Viva la France: Socialist Hollande Wins Presidency

By MARC McDONALD

I've really enjoyed following the recent French elections. I must admit, I feel envious of the French in many ways. One thing I greatly admire is their election system. There, voters have a choice of numerous candidates, from the far left to the far right. (I should note that, in France, the "far right" refers to a candidate that is in many ways far to the left of most U.S. Democratic politicians---a fact that is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media). I also like the run-off aspect of the French election system. There, one would never see a debacle like "Bush v. Gore," which made a mockery of democracy in the U.S.

On Sunday, Socialist Francois Hollande won the French presidency. And unlike America's wimpy Dems, Hollande doesn't shy away from his strong Progressive convictions. He has pledged a 75 percent tax on those making over $1 million a year.

I notice that the U.S. and U.K. corporate media have tried to portray this as an extremist stance that will harm France's economy. Strangely enough, the same articles usually go on to claim that this tax policy won't raise much money anyway. But if that's the case, then why the fierce opposition to it by the corporate media?

In any case, claims that Hollande is an "extremist" are wildly off the mark. He is, after all, popular with most of the French people. And, in fact, his popularity really started to soar after he announced the 75 percent tax on the rich. Publications like "The Economist" and "The Wall Street Journal," which have tried to portray Hollande as a dangerous extremist and as bad for French democracy are laughable. The fact is, it's the corporate media itself that is contemptuous of democracy. The People, after all, have spoken. And to ridicule the will of The People is to show how the corporate media really despises democracy.

I see a lot of misinformation and outright lies about France in the U.S. corporate media. Generally, the image portrayed of France is that of a nation that is suffering from a horrible economy, where the people are gloomy and miserable and, if France would only "see the light" and deregulate its economy, U.S.-style, it'd prosper.

This, of course, is all a crock. I know this, because I've been to France and I've seen it first-hand. OK, the economy does have its problems. But in France, I saw none of the extreme, bottom-of-the barrel poverty that is increasingly common in the U.S.

France, of course, is not a utopia. But it is a nation that where the gap between rich and poor is much less extreme than the U.S. In France, even the poor have a substantial social safety net. And the French health-care system is one of the best in the world (in fact, it was ranked No. 2, after Italy, in a recent World Health Organization ranking).

I mentioned this fact to a few right-wing friends of mine and they disputed it, claiming that the World Health Organization is a "Liberal" group. When I asked them if they had any evidence that contradicts the WHO, one of them said, "I sure do!" We continued debating for a few minutes and then finally he named his source: Rush Limbaugh. I pointed out to this person that even the "Wall Street Journal" recently did an in-depth investigation into the French health-care system and praised it as one of the best in the world. "Well, that must be a Liberal publication, too," my right-wing friend said. Somewhere, Rupert Murdoch's ears must have been burning.

Anyway, during my visit, the French people I saw seemed happy and content with their lives. I visited during August and I found that during that month, virtually the entire nation takes the whole month off. (In France, every worker gets a minimum of 5 weeks paid vacation, as well as loads of holidays and sick days).

The latter was something that really impressed me. After all, I've worked jobs in the past that offered zero sick days. I once tried to call in sick when I had the full-blown flu and was told that I'd be fired if I didn't come into work. I tried to explain that, if I came in, not only would I not be productive, but I'd wind up spreading the virus all over the workplace. "I don't care," my boss said. "You need to come in anyway." (Note that in my five years with this company, I had never even tried to take a single sick day).

I've tried to explain this to my European friends and, without exception, they're stunned that American workers put up with this sort of crap. "People would take to the streets if employers tried to do that here," one French acquaintance told me.

Besides blasting France and making up lies about what its like to live there, I notice a lot of my right-wing acquaintances are constantly mocking and ridiculing the French as "surrender monkeys" and "weaklings."

