Friday, June 13, 2014

You've Been Drafted and You Don’t Even Know It

On the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings, Brian Williams led off NBC Nightly News this way: “On our broadcast tonight, the salute to the warriors who stormed the beaches here in Normandy...”

It’s such a commonplace of our American world, that word “warriors” for those in the U.S. military or, as is said time and again, our “wounded warriors” for those hurt in one of our many wars.  This time, however, because it was applied to the vets of World War II, my father’s war, it stopped me in my tracks. 

For just a moment, I couldn’t help imagining what my father would have said, had anyone called him -- or any of the air commandos in Burma for whom he was “operations officer” -- a warrior.  Though he’s been dead now for three decades, I don’t have a moment’s doubt that he would have thought it ridiculous. 

In World War I, America’s soldiers had been known as “doughboys.”  In World War II, they were regularly (and proudly) called “dogfaces” or G.I. (for “government issue”) Joes, and their citizen-soldier likenesses were reflected in the tough but bedraggled figures of Willy and Joe, Bill Mauldin’s much beloved wartime cartoon foot soldiers on the long slog to Berlin.

And that was fitting for a civilian military, a draft military.  It was down to earth.  It was how you described people who had left civilian life with every intention of returning to it as soon as humanly possible, who thought the military a grim necessity of a terrible moment in history and that war, a terrible but necessary way to go.  In those days, warriors would have been an alien term, the sort you associated with, say, Prussians.

My father volunteered just after the attack on Pearl Harbor and wasn’t demobilized until the war ended, but -- I remember it well in the years after -- while he took pride in his service, he maintained a typical and healthy American dislike (to put it politely) for what he called “the regular army” and George Washington would have called a “standing army.” 

He would have been amazed by the present American way of war and the propaganda universe we now live in when it comes to praising and elevating the U.S. military above the rest of society.  He would have found it inconceivable that a president’s wife would go on a popular TV show -- I’m talking about Michelle Obama on "Nashville" -- and mix it up with fictional characters to laud for the umpteenth time America’s warriors and their service to the nation.

In Vietnam, of course, the term still wasn’t warrior, it was “grunt.”  The elevation of the American soldier to the heavens of praise and bombast came significantly after the end of the citizen army, particularly with what retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and TomDispatch regular William Astore calls the new Fortress America mindset of the post-9/11 years and the ever more militarized world of constant war that went with it.

If only I could have picked up the phone, called my father, and heard the choice words he would have had for his newly elevated status as an American “warrior,” seven decades after Normandy.  But not being able to, on that D-Day anniversary I did the next best thing and called a 90-year-old friend, who was on a ship off one of those blood-soaked beaches as the invasion began. 

Thinking back those 70 years with a certain pride, he remembered that the thing the foot soldiers of World War II resented most was saluting or saying “sir” to officers.  No warriors they -- and no love for an eternal wartime either. 

Put another way, the farther we’ve come from our last great military victory, symbolized by the events of June 6, 1944, the more elevated the language for describing, or perhaps whitewashing, a new American way of war that, for pure failure, may have few matches. Tom
Uncle Sam Doesn’t Want You -- He Already Has You
The Militarized Realities of Fortress America 
By William J. Astore
I spent four college years in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) and then served 20 years in the U.S. Air Force.  In the military, especially in basic training, you have no privacy.  The government owns you.  You’re “government issue,” just another G.I., a number on a dogtag that has your blood type and religion in case you need a transfusion or last rites.  You get used to it.  That sacrifice of individual privacy and personal autonomy is the price you pay for joining the military.  Heck, I got a good career and a pension out of it, so don’t cry for me, America.
But this country has changed a lot since I joined ROTC in 1981, was fingerprinted, typed for blood, and otherwise poked and prodded. (I needed a medical waiver for myopia.) 
Nowadays, in Fortress America, every one of us is, in some sense, government issue in a surveillance state gone mad.
Unlike the recruiting poster of old, Uncle Sam doesn’t want you anymore -- he already has you.  You’ve been drafted into the American national security state.  That much is evident from Edward Snowden’s revelations. Your email?  It can be read.  Your phone calls?  Metadata about them is being gathered.  Your smartphone?  It’s a perfect tracking device if the government needs to find you.  Your computer?  Hackable and trackable.  Your server?  It’s at their service, not yours.
Many of the college students I’ve taught recently take such a loss of privacy for granted.  They have no idea what’s gone missing from their lives and so don’t value what they’ve lost or, if they fret about it at all, console themselves with magical thinking -- incantations like “I’ve done nothing wrong, so I’ve got nothing to hide.”  They have little sense of how capricious governments can be about the definition of “wrong.”
Consider us all recruits, more or less, in the new version of Fortress America, of an ever more militarized, securitized country.  Renting a movie?  Why not opt for the first Captain America and watch him vanquish the Nazis yet again, a reminder of the last war we truly won?  Did you head for a baseball park on Memorial Day?  What could be more American or more innocent?  So I hope you paid no attention to all those camouflaged caps and uniforms your favorite players were wearing in just another of an endless stream of tributes to our troops and veterans. 
Let’s hear no whining about militarized uniforms on America’s playing fields.  After all, don’t you know that America’s real pastime these last years has been war and lots of it?
Be a Good Trooper
Think of the irony.  The Vietnam War generated an unruly citizen’s army that reflected an unruly and increasingly rebellious citizenry.  That proved more than the U.S. military and our ruling elites could take.  So President Nixon ended the draft in 1973 and made America’s citizen-soldier ideal, an ideal that had persisted for two centuries, a thing of the past.  The “all-volunteer military,” the professionals, were recruited or otherwise enticed to do the job for us.  No muss, no fuss, and it’s been that way ever since.  Plenty of war, but no need to be a “warrior,” unless you sign on the dotted line.  It’s the new American way.
But it turned out that there was a fair amount of fine print in the agreement that freed Americans from those involuntary military obligations.  Part of the bargain was to “support the pros” (or rather “our troops”) unstintingly and the rest involved being pacified, keeping your peace, being a happy warrior in the new national security state that, particularly in the wake of 9/11, grew to enormous proportions on the taxpayer dollar.  Whether you like it or not, you’ve been drafted into that role, so join the line of recruits and take your proper place in the garrison state. 
If you’re bold, gaze out across the increasingly fortified and monitored borders we share with Canada and Mexico.  (Remember when you could cross those borders with no hassle, not even a passport or ID card?  I do.) 
Watch for those drones, home from the wars and already hovering in or soon to arrive in your local skies -- ostensibly to fight crime.  Pay due respect to your increasingly up-armored police forces with their automatic weapons, their special SWAT teams, and their converted MRAPs (mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles).  These vintage Iraqi Freedom vehicles are now military surplus given away or sold on the cheap to local police departments.  Be careful to observe their draconian orders for prison-like “lockdowns” of your neighborhood or city, essentially temporary declarations of martial law, all for your safety and security. 
Be a good trooper and do what you’re told.  Stay out of public areas when you’re ordered to do so.  Learn to salute smartly.  (It’s one of the first lessons I was taught as a military recruit.)  No, not that middle-finger salute, you aging hippie.  Render a proper one to those in authority.  You had best learn how.
Or perhaps you don’t even have to, since so much that we now do automatically is structured to render that salute for us.  Repeated singings of “God Bless America” at sporting events.  Repeated viewings of movies that glorify the military.  (Special Operations forces are a hot topic in American multiplexes these days from Act of Valor to Lone Survivor.)  Why not answer the call of duty by playing militarized video games like Call of Duty?  Indeed, when you do think of war, be sure to treat it as a sport, a movie, a game.
Surging in America 
I’ve been out of the military for nearly a decade, and yet I feel more militarized today than when I wore a uniform.  That feeling first came over me in 2007, during what was called the “Iraqi surge” -- the sending of another 30,000 U.S. troops into the quagmire that was our occupation of that country. It prompted my first article for TomDispatch.  I was appalled by the way our civilian commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, hid behind the beribboned chest of his appointed surge commander, General David Petraeus, to justify his administration’s devolving war of choice in Iraq.  It seemed like the eerie visual equivalent of turning traditional American military-civilian relationships upside down, of a president who had gone over to the military.  And it worked.  A cowed Congress meekly submitted to “King David” Petraeus and rushed to cheer his testimony in support of further American escalation in Iraq.
Since then, it’s become a sartorial necessity for our presidents to don military flight jackets whenever they address our “warfighters” as a sign both of their “support” and of the militarization of the imperial presidency.  (For comparison, try to imagine Matthew Brady taking a photo of “honest Abe” in the Civil War equivalent of a flight jacket!)  It is now de rigueur for presidents to praise American troops as “the finest military in world history” or, as President Obama typically said to NBC’s Brian Williams in an interview from Normandy last week, “the greatest military in the world.” 
Even more hyperbolically, these same troops are celebrated across the country in the most vocal way possible as hardened “warriors” and benevolent freedom-bringers, simultaneously the goodest and the baddest of anyone on the planet -- and all without including any of the ugly, as in the ugliness of war and killing.  Perhaps that explains why I’ve seen military recruitment vans (sporting video game consoles) at the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.  Given that military service is so beneficent, why not get the country’s 12-year-old prospects hopped up on the prospect of joining the ranks?
Too few Americans see any problems in any of this, which shouldn’t surprise us.  After all, they’re already recruits themselves.  And if the prospect of all this does appall you, you can’t even burn your draft card in protest, so better to salute smartly and obey.  A good conduct medal will undoubtedly be coming your way soon.
It wasn’t always so.  I remember walking the streets of Worcester, Massachusetts, in my freshly pressed ROTC uniform in 1981.  It was just six years after the Vietnam War ended in defeat and antiwar movies like Coming Home, The Deer Hunter, and Apocalypse Now were still fresh in people’s minds.  (First Blood and the Rambo “stab-in-the-back” myth wouldn’t come along for another year.)  I was aware of people looking at me not with hostility, but with a certain indifference mixed occasionally with barely disguised disdain.  It bothered me slightly, but even then I knew that a healthy distrust of large standing militaries was in the American grain.
No longer.  Today, service members, when appearing in uniform, are universally applauded and repetitiously lauded as heroes.
I’m not saying we should treat our troops with disdain, but as our history has shown us, genuflecting before them is not a healthy sign of respect.  Consider it a sign as well that we really are all government issue now.
Shedding a Militarized Mindset
If you think that’s an exaggeration, consider an old military officer’s manual I still have in my possession.  It’s vintage 1950, approved by that great American, General George C. Marshall, Jr., the man most responsible for our country’s victory in World War II.  It began with this reminder to the newly commissioned officer: “[O]n becoming an officer a man does not renounce any part of his fundamental character as an American citizen.  He has simply signed on for the post-graduate course where one learns how to exercise authority in accordance with the spirit of liberty.”  That may not be an easy thing to do, but the manual’s aim was to highlight the salutary tension between military authority and personal liberty that was the essence of the old citizen’s army.
It also reminded new officers that they were trustees of America’s liberty, quoting an unnamed admiral’s words on the subject: “The American philosophy places the individual above the state.  It distrusts personal power and coercion.  It denies the existence of indispensable men.  It asserts the supremacy of principle.”
Those words were a sound antidote to government-issue authoritarianism and militarism -- and they still are.  Together we all need to do our bit, not as G.I. Joes and Janes, but as Citizen Joes and Janes, to put personal liberty and constitutional principles first.  In the spirit of Ronald Reagan, who told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this [Berlin] wall,” isn’t it time to begin to tear down the walls of Fortress America and shed our militarized mindsets?  Future generations of citizens will thank us, if we have the courage to do so.
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and TomDispatch regular, edits the blog The Contrary Perspective.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook and Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me.
Copyright 2014 William J. Astore

