My Blog List

Saturday, July 30, 2011

WASH DAY

Phil: What do you want from me? 
Lisa: Nothing!
Phil: That's ridiculous. 
Lisa: You're ridiculous.
Phil: Say that again.
Lisa: Say what again?
Phil: Say what you just said again. What am I?
Lisa: I said you are ridiculous. Can you hear me?
Phil: Oh, I can hear you. I just can't believe what I'm hearing.
Lisa: You better believe it. I need a beer.
Phil: I'm sure you do.
Lisa: What's that supposed to mean?
Phil: You know what it means.
Lisa: Why don't you tell me?
Phil: Why don't you kill yourself? Again. Then I'll tell you.
Lisa: Where is all this anger coming from?
Phil: This is nothing. You should get a look at how angry I really am sometimes. It would amaze you.
Lisa: Really.
Phil: Yeah, really. 
Lisa: You want me to move out, don't you?
Phil: Sometimes, yes I do.
Lisa: What would you have if I moved out? Nothing!
Phil: I would have peace. I would have quiet.
Lisa: You would go back to being isolated. Hibernating. And all this stuff here is mine. Like the computer.
Phil: What stuff is yours?
Lisa: The computer. The dishes. The TV.
Phil: Right. But who bought the furniture? Who bought the beds? The mirrors? The clocks? Who pays for--
Lisa: Yes, you bought lots of clocks, didn't you?
Phil: The only thing you ever bought was beer and cigarettes--
Lisa: Shut up!
Phil: And you only bought them after I finally refused to do it anymore.
Lisa: You are such a liar.
Phil: I'm a liar? This from a person who has no morals whatsoever.
Lisa: Wrong! I'm only like that when I'm desperate, which I wouldn't be desperate if I had a beer right now.
Phil: Well, there's no beer.
Lisa: What happened to it?
Phil: What happened to the beer? What do you think?

Lisa: I just bought some yesterday. I bought an eighteen pack.
Phil: You drank it all last night.
Lisa: Liar! I did not.
Phil: I guess I would know. I was the one who had to pick up all the empty cans off the sofa.
Lisa: We don't have any more beer?
Phil: They still sell it, don't they?
Lisa: I'll need to call Tom and have him take me out.
Phil: And I'm the liar of the house?
Lisa: Tom understands. He doesn't judge me.
Phil: Of course he understands. He understands that to get what he wants from you he has to get you drunk first.
Lisa: It couldn't hurt his chances. That's true.
Phil: You have no respect for yourself at all, do you?
Lisa: I have been through so much, Phil. 
Phil:Yes, yes. Everyone knows how much you have endured. But how much of it did you bring on yourself?
Lisa: All of it, I suppose you think.
Phil: No, you didn't bring it all on.
Lisa: I was adopted.
Phil: Nothing you could have done about that.
Lisa: My mother was a drunk.
Phil:I know.
Lisa: My step mother beat me.
Phil: Jesus, I know.
Lisa: I only saw my step father on weekends. He was a lawyer.
Phil: And a pilot, don't forget.
Lisa: Yes, he was.
Phil: So what you're saying is that everybody who has that type of background gets to be a bastard to the rest of the world, is that right?
Lisa: I don't suppose you would be willing to get me some beer?
Phil: Not a chance. 
Lisa: Even though I will get sick--
Phil: Not any chance at all.
Lisa:--from the withdrawal?
Phil: I'll go with you to check into rehab.
Lisa: Fuck you! I've been to rehab. You have no idea what they do to you there.
Phil: They don't give you beer, I know that.
Lisa: Where did I put that fucking phone?
Phil: Yes, you need a drink, all right.
Lisa: Shut up! I can't find my phone!
Phil: I think the dogs want to go out.
Lisa: They are just going to have to wait until I find my phone!
Phil: I'll take them out.
Lisa: Why? To make me feel guilty? That's all you ever do, you know. You sit around here trying to think up ways to make me feel guilty.
Phil: You are so full of it.
Lisa: Yes, you do! I've seen you sitting here thinking up those things.
Phil: You can read my mind?
Lisa: I can see it on your face.
Phil: You can't even see your own face.
Lisa: Where is my fucking phone?
Phil: I'll call you on my phone.
Lisa: Found it! It was in my purse.
Phil: Imagine.
Lisa: Hey, look what else I found!
Phil: You have a beer in your purse?
Lisa: I have three beers in my purse. They're a little warm, but so what?
Phil: Incredible. I'm gonna take the dogs out.
Lisa: I told you I would do it!
Phil: I need the air.
Lisa: They don't even need to go out.
Phil: I need to take them. What do you care?
Lisa: Fine. Go ahead.
Phil: I wasn't asking your permission.
Lisa: Whose dogs are they? They're my dogs!
Phil: They are your dogs, those are your parrots, and that's your computer. Those are your cans of beer in the trash can. Those are your clothes in the washing machine. You know how I know that? 
Lisa: Because you don't wear a bra?
Phil: Because if I didn't wash them, they wouldn't get washed.
Lisa: You are such a liar.
Phil: Your phone's ringing.
Lisa: I hear it. Oh, it's Tom. Hello, this is Lisa Ann. What? No, I'm just standing here getting yelled at by my roommate. [Phil exits.] Hello? Tom, are you there? Shit. I hate this phone.



Friday, July 29, 2011

THE TRIBE AS TABULA RASA


THE TRIBE

    For nearly one hundred years, America witnessed a revolutionary spectacle that traversed the spectrum from anarchist labor riots to student-led takeovers, from bomb-throwing radicals to creepy-crawling mass murderers, and from agnostic libertarians to fundamentalist brainwashers. From the early 1880s until the mid-1970s, many leaders (and a few anti-leaders) worked hard and played hard at making substantial change in the American way of life. These folks and their organizations went by many different names: anarcho-syndicalists, Social Democrats, socialists, communists, organizers, agitators, reds, pinkos, fellow travelers, humanists, secularists, instigators, proselytizers, hippies, yippies, reactionaries, separatists, militiamen, the People, the Family, and myriad variations. What they had in common was the desire to destroy the existing system and replace it with something else. They also shared a willingness to shake things up. Today we take a look at the utopian-benevolent tribes. Tomorrow we will visit the dystopian-malignant variety.
    German-born America Johann Most found acceptance as a young man with socialist workers both in Europe and in America. Tormented by a facial disfigurement, Most moved to the United States in 1882 and brought his newspaper, Freiheit(freedom), with him. An inspiring writer with a wicked sense of humor, Most advocated revolution through the actualization of ideas, e.g., through violence. His best-known writing, a pamphlet called “The Science of Revolutionary Warfare: A Little Handbook of Instruction in the Use and Preparation of Nitroglycerin, Dynamite, Guns, Fulminating Mercury, Bombs, Fuses, Poisons, Etc.,” did not become a bestseller, although it did succeed in getting him labeled as a firebrand.


Johann Most

     It was around this same time—specifically, 1886—that a young and heretofore unknown printer named Henry George wrote a book which—according to his granddaughter, Agnes George de Mille—made him the third most famous man in the United States, right behind Thomas Edison and Mark Twain. His book, Progress and Poverty, was praised by Leo Tolstoy, John Dewey, and George Bernard Shaw, among others. As de Mille summarizes the basic thrust:
The nation is no longer comprised of the thirteen original states, nor of the thirty-seven younger sister-states, but of the real powers: the cartels, the corporations. Owning the bulk of our productive resources, these multinationals are not American anymore. Transcending nations, they serve not their country’s interests, but their own. It is the insidious linking together of special privilege that produces unfair domination and autocracy. He who makes should have; he who saves should enjoy; what the community produces belongs to the community.




     Also interested in wealth and poverty was a young man named Albert Parsons. He and his wife Lucy moved to Chicago in 1872. Convinced that the rich and powerful willingly wronged the poor and weak, and opposed to this, he joined the Workingmen’s Party of the United States just in time for the Great Railway Strike of 1877. According to his autobiography, 30,000 workers gathered on Market Street where Parsons spoke, advocating the nationalization of “all means of production, transportation, communication and exchange, thus taking these instruments of labor and wealth out of the hands of private individuals, corporations, monopolies and syndicates.”


Albert Parsons

     Over the next few years, Parsons found that his radical pronouncements infringed upon his ability to find meaningful employment. Such being the case, he and his colleagues had nothing to lose and renamed their organization The Socialist Labor Party. Convinced that “the government and its laws were merely the agents of the owners of capital to reconcile, adjust and protect their—the capitalists’—conflicting interests,” Parsons threw himself into the movement for an eight-hour workday. This involvement culminated in what came to be called the Haymarket Tragedy. The matter was a simple one: Workers wanted a reduction in their work hours without a reduction in their pay. Failing this, they would strike. The ensuing walk-out revealed 350,000 workers joining the mass general strike. 40,000 of these workers were in Chicago, many of them at the McCormick Harvest Works. The date was May 3, 1886. Police fired into the crowd of unarmed strikers, killing four men. The following day the leaders of the local strike called a meeting atHaymarket Square to consider the workers’ response to the shooting. Again the police arrived and this time someone threw a bomb which killed one policeman. The cops struck back with vengeance, arresting anyone suspected of being a radical. Eight men, including Albert Parsons, were charged with the bombing. Parsons described the scene:


A large number (over 3,000) citizens peaceably assembled to discuss their grievances viz: the 8-hour movement and the shooting and clubbing of the lumberyard strikers by the police the previous day. After 10 o’clock when the meeting was adjourning, two hundred armed police in menacing array, threatening wholesale slaughter of the people there peaceably assembled, commanded their instant dispersal under pains and penalties of death. A person unknown threw a dynamite bomb among the police.








Parson’s wife Lucy was not dormant during this time. The eight men having been found guilty, Mrs. Parsons led a campaign for clemency. Traveling across the country to gather support, she usually found police waiting for her wherever she went. Once she realized her husband would indeed be executed for a crime for which in all likelihood he did not participate, she took her two children with her to see Albert one last time. Rather than permit this, the police arrested Lucy and her children, stripped them naked and left them in a cell until Mr. Parsons had been hanged. Dazed but undaunted, she continued to promote the revolution, selling copies of her booklet Anarchismto interested parties. Although she differed with many radicals of her day on the issue of free love (Lucy being very much in favor of marriage), she remained an advocate for freedom and workers’ rights until her death in 1942.


Another woman in the anarchist ranks was Emma Goldman, a Russian-born immigrant who gained fame as an American radical. Although Goldman advocated birth control and other women’s rights, the larger issue of anarchy was her passion. In her book, Anarchism and Other Essays, she defined the term.






Anarchism: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary. Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and Society are nonexistent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination.




