Right 2 Think Interviews:

If Art Could Kill: Anatomy of an "Art" Attack: An Interview with Stephen Pearcy by Bruce L. Thiessen 16 August 2005 Stephen Pearcy on his piece, T'anks to Mr. Bush, the war in Iraq, Andres Serrano, and Sinead O'Connor.

History is littered with shrapnel from prior modern "art" attacks on morality, American culture, democracy, and the like. The deleterious sequelae trailing from these attacks are an embarrassment on American culture. When we reflect back on artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe, and his seven perverse portraits depicting human figures engaged in vile sadomasochist acts, and on Andres Serrano's blasphemous piece depicting a small crucifix submerged in Serrano's own urine, we ponder why these items were termed "art."  One of the most shocking "art" attacks of late is an unspeakably offensive expression that reflects an utter disregard and disrespect for the United States, for the President as Officer in Chief of the military, and for patriotism across the nation. Northern Californian "shock artist"/attorney Stephen Pearcy is the perpetrator of this attack. His weapon of choice was his infamous work entitled, "T'anks to Mr. Bush," a piece that depicts a stars-and-stripes-covered map of the US being flushed down a toilet with the words, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." Those of us who come from the creative community are finding ourselves increasingly drawn into a culture war against American values. It is a civil war, but the unexpected strikes from the likes of artists adhering to an extremist agenda are making this anything but civil. How did this repugnant piece of weaponry land right on top of the Department of Justice in Sacramento, where it is now proudly displayed? The artist may have called the shots, but I believe it was his impulsivity, emotional reactivity, and ideological extremism that ultimately ruled. The following is an interview with artist/lawyer Stephen Pearcy, who so graciously allowed me to engage him.  Let's face it: It took courage for him to step into my right-wing ring.  As right-wing/left wing dialogues go, this one was fairly civil, and I don't mean "as in civil war."  There were no cheap shots exchanged.  Personally, I was proud of my restraint.  I made it a point not to pass a fist past this pacifist.  As I do my best to present both sides to you, the public, I ask that you carefully read, ponder, and become engaged into what your tax dollars are funding, and to what is being called- "art." Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen: Will you kindly introduce yourself to those who may not have had the time to keep up with the latest national news or follow the developing story as it concerns your work? Attorney Stephen Pearcy: Sure. My name is Stephen Pearcy; I live in Berkeley, California with my wife, Virginia. We grew up in Sacramento, so we have many roots in that area. My wife and I are both attorneys. Before we went to law school, we earned our bachelor degrees at UC Davis in mathematics. Although we live in Berkeley, we also have a home in the Land Park neighborhood of Sacramento, and we stay there occasionally. We only moved to Berkeley last August. Before that, we lived in our Land Park home year-round. While we lived there, we often placed political messages in front of our home. We started doing that soon after 9-11 because we grew very concerned about Americans' tolerance with the Bush administration's increasing disregard for constitutional and human rights. Our Sacramento home became a focal point in February 2005 after we placed a display of a soldier on our home with a noose around its neck and a sign reading, "Your Tax Dollars at Work." Within days of the first news report, a trespasser climbed our home in front of television cameras, tore down our display and then gave a news interview. The following weekend, we replaced the display, this time with a sign that said, "Bush Lied, I Died." As we replaced our display, we had a great deal of support from local community activists. Members of the Veterans for Peace held and stabilized the ladder for me as I stapled up that second display. Within a few days, however, our second display was also torn down by a trespasser/vandal/thief. That wrongdoer was also interviewed by a news reporter. The following week, the right-wing group, Move America Forward, held a candlelight vigil across the street from our home. At that event, an even larger crowd of anti-war and free-speech supporters gathered on our side of the street to defend and support our soldier displays. About 400 people in total were present. Eventually, the crowds and media went away, but the dialogues continued. A few months ago, I was invited to submit my "political protest art" for consideration as part of an art exhibit sponsored by the California Lawyers for the Arts. The exhibit was to open at the Sacramento County Public Law Library and remain for two months, whereupon it would travel to the CA Attorney General's office. I submitted my soldier display and a painting that I made two years ago to place on my front lawn on the 4th of July. The painting depicted an outline of the US with an American flag in place of the states all shown going down a toilet. The caption read, "T'anks to Mr. Bush." Both of my pieces were accepted, and both went on display in the exhibition at the public law library. After two months, various pieces were moved from the law library to the AG's office. My painting was one of the pieces moved; the soldier display is still at the law library. Within days of the opening of the exhibition at the AG's office, right-wingers staged a public outcry, and another media frenzy arose. My political protest art was once again at the center of the controversy, which culminated last week, when about 600 people gathered in front of the AG's office to support and oppose the art exhibition. Dr. BLT: To allow our readers to place the controversy in context, please tell us a little bit about where you were born, where you grew up, your current living/work situation, and the role your background and upbringing may have in terms of influencing and shaping your work. Pearcy: I was born in Kansas, but that won't shed light on anything because I was only there for three months. My dad was a navigator in the US Air Force, so we moved a few times and ended up in Sacramento when I was three. The most influential roles of my background were my college and legal educations. Both taught me how to think and reason carefully, analytically and logically. Before I returned to college to earn my bachelor's degree, I was a full-time Sacramento County Sheriff's deputy. I worked on patrol and in the jail, and I saw a lot of civil rights deprivations. In law school, and afterward, I read many, many cases involving outrageous conduct by police and other governmental officials. My experiences have taught me that there is a compelling need for improvement in the entire criminal justice system. There is a lack of accountability, and there are far too many hurdles to bring legal actions against government officials who commit rights deprivations while acting under color