The art of Kevin Blythe Sampson

THE ART OF
KEVIN BLYTHE SAMPSON

5/23/11

Venice Biennale 8 african ameiican males in Venice

lonney holly just got in we were told he wasnt coming....but he is here and you can feel it in your hands, listen to this one
by Kevin Sampson on Monday, May 23, 2011 at 8:19pm
https://picasaweb.google.com/blythe1954/LonneyHolleyJustGotHere?authkey=Gv1sRgCKbNoderj5rj3QE&feat=directlink
http://www.cathead.biz/holley.html
I havent been honest about every thing, i am ashamed of my lack of faith.....But i have been redeemed....
Last night we partied yes............but martha henry finally just broke down.........We didnt say any thing, biut we were told that Lonnie holly wasnt coming. It depresssed me i must confess,,,,,,i have been near tears for most of the day.
But today the magic was in the air..........first our friend restarant owner, stacys husband dominico the sicilian came by.
We dressed up and he made me feel a bit better.
Then he told us that one of the top doctors in venice heard about us, this doctor is a dear friend of his and this doctor,that owns a prime peice of realistate on the grand canal............wants us to use his place this weekend for a two day show.
he heard about us...........wow ok..
then a couple showed up a couple that is connnected in Torina italy they had heard about our plight, had heard we were still coming........and wanted to offer us a show............the same show next year at their gallery center
But it wasnt enough lonney wasnt coming, charlie is a genious, Mr I is our spirit and i am the sword they say.
but lonnie wasnt coming
people poppd in all day
then about a hour ago, 6 oclock italy time, we see this dark figure walking up to the door
I Heard martha scream and cry.
i ran downstaris and it was lonnie
it has taken him two days to get here, missed flights, they wouldnt let him bring his materials on the plane
but he got here
he looked at us and said that i would miss this for the world
this is biblical this is Dr king and malcom
God sent us here, i, we all broke down and cried and cried and cried
every thing broke
and now i again belive
yoU CAN FEEL THE MAGIC IN THE ARI
mR. iMAGINATION WHO IS LIKE MY Sage old uncle
kept saying Lonnie will come
he will come tommorow
i though in m yhead crazy old man yea right
Charlie said let go let god
kevni said get me to a nunnery
But he came and when he did in between the tears of joy and with the strength of the brother hood of madness and talent aND GOD
HE SAID WE ARE HERE
wE WERE SENT HERE BY gOD
i CANT STOP CRYING, I AM SO HAPPY
i FEEL SO STRONG
AND TO THOSE WHO LIKE MYSELF WHO DIDNT BELIEVE
YOU JUST WATCH
THESE BRAVE MEN FROM GEORGIA AND aLABAMA AND nEWARK
YOU JUST WATCH US cOOK
i AM SITTING AT THE FEET OF THREE GODS
I BELIEVE
i BELIEVE
Charlie Lucas was so concerned about me last night, he told me to let it go
i couldnt you know me i can be like a pitt bull
let go let god
let me tell you a secret, i love italians
you know why
because they believe in us
stacy told me after lonnie came that our magic was changing her life
she could feel god in the air
every one around here can feel it
so to those of you who stil dont believe
this is history
this is magic
this is africa
abraham martin and \john
Lonnie said the same thing i did, this is selma,this is kent state
this is a charge toward freedom
me I dropped to my knees and prayed like I havent in a long time
i am honored to be afforded the opportunity to spend this much time with these Gods amounstr men
Charlie lucas made me swear last night
swear a allegeince to the other three
We are a team
i am the baby
perhaps my pLACE AMOUGST ALL OF THIS GENIUS
IS SIMPLY TO SEND OUT THESE EMAILS
BUT IF YOU CAN FEEL IT NOW
THE POWER OF SELF TAUGHT ART
THEN YOU ARE MISSING
OH SO MUCH
THANK YOU JESUS
TONIGHT WE WILL SING AND TALK TOGETHER
AND WE HAVE PROMISED EACH OTHER THAT NOW
NO ONE WILL EVER BREAK US APART
WE WILL WORK AS A TEAM
WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR
WHAT ARE WE DOING
MAKING ART
MAKING DREAMS
TAKING OUR PEOPLE TO THE PLACES WERE NOT SO MANY HAVE GONE BEFORE
i CAN FEEL IT IN MY HANDS
I CAN FEEL IT IN MY FEET
THIS IS BIBLICAL
BIBLICAL
LikeUnlike · · Share · Delete

Juliana Driever likes this.