Emma Goldman






If expressing such sentiments was not sufficient provocation for her unlawful arrest, she did serve time for encouraging the destitute to steal food, for lecturing about birth control, and for decrying military conscription. Eventually Goldman, her longtime friend Alexander Berkman, and 247 others were deported to Russia aboard the Soviet Ark.


Somewhat less radical than Goldman, but still wild for all that, was Daniel de Leon, a native of Curacao and a U.S. immigrant. De Leon, as the editor of the socialist newspaper The People, helped create the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance as an alternative to the far more conservative American Federation of Labor. In June 1905, he and several other trade unionists met inChicago where they formed the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), or as they were sometimes known, the Wobblies. Present at this inaugural meeting was the aforementioned Lucy Parsons, Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, Charles Moyer and Eugene Debs. De Leon might have been thinking of Lucy Parsons when he said, “Why should a truly socialist organization of whites not take in Negro members? On account of outside prejudice? Then the body is not truly socialist? A socialist body that will trim its goals to outside prejudices had better quit.”








Strikes served as more than a method for radical workers to exercise their power. Sometimes the strikes were radicalizing experiences in and of themselves. One such was the Pullman Strike of 1894. George Pullman erected a company town which was superficially benign but inherently malignant. Famed attorney Clarence Darrow related the events leading up to the clash:


George Pullman, the sleeping car man, had built a new town out of five hundred acres ofIllinois prairie to house his workers. An extraordinary place. Listen to how he described it: “Bright beds of flowers and green velvety stretches of lawn dotted with parks and pretty water vistas. Homes filled with light. A town where all that inspires to cleanliness of person and thought is generously provided.” I almost bought a home there myself. The main street was a vision: bright red flower beds, rows of tall green trees lining the walks, houses of neat red brick with trim lawns. Lovely. Only—and this was curious—one street back from the main street, where the workers lived, the houses didn’t have lawns. They didn’t have windows. They had, at most, one faucet, for cold water, and that was in the basement where it was cheapest to run the pipes. Five families crowded into each tenement, all using one toilet. In the entire town where “everything that inspires to cleanliness of person is generously provided,” not one bathtub.



Clarence Darrow






On the surface, it seemed a paradise: workers could walk to work each day, housing was furnished, and they could buy groceries and other essentials right there in Pullman City. The larger, dark side of the story was that in order to work for the Pullman Palace Car Company, they had to live in the company town and buy the services, were required to smile about increased work loads and pay cuts, and even had to pay rent for using the company church. As Martina Brendel tells the story:


On May 11, 1894, three thousand Pullmanworkers went on a wildcat strike. Many of the strikers belonged to the American Railroad Union (ARU) founded by Eugene Debs. Some ARU members refused to allow any train with a Pullman car to move. The twenty-four railroads that were part of the General Managers Association tried to end the strike. They announced that any switchman who refused to move rail cars would be fired. By June 29, fifty thousand men had quit their jobs. Crowds of people who supported the strike began stopping trains.






The railroads sent in strikebreakers and scabs. The striking workers began tearing up tracks and burning railway cars. President Grover Cleveland, committed to the General Managers Association, sent in federal troops to end the strike. Outraged, the workers smashed switching stations and burned cars to the ground. The troops began shooting the rioters. Rather than risk more workers being killed, Debs ended the strike. Subsequently, the ARU leader was charged with contempt of court. Although Debs found representation from Darrow, he was found guilty and served six months in jail.




Eugene Debs


Debs was not finished with political action. Also, he was not finished with being incarcerated. As a charter member of the Socialist Party of America, Debs ran for President of the United States in 1904 and received 400,000 votes. Four years later he ran again, getting 420,000 votes. In 1912 he and running mate Emil Seidel netted 890,000 votes. Seidel may be remembered as the first socialist mayor of a major city in the United States,Milwaukee, Wisconsin.








In June 16, 1918, Eugene Debs made a public speech in Canton, Ohio, a speech wherein he complained about the then recently-employed Espionage Act, a speech which landed him a ten-year prison sentence. Here is part of what he said that day:


They sentenced Kate Richards O’Hare to the penitentiary for five years. Think of sentencing a woman to the penitentiary simply for talking. The United States, under plutocratic rule, is the only country that would send a woman to prison for five years for exercising the right of free speech. If this be treason, let them make the most of it. Rose Pastor Stokes! Here we have another heroic and inspiring comrade. Did her wealth restrain her an instant? She went out boldly to plead the cause of the working class and they rewarded her high courage with a ten year sentence.






Debs was in the Atlanta Correctional Facility serving his sentence when, in 1920, he received more than 900,000 votes for his final candidacy for President.


The actual cause of both the oppression and the rebellion was the single greatest technological advancement relating directly to America’s Manifest Destiny: the completion in 1869 of the transcontinental railroad, for which there was no shortage of rail lines ready to transport. The Union Pacific, the Central Pacific, the Northern Pacific, the Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe all had reached the west coast by the mid-1880s. The most immediate consequence was that it no longer required months to cross the nation. If one could endure a few days monotony, one could go from east to west, which was by far the direction of choice. The increase in population of western states between 1880 and 1960 is instructive. The states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho had a collective population in 1880 of 282,000. Thirty years later the same area held 2,000,000. And fifty years after that it was 5,300,000. Contrast this with the decline in the population of American Indians. In Oklahoma Territory in 1880, there were better than one million Indians and not one Anglo. By 1960, there were only 55,000 Indians and more than two million Europeans.


As far back as the Civil War, a young artist named Thomas Moran had been fascinated by the brushwork of an English artist named J.M.W. Turner. The latter had a knack for rearranging the scenery of a locale while still representing the essential essence of that place. That fit. Even though Moran’s replications of the new frontier would urge on a massive migration of people toWyoming, Colorado and California, the magnificence of his style not only served to preserve nature in paint, but also gave an impetus for the land preservation movement to save a bit of the past for posterity. After all, the 1890 Census had concluded that there were no more frontiers! This was less than twenty years after Congress declared Yellowstone America’s first national park. Already the United States was worried it would run out of room, but it also feared a loss of those things—like natural beauty—that had lured so many to it in the first place. Perhaps that is why Moran’s paintings rarely included evidence of the railroad itself. Congress bought two of his finest works for display in the Capitol Building: Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone and Chasm of the Colorado.










The same year that Moran retired—1892—Thomas Mooney was born. By age fifteen he was already winning writing contests for socialist magazines and in his twentieth year he was chosen as editor of Revolt. Not one to sit by as heroes such as Eugene Debs fomented revolution, Mooney was accused by the San Francisco Police of blowing up part of Pacific Gas and Electric, but after his third trial, he was finally acquitted. A few years later, in 1916, a bomb exploded at the United Railroads of San Francisco, killing several men. Dan Georgakas tells of the aftermath:


When the fatal bomb went off on 22 July, the Mooneys were blocks away, but both Tom and his wife Rena, Warren K. Billings, Israel Weinberg and Edmund Noland were arrested. Ultimately only Tom Mooney and Warren Billings were convicted, Mooney for first degree murder and Billings for second degree murder. In less than a year, solid evidence began to surface that the testimony against Mooney and Billings had been perjured. Other evidence substantiated their own account of where they had been. Mooney was officially pardoned in 1939, but Billings would not be officially pardoned until 1961.




Tom Mooney






All of these folks—Johann Most, Henry George, Albert Parsons, Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Daniel De Leon, Eugene Debs, Thomas Moran and Tom Mooney—were members of the same karass, a concept written about by Kurt Vonnegut in Cat’s Cradle, wherein the author describes karass thus:


We Bokonists believe humanity is organized into teams, teams that do God’s Will without ever discovering what they are doing. Such a team is called a karass by Bokonon. “If you find your life tangled up with somebody else’s life for no very logical reasons,” writes Bokonon, “that person may be a member of your karass.” Hazel’s obsession with Hoosiers around the world was a textbook example of a false karass, of a seeming team that was meaningless in terms of the ways God gets things done.






There was never any mention of the karass by the aforementioned radicals, in no small part because the concept had not been formalized while these people still walked the earth, a fact which not only does not exclude these people from membership but which also allows this particular karass to include Bill Haywood, Clarence Darrow and John Scopes.




Big Bill Haywood






Radicalized by both the Pullman Strike and the Haymarket slaughter, Big Bill Haywood was primed for adventure. At the turn of the twentieth century, Haywood and a somewhat more diplomatically predisposed individual named Charles Moyer shared leadership of the Western Federation of Miners (WFD), where they advocated an eight-hour workday at a time when the mine owners expected the employees to commit to a ten hour day, thirteen days out of fourteen. Haywood’s native Utah became the first state to grant an eight-hour day for its miners.


The methods of the WFM were not always peaceful ones. In June 1904, the Colorado Labor Wars between the miners and the owners saw a great deal of bloodshed, with thirteen non-union members killed by a bomb as they waited for a train. Just before Christmas of the following year, former Idaho Governor Frank Steunenberg came home from work and was blown apart by yet another bomb. The police arrested Harry Orchard, who confessed to being a hit man hired by the WFM. Orchard named Haywood, Moyer, and a former board member named George Pettibone as having ordered the hit. Pinkerton detectives kidnapped the three men in Denver and returned them to Boise, Idaho. Clarence Darrow took on Haywood’s defense, winning an acquittal. Exhausted by Moyer’s waffling, Haywood left the union.


But Big Bill did not rest. Instead, he threw himself into the IWW, an organization that approved of his yearning for direct action. As Paul Buhle wrote in Monthly Review:


The IWW was the “greatest thing on earth,” according to its members and devotees. It averaged, in its nest years, perhaps a hundred thousand members. Yet it brought together the poorest and most downtrodden working people from every race and group. Industrial unions were, in the Wobbly vision, to be the building blocks for the future cooperative society. Working people who understood their own power had the capacity to act upon their fundamental right to expropriate and share with other workers across the world everything that they collectively produced.








Perhaps the International Workers of the World’s biggest coup came with the strikes of 1912 and 1913 in Massachusetts and New Jersey, respectively. In these environments IWW organizers established soviets, or workers councils, composed of formerly transient workers and others on the low end of the labor spectrum. This was Haywood’s mission, and through direct action, he accomplished it.


Haywood’s opposition to World War I landed him in trouble with the administration of President Woodrow Wilson. Once he called for a strike as a method of defeatism, federal authorities locked him up. Released on bail, he fled to theSoviet Union where he eventually died. Half of his ashes were interred in the Kremlin and the other half near the Haymarket tragedy.








