The Marilyn We Knew

Vs. the Marilyn We Didn't Know

Marilyn Monroe: beautiful and vulnerable. That's how people saw her. But what was she really like? Did anyone really figure her out completely? Was devoted DiMaggio privy to her innermost feelings? Was Arthur Miller? There was depth, but it was tortured by something else. Affairs with Kennedy's? Who knows? Did she hate fame? Did she come to hate her image? Was it the public who really killed her?

All those questions of a 36-year-old movie star who was more famous than anyone in the world. She would have been 82 today. She's left us craving for the answers to those questions - forever.

When You Care Enough To Be the Most Insidious

Serious Illness - Weight Loss Encouragement - Menopause - Divorce - Miscarriage - New Dog
There's a Norman Vincent Peale Sentiment for Every One of them!

Goddam You Hallmark Cards!!
(and you think today's candidates have a hard time with profiteering preachers!)

For sheer nuggets of "wisdom", comfort and uplifting spirit, there's nothing like a Norman Vincent Peale-inspired Hallmark card.

Of course, a lot of fake-optimist-psychology goes along with it. As well as a good dose of right-wing political thinking.

O.K., who was the preeminent preacher who got too close to politics in the 1950s? It was that uplifting but sappy sentimentalist, Dr. Norman Vincent Peale. What is today's treacle was yesterday's paper sermon (with a background of hands in prayer or pink roses). Norman Vincent Peale prose was, in effect, everywhere. The author of The Power of Positive Thinking, Peale and his franchise reached out to all points of the globe. It was, however, when Peale made his voice heard in the political realm that he proved just how insidious his prose really was. The beliefs behind the benign-looking minister were on the par with Parsley and Hagee - at least for his time:

Regarding Peale's intrusion into Republican politics, Stevenson said in this transcript of a speech given in San Francisco: "Richard Nixon has tried to step aside in favor of Norman Vincent Peale (APPLAUSE, LAUGHTER)... We can only surmise that Mr. Nixon has been reading 'The Power of Positive Thinking.' (APPLAUSE). America was not built by wishful thinking. It was built by realists, and it will not be saved by guess work and self-deception. It will only saved by hard work and facing the facts." (Pacifiradioarchives.org/projects/transcripts/pdf/adlai_jfk.pdf - M).
Peale is also best remembered in politics by the famous Adlai Stevenson quote: "I find Paul appealing and Peale appalling." The origin of the quote can be traced to the 1952 election, when Stevenson was informed by a reporter that Peale had been attacking him as unfit for the presidency because he was divorced.
And Peale was totally against Kennedy because he was Catholic:

"Faced with the election of a Catholic," Peale declared, "our culture is at stake. (The Religious Issue: Hot and Getting Hotter. Newsweek. Sept 19, 1960.) In a written manifesto Peale and his group also declared JFK would serve the interests of the Catholic church before the interests of the United States ...and that the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America. (National Review. Jan. 28, 1961). Protestant theologian Reinhold Neibuhr responded "Dr. Peale and his associates... show blind prejudice." (Take that John Hagee!)

As far as "positive thinking" was concerned, psychologists and psychiatrists all over the country cried out at how truly harmful Peale's philosophy truly was:


Peale's views are critically reviewed in a 1955 article by psychiatrist R. C. Murphy, published in The Nation, titled "Think Right: Reverend Peale's Panacea." "With saccharine terrorism, Mr. Peale refuses to allow his followers to hear, speak or see any evil. For him real human suffering does not exist; there is no such thing as murderous rage, suicidal despair, cruelty, lust, greed, mass poverty, or illiteracy. All these things he would dismiss as trivial mental processes which will evaporate if thoughts are simply turned into more cheerful channels....The belief in pure evil, an area of experience beyond the possibility of help or redemption, is automatically a summons to action: 'evil' means 'that which must be attacked . . .' Between races for instance, this belief leads to prejudice. In child-rearing it drives parents into trying obliterate rather than trying to nurture one or another area of the child's emerging personality . . . In international relationships it leads to war. As soon as a religious as a religious authority endorses our capacity for hatred, either by refusing to recognize unpleasantness in the style of Mr Peale or in the more classical style of setting up a nice comfortable Satan to hate, it lulls our struggles for growth to a standstill . . . Thus Mr Peale's book is not only inadequate for our needs but even undertakes to drown out the fragile inner voice which is the spur to inner growth." Peale was also a Scottish Rite Freemason (33°)

