision to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year. It's a decision that now has some concerned that Al Qaida will re-establish a foothold in the country, all questions for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She has a new memoir, "No Higher Honor." And I spoke with her earlier. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. RICE: It's a pleasure to be with you, Christiane. AMANPOUR: So you write in your book, obviously, a lot about the Bush administration, the Bush years. You also talk about when you first met the current president, Barack Obama, during a hearing, and you say his questions were sharp, not rude, he actually seemed interested in my answers. And you say you were really impressed. And lot of people questioned whether he had what it took to be commander-in-chief of the lone superpower. Did he prove them wrong? RICE: Obviously, I think Barack Obama has done a number of things right, particularly in the war on terror. And I think that President Obama has, indeed, carried the war on terror forward in a very effective way. AMANPOUR: So let me ask you, then, about the most controversial of events of your tenure, and that was the Iraq war. For better or for worse, the United States is in it. President Obama has now decided to call an end and to bring all the troops out, portraying it actually as a triumph. Others are saying it was a defeat. Do you think it was right not to push and keep for -- I mean, at the very least, 10,000 U.S. troops to guarantee some kind of security, to train, and to be there for counterterrorism? RICE: Frankly, I think it would help the regional balance to have a residual American presence there. We need to find a way to help the Iraqis sustain themselves through this period and to -- to deal with their somewhat meddlesome neighbor in Iran. AMANPOUR: Of course, the administration says it's because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to immunity. But the real issue is that this administration insisted on it ceding to State Department and Pentagon lawyers' demand that they get this immunity ratified by the Iraqi parliament. You did not do that. You got the agreement without forcing it through the parliament. Why did they have to do that? Was it a mistake for President Obama to do that? RICE: Well, Christiane, I'm really rather reluctant to criticize negotiations that I didn't participate in. But it would have clearly been better to have a residual force, from my point of view, and perhaps there was a way out of the immunity clause that wasn't taken. AMANPOUR: So is there a risk now of everything that America paid unraveling? RICE: Yes. What is at risk here is not just the sacrifice of the United States, which is considerable, but also a pillar of a new kind of democratic stability in the Middle East. AMANPOUR: And perhaps equally important, if not more, is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sources are telling me are likely to change their role, even before 2014, from a combat to a much lesser role, maybe advisory. Is that safe at this time? Is the Taliban anywhere near being defeated? RICE: Well, I'm not inside, but I don't see that the Taliban is anywhere near being defeated. And, in fact, if you're looking for some kind of political arrangement, then ultimately there will have to be a political arrangement in Afghanistan, that brings former warring elements in. But if you're looking for that arrangement, you should be in the strongest position, not the weakest. And I don't think that right now the Afghan government and the NATO mission is in a position to make that kind of political deal. So, yes, I think there's a considerable risk in speeding up a timetable for Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: In your book, you also write about Iran. The IAEA, the nuclear agency of the U.N., this week is about to reveal, apparently, more details showing, apparently, that Iran is trying to weaponize. Do you think the United States, the Obama administration, has to ratchet up the confrontation? You talked this week about confronting Iran. Does that involve military confrontation by the U.S.? RICE: Well, the United States should certainly make clear that the president of the United States will consider military action, if necessary, because you never want to take that card off the table. I think there are other ways to confront Iran. You can confront Iran through even tougher sanctions. And I also think, Christiane, this is one of the downsides of having our forces out of -- out of Iraq, because we can confront the Iranians in Iraq. So, yes, I think it's time to confront the Iranian regime, because it's the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism. It's trying to get a nuclear weapon. It's repressed its own people. The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left. We should be doing everything we can to bring it down and never take military force off the table. John Amato: > I had to weigh in here quickly because Condi was so incompetent as President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Condi Rice is famous for saying this about the bogus claims the Bush administration made about those aluminum tubes that Saddam was supposedly trying to acquire so he could nuke the heck out of Cleveland. > > In 2002, Rice had said that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," adding that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." She absurdly had this to say also to the WaPo: > But, as reported by The Washington Post more than a year ago, the internal debate among intelligence analysts was intense, with the experts at the Department of Energy who specialize in uranium enrichment adamant that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program. They argued that the tubes were intended for Iraqi rockets. Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. "I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute." Here's Condi on Meet The Press (05/20/06) changing the story that was originally given to America for attacking Iraq in the first place since the truth didn't work out too well: > RICE: I understand that Americans see on their screens violence. They continue to see Americans killed, and we mourn every death. These are very hard things to do. But I would ask that people remember why we are there. We are there because we are trying to--having overthrown a brutal dictator who was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, we're trying to help the Iraqis create a stable foundation for democracy and a stable foundation for peace." I seem to recall a different rationale for why we're there: > "Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [CNN, 9/8/2002] Bob Somerby aptly asked if Condi ever knew anything, anything at all : > "Does Condi Rice ever know anything back in 2004? According to the White House, she didn't know about objections to the uranium-from-Africa story because she hadn't read the whole National Intelligence Estimate! And in May 2002, she said she hadn't known that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles—even though intelligence agencies has issued such warnings for years. Now, she says she didn't know something else—she didn't know the state of aa critical, year-long discussion about those aluminum tubes. I didn't know, Rice told [Wolf] Blitzer. And she was singing a sweet old refrain.

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Ira...

Added 11/06/11
5 Views

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 23:45:47 11/06/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Watch and see how it's done on today's edition of This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour feeds Condoleezza Rice some softballs that reflect the wise foreign policy agenda of the Beltway bobbleheads, and Condi hits them out of the park by 1) damning Obama's centrist foreign policy decisions with faint praise and 2) pushing the latest neocon agenda of the reasonableness of going to war with Iran. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar: > AMANPOUR: A deadly morning in Baghdad today, as three bombs exploded in a sprawling market. The attack came as shoppers were preparing for the Muslim festival of Eid. And it comes just hours after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told his security forces to prepare for stepped-up violence. The backdrop, of course, is the U.S. decision to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year. It's a decision that now has some concerned that Al Qaida will re-establish a foothold in the country, all questions for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She has a new memoir, "No Higher Honor." And I spoke with her earlier. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. RICE: It's a pleasure to be with you, Christiane. AMANPOUR: So you write in your book, obviously, a lot about the Bush administration, the Bush years. You also talk about when you first met the current president, Barack Obama, during a hearing, and you say his questions were sharp, not rude, he actually seemed interested in my answers. And you say you were really impressed. And lot of people questioned whether he had what it took to be commander-in-chief of the lone superpower. Did he prove them wrong? RICE: Obviously, I think Barack Obama has done a number of things right, particularly in the war on terror. And I think that President Obama has, indeed, carried the war on terror forward in a very effective way. AMANPOUR: So let me ask you, then, about the most controversial of events of your tenure, and that was the Iraq war. For better or for worse, the United States is in it. President Obama has now decided to call an end and to bring all the troops out, portraying it actually as a triumph. Others are saying it was a defeat. Do you think it was right not to push and keep for -- I mean, at the very least, 10,000 U.S. troops to guarantee some kind of security, to train, and to be there for counterterrorism? RICE: Frankly, I think it would help the regional balance to have a residual American presence there. We need to find a way to help the Iraqis sustain themselves through this period and to -- to deal with their somewhat meddlesome neighbor in Iran. AMANPOUR: Of course, the administration says it's because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to immunity. But the real issue is that this administration insisted on it ceding to State Department and Pentagon lawyers' demand that they get this immunity ratified by the Iraqi parliament. You did not do that. You got the agreement without forcing it through the parliament. Why did they have to do that? Was it a mistake for President Obama to do that? RICE: Well, Christiane, I'm really rather reluctant to criticize negotiations that I didn't participate in. But it would have clearly been better to have a residual force, from my point of view, and perhaps there was a way out of the immunity clause that wasn't taken. AMANPOUR: So is there a risk now of everything that America paid unraveling? RICE: Yes. What is at risk here is not just the sacrifice of the United States, which is considerable, but also a pillar of a new kind of democratic stability in the Middle East. AMANPOUR: And perhaps equally important, if not more, is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sources are telling me are likely to change their role, even before 2014, from a combat to a much lesser role, maybe advisory. Is that safe at this time? Is the Taliban anywhere near being defeated? RICE: Well, I'm not inside, but I don't see that the Taliban is anywhere near being defeated. And, in fact, if you're looking for some kind of political arrangement, then ultimately there will have to be a political arrangement in Afghanistan, that brings former warring elements in. But if you're looking for that arrangement, you should be in the strongest position, not the weakest. And I don't think that right now the Afghan government and the NATO mission is in a position to make that kind of political deal. So, yes, I think there's a considerable risk in speeding up a timetable for Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: In your book, you also write about Iran. The IAEA, the nuclear agency of the U.N., this week is about to reveal, apparently, more details showing, apparently, that Iran is trying to weaponize. Do you think the United States, the Obama administration, has to ratchet up the confrontation? You talked this week about confronting Iran. Does that involve military confrontation by the U.S.? RICE: Well, the United States should certainly make clear that the president of the United States will consider military action, if necessary, because you never want to take that card off the table. I think there are other ways to confront Iran. You can confront Iran through even tougher sanctions. And I also think, Christiane, this is one of the downsides of having our forces out of -- out of Iraq, because we can confront the Iranians in Iraq. So, yes, I think it's time to confront the Iranian regime, because it's the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism. It's trying to get a nuclear weapon. It's repressed its own people. The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left. We should be doing everything we can to bring it down and never take military force off the table. John Amato: > I had to weigh in here quickly because Condi was so incompetent as President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Condi Rice is famous for saying this about the bogus claims the Bush administration made about those aluminum tubes that Saddam was supposedly trying to acquire so he could nuke the heck out of Cleveland. > > In 2002, Rice had said that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," adding that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." She absurdly had this to say also to the WaPo: > But, as reported by The Washington Post more than a year ago, the internal debate among intelligence analysts was intense, with the experts at the Department of Energy who specialize in uranium enrichment adamant that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program. They argued that the tubes were intended for Iraqi rockets. Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. "I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute." Here's Condi on Meet The Press (05/20/06) changing the story that was originally given to America for attacking Iraq in the first place since the truth didn't work out too well: > RICE: I understand that Americans see on their screens violence. They continue to see Americans killed, and we mourn every death. These are very hard things to do. But I would ask that people remember why we are there. We are there because we are trying to--having overthrown a brutal dictator who was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, we're trying to help the Iraqis create a stable foundation for democracy and a stable foundation for peace." I seem to recall a different rationale for why we're there: > "Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [CNN, 9/8/2002] Bob Somerby aptly asked if Condi ever knew anything, anything at all : > "Does Condi Rice ever know anything back in 2004? According to the White House, she didn't know about objections to the uranium-from-Africa story because she hadn't read the whole National Intelligence Estimate! And in May 2002, she said she hadn't known that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles—even though intelligence agencies has issued such warnings for years. Now, she says she didn't know something else—she didn't know the state of aa critical, year-long discussion about those aluminum tubes. I didn't know, Rice told [Wolf] Blitzer. And she was singing a sweet old refrain.

