gandalf23

Now a variation on that theme has emerged: Is Fred Armisen, who is not African American, “black enough” to embody Obama on “Saturday Night Live”?

Debate over that question has been pinging around the Internet since Armisen, a veteran cast member, donned darker makeup to portray the Democratic candidate for the first time Saturday. Armisen played Obama opposite Amy Poehler’s Hillary Clinton in a sketch satirizing the supposedly cushy treatment his candidacy has received from the media.

“SNL” impresario Lorne Michaels said yesterday by phone that he thought the sketch played so well that the show intends to air another Obama/Clinton debate spoof tomorrow night, with Armisen and Poehler reprising their characters.

Nobody much cared about Armisen’s racial background (he is of white and Asian heritage) when he played Prince and Steve Jobs during seasons past of the NBC show. Nor did it seem to matter that “SNL’s” Darrell Hammond, who is white, has impersonated the Rev. Jesse Jackson for years. Or that decades ago on “SNL,” Billy Crystal played Sammy Davis Jr.

But in 2008, Obama isn’t just any politician or celebrity. Which is why Armisen’s DNA became something of an issue when he became “Fauxbama” in “SNL’s” first show back since the writers’ strike ended this month.

Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: “Call me crazy, but shouldn’t ‘Saturday Night Live’s’ fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?” Ryan went on to conclude: “I find ‘SNL’s’ choice inexplicable. Obama’s candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess ‘SNL’ still has further to go on that front.”

Hannah Pool, a writer for the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain, suggested the whole setup had “minstrel” overtones.

“Casting a black actor wouldn’t have guaranteed the quality of the sketch, but it would have made the whole thing a lot less shoddy,” Pool wrote. “Let’s get one thing straight. The moment anyone starts reaching for ‘blackface,’ they are on extremely dodgy territory. Anyone who thinks it’s either necessary or, for that matter, remotely funny to black-up needs to have the gauge on their moral compass reset.”

TV Guide, on the other hand, called Armisen’s impression “surprisingly subtle.”

The Obama portrayal has given critics a chance to make a second claim about “SNL”: that it under-employs African American performers. When it began looking for someone to play Obama, the show had few alternatives. This season, “SNL” has only one black cast member, Kenan Thompson, who bears little resemblance to the tall, lanky senator. A biracial “SNL” veteran, Maya Rudolph, has not returned to the show since the strike began Nov. 5.

Clearly, we’re in racial Rorschach territory again: Where you stand might be a reflection of where you came from.

Michaels said that the show auditioned “four to five” actors for the Obama role, including Thompson. And the winner, he says, was based on merit. “When it came down to it, I went with the person with the cleanest comedy ‘take’ on” Obama, Michaels said.

Michaels said he liked how Armisen caught the tilt of Obama’s head, the rhythm of his speaking style, “the essence” of his look. “It’s not about race,” Michaels insisted via phone. “It’s about getting a take on Obama, where it serves the comedy and the writing. . . . Believe me, when we read 40 or 50 pieces [for the show] on Wednesday, no one says, ‘This is a very good way of getting our political points across.’ We’re simply asking ourselves: Is it fresh? Is it funny? Fred just had best take on Obama.”

Criticism aside, Armisen will continue as Obama through the rest of the campaign, Michaels said.

The Obama campaign yesterday declined to comment on the show or on Armisen’s portrayal. Obama appeared on “SNL” in October.

But clearly the incident has raised eyebrows.

Todd Boyd, a professor of critical studies at the University of Southern California, says viewers might have a different reaction if the roles were reversed. What if, he says, “SNL” had cast a black woman to portray Hillary Clinton? “Do you think there’s ever going to be a day when we start casting Queen Latifah to portray Princess Diana?” he asks. “We just don’t have the same representations going in other direction.

“If we had as many examples of black actors playing white figures, no one would need to discuss it. But when you have a figure as historically important as Barack Obama . . . people can get mighty protective of his image.”

One like Putin, full of strength
One like Putin, who won’t be a drunk
One like Putin, who wouldn’t hurt me
One like Putin, who won’t run away!