of authority. Dr. BLT: Most of us have heard myriad characterizations of your work, some extremely pejorative (even condemning) some complimentary, and some in between. I'm interested in knowing how you would describe your most recent work, the one on display at the department of Justice in Sacramento. Pearcy: I would describe it as political yard art. I painted the piece for the sole purpose of conveying a political message from my front lawn. The message was not profound or deep: it was a simple image that conveyed the direct message that the country is going down the toilet and that the president is taking us there. I didn't paint the piece for an art exhibition. I spent about twenty minutes on it on the morning of the 4th of July, 2003. I painted it on a leftover piece of sheetrock. It's been rained on many times. Of all the pieces in the exhibit, mine is the only one that you could put in the front yard and not worry about damaging it. The people who criticize its artistic content are wasting their time. Any five year-old could have painted it. It was never about quality and skill. Nonetheless, it is a huge success; because my intent was to expend a minimal amount of effort to produce an image that would draw attention to both the image and the message. Again, it was originally intended to capture the attention of passersby in front of my home. Now it's gotten national attention, so it's succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. Dr. BLT: Surely you knew you would offend people, (particularly those on the right) by such an expression. Was it your intention to alienate those of us on the right? What would make it worth it to you to offer this work, even with the knowledge that you would be offending so many people? Pearcy: The main purpose of both displays was to convey a bold message to let others know how we feel about the state of affairs. We suspected that many others agreed with us, and we learned that we were correct. Many others thanked us for doing something that they acknowledged they didn't have the nerve to do. We knew some people would take offense to the content, but we thought that it was more important to show others that there are in fact educated, professional people who earn a decent living and live in a nice neighborhood who think the way we do. We think that's an important message to send, regardless of whether some people would be offended. You might call that our "greater-good" analysis. In addition, for those people who get so wrapped up in their own mindset of American arrogance that they believe that we're all behind the war and the rally behind the flag, I think that it's good to remind them by example that we're not all on the same page. If the sight offends them too much, then it is good that they be desensitized and eventually come to realize that our Constitution protects the expression of our views as much as theirs. This is exactly what happened after we put out our soldier display: first there was a reactionary stage involving anger, but later, after some desensitizing, people began to realize that this was protected speech. It was a good learning experience for the more arrogant, over-reactive right-wingers. Dr. BLT: Many feel you owe them, the country, and the president an apology for work they regard as an abomination. How would you feel about offering them an apology right here and now and offering to voluntarily remove your work from the department of Justice? Pearcy: An apology is an expression of regret. I would be lying if I said I regretted creating my images. What I'm sorry about is that so many people don't realize that the president is misleading them about so many different things. I'm sorry to see people vote against their own interests -- e.g., elderly people who spend thousands of dollars on prescription drugs and health care; young people who will need social security someday; poor people who think the tax breaks are for them; military people who enlist and are assured money for college; the many people who think that the war is about freedom at home and think that the world has become safer since we invaded Iraq, etc. I'm sorry to see so many people fooled, but I do my part to expose the truth. Dr. BLT: As a Mennonite, I was raised to be a pacifist.  In fact, many of us "die-hard" pacifists had "turned the other cheek" so many times, our heads were spinning, and we could no longer tell our facial cheeks from our butt cheeks.  One day a simple reality set in: There is evil in the world, and evil does not respect pacifism. With the war in Iraq, we have indeed paid a high price, especially in terms of the unspeakable loss of lives. But isn't there a time when pacifism is interpreted as weakness? Pearcy: No, we should have focused our efforts on improving our relations with the world's nations. This would not matter unless Saddam felt so emboldened that he actually launched an offensive against the US or an ally. How we're perceived will always be a function of how we react to given circumstances. Right now, the majority of the world regards us as arrogant warmongers. They perceive us that way because of what we've done. It's egotistical if we're so concerned about being perceived as weak that we'll invade another country against the informed judgment of the majority of the world's nations. Dr. BLT: Didn't Iraq's repeated, innumerable violations of signed agreements render the approach of the world community to his innumerable violations impotent and ineffective? Pearcy: What about our innumerable human rights violations? Sanctioned torture, indiscriminate bombings in complete disregard of civilian losses of life, prison abuse abroad, prison abuse at home, detentions without charges, murders by military people and only minor sentences in response, arming of Israel to use against Palestinians, etc. Why is it war when we do it and terrorism if they do it back? Dr. BLT: How do you feel the US should have responded to a nation, and to Saddam (a violent, ruthless dictator bent on consistently thumbing his nose at the UN) and the world community? So many UN resolutions were signed, and then immediately violated. Pearcy: Yes, like the US agreement to act with NATO. Dr. BLT: Just how effective do you believe yet another resolution would have been? Pearcy: We can defend our nation without launching an offensive. Anyhow, what you're asking is really no different from someone in China or Iran asking whether they should pass a resolution condemning the US or instead simply invade the US (perhaps together?) in order to liberate its people from a president they believe is evil and a war criminal and who is using his military to conquer other weak nations for illegitimate ends. Dr. BLT: How far is too far when it comes to expressing oneself creatively? Pearcy: Generally, the biggest concern is whether something is criminal; the next concern is whether the speaker is willing to accept the fallout, if any, over his/her expression. A lot of people like to say, "There are consequences for speech." Yes, that's true, but the 1st Amendment is there to protect people from unlawful consequences. Dr. BLT: Is there any point at which you would draw the