The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Richard Day's picture

    MILITARY COUPS D'ÉTAT & SEVEN DAYS IN MAY!

    By Richard Day on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 12:23am |

    Rod Serling Suited man in his forties, with dark hair, thick eyebrows, and an intense expression

    I am catching, for the 30th time (at least) Seven_Days_in_May

    Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster were once again paired with Fredric-the-Fricking March in the background.

    And of course this is really Twilight Zone since Rod Serling (the real voice of my generation!) wrote the screen play.

    Kirk of course put the film together seeking to play the bad guy but, as usual, took a lesser (if not more important) role as the savior of democracy because Burt always got his way. hahahahaha

    It is filmed in black and white because technicolor was so expensive (and technicolor sucked anyway) and because the philosophical line was so damn clear as far as the plot is concerned.

    Burt Lancaster is the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a time when a Democratic President wishes to sign a nuclear arms treaty with the Ruskies. The plot is designated ECOMCON!

    Kirk is Colonel Casey who discovers a week before the 'event', that General Scott is going to take over our government by military means.

    And the general is going to accomplish this in 7 days.

     

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa_TAbveoJo

     

    Kirk Douglas will advise President March that there is impending danger just in time.

    Whistle blowers like Douglas would have been put to death by any administration over the last thirty years in fact!

    I suppose as Colin Powell advises the UN that the end is near he might have come to some conclusion as to how he, as a former head of the Chiefs, had been chosen as Secretary of State anyway.

    I have no capital.

    I have no means.

    I have no status.

    I have no prestige.

    But I would sell my soul to have three hours with Colin Powell to watch Seven Days in May and ask him several questions following that presentation.

    The film sends me into a twilight zone of conjecture and conspiracy and confusion.

    Why are we in Afghanistan?

    Why are we in Iraq?

    Our President promised that we would get out of these wars.

    Oh we can say hey! What about those lost who would be unaccounted for. Why we would be pissing all over the graves of soldiers who gave their lives for this country.

    Well they did not give their lives for this country, they gave their lives for Halliburton and for warmongers and for shite!

    That does not diminish their roles.

    Hell, why are we not still in Grenada or Cuba or ... whatever!

    Hell by 1876 we said:

    I guess the South has to do what the South has to do!

    And yet I am presented with bullshite about 2024 and such!

    Petraeus?

    Betrayus is how I pronounce this devil's name.

    I mean how could Dick Cheney's corporation end up with hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars defending us from folks who had nothing to do with 9/11/01?

    How else could pallets of hundred dollar bills end up in the middle of a Middle-Eastern desert and be unaccountable to this day?

    How else could trillions have been spent on nothingness whilst repubs shite tacks about billions being spent to help the sick and the sore and the disabled?

    How else could hundreds of thousands of people in foreign lands be killed by the good ole US of A whilst millions of other folks were displaced? (displaced is such a nice word, unless of course you are displaced from your home because of mortgage fraud or familial murders).

    How else could such a large percentage of our nation's income be dedicated to war?

    As a kid I knew we would never ever get out of Vietnam!

    We ended up with another coup of sorts getting rid of a moderate repub who evidently was getting us out of there anyway.

    But, that war went on for at least 10 or 15 years depending upon when the historians demonstrate when we initially invaded that country.

    I just wonder

     

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APl40BE3tc

    I just wonder how much influence the Department of War (or Department of Defense which is real PC) has upon our civilian government.

    Oh I could have just dedicated fifteen or fifty links to Glenn_Greenwald.

    This post is just dedicated to a man I really loved as child; a man who spoke to me; a man who told me to think outside the boundaries provided by the Roman Catholic Church and the official city limits of Richfield, Minnesota. Ha

     

     

    Comments

    Well, you have melded a number of my favorite things into this blog, Del Shannon's Runaway, 'Seven Days in May' and the Twilight Zone.   Speaking of which, there is a creepy episode of Twilight Zone from around 1961 or 62, where Jack Klugman plays the father of a young man who has been sent as an advisor to, as he puts it, "this strange place that nobody's ever heard of, Vietnam."  The son has been killed and Klugman wishes to trade places with him.  I don't need to tell you what happens, right?  Anyway, really shocking to think back to a time when nobody had ever heard of Vietnam.  But I digress.  I remember reading "Seven Days in May" when I was in High School (or maybe Junior High) and not being able to comprehend how something like that could ever possibly happen. I had not yet come to know how evil operates in the world, much less that it could ever penetrate what I thought then was the  supreme goodness of our system of government. How blessedly naive I was in those days.   Amazing too that only a few short years later, I'd be demonstrating against the war and my opinion of our government would have changed radically. 