Total_Noob is looking for Beta Testers for TN-V9

By wololo

FF Type 0, English translation running on the PS Vita (thanks to @The_Zett)
The joy of Custom Firmware: FF Type 0, English translation running on the PS Vita (thanks to @The_Zett)

Total_Noob is back to the scene, and he is bringing lots of good news with him. We’ve mentioned he is working on a plugin that will finally enable sound on PS1 games within his Vita’s popular eCFW: TNV.

But Total_Noob doesn’t stop at only solving the scene’s biggest pain point for the past 2 years. No, he’s also bringing a new version of TN-V to the masses. But he needs your help, to test for compatibility.

Now, don’t get overly excited, the beta test is not a “real” beta test, but just a compatibility test: Total_Noob needs people on all sorts of firmwares to test a specially crafted file that he made, to see if his ongoing project will work on all exploits, past and present.

As of now, his test has been run on several firmwares already, but TN is still looking for testers who own the following firmwares:  1.65, 1.66, 1.67, 1.69, 2.05, and 2.06.

If you can help, please head over to the TN-V9 thread on /talk.

Source: Total_Noob on /talk

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

45 Failed Alex Jones Predictions



All Hell Breaks Loose At Cantor HQ After Concession

By karoli

As if Virginia politics weren't bizarre enough, they got even weirder after Eric Cantor conceded the primary to virtual unknown Kochhead Dave Brat.

Washington Post:
Cantor addressed his supporters for about four minutes at a suburban Richmond hotel ballroom, then boarded an SUV without taking questions from reporters scurrying after him.
Then it got really rambunctious. In the room of downcast Cantor allies, a new energy suddenly erupted — but not the kind they wanted on election night. A group of immigration activists stormed the ballroom, screaming and waving a flag. “What do we want? Immigration reform! When do we want it? Now!”


A few Cantor supporters tried to block the protesters’ entrance into the ballroom, and pushing and shoving ensued. And before they reached the microphone, one Cantor supporter threw his glass of wine at a female protester. She swore at him in return.
A hotel employee took the microphone Cantor had used and told the protesters in Spanish that the police were on their way.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Eric Cantor Defeated In Republican Primary

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been defeated by a tea party-backed challenger in the Republican primary.

Economics professor Dave Brat won a stunning upset victory against Cantor on Tuesday in the 7th District Republican primary contest, which is in the Richmond area.

Cantor is the second-most powerful member of the U.S. House and was seen by some as a possible successor to the House speaker.

His loss to a political novice with little money marks a huge victory for the tea party movement, which supported Cantor just a few years ago.

Brat had been a thorn in Cantor's side on the campaign, casting the congressman as a Washington insider who isn't conservative enough. Last month, a feisty crowd of Brat supporters booed Cantor in front of his family at a local party convention.

His message apparently scored well with voters in the 7th District.

"There needs to be a change," said Joe Mullins, who voted in Chesterfield County Tuesday. The engineering company employee said he has friends who tried to arrange town hall meetings with Cantor, who declined their invitations.

Tiffs between the GOP's establishment and tea party factions have flared in Virginia since tea party favorite Ken Cuccinelli lost last year's gubernatorial race. Cantor supporters have met with stiff resistance in trying to wrest control of the state party away from tea party enthusiasts, including in the Cantor's home district.