C-Span: Q&A about John Maynard Keynes and Frederick Hayek videos

Added 06/27/11
13 Views

David Stockman On Tarp The Fed Ron Paul And Reagan [Short]

Added 06/17/11
2 Views

David Stockman On Tarp The Fed Ron Paul And Reagan [Short]

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:19 06/17/11
At the very start of the "Reagan revolution," David Stockman exposed the myth that Ronald Reagan and the modern Republican Party are dedicated to small government. In 1981, the 35-year-old Stockman gave up his Michigan seat in Congress to become Reagan's budget director. A vocal critic of what he continues to call the "welfare-warfare state," Stockman had signed on because he believed in the limited government rhetoric that Reagan espoused. Once inside the White House, Stockman quickly became disenchanted, and gave an interview to journalist William Greider that became the basis for an explosive Atlantic Monthly article in which Stockman admitted that Reagan's proposed spending cuts had been a "Trojan horse" used to justify tax cuts. In his 1985 memoir, The Triumph of Politics, Stockman chronicled Reagan's reluctance to fulfill his campaign promise of shrinking the size and scope of government and balancing the budget. The result? The gross federal debt tripled while Reagan was in office. Last fall, Stockman was the GOP-defector du jour once more, arguing against extending George W. Bush's tax rates in the New York Times, on 60 Minutes, the Colbert Report, Parker-Spitzer, ABC, NPR, and MSNBC. Stockman's argument - that it's irresponsible to cut taxes when cumulative U.S. debt is steadily mounting as a percentage of GDP - is based on the simple principle that balanced budgets come only when revenues actually meet expenditures. If we're not willing to actually shrink government spending, he says, then we should pay full freight now, rather than forcing our children and grandchildren to foot the bill down the line. Here's what didn't come across in Stockman's media blitz: Since writing The Triumph of Politics he says he has "completed his homework" by reading libertarian economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard. He thinks TARP was a big-government boondoggle and the bailouts of GM and Chrysler unconscionable. Stimulus spending is a hoax. He sees the abandonment of the gold standard in favor of floating exchange rates as the root cause of both the country's fiscal problems and the 2008 financial crisis. He says that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the only politician today "who gets it" and he's hopeful that Paul's growing power may begin to shed light on "the scholastic arrogance" of the Federal Reserve. He's still against the welfare-warfare state and he thinks government should be cut down to size. . Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie sat down with Stockman for a wide-ranging discussion that touched on tax cuts, monetary policy, TARP, Ronald Reagan, his tenure as a Michigan Congressman, and the gold standard. Approximately 7.30 minutes. To view the complete 42-minute version of the interview with David Stockman, click here: http://bit.ly/hVpHGj Camera by Jim Epstein and Hawk Jensen. Edited by Epstein and Joshua Swain. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable version of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

Added 02/12/11
5 Views

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 16:00:53 02/12/11
Although this year's CPAC convention has been strangely void of any formal discussion about the events unfolding in Egypt or jobs for unemployed Americans, Tim Pawlenty did manage to remind us all of what these last three weeks would have looked like if George Bush had been in office. In his speech today, Pawlenty slammed President Obama for allowing Egyptians to determine Egypt's future in their way and their time. > "Bullies respect strength, they don't respect weakness," Pawlenty said in a speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "So when the United States of America projects its national security interests here and around the world, we need to do it with strength. We need to make sure that there is no equivocation, no uncertainty, no daylight between us and our allies around the world." Pawlenty called it a simple principle that the White House "doesn't seem to understand." "We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, Czech Republic, Colombia, amongst other of our friends," Pawlenty said. "Meanwhile, we appease Iran, Russia, and adversaries in the Middle East, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. "Mr. President, with bullies, might makes right. Strength makes them submit. We need to get tough on our enemies, not on our friends. And, Mr. President, stop apologizing for our country," Pawlenty said in one of his speech's biggest applause lines. "The bullies, terrorists and tyrants of the world have lots to apologize for. America does not." It's worth contrasting that with President Obama's speech made shortly after TPaw's spew: (More follows) > And above all, we saw a new generation emerge -- a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply: Most people have discovered in the last few days -- that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever. This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they've done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence -- not terrorism, not mindless killing -- but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more. And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can't help but hear the echoes of history -- echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice. As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana while trying to perfect his own, There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom." Those were the cries that came from Tahrir Square, and the entire world has taken note. For TPaw, respecting Israel et al means showing force, shaking our guns at whoever they call enemy instead of respecting the right of people to determine their government. How is it disrepecting democracies to support democracy? When I read what he said, I was whisked back to the days of George W. Bush. In 2002, he gave a speech where he called for Palestinians to enact true political reform, including free and fair elections. He promised that if they did so, the United States would support them. In 2006, the Palestinians elected Hamas in elections supervised by the UN and deemed to be free and fair. In a press conference following the elections, Mr. Bush paid lip service to the democratic process and then refused to acknowledge the Palestinians' duly elected representatives. Juan Cole, writing for Salon: > In a mystifying self-contradiction, Bush trumpeted that "the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy." If elections were really the same as democracy, and if Bush was so happy about the process, then we might expect him to pledge to work with the results, which by his lights would be intrinsically good. But then he suddenly swerved away from this line of thought, reverting to boilerplate and saying, "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing." So Bush is saying that even though elections are democracy and democracy is good and powerful, it has produced unacceptable results in this case, and so the resulting Hamas government will lack the legitimacy necessary to allow the United States to deal with it or go forward in any peace process. Bush's double standard is clear in his diction, since he was perfectly happy to deal with Israel's Likud Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of the budding Palestinian state, and which used the Israeli military and security services for its party platform in destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority throughout the early years of this century. As Orwell reminded us in "Animal Farm," some are more equal than others . Which is precisely what TPaw said in his speech. Some are more equal than others. Poland, the UK, Columbia, Israel. Those democracies are just fine. But in Egypt's case, we should have been strong, firm, unequivocal in our undying support for the dictator. Because THAT would somehow have protected our national interests. Democracy is democracy, regardless of whether this country likes the outcome. As President Obama said, the way forward for Egypt won't be easy, and I expect it also won't be pretty, because democracy means letting everyone have a voice, even when you don't like what they say. This is what conservatives and TPaw really don't understand at all. In their minds, we should undermine and starve any democracy that isn't aligned with our express (white, Anglo-Saxon, conservative Christian) ideals, because we don't like it. This clip with The Nation's Katrina VandenHeuvel puts an exclamation point on it: Click here to view this media TPaw's speech is nothing more than a living example of that. From the day Barack Obama was elected, they have worked to de-legitimize his presidency. Birthers. Glenn Beck. Fox News. They work with one goal, to undermine a democratically-elected president that they don't happen to agree with. Who are the real dictators here?

It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the governmen...

Added 12/28/10
2 Views

It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the government, again!