5/17/11

The Expendables 4 African American Men IN Venice

 

The Expendables 4 African American Men IN Venice

by Kevin Sampson on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 2:48pm
Ok I usually do this kind of babble on my email blast, but all of my friends are hiding their accounts they know the torture that is coming as a result of my trip to Venice

Some one just wrote to me privately, that charlie Lucas, Mr I, Lonny Holley and myself, should call the group the Expendables.......

I almost fell off my chair laughing until i figured out the double entendre...and the title makes total sense.

4 Middle aged African American Men in Venice....

Then I thought:

I almost feel like i am going to a civil rights march.........I cant help it........... its the baggage that is still left over from being made to lay across streets to block traffic, during civil rights protest. .....That has to affect you some how...right
I mean................is their a specific therapy for the kids of civil rights movement., Vietnam War Protest, woman rights marches,................

4 African american males, three from the deep south, one from the crazy City Of Newark, New jersey.

Man i still got Abraham Martin and John playing in my head every other day...

.Kent stage,Stonewall,Chicago,watts,Katrina........The fire next time,Go tell it on the Mountain,Manchild in the promised land,Down these mean streets.............
whew
Ok I will just stop here..........lol

Ok Maybe i cant stop the song but i can change the lyrics and i hope that on this trip..........that we will find that kind of peace.

anyway if their is a solution for all of this middle aged baggage, i it just might be in  Venice............

 three weeks in Venice...........This has got to affect all of us in a amazing and positive way..........I am bringing, my brushes and canvas and sail making needles............I am ready............

5/16/11

Cannes 2011 Review: Michel Hazanavicius' B&W Silent Film 'The Artist' « FirstShowing.net

Cannes 2011 Review: Michel Hazanavicius' B&W Silent Film 'The Artist' « FirstShowing.net

PODCAST MOVIE NEWS APPS ABOUT US FSnetwork

CANNES 2011

FEATURED CONTENT

T-700 Life-Size Bust Replica

GET MORE UPDATES

Subscribe to our daily email newsletter:
Follow @firstshowing on Twitter or
for ALL news updates: @FSnewsFeed

MOST COMMENTED

WHAT DID YOU THINK?

OUR TOP EDITORIALS

LATEST PODCAST EP

Cannes 2011 Review: Michel Hazanavicius' B&W Silent Film 'The Artist'

May 16, 2011
by Alex Billington

The Artist Cannes Review

In today's modern world, we're used to seeing films in color, with sound, with music, with dialogue, and sometimes even in 3D. Every once in a while a filmmaker goes black-and-white to tell a story. But before yesterday, never have I seen a modern filmmaker attempt to create a completely new B&W silent film. Not only did French filmmaker Michel Hazanavicius do exactly that, but he has crafted a wonderful homage that's just wonderful and exudes an effusive love for cinema. It's called The Artist and stars French actors Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo and is set in the late 20s in Hollywood at the end of the silent film era.

The plot is fairly straightforward, and it's essentially a silent film all over again. George Valentin (Dujardin) is a big silent film star, but with the advent of sound and talkies, his career begins to wither away, as its a new era and no one wants to see an old star. Early on, he bumps into Peppy Miller (Bejo), a wannabe starlet who starts with small side roles and eventually becomes the new hot thing, breaking out big with the talkies. George even has a Jack Russell Terrier who follows him around is on screen in every scene he is, just like in the old days. There's a bit of a love story, but it's more of a tragedy about the downfall of an actor at the advent of technological progression. Which, I would say, is just as relevant today as it was back in the 20s.

There was just something truly magical about seeing Hazanavicius attempt, and succeed, at recreating a silent film that not only follows the same technique, but brings us deep into the world of Hollywood at the time. It's light and comical, and at times corny, but ceaselessly charming and entertaining to watch. I felt so many magnificent emotions, from delight to sadness to pure joy, and I never stopped smiling from start to finish. The Artist has a kind of wonderful, classic feeling that all cinephiles can and should love that also gives us the opportunity to revel in a time and place that we really don't see much of on screen nowadays.