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 2:48am

    I guess we (USA) were screwing around there as far back as '55!

    Since I have seen every TZ ever made several times, I recall the Klugman episode well!


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 12:15pm

    To pluralize coup d'état, Dick, you technically should put the S on coup, making it coups d'état. Unless you're overthrowing more than one government at a time, in which case you can put the S wherever the hell you want and nobody's going to call you on it.

    Sorry to be a bit of a pedant. I've spent decades correcting other people's grammar and can't seem to stop. Carry on.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 7:48pm

    So, as a pedalant, you like to ride bicycles? What the heck does that have to do with the price of adjectives in China?  Why, it's just an outrageous use of a non-sequitur, that's what it are, aren't it?  But while you're floisting your askademia credentiability, you neglected your own little faux-ball.  "Carry on?" Really?  The expression, my friend, (though I am loathsome to remind you and everyone else for that matter), is to ''Kerry on"; a reference to the wind-sailing endurance of the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee. So try to keep your ice on the ball.   But I disgress.  Let me get right to the pointer. What you assume to be coups d'etats, is actually a description of a car for little children, a coupe-des tots.  Soooo, watch out with your literalistic remandering, and give a writer fellow a brake for frying out loud.   


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 8:22pm

    Somebody trow dis bum oudda hear.

    Guyz comin out admittin bein a pederant.

    Well, whad next? Whad udder kinda preversions dem goddamn Canuckistanis got?


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 8:29pm

    hahahahahahahaahhaah

    Parle vous Canadien? hahahaha

    I just thought of something.

    I mean if you are a stand-up comedienne in Quebec you would be a Canadien feminine comedienne!


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 8:40pm

    I should know that, I probably do but the cheap whiskey came into play...

    I did get it right, evidently in the title?

    There are a couple other problems in this drivel also. haahahahah

    I mean it is proper to say  'former Secretaries of State', and I come across scores of such phrases that are Latin, French or English...and I usually ponder them upon editing.

    I take it that is enough groveling for now...EH?

    hahahah

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 8:33pm

    Next time, post in Urdu.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 8:40pm

    Yeah but you guys would have one hell of a time editing me when I swear in Urdu. hahahahaahahha


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 8:55pm

     

    Lured to what words do, the Kurds boo in urdu ... or so I've heard too. 


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 11:09pm

    lol. The correct plural is totally what first caught my eye on this. My reaction: So THAT'S the right way.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 2:39am

    To add fuel to your fire ... Lynn Cheney was on the Board at Lockheed Martin all through the 90s (they had a scam with Scowcroft getting ex-soviets into NATO and then demanding they "upgrade" their militaries ... with spec sheets targeted right to Lockheed). She resigned just before he was sworn in ... but she didn't divest anything.

    And as long as we're on a conspiracy-friendly thread ... did you see the deeper details of the bru-haha that led to my "WTF Is Yoo Teaching Our Youngins?" post? Downright fucking creepy (follow the link in that to the full JIP report) ... here's the best chill-factor quote.

    Then Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high-level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

    Afterwards I told him that CIA friends confirmed that Obama would have been in danger, but I added that he bent over backwards to protect the criminals, and gave as an example the DOJ’s defense (state secrets) of Jeppesen (the rendition arm of Boeing) a few days after his inauguration.

    He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.

    That's Yoo's boss, BTW. Equally creepy that this guy is in charge of a law program, IMO. Dunno, you're a lawyer. Am I crazy on thinking they should be dedicated to, well, the rule of law?


    by kgb999 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 2:41am

    Well I bookmarked that link!

    I just arose and yet this discussion is screwin with my spine!

    When more 'modest' reasons behind certain actions on the part of government seem ridiculous; I am forced to consider more radical possibilities.

    Why are not thousands at Wall Street in prison today?

    Thanks for the link!


    by Richard Day on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 3:28am