Brat teaches at Randolph-Macon College, a small liberal arts school north of Richmond. He raised just more than $200,000 for his campaign, according to the most recent campaign finance reports.

Prominent national tea party groups did spend independently to help Brat.

Brat offset the the cash disadvantage with endorsements from conservative activists like radio host Laura Ingraham, and with help from local tea party activists angry at Cantor.

Much of the campaign centered on immigration, where critics on both sides have recently taken aim at Cantor.

Brat has accused the House majority leader of being a top cheerleader for "amnesty" for immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Cantor has responded forcefully by boasting in mailers of blocking Senate plans "to give illegal aliens amnesty."

It was a change in tone for Cantor, who has repeatedly voiced support for giving citizenship to certain immigrants brought illegally to the country as children. Cantor and House GOP leaders have advocated a step-by-step approach rather than the comprehensive bill backed by the Senate. They've made no move to bring legislation to a vote and appear increasingly unlikely to act this year.

Cantor, a former state legislator, was elected to Congress in 2000. He became majority leader in 2011.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

How the Treatment of Bowe Bergdahl Will Destroy the Republican Party

By Trevor LaFauci
Barack Obama, Jani Bergdah, Bob Bergdahl,

We are looking at an unprecedented time in our nation’s history.

With any nation that has a two-party system of government, it is inevitable that the party out of power will feel some kind of animosity toward the party in power. In fact, it is natural.

As the party not in power, it is your goal to convince your nation that the party in power is somehow and some way being detrimental to the country through their policy decisions. These decisions could be related to a nation’s safety and security, a nation’s economy, a nation’s immigration system, and a nation’s social issues just to name a few. As a new round of national elections approaches, it is the goal of the party not in power to convince the population at large that they can do better than the current political party in power.
For the Republican Party in the year 2014, they have taken this idea to levels not seen before at any time in American history.
The level of sheer vitriol spewed by the Republican Party this past week in the wake of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl’s release from the Taliban has proven that once and for all this is a political party that has jumped the shark to levels never seen before in this country.

Republicans have now attacked their last bastion of support in order to attempt to smear President Barack Obama: The military.

The institution that was once the pinnacle of Republican policy, one that would be supported no matter what. However, this past week has shown that even the military is fair game for the Republican Party as long as it can be used to attack Barack Obama and to try and discredit him and his administration.
To attack a military POW and his family is the new low for the Republican Party and it could very well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Americans today are becoming more and more put off by the Republican Party. They did not agree with their decision to shut down the government in October of 2013. They do not agree with the Republican Party’s stance on gay marriage. They believe climate change is an issue worth addressing.

They believe in a woman’s right to choose. They believe that income inequality is an issue that needs to be addressed. They believe in raising the minimum wage. They believe in common sense gun control legislation.
And they sure as hell believe in respecting the men and women who wear the uniform.
For Republicans, this latest and greatest smear campaign is one that will leave a lasting impression. In their whipped up frenzy to produce a scandal and/or paint the president as someone who lacks foreign policy skill, Republicans have failed to realize the lasting repercussions of smearing an American soldier.

Despite the fact that there are concerns that Sergeant Bergdahl may have deserted his post, the fact remains he was an American soldier being held hostage by the Taliban. As proponents of the President have successfully argued, would you rather have an American soldier returned home to possibly face justice or would you rather have an American soldier being dealt justice by the Taliban?
For Republicans, that is a question they do not want to have to answer.
It also hasn’t helped Republicans that President Obama has been absolutely resolute in justifying his actions. For someone the right likes to portray as weak and indecisive, President Obama was extremely forceful and persuasive in his defense of everything he and his administration did to procure the release of Sergeant Bergdahl.

His powerful language and his unwavering commitment to returning an American soldier to be reunited with his family has been presidential and has shown those who opposed his decision to be weak and petty. As more and more Republicans flip-flop over their reasons for supporting then condemning the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, President Obama has continued to showcase himself as the only adult in the room by not playing politics with the life of an American soldier.
When all is said and done, we have to ask what do Republicans hope to accomplish with this smear campaign?
In the short run: Exactly that. A smear campaign to score cheap political points. However, just like the government shutdown, the Republican Party has used its blind hatred of our President to fail to see the forest through the trees. When the dust settles, history will look back on this time period and will absolutely rip apart the Republican Party for stooping so low as to attack an American soldier and his family.

The hypocrisy from the right has been staggering and people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are being made to look like exactly what they are: Foolish, hypocritical, and unpatriotic.

In an effort to jump aboard this smear campaign, the Republican Party and their talking heads in the media have gone past the point of no return and have attacked an American serviceman and his family.

No matter what the outcome of this event is, there can be no denying the utter disrespect that the Republican Party has shown to a man in uniform. It is this watershed moment where the Republican Party’s utter hatred and disdain for our commander-in-chief finally reached a tipping point and led us to a conclusion we never thought possible six years ago:
The Republican Party has decided it will no longer be the party that unanimously supports the American military.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Demanding information easier than receiving for some GOP lawmakers

Rachel Maddow reviews recent examples of Republican politicians complaining about a lack of information on issues they claim to care about and then not going to the briefings where the information they’re complaining about is being presented.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

A Few Questions to Those Questioning the Prisoner Exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl



The Rude Pundit's gotta be honest: he can't wrap his head around this one. Oh, sure, sure, he can figure out why conservatives would go bugfuck insane over things like Benghazi (dead Americans), Obamacare (living poor Americans), and abortion (freedom for women).

They're dead damn wrong on them and they're wasting everyone's time and money, but there seems to be at least a tincture of logic. Fuck, he can even figure out the brain-damaged logic behind yahoos open-carrying their weapons (in a time of extreme disempowerment of the average person, that person attempts to cling to the accoutrements of power in any way he/she can).

But the idea that something is wrong with negotiating the release of an American soldier held prisoner by the Taliban is just utterly bizarre. Like "Stop beating your head with that fish, Skeeter" weird. It's left the Rude Pundit with a few questions for anyone who thinks there was something hinky about the exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for a quintet of bearded losers.

1. Were we supposed to just leave him there, even with a deal on the table? That's the not-so-subtle implication from so many of the Bergdahl truthers, who believe he deserted and may have worked with his captors. The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said, "It's one thing to trade terrorists for a real POW, someone who was taken on the battlefield fighting honorably for our country. It's another thing to trade away 5 high-ranking terrorists to someone who walked away." Considering Kristol's record for being wrong about every fucking thing, it more than likely means that Bergdahl ought to be awarded a medal for bravery.

2. Isn't Bergdahl entitled to a trial for any charges of desertion or collaboration? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said of the allegations against Bergdahl, "Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty," but, he asserted, "the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity." Yes, it would have been easier just to drone murder the shit out of Bergdahl, but, hey, he's white, and so far that has been a decent way to avoid missile death. But Bergdahl can still be courtmartialed.

You need look no further than another shitty war for proof: Marine Pfc. Robert Garwood was held in Vietnam until 1979. When he was released, he was charged with desertion and aiding the enemy, and he was convicted, despite an insanity plea. (Side note: Garwood's guilt being questioned by a TV-movie caused a certain senator from Arizona to go apeshit on the Senate floor in 1993.)

3. So if we left Bergdahl in Afghanistan because some people are absolutely convinced of his guilt, doesn't that mean he's being sentenced without trial? The Rude Pundit can't figure out this mania on the right to convict people without ever even charging them with a crime. Leaving Bergdahl behind would have set the precedent that we judge, without knowing the truth, who is worthy of being released. How reassuring that would be to soldiers.