Fritz Lang's Metropolis is one of my all-time favorite films, a classic silent film, and being able to spend more time exploring that kind of world and that kind of cinema, something which I admittedly haven't had too much experience with before, was an exciting experience for me. I don't just love this film, I adore it, and there's not much I can be critical about. Why complain about the running time when it's the love for classic cinema and the brilliant, flawless execution that already makes this a masterpiece? I cannot suggest it enough and truly hope everyone takes the opportunity to catch The Artist at some point during its release.

Cannes: Brad Pitt and Terrence Malick's crazy religious allegory - Cannes Film Festival - Salon.com

Cannes: Brad Pitt and Terrence Malick's crazy religious allegory - Cannes Film Festival - Salon.com

Cannes: Brad Pitt and Terrence Malick's crazy religious allegory

Brad Pitt plays a tough Texas father in Terrence Malick's baffling, beautiful film about a 1950s family

Jim Newton: Compton's racial divide - latimes.com

Jim Newton: Compton's racial divide - latimes.com

Jim Newton: Compton's racial divide

Compton resident Lynne Boone, right, seems largely ignored by mayor Eric Perrodin, left, as she addresses Compton City Council during a meeting Tuesday, March 1, 2011. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Compton resident Lynne Boone, right, seems largely ignored by mayor Eric Perrodin, left, as she addresses Compton City Council during a meeting Tuesday, March 1, 2011. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

In a city that is about two-thirds Latino, not one elected official is.

Imagine if today's Los Angeles were governed by a white mayor and an all-white City Council. And then imagine if that anomaly was protected by city election rules that virtually guaranteed no Latino candidate could land a spot in elected office. The civil rights community would be apoplectic and the public justifiably enraged.

Now consider Compton, a city that's about two-thirds Latino but in which no Latino has ever held elected office. Instead, thanks in part to the kind of voting rules that were challenged and abandoned in many cities long ago, an all-black City Council and a black mayor maintain a firm hold on public office.

In Compton, City Council members run in citywide elections, which means all voters can vote in all races. If instead, as happens in Los Angeles, council members represented specific geographic areas and were voted on only by residents of those areas, heavily Latino neighborhoods would have a better chance of electing Latino council members. And then, having cracked the city's closed politics, a group of experienced officeholders who could vie for mayor and other citywide offices would develop.

Compton's commitment to at-large voting, which has been challenged in a lawsuit alleging violations of the California Voting Act, is the manifestation of a particularly noxious brand of racial politics that plays out in schools, elections and even civic events. The conflicts are neither new nor deniable. To take just one example: In 1994, when Californians voted on Proposition 187, exit polling found that 64% of Compton's non-Latino voters supported it; less than 1% of its Latino voters did so. One expert who analyzed Compton's voting patterns said the evidence of racial balloting was "clear and convincing."

Meanwhile, the city's demographics are rapidly changing and apparent everywhere. Barbecue and soul-food restaurants still have their place in the 10-square-mile city of 95,000 residents, but they now stand alongside taco stands and Oaxacan cafes; Stella's Beauty Salon caters to "hombres, mujeres y ninos." Evangelical storefront churches draw a multiplicity of faiths, with the Iglesia de Dios Pentecostal M.E. sitting just down the block from Greater Zion Church Family. Rap music thumps from car radios, but so does ranchero. According to the census, more than half of Compton's families speak Spanish at home.

So why hasn't that meant an automatic transformation of Compton politics? Some of the city's Latinos are in the country illegally and thus can't vote; even those here legally may not be citizens or feel themselves ready to join the electorate. And many are too young to vote. Despite their demographic dominance, Latinos make up only about 44% of Compton's voting-age population, so the city's black leadership, by insisting on citywide elections, has been able to dilute Latino voting strength. If Compton were broken into geographic districts, voting-age Latinos would almost certainly be a majority in at least one, and perhaps more (depending on how the lines were drawn). This would give them, finally, a foothold of political influence.

In the civil rights movement of the 1950s, blacks relied on the Constitution and found an ally in the courts. Now, the black leadership of Compton is defending its system in the courts against three Latino plaintiffs seeking to replace Compton's at-large council elections with district-by-district ballots.

So how do Compton officials explain their opposition to the very process that empowered so many African Americans in an earlier era? I first tried Mayor Eric J. Perrodin. His assistant has a pleasant voicemail message asking callers to leave a name, number and message. Calls, the message promises, will be "graciously returned." Mine wasn't.