I’ve seen him on the news last night
He was telling us that the world has come to crossroads
With one like him, it’s easy to be home and out
And now I want a man like Putin

Time constraints prevented KTBS from broadcasting the entire episode, which lasted approximately 34 minutes from the time Angie Garbarino was brought into the room until the Fire Department took her to the hospital.

Here is the entire videotape of the incident. The only alterations are to bleep out the curse words.

No joke, about 1/2 of my left thumb is gone … what’s left is a friggin mess.

It’s pretty hard to type, and I’m only posting because you never know, it might save somebody else a thumb. I was using a 2-handed grip, fired off a Cor-Bon DPX .460 and the blast came violently out the side of the gun.

At first my thumb was so covered in blood that I couldn’t see how bad it was … and I was full of adrenaline and felt no pain. And honestly it looked really bad, my whole hand was covered in blood and it was kinda gushing.

The blown-off thumb was on my support hand. I’ll re-create the grip tomorrow to see where my thumb was, but it’s not like I didn’t already know not to get any body part near the cylinder gap. And even if I totally screwed up and did, taking my thumb clean off seems a bit excessive?

Just be careful with those 460’s. That case operates at such high pressure, it’s just asking for trouble.

BTW, I bought my 460 new and had exactly 12 rounds through it. Info about the gun, it’s a full-size 460 with the 8 3/4′ barrel and factory installed compensator. It’s one of the Whitetails Unlimited models.

Ammo was 200gr Cor-Bon DPX.

The gun only had 12 or 13 rounds of the Cor-Bon through it, and 10 .45 Long Colt rounds through it. So it was essentially still brand new.

Saw a hand specialist while there today. Lots of ways to try and save what’s left, but first I just have to hope it doesn’t get infected in the next few days … then surgery early next week.

In it’s closed position, while you’re carrying it around, the MagPul FMG9 is designed to look something like a…

portable radio, and incorporates a detachable tactical white light. Drake Clark, MagPul’s resident media/PR manager showed the FMG 9 to DefenseReview at the very beginning of the show, and MagPul’s resident designer/engineer Mike Mayberry ended up taking us through the weapon a little later on in the show. The FMG9 is very slickly designed and looks like a fully-developed product, which is particularly impressive considering that, according to our understanding at present, Mayberry and the MagPul team developed the FMG9 on short notice specifically for the show (SHOT Show 2008).

The FMG 9 essentially shows in microcosm all of MagPul’s creativity and product design and development strengths (including ergonomics and “usernomics”)–and, yes, perhaps even a desire to entertain–in one little lethal foldable SMG package. No matter how one feels about mini-subguns or micro-subguns, one must acknowledge the rapid-design & development skill the FMG9 showcases. You really have to see the FMG9 folding/foldable subgun being opened, closed, and handled to fully appreciate it.

By the way, counter to what’s been stated by some folks on the web (on YouTube, specifically), I believe I remember Rich Fitzpatrick informing me (verbally) at the end of the show that MagPul does indeed intend to put the FMG into production in limited quantities as an SBR (Short Barreled Rifle). We’ll try to verify this.

Before you can expect to hit anything, there are some “hardware” issues that must be seen to. The ammunition must be capable of an acceptable level of accuracy. This is not as much of a concern when using quality defensive ammunition, but it may is using more economical “training ammunition”.

Primarily, you must make certain that the pistol is zeroed correctly. This simply means that the sights must be arranged in a way that they will coincide (visually) with the physical impact of the bullet strike on target. There are hundreds of different types of sights, and to explain how to zero every particular weapon would take a volume. For zeroing procedures, please refer to your weapon’s training or owner’s manual. Don’t dismiss this part of the equation. Doing so will only lead to frustration.

There are several fundamentals to marksmanship, they include Pointing, Sight Alignment, Sight Picture, Trigger Control, Grip on the Pistol, Shooting Stance, Breath Control, and Follow-through. Of these Eight, FOUR are most important. It is these four which must be focused on by the tactical shooter. They are Sight Alignment, Sight Picture, Trigger Control, and Follow Through.
Sight Alignment is the relation between the front sight, the rear sight, and the shooter’s eye. Sight alignment is established by placing your visual focus on the front sight and aligning it with the rear sight (irrespective of any target). The top of the front sight must be seen as level with the top of the rear sight. Additionally, you must see equal amounts of light visible on both sides of the front sight as viewed through the rear sight notch. This describes perfect vertical and horizontal alignment of the sights.