Labor’s favorite attorney, Clarence Darrow, had at one time represented the city of Chicago, as well as the North Valley Railway. But Darrow’s liberal views overpowered his sense of obligation to big business and he ended up defending not only Eugene Debs and Bill Haywood, but many others held in disrepute. Near the end of his legal career, Darrow agreed to represent John Scopes in the state of Tennessee’s trial against a teacher who, in 1925, dared to teach the fact of evolution. William Jennings Bryan, who considered himself a progressive thinker, led the prosecution. The entire trial was in large part a publicity stunt, with the local board of education on the side of evolution and the prosecution on the side of the Bible as the literal word of God. Doug Linder recalls an amusing exchange when the defense calledBryan to the stand.


Bryan, who began his testimony calmly, stumbled badly under Darrow’s persistent prodding. At one point the exasperated Bryansaid, “I do not think about things I don’t think about.” Darrow asked, “Do you think about the things you do think about?” Bryanresponded, to the derisive laughter of the spectators, “Well, sometimes.”








Darrow asked at the end of his summation that the jury please find his client guilty so that they could appeal the decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Since both prosecution and defense wanted a guilty verdict, the jury accommodated and Scopes was fined $100. The defendant himself wrote: “I was convicted of the crime of teaching the Darwinian concept of evolution. H.L. Mencken, acting on behalf of theBaltimore Evening Sun, paid my fine.”


Connections ran through the lives of these men and women and no doubt through those of many others. Passion for the working class or for the put-upon is obvious, as is a somewhat molten desire for the “truth.” But the super-connection is a bit less obvious. For one thing, all of these members of the karass would have had a much easier time with life had they chosen almost any other conceivable path. Despite their fame, or because of their infamy, none of them were made to feel particularly welcome in their own country. All of them went up against forces far larger than themselves and all of them frequently lost. None of them, however, let their defeats defeat them. More significantly for the purposes of the halcyon tribe, these revolutionaries made possible the actions more than a generation later for a cultural upheaval the likes of which the United States had never seen.




Charlotte Gilman






Members of the same karass also included Charlotte Gilman, Alice Paul, Jeanette Rankin and Francis Perkin, all feminists, all to one degree or another suffragettes, and all American women who cared passionately about equality for all people.


Charlotte Gilman gained both fame and notoriety for her literature, theories of economics and public lectures. In the final years of the nineteenth century, she edited The Impress, a feminist literary periodical wherein she contributed her own stories written in the voice of contemporary celebrated authors. She also published a book of her own satiric poetry called In This Our World. Economically, she favored utopian socialism. Politico-sexually, she recommended parthenogenesis. And extemporaneously, she renounced the divisions between women and men. Petri Siukkonen summarizes her views:


She attacked the old division of social roles. According to Gilman, male aggressiveness and maternal roles of women are artificial and not necessary for survival anymore. “There is no female mind. The brain is not an organ of sex. One might as well speak of a female liver.” Only economic independence could bring true freedom for women and make them equal partners to their husbands.






Far more radical was Alice Paul, whose well-to-do upbringing on a farm called Paulsdale, spanned the nineteen and twentieth centuries. A devout Quaker, she believed in gender equality and was committed to the overall improvement of society, as well as to the value of a back-to-nature lifestyle. A trip to England in 1907, where she encountered violent opposition to British suffrage, politicized the young Ms. Paul, so when she returned to the United States three years later, she joined the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Rebecca Carol picks up the story:


Alice Paul and two friends, Lucy Burns and Crystal Eastman, headed to Washington D.C.to organize for suffrage. They organized a publicity event to gain maximum national attention: an elaborate and massive parade by women to march up Pennsylvania Avenue and coincide with Woodrow Wilson’s presidential inauguration. The scene turned ugly, however, when scores of male onlookers attacked the suffragists, first with insults and obscenities, and then with physical violence, while the police stood by and watched.








Disgusted by NAWSA’s support for Wilson, Paul formed the National Woman’s Party (NWP), a group which did such a good job of picketingWilson that the police arrested them for obstructing traffic and jailed them in Virginia’s Occoquan Workhouse. The jailed NWP members viewed themselves as political prisoners and staged a hunger strike. This behavior was met by the jailers with beatings of the women, most of whom were locked up in unheated and rodentially-populated cells. Public sympathy was on the side of the suffragettes and so they were ultimately released. This public pressure led Congress to pass the Nineteenth Amendment which, after three-fourths of the states ratified it, gave women the right to vote.


A bit less out of the mainstream in her tactics, if not in her beliefs, was Jeanette Rankin, who in 1916 became the first female member of the House of Representatives. A Republican, Rankin voted against the United States entering World War I and lost her re-election bid two years later. As a private citizen, she marched in favor of theMaternity and Infancy Protection Act (1921),Independent Citizenship (1922), and the Child Labor Amendment (1924). In November 1940, she ran again for Congress and won, but her lone vote against declaring war on Japan doomed her political career.


Another member of the karass was Frances Perkins, who became politically aware in 1911, when, as the AFL-CIO website describes it:


She watched helplessly as 146 workers, most of them young women, died in the Triangle Waist fire. Many, she remembered, clasped their hands in prayer before leaping to their deaths from upper-floor windows of a tenement building that lacked fire escapes.








A firm believer in working within the system, she took an appointment with the New York State Industrial Commission, becoming, under future-President Franklin Roosevelt, the head of the commission.


Equality between women and men is not the only historical and progressive karass in new American history. People who worked actively in what was eventually called the Black Power Movement were part of a politically and historically interwoven set of tribes whose common purpose was an end to the oppression of African-Americans, as well as a strengthening and growth of black people throughout the world. As with women’s suffrage, black emancipation is difficult to pinpoint in its precise origins, and any list of important people in this movement will no doubt omit some who were crucial. Among people who through their viewpoints, actions and accomplishments must not be ignored include W.E.B. DuBois, who, as Gerald Hynes correctly accesses, is one of the fathers of social science.




W.E.B. DuBois






William Edward Burghardt DuBois, concluding his fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania in 1896, wrote The Philadelphia Negro, which put a human face on the dislocation of American blacks within an historical framework. Moving ontoAtlanta University, DuBois continued writing and research, validating the notion that the study of the “Negro problem” was a legitimate field of sociological endeavor. As editor of the NAACP’s magazine Crisis for a quarter century, DeBois’ writings inspired the creation of a black officers’ training school, legal action against lynchings, and a federal work plan for returning black veterans. After traveling to Russia in 1927, DuBois radicalized himself and within a few years left the NAACP, returning to academia. Back at AtlantaUniversity, he wrote Black Reconstruction (1935) and Dusk of Dawn (1940). As Hynes picks up the saga:


As the chairman of the Peace InformationCenter, he demanded the outlawing of atomic weapons. The U.S. Department of Justice ordered DuBois and others to register as agents of a “foreign principal.” DuBois refused and was immediately indicted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. DuBois was acquitted. On August 27, 1963, on the eve of the March on Washington, he died in Accra,Ghana.






After World War I, black Americans returned home alongside their white counterparts. Having lived and died fighting to enrich their common masters, blacks anticipated that the conflict would unify Americans of all races. When the sons and grandsons of emancipated slaves still found themselves treated as third-class citizens, many joined the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), a Black Nationalist organization founded by Marcus Garvey. As one of the largest mass movements in U.S. history, by the early 1920s Garvey’s group had seven hundred branches in thirty-eight states. As David Van Leeuwen has written, “For Garvey, it was no less than the will of God for the black people to be free to determine their own destiny.” The solution, felt Garvey, was to return to Africa. By combining unity, pride and autonomy, African-Americans could become a mighty race. Unlike the labor movement that preceded and overlapped his own life, Garvey was no enemy of capitalism, and even gained support from the countries of Liberia andSierra Leone, as well as the Ku Klux Klan in heralding a “Back to Africa” movement, in which Garvey’s own company, the Black Star Line, would ship black people back home. Once Garvey began proclaiming that Jesus was black, the U.S.government stepped in and indicted him for mail fraud. Immediately after his release from prison, the government deported Garvey to Jamaica.




Marcus Garvey






An even more enduring black separatist organization is the Nation of Islam, or the Black Muslims. Founded in Detroit in 1930 by Wallace Fard, the Black Muslims believed their success mandated removal from white society. Under the leadership of Elijah Muhammed, the Nation of Islam bought substantial plots of land deep in the southern United States. As God’s chosen people, the Black Muslims rejected the use of illegal drugs, developed their own paramilitary army, and yearned for their own separate nation. In 1975, Elijah Muhammed died. The Nation of Islam splintered and the Black Muslims offered their leadership to Louis Farrakhan.


Certainly the largest and most fearsome black paramilitary force in the United States was the Black Panther Party, formed in October 1966 by Huey Newton, Bobby Seale and David Hilliard. Tired of the nonviolent approach of Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Committee, the Panthers took the position that most oppressed people had one thing in common: their enemy was the United States government. Indeed, the Black Panthers had reason to feel persecuted. While they organized breakfast programs that fed thousands of hungry children throughout the country, Huey Newton and Bunchy Carter were shot dead by assassins in Los Angeles and Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were slaughtered inChicago.








Less violent but just as committed to social justice was the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). The brainchild of an interracial group of no hierarchically-inclined University of Chicagostudents in 1942, CORE is perhaps best recalled for its organization of the Freedom Rides in the early 1960s. In the case of Boynton v. Virginia (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the segregation of interstate bus and rail stations. CORE decided to test the ruling and so on May 4, 1961, seven blacks and six whites departed on buses headed south. Winston Blacktop relates:


In the second week the riders were severely beaten. Outside Anniston, Alabama, one of their buses was burned, and in Birminghamseveral dozen whites attacked the riders only two blocks from the sheriff’s office. On their arrival in Montgomery they were savagely attacked by a mob of more than 1,000 whites.






Sympathetic members of the media reported on this brutality and by 1964 thousands of college kids had joined CORE. The organization singled out the state of Mississippi for its violent propensities and refusal to allow blacks to vote.


Thirty-seven black churches and thirty black homes and businesses were firebombed or burned that summer, and the cases often went unsolved. More than 1,000 black and white volunteers were arrested and at least eighty were beaten by white mobs or racist police officers.


The murders of Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner in June of that year changed everything. These CORE civil rights workers were murdered with the complicity ofMississippi police officers, an event discovered six weeks after their disappearance and one which mobilized a previously recalcitrant Johnson Administration into supporting civil rights.






The Tate-LaBianca murders were committed by members of the Manson Family one week before the Woodstock Festival. Although these two events occurred at opposite ends of the country, mass communication brought the reality of these two perverse celebrations as close as next door. Certainly the stupid violence at the Altamont Raceway a few months later did nothing to quell the idea that young America had no sense at all. The subsequent arrests, trials and convictions of the Manson Family further discredited the propriety of youth’s alternative lifestyle: drugs, free love, long hair, racial harmony and radical politics—these could all be superficially tolerated by Nixon’s Silent (frightened) Majority. But a series of violent murders committed to ignite a race war was too bizarre to accept. Once the images of the killers were broadcast over television and displayed in newspapers and magazines, the children of World War II were no longer presumed naïve.