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:50 12/28/10
I've been astounded by the treatment of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks story by the media ever since it broke. Howard Kurtz called Assange disingenuous for not outing his sources, which is insane. Howard Kurtz allegedly understands journalism, so it's outrageous for Kurtz to take offense when Assange refuses to out his sources, as I explained in a post called: Why are the media so eager to bury WikiLeaks? > > KURTZ: Rick Stengel, let's turn now to your interview with Julian Assange. I found some of his answers to be absolutely disingenuous. For example, you ask whether secrets are ever necessary, and he says, well, his secrets are necessary, protecting his sources, but "our responsibility is to bring matters to the public." What's important is the information contained in the WikiLeaks cables, not Assange himself -- and when we're dealing with whistleblowers, of course their identities have to be protected. Journalism 101 states that you never out your sources, no matter where you get your information. The Beltway Villagers even defended the odious Judith Miller when she went to prison rather than divulge that Scooter Libby was her source in the outing of a Valerie Plame, as I've mentioned before . That was information that led this country into an unjustified war based on lies told by Miller and her leakers. After watching Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC show such disdain for Assange, I asked a question that really hasn't been asked all that much. > Are folks in the media afraid they might be implicated in Wikileaks cables? > I expected the State Department to speak out against WikiLeaks, but why have the media been so hostile to WikiLeaks and so passive about the people trying to silence his operation without a shred of evidence of him being guilty of a crime? I wonder if they are afraid that either they or their friends might show up in some of these leaked cables in an unfavorable light. Yesterday on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell was discussing Assange's bail in the UK and seemed afraid that he might have access to the dreaded "Internet" and destroy the world. I understand that access to D.C. is very precious to the Beltway Village, so outside of fear of what might be found out about their friends and that they'll earn extra credit for bashing Assange by the powers that be, I still don't get their attacks on the whole WikiLeaks story. And as we've seen, cable TV news has turned away from being a deliverer of news and instead focuses on orchestrating battles of opinions with punditshills and ex-GOP Bushies, but the networks for the most part have to turn away from their own stable of journalistic talkers to bring in a differing opinion on the WikiLeaks story, because the Villagers on TV are routinely characterizing Julian Assange as a terrorist. Glenn Greenwald posts today about his CNN interview last night over WikiLeaks and he highlighted four points in his post, The merger of journalists and government officials : > 4) If one thinks about it, there's something quite surreal about sitting there listening to a CNN anchor and her fellow CNN employee angrily proclaim that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" and a "criminal" when the CNN employee doing that is . . . . George W. Bush's Homeland Security and Terrorism adviser. Fran Townsend was a high-level national security official for a President who destroyed another nation with an illegal, lie-fueled military attack that killed well over 100,000 innocent people, created a worldwide torture regime, illegally spied on his own citizens without warrants, disappeared people to CIA "black sites," and erected a due-process-free gulag where scores of knowingly innocent people were put in cages for years. Julian Assange never did any of those things, or anything like them. But it's Assange who is the "terrorist" and the "criminal." Do you think Jessica Yellin would ever dare speak as scornfully and derisively about George Bush or his top officials as she does about Assange? Of course not. Instead, CNN quickly hires Bush's Homeland Security Adviser who then becomes Yellin's colleague and partner in demonizing Assange as a "terrorist." Or consider the theme that framed last night's segment: Assange is profiting off classified information by writing a book! Beyond the examples I gave, Bob Woodward has become a very rich man by writing book after book filled with classified information about America's wars which his sources were not authorized to give him. Would Yellin ever in a million years dare lash out at Bob Woodward the way she did Assange? To ask the question is to answer it ( see here as CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin is completely befuddled in the middle of his anti-WikiLeaks rant when asked by a guest, Clay Shirky, to differentiate what Woodward continuously does from what Assange is doing)... read on Woodward has been the cleaner for the Washington Post for a long time, and he's held up to a higher level of worship than even David Border. Here's a classic video which has, of all people, Don Imus confronting Andrea and the Beltway elites over their behavior in 2005 on the Plame case: > Imus: It seems unclear what you said and perhaps you can clear it up about what you said back in Oct. of 2003--- Mitchell: I have been trying to figure out "what-the-heck" I was talking about, frankly. There is confusion because I am confused. Imus: So when you told Alan Murray of CNBC, that it was widely known that his wife worked for the CIA-(interruption)--what, were you drunk? Mitchell: I don't even remember the deal. Imus: What this suggests to me is that you knew she worked at the CIA, but you didn't know what she did there. Isn't that fair-did you know that? Mitchell-(garbled) Imus: Why did you say that Andrea? Mitchell: I messed up...(later) Imus: Russert was a little short with me---almost like he was trying to hide something.... Imus (laughing): I realized -- well this is an unfair thing to say, I was gonna say -- all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another, but that would be an awful thing to say .... I think Imus was right on when he said 'all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another,' and Mitchell knew it. As time goes on it's pretty hard to miss. Digby beats back one of the bigger zombie lies being told by the media about Wikileaks. > There are many fine points in the piece, but he mentions one zombie lie I'd really love to kill --- the one that all of these so-called reporters seem to have absorbed as if it's the received word of God --- the one that says Wikileaks dumped 260,000 cables indiscriminately on the Internet. Here's the truth, from an AP news report from December 3, 2010. There's no excuse for journalists not to know this by this point: Respected news outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks > By The Associated Press 12.03.10 The diplomatic records exposed on WikiLeaks this week reveal not only secret government communications, but also an extraordinary collaboration between some of the world’s most respected news-media outlets and a website that is facing increasing pressure and criticism from governments worldwide. Unlike earlier disclosures by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of secret government military records, the group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.. This is the saddest day for journalism since their guileless acceptance of the WMD boogeyman and giddy cheerleading for the Iraq war. It turns out that journalism is important, but most of these "professional" practitioners of the field are not only failing to practice it, they are hostile to the idea that they should practice it. It's very revealing. It's just another sad and revealing day for all the hacks running around and impersonating real journalists. Not all journos are acting like this. Major props goes to the Ray Odroso of the Village Voice. Read more here .

C&L Opening Bell: Mitt Romney's Ass-Tastic Idea for Unemployme...

Added 12/15/10
4 Views

C&L Opening Bell: Mitt Romney's Ass-Tastic Idea for Unemployment Insurance Edition

[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 14:00:02 12/15/10
enlarge Happy Wednesday, campers! Mitt Romney yesterday engaged in a pathetic pander to Dittohead Nation by honoring their time-honored tradition of trashing the unemployed. Let's take a look at what our pal Mittens had to say : > The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work. To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts. That last sentence is the most hilarious pile of horses*** I've read in a long, long time. Let's go through some of the wonderful Republican initiatives over the past decade and see if they were offset by budget cuts: * The cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich for the next two years will be $79 billion , or more than $20 billion more than the cost of extending unemployment benefits. Mittens sees no need to pay for these. * The Iraq war has cost us close to $750 billion. Did the GOP try to offset those costs with tax increases or budget cuts? Pffffffft! * And then there's TARP, the $700 billion bank bailout that had no guarantee of seeing any return on investment. Again, did the GOP insist on making cuts or raising taxes to pay for this? Nope. So in Romney's world, government spending is only reckless if it benefits people who have lost their jobs. If it involves pointless wars, bank bailouts or tax cuts for Paris Hilton, though, it doesn't need to be offset by anything since all of those things are free. Why anyone takes this clown seriously -- or why Useless, Eh? Today felt the need to print his scribblings without the least bit of fact checking -- is beyond me. Let's look at the rest of today's economic news: * First, some happy news : > New government data released Tuesday bolstered retailers' hopes that consumers are shaking off the recession and pulling out their wallets just in time for the most critical sales months of the year. The Commerce Department reported a 0.8 percent increase in retail sales in November from the previous month, with big gains at clothing stores, sporting goods chains and department stores. It also revised its estimate for October upward, from a 1.2 percent gain to 1.7 percent. The strong results, combined with the recent stock market rally, prompted an influential industry trade group to raise its holiday sales forecast Tuesday. The National Retail Federation said it now predicts that November and December sales will grow 3.3 percent compared with last year, one percentage point higher than its original estimate. "It's been a while since we've really seen the retail industry drive strong economic growth," NRF spokesman Scott Krugman said. "Pent-up demand is meeting discounts, creating better than expected results for the holiday season. I'm skeptical that this can last beyond a one-month blip but any good news is more than welcome. It's nice to write about the economy without sounding like a Leonard Cohen song every day, you know? * More good news -- the lead AG on the Fraudclosure investigation wants to throw some of these SOBs in jail: > The lead Attorney General of the 50-state foreclosure investigation, Iowa’s Tom Miller, said “We will put people in jail,” in response to questions during a meeting Tuesday with more than 100 people from 15 states representing community, faith, and labor organizations, foreclosure victims and struggling homeowners from across the country. Miller also agreed that principal reductions, loan modifications, and compensation for defrauded homeowners are necessary to clean up the mortgage mess created by the big banks. “One of the main tools needs to be principal reductions, just like in the farm crisis in the 1980s. There should be some kind of compensation system for people who have been harmed. And the foreclosure process should stop while loan modifications begin. To have a race between foreclosures and modifications to see which happens first is insane.” To me the practices of the banks and the mortgage industry have been so clearly fraudulent that I will be somewhat shocked if some of these clowns didn't go to jail. Forging affidavits is typically not something the government looks fondly upon and I hope it's no different in this case. * And hey, since we're on a happy news roll today, let's take in another one: Larry Summers has given his farewell speech ! That means he's no longer working in government! The downside, of course, is that Tim Geithner's still there and I'm sure Obama will tap someone equally odious such as Roger Altman to replace him. Gotta get those Wall Street campaign donations back in line relationships with the business community in a better place, after all. And that's about it for today, class, I'm letting you go a little early. And since my posting of Mendelssohn's violin concerto yesterday seemed to bring us some happier news, let's see if we can extend it by posting more cheerful classical music. This cheerful melody from "The Marriage of Figaro" is what I'll be humming on the first day the government makes arrests in the fraudclosure scandal: See you tomorrow!