This is the sight alignment that we always would like to have. Sometimes we will settle for less if the target is close enough.

Generally, the closer the target is, the bigger it appears, and the less perfect your sight alignment must be. Conversely, the more distant target, or the smaller target at close range, requires greater precision in the alignment of the sights. In beginning practice, however, we must always strive for perfect alignment.

Sight Picture is the existing sight alignment as it is seen super-imposed on the target’s center of mass. Center of Mass describes the central portion of the visible target. Now let me ask you something. How many things can the human eye focus on at any one time? The human eye is similar to a camera and it can only focus on ONE thing at a time. With regards to the sight picture, there are three things that we want to keep in alignment - the target, the front sight, and the rear sight. Now imagine looking at these three points through a camera. If you focus the lens on the front sight, you can still see the target well enough, although it appears somewhat out of focus in comparison to the front sight. Additionally, you can still see the rear sight well enough, although it too appears slightly out of focus in comparison to the front sight.

By focusing in on the Front Sight, you can see both the target and the rear sight well enough in the peripheral vision, (although not as clear and focused as the front sight) to keep all three points in alignment. That is the “secret” of sight picture. The more difficult the shot is (i.e. distant target or small target), then the more precise that sight picture must be. The visual and mental focus must always remain on the front sight.

Another very important aspect of the sight picture is whether you should close the non-dominant eye or keep both eyes open. The simple fact of the matter is that most students I’ve seen cannot focus on the front sight as well if both eyes are kept open. If it’s not an issue for you, then don’t worry about it. If you find it difficult to focus on the front sight with both eyes, you must close one eye. But which one? We all have one eye that is more “dominant” than the other. That eye is the one you want to use for sighting. For most shooters, their dominant eye is on the same side as their dominant hand. In other words a right handed shooter will most likely have his dominant eye on his right side, and so on. Some shooters are cross eye dominant, i.e. right handed and left eye dominant, or vise versa.

Here is how you find out which eye is dominant - Make a small “OK” signal with your primary hand, and look at a target through the opening with both eyes open. Now close the eye that is opposite to your primary hand. If the target disappeared from view, your support side eye is dominant. If it did not disappear from view, your primary side eye is dominant.

If your primary side eye is dominant, you simply close the support side eye when focusing on the front sight. If your dominant eye is on the support side, you have two options. Either close the eye that is opposite of your primary side and learn to sight with the non-dominant eye, or close that non-dominant eye and modify the shooting position slightly by angling the head slightly to allow the support side eye access to the sights.

Some of you who may have been schooled to keep both eyes open, take notice. The non-dominant eye is only shut off for fractions of seconds while the shots are fired. Therefore, you are not missing anything of your immediate surroundings.

Secondly, the reason given for not closing one eye is that you may need it to see things around you. This is hardly a combat reality. If a hostile man is standing in front of you, intent on killing you – then to survive and win, you must do him before he does you. In such instances, do you really think you will be looking around with your non-dominant eye for other adversaries? Of course not! You will be busy enough with the problem at hand to worry about other potential problems out there somewhere.

This is the Sequence of Events - Your eyes are initially focused on the target, specifically, on the center of mass. The pistol is raised up into the line of sight between the eye and the target. The non-dominant eye is closed to allow the dominant eye to focus better on the front sight. The Sight Alignment is verified by bringing the visual focus to the front sight, as seen through the rear sight notch, and as the two points of reference are aligned on the target’s center of mass. As the eye focuses clearly on the front sight, the rear sight and the target will be visible in the foreground and background, but will be slightly out of focus. You must see the front sight with crystal clarity and sharp enough focus to be able to count the serrations on it. Moreover, you must concentrate your mental focus on that front sight to exclusion of all else around you (more on this later, grasshopper!). This keeps the pistol on target.