line? Pearcy: Personally, yes, I wouldn't display just anything. But what I would do has nothing to do with constitutional protections. That's really the distinction here. Dr. BLT: How about the [expletive] Christ, Andres Serrano's depiction of a plastic crucifix submerged in his own urine? Pearcy: I wouldn't display it, but, again, the 1st Amendment still protects anyone who does. Dr. BLT: When Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of Pope Paul on the stage, did she go too far? Pearcy: Not as far as I'm concerned. I don't idolize cloth or paper images or material goods. Tear up anything you want as far as I'm concerned. For that matter, I have no problem with burning a flag or a Bible or a pair of Levis jeans. If I start with a blank piece of paper and then write "God is great" on it, does it suddenly become a sacred document that can't be torn? Ridiculous! The picture of the Pope was no different. It was once a blank piece of paper. A flag was once a spool of thread and before that cotton, a seed, dirt, etc. People sure get crazy about symbols. Dr. BLT: How  about those who commit lewd, immoral acts on the stage as a form of artistic expression? Pearcy: I think it's ridiculous when people do that, but I also think it's good to have a constitution that protects that kind of speech. Popular speech doesn't really need 1st Amendment protection: it's protected by virtue of its popularity. The speech that the 1st Amendment really gets at is the unpopular speech. Dr. BLT: Should there be boundaries in art, and, if so, who should decide where those boundaries should be erected? Pearcy: Some legal boundaries already exist. The US Supreme Court has had a tough time articulating standards, such as obscenity, so I certainly don't have the answer. I generally favor protecting as much speech as possible, including speech with which I disagree or speech I find offensive and outrageous. Dr. BLT: Is it possible that you could be underestimating some of your childhood and adolescent experience in shaping your present state of being and action?  Pearcy: I responded to your question by referencing the aspects that first came to my mind when I considered what I thought were most significant factors influencing my political views and reasons for communicating the same.  College and law school educations seemed most important to my development of applying reason and analysis to a given sets of facts.  Certainly, the fact that I learned how to speak and read and write as a child is also significant, but if we were to examine every possible significant link in the causal chain, we'd never get a decent answer.  So, again, I just referenced what I thought was most important. Incidentally, I did take some art classes in junior high and high school, but so did a lot of other people who don't use imagery to convey political ideas.  Similarly, there are probably also people who do use art to make political statements but who didn't take art in high school.  Also, I've spoken to many people who have come up with great ideas about political imagery.  Maybe one big difference between me and them is that I actually carried out my idea a couple of times. Dr. BLT: Your post 9/11 "observation" regarding "...Americans' tolerance with the Bush administration's increasing disregard for constitutional and human rights," sounds to me like a conclusion based on a highly subjective interpretation of events.  Couldn't one observe the very same phenomena, and interpret it as "...Americans' realization that the Bush administration must become increasingly protective of the physical safety and security of American citizens, and that, for the sake of safety and security, some degree of practical compromise must be introduced."?  After all, what good are "constitutional and human rights," if nobody is around to exercise such rights?  Granted, life may not be worth living in a country completely bereft of such rights, but shouldn't we all be prepared to make some degree of sacrifice in the interest of our own survival?  Why must the post 9/11 actions of the Bush administration automatically be interpreted in a cynical manner?  Did you ever entertain the possibility that the Bush administration, while admittedly making its share of mistakes, had, and has, the best interest of American citizens in mind?   Or does having that sort of faith in government render one a gullible, ignorant fool?   Pearcy: Let me give you one example.  The 4th Amendment protects all of us from (unwarranted) searches of our homes.  That law means that cops cannot just arbitrarily enter our homes and start rummaging through our things.  The framers drafted that law knowing that some bad people who kept bad things in their homes would not be discovered, but the framers and the people thought that being free from such intrusions was more important than catching a few more bad guys.  I believe that the Bush administration and many republicans would be quite happy if we all just agreed to let the cops come into our homes and look around anytime they said that they were suspicious about something.  Many republicans often say things like, "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care if you're searched?"  That kind of mindset is completely contrary to the principles upon which this country was founded.  Expressions such as that suggest that the speaker really does not like our constitution or, for that matter, this country!  We've always had bad people, and we always will.  No matter how much freedom we give up, if someone wants to kill a whole bunch of us, they will be able to do so just as easily as if we maintain all of our freedoms.  Just because it's harder to blow up a plane doesn't mean someone can't kill just as many people somewhere else.  People are being misled if they think that by giving up some freedoms it will make it more difficult for terrorists.  If you want, go ahead and describe any realistic scenario involving fewer freedoms in a USA that you wouldn't mind living in, and I'll still be able to give you an example of how easy it would be for someone to kill a bunch of innocent civilians.  Giving up freedom is not the answer; it will only lend itself to a more corrupt government and a more dangerous world.    In the Final Analysis Reader, what is your final analysis of Pearcy and his so-called "art?" I will leave that analysis up to you.  As for my "impressionistic interpretation," of Pearcy, and granted, it is a subjective one by nature: Pearcy appears to be a man on a mission, and his present day predilection is for extremist artistic expression.  Moreover, he appears to be a man of selective sympathies, ostensibly showing virtually no compassion for the real victims of 9/11, and virtually no disdain for the acts of terrorists.  His compassion is putatively directed towards victims of supposed American occupiers.  His disdain is apparently directed at democracy, the good old USA, and the president.  It is my impression that I did not have to throw him for a loop in this interview.  He seems to have grabbed on to that rope he used to hang an effigy of a soldier, and use it to engage in a deadly ideological act of self-strangulation.