I recall the "surrender monkey" insults that were flying around before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. But frankly, to continue to mock and insult the French even today, in the aftermath of that disastrous war, is just frankly bizarre. I recall telling one right-winger, "But the French look pretty smart to have not participated in that godawful war---after all, no WMDs were ever found!" My right-wing acquaintance looked at me and then said, "Have you Libs already forgotten 9/11?" I then stopped the debate, realizing it was pointless.

As far as the other charge the wingnuts level against the French---that they're weaklings and cowards---well, who are the real weaklings these days? French workers, after all, don't take any sh*t from the rich and powerful. If workers there see their rights under threat, they'll immediately take to the streets and fight for their rights.

Here, in America, workers are timid and scared to stand up for their rights. Very rarely do workers here take to the streets. Instead we politely bend over and spread our ass cheeks so we can get f*cked by the Rich and Powerful, again and again. This is why we have zero government-mandated vacation days or sick days (which makes America unique in this regard among First World nations). Even the likes of India and China require some vacation days and holidays for workers these days.

So who are the real cowards? It sure as hell ain't the French.

My Challenge To Rush Limbaugh: Why Don't You Insult A Union Worker To His Face?

By MARC McDONALD

Just as he despises women and minorities, Rush Limbaugh really has it in for labor unions. He is constantly bashing them (as Media Matters and other watchdog sites have noted over the years). Like most Republicans, Limbaugh is convinced that union workers are lazy, pampered, overpaid and leeches on society. He has even called union members "thugs" and questioned their patriotism.

I find it really rich that Limbaugh would consider union workers pampered and overpaid. This, coming from a mega-millionaire whose idea of "work" is to sit on his fat ass in his air-conditioned studio, spewing lies into a microphone for a few hours a day. No wonder Limbaugh pulls down hundreds of millions of dollars from anti-union corporate America.

Memo to Limbaugh: you don't have a f*cking clue as to what real work is. I'm talking about the sort of physically demanding work done every day by millions of ordinary blue collar union workers across America.

Maybe if Limbaugh had ever actually done any real physical work in his life, he wouldn't have the bloated physique of Jabba the Hutt.

I myself know a thing or two about physical labor, having worked in grueling blue collar jobs much of my life, often for little pay and crappy benefits. I once had a job leveling foundations, where I had to crawl underneath houses, lugging heavy equipment. I don't which was worse: the stifling heat, the claustrophobic conditions---or the snake that once slithered over my face while I was lying on my back underneath a house.

In later years, I worked on factory assembly lines--but the work wasn't much easier. I once worked at a factory gate assembly job, where the razor-sharp gate components often sliced my fingers. At the end of a shift, my uniform was often so blood-splattered that anyone who saw me likely assumed I worked as a butcher.

Of course, I'm hardly alone in my experiences as a blue collar worker. Tens of millions of us toil away every day and we find that it's increasingly difficult to earn a living, no matter how hard we work.

There's only one way to know what it's like to struggle as a working-class person these days--and that's to live the life first-hand. I suspect that people like Limbaugh (who came from a wealthy background) thinks he understands what it's like to be struggling and working-class in America. And if that's the case, he's even more delusional that his radio ramblings would indicate.

It really galls me when I hear this fat piece of sh*t Limbaugh spew out his anti-worker, anti-union diatribes. Limbaugh wouldn't know real work if it bit him on the ass. For that matter, people in Limbaugh's elite social circles never have ANY real face-to-face contact with ordinary working Americans. (It's laughable that Limbaugh claims to be a fan of Walmart---does anyone really think he shops there?)

Which brings me to my challenge for Limbaugh.

Limbaugh: I challenge you to go to any factory in any mean, down-on-its-luck Rust Belt city. I challenge you to walk up to the assembly line and tell the union workers to their face that they're pampered, overpaid and that they're "thugs" and not patriotic.

Oh, and be sure to bring along a lot of OxyContin---because when you insult these union workers, you're going to be in a lot of pain after they beat the sh*t out of you.

Of course, being the chickensh*t coward that you are, I'm sure that you'll never take me up on this challenge.