The third fundamental, and probably the most important, is Trigger Control. Proper trigger control allows the shooter to fire a shot without disturbing the sight picture. The trigger must be pressed smoothly to the rear, without any disturbance of the sight picture, until the pressure suffices and the pistol discharges. Two key elements to this are Finger Placement and the “Surprise Break”.

Correct Finger Placement on the trigger is dependent on the type of trigger you are operating. The placement should allow you to press straight to the rear without any lateral divergence in pressure. Placing too much of the finger, or conversely, not placing enough finger on the trigger will cause your shots to string laterally on the target. Such extremes in placement will cause you to exert pressure to the side as well as the rear, with poor results on target.

Now, naturally, some triggers are easier to operate than others, but all can be managed with enough training. With Colt/Browning single action triggers the area of the first pad of the finger seems to work best. When using a Glock pistol, the area between the pad and the first joint will allow you the best control. Finally, if you are using a double-action pistol, you must place much more finger on the trigger in order to provide the leverage necessary to operate the heavier trigger. For these shooters the area just above the first joint will work best.

Before we discuss the actual operation of the trigger, I want to discuss our physiology. We are still hard wired like our caveman ancestors. They were fairly good at caving heads in with stones and such, and our brains don’t work any different today. The result is that it’s unnatural to us to experience a small explosion out there at the end of our hand. That is precisely what happens when we shoot, right. Invariably, our subconscious mind wants us to flinch, close our eyes, and do all manner of silly things in anticipation of the forthcoming BIG BANG. This creates all manner of problems with marksmanship. Not to worry, however, as we can easily get around this by allowing the shot to “surprise” us.

When operating the trigger, the shooter applies smooth and constant pressure to the trigger, until eventually and almost unintentionally, the pressure is sufficient to “break” the trigger. This is called a Surprise Break. Pressing the trigger in this manner may be likened to using an eyedropper. Think of the process involved. You “align” the dropper above your eye, you get the proper “sight picture” by focusing on the end of the eyedropper, and finally you gradually begin increasing pressure until one drop forms and falls into the eye, by surprise. If you force the drop out by mashing the eyedropper, you will flinch, close the eye, and get the eyedrops everywhere except in your eye. The same process applies to operating the trigger on a pistol. First, align the sights with the target and establish an appropriate sight picture. Next, focus visually on the front sight while building constant smooth pressure on the trigger until, eventually the pistol fires, by surprise.

Of paramount importance is that the “break” of the trigger is not specifically expected by the shooter. He knows that it is going to go, and is continuing constant pressure on the trigger, but he does not know the exact precise instant when it will “break”. The trigger must break almost unintentionally. If the shooter anticipates the break, or forces it to occur, he will invariably bear down reflexively on the weapon and flinch at the final moment. This will cause the shot to go errant.

Remember when I said that the human eye could only focus on one specific thing at a time? Well, under stress, the human mind is much the same way. If you mentally focus your attention (as well as your visual attention) to the top edge of the front sight while you operate the trigger, where will your thoughts be when that trigger pressure is enough to cause the gun to fire? They will be on the front sight, and not on the small explosion that just happened. That is how you experience a surprise break, but most people do not understand this.

In a combative situation, you will not have an open ended time interval in which to press the trigger so very c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. This does not, however, invalidate or change the process. Going back to the eyedropper analogy. Those of you who put drops in your eyes on a daily basis know that it becomes quite easy as you get used to the procedure. As you become accomplished at using the eyedropper, you do not require the lengthy time interval to “align”, “focus”, and “p-r-e-s-s”. On the contrary, in happens very quickly due to practice. Operating the trigger on a pistol is the same. Through perfect practice and programming, you will operate the trigger in the same fashion as with the surprise break, but you will do it less time. This called the Compressed Surprise Break.