 Interview with Dr. BLT and his newly release CD:  Right-Wingers Need Love Too! Also by Dr. BLT:

CAPITOL HILL-ary: words and music by Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen, aka Dr. BLT (c) 2005

www.drblt.com/music/CapitolHill2.mp3

Right 2Think: What possesses a psychologist to take up pen, paper and a guitar and begin the journey into right winged flavored songs?

DR.BLT:  As a psychologist, I have adopted a contextual understanding of human problems.  As such, I attempt to intervene, not only on the individual level, but in a preventative manner, with rock, country and "shrink rap," music as my prevention tool (or, as I refer to it in a song, my Weapon of Mass Construction).    Music can be used to infiltrate our auditory environment with hope, courage, and positive energy.  It can be used to reinforce life-sustaining values and principles.  It can be used to promote a societal ambience that is conducive to psychological and spiritual wellbeing.  

The journey you refer to began with a longing to preserve the foundations upon which this nation was established, even as I witnessed that very foundation gradually becoming eroded by a very threatening form of ideological incrementalism.  It was an incrementalism based on liberal ideology, and grounded in secular humanism.   It was the type of incrementalism that, in my opinion, could only lead to moral and spiritual implosion.  

The United States of America was struggling to survive, but I didn't realize how great the threat to our survival was until 9/11.  Suddenly, my longing to preserve our foundation evolved into a burgeoning passion.   The whole nation suddenly appeared galvanized, united and boldly patriotic.  Talk of war in Iraq brought out old divisions between liberals and conservatives that had been glossed over by the thin veneer of situational consanguinity.  I noticed a trend.  The ostensible patriotism of liberals seemed to diminish rapidly, while the patriotism of conservatives remained strong.  I wanted to align myself with that sort of steadfast, inviolable patriotism.  Instead of becoming a jingoist, I avoided extremism, and, alternatively, opted to express my patriotism in the form of jingle-ism.  I began to focus on political and patriotic themes in many of the songs I was writing.   

When Bush ran for President in 2000, I gained an appreciation of just how much hatred there was out there for those who espouse conservative values.  That's when I began to increasingly merge my political beliefs with my musical interests.  My first politically charged song was in reaction to the French resistance to holding Iraq accountable at the UN.  It was called Veto This!  One day at work, a co-worker burst into my office and asked, "Did you write a song called, Veto This!?" I said, yes, that's my song, and he told me it was playing on the radio.  Naturally, I turned on my radio, and there it was, on the nationally-syndicated Hugh Hewitt Show.  I heard it three more times that very same afternoon on that very same show.  That's when I realized, the demand for a musical spokesman for the right was so great.
 
R2T:  Are you a self-employed psychologist or do you work with a group?

BLT:  I have worked in a private practice setting in the past, in Beverly Hills and Calabasas, California.  I have also worked in a group as the Director of Children’s Services.  I decided private practice, be it in a group, or as an independent practitioner, was not for me.  I presently work as a clinical psychologist in a forensic capacity, with an entity whose administrators prefer to keep their workers out of the press and, further, one that would rather I didn't mention the entity that employs me when interacting with folks in the media.  I better respect their wishes if I want to keep my day job.  In addition to my work for that particular entity, I also teach psychology classes in the evenings for various colleges and universities.

R2T:  Does your profession as a psychologist play a role in your view of the world?

BLT:  It most definitely does.  First of all, understanding the psychological complexities of the human mind allows me to put the compassion in my conservative point of view.  Second, my background in psychology allows me to be more aware of the psychological perils associated with liberalism and its concomitant poison--- secular humanism.  For example, our youth are growing up without a sense of values and without a sense of identity.  Their role models are folks like Insane Clown Posse, and rappers like 50 Cent, and Lil' Kim, both liberals who appear to worship materialism, espouse violence, and praise the unbridled expression of sexuality without regard for consequences—not to mention the glorifying illicit drugs in the interest of their reckless pursuit of pleasure and their avoidance of pain at all costs.   The more we avoid the painful realities of life, or try to escape from them, the more pain we ultimately end up with.  I’m not perfect, so I don’t stand in judgment of these artists in terms of their character, but I do believe we must draw the line when it comes to our young people.  I believe that, as mortals, none of us stand on morally high ground in and of ourselves, but for God's sake, let's not sell this garbage to our youth!  

I am attempting to combat the efforts of these rap artists with "shrink rap," of my own, on songs like A Day Late, and A Dollar Short (Dr. B.L.T.'s 50 Cent Piece) and Assault With a Deadly Woman, my bittersweet tribute to Lil' Kim and her lyrical attack on the minds of adolescents.


R2T:  Has it made your song writing better? ?Given you more to think about? ?Skewed you, so that your tolerance for stupidity is almost nil?

BLT:  Tolerance is used these days as a code word to all would-be blind worshippers of the emperor of liberalism---those who fail to notice that he has no cloths (or, in this case, few or no values).  As a psychologist, and a Christian, I strive to accept all people, without prejudice, and to show them love.  That does not mean I have to accept everything they believe in, or celebrate whatever lifestyles they happen to adopt.  

As a psychologist, I'm able to see through more garbage, yet, I've acquired the skills to carefully sift through that garbage before calling it "garbage."  I try to be objective, but of course that is an ideal that none of us wholly attain.  