Daniel Ellsberg on Howard Zinn's 'The Bomb'

Added 11/13/10
23 Views

Daniel Ellsberg on Howard Zinn's 'The Bomb'

[LESS INFO] 23 VIEWS | ADDED 02:07:04 11/13/10
Daniel Ellsberg, progressive activist and famed leaker of the Pentagon Papers, discusses the late Howard Zinn's final original book, The Bomb. This program was recorded in collaboration with City Lights bookstore, on September 29, 2010. As an active WWII bombardier returning from the end of the war in Europe and preparing for combat in Japan, Howard Zinn read the headline Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan and was glad—the war would be over. "Like other Americans," writes Zinn, "I had no idea what was going on at the higher levels, and had no idea what that 'atomic bomb' had done to men, women, children in Hiroshima, any more than I ever really understood what the bombs I dropped on European cities were doing to human flesh and blood." During the war, Zinn had taken part in the aerial bombing of Royan, France, and in 1966, he went to Hiroshima, where he was invited to a "house of rest" where survivors of the bombing gathered. In this short and powerful book, the backstory of the making and use of the bomb, Zinn offers his deep personal reflections and political analysis of these events, and the profound influence they had in transforming him from an order-taking combat soldier to one of our greatest anti-authoritarian, anti-war historians. - City Lights Bookstore Daniel Ellsberg, a former U.S. military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation, sparked a national controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. The Pentagon Papers revealed that the government knew early on that the Vietnam War was not likely winnable and would lead to many times more casualties than ever admitted. After failing to persuade a few U.S. Senators to release the papers on the Senate floor, Ellsberg decided to risk prison and leaked the documents to the New York Times. Ellsberg went underground for 16 days before turning himself in. Fortunately, the charges against him were eventually dropped due to gross government misconduct and illegal evidence gathering by the Nixon administration and the notorious White House "Plumbers Unit." These efforts included breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and were undertaken directly by the Nixon White House to smear and discredit Ellsberg in the news media in retaliation for his Pentagon Papers whistleblowing.

Daniel Ellsberg on Howard Zinn's 'The Bomb'

Added 11/13/10
68 Views

Daniel Ellsberg on Howard Zinn's 'The Bomb'

[LESS INFO] 68 VIEWS | ADDED 02:07:04 11/13/10
Daniel Ellsberg, progressive activist and famed leaker of the Pentagon Papers, discusses the late Howard Zinn's final original book, The Bomb. This program was recorded in collaboration with City Lights bookstore, on September 29, 2010. As an active WWII bombardier returning from the end of the war in Europe and preparing for combat in Japan, Howard Zinn read the headline Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan and was glad—the war would be over. "Like other Americans," writes Zinn, "I had no idea what was going on at the higher levels, and had no idea what that 'atomic bomb' had done to men, women, children in Hiroshima, any more than I ever really understood what the bombs I dropped on European cities were doing to human flesh and blood." During the war, Zinn had taken part in the aerial bombing of Royan, France, and in 1966, he went to Hiroshima, where he was invited to a "house of rest" where survivors of the bombing gathered. In this short and powerful book, the backstory of the making and use of the bomb, Zinn offers his deep personal reflections and political analysis of these events, and the profound influence they had in transforming him from an order-taking combat soldier to one of our greatest anti-authoritarian, anti-war historians. - City Lights Bookstore Daniel Ellsberg, a former U.S. military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation, sparked a national controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. The Pentagon Papers revealed that the government knew early on that the Vietnam War was not likely winnable and would lead to many times more casualties than ever admitted. After failing to persuade a few U.S. Senators to release the papers on the Senate floor, Ellsberg decided to risk prison and leaked the documents to the New York Times. Ellsberg went underground for 16 days before turning himself in. Fortunately, the charges against him were eventually dropped due to gross government misconduct and illegal evidence gathering by the Nixon administration and the notorious White House "Plumbers Unit." These efforts included breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and were undertaken directly by the Nixon White House to smear and discredit Ellsberg in the news media in retaliation for his Pentagon Papers whistleblowing.

Daniel Ellsberg: What if Hitler Had Dropped the Bomb?

Added 10/20/10
31 Views

Daniel Ellsberg: What if Hitler Had Dropped the Bomb?

[LESS INFO] 31 VIEWS | ADDED 00:39:14 10/20/10
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/09/29/The_Bomb_Daniel_Ellsberg Daniel Ellsberg, the man responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971, imagines how nuclear weapons would be viewed today if Germany had used them in World War II. Because they would not have changed the outcome of the war, Ellsberg claims they would be branded "criminal, murderous" tools of Nazi desperation. ----- This excerpt is taken from a discussion on Howard Zinn's "The Bomb," featuring Daniel Ellsberg. This program was recorded in collaboration with City Lights Bookstore, on September 29, 2010. As an active WWII bombardier returning from the end of the war in Europe and preparing for combat in Japan, Howard Zinn read the headline Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan and was glad—the war would be over. "Like other Americans," writes Zinn, "I had no idea what was going on at the higher levels, and had no idea what that 'atomic bomb' had done to men, women, children in Hiroshima, any more than I ever really understood what the bombs I dropped on European cities were doing to human flesh and blood." During the war, Zinn had taken part in the aerial bombing of Royan, France, and in 1966, he went to Hiroshima, where he was invited to a "house of rest" where survivors of the bombing gathered. In this short and powerful book, the backstory of the making and use of the bomb, Zinn offers his deep personal reflections and political analysis of these events, and the profound influence they had in transforming him from an order-taking combat soldier to one of our greatest anti-authoritarian, anti-war historians. - City Lights Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst who, while employed by the RAND Corporation, precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of US government decision-making about the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers.

The Losers -starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoë Saldana, Chris ...

Added 04/22/10
9 Views

The Losers -starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoë Saldana, Chris Evans, Idris Elba, Columbus Short, Oscar Jaenada and Jason Patric