The fourth fundamental, which is often ignored is Follow Through. Follow Through is controlling the pistol and the trigger after the trigger breaks (shot is fired) in order to avoid disturbing the alignment of the pistol. When the trigger breaks, maintain your focus on the front sight, and keep finger contact on the trigger as you hold it to the rear. When actually firing a shot, you will visually lose the front sight momentarily on recoil. Regain front sight focus immediately as soon as the recoils dissipates. Additionally, do not release the trigger until the recoil cycle is complete. Maintain finger contact on the trigger and hold it to the rear as the shot is fired. Release it only after you have reacquired the front sight. Even then, only release the trigger far enough to “reset” it. When the trigger release is begun, you will eventually notice a slight “click”. This is the disconnector resetting the trigger. This is as far as you need to go in order to fire a second shot. Allowing the trigger to move any further forward increases the recovery time between shots.

The ability to fire an additional controlled shot is extremely important in a tactical situation. Except for special circumstances, such as single precise head shots, you will usually fire twice. The reasons for this are to enhance the damage on the target as well as to insure at least one hit in stressful situations that may cause missed shots.

The way to fire that second shot quickly, is to release the trigger only far enough to “reset” it via the disconnector device in each pistol. The trigger will be reset when you hear the audible (and feel the tactile) “click” as you begin to release. At this point, refocus on the front sight as you did for the first shot. Simply begin the pressure build-up with the trigger finger again. You must experience a second surprise break for the second shot.

One of the worst mistakes made by novice shooters, and some experienced hands, is the tendency to remove the finger from the trigger after every shot, only to have to reaquire the trigger again. Do not do this. Maintain contact and control of the trigger while shooting. Each of the shots is a controlled, individual shot. Each of the shots requires a separate sight picture, and a separate surprise break…even if executed very quickly.

Su,Su,Su, So Listen Up ‘Cause You Can’t Say Nothin’
You’ll Shut Me Down With A Push Of Your Button
But I’m Out And I’m Gone
I’ll Tell You Now I Keep It On And On

“Cause What You See You Might Not Get
And We Can Bet So Don’t You Get Souped Yet
You’re Scheming On A Thing That’s A Mirage
I’m Trying To Tell You Now It’s Sabotage
Why; Our Backs Are Now Against The Wall
Listen All Of Y’all It’s A Sabotage
Listen All Of Y’all It’s A Sabotage
Listen All Of Y’all It’s A Sabotage
Listen All of Y’all It’s A Sabotage

There is no historical or factual basis for this idea. It’s supporters point to Carter’s election in 1976 and the ensuing misery as having “given” us Reagan in 1980. But Reagan very narrowly lost to Ford in the primaries. Reagan was on the scene. Reagan, in point of fact, had been on the scene for well over a decade.

Who ran in 2008 with anything like that traction? NO ONE did, and the further to the right they ran, the more badly they performed — not only with the Anti-RINO purists in comments sections, but with, you know, the actual voters. A perfect candidate who loses is worse than an imperfect one who wins. Everyone had their chance and their say and their vote. My guy didn’t win either, so now I have a new guy.

Reagan — the Ultimate Conservative Saint (who I deeply admire) lost a bitter primary struggle to the more moderate Ford and yet this paragon of the proud, principled, uncompromising anti-Rino purists immediately and enthusiastically campaigned for the moderate, RINO Ford like the house was on fire, because it was.

Apparently, Reagan saw what so many of you refuse to see: half a loaf is not only better than no loaf… half a loaf is also better than no loaf, a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, your house catching fire, your dog run over by your daughter’s Code Pink boyfriend, a plague of locusts descending on your Superbowl barbeque and all of the other horrors that you anti-McCain types keep telling me is going to be good for me and the country when 2012, or 2016, or 2020, or 2024 rolls around.

If you look at what history actually shows, you will find that is is much harder to regain power once you have been out of it, and that in order to do so, you need to move in the direction of the other side. Bill Clinton refused to be called a “liberal,” talked about a “third way,” passed welfare reform, ran budget surpluses, and did several other things that any conservative would be proud to do, because he knew that was the only way that a Democrat could win. The Tories in Britain produced Thatcher when we produced Reagan, then Thatcher Lite (Bush Sr.) and then took what looks to be a two-decade breather, running both right and center candidates, trying to find an ever more desperate answer. None is forthcoming.