R2T:  Do you view yourself more as a rock/country musician, a protest musician, or a folk artist? ?Do you even like to pigeonhole yourself into any category?

BLT:  None of the above, and all of the above.  Music, for me, is simply a way of expressing myself, and, for better, or worse, there are many sides of me.  I use music to express thoughts, and emotions such as pleasure, pain, and everything in between.  Songs from Right-wingers Need Love Too were adopted as protest songs by members of the College Republicans in New York City prior to the presidential election, and were blared from their vehicles at rallies held by the likes of Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton.

I don't protest the use of these songs as protest songs.   My style of music depends on how I am feeling on any particular day.  Classic country and classic rock are my roots, but I often venture out into "shrink rap" music (the antithesis of hard core street rap), contemporary Christian, and modern rock.  Johnny Cash is the artist I look to most frequently for inspiration, as he had so many sides to him, and had, and continues to have, such a profound influence on all of these styles of music.    

R2T:  How many CD's have you produced?

BLT:  Seven full-length CDs, and one cassette: all independent, small scale, low-budget releases.   The Truth Hurts, (an inspirational solo rock album); Everywhere (with my old band, Practically Poetz), One September Mournin' (a 9/11 retrospective CD), A Caregiver's Heart (a CD for those in the helping profession) Music Through the Mind's Eye (another CD tailored to the needs of helping professionals); and Christmas Tree Hugger, Dr. B.L.T.'s Greatest Prospective Christmas Hits (Volume One). I also produced a CD for Daniel Sisco, an artist who covered a number of my modern Christian rock songs on a CD called, Handful of Tunes.  Furthermore, with a little help from Mark Yeary, 20-year-member of Merle Haggard and the Strangers and Merle's once-right-hand-man, and Oakland rap artist, Michael C., I also put out a cassette called Homeless for the Holidays.  That was back in the days before CDs were popular.  


R2T:  How many collaborations have you done with other musicians?

BLT:  Too many to speak of as it pertains to individual songs, but in terms of collections, there are two CDs: Bakersfield to Baghdad, a compilation CD for the troops in Iraq, and One September Mournin' which involved all original material, but was performed by various bands and artists, in sum cases, all together, on individual songs.   

R2T:  Of the songs you've written, is there one in particular that has special meaning to you personally? 

BLT:  The one that has the most special meaning to me is Extraordinary Joe, a tribute to my father-in-law that I wrote upon news of his death.   At first I could not get through the first verse without breaking down in tears.  It took quite a few tries before I was able to record it, for that reason alone.  There are many close seconds.   Several come to me off the top of my head: The Truth Hurts, Oklahoma, One September Mournin', Merle Hasn't Lost His Fightin' Side, Sunrise, Reveal Yourself to Me, Everywhere, and, last but not least my prostitution-prevention song, You're Not the Kind of Ho that Santa Had in Mind.  The ones that come to me the fastest are generally my best.  

R2T:  Has there been one that has been more difficult for you to write and/or perform? 

BLT:  The writing generally comes easy.   The best songs come to me when I'm not trying to write a song. Extraordinary Joe was easy to write, but as I mentioned, it was extremely difficult to perform when I first wrote it.


R2T:  Have you ever written and recorded one that you wished you hadn't bothered with at all?

BLT:  No, I don't regret any of them.  I will be the first to admit that, some, much to my chagrin, have been certifiably awful, but they ended up being side roads that ultimately transported me to decidedly more noble territory.

R2T:  Your latest CD "Right Wingers Need Love Too" was written over how long of a period of time? 

BLT:  It took about three or four long months to complete the entire CD.  These were the three months leading up to the election of 2004.
R2T:  Why the title for the CD? ?Are Right-Wingers lacking in affection from the outside world?

BLT:  I read a lot of newspapers and have noticed a great deal of intense hatred expressed in the media (either overtly or covertly) for those who espouse conservative values.  I'm sure there are also many right-wingers who hate left-wingers, but right I was trying to address that element of hatred I call "new age rage," coming from those who are supposed to be the most "tolerant" of differences.   Those are generally liberals.  When I lived in Sacramento, for the most part, a bastion for left-wing ideology, I noticed that the hatred in the press mirrored the hatred that was so pervasive in the community-at-large.

R2T:  The Right-Wingers CD has many overtones of 9/11 and the following incidents that took place from that point on. ?Do you remember what you were doing the morning of 9/11?

BLT:  I was on my way to Starbucks on the corner of 19th and J Streets in Sacramento, on my way to have some coffee and a Maple Oat Nut Scone.  I heard the news on the radio and was sure the world had come to an end.  Actually the world, as we once knew it, had done just that.  The Starbucks junk food seems to be a therapeutic way to start my day (though it's not too therapeutic in terms of its effects on my body).  Some people get stoned in an effort to cope with life's harsh realities, and Bob Dylan said in a song, "Everybody Must get Stoned."  I disagree.   I get "sconed."  There was a lot to cope with that morning.  It felt like the rug had been pulled out from under the world.   Needless to say, the coffee and scone did not do its job that morning.  I had a class to teach at Alliant University later that night.  I had a traditional lecture planned, but we used the class to vent raw emotion stemming from that shocking event.  The emotions expressed in the class, including of my own—the ones I had, up to that point, repressed, were grist for the mill for what became One September Mournin', and, later, Right-wingers Need Love Too.  

R2T:  I would assume that you feel you're very patriotic. Do you feel then that those who have opposing views and lean towards the left side of the political fence are unpatriotic?