[LESS INFO] 9 VIEWS | ADDED 20:15:07 04/22/10
An explosive action tale of betrayal and revenge, “The Losers” centers around the members of an elite Special Forces unit sent to the Bolivian jungle on a search and destroy mission. But the team—Clay, Jensen, Roque, Pooch and Cougar—soon find that they have become the target of a deadly double cross, instigated from the inside by a powerful enemy known only as Max. Making good use of the fact that they are now presumed dead, the group goes deep undercover in a dangerous plot to clear their names and even the score with Max. They are joined by the mysterious Aisha, a beautiful operative with her own agenda, who is more than capable of scoring a few points of her own. Working together, when they’re not arguing amongst themselves, they have to stay one step ahead of the globetrotting Max—a ruthless man bent on embroiling the world in a new high-tech global war for his own benefit. If they can take down Max and save the world at the same time, it’ll be a win-win for the team now known as The Losers. “The Losers” stars Jeffrey Dean Morgan (“Watchmen”) as Clay; Zoë Saldana (“Avatar,” “Star Trek”) as Aisha; Chris Evans (the “Fantastic Four” films) as Jensen; Idris Elba (“Obsessed”) as Roque; Columbus Short (“Stomp the Yard”) as Pooch; Oscar Jaenada (“Che: Part Two”) as Cougar; and Jason Patric (“In the Valley of Elah”) as Max. Sylvain White (“Stomp the Yard”) directed the film from a screenplay by Peter Berg and James Vanderbilt, based upon the comic book series written by Andy Diggle, illustrated by Jock and published by DC Comics/Vertigo. “The Losers” is produced by Joel Silver, Akiva Goldsman and Kerry Foster, with Steve Richards, Andrew Rona, Sarah Aubrey and Stuart Besser serving as executive producers and Richard Mirisch co- producing. The behind-the-scenes creative team was led by director of photography Scott Kevan (“Stomp the Yard”), production designer Aaron Osborne (“Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang”), editor David Checel (“Stomp the Yard”), visual effects supervisor Richard Yuricich (“Orphan”), and costume designer Magali Guidasci (“Zombieland”). The music is by John Ottman (“Orphan,” “Valkyrie”). Warner Bros. Pictures presents, in association with Dark Castle Entertainment, a Weed Road Pictures production, “The Losers,” to be distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company. The film has been rated PG-13 by the MPAA for scenes of intense action and violence, a scene of sensuality, and language. ABOUT THE PRODUCTION Anyone else would be dead by now. “The Losers have fun while they kick butt.” Director Sylvain White succinctly sums up the appeal of the ex-special forces unit that comes to the big screen from the pages of the popular DC/Vertigo comic book series, by the team of writer Andy Diggle and artist Jock. As a fan of the original comics, White wanted to capture the same irreverent style in the film “The Losers.” He relates, “When I read the comics, the first thing that really struck me was the sense of humor Diggle and Jock were able to inject into a very action- driven story. It was such good source material, and I wanted to stay true to it by reflecting that tone in the movie.” Producer Joel Silver agrees. “The great thing about ‘The Losers’ is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously, which originated with the comics, of course. But much of that attitude also came from the screenwriters, Peter Berg and James Vanderbilt, who brought so much to the table, and a lot came from Sylvain, who delivered a strong, visual cinematic style that I think feels fresh and hip and cool.” Producer Akiva Goldsman was already familiar with Sylvain White’s work from the director’s feature film debut, “Stomp the Yard,” a drama centered around a step- dancing competition. “And yet,” Goldsman says, “there was a construct to the dancing in it that made it very much like martial arts, which spoke to the style he wanted to bring to this movie. Sylvain has a really good eye and a terrific sense of character and action. When he showed us what he wanted to do with ‘The Losers,’ we were all impressed.” Employing his graphic arts background, White had created a full storyboard for the film that told the producers all they needed to know. “Sylvain came in and gave us a dazzling presentation,” recalls producer Kerry Foster. “He was so passionate and had such a clear vision for the movie that we knew he was the perfect choice to direct it.” White says he not only drew inspiration from the original comic books but also from the screenplay. “It had a light tone paired with very gritty, visceral action. That can be a very difficult balance to maintain, but Peter and Jamie did it perfectly.” James Vanderbilt, who collaborated with Peter Berg on the screenplay for “The Losers,” notes, “I was raised on Joel Silver movies like ‘Die Hard,’ ‘Lethal Weapon’ and ‘48 Hrs.,’ and that is my favorite type of action film—where there are real emotions, but not everything is so dire all of the time. The stakes are high, but the characters seem to be having a good time...and we have a good time with them.” “The Losers are fun; you want to hang out with them,” White affirms. “They are not superheroes, they are real guys; in fact they’re underdogs who find themselves in what I would say is an extreme situation.” “We’re not soldiers anymore. We’re fugitives.” Despite what they are called, “The Losers” started out as anything but. Rather, they were an elite black ops unit, who were called upon for only the most perilous missions. But in the jungles of Bolivia, while on a secret mission to eliminate a powerful drug and arms dealer, they are betrayed by a shadowy government operative named Max, who has his own reasons for wanting them eliminated...and almost succeeds. “They’re left for dead and left taking the blame for the innocent lives that were lost on their mission,” White remarks. “Now they have to find their way back into the U.S. and redeem their names.” Being presumed dead does have its advantages. But, although no one may be looking for them, five “dead men” can’t exactly walk back into the country without drawing unwanted attention. They need help and they find it in an unlikely source: Aisha, who is as beautiful as she is mysterious. Before they can reclaim their lives, however, they will have to deal with Max. Each member of the team—Clay, Roque, Jensen, Pooch and Cougar—has a specialty that makes him individually strong. Together, they are unstoppable...or so they hope. CLAY – OPERATIONAL CONTROL Jeffrey Dean Morgan is Clay, The Losers’ man in command, whose entire identity had been wrapped up in being a soldier. After the team is betrayed, however, he is forced not only to fight for his country and his men but also his name. Morgan offers, “His rank is colonel and that had defined him. Without that he has to question who he is, but he still has to lead this ragtag group. The leadership thing came naturally to me. It helped that I’m older than most of the guys in this movie, so I immediately wanted to kick their butts anyway,” he deadpans. “Clay is a hardened man, but he has a definite sense of humor and I loved the dry wit of the script,” Morgan continues. “That can be difficult for a writer to capture on the page and a tricky thing for an actor to deliver. But I’m pretty sarcastic in real life,” he smiles. “In fact, I tend to be even a little dryer than Clay, so that worked well for me in playing the part.” Sylvain White says he was sure Morgan was the right man for the role even before he actually met him. “He pulled up on his Harley and I knew instantly he was the guy. He’s got this very cool, mature energy about him, a kind of old soul quality that makes him a born leader. Jeffrey is very likeable, very approachable, but there is also a bit of a dark edge to him, which was something he was able to layer very well into the character of Clay as he spirals down into his obsession to take revenge on Max.” “Jeffrey is that great combination of a tough guy with a heart of gold,” adds Goldsman about the actor, who played a very different kind of soldier in “Watchmen,” the film adaptation of the acclaimed DC Comics graphic novel. “He’s handsome and rugged and can appear dangerous, but at the same time be kind and sensitive. It’s a very mercurial quality that is hard to deliver, but he absolutely did.” JENSEN – COMMUNICATIONS & TECH Chris Evans plays Jensen, the team’s computer wizard, who can hack anything—or into anything—that comes his way. Even under cover on the other side of the world, he manages to keep up, via computer, with the standings of his niece’s 8-and- under soccer team, The Petunias.In terms of the family dynamic of the team, he is kind of the kid,” Evans admits. “He gets into mischief and cracks jokes at inappropriate times, but he cares about this group of people and loves what he does. He’s quick with a smile and has limitless energy. I enjoy playing guys like that because you can’t help but bring some of that attitude home with you.” “Jensen is the geek with a gun,” White laughs. “Every character has moments of comic relief, but Jensen is probably the funniest guy in the movie. Chris had a ball with that because he is a genuinely funny person and was able to bring his own natural humor to the role. He is such a great guy to be around; he was always making us laugh, and that’s basically who Jensen is.” “Chris was a wonderful addition to ‘The Losers’ cast,” Goldsman says of Evans, who is already a favorite of comic book genre fans for his role in the “Fantastic Four” movies and has just been announced as the new “Captain America.” “He is not only a talented and appealing actor, he also has the same sort of charm as Jensen, which is very engaging.” ROQUE – DEMO & TACTICAL Idris Elba plays Roque, an explosives expert, whose personal weapon of choice is a knife...the bigger the better. Roque has been Clay’s brother-in-arms for years, although Clay’s dogged determination to exact revenge on Max, at any and all costs, is now causing friction between the two old friends. “Roque is a no-nonsense type of character,” the actor observes. He’s a straight talker, very to the point. He’s an experienced soldier who’s not very emotional about the job; he just gets it done.” White remembers, “When I first met with Idris, he told me about his ideas for how he could bring facets to the character of Roque because his story takes an unpredictable turn. He is an amazing actor; I knew he had the capacity to make his arc believable and yet surprising.” “I liked the character of Roque, and that I had enough room to make it my own,” says Elba, who adds that there were other elements that appealed to him about the project. “The script was great—funny with a lot of larger-than-life action. And I’ve worked with Joel Silver before and am a fan of his movies, so that was another draw.” “Idris is one of those go-to actors,” notes Silver who previously worked with the actor on “RocknRolla” and “The Reaping.” “I always know he’s going to give a great performance, no matter what the role. He can do drama, he can do comedy, he can do action, and there’s all of that in this movie. This is my third film with him, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.” POOCH – TRANSPORTATION & HEAVY WEAPONS Columbus Short takes on the role of Pooch, the group’s transportation expert, who “can rig, wire, fly, drive or commandeer any vehicle, and gets to shoot some pretty sweet weapons,” states Short. Pooch also has the most personal motivation for wanting to return home. Short explains, “Pooch’s wife is about to have their first baby, and he desperately wants to get back in time to see his child be born. It makes Pooch kind of the heart of the group and adds to the guys’ individual reasons for wanting to clear their names.” Short’s motivations for taking the role involved both the script and the director. “The storyline was great and the writing was very clever and witty; I laughed out loud reading some of the dialogue and I loved the action,” he comments. The actor says he also appreciated the opportunity to reunite with Sylvain White, who had directed him in “Stomp the Yard,” which marked his first leading role. “Sylvain is a very collaborative director; he gave me the freedom to discover things about my character that weren’t necessarily in the dialogue. I couldn’t imagine a better experience than working with him again on this movie.” White states, “I knew Columbus was perfect for Pooch from the get-go; I didn’t even have to think about it. When I read the script for ‘The Losers,’ I felt that the character was the emotional anchor of the team. He’s the family man and the kind of guy you want as a friend. And Columbus has a very warm soul and this sweet innocence about him that makes you care about him the second you meet him, so I pictured him as Pooch right off the bat.” COUGAR – LONG-RANGE ELIMINATIONS Spanish actor Oscar Jaenada is cast as Cougar, the unit’s crack sniper, who can hit any target with a steady hand, a cool eye and a quiet calm. “I loved playing a character who is more about sight than sound, more visual than verbal,” Jaenada offers. “Cougar may be the quiet type, but he’s always there watching out for his team. He’s the strong, silent guy in the movie.” “Cougar is the mystery man of the crew,” says White. “I met Oscar and thought he was incredible; he has such an expressive face and an amazing presence. We needed someone who could act with his eyes, and that’s Oscar. He brought the character of Cougar to life in a way not many people could have.” Kerry Foster emphasizes, “Oscar was such a boon to the cast. He enjoyed the idea of playing the