Instead, you'll continue to sit in one of your lavish mega-million-dollar mansions, smoking your fancy $200 cigars and drinking your $1,000 bottles of fine French wine. You'll continue to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars for spewing your lies into a microphone and attacking ordinary people who do real work for a living.

Enjoy your lavish lifestyle while you can, Limbaugh. Someday it's all going to come crashing down on your head. History shows what happens in nations where millions of people grow increasingly hungry and desperate, while a pampered leech class rakes in obscene amounts of money, while presiding over (and controlling) a corrupt and out-of-touch political system. Just ask Marie Antoinette.

You can ignore my challenge, Limbaugh. But you're not going to be able to ignore the angry cries of the hungry mob when it comes crashing through your front gate some day.

Do You Want To Know How To Reduce Your Taxes? Simple: Become Rich

By MARC McDONALD

Tax season is here again. Would you like to know a sure-fire way of reducing your tax bill?

Simple. Become rich. The richer, the better.

Example: let's say your wealth puts you in the top 1/100th of 1 percent of all Americans. That's about 28,000 people in the U.S. These people, on average, make around $2 million every five days, which is what the average American earns over the course of a lifetime.

The tax burden for these super-rich people has been steadily falling for years. For example, in 1993, they paid 30 cents of every dollar into federal income tax. In 2000, that had fallen to 22 cents. These days, it has fallen to 18 cents.

In his book Perfectly Legal, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston details an outrageously unfair tax system that screws the poor and working class. It's a tax system that has been increasing shifting the burden away from the rich and onto lower-income taxpayers for years, a phenomenon that's gotten little coverage in the mainstream media.

Not only do the rich avoid paying taxes, but they also usually avoid tax audits. Johnston points out that working class people are eight times more likely to face an audit than the wealthy.

Johnston is only one of a number of high-profile investigative journalists who've detailed America's unfair tax system over the years.

In 1994, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele published an eye-opening account of America's unfair tax system in their book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?

Barlett and Steele painted a gloomy picture of a beleaguered middle- and working class that is soaking up more and more of the nation's tax burden. They also detail how the tax burden is quietly shifting in other ways.

For example, the tax burden in the U.S. over the years has been shifting from corporations to individual taxpayers. In the 1950s, corporations paid around half of all taxes. Today, their burden has shrunk to less than 10 percent. In fact, today, 60 percent of all U.S. corporations pay zero income tax.

Johnston, Bartlett and Steele point out numerous cases in which wealthy individuals don't even bother to file a tax return.

Johnston cites the example of two billionaires, Alec and Jocelyn Wildenstein, who admitted under oath that for 30 years, they never even filed a tax return---and faced no consequences as a result.

In their book, Barlett and Steele point out that in 1989, there were 1,081 people earning over $200,000 who paid zero income tax.

The situation has hardly improved in recent years. According to a recently released IRS report, almost 1,500 of America's 230,000 millionaires avoided paying ANY federal income tax in 2009.

In the interviews they conducted to research their books, Barlett, Steele and Johnston describe ordinary taxpayers' seething anger and frustration with the unfairness of the tax code.

Johnston, in particular, seems pessimistic that the U.S. tax system will ever be fixed. He considers open revolt and social disruption a possibility in the future.

For their part, Barlett and Steele, offer modest proposals for making the tax system more equitable, such as closing all loopholes. However, the odds of real change to make the tax system more fair in today's Citizens United America seem remote indeed.

Why Bill Maher Is Wrong About Rush Limbaugh

MARC MCDONALD

I never thought the day would come when I disagreed with Bill Maher over a free speech issue. I've been a big admirer of Maher for years and I feel he speaks brave truths that can often be heard nowhere else in America.

But I think Maher is wrong to oppose the ongoing efforts to remove Limbaugh's program from the airwaves.

On his Real Time with Bill Maher program on HBO, Maher said he is no fan of Limbaugh, who he called a "stupid fat f*ck." But he decried efforts to silence Limbaugh.

"I don’t like it that people are made to disappear when they say something, or people try to make them disappear when they say something you don't like. That's America. Sometimes you're made to feel uncomfortable, okay?"