Mass murderers had heretofore been either one-man operations or the domain of organized crime. In the first two decades following the resolution of World War II, the image of the “lone nut” was engraved on America’s consciousness.
Sharpshooter and Bible-thumper Howard Unruh picked up his 9mm Luger on September 6, 1949 and twelve minutes later, thirteen family members, friends and total strangers lay dead in Camden, New Jersey. Unruh’s motive was blind retaliation for the theft of a fence that he used to keep out the rest of the world.






Droopy-eyed Billy Cook kidnapped the five-member Carl Moser family on New Year’s Eve 1950, killing each of them while in route to Joplin, Missouri. A salesman named Robert Dewey was killed by the same yung man.






Walking death machine Melvin Rees began a spree of murders and rapes in Maryland in 1957. By the time he was caught—four years later—he had destroyed nine people, mostly female children.






During this same time period, Harvey Glatman raped and murdered three Los Angeles women. He was executed for his crimes.






Charles Starkweather slaughtered eleven people out of a sense of boredom and frustration.






In Chicago in 1966, Richard Speck murdered eight nurses while a ninth hid under the bed.






Marine Corps graduate Charles Joseph Whitman killed his mother and father and the next day climbed the tower at theUniversity of Texas in Austin and shot forty-six people, sixteen of whom died.








Al of these people were men under the age of thirty-five, all were loners and social misfits, and all channeled their antisocial proclivities in violent ways. Unlike these men, Charles Manson had his own loosely-knit gang of highly motivated disciples to act out his violent impulses for him. For reinforcement he used isolation, drugs, religion, and a unique interpretation of Beatles songs, just as those in power in the United Statesused the isolation inherent in the vastness of the country, the drugged effects of television, religion and the mass media to program its citizenry.








While it would be historically inaccurate to claim that the Manson Family brought an end to the counterculture, it is true that the Family contaminated every area of society with which it made contact. Nothing so emphasized the magnitude of this contamination as the publication of a book in November 1974.


Helter Skelter was the most frightening book ever written in the genre of what came to be called “true crime.” Former Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi’s story of the Manson murders began with a page that simply said: “The story you are about to read will scare the hell out of you.” That admonition was not hyperbole. It was the truth. With co-author Curt Gentry, Bugliosi drove the reader screaming around corners and down stairwells with his foot through the floorboards. Even the more philosophical sections brought the totality of the dread moaning down over the reader’s ears. This effect was enhanced by the suggestions that some of the killers were still on the loose and that when those who had been apprehended were released from prison they would leave the streets slippery with blood.








For his midnight missions, Manson chose people in their late teens and early twenties. Although Manson and his disciples were politically reversed from the protestors in Chicago at the previous year’s Democratic National Convention, they did share a sense of community, long hair, no particular aversion to illegal drugs and a disregard for the sexual mores of the Silent Majority. While Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin denied the Chicago demonstrators had any kind of leadership, Manson was the unquestioned head of his group. Whereas the Yippies were not autocratic and had goals that often contradicted one another, as the sole leader of his Family, Manson’s goals were quite clear. And so with images of bare-chested boys torching flags pulsating in the collective consciousness, America was undone by nightly news viewings of the nomadic tribe that seemed to speak of affluence in disarray. While the news reports of the kill-cult were book-ended with body counts from Vietnam, whatever instincts toward cohesiveness for which Americans yearned were fractured by the very informational access which united them in their divisive fear. To the television screen, bare feet and long hair all looked the same.


In December 1969, the same month the arrests of the Manson Family were made public, the Rolling Stones declared a free concert to be held near San Francisco. Twenty-four hours before it was scheduled to begin, Altamont Raceway, which comfortably accommodated 6,500 people, was announced as the site. 300,000 people whose idea of freedom was not having to pay for anything showed up to hear the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Crosby Stills and Nash, and the headliners: The Rolling Stones. Security for the concert was provided by the Hells Angels in exchange for $500 worth of beer. That the Rolling Stones had the slightest concern for the safety of their fans is doubtful. That they were even concerned for themselves is measured by the fact that they were guarded by a group of drunken violence freaks. “Brothers and sisters, please!” singer Mick Jagger pleads in the film of the concert, Gimme Shelter. It did not good for audience member Meredith Hunter, He was beaten and stabbed to death right on camera. The media soaked up the story and squeezed it out all over the world. So as the 1960s came to an end, youngAmerica appeared badly out of even its own control.








Into this whirlwind strolled buckskinned Charles Manson and his loyal salivating sycophants, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie van Houten and Charles Watson. In addition to the nightly television coverage, several national magazines publicized the story with enthusiasm.Tuesday’s Child, Rolling Stone, Life and evenLadies Home Journal ran feature stories. Susan Atkins had no more than finished testifying to the grand jury when Lawrence Schiller published a dollar paperback called The Killing of Sharon Tate. The trial was scarcely over when Fugs member Ed Sanders released a book called The Family, which, after Schiller’s book, read like The Great Gatsby. Robert Hendrickson completed a documentary called Manson, but by the time it was released, hippie was dead, Yippie was underground, and most of the “longhaired freaky people” had either joined the KKK or else gone on to make a difference on Wall Street.






“The story you are about to read will scare the hell out of you.”






Bugliosi did not limit himself to the story of the murders and his crucial role in getting the convictions. He went much deeper into the abyss. For one thing, the seven Tate-LaBianca victims were not the only people killed by the Family. Gary Hinman, Donald Shea and John Haught were all slain before the trial began. Bugliosi strongly suggested and today still believes the Family murdered van Houten’s attorney Ronald Hughes. Bugliosi offered a mix of evidence and speculation that the Manson clan killed ten other people between October 1968 and November 1972, for a total of twenty-one. “Are there more?” Bugliosi asked. “We tend to think that there probably are, because these people liked to kill.”








President Gerald Ford was stumbling amidst theSan Francisco public one autumn day in 1975 when a young redhead stepped through the curious crowd of well-wishers and aimed her gun at the President of the United States. The weapon jammed and as the Secret Service tackled the young woman, she screamed, “It wasn’t loaded!”


Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, proud dues-paying member of the dwindling Manson Family, was sent to prison. For the second time within a month, Ford had nearly been assassinated, the nation was spared the horror of a Nelson Rockefeller Presidency, and the Family was back in the news. Squeaky appeared on the covers of both Time andNewsweek.








The following year, Helter Skelter was released as a two-night television movie, a PG version of which later became available on home video. Despite having none of the flair of the book and in Steve Railsback the worst characterization of Manson short of the wax figure at Madame Tousaud’s, the shows were at the time the most-viewed programs in television history. Susan Atkins and Charles Watson converted to Christianity and wrote books about it. Manson appeared on several TV shows and even gave an interview to Geraldo Rivera, wherein the latter’s ego was finally matched. A collection of Manson’s writings was published. The Family’s record albums are collectors’ items.


The true allure of the Manson lore may be as simple and profound as something the late Paul Watkins wrote in his own autobiography. Manson’s former second-in-command and chief procurer stated: “Charlie did more than give hitchhikers and hippies a bad name. He manifested and expressed not only the mechanism of his own twisted psyche, but the latent evils existing within our own society.”


* * * * * * * * * * * *


He had been acquainted with a man named Donald DeFreeze, and had suggested that DeFreeze take the name Cinque. He had helped lay plans that resulted in the kidnapping of an heiress, and it had been he who suggested that the heiress be made crazy instead of ransomed.


—Stephen King, The Stand






Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland’s Thompson gun and bought it.


—Warren Zevon, “Roland the Thompson Gunner”






Two of the more imaginative writers of the 1970s used the Patty Hearst story to add verisimilitude to their own stories, in the process creating myths about the young woman’s perils. It is easy to see why. Her abduction and subsequent conversion to the Symbionese Liberation Army required a myth for the story to make sense, the surest sign that there are things going on that people didn’t understand. Just as some people find it helpful to create filler to link scenarios because of a lack of useful information, so do creative people use myths to make sense of a reality that is—for the moment—otherwise inexplicable.








For two years she commanded very serious media attention and abruptly the story was gone. Little has been written of her since her pardon by President Jimmy Carter. Her 1982 autobiography, Every Secret Thing, sold few copies and the Paul Schrader movie based on the book did little at the box office. Today she is scarcely recalled except as a nostalgia item or as a hostess on the Travel Channel. Yet prior to her capture, Patricia Hearst, daughter of publishing magnate Randolph A. Hearst, was granted media shine surpassed in intensity only by the O.J. Simpson affair. But where the Simpson defense raised issues of racism, Hearst’s attorneys suggested the more complex issues of coercion, intimidation and conditioning. The jurors—not to mention much of the general public—scoffed at the notion that the young rich girl had been brainwashed or even succumbed to coercion, which the Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law defines as “The use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his will.” So important is the concept of coercion in the American legal system that it may actually be a defense in a legal proceeding if the jury accepts the defendant’s behavior as the result of duress. As one looks at the facts of the kidnapping, it is quite possible to conclude that the jury accepted Hearst’s defense, but was sufficiently predisposed against her to give the defense adequate weight. It is also possible to conclude that the notion of conditioning is unacceptable to most Americans. And it is even possible that Hearst’s version of events was a lie and that the jury was too intelligent to believe it. A final explanation is that the entire business with Charles Manson had so frightened people about “politically” motivated cults that the SLA was damned from the outset.








Certainly there are parallels between the Hearst saga and the Manson killings. Both cases involved charismatic leaders and impressionable followers. Both leaders had the stigma (or badge of honor) of being an ex-convict. Both leaders were older than their followers. Both leaders gave their followers new names and new identities. Both leaders used isolation to control their followers. Both men implied that they themselves were something more than human. Both foresaw African Americans leading a revolution. Both viewed the white establishment as the enemy and referred to that enemy as “pigs.” Both forced their associates to undergo rigorous training. Both divided their organizations into military units which ultimately caused the downfall of the leader himself. And both led groups that carried on after the imprisonment or death of their leader.


A cactus grows in the desert because it can grow nowhere else. The seeds of the behavior of the members of the SLA only came to fruition under the conditions provided by their leader.


“You do indeed know me,” Cinque said in his first taped message to Randolph Hearst. “You have always known me. I’m that nigger you have hunted and feared night and day. I’m that nigger you have killed hundreds of my people in a vain hope of finding. I’m that nigger that is no longer just hunted, robbed and murdered. I’m that nigger that hunts you now.”