4. Isn't it a huge bowlful of hypocrisy stew for Republicans to become whiny titty babies over President Obama finessing the law when the Bush administration fucking redefined things like "torture" and "duties as commander-in-chief" to get around niceties like congressional approval and oversight? Breitbart.com has gone full nutzoid on the Bergdahl release, questioning Obama's actions, quoting Queen Dink herself, Sarah Palin, on the matter.

5. And what's with the Wag-the-Dog shit about the VA scandal? This is another game the right plays with Democratic presidents: every action is done only to distract from what they see as worse shit.

Clinton bombed a place where he thought Osama bin Laden was. The GOP said it was just meant to distract from the Blow Job That Coated the World. Now, Obama is supposed to have started a whole new controversy to divert attention from the problems at the VA. Obviously, Republicans are used to leaders who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Or, you know, watch TV and eat a pretzel.

At some point, doesn't it get exhausting, Republicans?

Doesn't it get tiresome to have to attack everything, no matter how seemingly goddamn positive?

Is there nothing you have to talk about that isn't merely saying "No" to every "Yes"?

Are you that devoid of purpose?

Because that'd be some hang-yourself-existential-crisis shit right there.

By all means, go ahead - and here's a rope.

Bowe Bergdahl and the Resurgence of Conservative Islamophobia

The debate over the prisoner-swap deal spotlights how anti-Muslim sentiment on the right has actually grown in the last decade.

By

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

I have some sympathy for critics of President Obama’s decision to trade five Guantanamo prisoners for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. At the very least, the White House should have informed Congress beforehand, as required by law. And the administration’s effort to justify that failure by citing a presidential signing statement altering the law’s meaning sounds positively Cheneyesque.

Still, it's disheartening to see that some prominent conservatives are unable to critique the Bergdahl deal without resorting to anti-Muslim bigotry. Bergdahl’s father, an outraged Bill O’Reilly said earlier this week, “looks like a Muslim. He is also somewhat sympathetic to Islam.” Actually, Bob Bergdahl’s untrimmed beard would fit in well in Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jewish circles as well.

But it’s revealing that for O’Reilly, sympathy for “Islam,”—not “Taliban-style Islam” or “radical Islam” but merely “Islam”—is a character flaw.

It’s remarkable, when you think about it. In recent decades, the stigma associated with offensive comments about African Americans has clearly grown. Donald Sterling is banned for the NBA for life for racist comments made in a private conversation.

When it comes to homophobia, the shift has been even more dramatic. The term “faggot”—which was omnipresent and largely uncontroversial in my youth—is becoming as unacceptable as the term “kike.” (The actor Jonah Hill apologized profusely for using “faggot” earlier this week.) Feminists are enjoying success in their “ban bossy” campaign, an effort that would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago.
Attacking someone for “looking like a Muslim,” on the other hand, arouses barely any controversy.

Some liberal blogs condemned O’Reilly’s comments, but it’s unlikely that he will apologize and unthinkable that he’ll resign.

In conservative circles today, in fact, high-profile expressions of anti-Muslim bigotry are as routine as anti-black or anti-Jewish slurs were a half-century ago. In 2011, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain vowed not to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. Far from crippling his candidacy, the comment preceded his meteoric (if short-lived) ascent into the lead in national polls. Newt Gingrich traveled the country warning, “I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States.”

At its 2012 national convention, the GOP featured a Catholic priest, a rabbi, an evangelical minister, a Sikh, a Greek Orthodox archbishop, and two Mormon leaders but, conspicuously failed to invite an imam.

It’s not just conservative elites. A 2012 poll for the Arab American Institute found that while 29 percent of Democrats hold an “unfavorable” view of Muslims, among Republicans it's 57 percent. In 2013, two researchers at Carnegie Mellon sent out the resumes of a fictitious Christian and Muslim job applicant with the same credentials. In the 10 states where Barack Obama recorded his highest vote percentage, the two applicants received interview requests at the same rate. In the 10 states where Romney did best, by contrast, the Christian applicant was more than eight times more likely to be asked for an interview.

It would be comforting to believe this is merely a holdover from 9/11, and anti-Muslim bigotry will fade as we move further from that trauma. But according to the Arab American Institute poll, Republicans are 17 points more likely to dislike Muslims than they were in 2003 (although the numbers were even higher in 2010). Between 2002 and 2013, according to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Republicans who said Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence rose 29 points.

Even as public tolerance for most other forms of bigotry declines, hostility to Muslims has actually grown, despite the winding down of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the rise may be partially due to the end of those wars. After 9/11, George W. Bush told Americans that although we were fighting “bad Muslims” (al-Qaeda) “good Muslims”—who constituted the large majority—would embrace our invasions.

It hasn’t worked out that way. My hunch is that faced with the realization that many Iraqis and Afghans hated America’s occupation of their countries, Democrats have been more likely to blame the U.S. for starting those wars in the first place. According to polls, large majorities of Democrats now see both Iraq and Afghanistan as mistakes. Republicans don’t. For Republicans, I suspect, America’s problems in Iraq and Afghanistan say less about us than about them. They prove that Bush was wrong: Most Muslims really are our enemy. Otherwise, why would they oppose our efforts to make them free?

In 2006, when O’Reilly called for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, he said “the essential problem” is that “there are so many nuts in the country—so many crazies—that we can’t control them.” In other words, America’s problem in Iraq is Iraqis. And virtually the only thing most Americans know about Iraqis, and Afghans, is that they’re Muslim.

Perhaps this explains some of the right-wing venom towards the Bergdahls. Sergeant Bergdahl may have done ill-advised and even reprehensible things. But it appears that he and his father reacted to America’s wartime troubles in Afghanistan not by blaming Afghans but blaming America’s war.

That’s exactly what most conservatives—in their zeal to defend America’s righteousness—have refused to do. And in Bill O’Reilly’s eyes, this willingness to side with America’s enemies casts doubt on the Bergdahl’s character. It makes them almost like Muslims themselves.

GOP fast-track sending jobs overseas through TPP

Republican leaders have made it clear that they support fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership, sending U.S. jobs overseas. Ed Schultz, Larry Cohen and Rep. Peter DeFazio discuss.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Panera Removing All Additives from Menu

By

Panera will remove all additives from its menu by 2016. Take that, Subway.

Panera announced Tuesday that it will remove all artificial additives from its menu by 2016 as restaurant chains race to lure customers with the promise of more natural products. Panera has made conscientious food choices central to its brand in recent years.

Krista Johnson passes an order to a customer at a Panera store in Brookline, Mass. Panera on Tuesday, June 3, 2014 announced it will remove artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners, and preservatives from its food by 2016, a reflection of the growing distaste people are showing for such ingredients. Charles Krupa/AP/File

Until now, the food industry’s response to growing public clamor over unnatural chemicals in its food has been incremental: A bread additive removed here, a dye in a sports drink replaced there. Panera, on the other hand, is going big where others have gone small.

The restaurant-café chain will remove all artificial additives from its menu by 2016, the company announced Tuesday. That means no dyes, no preservatives, and no artificial sweeteners in any Panera restaurant-café offerings.

“We believe simpler is better,” Scott Davis, chief concept officer, said in the statement announcing the changes. “Panera is on a mission to help fix a broken food system. We have a long journey ahead, but we’re working closely with the nutrition community, industry experts, farmers, suppliers and others to make a difference.”