"As soon as a religious authority endorses our capacity for hatred..." I've talked about Christofascists before. Could there be a more apt description of our religious authorities today?
And in regards to politics, knowing what we know now about George Bush's ways of thinking (sorry), wouldn't you say that Bush had taken as much political advice from Peal as from Robertson, Falwell and, ah, Haggard?

A good look at the Power of Positive Thinking: no need to get out the magnifying glass for this one, I'll tell you: May 31 marks the anniversary of the launching of the "unsinkable" ...Titanic.

Spuds McKenzie

Spuds
Originally uploaded by intothefuzz

This guy had it all: fame, fortune (mucho dog biscuits!) and girls! Spuds McKenzie was one pooch who made advertising (or looking at advertising) fun. Sure, it was a beer, but what better way to say that the product is for a real "party animal"? This guy wasn't close to cutsie, bull terriers are very strange looking dogs, what with a huge head, short bowed legs and small hind quarters - they look like some science experiment gone wrong. None of their parts seem to fit. But if they're put down, you wouldn't know it, because they are the sweetest breed of dog. Great with kids and adults!
Thanks Spuds. This Spuds' for you!

With Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, Who Needs Joan of Arc?

Perhaps We Do

Today, in the year 1431, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. She was 19 years old. Her last words were "Bishop, I die through you." Pretty enigmatic for an uneducated peasant French girl.

In fact, the French peasant was an enigma: she said she heard the voices of St. Michael (archangel), St. Catherine and St. Margaret since she was twelve years of age. She convinced the heir of France to send her into battle with troops. She overcame the prejudice of war-hardened generals and became what some people say was the most ingenious (and victorious) war hero of her time. She saw her king crowned at Rheims, then was captured by the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, found guilt of heresy and burned at the stake.

Joan fought for a free France. In America, who's fighting for our freedoms?

Politicians? Even the inspiring rhetoric of Barack Obama doesn't convince people that he can fight as well as he should. Hillary? McCain? They all say that God is on their side. So do organizations like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America. Ditto "ecclesiastics" like Parsley, Hagee, Wright, Robertson, Copeland. They certainly wouldn't try a current-day Joan of Arc, would they? Guess again: Joan's "heresy" was based on the fact that she wore men's clothes (a trumped up charge nonetheless). Feminism! Horrors!!

Again, who do we have to fight for our freedoms. Who do we have to fight for our lives? Read this bit about hate crimes:

The Triangle Foundation said Tuesday that the number of violent crimes against Michiganders because of their sexual orientation that was reported to the Detroit-based group jumped 133%

There were 226 reported incidents during 2007 involving violence or violent threats against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered people, according to the report, which was released in conjunction with the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. By comparison, the foundation said, there were 97 reported incidents in 2006.

The national statistics are almost as bad. And it's not just gay rights that these people won't defend, but human rights. Who will wage war against the people who do not want us to have human rights? We've been forced into a serious culture war on our own soil, but who will fight for us?

We really need a Joan of Arc now. We need someone who has had powerful visions and can be just as inspiring. We need someone to command troops of people with dedication, fortitude and zeal, troops that will counter the prejudice and bigotry we see in numbers like the one in Michigan. We need someone to help us crown our individual human sovereignty. We need someone to lay siege to religious hatred. But who? Where do we find him/her? In politics? In church? On the street?

Maybe what we really need is for us all to become Joan of Arc.

We need you, me, us. Together.

Do We really know what we want?

Or do we want what they TELL us to want?

Polls indicate...

Do they? Really? We are all very focused on what America wants, but do we really have "free will?" "Oh, it's a media thing."

Well, not exactly. In most cases, the media is a regurgitator, spewing out what is fed to them in a more appealing way. The shocking photos from Iraq, the focus on disasters and the opinions of the masses are all programmed into the media the way a few people want.