A jail rat from the age of sixteen, Donald DeFreeze discovered his true self in San Quentin, where he was reborn as the Fifth Prophet: Cinque Mtume. After being transferred to Soledad Prison, Cinque became a trustee. In March 1973, he was babysitting a boiler when he felt the spirit swell up in him. Epiphanized, he leapt a fence and completed his escape. In Berkeley, he connected with friend Russ Little and soon the two men moved in with female radical Pat Soltysik (Zoya). These three formed the original core of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Little’s girlfriend Angela DeAngelis (Celina) soon joined, as did friends Joe Remiro and Willie Wolfe (Cujo).








William Wolfe had been a middle class social success and social worker when he met Cinque as part of a program to educate African-American prisoners. The teacher ended up receiving the education. Cujo was born.


Angela DeAngelis had likewise come from an affluent family. At college In Indiana, she and future husband Gary Atwood became fast friends with Bill and Emily Harris. Radicals were not much tolerated in Indiana, even in the late 1960s, and so the group found their way to Berkeley, as did Nancy Ling Perry (Fahizah), a former Goldwater Republican who transferred from Whittier College. She was impressed with the free love, free speech, cheap drugs and cozy camaraderie of the local radical scene and through her work in prison reform she discovered the SLA.








Camilla Hall (Gabi) also identified with society’s outcasts. The artistically gifted gay young woman met Zoya and soon moved in with her. It was through this relationship that she found acceptance in the guerrilla group.


In late 1973 Russ Little and Joe Remiro were arrested for murdering Marcus Foster, the first black superintendent of schools in Oakland and—according to the SLA—the original Uncle Tom. Field Marshall Cinque could not allow his loyal comrades to remain in captivity. An exchange was in order. But what did the SLA possess that they could trade for the release of two convicted murderers?


On Monday, February 4, 1974, three SLAmembers entered the apartment shared by Steven Weed and Patricia Hearst. The intruders beat Weed unconscious, blindfolded Hearst and brought her to their hideout where they required her to stay in a closet for almost two months, leaving the cramped quarters only for supervised bodily functions and the occasional tub bath.








Cinque knew that to immediately demand an exchange of prisoners was not only futile but self-serving, Instead, through a series of tape recorded communiqués, he insisted that the Hearst Corporation give seventy dollars worth of food to every indigent Californian. The Hearst family made a counter-offer of two million dollars earmarked for a program called People In Need. The ultimate result was a food distribution to a few thousand poor people. Governor Ronald Reagan had someone in his office instruct him to assure Californians that there would be no exchange of prisoners.


During the ongoing food distribution, Patty Hearst was subjected to the constant rhetoric of the nine SLA members who held her fate. Blindfolded for fifty-seven days and nights, she was told over and over that the Establishment, in the person of her father, was responsible for her imprisonment due to his lack of concern for the starving masses in California and even for the safety of his own daughter. All the rich people, all the people who made the rules, Cinque told her, were all just like that. Over and over she was told her Establishment family would sooner let her die than give up any of their precious money.











Was she going to be killed? asked the nineteen-year-old Patty Hearst.

Yes, it might be necessary for her to die. But even if the SLA did not kill her, the authorities surely would. The FBI was conducting house-to-house searches. Once they found the hideout, they would kill all the inhabitants and blame Patty's death on the revolutionaries.

Over and over. The programming took hold.

In one of the communiques sent to her parents, Patty is heard to say:







I no longer fear the SLA because they are not the ones who want me to die. The SLA wants to feed the people and assure safety and justice for the two men in San Quentin. I realize now that it's the FBI who wants to murder me.







Ms. Hearst later argued that she was forced to repeat the message and did not truly believe in the content.

It was shortly after the release of this message that Cinque offered to allow Patty to join his organization. With the earlier communiques, the SLA had laid the groundwork for convincing the public their hostage was on the road to conversion. Now Cinque told the heiress she could stay and join, or she could simply go home. Hearst later stated that she believed that if she had chosen to go home, she would have been murdered. And so she told the Field Marshall she wanted to join. In turn, he gave her the name Tania.




 On April 15, 1974, something occurred which would become a key determinant in the way the public viewed the criminal justice system. It was on that day that the SLA robbed the Hibernia Bank in the Sunset District of San Francisco at Noriega and 22nd Avenue. The robbery was planned to provide funds to support the SLA's revolution. The robbery was also intended to let the media see Tania in the role of a committed urban guerrilla. While the bandits made off with $10,660, Patty Hearst was caught on tape holding a carbine on bank employees and customers.




 Evelle Younger had become California's Attorney General based on his office's successful prosecution of the Manson Family back when he had been the Los Angeles District Attorney. His opinion was ominous: "The moment of truth has long since passed for Patricia Hearst."

The public perception began to be formed.

In May 1974, Patty Hearst was waiting in a van outside Mel's Sporting Goods while Bill and Emily Harris went inside to shop. Bill chose to shoplift and was just leaving the store when an employee wrestled him to the ground. In response, Hearst aimed a submachine gun out the van's window and fired thirty rounds into the air. Emptying that weapon, she then fired three more shots from her own carbine. Asked by authorities to explain why she did this, she thoughtfully replied:







I acted instinctively, because I had been trained and drilled to do just that, to react to a situation without thinking, just as soldiers are trained and rilled to obey an order under fire instinctively, without questioning it. The penalty for failure in combat was death.















In the process of making their escape, the trio stole two cars and kidnapped two people who were released within a few days.

Patty and the Harrises were holed up in an Anaheim hotel when the TV news telecast the first reports: The police found the SLA safe house, fired over 3,500 shots into the building, lobbed in tear gas, and the hideout caught fire. Except for the three frightened folks watching TV in Anaheim, the entire SLA was dead.




 Sportswriter Jack Scott contacted the survivors. He told them he wanted to write a sympathetic account of the SLA. Scott, his parents and his wife transported the group east where the fugitives would be somewhat less recognizable. Along with Revolutionary Army member Wendy Yoshimura, they lived in various farm houses in New York and Pennsylvania.

The group made it back to California by February 1975, settling in Sacramento with new friends Mike Bortin, Jim Kilgore, Steven Soliah and Steven's sister Kathy. Their first target was the Guild S&L Association, where they netted $3,700. Next they assaulted the Crocker National Bank in Carmichael. It was there that Emily Harris shot and killed a customer named Myrna Lee Opshal. Becoming more confident, the group turned to setting off car bombs beneath police cars. In September, the group separated. Patty and Wendy move in together in the Outer Mission District and that was exactly where the FBI arrested them, an hour after nabbing the Harrises.






Wendy Yoshimura




F. Lee Bailey and Al Johnson defended Hearst against charges of armed robbery and aggravated assault. Better than half the people surveyed in California at the time of Patty's arrest believed she had staged her own kidnapping. As Hearst herself would later ask, "How would it appear to the voters if the Ford administration, which had pardoned Richard Nixon, had chosen not to prosecute me?" Bailey and Johnson tried to persuade the jury that their client had been acting under duress, which, they explained, is the wrongful compulsion that induces a person to act against his own will. The jury was not persuaded and found her guilty of the Hibernia robbery. Originally sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, the punishment was later reduced to seven years. She subsequently was given five years probation for pleading "no contest" on the charges stemming from the Mel's Sporting Goods shoot-out. Two appeals on the Hibernia sentence were denied. On May 15, 1978, she began serving time in Pleasanton. Her sentence was commuted by President Carter and she left prison on February 1, 1979.




 The key question avoided by the media was one of personal responsibility under efforts of conditioning. Whether or not Hearst was the ultimate variable in a Stanley Milgram experiment, it is interesting to ponder how the public had been prepared for her reemergence. Some argued from the outset that she would go free because of her wealth. Others said her fame and fortune worked against her. After all, would the FBI have devoted eighteen months pursuing a less significant person for committing similar crimes?

Perhaps the ironic aspect of the Hearst saga is that today few people read, write or concern themselves with her plight. And yet the big question remains: When a microcosmic society conspires to alter a person's thinking, what is the responsibility of that individual for their own behavior?

THE HIGHER CALLING OF PUBLIC OFFICE


Haldeman: Well, the investigation is beginning to look into Cubans and that kind of thing. These guys are allied in some other enterprises that we don't care about.
    --H. R. Haldeman to Richard Nixon, June 22, 1972

President Nixon: Today, in one of the most difficult decisions of my presidency, I accepted the resignations of two of my closest associates in the White House--Bob Haldeman, John Ehrlichman--two of the finest public servants it has been my privilege to know.
     --April 30, 1973
    The question announces itself unbidden: Why would anyone on the same side as Richard Nixon have authorized the burglary? The break-in and burglary at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee had become one of many crimes that lurked in the shadows of Watergate, but at the same time there were only two questions being asked. One: Why? Two: Did the involvement end with the five burglars, plus E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy? The first question mystified. After all, the real dirt--if there were any--would have been at the headquarters of Nixon's presumed opponent, Senator George McGovern, rather than at the DNC. even so, why bother, what with the incumbent Nixon leading in the polls by more than twenty points? Surely neither Nixon nor his staff would have authorized something as silly as a burglary! And even if they had done so in a well-intentioned albeit misguided attempt to preserve Nixon's presidency, other administrations had done things just as bad and that made Watergate not only morally justified but more importantly just another example of a liberal press going after the greatest president of all time, or some such crap of that sort. People actually said things like that, although not usually without stopping to breathe.
    Such assertions are faulty and fallacious. The question of why has been answered through misdirections about stories that DNC Chairman Larry O'Brien had connections to financial shenanigans with Howard Hughes. Gordon Liddy has made the allegation that wiretapping the DNC was bound to reveal details of a prostitution ring. The problem with both of these explanations is not only one of validity. It is one of obfuscation. The wiretapping can only be understood in the context of a much larger series of activities that include the Nixon administration's response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, attacks upon the anti-war movement, discrediting of potential opponents in the 1972 election, and the cover-up of these and other illegal activities. As to the second question, the one regarding the character of Mr. Nixon and his staff, any semblance of honesty or decency was dispelled after the limited and reluctant release of certain White House tape recordings, excerpts from which are transcribed throughout this blog. 


Nixon: We protected [CIA Director Richard] Helms from a hell of a lot of things.
Haldeman: That's what Ehrlichman says.
Nixon: Of course this Hunt, that will uncover a lot of--you open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things in it that we just feel that this would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves. When you get Helms in, say, "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that this thing is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And these people are plugging for keeps, and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the good of the country, don't go any further into this case," period.
     June 23, 1972.

    In the above exchange, the President is ordering his Chief of Staff to meet with the Director of Central Intelligence and to blackmail the Director into ordering the FBI to end its investigation into Watergate.