I also tried asking the city clerk. She was out of town. Her office referred me to the city manager; that office forwarded me to City Atty. Craig J. Cornwell, who was more forthcoming.

In court filings, the city attorney has maintained that the challenge to Compton's voting rules violates the city charter, which specifically calls for at-large elections and thus can be changed only by a vote. Moreover, he challenges the assumption that Latinos need districts to elect candidates, suggesting instead that boosting turnout would accomplish those ends.

In our conversation, Cornwell elaborated: "We don't believe that it's our system that's the problem. We believe that Compton is plagued with low voter turnout of all ethnicities, including Latino voters."

Royce Esters, a businessman and civil rights leader who has lived in Compton since 1956, put it more bluntly. Blacks in Compton, he said, "kept on it until we got elected.... Latinos just have to get out there and vote."

But there's more to it. Today, the very practices once employed by Southern whites — diluting the voting power of blacks, evading media inquiries, defending their political power against demographic trends — is now the province of Compton blacks. "It's unfortunate," said Joaquin G. Avila, executive director of the National Voting Rights Advocacy Initiative at Seattle University Law School and a lawyer in the Compton case. City leaders could open the city to political diversity, make it a model of inclusion. But they won't. As Avila noted, "They've had plenty of opportunities."

It is, he added a bit ruefully, an example of "one minority politically oppressing another minority."

The judge in the voting rights case declined to order an immediate change in Compton elections as the plaintiffs requested. So, on June 7, Compton voters will go to the polls to select a new council member (one incumbent retained his seat in April by winning a majority of the votes cast in the first round). Voters in the election will pick between two black candidates. No Latino made the runoff.

jim.newton@latimes.com

5/14/11

Michael Moore: Some Final Thoughts on the Death of Osama bin Laden

Michael Moore: Some Final Thoughts on the Death of Osama bin Laden



Michael Moore

Michael Moore

GET UPDATES FROM Michael Moore

Some Final Thoughts on the Death of Osama bin Laden

Posted: 05/12/11 11:49 AM ET

"The Nazis killed tens of MILLIONS. They got a trial. Why? Because we're not like them. We're Americans. We roll different." – Me in an interview last week

Last week, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise and killed Osama bin Laden. Well he didn't actually do the killing himself. It was carried out by a very brave and excellent team of Navy SEALs. Not only does Mr. Obama have the overwhelming support of the country, I think there are millions who gladly wish it could have been their finger on the gun that took out bin Laden.

When I heard the news a week ago Sunday, I immediately felt great. I felt relief. I thought of those who lost a loved one on 9/11. And I was glad we finally had a President who got something done. This is what I had to say on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet in that first hour or two:

I want to point out that Barack Obama took two years to do what Bush couldn't do in over seven. That's the difference between STUPID in charge and SMART in charge. STUPID pursues two reckless wars, lets OBL escape from Tora Bora, keeps looking for him in caves and invades the wrong country. He bankrupts us to the tune of $1.2 trillion for the Iraq War (it will eventually actually be over $3 trillion), and worse, he cost us the lives of almost 5,000 of our troops, not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan – and, after all that, he STILL couldn't bring the perp to justice. In fact, in 2005, Bush closed down the CIA station that was devoted to looking for bin Laden! What does SMART do? He sends in a small elite strike force, no troops are killed, and the perpetrator is stopped for good.

I was thrilled that the Osama bin Laden era was over. There was now an end to the madness.

Being near Ground Zero that night, I decided to head over there and join with others who saw this event as a chance to have some closure. On 9/11, Bill Weems, a good and decent man I knew and worked with (we had just recently completed a shoot together in Boston), was on the plane that was flown into the Twin Towers. I dedicated Fahrenheit 9/11, in part, to him.

But before leaving to go to the former World Trade Center site, I turned on the TV, and what I saw down at Ground Zero was not quiet relief and gratification that the culprit had been caught. Rather, I witnessed a frat boy-style party going on, complete with the shaking and spraying of champagne bottles over the crowd. I can completely understand people wanting to celebrate – like I said, I, too, was happy – but something didn't feel right. It's one thing to be happy that a criminal has been captured and dealt with. It's another thing to throw a kegger celebrating his death at the site where the remains of his victims are still occasionally found. Is that who we are? Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what Jefferson would do? I was reminded of the tale told to me as a kid, of God's angels singing with glee as the Red Sea came crashing back down on the Egyptians chasing the Israelites, drowning all of them. God rebuked them, saying, "The work of My hands is drowning in that sea – and you want to friggin' sing?" (or something like that).