In a way, it's understandable that Maher would defend Limbaugh over a free speech issue. After all, Maher's previous program, Politically Incorrect was canceled over controversial comments Maher made after 9/11. Free speech is an issue near and dear to Maher's heart.

But on this issue, I disagree with Maher. I strongly support efforts to remove Limbaugh's program from the airwaves.

The problem that we progressives have always had with Limbaugh has little to do with his politics. In fact, our main gripe with him isn't even the sexist, bigoted, racist remarks that he regularly spews on the nation's airwaves.

Rather, our opposition to Limbaugh is that he is a serial liar, who routinely poisons the nation's airwaves with his outrageous falsehoods.

Personally, I never have understand how Limbaugh can spew out his toxic filth year after year and not get slammed by a libel lawsuit. I worked as a reporter for newspapers for years, and I recall how we all walked on eggshells and lived in constant fear that anything we wrote might attract a libel lawsuit. Libel lawsuits, after all, have shut down many newspapers in the U.S. and ended the careers of many journalists.

But Limbaugh is able to spew out his toxic lies and nonsense and viciously attack and smear people, day after day--and bizarrely, he's able to somehow escape libel lawsuits. I don't claim to be a libel law expert. But frankly, I can't understand how Limbaugh doesn't regularly get sued. Perhaps would-be suers are intimidated by the powerful corporate broadcasting interests behind Limbaugh.

I fully agree with Maher that in a true democracy, we need a wide range of viewpoints. Everyone needs to be able to speak their minds. In fact, I believe the U.S. political spectrum is actually way too narrow. There are a lot of viewpoints that Americans never get exposed to: including actual, real progressive viewpoints. (On the other hand, we do get constantly exposed to the Crazy, Extreme Far Right that is the today's Republican party).

My own opposition to Limbaugh has nothing to do with his political views, or the fact he's a "Conservative." It has to do with the fact that he is a f*cking liar. He routinely makes up lies to promote the Republicans and he routinely makes up lies to viciously smear the Democrats.

He is not a political commentator. He is a liar.

He is not even a "Conservative." He is a Republican party hack.

Political viewpoints from a range of sources belong on our nation's airwaves. But bald-faced outrageous lies do not. As Maher himself has said in the past, democracy simply doesn't work when people vote against their own interests. And nobody has conned the working class in this country to vote against their own interests than Limbaugh. (And it's not because he has any great oratory skills, or powers of persuasion---it's simply because he's a f*cking liar who gets away with it).

As far as I'm concerned, this is much more serious an issue than simply a bunch of gullible, working-class half-wits being conned into voting for the party of billionaires. It is an issue no less serious than the resulting decline and fall of America itself.

As long a fascist pigs like Limbaugh get to spew their lies, the increasingly extremist GOP will control more and more aspects of American life. This hurts America in numerous ways: from the decline of science and education standards to our nation's crumbling infrastructure to endless budget-busting tax breaks for billionaires to the endless insane trillion-dollar wars that the GOP keeps launching.

As far as I'm concerned, this is not a "free speech" issue. It's a Truth vs. Lies issue.

If you're fed up with Limbaugh and the daily toxic nonsense he spews on the nation's public airwaves, I urge you to take action.

Progressive Music Classics. "Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time" by The Gang of Four

.

.
By MARC MCDONALD

Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.

The mighty post-punk band, The Gang of Four, emerged from Leeds in the late 1970s. Their debut album, Entertainment! was a ferocious blast of raw anger and musical energy.

The band's bass player Dave Allen and drummer Hugo Burnham formed a phenomenal rhythm section, laying down a Parliament-fueled funk groove, over which Andy Gill sliced and diced his guitar to create lethal shards of sound. On top of this combustible mix, the band sang about topics that ranged from Marxist theory to capitalist marketing to consumerism. In short, the band created a perfect soundtrack for a cold, heartless era in which multinational corporations took over the world.

Today, of course, things are much worse than they were 30 years ago. Three decades of eroding workers' rights and union-busting have impoverished many millions of workers around the world. And today's Top One Percent owns a much bigger share of national wealth than they did 30 years ago.