    Aside from the audacity of the request (which was carried out), two other issues are quite curious. First, the President takes for granted that Richard Helms could order FBI Director L. patrick Gray into halting a federal investigation. Second, Nixon uses as leverage his own knowledge of the "Bay of Pigs thing," an invasion that had occurred under a different government nine years earlier. True, news that the CIA had sponsored the invasion might have been problematic had the Agency's participation not already been common knowledge. But how could that expression, "Bay of Pigs thing," be used as blackmail? Haldeman later wrote that he believed Nixon was speaking in code, that we he said "Bay of Pigs," he was actually talking about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Whatever the translation of Nixon's reference, the blackmail worked. According to Haldeman, when he met with Helms and relayed the President's message, Helms became furious. Gripping the arms of his chair, he shouted, "Not connected! No Way! There is no connection to the Bay of Pigs!" Maybe not. But Gray immediately wrapped up the investigation. 
Nixon: Hunt knows too damned much and he was involved, we have to know that. And that it gets out. . . this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing, which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he's just gotta tell 'em, lay off.

    In attempting to explain or perhaps justify the Watergate break-in, Nixon apologists have mused that the level of paranoia of the Commander in Chief and his team was sufficiently high that had ninety-nine voters out of one hundred selected Nixon, some high-ranking official would have been checking out the possibility of communist affiliation with the one lingering McGovern supporter. 


    Such an amusing concept runs contrary to the facts. Until deep summer of 1972, Nixon's reelection was the furthest thing from a certainty. In the 1970 Congressional elections, the Republicans lost nine seats. The unemployment rate was the highest in nine years. The U.S. dollar was at its lowest value since 1949. In early 1971, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War had received massive TV exposure for throwing their medals over the wall at Capital Hill. In celebration of May Day, a huge student demonstration in opposition to the war took temporary control of Washington. Reporters and students alike were swept off in the tens of thousands to detention centers where they were considerably safer than they would have been had Nixon and Haldeman's contingency plan been enacted. If necessary, they had prepared to bring in a group of Teamsters and, as the Chief of Staff put it, "They're gonna beat the shit out of some of these people and really hurt them." All of these things were happening while Nixon was far behind in the polls. 
     By the end of the following month, the Pentagon Papers were making interesting reading in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and other national dailies. The documents had been released by Daniel Ellsberg and actually focused on U.S. involvement in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. But Nixon was furious that negative war reports were being made public. A plot was launched to "nail Ellsberg cold," in the words of Special White House Counsel Charles Colson. If there were leaks in the White House, then what the administration needed were plumbers, people who would act as an in-house intelligence outfit, a small scale Black Operations Unit. Plumber Gordon Liddy devised a plan to embarrass Ellsberg by spiking his soup with LSD. Howard Hunt wrote a smear article about Ellsberg's attorney, Lawrence Boudin, as well as about Boudin's daughter. In other words, both of the President's men illegally interfered in the prosecution of Ellsberg, set up a secret police squad, and were guilty of forging documents about their political opponents.
    The President, of course, had a lot of Plumbers.


Bebe Rebozo and unidentified employee

    Jack Caufield, former private detective turned White House operative, proposed a covert operation to supervise the spies the Nixon administration had in the Democratic National Committee, conduct surveillance of opposing party primaries, have an illegal entry capability, and develop other assorted dirty tricks. Caufield called this plan Sandwedge. Plumber G. Gordon Liddy expanded the program into Gemstone.

Nixon: I want a study made that i want you to undertake, and don't write a memorandum on this. I think you'd better get ahold of Mort Allin or Pat Buchanan, or both. I want to pick the twenty most vicious Washington reporters and television people, and the title of this little memorandum would be "Things we'd like to forget they said." Now here's what I want. I don't want anything said about me so much, but I'm more interested in predictions they have made with regard to Nixon-McGovern. . . I want to write a piece here and just kill the sons of bitches. Now, who can you--can you please follow up on this?
Haldeman: Yes, sir!
    September 8, 1972

    In order to understand the scope of the treachery, it is important to grasp the often tenuous chain of command. Liddy, as counsel to the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), was subordinate to CREEP's deputy director, Jeb Stuart Magruder, who in turn reported to former Attorney General John Mitchell. By the time Gemstone was conceived, Liddy had hooked up with Howard Hunt. Hunt worked for Colson who in turn answered to Haldeman, as well as to Domestic Policy Advisor John Ehrlichman. 
H. R. "Bob" Haldeman







John Ehrlichman


Jeb Stuart Magruder
    One proposal within Liddy's Operation Gemstone was to kidnap student demonstration leaders, drug them, and transport them to Mexico until after the Republican Convention. Although Liddy never spelled out what would ultimately happen to the students, he did point out to Mitchell, Magruder, and Presidential Counsel John Dean that his proposed kidnappers were professional killers who had already murdered twenty-two people.
G. Gordon Liddy

    Liddy had other plans as well. In addition to planting spies in opposition camps, he recommended funneling money to Democratic candidate Shirley Chisholm, correctly perceived to be the weakest candidate. Any increase in her popularity would be at the expense of other Democrats. Next, Liddy argued in favor of a chase plane to pursue the Democratic nominees and bug their air radio communications. They should also, Liddy insisted, intercept microwave telephone calls.
E. Howard Hunt
    There were more fun and games to come, promised  Liddy, the former FBI man. He and E. Howard Hunt would procure prostitutes to lure lusty Democrats to a houseboat in Miami and elicit pillow talk. Liddy was prepared to organize outrageous demonstrations to support Democrats and thereby alienate the voters. They had a Cuban commando squad ready to sabotage the air conditioning system at the Democrats' Convention during the hottest summer in years. And Liddy urged four buggings, beginning with the DNC and ending with the Democrats' nominee. All this was in addition to ongoing disruptions such as hundreds of orders for pizza and liquor to Ed Muskie fundraisers  that the Muskie people knew nothing about.
Ed Muskie

    Hunt and Liddy also planned to murder columnist Jack Anderson. poisoned aspirin, car accidents, and homicidal muggings were all discussed, but ultimately these were dismissed as being too severe. 
    (To my personal knowledge, no one has ever bothered to explain the reason for wanting to kill Jack Anderson. But the subject does lend itself to interesting speculation. For instance, was The Washington Post, for whom Anderson worked, used by the CIA to destroy Nixon via Watergate? Anderson routinely misdirected attention into the JFK assassination toward gangsters. Bob Woodward, also of the Post, remains a devout right winger. Haynes Johnson, a mainstay of the same newspaper, steadfastly supported the erroneous conclusions of the Warren Report. In any event, consider a portion of a deposition taken by attorney Mark Lane of Gordon Liddy during a defamation suit brought by Howard Hunt. Liddy said: "We discussed Dr. Gunn's suggestion, which was the use of an automobile to hit Mr. Anderson's automobile when it was in a turn in the circle up near Chevy Chase. There is a way that apparently had been known by the Central Intelligence Agency that if you hit a car at just the right speed and angle, it will flip and burn and kill the occupant."
    Other aspects of Gemstone were endorsed. Thomas Gregory was assigned to spy on nominee George McGovern. Hunt's Cubans were used to cut wires to microphones at student demonstrations, punch out some protesters, and jeer at others. Hunt himself attempted to plant pro-McGovern literature in the apartment of Arthur Bremer, the man who shot and crippled George Wallace, but the FBI had already sealed off the would-be assassin's apartment.

Nixon: What the Christ was he looking for?
Haldeman: They were looking for stuff on two things. One, on financial. And the other stuff that they thought they had on what they were going to do at Miami to screw us up, because apparently--a Democratic plot. And they thought they had it uncovered. Colson was salivating with glee at the thought of what he mibght be able to do with it. And they were very reluctant to go in there. They were put under tremendous pressure that they had to get that stuff.
    January 3, 1973

    The first break-in at the Watergate occurred the night of sunday, May 29, 1972. With G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt in charge, the security of the Democratic National Committee headquarters was broken. Assisting in the operation were CIA operative James McCord, Cuban revolution traitor Frank Sturgis, and five fallen soldiers from the Bay of Pigs invasion: Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Mertinez, Reinaldo Pico, and Felipe DeDiego. They placed two bugs and a transmitter and photographed files. The purpose--as H.R. "Bob" Haldeman's blathering indicates--was to get information on what DNC chairman Larry O'Brien had on the Republicans. O'Brien was quite vocal in accusing the Nixon White House of corruption. The plumbers wanted to find out if he knew what he was talking about.

McCord, Gonzalez, Sturgis, Martinez, and Barker


    Break-in number two on June 17, 1972, was intended to find out specifically what O'Brien had on the Republicans. Had the burglars not been caught, they next planned to assault the McGovern Headquarters. So again the question "Why the DNC?" is a wrong question. Better is: "Where next?" Arrested inside the Watergate were McCord, Sturgis, Barker, Martinez, and Gonzalez. The lookout, Alfred Baldwin, was subsequently arrested.

Nixon: How much money do you need?
Dean: I would say these people are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years.
Nixon: We could get that. If you need the money you could get the money. What I mean is, you could, you could get a million dollars. And you could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten.
Dean: Uh-huh.
Nixon: I mean, it's not easy, but it could be done.
    March 21, 1973

    In the months that followed, more arrests were announced. All in all, twenty-three representatives of the Nixon administration served time in jail or prison as a result of Watergate-related illegal activities.

Jeb Stuart Magruder, the Deputy to John Mitchell, Committee to Reelect. The bicycle-riding preppie had been a Nixon loyalist since the 1968 campaign, after graduating from Williams College. His primary duty was communications for CREEP. 

G. Gordon Liddy planned the Watergate break-in and participated in the burglary of the office of the psychiatrist to Daniel Ellsberg. He was a former assistant District Attorney in Dutchess County, New York, and a former FBI man. In his own failed bid for Congress in 1968, his campaign showed the candidate shining a bright spotlight into a crowd of African Americans. Below the image was the following: "He knows the answer is law and order, not weak-kneed sociology. Gordon Liddy doesn't bail them out--he puts them in."
Gordon Liddy

Dwight Chapin, the Presidential appointment secretary. he began working for Nixon during the latter's failed California gubernatorial campaign. It was during this period that he met Haldeman and the USC graduate soon became a fanatical loyalist to the Tricky One.
Dwight Chapin
Charles Colson was the special counsel to the President. Brown University graduate and former Marine company commandeer, Colson described himself as a "flag-waving, kick 'em in the nuts, anti-press, anti-liberal Nixon fanatic." After his conviction and subsequent imprisonment, he announced a conversion to Born Again Christianity.
Chuckie Colson
John Dean acted as counsel to the President. Specializing in communications law, Dean wrote position papers for Nixon's 1968 campaign, bringing him to the attention of John Mitchell, who got him into the Justice Department. When Ehrlichman changed jobs in the White House, Mitchell recommended Dead to Nixon as counsel. Among other dirty deeds, Dean illegally accepted Watergate-related FBI investigation documents from FBI Director L. Patrick Gray. Dean authored the book Blind Ambition and later served as consultant to Oliver Stone on the film Nixon
John Dean

John Ehrlichman was counsel to the President and Chairman of the Domestic Council. His UCLA friend Bob Haldeman enlisted Ehrlichman as a political espionage agent against Nelson Rockefeller in Nixon's failed 1960 Presidential campaign. Ehrlichman ordered $450,000 in hush money be paid to the Watergate burglars.
John Ehrlichman
H.R. Haldeman acted as Chief of Staff to the President. This former advertising executive was a rabid anti-communist as far back as the Alger-Hiss scandals. He worked for Nixon from 1956 onward and was simultaneously an extension of the President as well as an independent strategist. His loyalty was seldom to himself. In common with the others on this list, his first duty was to serve Nixon. To that end, along with Ehrlichman, he obstructed justice by telling the CIA to tell the FBI to end their investigation of the Watergate events. 