guy who doesn’t need to speak to get his point across. He came in from Spain and wasn’t able to arrive until the day before we started shooting, and I think the other guys were sad to see him because he was clearly the coolest of the bunch,” Foster teases. “But he’s just the sweetest man and everybody loved working with him.” “It’s pretty much a suicide mission.” Despite their individual and combined skills, The Losers need help to sneak back into the U.S. undetected. That’s where Aisha comes in. Zoë Saldana plays the woman who proves to be either a formidable ally or a dangerous enemy...or both. It’s hard to know whose side she’s really on—other than her own—but Clay is about to learn she usually comes out on top. “Aisha appears to them out of nowhere just when the guys think there is no hope for them to get back home,” says Saldana. “She makes them an offer that sounds too good to be true, but it’s also an offer they can’t refuse: she’ll get them back into the country, but then they have to deliver Max. They decide to take her up on it, but there is mistrust from the beginning because they don’t know what this woman is hiding up her sleeve,” the actress smiles. White, who had been a fan of Saldana’s even before her recent roles in the sci-fi blockbusters “Avatar” and “Star Trek,” recalls, “When we started discussing the role of Aisha, I instantly thought of Zoë. She has remarkable acting chops, but she also has the physicality the role demanded. Aisha is not the lady in distress; quite the contrary, she’s the badass who actually rescues the men. She’s very capable, very strong and very determined, and Zoë brought her own genuine strength to her performance. She also happens to look very much like the character in the comic book, so we were thrilled when she said yes.” Joel Silver adds, “Zoë is beautiful and sexy and exciting—all the things Aisha needed to be. We wanted Aisha to be a match for the guys and then some. She’s tough, smart, opinionated and able to mix it up, and everything we expected of the character, Zoë delivered to the role.” “You know that if we do this, we are waging a war against the Central Intelligence Agency.” The man who targeted The Losers—and who is now their target—is Max, a shadowy and ruthless government operative, who is now operating by his own set of rules to keep America on top. And if a few billion dollars end up in his pocket along the way, even better. Jason Patric, who plays the role of Max, affirms, “He has his own manifesto and a twisted sense of patriotism that I thought was funny and even a little topical today. Max has a bit of a swagger and an overconfidence, which I think he uses to hide the fact that he’s been beaten down in the past. But I just tried to have fun with it.” “Max was probably the trickiest part to cast,” White asserts. “We wanted to cast against type, and Jason has never played a true bad guy in a movie before. He came in with some great ideas for the role, and I thought he would help me create a unique character who is different from other villains we’ve seen. He brought this quirkiness to his performance that I think really sets it apart.” “Jason was terrific,” Foster agrees. “He made Max menacing and eccentric and funny all at the same time. He’s a villain you love to hate.” As do all self-respecting villains, Max also has a henchman named Wade, because, as Patric says, “Every bad guy should have a thug.” Wade is played by Holt McCallany, who offers, “Wade is a former special ops soldier, a very competent guy who has now kind of gone over to the dark side. He took all the skills he learned in the Special Forces and become a soldier of fortune. He’s a guy who’s essentially a mercenary. What makes him dangerous to The Losers is that he knows these guys. He knows their history and what they’re capable of...and what a threat they are.” Judging by appearances, you can also tell what Wade is capable of. “You know Wade could physically take Max out any time he wanted to,” White allows. “But Max is smart enough and manipulative enough to have Wade following his orders, no matter how outrageous they are. Holt played the character with just the right balance of fear, loathing and respect.” “CIA, NSA, Special Forces... We’re not them.” Before the main cast of “The Losers” could portray a Special Forces unit they had to learn to behave like one. Former Navy SEAL Harry Humphries, who has served as the military advisor on a wide range of films, recently including “Iron Man” and “Transformers,” was the film’s military advisor and “training officer.” Humphries relates, “I come from the Special Operations community and I feel a great responsibility to them, so it was very important to me that the actors, who obviously didn’t have any prior tactical experience, look correct onscreen.” He and his team put the cast of “The Losers” through a rigorous training regimen. “I didn’t try to turn them into total ninjas overnight,” says Humphries, “but I looked at what they would be required to do in the script and concentrated on those skill sets, like proper weapons handling, dynamic room entry, fire and cover, etc. They were all excellent students. I was very impressed.” The actors had equal praise for their trainer. “Harry was a great instructor,” Idris Elba states. “He taught us quite a few tactical maneuvers. He made sure we looked realistic, especially handling the gear and the weapons.” Columbus Short concurs, “Before I got there, I would not have known the first thing about dismantling or brandishing any sort of weapon. Now I feel like a weapons specialist. We were trained in the protocols known by every Special Forces operative in the world. It was very cool.” Since Oscar Jaenada was still in Spain at the time, Humphries sent a trainer based in Europe to teach the actor the rudiments of being an expert sniper. Humphries notes, “A former British SAS (Special Air Services) Operative named Tony Smith went down to see Oscar in Madrid and just immersed Oscar for a week in the mental and physical requirements of precision rifle shooting.” “It was very important for me to learn how to act like a real sniper,” Jaenada says. “Tony taught me the right way to hold the rifle and I also had to learn about precision and patience—when to know the perfect moment to take the shot.” Armorers Michael Papac and Vincent Flaherty worked closely with Humphries to select and supply the right weapons to use in each scene, including Cougar’s mammoth- scoped rifle, the Knights Armament SR-15. Chris Evans points out that the most important thing he learned about the Special Forces was “I am not cut out to be one, that’s for damn sure,” he laughs. “We were out in the jungle doing those scenes, and I’m like, ‘I need water...I need a chair...I’m sweating...I’m tired...There’s mud, and bugs are biting me...’ We’ve got a whole team of ex-Navy SEALS consultants who never even break a sweat, and I’m wondering when lunch is. Oh yeah, that’s not for me. “But seriously,” Evans adds, “it was one of the coolest experiences I’ve had making movies. Where else would a guy like me get Navy SEAL training? It was fantastic.” One important aspect of the actors’ training was learning to work together as a unit, which they all agree came naturally. “There is a shorthand between those guys, a special camaraderie, and I think we captured that,” says Jeffrey Dean Morgan. “Within one or two days, we realized it had fallen into place as far as us all feeling like one team...with Sylvain White as the maestro.” White remarks, “The first time the cast was all assembled as a group they immediately bonded, and it was pretty clear that they had great chemistry between them. That’s the kind of thing you can’t really predict or bank on, so when it happens, you feel really fortunate. And I think it makes a big difference on the screen, too.” “Welcome back to the land of the living.” The action of “The Losers” unfolds around the world—from the jungles of Bolivia to New Mexico, from Mumbai to Dubai, and from Miami to Houston to Los Angeles, with various points in-between. Despite the diversity of the settings, the filmmakers were able to accomplish almost all of the principal photography on the island of Puerto Rico. “We looked at quite a few places,” White recounts, “but when we got to Puerto Rico, we saw that the islandhas a great infrastructure and different locales. It was very convenient because we could ‘cheat’ a variety of terrains within a relatively small distance.” “It was staggering what we found when we came to Puerto Rico to scout,” Foster confirms. “There is a city, obviously gorgeous beaches, a close approximation of a desert, and a rainforest that was ideal to double for Bolivia. It’s a beautiful island and the people could not have been more wonderful.” Filming on Puerto Rico, the filmmakers also took advantage of the dramatic backdrop of the Arecibo Observatory, the world’s largest radio telescope. Jason Patric shot his first scenes there and, in the process, discovered something about himself. “I didn’t realize I have a lack of fondness for heights, but I do now,” the actor reveals. “It was a pretty daunting way to begin.” To craft the look of the film, production designer Aaron Osborne first went to the source: the original comic books. “What I noticed is that they used two or three colors to represent the tone of each setting, so I really tried to enhance that.” “Every chapter of the comic books is a new environment distinguished by different color palettes,” White observes. I really wanted to do that in the movie as well—where every time we are in a new city or country, the aesthetic of the film changes completely, so there is no homogeneous look. It’s very eclectic.” White collaborated with Osborne and cinematographer Scott Kevan to break down the images of the scenes. “We charted the whole movie with certain color schemes for each location and different shades as we moved from day to night,” Osborne explains. “We were quite meticulous about it.” Color also came into play in the work of costume designer Magali Guidasci, who deviated from tradition by dressing the main protagonist, Clay, mostly in black, while the villain, Max, mainly wore white or light pastels. “Clay is a black-and-white type of guy,” she says, “so he wears a black suit and white shirt—another type of uniform in its own way, make no mistake. Max is always in a very light color, if not pure white. We first see him in a white suit and black tie, as if to appear the opposite of Clay.” Form followed function with Cougar’s trademark cowboy hat, which was the perfect accoutrement for a sniper whose eyes needed to be shielded from the deflecting glare of the sun. His clothes are in muted colors to allow him to fade into the background and he wears gloves with the trigger finger cut out. Function was also important in costuming Zoë Saldana as Aisha, in clothes that Guidasci describes as “simple and athletic. She wears boots where she can conceal extra weapons, but no heels for that lady. She needs to be agile—able to jump and kick ass.” In keeping with Jensen’s fun-loving nature, the character wore a collection of T- shirts that were as colorful as his personality. The idea of the T-shirts began with the one Petunias shirt he wears to support his niece’s soccer team. Guidasci offers, “Then Sylvain came up with the idea for Jensen to have a different funny T-shirt for almost every scene. Some we found and some were created by our graphic designer, Eduardo Gomez, and we also tried to make some of them subtly apropos to the moment.” Osborne notes that the filmmakers adopted the term “Loser style,” which did not refer to the clothes of the characters but rather their surroundings. He elaborates, “Let me put it this way: anything we built in ‘Loser style’ either got burned, destroyed, shot up or blown apart.” For certain sets, where the action was going to be explosive, Osborne and his crew consulted with special effects coordinator John P. Cazin, as well as stunt coordinator and second unit director Garrett Warren. Clay’s hotel room in Bolivia was the most obvious example of a set that was literally designed to be demolished. “My first thought was, ‘Oh, we’re building a motel room...no big deal,’” admits Osborne. “But we had to design layer-by-layer, working everything out with John regarding the special effects, since we were going to burn down the entire room, and also with Garrett on the stunts, because people were going to be thrown around and putting their fists through the walls. So what seems to be a normal motel room was actually planned to the utmost detail. Every piece of furniture had to be replicated several times over because we were either going to burn it or smash it.” The motel room is destroyed over the course of an all-out brawl between Clay and Aisha, who, surprisingly, is more than a match for her larger opponent. “The fight scene between Clay and Aisha was amazing to create,” says Warren, who had recently worked with Saldana on “Avatar.” “They were both consummate professionals: Jeffrey is up for anything and Zoë has a dancer’s physicality and loves doing stunts. We just pulled out all the stops.” “The thing I loved about the way Garrett designed the fight is that he made it very playful,” Saldana comments. “When Clay and Aisha meet, you think they’re about to hook up for a steamy scene and they end up kicking the crap out of each other. There’s something sexy about a woman who can hold her own against a man, especially when they find each other irresistible.” “It was pretty hot,” Morgan agrees, though not necessarily referring to the attraction between the characters. “The flames in that room were real, so filming that scene really