We could really use bands like The Gang of Four today. But instead, we get dogshit like Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears.

Although Entertainment! was The Gang of Four's high-water mark, the band continued to make powerful music for years to come. Indeed, the band remains a going concern to this day (the excellent album, Content was released last year).

Solid Gold, The Gang of Four's highly anticipated followup to Entertainment! was released in 1981 and including the classic track, "Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time" (featured in the above video). A scorching track with a driving groove, this is a song that comes to mind every time I think of a misogynist bigot like Rush Limbaugh.

A lyric that particularly comes to mind is, "He wants his wife to run--and fetch."

It perfectly sums up the attitude of sexist bigots like Limbaugh, who want to put women "back in their place." Limbaugh has been railing against "uppity" African-Americans for years and now, with his "slut" comments, he taking aim at women, as well.

Clearly, people like Limbaugh feel threatened by a world in which the traditional power structure of Rich White Males is threatened by "others," including minorities and women. It's a scary new world for dinosaurs like Limbaugh and his followers. It's clearly a world in which, in their view: Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time.

Of course, the irony is that, for all of Limbaugh's fears and paranoia, the old Rich White Male power structure is still very much in place. And it's not going away any time soon.

Of course, Limbaugh's deluded listeners don't know that. And so, in drinking the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, they continue to direct their anger and fury at the wrong targets. Instead of blaming soulless, greedy multinational corporations like Halliburton (and their stooges in Congress) for their misery, the Limbaugh crowd take out their anger on African-Americans, women, immigrants, gays, and other scapegoats.

It's a win-win situation for Limbaugh and the rest of the fascists on talk radio. Not only does Limbaugh achieve his mission of distracting his deluded base from ever correctly identifying the cause of their woes, he also gets paid handsomely for his efforts.

Meanwhile, multinational corporations get to rape and pillage the world at their pleasure and they, along with the crooks on Wall Street, get to loot the U.S. Treasury and pocket hundreds of billions in corporate welfare.

Are You Fed Up With Rush Limbaugh? How To Take Action

By MARC MCDONALD

Rush Limbaugh got a lot of attention lately with his mean-spirited, vicious attack on Sandra Fluke, in which he called her a "slut" and a "prostitute" and suggested she post video tapes of herself online having sex. But really, Limbaugh has been doing this sort of thing for many years. Remember in 2006, when Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox's symptoms of Parkinson's disease?

If you're fed up with Limbaugh and the daily toxic nonsense he spews on the nation's public airwaves, I urge you to take action.

Go here to sign a petition to Clear Channel to discontinue Rush Limbaugh's show.

Go here to add your voice to a group of female veterans who are calling for the Armed Forces Network to drop Rush Limbaugh from its programming. (Armed Forces Network by the way, is funded with your tax dollars.

Go to BoycottRush.org and join the more than 100,00 people who've signed the petition there using Limbaugh's advertisers to drop him. Note: this site also includes an up-to-date list of Limbaugh's advertisers, along with contact information.

At this site, you can access the #StopRush Limbaugh Campaign, which rounds up news, info and resources on the various efforts across the Internet to pressure Clear Channel and advertisers to stop supporting Limbaugh.

Go here to file a complaint with the FCC about Limbaugh's show. (Remember, his program is aired on the public airwaves that are owned by We The People. Note: Left Leaning Liberal Lady offers a good suggestion: "contact the FCC to file a complaint against Rush Limbaugh for soliciting pornography via public airwaves."

At this site, you can find detailed information about the companies that are still advertising on Rush's show, as well as updates on those companies who've dropped their ads. Be sure to add your voice to those who are contacting these companies, asking them to stop sponsoring Limbaugh. (And until these companies do so, we should boycott their products and services).

Add your name to this Facebook page which is coordinating a boycott-Limbaugh effort (and which already has over 30,000 "Likes"). (Note: Twitter users can add their voices here at #boycottrush).