John Mitchell was the former Attorney General and chairman of the Committee to Reelect. A one-time law partner with Nixon, Mitchell was appointed Attorney General only after Robert Finch rejected the same offer. In that role, he instigated no-knock laws, wiretapping, and preventive detention and assorted other civil rights abuses with the same gusto that John Ashcroft would later bring to the job. Mitchell controlled a secret fund of $700,000 to be used against the Democrats and other opponents, the uses being specifically to forge letters, steal files, and leak erroneous news to the media.
Richard Kleindienst became Attorney General after Mitchell resigned and was yet another German lawyer in the Nixon cabinet. He lied even before being confirmed by the Senate when he stated that the White House had never pressured him to expedite diversion from the Dita Beard-ITT affair. He was later found guilty of this perjury, but his sentence and $100 fine were soon suspended.
Dickie Kleindienst
Herbert Kalmbach was Nixon's personal attorney and the unofficial bagman for CREEP. Another German attorney, Kalmbach was a USC graduate. His most important contributions to Nixon were his ability to raise safe money fast and large, and his knack for handling the legal ramifications associated with land ownership.

Herbie "Love Bug" Kalmbach

Tomorrow we will continue counting down the most fascinating Watergate criminals of all time. Between then and now, however, the reader is urged to consider that most illegal activities involving corruptions far more sinister than attacks on Democrats received very little media exposure and certainly were not treated severely by the courts. For example, Mitchell accepted $250,000 from financier Robert Vesco in exchange for Mitchell quashing an investigation into Vesco's illegal Securities and Exchange Commission activities. As to the ITT affair, the multinational made it known in 1970 that it was willing to contribute one million dollars to help the United States overthrow the Chilean government of Salvador Allende. In 1971 the company attempted to take over the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. The Justice Department planned to investigate this takeover for possible anti-trust violations. When ITT donated $400,000 to the ruling Republican party, the investigation was halted.


Bud Krogh, John Ehrlichman's deputy, served a little time, such was his commitment to Nixon.


Fred LaRue was an adviser to John Mitchell, raised hush money for the burglars, and was suspected of endorsing Mitchell's approval of the Watergate break-ins. 


Herbert Porter was the assistant to Jeb Stuart Magruder. He was also a USC Mafia graduate, something he shared with Press Secretary Ron Zeigler, Dwight Chapin, Gordon Strachan and Donald Segretti. Porter moved into the Nixon camp as a result of the arrangements he made for the Tricky One's 1968 Phoenix speech (the one where Nixon referred to anti-war demonstrators as "violent thugs"). Clean-cut weasel rat who developed a conscience when it was obvious that he would be fond guilty.

Donald Segretti served as a freelance saboteur for the Nixon campaign. USC typhoid case who completed the true believer mold by moving from the far left to the far right because it seemed politically expedient.


Maurice Stans was Nixon's Secretary of Commerce. He plead guilty to five charges of campaign finance law violations (three involving his record keepings and two involving illegal contributions from Robert Vesco).


Tony Ulasewicz was the White House private detective. He received illegal income from Herbert Kalmbach and was found guilty of filing fraudulent income tax returns for two consecutive years.

E. Howard Hunt was far and away the most interesting of all the Watergate convicts. Hunt's history deserves some elaboration. Born October 9, 1918, in Hamburg, New York, he graduated from Brown University in 1940, Phi Beta Kappa, with a degree in English Literature. He thereafter enlisted in the National Officers Training Program. Hunt was injured during World War II and soon became a correspondent for Life magazine. He later joined the Army Air Force and through connections there, worked for the Officers Strategic Services where he performed sabotage against the Japanese. After a brief and unsatisfying stint in the motion picture industry, Hunt became the press aide to the European Director of the Marshall Plan. By 1948 his anti-communist paranoia had brought him to the happy attention of the CIA. He claims to have worked for them from 1949 until 1970. During this period he was quite active, in 1950 serving as Chief of Station in Mexico City and in 1954 participating in the violent overthrow of the Arbenz government, a coup d'etat that permitted a dictatorship to seize control of Guatemala. Spring-boarding from his success in one Latin American country, he served with the anti-Castro exiles in Brigade 2506's failed attempt to overthrow the Cuban government. For the remainder of his life, Hunt continued to blame the failures of the mission on what he disingenuously and mistakenly perceived as John Kennedy's refusal to provide air support. 


    Such counterrevolutionary activities are preamble to testimony by Maria Lorenz, a woman who performed work for both the CIA and the FBI. According to her testimony in Hunt v. Liberty Lobby, the day before JFK's assassination, she witnessed Hunt--whom she knew as Eduardo--paying future Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis a sum of money in Dallas, a sum intended to finance the murder and facilitate the escape. Lorenz testified that Sturgis admitted his participation as well as that of Hunt as paymaster. The witness did not dissemble on cross-examination and Hunt ultimately lost his defamation suit against the far right Liberty Lobby.


    In case the reader is unfamiliar with the man whose working alias ran the narrow gamut between Eduardo and Ed Warren, here is a list of deeds for which Mr. Hunt has been credited:

  • Recruiter and organizer in the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala;
  • Participant-coordinator of the failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs;
  • Paymaster in a domestic assassination;
  • Employee of the CIA while pretending to do public relations for an Agency front, the Robert J. Mullen Company;
  • Author of a forged cable stating that President John Kennedy had authorized the murder of South Vietnamese President Diem;
  • White House employee empowered to gather intelligence on Senator Ted Kennedy's involvement in the Chappaquidick affair;
  • Co-conspirator in the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist;
  • Co-conspirator with Gordon Liddy in plot to murder columnist Jack Anderson;
  • Asset in plan to firebomb the Brookings institute;
  • Inducer to commit perjury in the Dita Beard-ITT scandal;
  • Would-be pimp in attempt to enlist prostitutes to seduce secrets from opponents at political conventions;
  • Conspirator in the Watergate burglaries;
  • Blackmailer to the President of the United States;
  • Suspected author of pro-McGovern literature found in apartment of would-be assassin Arthur Bremer.

This list is no doubt incomplete. As of this writing, Mr. Hunt remains dead and has therefore paid for the crimes for which his guilt has been determined. Child molesters freed after serving proscribed sentences have done the same. The advantage Hunt maintained over monolithic industrialists and sex offenders is that he convinced many people--including himself--that his behavior was all for the greater good. For instance, Hunt maintained that his various nefarious attempts to disrupt american political elections only served to reveal the true nature of the opposition party, thereby allowing the American people to make an informed choice. Of course, this defense ignores a crucial distinction. Hunt's methods for providing revelations about political opponents were, first, covert to avoid interference in execution, hidden after the fact to avoid prosecution, and finally subject to plausible deniability to avoid conviction. 


    Hunt's activities from the time of the Kennedy assassination through 1970 have been muted. But his operations after joining the Nixon White House are well documented. One such operation was a campaign against Daniel Ellsberg and his attorney Lawrence Boudin. The operation involved performing a covert psychological evaluation of Ellsberg, ghostwriting news articles about him, and burglarizing the offices of his psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding. When the compulsive spy wasn't discrediting private citizens, he was falsifying State Department cables to show that Kennedy has ordered the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem and showed the forgeries to Bill Lambert of Time-Life, purporting them to be valid. According to Gordon Liddy, around this same time, as part of Operation Gemstone, he and Hunt propagated allegations against the wife of candidate Ed Muskie, forged a letter from Muskie referring to Canadians as "canucks" and planned the firebombing of the Brookings Institute. 
    In a marvelous interview with David Giammarco in 1999, Hunt remained unrepentant. "You know, I once heard from a fellow who worked for me, a retired colonel, who said 'There's a feeling around here that you let the Agency down, and that you're responsible for the disfavor in which the Agency is held by the general public.' If anything, the Agency owes me an apology because they were the ones who revealed my covert connection, after thirty years of building up a cover."
    Regarding his involvement in the original By of Pigs fiasco, Hunt admits, "I went to Cuba a couple months before and talked to people in all walks of life. And I concluded that any invasion force could not expect any assistance from the Cuban people."
    "History will be a lot less kind to me than it's been to Richard Nixon," Hunt concludes. "My caption will read: Watergate burglar dies at 80-plus. He was implicated in the Kennedy assassination."


  As Nixon supporters hasten to point out, Milhous did win his second term, capturing 60.7 percent of the popular vote. A combination of dirty tricks and happenstance made this inevitable as Muskie fell apart emotionally in New Hampshire when the Gemstone People verbally assaulted his wife, when Henry Jackson was shown to be more reactionary than Nixon himself, when George Wallace was shot and crippled, when Shirley Chisholm was revealed to be an African American woman, and when George McGovern was discredited by his own people.
    In the 1960 Presidential debates between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, then Vice President Nixon attacked his opponent for repeatedly "running down America." Although Kennedy finally replied that he did not need a civics lesson from the likes of Nixon and went on to explain that he had not criticized America but had rather questioned the behavior of certain people in it, still Nixon never quite dropped the patriotism issue that had served him so well in the past. It would be the same Nixon who accused anti-war protesters in the United States of prolonging the Vietnam War by showing communists that Nixon did not have the support of all Americans. Of all the positions available to the President on the peace movement, this was the most cowardly and despicable. A braver and nobler man might have admitted his own inability to have everyone agree with him. But Nixon preferred smearing and shooting to rational thought, as the mothers of four murdered Kent State students could attest. Presumably Nixon meant that citizens in a democracy should voluntarily inhibit their First Amendment rights in order to make it easier for the White House to wage war on its own terms. Any criticism of public policy was interpreted as an attack on the USA.
    Even someone as psychotically paranoid as Nixon tried to not overreact all of the time. And initially he and his aides consoled each other that the Watergate operation's real magnitude would not be revealed. After all, the media was not terribly interested in pursuing the story. With the exception of The Washington Post, very little was reported in the national news until burglar James McCord finally decided the White House was going to let the court fail to investigate and so he began sending letters to Judge John Sirica. Learning of this, the print media could no longer ignore the story, particularly once it was announced that McCord would be appearing before Senator San Ervin's Select Committee.