Panera also released a list of menu items that will have additives removed, including:
Deli smoked turkey: potassium lactate, sodium phosphate, sodium erythorbate, sodium nitrite, and sodium diacetate.
Horseradish: calcium disodium EDTA
Citrus Pepper Chicken: maltodextrin, potassium lactate
Cilantro Jalapeño Hummus: ascorbic acid and tocopherol, tara gum, carrageenan, potassium sorbate, and sodium benzoate
Summer corn chowder: tapioca Dextrin, modified corn starch, autolyzed yeast extract, maltodextrin, coconut oil derived from triglycerides, artificial flavors
Roast beef: caramel color
“Some items may disappear, but what is more likely to happen is for items to be reformulated,” Kate Antonacci, Panera’s director of societal impact initiatives, writes the Monitor via e-mail.

Panera has made being at the forefront of food industry changes central to its brand in recent years, perhaps sensing an increased public awareness and concern about what goes into a meal. It was among the first restaurants to post calorie counts on its menus, well before doing so became mandatory for large, national chains.

Today’s additives announcement was part of a larger “food policy” released by the chain, which outlines its commitment to an array of causes that food activists and conscientious eaters hold dear, including meat raised without antibiotics and sustainable fishing and farming.

Panera’s additive purge is just the latest move in an arms race among food companies, especially quick-service restaurants, to convince an ingredient-conscious public that they have their best interests at heart.

Subway recently removed a controversial preservative from its sandwich bread, a move it broadcast loudly in national TV commercials. Chick-fil-A made a series of highly publicized menu tweaks early this year, removing artificial dyes from some of its dipping sauces and committing to a switch to antibiotic-free chicken within the next five years.

Panera going whole hog in the additive issue and combining it with an overarching menu philosophy makes those smaller moves look, well, small. “We’ve never been about one-off reactionary changes,” Ms. Antonacci writes. “Rather, for decades, we have worked to provide our customers with food they can trust and transparency that allows them to make choices.”

It puts Panera more in line with Chipotle, which advertises its use of “naturally raised” pork, and a commitment to have its menu free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “to the fullest extent possible," in CEO Steve Ells’s words.

Monday, June 2, 2014

The Science of Knowing Who We Really Are

More ancestry testing leads people to discover a mixed bag of racial roots.

By Julie Walker


178715713



For nearly all of her life, Kathleen Carpenter had thought of herself as white, specifically, one-quarter German and three-quarters from the British Isles. But, after doing an Ancestry.com DNA test, the 70-year-old New Yorker now has an entirely new history that includes some North African DNA.

In addition, her brother’s test showed a small percentage of West African DNA. Then came the Ancestry.com message from a black woman who also was using the website to search her roots: They were most likely cousins.

“I think we probably are cousins, just somebody someplace wasn’t so truthful about it,” Carpenter says.


Welcome to the new world of sophisticated DNA testing, where anyone with motivation, money and some free time can take part. This week, Carpenter and about 300 other people interested in genealogy came out for a panel discussion at the New-York Historical Society as part of the World Science Festival.

“It’s All Relatives: The Science of Your Family Tree,” was inspired by the PBS series Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

 Of the desire to find ancestral roots, Gates says: “I think it’s because people feel so insecure with all the changes of post modernity, including the economic crisis, the crisis of cultures and of religions. I think people take comfort in identifying their own roots ... and I think that makes you more secure in the world.”

There is a case to be made for connecting with our past and our ancestors, which is how panelist CeCe Moore became involved. She calls herself a “citizen scientist” and also appears in Finding Your Roots.

The big discovery for her family was that her brother-in-law, who thought his ancestry was Native American, is actually descended from Sally Hemings, the slave with whom President Thomas Jefferson had six children. It was a pivotal moment not only for her, but also for her blond-haired, blue-eyed niece, “who was excited to find out she was ‘black’,” says Moore. She sees a trend in the field of more “citizen scientists” getting involved and helping to expand the research.
science_festival
 Panelists Mark D. Shriver, Brenna Henn, CeCe Moore, Catherine Ball, and Randall Pinkston at the World Science Festival in NYC, May 29, 2014.
Christopher Farber for World Science Festival


Panelists were able to participate in an on-site genealogy study called ADAPT. It is the brainchild of geneticist Mark D. Shriver of Pennsylvania State University. He uses high-tech imaging to extrapolate genetic inheritance information based on facial features, skin color and hair texture.

Shriver says the line of inquiry is important “because we need a better idea of how genes and the environment affect these traits.”  While his study will help predict the faces of our ancestors, it also has practical applications such as helping in forensic investigations.

Panel moderator and broadcast journalist Randall Pinkston was tested using ADAPT. “I’m looking forward to the results of my face,” said Pinkston. Beyond that, he said, it is important for more African Americans to discover their family trees, especially now that so much of the information is available online.

“I think these kinds of events and this kind of knowledge is important so that we can become more concerned about our history,”  he told The Root. “I have been concerned for decades about the failure of people to carry on family names. Not only that, but to make up names that may be meaningful to the parent at the time but that have no connection to anything in that family’s history. So, 100 years from now, you can’t figure out who was this child’s grandparents.”

Doris Withers was one of the few blacks in the audience. The 70-year-old said her mother began chronicling their family tree at least 30 years ago through the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Now, Withers is expanding on that research by incorporating genetic testing. She said she has used several DNA companies including Ancestry.com, 23andMe and African Ancestry, and found they all gave her similar results.

Cathy Ball, lead geneticist for Ancestry.com says differences in results among consumer companies that offer genetic predicting “are all about the algorithms and the underlying reference data used to make the predictions.” That is because the science is so advanced that “there is no true litmus test” that can pinpoint an exact percentage.

Ball adds that while technology has vastly improved over the years, she believes that even more significant advances will be achieved in the not-too-distant-future. There is also a hope that the cost of genetic testing will continue to decrease; today, a basic genealogy test costs about $100. Fifteen years ago, the price was thousands of dollars.

For many such as Withers and Carpenter, today's costs are money well spent.

“The more we know that we’re not who we think we are, the better off we are,” Carpenter says. “The more we understand that this is one pretty small world in the global scheme of things, the more we’re related, I think that’s fabulous.”

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Mitch McConnell’s ACA problem

The Affordable Care Act is working in Kentucky, but Mitch McConell is vehemently opposed to it. So, how to campaign on a losing battle?



Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Joe Scarborough Finally Appears On Fox Where He Belongs

By Heather

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough looked right at home on Fox's The Kelly File, where he was pushing his new book this Tuesday night.



When I saw that Joe Scarborough was appearing on Fox's The Kelly File, my first thoughts were please lord someone tell me he's found a new home there. Sadly he was just there to push his new book and talk over Megyn Kelly, since his regular co-host Mika Brzezinski wasn't around to put up with his abuse as she does every morning.

Apparently Scarborough isn't quite "conservative" enough to suit the right because he hasn't fully embraced every wingnut talking head on Faux "news" and right-wing hate talker and he's dared to occasionally go against some of the talking points they're all repeating day in and day out.

From Fox's blog: Megyn Kelly to Joe Scarborough: How Can You Be a Conservative If You’re At War With GOP Icons?:
Megyn Kelly tonight took on MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, asking him how he would react to Republicans that think he’s a “faux conservative.”
“We had 10 years of big government Republicanism, and what people found out was after the Bush years that big government Republicanism was as bad as big government liberalism, and I was always critical of the Republican establishment,” Scarborough said.
“How can you be a true conservative if […] you’re at war with so many of the conservative icons?” Kelly asked, citing Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
Scarborough said he’s not at war with them, and that he has consistently been a small government conservative.
“I’m conservative when Republicans are in the White House. I’m conservative when Democrats are in the White House,” he said.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

James O'Keefe Stings HIMSELF Again in 'Frack Film' Fail

By Brad Friedman

Isn't it time that the suckers dumb enough to have given money to Rightwing con-man and federal criminal James O'Keefe's ironically-named "non-profit" Project Veritas started demanding their money back from this clown?