Take the Scott McCellan issue and look at it closely: if Bush fell for his own spin, Rove (or Cheney) told the press not to say it quite that way. The alternative: "The President believes, from the information given to him by trusted advisors..." We're told what to know and what not to know.


Telling us what we should want is just as bad as lying to us. But it's done every day. We're used to it. We've fallen for the snake oil. Just look at these Coke ads: the lovely German fraulein in blue was very seductive in 1937. If Hitler wanted the Sudetenland for the beer, he wanted America for the Coke!

And to love/want Coke so much as to have a tattoo of it either means you've fallen for the cola or you're making a painful statement about American advertising.

Yes, it's trite to fume about the way we are manipulated, but being trite doesn't make it untrue: the importance of who is telling us, however, is tantamount. We don't mind being sold on how cool it is to drink Coke, but if the person positing the ad is doing it purely for personal gain, we take offense. We want, we need to trust that person.

So who do we trust? Pollsters? Sometimes. Politicians? More times than we care to admit. Preachers? Almost always. Doctors? Ditto. Lawyers? Only our own (and sometimes not even then). Law enforcement? Depends on which side you're on.

To trust, or not to trust: we still have the freedom to question, although sometimes the investigation is stymied by a "don't you trust me?" The freedom to question is not used often enough and certainly not early enough. The question of WMDs in Iraq should have been forced earlier. The question of Saddam's ties to Al-Qaida should have been asked earlier and been more persistent. The hunger for truth should not be oppressed under the banner of "unpatriotic." How can we say what we want when the truth is not in plain view? The same goes for alternatives. We have to have a choice about something to be able to really want it. Having no choice is a form of coercion. Is the politician giving me a choice when he outlines his new plan or is negative about so-and-so's plan?

Don't bet on it.
Question.

As Patrick Henry said: "If this be treason let us make the most of it!"

Lies! Lies! Lies! Well, sort of...

CBS News on McClellan's new book:

McClellan draws a portrait of his former boss as smart, charming and politically skilled, but unwilling to admit mistakes and susceptible to his own spin. Mr. Bush "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," McClellan writes. He also faults Mr. Bush for a "lack of inquisitiveness."

Smart? Politically skilled? Who the hell is he kidding? McClellan's still trying to be kind - and avoid a libel suit.

"lack of inquisitiveness" is stupidity. Say it, McClellan!
"susceptible to his own spin" is a snake oil salesman falling for his own snake oil!

Let's Show Those Queers How We REALLY Feel!

But First, Let's Get Together and Look Intelligent!

The piece below was put out today by the Family Research Council. It looks so authentic, so righteous, so...stupid.

Answering the Assault

As local organizations start mobilizing their troops to the front lines of marriage in California, FRC is launching a national effort to educate the public to the damage this ruling may do to democracy, the family, and religious freedom. Together with a broad coalition of pro-family allies, FRC has planned a strategic series of panel discussions on the implications of the California supreme court decision for the nation. Tomorrow, we'll kick off the event at the National Press Club with legal and policy experts such as Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, FRC's own Ken Blackwell, and more. More people must recognize that this epidemic of judicial activism has sweeping consequences for children, businesses, the legal system, and every other facet of society. If you live or work in the nation's capital, we encourage you to join us at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow at 529 14th Street, NW for "California Same-Sex Marriage: Answering the Assault on Family and Society." To RSVP, call 1-800-225-4008 or visit our website at www.frc.org. If you cannot attend, please log onto our site Thursday afternoon for video of the panel discussion.

O.K., we'll be watching. The "panel" as described, is made up of Pat Robertson and old Jerry Falwell legal goons. And this promises to be not just an indictment of gays, but outright insult-fest of California. Because, as everyone knows, California's values are liberal, profligate, atheistic values. To even think of stepping into that den of iniquity means you'll fry in
HELL!

But the series of panel discussions promises to be soooo intelligent and enlightening!!

Don't count on it. If Perkins is the one hosting it, you can be sure the style will be like his prose: obnoxiously righteous, frequently mispelled and just this side of functionally illiterate.