I remember my parents telling me how, on the day it was announced that Hitler was dead, there was no rejoicing in the streets, just private relief and satisfaction. The real celebration came six days later at the announcement that the war in Europe was over. THAT'S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing.

When the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, people didn't pour into the streets to whoop it up. Yes, people were happy that it might help end the war, but there was not a public display of "Yippee! A hundred thousand Japs have been fried!" If they had done that, well, who could have blamed them after so many tens of thousands of their sons and fathers had been lost in the war (including my uncle, a paratrooper, killed by a sniper near Manila). But the sailor kissing the girl in Times Square was on August 14th, 1945, when the Japanese surrendered and the war was officially over. That's when America went crazy with joy – not over a killing, but over an announcement of peace.

We are a different people now, aren't we? Well, sorta. There was no bloodlust euphoria on the day Timothy McVeigh was executed. We were silent. The families of the Oklahoma City dead were silent, relieved. What is the difference between McVeigh and bin Laden, other than the number they slaughtered? I wonder. I think we know the answer.

Though bin Laden is dead, we are told that Orwell's Permanent War – the "War on Terror" – must continue! Not allowed to have our V-J day and run into Times Square with exhilaration! No, there could be terrorists there. So all we're left with is to cheer the death of one evil man, and that is supposed to make us feel powerful and good. There can be no celebration for the end of the Afghanistan War because the war isn't ending. The war must continue! Even though our own CIA tells us there are no more than a few dozen al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. We still have 100,000 troops there fighting a few dozen crazies? We say we're fighting the Taliban, too, but the Taliban are Afghan citizens, not an invading force, and, for better or worse, they seem to enjoy the support of many of the common people throughout Afghanistan. (If you don't believe that, ask any soldier who has served there and seen it. Every day is like Apocalypse Now. Poppies, anyone?)

Meanwhile, we – me, included – get lost in the weeds of how this one madman was killed. The official story from the Pentagon changed four times in the first four days! It went from OBL firing on the troops with one hand and using his wife as a human shield with the other, to, by the fourth day, not single person in the main house, including bin Laden, being armed when killed. Instantly, this created a lot of suspicion about what really happened, which itself was a distraction.

Here's my take: I know a number of Navy SEALs. In fact (and this is something I don't like to talk about publicly, for all the obvious reasons), I hire only ex-SEALs and ex-Special Forces guys to handle my own security (I'll let you pause a moment to appreciate that irony). These SEALs are trained to follow orders. I don't know what their orders were that night in Abbottabad, but it certainly looks like a job (and this is backed up in a piece in The Atlantic) where they were told to not bring bin Laden back alive. The SEALs are pros at what they do and they instantly took out every adult male (every potential threat) within a few minutes – but they also took care to not harm a single one of the nine children who were present. Pretty amazing. This wasn't some Rambo-style operation where they just went in guns blazing, spraying bullets. They acted swiftly and with expert precision. I'm telling you, these guys are so smart and so lethal, they could take you out with a piece of dental floss. (And in fact, one of my ex-SEAL guys showed me how to do that one night. Whoa.)

In a perfect world (yes, I would like to reside there someday, or at least next door to it, in Slightly Imperfect World), I would like the evildoers to be forced to stand trial in front of that world. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang 'em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. "They're guilty, off with their heads!" Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system. I don't like their system. I like ours. And I don't want to be like them. In fact, the reason I like a good trial is that I like to show these bastards this is how it's done in a free country that believes in civilized justice. It's good for the rest of the world to see that, too. Sets a good example.

The other thing a trial does is, it establishes a very public and permanent historic record of the crimes against humanity. This is why we put the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg. We didn't do it for them. We did it for ourselves and for our grandchildren so that they would never forget these horrors and how they were committed. And we did it for the German people so they could see the evidence of what their elected leaders had done. Very helpful. Very necessary. Very powerful.

And for those who wanted blood back then – well, the majority of the Nazis all hanged in the end. So, it doesn't mean the bad guys get away – they still swing from the highest tree.

