Anonymous Comrade writes:

Paul McCartney, Super Bowl Anarchist?

Anonymous Comrade

Fox and the Super Bowl thought they had it all figured out. They figured they'd avoid controversy all together by featuring unarguably one of, if not the most respected pop musicians of all time. Simple and sweet, one act, a maturing white man playing four of what most would agree are some of the greatest pop songs ever recorded. Classics, (as in Coca Cola Classic) sung by a classic, who laid the groundwork for popular music period. No dancers, no big current names, no young blood, instead a seasoned professional reciting what amounts at this point to elevator music.

Despite this idiot proof plan, despite the projections of patriotic images, Fox/NFL would not get there way so easily. Despite the giant card display that taunted "Na Na Na" in red white and blue at the colonized world, watching from their couches, a statement as controversial if not more than last years was made. The broadcast delay and the censors could do nothing.Last year Janet Jackson's breast was the big hype. This act definitely brought forth questions about patriarchal dominance of the media, morality, decency, race, etc. However such a display was easily construed as controversy for it's own sake. The brief glimpse of Jackson's breast seemed to aspire only to publicity for herself and Tiberlake. Deep down the incident only seemed to reaffirm the music industries ability to out-hype real pressing issues in the media.

McCartney played conservatively, what can only be described as conservative music. He played before a neoconservative background of fascistic propaganda, in a giant stadium, deep within the conservative state where W Bush stole his first election with the help of his brother the Governor, Jeb Bush. Quite professionally McCartney played a simple wooden sunburst guitar, without displaying any flesh, and even without dancing too awful much. So, in as cool and professional manner as you could expect from a mature musician, he made an incredibly defiant gesture. Defiant to Fox, the NFL and it's corporate sponsors, and the arch conservative government of the US.

All he did was all he could do. He chose a nice T-shirt and raised his fist. He raised his left fist, the historical sign of revolutionaries, particularly Anarchists. He simply chose to wear red and black, the colors of anarcho-syndicalism. On his shirt, he rocked the black star, symbol of Anarchism used all over the world by Anarchist groups and in Anarchist art.

What makes this a controversial statement? What makes it as controversial as Jackson's nip? Easy, it was a clear sign of solidarity with Anarchists. Anarchists, who in the US have shown themselves to be stalwart fighters against oppression, and the legitimate heirs to the youth resistance of which the Beetles were once a part. It's controversial because Fox and the media in general, wouldn't touch those "self proclaimed, anarchists" with a ten-foot pole. Only a couple of weeks ago Fox News made its first mention of Anarchists for some time, calling for the persecution of Anarchists in the US who, "want a violent revolution. that means killing people" (sniffle sniffle). That was the only mention of Anarchists on Fox News for some time. Anarchists, considered a domestic terrorist group by the FBI, have been for the last few years at the receiving end of a campaign of systematic harassment and intimidation at the hands of the Counter Terrorism Task Force, and FBI. Even so the Anarchist's numbers only increase in the streets. After the recent inauguration of G W Bush, several hundred Anarchists attacked banks and multinational corporations all over DC.

As McCartney certainly knows Anarchists have long since rejected violence against living beings as intrinsically authoritarian. Hopefully his actions will lead media discussion to the next question; why would McCartney sympathize with Anarchists? Imagine... McCartney says he wants a Revolution. Of course he does, it's all over the lyrics. He has Anarchist sympathies. Eat that Fox!

So will the media pick up this story? Will they allow Americans to know that an icon like Paul McCartney would extend a show of solidarity with scary Anarchists? Do musicians really have the power to create controversy? Or are only certain controversies allowed. We'll have to wait and see.

Freedom, Paul McCartney

This is my right, a right given by god
To live a free life, to live in freedom

We talkin’ about freedom
Talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in freedom

Anyone, who wants to take it away
Will have to answer, cause this is my right

We talkin’ about freedom
Talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in freedom, ah yeah, comon now...

(lead solo)

You talkin’ about freedom
Were talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in freedom

Everybody talkin’ bout freedom
Talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in free----------dom

With a Little Luck, Paul McCartney

With a little luck, we can help it out.
We can make this whole damn thing work out.
With a little love, we can lay it down.
Can’t you feel the town exploding?
There is no end to what we can do together.
There is no end, there is no end.
The willow turns his back on inclement weather;
And if he can do it, we can do it, just me and you,

And a little luck, we can clear it up.
We can bring it in for a landing,
With a little luck, we can turn it on.
There can be no misunderstanding.

There is no end to what we can do together.
There is no end, there is no end.
The willow turns his back on inclement weather;
We can do it, just me and you.

With a little push, we could set it off.
We can send it rocketing skywards.
With a little love, we could shake it up.
Don’t you feel the comet exploding?

With a little luck.
With a little luck.
With a little luck, a little luck, a little luck.
With a little luck.
With a little luck.
With a little luck, a little luck, a little luck.