The sad fact remains that so many people insist on having things exactly the way they want it, and if they don’t get it, they would rather claim to have nothing to do with the whole mess… as if not voting somehow absolves you of responsibility. If you are a voting age citizen and do not vote, you escape no responsibility, because an event took place that you could have influenced and you did not. If you don’t like McCain, vote for someone else. That, at least, is owning up to your obligation in a democracy, and is a legitimate form of protest…even if that “someone else” is automatically the Democrat, no matter your intentions.

What simply amazes me is what appears to me to be a tribal and petty refusal to look reality in the eye, which I always thought was the ultimate requirement for conservative thought, and the polar opposite of the wishful thinking that runs with the “don’t think — feel!” Obasms I have been seeing.

Here is the reality that no one can disagree with. You don’t have to like it. You just have to live in it:

FACT 1: The United States, the most successful country in the history of the world, has a de facto two-party system. The reasons why this is so effin’ brilliant and effective I do not have time to elucidate here. The fact is, that has been our history and is the case today. These two parties have, since 1856, been the Republicans and Democrats. No other party candidate has the remotest chance of winning.

FACT 2: McCain is the Republican Nominee. He was not appointed by Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and Bill Maher in secret ballot. He was elected fairly, legally and decisively by Republican voters.

FACT 3: The Democratic nominee will be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, elected by similar legal proceses.

FACT 4: One of these three people will be the next President of the United States in 2008.

FACT 5: The ACU measures a candidates relative conservatism or liberalism. For the last year on record, 2006, McCain scored 65, Clinton 8 and Obama 4. Liberal rankings show a nearly identical, inverse scoring. If an ACU rating of 100 is a perfect conservative and 0 a perfect liberal, then McCain would be a significantly right of center moderate, while Clinton and Obama would be considered radical leftists. Put more visually, if you are in the press box looking down on the football field, with your team wanting to move to the goal line on the right (go team!), then you can start with the ball on your 4 yard line (Obama), your 8 yard line (Clinton), or your opponents 35 yard line (McCain). That is not speculation. That is fact and history.

I prefer to base my opinion of a candidate on their voting record, their policy positions, campaign promises and so on, rather than your personal speculation of what any othem will and will not do based on your own internalized projections.

Limited to strictly FACTS, Obama, Clinton or McCain will be President. There is no factual basis to the idea that a loss is a good thing for the future, politically. Reagan saw that clearly. And, I might add, EVERY Republican candidate has endorsed John McCain. What does that mean? It means that a man like Fred Thompson, who was my choice, is friends with McCain, has worked with McCain, meets privately with McCain and no doubt disagrees with McCain…yet he nevertheless endorses — that is to say, places his own reputation, honor and integrity on the line – for John McCain. So forgive me, please, if I chose to take Fred Thomson’s (or Romney’s, or Guliani’s, etc.) word of honor over your own theories and speculations.

There is no Reagan waiting in the wings, with an established record of winning elections, narrowly losing the nomination. None of the other candidates got any significant national traction. McCain is the only Republican who consistently outpolls both Obama and Clinton. He is tough on spending, but most important he wants to win in Iraq and finish the job against terror. He is one of the very few national level politicians to take this unpopular stand on the most critical issue facing this generation. He has publicly, and repeatedly, said he has changed his mind on immigration and will first secure the border. Apparently, a public promise — backed by the endorsement of his former rivals — is not good enough for some people, who seem to think he is running as Immigration Czar against Tancredo instead of as President against Don’t Think - Feel. I also do not fail to notice that those who accuse him most loudly on being “headstrong” and “unwilling to listen to conservatives” refuse to acknowledge that on this most pointed issue he has in fact changed his mind inresponse to massive (and deserved) conservative criticism.

Things like Che Flags and Don’t Think, Obama are just the tip of a very large iceberg, that many of you are recommending we ram in order to preserve our rightous sense of being perfectly inerrant political pundits. More hints will be forthcoming.

That I am continuing to have this argument with people who should know better has amazed, then saddened, then angered me. I’m past all that now. I’m just going to continue to point out what should be obvious to anyone who is more invested in reality than they are in the kind of tribal party ideology that produces nothing but rancor, bitterness and ENDLESS DEFEAT.