My own spiritual beliefs do not allow for capital punishment, and I was raised in the state (Michigan) that in the 1840s was the first government in the English-speaking world to outlaw it. So, I'm just not inclined that way. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye." I know the old book said that, but I like its sequel better (a rare case in which the sequel – like Godfather II, Star Trek II, Terminator II – is better than the original). If you don't believe the way I believe (it's also the official position of the Catholic Church, for whatever that's worth these days), then that's your right, and I understand.

Perhaps there was no way to bring him back alive – I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in that dark house trying to make that snap decision. But if the execution was ordered in advance, then I say we should be told that now, and we can like it or not like it.

For nine years I wrote and I said that Osama bin Laden was not hiding in a cave. I'm not a cave expert, I was just using my common sense. He was a multimillionaire crime boss (using religion as his cover), and those guys just don't live in caves. He had people killed under the guise of religion, and not many in the media bothered to explain that every time Osama referenced Islam, he wasn't really quoting Islam. Just because Osama said he was a "Muslim" didn't make it so. Yet he was called a Muslim by everyone. If a crazy person started running around mass-killing people, and he did so while wearing a Wal-Mart blazer and praising Wal-Mart, we wouldn't automatically call him a Wal-Mart leader or say that Wal-Mart was the philosophy behind his killings, would we?

Yet, we began to fear Muslims and round them up. We profiled people from Muslim nations at airports. We didn't profile multi-millionaires (in fact, they now have their own fast-track line to easily get through security, an oddity considering every murderer on 9/11 flew in first class). We didn't run headlines that said "Multi-Millionaire Behind the Mass Murder of 3,000" (although every word in that headline is true). You can say his wealth had nothing to do with 9/11, but the truth is, there is no way he could have kept Al Qaeda in business without having the millions he had.

Some believe that this was a "war" we were in with al Qaeda – and you don't do trials during war. It's thinking like this that makes me fear that, while bin Laden may be dead, he may have "won" the bigger battle. Let's be clear: There is no "war with al Qaeda." Wars are between nations. Al Qaeda was an organization of fanatics who committed crimes. That we elevated them to nation status – they loved it! It was great for their recruiting drive.

We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama. You had our number. You somehow knew we would eagerly give up our constitutional rights and become more like the authoritarian state you dreamed of. You knew we would exhaust our military and willingly go into more debt in eight years than we had accumulated in the previous 200 years combined.

Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War. Only, when the killing stopped, the trained killer, our "Frankenstein," couldn't. The monster, you, would soon turn on us.

If we really want to send bin Laden not just to his death, but also to his defeat, may I suggest that we reverse all of that right now. End the wars, bring the troops home, make the rich pay for this mess, and restore our privacy and due process rights that used to distinguish us from any other country. Right now, our democracy looks like Singapore and our economy has gone desperately Greek.

I know it will be hard to turn the clock back to before 9/11 when all we had to worry about were candidates stealing elections. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around "homeland security" and the terror wars. These war profiteers will not want to give up their booty so easily. They will want to keep us in fear so they can keep raking it in. We will have to stop them. But first we must stop believing them.

Hideki Tojo killed my uncle and millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and a hundred thousand other Americans. He was the head of Japan, the Emperor's henchman, the man who was the architect of Pearl Harbor. When the American soldiers went to arrest him, he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the chest. The soldiers immediately worked on stopping his bleeding and rushed him to an army hospital where he was saved by our army doctors. He then had his day in court. It was a powerful exercise for the world to see. And on December 23, 1948, after he was found guilty, we hanged him. A killer of millions was forced to stand trial. A killer of 4,000 (counting the African embassies and USS Cole bombings) got double-tapped in his pajamas. Assuming it was possible to take him alive, I think his victims, the future, and the restoration of the American Way deserved better. That's all I'm saying.

Good riddance Osama.

Come back to your ways, my good ol' USA.

World's Richest Man Opens Flashy Museum In Mexico : NPR

World's Richest Man Opens Flashy Museum In Mexico : NPR

World's Richest Man Opens Flashy Museum In Mexico

The Soumaya Museum in Mexico City was designed by Carlos Slim's son-in-law and houses Slim's collection of more than 65,000 pieces. It is dominated by works from European and Mexican artists.
Walter Shintani/LatinContent/Getty Images

The Soumaya Museum in Mexico City was designed by Carlos Slim's son-in-law and houses Slim's collection of more than 65,000 pieces. It is dominated by works from European and Mexican artists.

text size A A A
May 14, 2011

In Mexico City, the world's richest man has just opened a new museum to showcase his extensive European and Mexican art collection. Telecommunications mogul Carlos Slim calls the museum a gift to his country.