BLT:  I feel patriotic, but I’m sure there are many who are more patriotic than I am—those who have actually fought wars to protect our country, for example.  To answer the second part of your question, my answer is: No, not necessarily.  We all need to broaden our wingspan from time to time.  I have many left-leaning friends.   It is OK to have differences of opinion.  That's what makes this country great.  It's not OK to express our differences in ways that are disrespectful and in ways that denigrate those who fought so hard to preserve the freedoms we all take for granted.

R2T:  Track nine of the CD has a song written for the Gipper. ?Did you ever meet Ronald Reagan?

BLT:  Unfortunately not.  I didn't even appreciate his magnanimous legacy until I was well into my adult years.  But to say that I greatly admire him and all that he represented, would  be a pathetic, abysmally crude understatement.  Though I haven't met “The Gipper,” I have spoken with his son, Michael Reagan, and he is a great man who is working hard to preserve his father’s legacy, and is a legacy in his own right.   

R2T:  What was it that Reagan meant to you and what do you think he meant to our nation as a whole?

BLT:  If life ever deals me some cruel blows and I begin to wonder about God’s presence, and even His existence,  I consider Reagan, and his legacy, and I proclaim in my heart, “Yes, there is a God!”  No, that God was not Reagan himself, but Reagan lived as if God were walking beside him every step of the way.  His optimism was his greatest legacy.  He didn't succumb to what I refer to as the "cyanide of cynicism" that has greatly weakened our nation.  He stood for something.  He fought for the very ideals that I hold dear.  He was an idealist, but also a pragmatist.  He believed in peace through strength.   He got results.  He was perhaps one of the most powerful men that the world has ever encountered.  Yet he delivered that power with the utmost sense of humility.  His role in bringing down communism cannot be overstated.   He was known as a great orator.  When he spoke, folks of all walks of life sat up and paid attention.  He was a man of passion and compassion.  Oh, by the way, he wasn't such a bad actor either.

R2T:  What are your future plans with your music?

BLT:  Though I may have plans, those plans cannot succeed unless God wills that to happen.  I never planned to have a role, even a small role, on a music video that would be voted Groundbreaking Music Video of the Year at the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards.  That was part of God’s plan.  If it did nothing else, it may have helped to get young people across the world to break down stereotypes of psychologists.  Furthermore, my mortal view of success is narrow and shallow compared to God's idea of success.  Nevertheless, I'm sure becoming rich and famous has its advantages.  The more noble side of me, however, simply wants my music to get people to think deeply and to feel deeply.  I want to make a positive difference in the world with my music.  I don't want my songs to simply sit on a shelf and collect dust.  I don't care if they are hated, as long as they are heard.  As far as my future is concerned, that’s in God’s hands.  Some people say, “It’s all good.”  They may be mildly delusional.  I say, no, it’s not all good, but in the end, it’s all God.  

R2T:  Do you eventually want to produce other musician's music?

BLT:  Right now, while other artists often cover my songs, there are too many would-be songs racing around in my head to be able to even think of producing other musician's music.  My mind is like a crowded freeway during rush hour.  Every song concept is a car trying to get to its destination.   

R2T:  Would you like to actually get a record deal and become mainstream?

BLT:  That sounds exciting, and the prospect carries with it some obvious, distinct advantages.  However, in the real world, that experience can often kill the spontaneity of an artist and render that artist a veritable slave to the record industry.  Just ask artists like the man formerly known as the man formerly known as Prince.  He has wholly emancipated himself from big record companies, and yet his latest CD was a colossal success, both in terms of commercial sales and in terms of artistic value.  I'm not saying I would turn away an offer from a major record label.   However, in terms of keeping my music fresh and vital, accepting such a deal could ultimately be my nemesis.  In the interest of preserving artistic integrity, part of me would rather swim against the current than become mainstream.

R2T:  Would that mean though giving up what you believe if you did though?
BLT:  It could very well mean just that.   We must all be careful of what we wish for.

R2T:  As you get ready to bring your first child into this world, what do you as the psychologist; musician and most importantly dad- want to show your child about this world we live in?

BLT:  Thanks for asking.  I would want to protect her from all of the terrible dangers lurking out there in the real world, as much as possible, though I would not be able to protect her from everything.  I would not want to paint a picture of the world so bleak that she would feel hopeless, or would be prone to give up on the world.  I would want to supply her with the tools for surviving and thriving in a world that is bent on self-destruction.   In terms of politics, I would of course brainwash her into becoming a staunch conservative.  I’m kidding of course.  Along with her mother, we would introduce her to our belief system, but give her space to make up her own mind, particularly when she is older.  I want her to feel loved, and to be able to grow to be a loving, caring, Godly, giving woman in an often cruel, and unloving world.  I cannot hope to be the perfect father---far from it.  I will ultimately have to put her wellbeing and her future, in God’s hands.    

R2T:  Any other thoughts to share?