stood out for me.” Hot and steamy proved to the watchwords for the entire cast and crew while working in tropical Puerto Rico. “It’s a beautiful place, but the heat and humidity were unrelenting,” Morgan attests. “Add a black suit and about 60 pounds’ worth of guns and gear, and it made filming the action scenes a special challenge. You can’t drink enough water because no matter where or when you’re shooting, you’re drenched in sweat. But the good news is you’re bound to lose a lot of weight,” he grins. In planning the stunt sequences, Warren says, “I got my team together and we brainstormed to come up with some interesting, fun ways to shoot. I talked Sylvain into letting us fly him above one action scene on wires and he actually held the camera to film one of our guys doing Parkour-style moves, running and jumping over these large containers. That was a lot of fun...at least for us.” White also worked with Scott Kevan to film the action from a perspective that brings moviegoers right into the fray. The director emphasizes, “We want the audience to experience certain pivotal moments through the eyes of the characters. It’s about positioning the camera inside the action and staying as close as possible to the actors. Sometimes it’s limiting, and other times it opens brand new doors. It was a fine line, but I think we were able to find a good combination.” He continues, “I’m very proud of the action in this film, but what I think shines through the most is the fun tone and the great characters. I think ultimately that’s what I want to leave the audience with—having had a good time with ‘The Losers’...and wanting to do it again.” ABOUT THE CAST JEFFREY DEAN MORGAN (Clay) starred last year in the action thriller “Watchmen,” Zack Snyder’s controversial big screen adaptation of DC’s seminal graphic novel. Morgan played Edward Blake, a.k.a. The Comedian, whose murder sets off a potentially explosive investigation and reunites his former costumed colleagues, the Minutemen. Also in 2009, Morgan starred in Ang Lee’s independent feature “Taking Woodstock.” Morgan is currently at work on the crime thriller “The Fields,” in which he and Sam Worthington star as detectives investigating several unsolved murders in Texas. In November, he stars in the remake of the action hit “Red Dawn,” playing a U.S. Special Forces soldier who helps the teenage rebels, known as the Wolverines, fight back against enemy forces that have invaded the United States. Prior to “Red Dawn,” Morgan filmed the suspense thriller “The Resident,” opposite Hilary Swank, his former co-star from “P.S. I Love You,” in which he played her prospective love interest. His other upcoming films include Mikael Hafstrom’s period drama “Shanghai,” with John Cusack, and the murder mystery drama “All Good Things,” in which he stars with Kirsten Dunst, Ryan Gosling and Frank Langella under the direction of Andrew Jarecki. Morgan’s additional film credits include the independent comedy “Kabluey,” with Lisa Kudrow; the romantic comedy “The Accidental Husband,” opposite Uma Thurman; and a cameo role in David Dobkin’s holiday comedy “Fred Claus.” Morgan first gained the attention of television audiences with a recurring role in ABC’s smash hit series “Grey’s Anatomy.” His dramatic arc as heart patient Denny Duquette, who wins the heart of Katherine Heigl’s Izzie Stevens in a star-crossed romance, made him a universal fan favorite. He has also had recurring roles on the hit CW series “Supernatural” and on the award-winning Showtime series “Weeds.” ZOË SALDANA (Aisha) enjoyed a banner year in 2009, starring in back-to-back blockbusters. She capped the year starring as Neytiri in James Cameron’s history- making sci-fi epic “Avatar,” for which Saldana won an Empire Award for Best Actress. The film, which also starred Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver, broke numerous box office records on its way to becoming the highest-grossing motion picture of all time. Among its many honors, “Avatar” won a Golden Globe for Best Picture – Drama and earned nine Oscar® nominations, also including Best Picture. Earlier last year, Saldana played Nyoto Uhura in the sci-fi action adventure hit “Star Trek,” about the early years of the legendary crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Directed by J.J. Abrams, the film also starred Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Eric Bana. Saldana will next be seen in the Neil LaBute-directed comedy “Death at a Funeral,” in which she joins an ensemble cast that also includes James Marsden, Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, Martin Lawrence, Columbus Short and Luke Wilson. Born and raised in New York, Saldana first gained attention with her memorable feature film debut in the starring role of Eva in “Center Stage,” directed by Nicholas Hytner. She followed with “Get Over It,” “Crossroads,” “Drumline,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” and Steven Spielberg’s “Terminal,” for which she won a 2004 Young Hollywood One to Watch Award from Movieline magazine. Her additional film credits include “Haven,” “Guess Who” and “Vantage Point.” In 2009, Saldana graced the cover of ELLE as one of the magazine’s “Top Women in Hollywood.” CHRIS EVANS (Jensen) stars this August in Edgar Wright’s action comedy “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” with Michael Cera, Anna Kendrick, Jason Schwartzman, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. He also just wrapped production on Adam and Mark Kassen’s drama “Puncture,” in which he stars as a drug-addicted lawyer who takes on a major health supply corporation while battling his own personal demons. Evans next starts filming opposite Anna Faris in Mark Mylod’s romantic comedy “What’s Your Number?,” about a woman revisiting all her ex-boyfriends in hopes of finding the man of her dreams. This summer, Evans is set to go into production on the action adventure “The First Avenger: Captain America,” in which he will star in the title role of the Marvel Comics superhero, under the direction of Joe Johnston. Evans is also well known to moviegoers for his role in the hit “Fantastic Four” action adventures. His more recent film credits include Paul McGuigan’s sci-fi thriller “Push,” in which he starred opposite Dakota Fanning; the independent period drama “The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond,” written by Tennessee Williams and also starring Bryce Dallas Howard; and David Ayer’s crime drama “Street Kings,” with Keanu Reeves and Forest Whitaker. Raised in Massachusetts, Evans began acting in regional theatre before moving to New York, where he studied at the Lee Strasberg Institute. He made a few guest appearances on television series before landing his first feature film starring role in the comedy spoof “Not Another Teen Movie.” His early film work also includes “The Perfect Score,” with Scarlett Johansson, and “Cellular,” with Jessica Biel and Kim Basinger. In 2005, teamed with Jessica Alba, Michael Chiklis and Ioan Gruffudd as a group of astronauts who gain individual super powers after being exposed to cosmic radiation in the blockbuster hit “Fantastic Four.” Two years later, he reprised the role of Johnny Storm, a.k.a. The Human Torch, in the summer action hit “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.” Among Evans’ other film credits are Danny Boyle’s critically acclaimed sci-fi thriller “Sunshine,” with Cillian Murphy and Michelle Yeoh; “The Nanny Diaries,” opposite Scarlett Johansson; the independent drama “London,” opposite Jessica Biel; and Griffin Dunne’s “Fierce People,” with Diane Lane and Donald Sutherland. IDRIS ELBA (Roque) recently starred in the hit 2009 thriller “Obsessed,” with Beyoncé Knowles and Ali Larter. Elba earned an NAACP Image Award nomination for his portrayal of a married man being stalked by a co-worker. He previously shared in a Screen Actors Guild Award® nomination as a member of the main cast of Ridley Scott’s 2007 true-life drama “American Gangster,” with Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. Elba has several film projects upcoming, including the crime drama “Takers,” with Matt Dillon, Zoë Saldana and Hayden Christensen, and the action adventure “Thor,” in which he stars with Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman under the direction of Kenneth Branagh. He also executive produced and stars in the independent film “Legacy,” which was chosen to close the 2010 Glasgow Film Festival, and has also been selected to screen at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival. Elba’s additional film credits include David S. Goyer’s horror thriller “The Unborn”; Guy Ritchie’s “RocknRolla,” as part of an ensemble cast that also included Gerard Butler, Thandie Newton and Tom Wilkinson; and the hit horror thriller “28 Weeks Later,” to name only a few. On the small screen, Elba had a recurring role last season on the hit NBC series “The Office.” In his native England, he next stars in the title role of the BBC crime drama series “Luther,” set to debut in the UK in May. He first gained attention with his starring role as the de facto leader of a Baltimore drug empire in HBO’s acclaimed original series “The Wire,” for which he received an Image Award nomination. Additionally, he starred in the Channel 4 telefilm “All in the Game,” and gained another Image Award nod for his performance in the HBO movie “Sometimes in April,” as a Hutu soldier who tries to save his Tutsi wife and family during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Elba has also worked on the stage, including leading roles in several plays produced in London. Additionally, in New York, he starred in Sir Peter Hall’s off- Broadway production of “Troilus and Cressida,” receiving rave reviews for his portrayal of Achilles. COLUMBUS SHORT (Pooch) previously collaborated with director Sylvain White as the star of the 2007 hit “Stomp the Yard,” which topped the box office in its first two weeks in release and brought Short an NAACP Image Award nomination for Best Actor. He more recently won an Image Award for Best Supporting Actor for his performance in the true-life drama “Cadillac Records,” about the birth of rock n’ roll in Chicago, in which Short starred with Beyoncé Knowles, Jeffrey Wright and Adrien Brody. He next stars in the ensemble comedy “Death at a Funeral,” alongside Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, Martin Lawrence, James Marsden, Luke Wilson and Zoë Saldana. Born in Kansas City, Missouri, Short relocated with his family to Los Angeles at a young age and, by his early teens, had landed work in television commercials. He was a senior at Orange County School of the Arts when he was offered a part in Broadway‘s hit show “STOMP!” He went on to choreograph Britney Spears’ “In the Zone” tour. Short began his film acting career in 2006 with starring roles in “Save the Last Dance: 2” and the comedy “Accepted,” with Jonah Hill and Justin Long. His subsequent film credits include “This Christmas,” opposite Idris Elba, Regina King and Chris Brown; the horror remake “Quarantine”; the thriller “Whiteout,” with Kate Beckinsale; and “Armored,” with Matt Dillon and Laurence Fishburne. On television, he played the young writer Darius on Aaron Sorkin’s acclaimed drama series “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.” Short is also working behind the camera through his production company, Great Picture Show Productions. He most recently executive produced “Stomp the Yard 2: Homecoming.” OSCAR JAENADA (Cougar) is an award-winning actor in his native Spain, who is quickly becoming well known in the U.S. In 2005, he starred in the title role of “Camarón: When Flamenco Became Legend,” the true story of Camarón de la Isla. Jaenada earned a number of acting honors, including Spain’s prestigious Goya Award, for his portrayal of the legendary flamenco cantaor. He more recently starred in “Todos Estamos Invitados,” for which he won the Málaga Spanish Film Festival’s Award for Best Supporting Actor and the Toulouse Cinespaña Award for Best Actor. American film audiences have also seen Jaenada in Jim Jarmusch’s thriller “The Limits of Control,” in which he co-starred with Bill Murray and Tilda Swinton, and Steven Soderbergh’s biopic “Che: Part Two,” starring Benicio Del Toro. Born and raised in Barcelona, Jaenada later moved to Madrid to pursue his acting career. He started out in the local theatre and also landed roles on television. His breakthrough came in the widely acclaimed 2003 feature “November,” for which he received a Goya Award nomination and won several other awards, including a Toulouse Cinespaña Award for Best Actor. JASON PATRIC (Max) first gained attention with his starring role in Joel Schumacher’s 1987 comedy thriller hit “The Lost Boys.” He went on to earn critical acclaim for his performances in the drama “The Beast of War,” the erotic thriller “After Dark, My Sweet,” and the crime drama “Rush.” Patric subsequently starred in Walter Hill’s “Geronimo: An American Legend”; the title role in “The Journey of August King”; Barry Levinson’s “Sleepers”; and Neil LaBute’s “Your Friends and Neighbors,” which was also the first feature Patric produced under the banner of his production company, Fleece. Patric’s more recent film credits include “Narc,” “The Alamo,” “Expired,” “Downloading Nancy,” “In the Valley of Elah,” and “My Sister’s Keeper.” On Broadway, Patric starred as Brick in the revival of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” opposite Ashley Judd. His other theatre work includes productions of Neil LaBute’s “Bash”; “Beirut”; “Out of Gas on Lover’s Leap”; “The Tempest”; “Henry V”; and “Love’s Labour’s Lost.”