The glimmering, modern building is already being hailed as a new landmark in Mexico's capital, but it is also being criticized as the pet project of a man who knows more about business than art.

Slim's new Soumaya Museum is a windowless, metallic, six-story structure shaped like a surrealist hourglass. Local critics have compared the building, which was designed by Slim's son-in-law, to Frank Gehry's Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain.

Carlos Slim invested more than $800 million in the Soumaya Museum, the second museum opened by the telecommunications mogul. Here, he stands with Auguste Rodin's The Three Shades on March 28, the eve of the opening.
Enlarge Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images

Carlos Slim invested more than $800 million in the Soumaya Museum, the second museum opened by the telecommunications mogul. Here, he stands with Auguste Rodin's The Three Shades on March 28, the eve of the opening.

It shimmers like the Guggenheim, but it's crammed into one of Slim's commercial real estate developments next to a shopping mall, an office tower for Slim's cellphone company and blocks of new condominiums.

Inside, a bronze cast of Rodin's The Thinker dominates the open, airy lobby. There's also a colorful mural by Diego Rivera pointing toward the bathrooms.

"This is the last mural of Diego Rivera," says Alfonso Miranda Marquez, the director of the Soumaya. The museum is named for Slim's late wife, Soumaya, who died in 1999.

Slim's collection of more than 65,000 pieces is dominated by European artists, including El Greco, Van Gogh, Matisse, Degas and Picasso.

"This is for the impressionists," Miranda says. "It's very difficult to see these artists in Latin America. It's impossible to travel, to be so close to Manet or Renoir. This is also one of the highlights of our collection."

There's an entire section for religious art: A Mexican portrait of the Virgin of Guadalupe hangs next to a Spanish painting of the Virgin of Toledo.

Miranda says his goal is for the museum to become a cultural icon in Mexico City and present a different side of the capital.

"OK, we have problems of pollution, problems of violence. But you can see here there are people here, living and enjoying art," he says. "We are not afraid under the bed. This is another idea for Mexico and for Latin America."

An Opportunity Lost?

But there is some criticism that rather than representing an artistic step forward for Latin America, the museum, commissioned by the richest man on the planet, instead represents part of what's wrong with the region.

Slim amassed much of his fortune after gaining control of the Mexican telephone monopoly when it was privatized in 1990. In April, Slim's Telcel mobile phone company was slapped with a $1 billion fine by Mexico's antitrust commission, the largest fine ever handed down by the agency. Telcel is appealing the matter.

A bronze cast of Michelangelo's Pieta is on display at the new Soumaya Museum in Mexico   City. The original work is a white marble sculpture. "It's unclear to me why anybody would want a bronze version of it, and why you would display such a thing in an art museum, since it is neither a Michelangelo nor a close approximation of the Michelangelo," says art history professor James Oles.
Enlarge David Rochkind/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A bronze cast of Michelangelo's Pieta is on display at the new Soumaya Museum in Mexico City. The original work is a white marble sculpture. "It's unclear to me why anybody would want a bronze version of it, and why you would display such a thing in an art museum, since it is neither a Michelangelo nor a close approximation of the Michelangelo," says art history professor James Oles.

James Oles, a professor of art history at Wellesley College and an expert on Mexican art, visited the Soumaya Museum last month, just after it opened.

He says things are displayed in the galleries simply because Slim owns them, not necessarily because they're great works of art.

For instance, there's a large bronze cast of Michelangelo's Pieta on the stairs from the lobby leading up to the second level.

"Michelangelo's Pieta is a white marble sculpture," Oles explains. "It's unclear to me why anybody would want a bronze version of it, and why you would display such a thing in an art museum, since it is neither a Michelangelo nor a close approximation of the Michelangelo."

Oles says Slim has some fine art but that much of his collection is made up of minor and mediocre pieces by big-name artists. As an art collector, Slim has the same reputation that he's had in business — he's always hunting for a bargain.

"You know, he's one of the only people in the world who could actually afford great, great art at the cost of great art," Oles says. "I will tell you there are many works of art hanging in the Soumaya Museum that I could afford on my professorial salary."