BLT:  I have only a couple of comments.  First, I want to thank you for your interest in interviewing me.  It's been a distinct pleasure.  Second, I post new, mostly original songs on my Free MP3 Jukebox almost every day, or, at the very least, every week.  There is something there for everybody, not just right-wingers.   I'm working on several CDs right now, and they represent a wide variety of styles and themes.   Free sample songs from each of those projects are available.  My web address is:  www.drblt.com

Dr. B.L.T.'s Free MP3 Jukebox address is:

http://www.drblt.com/freesong.htm  


Finally, here is a link to my latest tune, Right-wing Blogger (With a Song), from the forthcoming Right-wingers Need Love Too II CD:

Right-wing Blogger (With a Song)
http://www.drblt.com/music/RWBlog4.mp3  

One More Chip on America's Sovereignty

Kerry L Marsala- www.opeds.com; www.mensnewsdaily.com

The following was an interview with Fred Gedrich-the Freedom Alliances Sr. Policy Analyst responsible for monitoring and reporting on UN activities and national security issues. Mr. Gedrich speaks frankly about how the United States sovereignties are in constant danger and how there are those who are trying to whittle away at our independence. The establishment of the International Criminal Court system has been a source of contention between those states who desire us to ratify the statue and for those of us who don't wish to be a part of the ICC. With our recent withdraw from negotiations, Mr. Gedrich explains why events are taking place as they are now and what our future possibly will hold for our military serving abroad.

Marsala: Can you explain, Mr. Gedrich, the function of the ICC?

Gedrich: The primary purpose of the International Criminal Court is to bring to justice persons responsible for the most egregious war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The Court entered into force July 1, 2002 - and only crimes committed after that date are prosecutable.

Marsala: Who are the chief ICC supporters?

Gedrich: Chief ICC supporters are the UN, European Union, World Federalist Association, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, left-wing news media, and people like Ted Turner and the Democrat presidential candidate, John Kerry, among others.

As witnessed in War on Terror statements, these institutions, and people would attempt to use the Court and the UN to control U.S. foreign policy, national security decisions, and military affairs by subjecting U.S. military members and leaders to unjust arrest and prosecution.

Marsala: How many judges sit on the ICC?

Gedrich: The Hague-based Court has 18 judges and a prosecutor selected by the nations, which are states party to the 1998 ICC Treaty (Rome Statute). Proponents would like the Court to assert global jurisdiction - even on individuals in countries that are not states party to the Treaty.

Marsala: How many countries have actually signed the Statute?

Gedrich: 139 countries, including the U.S. signed the Statute, by the December 2000 deadline. To date, only 94 of 191 UN nations have become states party to the Treaty. Collectively, these 94 countries represent less than 1/4 of the world's 6.2 billion population. China, India, and Japan haven't signed or ratified the Treaty. Russia, United States and Israel signed the Treaty, but like many others decided not to ratify it.

Marsala: Former President Clinton authorized the U.S. signature prior to leaving office, so why did President Bush decide against its ratification?

Gedrich: Yes, President Clinton authorized U.S. signature in the waning days of his administration. But, Clinton did advise the next President not to send it to Senate for ratification unless significant Treaty flaws, which infringe on U.S. sovereignty and constitutional due process protections (such as trial by jury and protection against double jeopardy), were corrected.

The U.S. tried for nearly four years to resolve, through negotiations with Treaty officials. President Bush and the vast majority of congressional legislators were also concerned that the Court was not rooted in the same democratic principles as our country. As well, they wouldn't be accountable to anyone, and based on the hyperbole surrounding its birth, it could be used as a political instrument by U.S. international foes.

Marsala: At this point what did the Bush Administration do?

Gedrich: After the ICC negotiations failed in the Spring of 2002, President Bush wisely withdrew the U.S. from the Treaty and the U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan anti-International Criminal Court legislation (the American Service Members Protection Act) which the President immediately signed into law. This was put into place to further protect American soldiers and leaders from the unjust grip of the Court.

It shouldn't go unnoticed that presumptive Democrat nominee, John Kerry, voted against the American Service Members Protection Act.

Marsala: Why did the United States delegation break off negotiations to extend the proposed arrangements with the Security Council?

Gedrich: The U.S. simply didn't have the votes in the UN Security Council, to get the resolution passed. Adversaries of the U.S. in the War on Terror undoubtedly used the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as leverage to prevent the U.S. from getting the necessary votes.

Marsala: Will there possibly be speculation from the states that have signed the treaty with the ICC, that the only reason the United States halted negotiations, is because of the events surrounding Abu Ghraib?

Gedrich: Foes of the United States will certainly attempt to use the Abu Ghraib prison scandal for many reasons, including domestic political opportunism, illustrated by the likes of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Others like UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, billionaire Democrat George Soros, and left-wing groups like MoveOn.Org, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, seek to buttress their own biased views. Claiming the U.S. is a greater threat to international peace and security than the terrorists who purposely kill and maim innocent men, women, and children.

Marsala: Will the United States keep themselves from participating in UN Peacekeeping missions altogether?

Gedrich: The U.S. will closely review every proposed peacekeeping mission and determine whether it's in the U.S. national security interest to participate.

Marsala: Since the United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN, what will become of the UN Peacekeeping missions?

Gedrich: U.S. peacekeepers represent a relatively small portion of UN peacekeepers. However, the UN peacekeeping mission cannot survive without U.S. support and funding. The U.S. Department of State estimated that the U.S. provided nearly $1 billion for UN peacekeeping in 2002.

Marsala: What will be the ramifications of our resolution withdraw? Does this place those in the U.S. Military serving abroad in danger? Can they now be brought to trial more than once, if they are accused and travel abroad anytime?

Gedrich: The U.S. has the finest system of juris prudence in the world. Anyone accused of a crime, like the perpetrators of the scandalous activities in Abu Ghraib prison, are quickly brought to justice - but more importantly, the protections accorded to the accused by the U.S. Constitution, not the UN Charter, or the provisions of the ICC Statute. The supporters of the Court would like everyone to believe that it will not interfere in situations where national courts have adjudicated the issue.