Or are they simply too stupid to care about being played for complete stooges as Fox "News" and, apparently, Megyn Kelly still appear to be?

Here's O'Keefe's latest really huge fail, as revealed fail after "sting victim", Academy Award-nominated Gasland documentarian Josh Fox, turns out to have recorded the entire conversation deceptively edited and featured in pretend "journalist" O'Keefe's new video...



What O'Keefe got busted doing there, as seen in the Chris Hayes MSNBC segment above, is exactly what he does in every one of his pretend "investigations", as we've demonstrated here for years. This time, at least, one of the victims happened to have had the foresight to have recorded it all independently on his own.

It's remarkable that even the wingnut dupes at Fox "News" are still falling for this tired con, frankly, much less people stupid enough to send actual money to support Jimmy's scam.

For specific details on just some of the deceptively edited bullshit in his latest con, see this at Media Matters. For the entirety of the recording that documentarian Fox made of the encounter deceptively pimped in the scam video premiered recently by O'Keefe at Cannes, see this at The Daily Beast. For more on how despicable O'Keefe's latest scam actually was, see this from one of Josh Fox' business associates.

For the early history of the great James O'Keefe/Andrew Breitbart con that put both on these grifters on the map - before we subsequently revealed them to be top-to-bottom two-bit con-artists by debunking the entirety of their infamous ACORN 'Pimp' Hoax bullshit and more - see The BRAD BLOG's Special Coverage page on them here.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

How the MAFIA helped Ronald Reagan get to the White House

EXCLUSIVE: Revealed, how the MAFIA helped Ronald Reagan get to the White House. 

Shocking documentary reveals Mob connections that catapulted him to the presidency - and how a probe was thwarted at 'the highest levels'

  • President Reagan owed his acting and political career to Hollywood mogul Lew Wasserman, chief of entertainment behemoth MCA, who was in bed with the Mob
  • An investigation into the relationship between MCA and the Mafia was halted and Federal prosecutors believe it was one of the 'political favors' that can be traced back to Reagan's White House
  • 'Ronald Reagan is a complete slave of MCA who would do their bidding on anything,' one secret Justice Department document revealed
  • According to the producer of the documentary, Wages of Spin II: Bring Down The Wall, one MCA executive had ties to Mob boss John Gotti
  • 'Reagan's whole career in politics was subsidized by MCA,' he asserts, and helped him financially because for a long time he was living above his means
  • The Mob was probably working Nancy Reagan too, according to the producer.  'She was a driving force behind Reagan'
A shocking new documentary screened exclusively by MailOnline exposes the chilling conncections between the Mafia, one of Hollywood's most powerful entertainment companies and its head honcho Lew Wasserman and President Ronald Reagan and his Justice Department.

From the mid-1950’s to the early 1960’s, Sunday evenings were reserved for millions of families to sit in front of the tube and watch the General Electric Theatre on CBS hosted by genial Ronald Reagan, whose movie career had since dried up.

Television had offered him another chance.

What viewers didn't know was that Reagan was given this new opportunity of visibility and stardom in a highly lucrative and rare deal. Along with a big paycheck, he was made part-owner of the popular program that he hosted for eight years, making him extremely wealthy.

Scroll down for exclusive video
Thick as thieves: Hollywood powerhouse Lew Wasserman was Ronald Reagan's mentor, once described as 'the Godfather of the film industry.' A new documentary seen exclusively by MailOnline explores Wasserman's connections to the Mafia and how that influenced the man who would be president and his First Lady
Thick as thieves: Hollywood powerhouse Lew Wasserman was Ronald Reagan's mentor, once described as 'the Godfather of the film industry.' A new documentary seen exclusively by MailOnline explores Wasserman's connections to the Mafia and how that influenced the man who would be president and his First Lady


His mentor, close friend and the power behind the deal was Lew Wasserman, the very private head of the Music Corporation of America, better known as MCA, a Hollywood entertainment behemoth.

Under Lew Wasserman's brilliant and often brutal leadership, MCA's hugely financially successful forms of mass entertainment have been popular for generations of couch potatoes and movie-goers: from Leave It to Beaver to Miami Vice on television; from American Graffiti to Jaws on the big screen.

As a talent agency in the beginning, its rich acting stable had included Errol Flynn, Greta Garbo, Fred Astaire, Joan Crawford and Henry Fonda and Bette Davis. 

Wasserman had personally signed and represented many of them. Charlton Heston once described Wasserman as the 'Godfather of the film industry.'

Ronald Reagan, however, was the brightest star in Wasserman's personal firmament.

But there was a dark side to Wasserman - and to Reagan - all of which is revealed in a shocking new documentary, Wages of Spin II: Bring Down The Wall,  that, according to the film's producer and those interviewed, links both of them in darkly shadowed ways to the Mafia, and the killing of a U.S. Department of Justice organized crime Strike Force investigation into Mob influence and infiltration at the highest levels of MCA.
Driving force: According to the film's director, Nancy Reagan was 'the driving force behind Reagan. The mob was probably working her too. She was the one who was pushing him into everything'
Driving force: According to the film's director, Nancy Reagan was 'the driving force behind Reagan. The mob was probably working her too. She was the one who was pushing him into everything'


It's a case that one participant in the film declares ‘dwarfs the Watergate scandal’.

Neither Reagan nor Wasserman were ever prosecuted, let alone interrogated as a result of the events presented in the film because both were so well-insulated.

Reagan died in 2004 at 93 after suffering from Alzheimer's for a decade, and Wasserman died in 2002 at 89. He was said to be one of the largest contributors to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Center for Public Affairs in Simi Valley, California.

Seven years before Wasserman’s death, President Clinton -- who like Reagan got a lot of campaign and financial support from Hollywood power brokers -- presented Wasserman with the nation's highest civilian honor in a ceremony at the White House, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Wages of Spin II: Bring Down The Wall, produced and directed by Philadelphia filmmaker Shawn Swords, whose previous highly acclaimed documentary revealed the shady business practices of popular TV icon Dick Clark, will soon have it's world premier.

But MailOnline has been given an exclusive screening of the complex film which includes candid interviews with, among others, two former top Justice Department prosecutors and an ex-FBI agent who were spearheading the ill-fated top-secret probe of MCA. These men lost or left their jobs when their investigation was suddenly ordered shut down at 'the highest levels in Washington,' according to Swords and those he interviewed on camera over a two to three year period.
Power player: MCA chairman Wasserman held sway over Hollywood. With his clout, he helped get Reagan elected president of the Screen Actor's Guild, Governor of California and then President. Federal investigators were pursuing his mob ties when the investigation was suddenly halted
Power player: MCA chairman Wasserman held sway over Hollywood. With his clout, he helped get Reagan elected president of the Screen Actor's Guild, Governor of California and then President. Federal investigators were pursuing his mob ties when the investigation was suddenly halted


Richard Stavin, a former veteran federal prosecutor who was assigned to the Justice Department's Organized Crime Strike Force in Los Angeles and was an integral member of the MCA-Mafia probe team, declared in the film for the first time:

'It's my belief that MCA and its' involvement with Mafia individuals, Mafia-dominated companies and our inability to pursue those was not happenstance. I believe it was an organized, orchestrated effort on the part of certain individuals within Washington, D.C. to keep a hands-off policy towards MCA.