Oles says the opportunity for Mexico to get a new art museum that rivals the best in the world, in his opinion, has been lost.

While the Soumaya Museum has drawn criticism from some in the art world, it's been extremely popular with ordinary Mexicans. Admission is free, and tens of thousands of people have flowed through the museum's doors in the weeks since it opened.

Shirley Sherrod returns to the USDA - Joseph Williams - POLITICO.com

Shirley Sherrod returns to the USDA - Joseph Williams - POLITICO.com

Shirley Sherrod returns to the USDA

Shirley Sherrod speaks at a news conference in Washington in 2010. | AP Photo
Shirley Sherrod will help the USDA improve its dismal civil rights record. Close

Shirley Sherrod, the U.S. Department of Agriculture employee who was forced out after a portion of a videotape was misleadingly used to show her making a racially insensitive remark, will start working for the USDA again, the department told POLITICO Friday. But she’s not getting her old job back.

Instead, Sherrod will help the USDA improve its dismal civil rights record.

Text Size

  • -
  • +
  • reset

Sherrod will be a contract employee leading one of three field programs designed to bolster relations between the USDA and minority farmers and ranchers. Support for the programs is among several recommendations contained in a sweeping, two-year study released Wednesday that examined decades of discrimination claims by African Americans, Latinos, women and Native Americans.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commissioned the study shortly after taking office in 2009 — and well before he signed off on Sherrod’s dismissal in July 2010.

The three organizations — the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education, the National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association and the Intertribal Agriculture Council — will target minority farmers in the Southeast, the Southwest and Native American reservations, said Justin DeJong, USDA deputy director of communications. The programs are “part of our continued effort to build a new civil rights era” after settling costly discrimination lawsuits brought by minority farmers.

Sherrod will run the Southwest Georgia project, which she co-founded, DeJong said. The program, he added, “is considered among the best southeastern regional organizations focused on the issues and populations affected by this assessment and has a strong relationship and understanding of the work of USDA.”

Sherrod, a former Georgia director of rural development for the USDA, was abruptly dismissed after a heavily edited online video seemed to show her describing how she once short-changed white farmers to settle old racial scores. Sherrod, who is African American, was speaking at an NAACP event at the time, and the White House approved of her dismissal when the video began to dominate the national news.

But the administration’s attempt at damage control led to embarrassment when it became clear that Sherrod’s remarks were taken out of context. She actually had recounted a personal story of racial healing. Vilsack — who took office on a promise to right past wrongs for minority farmers — personally apologized to Sherrod and offered her a job in the USDA’s civil rights division, but she turned him down.

Sherrod filed a $13 million defamation lawsuit against conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, who posted the partial video. He and co-defendant Larry O’Brien last month filed a motion to dismiss the case, which is pending in federal court in Washington.

DeJong said he did not know if Sherrod has been working, or where she has been working since she left the USDA, and Sherrod could not be reached for comment.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54970.html#ixzz1MLjq0Ofj

5/13/11

Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act

By Michael O'Brien - 05/13/11 06:02 PM ET

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn't have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.

Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.

<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N553.112076.THEHILL/B5504381.2;click0=http://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=7104__zoneid=121__channel_ids=,16,__cb=290a65725f__maxdest=;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;pc=[TPAS_ID];ord=290a65725f?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <a href="http://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=7104__zoneid=121__channel_ids=,16,__cb=290a65725f__maxdest=http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N553.112076.THEHILL/B5504381.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;pc=[TPAS_ID];ord=290a65725f?" target="_blank"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N553.112076.THEHILL/B5504381.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;pc=[TPAS_ID];ord=290a65725f?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."

Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), faced criticism during his campaign for Senate last fall because of similar remarks he made, also during an appearance on MSNBC. Rand Paul had advanced a similar argument about property rights, and, under political pressure, issued a follow-up statement in which he voiced support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and would not support any efforts to repeal it.

Some libertarians argue that the government overstepped its authority in the landmark legislation, which sought to ban discrimination by private businesses and organizations. Paul sought to draw a distinction between holding that opinion and supporting the segregation and other tools of discrimination that the '64 law sought to abolish.

"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."

Paul appealed to the free market, and argued that if a business owner were to post signs declaring segregation in his or her business, people wouldn't patronize it.

"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."