Frank Fiorini, also known as Frank Sturgis, Watergate burglar, Brigade 2506 coordinator, was also a reputed Kennedy assassination conspirator, at least according to testimony given by Marita Lorenz.
Bernard Barker was an associate of Howard Hunt. He told Ervin's Select Committee that he had been involved in a plan to physically harm Daniel Ellsberg while the latter was speaking at an anti-war demonstration. Barker was a Watergate burglar and Bay of Pigs refugee who identified himself at his burglary arraignment as an "anti-communist," an occupation he shared with burglars Virgilio GonzalezEugenio MartinezAlfred Baldwin, and James McCord
    When asked his occupation by the arraignment judge, McCord stated with apparent unease that he worked for the CIA. Supporting that admission is the fact that once Howard Hunt learned of the burglars' arrest, he contacted an attorney named Douglas Caddy, a man who had worked for the ultra conservative Young Americans for Freedom and also as a legal contract agent for Central Intelligence. Caddy represented the five burglars.
    The involvement of at least two CIA operatives (McCord and Hunt) in an operation that was botched in one of the stupidest ways imaginable--the door bolt was taped to stay open, but instead of securing the tape vertically so it would not be detected by passing security guards, it was placed horizontally, not once but twice, so that there could be no doubt that it would be detected--leads the more suspicious thinkers to wonder if perhaps with Gordon Liddy's Gemstone there may have been a sub-operation to dismantle Nixon. There is not a wealth of evidence to support this conjecture and conjuring a motive for such CIA actions is a stretch; yet given the tenacity of CIA experts Bob Woodward and Jack Anderson, it does make for interesting speculation.
    Initially Nixon had made overtures to bond with the CIA. The most pronounced of these was his installment of Marine Corps General Robert Cushman as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, a move that was largely ineffective due to Director Richard Helms correctly perceiving that Cushman was a spy for Nixon. Nor were White House relations with the Agency helped when Stuart Symington, the Democratic Senator from Missouri, attacked the "cloak of secrecy" that his U.S. involvement in Laos. In October 1969, The New York Times ran several articles about the "secret war in Laos," those articles detailing that the Green Berets had led Meo operations while on contract to the CIA. The ensuing controversy was all the provocation Nixon needed. He ordered the Agency to demonstrate that involvement in Laos had begun under the presidency of his predecessors. 
    Seeing covert actions as a useful tool of administration policy, Nixon proved to be much more involved in controlling the CIA than were any presidents before him. In February 1970, the President's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger drafted National Security Decision Memorandum 40, establishing the Forty Committee to oversee Agency black operations. Committee Forty members were the Deputy Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of Central Intelligence, and Kissinger himself as Chair. Not every CIA operation came under the scrutiny of the Committee. It only affected the 99 percent that cost more than $25,000, that supported political or military groups, those of an economic, paramilitary or counterinsurgency nature, or those that were politically sensitive.
    Even critics of Nixon could admit the CIA needed controlling. At the time of Committee Forty's formation, Nixon ordered the destruction of "all existing toxic weapons." The CIA ignored this directive. One month later, Cambodian head of state Prince Norodom Sihanouk was ousted by a violent coup d'etat backed by the CIA, an action that installed Marshall Lon Nol in the prince's place. This in turn made Nixon's April 1970 bombing of Cambodia arguably retaliation for a CIA action.
    Meanwhile, Operation Chaos expanded. White House aide Tom Houston let it be known that the President would be happy if the program were to encompass domestic groups, especially political opponents and members of the anti-war movement. Thus began the Huston Plan, which involved the CIA in a domestic mail-opening operation and which arranged for evaluation of data on dissent groups collected by the FBI, CIA, NSA and DIA.
    Nixon and the CIA likewise had mutualities of interest in negating the democratically-elected Socialist Salvador Allende in Chile. Concerned over anticipated nationalization of industries involving ITT, Nixon authorized Central Intelligence Director Richard Helms to spend up to ten million dollars and to use his best agents to stop Allende at all costs. 
    Allende was stopped. Nazi General Pinochet was installed. Terror reigned. 

A final issue that bonded the Nixon White House with the CIA was the former's protection of the latter. In the early spring of 1972, Central Intelligence Director Richard Helms learned that a former operative, Victor Marchetti, had written a book about his own time in the Agency. The Director appealed to Nixon for help in quashing any damaging material The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence might contain. Helms argued that the expose would damage national security. Such "tell all" books were more rare in the early 1970s than today and so the Nixon administration took civil action to block the book's release. The actions delayed publication for better than two years. The suit argued that as an employee of the CIA, Marchetti had signed a secrecy agreement which forbade him from divulging security secrets. When the book was finally published in 1974, it was without 168 deletions demanded by the CIA. Not missing from the manuscript was the author's thesis that the Agency had become dangerous due to a "cult of intelligence" determined by the Helms' "mystique of secrecy." Loyalty to the CIA, such as it was, apparently did not extend to the Dire tor. After winning re-election in November 1972, Nixon fired Helms.
Victor Marchetti

Four conversations that took place prior to Watergate:

Haldeman: Huston swears to God there's a file at Brookings.
Nixon: I want it implemented. Get in there and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.
        --June 17, 1971

Ehrlichman: Now I'm going to steal those documents out of the National Archives.
Nixon: You can do that, you know.
        --September 10, 1971

Nixon: Bob, please get me the names of the Jews, you know, the big Jewish contributors of the Democrats. All right. Could we please investigate some of the cocksuckers?
        --September 13, 1971

Nixon: Is [Arthur Bremer, who had just shot and crippled presidential candidate George Wallace] a left winger, right winger?
Colson: Well, he's going to be a let winger by the time we get through, I think.
Nixon: Good. Keep at that, keep at that.
Colson: I just wish that I'd thought sooner about planting a little literature out there. 
     --May 15, 1972

    In an attempt to gain even more control over the Agency and possibly even survive the Watergate revelations, Nixon appointed James R. Schlesinger to the position of Director of Central Intelligence. Schlesinger immediately fired fifteen hundred Agency employees, two-thirds of whom worked in operations. In May 1973, he and Deputy Director of Operations and former Phoenix Program architect William Colby directed that all present and past employees report any illegal activities of which they knew to the new Director. Schlesinger also fired John Huizenga from the Office of National Estimates, a department staffed with veterans of the OSS. Schlesinger's reward after only four months service was to be "promoted" to Secretary of Defense. William Colby became the new Director. 

James R Schlesinger

Ehrlichman: One marginal piece of news that they brought in that has Colson a little shook is that McCord has told the U.S. Attorney that he participated in an operation with Hunt to go out to Las Vegas, leave their airplane with the engines going standing by, go into town, bust reporter Hank Greenspun's safe--
Nixon: Jesus Christ!
Ehrlichman: Yes--steal some stuff from it, jump back in the airplane, and come on back, and that Colson masterminded it.
     --April 13, 1973

    It is also interesting to consider the degree of public concern in the affair. The media today is quick to point out that the public took very little initial interest in the great scandals of the last fifty years--Watergate, Iran-Contra, October Surprise, Whitewater--but the level of interest of the media itself--and a willingness to explain what it is about certain events that should be important to people who have been told they live in a democracy--is a far better predictor of public concern. After all, if the public can be misled into believing that something as trivial and idiotic as the Academy Awards Fashions Show is a burning social issue, they can certainly come to accept attempts to overthrow the electoral process as being at least marginally important. When the parade of perjurers, obsctructionists and self-serving confessors began appearing before Senator Sam Ervin's televised Watergate Committee in the late spring of 1973, most Americans knew very little about the subject under consideration. No particular storyline had emerged to make the issues significant, and so despite a long history of unethical dealings, Nixon and his men did not stand instantly accused. Besides, anyone sufficiently knowledgeable about Nixon's activities would have of necessity known how severely his administration dealt with dissent. That is why only after the honor of the White House began to crumble did it become safe to criticize.
Unidentified Quitter
    It is possible with some degree of accuracy to isolate the moment that safety presented itself. James McCord testified to the Senate Committee on March 28, 1973. he named John Mitchell, Charles Colson, Jeb Magruder and John Dean as Watergate conspirators. The response from key Republicans was immediate. Vice President Spiro Agnew, Republican National Committee chairman George Bush and Senator Barry Goldwater all urged the President to counteract the allegations. Nixon's response was that he would permit his White House staff members to appear before the senate Committee, as well as to testify before the grand jury. As a result, John dean hired himself an attorney. Richard Nixon began praying he would not wake up the next morning.

John Dean

    Agnew was having problems of his own. The U.S.  Attorney in Baltimore was investigating allegations of tax evasion regarding friends of Agnew when he had been Maryland's governor. Rumors of bribes abounded. In August 1973, the investigation hit the pages of The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper repeated reports that Agnew had continued taking bribes even after moving into the White House. The Vice President insisted these allegations were damned lies. It turned out Agnew was the damned liar. Shortly after resigning he plead no contest to tax evasion and was rewarded with a small fine and suspended sentence. His replacement was Gerald Ford.
Spiro Agnew

    Meanwhile, the President was going nuts. Ordered to obey a subpoena by Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, Nixon sneered and instructed Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the Independent Counsel. Rather than comply, Richardson resigned. Deputy AG William Rucklehaus was given the same order and also resigned. Cox was nevertheless ultimately discharged. 
    In response to the behavior of the emotionally unstable Nixon, OPEC announced a boycott of oil sales to America, an act which coincided with a decade of oil industry deregulation in the United States. As a direct result of these two factors, oil prices quadrupled.
    In the Middle East, the Yom Kippur War raged and Soviet troops made tentative gestures in the direction of Israel. U.S. forces went on nuclear alert.
    Lost somewhere between stunned disbelief and cynical reaction, America faced the prospect of admitting its own devaluation. As Ho Chi Minh's forces united Vietnam, the illusion that the United States enjoyed world wide prestige could no longer be maintained. When the follower's of Iran's Ayatollah Khoimeni seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the fifty-two hostages were not so much prisoners as they were American phallic symbols wilting in the ill winds of political upheaval. Neither Presidents Ford nor Carter were able to stimulate the erection of the heart that the public didn't even know it needed until Ronald Wilson Reagan convinced them that such was so. This stiffening would in fact come about with the ascension of the John Wayne of politics, an ascension that dragged America deeper into a hellfire darkness.