However, a problem arises when global ideologues disagree with decisions reached by American criminal or military courts (i.e., when someone is exonerated). In cases like those, the ICC prosecutor could possibly issue a warrant and expose an American to double jeopardy. If the Court and any country are foolish enough to do that, the U.S. President has the authority under the American Service Member Protection Act, to rescue that American.

Marsala: You state that an U.S. President has the authority under the American Service Member Protection Act to rescue an arrested American, but how would we execute such a plan?

Gedrich: If the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest of any American, that American could be picked up and delivered to the Hague if traveling through a country that is states party to the Treaty (i.e., France, Germany, and Belgium). Unless, the U.S. has a bilateral immunity agreement with that country.

Marsala: Since the American delegation withdrew negotiations of extension for one more year, will it affect our proposal of staying in Iraq to help establish their government till 2005?

Gedrich: It will not effect our decision to stay in Iraq. Iraq isn't part of the Treaty, but it will not deter U.S. critics in the War on Terror from alleging the U.S. is responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

It shouldn't be overlooked that immediately after the horrible 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Court proponents quickly demonstrated their anti-American views. The ICC Coalition warned the U.S. that "indiscriminate" military retaliation is "illegal." The UN Human Rights Commission expressed deep concern over the U.S. adoption of anti-terrorist and national security laws. The Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, and International Federation for Human Rights ranked the U.S. as the world's "worst" human rights abuser.

Amnesty International accused the U.S. of harboring "torturers," and the European Parliament criticized the U.S. for "international law violations" and "mistreating" captured Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.

Marsala: How will the White House pursue bilateral arrangements on future US troop deployments and avoid the Security Council altogether?

Gedrich: The U.S. State Department, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton has negotiated 90 bilateral immunity agreements - and more are in process.

It's interesting to note that it's taken the ICC six years to get 94 countries to ratify the Treaty. It's taken the U.S. State Department only two years to get 90 countries to side with the U.S. and agree to not allow the ICC to have jurisdiction over Americans.

When the ICC entered into force in 2002, the U.S. obtained UN Security Council approval, in 2002 and 2003, which prevented the ICC from prosecuting U.S. peacekeepers. The concern by U.S. officials was the political operatives in the Court could levy frivolous charges against U.S. peacekeepers as they were deployed around the world on various humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. The U.S. also began to forge immunity agreements with individual UN member countries promising to not send any U.S. peacekeepers to the ICC for prosecution.

Marsala: Overall, Mr. Gedrich, what are your speculations on the push for global government and its desire to erode America's independence?

Gedrich: The ICC is the "crown jewel" of those who believe in global governance. The most ardent supporters of the Court (many who subscribe to Marxist/Leninist ideology) generally detest the U.S. standing as the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the world. They'd clearly use the Court to neutralize U.S. world power and prestige. Global Court supporters have already mounted a direct attack on the U.S. to exercise its sovereign right to defend itself from further terror attacks. Claiming any action without UN approval is "illegitimate" and aforementioned statements on how the U.S. is going about prosecuting the War on Terror and defending itself is clear proof of what they seek to do.

Marsala: Finally, what action can the American people take, to help fight against those who are pushing for a 'one world government'? How can the common working classes of America make a difference in protecting our rights and freedoms?

Gedrich: America is like Ronald Reagan often said, "the shining city on a hill." It's the land of hope and opportunity - to go along with unparalleled freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law embodied in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.

Throughout our history, America has opened its doors to others. Despite what may be claimed, America is the most generous nation on the planet. Generally the world's masses, if given the opportunity, would immigrate to the U.S. in an instant.

Conversely, many U.S. critics have another view. They look to the UN, and the Global Court, as mankind's salvation. Americans should be wary; the UN is a morally bankrupt corrupt institution. It not only houses and tolerates some of the world's most sinister forces like, the "Butchers of Beijing, Castro's Cuba, and Mugabe's Zimbabwe, it elevates them to important positions within the UN system. This last year the terrorist state of Syria had a Security Council seat and one of the world's worst human rights abusers, Gadhafi's Libya, chaired the UN Human Rights Commission.

For example, it has failed to keep the peace or protect human rights. It wouldn't act against Saddam Hussein even though he had the blood of an estimated 1.5 million people on his hands. The UN apparently allowed the largest humanitarian program in its history to turn into elaborate bribes and kickback schemes, costing suffering Iraqis billion of much-needed food and medicine. It stood by as hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were slaughtered - and allowed the terrorist sponsoring state of Sudan to get appointed to its third consecutive term on the UN Human Rights Commission, even though that country is responsible for the genocide of 1 million Sudanese Christians.

Even more shockingly, as mankind faces its gravest threat from the scourge of global terror, the UN cannot even agree on what a definition of terrorism is. Many UN members would have you believe the killers of innocent men, women, and children are nothing more than "freedom fighters" or "insurgents."

Americans could greatly help protect their rights and freedoms by staying abreast of the issues and putting pressure on elected representatives in Washington, DC. They should demand their congressional legislators and appropriators make substantial cuts in the annual UN regular budget and peacekeeping assessments, because that anti-American body is clearly not doing its job. And it clearly does not have the best interests of the American people at heart.

Americans can also refer to the Freedom Alliance website at www.freedomalliance.org to find out more about the UN challenges to U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.right2think.8m.com

E-mail

I'd love to hear from you- cnuseeme@cox.net

Web Site