Hella Delicious 202 Guerrilla Garden Part 1

Added 02/25/10
1 Views

Cuba Forbidding Forbidden Preview

Added 11/11/09
37 Views

Cuba Forbidding Forbidden Preview

[LESS INFO] 37 VIEWS | ADDED 17:00:08 11/11/09
Cuba: Forbidding...Forbidden (38-Minutes). Wally Moran, a Canadian sailing writer and professional charter skipper, has cruised to Cuba and speaks about his experiences at boat shows and sailing seminars. In this special video for TheSailingChannel, Wally gives us an expanded version of his Cuba presentation. As a bill ending travel restrictions on U.S. citizens visiting Cuba wends its way through Congress, it's likely that this forbidden, mysterious, and untouched Caribbean isle may soon become the next great destination for U.S. cruising sailors. TheSailingChannel is providing $3.00 from each sale of this video to the Sarasota Yacht Club Charitable Foundation. The SYCCF is sponsoring the historic Sarasota to Havana Regatta scheduled for May 16, 2010 in support of youth sailing programs in the U.S. and Cuba. HD VIDEO DOWNLOAD JUST $12.99 Available in both Windows Media (WMV) and QuickTime (MOV) 1280X720 HD versions suitable for full screen viewing on your computer or large flat-screen TV. Just pay with Paypal or your Credit Card, download and be watching in minutes with a broadband Internet connection. www.thesailingchannel.tv/cuba/ Includes Wally's Cuba Presentation Slides in PDF. Wally Moran is a Canadian citizen sailing a Canadian-flagged vessel. TSC DOES NOT recommend that U.S.-flagged vessels voyage to Cuba until the U.S. government has formally lifted current restrictions. Read Wally's article, Cuba: The Next Cruising Ground? in Sail Magazine . Purchase any time through March 31, 2009 and you are automatically entered into a drawing for a FREE COPY of Nigel Calder's CRUISING GUIDE TO CUBA. Last published in 1996, this hard to find volume is regarded as the definitive guide to cruising Cuba. We'll choose the winner the first week of April 2010. MORE VIDEOS COMING SOON CRUISING CUBA'S SOUTHERN COAST In Spring 2010, Wally Moran will once again sail along his CubaHamas route to the most mysterious, beautiful, and untouched cruising grounds in the Caribbean. TheSailingChannel plans on taking you along as Wally explores Cuba’s southern coast. Video available Summer 2010. SAILING SOUTH: FIRST TIMER'S GUIDE TO THE ICW Wally Moran is a highly regarded expert on cruising the Inter Coastal Waterway (ICW) along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard from Canada to Miami and writes for Waterway Guides . As Wally says, “The ICW doesn’t have to be a purgatory, it can be a true pleasure-with the right knowledge.” Wally and TheSailingChannel are producing a new Interactive Video Cruising Guide about the ICW. Register for a chance to win a free copy of Waterway Guide: Atlantic ICW . Email NorthChannelSailingATgmail.com . Put ICW Video Cruising Guide as the Subject. We'll let you know when the video is available and enter your name in the drawing. We'll select the winner the week we release the video later this year. All Sailing Videos Just $12.99 or Less.

Sign in to Channels.com!

Search Results

The Dalit Massacre of Paramakudi

Syrian Protesters Parody Arab League Observers

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

C-Span: Q&A about John Maynard Keynes and Frederick Hayek videos

David Stockman On Tarp The Fed Ron Paul And Reagan [Short]

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the government, again!

C&L Opening Bell: Mitt Romney's Ass-Tastic Idea for Unemployment Insurance Edition

Daniel Ellsberg on Howard Zinn's 'The Bomb'

Daniel Ellsberg on Howard Zinn's 'The Bomb'

Daniel Ellsberg: What if Hitler Had Dropped the Bomb?

The Losers -starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoë Saldana, Chris Evans, Idris Elba, Columbus Short, Oscar Jaenada and Jason Patric

Hella Delicious 202 Guerrilla Garden Part 1

Cuba Forbidding Forbidden Preview