'At the time, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States and Edwin Meese was the Attorney General of the United States [Stavin's ultimate boss]. A little known fact was MCA and Lew Wasserman supported Ronald Reagan when he wanted to become president of the Screen Actors Guild, which was the launch of Mr. Reagan's political career.

'I would like to think that the people in the highest levels of this government were not protective of MCA...But I'm not so sure about that.'

Stavin left his Mafia crime-fighting career to which he was dedicated because, as he said on camera,

'I was unable to fulfill the duties for which I took my sworn oath.'

Another veteran federal Strike Force prosecutor involved in the probe of organized crime infiltration at MCA, Marvin Rudnick, known for his bulldog tenacity, was shockingly fired by the Justice Department and considered 'rogue' because he wanted to continue to pursue the suspected MCA bad guys, even if the trail led to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Disillusioned: Richard Stavin, a former federal prosecutor, left his Mafia crime-fighting career because he was unable to fulfill his duties. 'It's my belief that MCA and its involvement with Mafia individuals, Mafia-dominated companies and our inability to pursue those was not happenstance,' he says. 'I believe it was an organized, orchestrated effort on the part of certain individuals within Washington, D.C. to keep a hands-off policy towards MCA'
Disillusioned: Richard Stavin, a former federal prosecutor, left his Mafia crime-fighting career because he was unable to fulfill his duties. 'It's my belief that MCA and its involvement with Mafia individuals, Mafia-dominated companies and our inability to pursue those was not happenstance,' he says. 'I believe it was an organized, orchestrated effort on the part of certain individuals within Washington, D.C. to keep a hands-off policy towards MCA'


But the investigation was mysteriously ordered closed. He was later reinstated.

'For the Justice Department to kill the case was a little extraordinary,' Rudnick declared on camera.

'You wonder where it starts and where it ends. We did not get the investigation done because of intereference from high up.'

Special Agent Thomas G. Gates, who was heading up the FBI end of the investigation, declared in the film: "The powers trumped what we were trying to to do. The players within MCA tried to stay as low-key as they could. I don't know how much influence Wasserman was able to put on President
Reagan when he was in office because he [Wasserman] was always a backdoor participant, but we knew who he was associating with."

Gates stated that information about the probe 'was leaking out that shouldn't have happened' from the Justice Department in Washington.

The film's director, Shawn Swords, asserted to MailOnline that the Mob or MCA actually had a mole in the Justice Department. "It was somebody who was feeding information to the Mob and MCA. The FBI knew it was one of twelve people, but they couldn't finger the guilty one.'

Along with Rudnick's firing, and Stavin's quiting after his part of the MCA probe was shut down, all of the sealed files and wiretap documents were said to have mysteriously disappeared from a supposedly secure  federal government warehouse in Maryland.

Who was pulling the strings behind all of these questionable events, the more than two-hour documentary essentially asks.
 



As an unnamed Hollywood source was once quoted in a Justice Department document: "Ronald Reagan is a complete slave of MCA who would do their bidding on anything.'

In an exclusive interview with MailOnline, Shawn Swords said about Reagan and MCA, 'One hand washed the other. That relationship was so incestuous, and Ed Meese, who was the attorney general [appointed by President Reagan] who headed the Justice Department was really good friends with the board of directors at MCA.

'Reagan's whole career in politics was subsidized by them and helped him financially because for a long time he was living above his means. MCA backed every political campaign he ran. That's the shocking history -- that MCA was prevalent in his career and that they did so much quid pro quo for each other.'

'Ronald Reagan was an opportunist. His whole career was guided by MCA -- by Wasserman and [MCA founder] Jules Stein who bragged that Reagan was malleable, that they could do what they wanted with him.

'That thing about Reagan being tough on [organized] crime -- that's a fallacy.'

When Reagan's movie career was fading and Wasserman had difficulty getting him starring roles, a decision was made that would launch his political career. In 1947, with the aggressive support and backing of the Godfather at MCA, Reagan was elected president of the powerful Screen Actors Guild, known as SAG, a position in which he would serve for some seven terms.
Bulldog: Strike Force prosectutor Marvin Rudnick was fired by the Justice Department and considered 'rogue' because he wanted to continue to pursue the suspected MCA bad guys, even if the trail led to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Bulldog: Strike Force prosectutor Marvin Rudnick was fired by the Justice Department and considered 'rogue' because he wanted to continue to pursue the suspected MCA bad guys, even if the trail led to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue


SAG's bylaws had always banned talent agencies like MCA from producing any form of entertainment, such as TV programs and movies. But during Reagan's fifth year as the guild's president a secret blanket waiver was negotiated with SAG, and it gave MCA and Wasserman the platinum opportunity to not only market talent as agents but also to move into TV and film making.

After the waiver was granted, MCA formed MCA Television Limited that handled syndication, and then Review Productions to make TV and films, and got the jump on any competitition, making it a Hollywood powerhouse.

When Reagan ran into financial difficulties it was MCA under Wasserman that got him lucrative land deals that made him even wealthier. The General Electric Theater that Reagan hosted and for which he even produced programs was an MCA-Review property.

After Reagan was elected governor of California in 1966, with support and campaign financing from MCA and associates, some with shady ties, MCA benefited from some of his executive decisions.
 
Fast forward to the mid-1980s when Reagan was in the Oval Office. MCA was then in negotiations to sell out to the giant Japanese company Matsushita Electric Industrial for billions of dollars. From that deal Wasserman reportedly was to benefit to the tune of $500 million.
SAG swag: Ronald Reagan held court at the Screen Actors' Guild for seven terms. At one point he was able to change to rules to greatly benefir MCA and Wasserman's bottom line by allowing the management company to produce TV and film projects
SAG swag: Ronald Reagan held court at the Screen Actors' Guild for seven terms. At one point he was able to change to rules to greatly benefir MCA and Wasserman's bottom line by allowing the management company to produce TV and film projects


But the big danger for him and his company, dubbed  the 'Octopus,'  because its tentacles were in virtually all aspects of the entertainment business, was an ongoing U.S. Justice Department probe into suspected organized crime influence at MCA and in particular Wasserman's long purported ties to Mafia figures.

If the probe became public, it would most likely have impacted Wall Street and MCA's publicly held stock, and possibly driven away the Japanese buyers and the lucrative purchase. Wasserman, according to the documentary, wasn't going to let that happen.

The Justice Department-FBI investigation into Mob ties within MCA started by chance when organized crime strike force prosecutor Marvin Rudnick came across intelligence that a man by the name of Salvatore Pisello was in the hierarchy of MCA.

A red flag instantly went up. How and why, Rudnick wondered, was a high-ranking soldier in the Gambino Mafia family of New York who was known to his associates as 'Sal The Banker', 'Sal the Swindler,' and 'Big Sal,' doing businesss in MCA's offices in Universal City.
Thwarted: FBI Special Agent Thomas G. Gates, who was heading up the FBI end of the investigation, declared in the film: 'The powers trumped what we were trying to to do'
Thwarted: FBI Special Agent Thomas G. Gates, who was heading up the FBI end of the investigation, declared in the film: 'The powers trumped what we were trying to to do'


Pisello had just been sentenced to four years in prison on tax evasion charges, and Rudnick at a hearing in U.S. District Court in L.A.  stated that evidence had been uncovered linking him to 'criminal activity in the record industry.'