What Progressives Can Learn From Andrew Breitbart

BY MARC McDONALD

Normally, when someone passes away, everyone tries to think of something kind to say about them. But I can't do that with Andrew Breitbart. I absolutely despised him while he was alive. And his death doesn't change my feelings one bit.

However, I do think that we progressives can learn a thing or two from Breitbart.

By that, I don't mean resorting to using dirty tactics and twisting the facts around to attack opponents, as Breitbart did. No, what I'm talking about is learning a thing or two from his hard-core, take-no-prisoners attacking style to get what we want.

Democrats (and progressives in general) are just too goddamn timid and polite these days. We let Conservatives steamroll right over us again and again. On the other hand, Cons know exactly what they want and they'll do whatever it takes to win. And that is why they've pretty much gotten everything they've wanted for the past three decades.

Breitbart nearly always got what he wanted. It didn't matter if his tactics were questionable or slimy. They got the job done. A good example was when he posted video of Shirley Sherrod that made it appear that she'd made racist remarks. (Of course, she'd done no such thing, as was clear when the full video was released). But Breitbart still "won" in the end. After all, Sherrod was forced to resign, apparently with the White House's approval.

The Sherrod case involved a despicable tactic by Breitbart that summed up his approach to politics: attack, attack, attack---and worry about the facts later, if at all.

Once again, I'm not suggesting we progressives copy this sort of slimy technique. But we do need some of the fire and conviction that Breitbart had in spades.

We need to fight tooth and claw for what we want, instead of timidly sitting around letting the GOP steamroll over us again and again.

Take the 2000 election, for example. The GOP fought ferociously on behalf of George W. Bush, even to the point of bringing in a rent-a-mob to bang on doors and intimidate Florida election officials. Meanwhile, the Gore team sat around politely, waiting for the phone to ring.

Yes, what the GOP did was despicable and it dealt a severe setback to democracy in America. But I get the feeling they didn't lose one second's worth of sleep over their sleazy tactics. And what's more, their guy got into the White House, despite losing the popular vote by 539,000 votes. In the end, they got everything they wanted: their war for oil, their tax breaks for the rich, and their billions of dollars in no-bid contracts for Halliburton.

Modern day politics is like a back alley switchblade fight. The GOP has known this for the past 30 years. And so they always come equipped with a switchblade, and whatever else they need to win the fight.

Meanwhile, the Dems have a bizarre fixation on using a polite, timid approach to politics. Unlike the GOP, they fail to grasp that the game has changed and that sometimes, you've got to use brute force and have a willingness to fight fire with fire.

After all, simply having the facts on his side didn't help John Kerry in 2004. On the other hand, the Swift Boat Liars' willingness to lie and use vicious, sleazy attacks sank Kerry's presidential bid.

The worst part of it was that, unlike the GOP, Kerry didn't need to lie. But he did need to use brute force (and a very loud megaphone) to get the truth out. He needed to get into the liars' faces and scream at the top of his voice that they were lying. In the end, his timid, polite approach failed. He failed to realize that, in modern day politics, politeness and being a gentleman and even having the truth on your side often isn't enough to win elections.

It's a lesson that the Dems have yet to grasp. In modern politics, if you want to win, you've got to have the fire, the hunger, and determination of people like Breitbart. Unlike Breitbart, you don't need to lie---but you do need to learn to bring a switchblade to a street fight.

The Top Mysteries Surrounding The Beatles

By MARC McDONALD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer to some of these mysteries may be cleared up in Lewisohn's upcoming official biography of the band, a book that Lewisohn has been working on for decades. This massive work will be released in three volumes, starting in summer 2012. In a recent interview, Lewisohn promised that the book will offer many new revelations and insights. The signs are good that Lewisohn can deliver on this promise. After all, his Recording Sessions book is one of the definitive works on The Beatles and itself was a fascinating source of new insights about the world's most famous band.

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

Rick Santorum At Odds With Catholic Church On Many Major Issues

By MARC MCDONALD

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

But is he?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By MARC McDONALD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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