Pisello had denied any involvement in organized crime, and declared, 'I'll go to prison for 20 years if anyone can prove that. I go to church every Sunday and the only organization I ever belonged to was the Holy Name Society.' Regarding his MCA connection, he declared, 'I'm in the record business for one year and I'm supposed to have destroyed the industry.'

But his connections and dealings became the target of several federal grand jury probes. MCA denied knowing anything about his alleged organized crime links, and claimed to have no idea how he got in the door.

The investigation though led to other crime figures involved with MCA before it got shut down.
 
Another source interviewed on camera  in the documentary, investigative reporter William K. Knoedelseder, Jr., author of Stiffed: A True Story of MCA, the Music Business and the Mafia, published in 1993, had for a dozen years been covering organized crime and other corruption in the entertainment industry for The Los Angeles Times.

He began writing revelatory stories for the paper about Rudnick and Stavin's investigation, and was the first to report that Pisello 'wound up in high-level meetings with MCA officers' negotiating lucrative record deals 'that would place him among the best-paid executives in the industry.'
 


But like Rudnick and Stavin, the series of stories was a newspaper career-ender for Knoedelseder. He was ordered by editors to stop writing about MCA, and he quit his job, according to a 2006 book called 'Supermob' that also dealt with Reagan, Wasserman and the Mafia, and it noted that the publisher of the LA Times at the time had gotten his job 'thanks to Lew Wasserman's kind intercession.'

Rudnick had also been ordered to drop his end of the investigation.

'I was told by my boss not to introduce evidence that was embarrassing to MCA,' he stated in the documentary. 'My office was being told by somebody higher up to stop the investigation to show how Pisello got into MCA which was the most important part of the case. MCA executives weren't cooperating because somebody high up in MCA was trying to kill the deal.

'For MCA to be doing business so closely with Pisello was a primary example of what the Strike Force should be doing, and when the Strike Force looked the other way and turned it down, then you know darn well interference took place. As a prosecutor we should be investigating the people who are interfering, not just walking away from it and this is what I tried to do.'

At one point, Rudnick realized he was being followed as he made his investigative rounds. When he told his superiors in Washington, their response was, 'We got your back.'
Dapper Don: Mafia boss John Gotti was found by investigators to have ties to an MCA executive
Dapper Don: Mafia boss John Gotti was found by investigators to have ties to an MCA executive


According to Rudnick, 'MCA decided to reach out and try to kill our case which they eventually did. MCA sent people out to follow me while I was driving, they stopped a wiretap that was legal. They were able to interfere with all kinds of official acts, but nobody at the highest levels of the Justice Department seemed to care or wanted to stop it. It went all the way to the top.'

During the course of the investigation before it was shut down by powers in Washington the probers found another alleged Mob connection at MCA -- Eugene Giaquinto, who was the head of MCA Home Video. Wiretaps had caught Giaquinto talking to 'La Cosa Nostra people in the East,' and the FBI agent Gates stated on camera that 'Wasserman was Giaquinto's mentor and promoted in the MCA's Home Entertainment Group which was very powerful.'

According to Stavin, Giaquinto, who was an executive at MCA for some two decades, had ties to Mob boss John Gotti, and it was learned by the investigators that when a power struggle between two division heads at MCA had erupted it was allegedly resolved by Gotti, dubbed the 'Teflon Don,' and the 'Dapper Don,' who was Boss of New York's Gambino Family at the time. He died in prison in 2002.

In one bizarre spin-off to the whole complicated case, Gotti was asked to kill a planned movie in which the actor James Caan, who starred in "The Godfather" reportedly was to play the role of Jewish mobster Meyer Lansky.

Giaquinto, a target of the MCA-Mafia probe, reportedly was involved in trying to get the film blocked. Caan dropped the project.
Deal with the devil: GE Theater saved Ronald Reagan's career and a big payday. MCA's Wasserman set up the deal and after that Reagan owed the mogul big time, says the documentary producer
Deal with the devil: GE Theater saved Ronald Reagan's career and a big payday. MCA's Wasserman set up the deal and after that Reagan owed the mogul big time, says the documentary producer


In the book Supermob, Giaquinto was identified as the source who went into action to get the MCA-Mafia probe brought to an end. The author quoted the source as recalling Giaquinto going ballistic and declaring, 'I'm calling [Attorney general Ed] Meese and getting this thing stopped right now.' The book also quoted an attorney for several MCA executives who had been cooperating with Strike Force prosecutor Marvin Rudnick as saying, 'There was [talk] about how Ed Meese wanted certain actions taken because Nancy Reagan had a friend in high places in the entertainment industry.'

According to Swords, 'The Mob were probably working her, too. She was on the board of governors for the Screen Actors Guild. She was a driving force behind Reagan. Apparently she was the one who was pushing him into everything.'

Mrs. Reagan turns 93 this coming July 6.

While the once liberal democrat Reagan became a popular screen star and later switched political allegiance and became a conservative Republican political hero to millions, Wasserman was little known to the general public. A tall and gaunt man of mystery who sported oversize eyeglasses and dressed like a mortician -- black suits, white shirts, black ties, Wasserman made his army of underling agents dress similarly. In the business of entertainment , they were considered 'the black-suited Mafia.'

Wasserman was seen as frighteningly ruthless with a temper that made powerful men cringe.
 
His mentor in the beginning of his career was Jules Stein, an ophthalmologist from the Windy City who in the early years of the Roaring '20s had founded the Music Corporation of America, which booked bands in the Midwest, and had close ties to shady figures, reputedly members of the Chicago Mob.

A poor boy from a Russian immigrant family, Wasserman grew up in Cleveland, worked as a movie house usher at night, and after getting his high school diploma -- he never went to college -- joined up with what was known as the Mayfield Road Gang, an Italian-led Mafia organization with ties to the Jewish mob -- helping to run a casino.
Connections:  President Bill Clinton -- who like Reagan got a lot of campaign and financial support from Hollywood power brokers -- presented Wasserman with the nation's highest civilian honor in a ceremony at the White House, the Presidential Medal of Freedom
Connections: President Bill Clinton -- who like Reagan got a lot of campaign and financial support from Hollywood power brokers -- presented Wasserman with the nation's highest civilian honor in a ceremony at the White House, the Presidential Medal of Freedom


Moving up the career ladder in Chicago, Wasserman was recruited by founder Jules Stein who saw him as a bright boy with good ideas and made him an MCA talent agent. Stein was well-connected: his MCA was booking bands for the flashy nightclubs and crooked gambling houses run by legendary crime boss Al Capone. 

By then, Wasserman had taken a wife -- his attorney father-in-law reportedly was a reputed Mob mouthpiece.

In the late '30s, Stein and Wasserman followed the adage of Horace Greeley and went west, setting up shop in the ritzy center of the entertainment industry -- Beverly Hills, around the same time that the Chicago Mob was putting down roots in the movie capital.

Of all the incredible acting talent in the MCA stable of clients, the first to ever receive a $1 million movie contract was Ronald Reagan-- a deal Wasserman negotiated for him with Warner Brothers Studios in 1941.

Wasserman apparently saw a future for Reagan far beyond the acting world. 

Wasserman was just 36 when Stein anointed him MCA's president, the youngest to ever hold such a position of power. It was in the late '40s that Wasserman saw MCA as a major player in the new technology known as television.

In Hollywood, where all movies and their characters have an arc, Wasserman's rise to power ended after the Justice Department's organized Crime Strike Force investigation was killed. The sale of MCA went through to the Japanese for $6.5 billion in 1990. Wasserman had a role in management for a time. But when MCA was sold again to the Seagram Company in 1995 for $5.7 billion,

Wasserman wasn't even told. By then his power was gone.