His unlikely - some would say unbelievable - life was informed by an impulse to stand up for the underdog mixed with a thirst for glamour and adventure. Fawcett charmed everyone he met with tales of swashbuckling intrigue and good deeds.

In 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he helped film the conflict between the Russian forces and their enemies, the Mujahideen - footage that was pivotal in persuading the United States secretly to arm and fund the tribal warriors fighting the Red Army.

Fawcett’s film featured the glamorous, ultra-conservative Texan socialite Joanne Herring, portrayed by Julia Roberts in the current Hollywood blockbuster Charlie Wilson’s War. In typical Fawcett style, he had alerted her by sending her a note he had scribbled in crayon on the back of a child’s notebook: “Come immediately. Bring film equipment. The world doesn’t know what’s going on here.”

Although aspects of Fawcett’s career sometimes seemed to soar to the wilder flights of fancy, he did furnish documentary evidence to support descriptions of his deeds of military derring-do.
advertisement

After the war he recalled being reduced to playing trumpet at funerals and carrying out exhumations to identify victims of the Nazis. After a friend offered him a bit part in a film, Fawcett spent the next 25 years reinventing himself as an actor, appearing in some 100 B-movies, many made in Italy.

Gossip columnists crowned him “the king of Rome” and “mayor of the Via Veneto”, while Warren Beatty recalled him as the hub of the Roman dolce vita, “loved and adored by everyone”.

Charles Fernley Fawcett was born on December 2 1915 at Waleska, Georgia, where his mother had been caught in a snowstorm, but came from old Virginia stock. Orphaned by the age of six, he and his younger brother and two sisters were raised by two maiden aunts at Greenville, South Carolina, where he acquired the old-world manners of a typical southern gentleman.

In 1937, having run away from Greenville senior high school, where he had learned to wrestle and to play American football, he made his way to New York and then Washington DC, where a cousin happened to be the US assistant postmaster-general and took him in. By his own account, when he was 15 Fawcett had started an affair with his best friend’s mother. “If that’s child molestation,” he declared, “I would wish this curse on every young boy.”

But the end of this adolescent affair had set up suicidal thoughts, and Fawcett jumped a series of tramp steamers, working his passage through the Panama Canal to the Far East before returning to the United States.

Gifted with an artistic talent and a musical ear, he received tips on playing jazz trumpet from Louis Armstrong, and on grappling from a professional wrestler, with the result that Fawcett, still restless, spent a year in eastern Europe earning a living by fighting in back-street theatres.

When the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939 Fawcett joined the Polish army but had been in barracks for only a week before escaping from the advancing Nazis and hitchhiking back to Paris. When the French rejected his application to enlist, Fawcett joined the Section Volontaire des Américains - the ambulance corps.

He was sharing a studio with another young American, Bill Holland, whose mother was a German aristocrat. One of Holland’s relatives, General Otto von Stülpnagel, had been appointed commander-in-chief of occupied France, and when Holland introduced Fawcett to senior German officers he was able to pass important information to the French Resistance.

In Paris Fawcett also took part in the rescue of a group of British prisoners-of-war who had been placed under French guard in a hospital ward by the Germans. By impersonating a German ambulance crew, Fawcett and a comrade marched in at 4am and ordered the French nurses to usher the PoWs out into the yard. “Gentlemen,” he announced as he drove them away, “consider yourself liberated.”

“You’re a Yank,” said a British voice.

“Never,” came Fawcett’s lilting southern burr, “confuse a Virginian with a Yankee.”

In 1942 he joined the RAF and trained as a Hurricane pilot but was invalided out that Christmas with tuberculosis, from which he had suffered as a youth. After convalescing in a Canadian sanatorium, Fawcett decided to make his way back to the United States.

From New York he travelled to a TB clinic in Arizona where he remained for about a year. In 1944 he returned to Italy and rejoined the American ambulance corps.

For six months in 1945 he fought with the French Foreign Legion in the forests of Alsace, and took part in the liberation of Colmar. A further bout of tuberculosis landed him in the Legionnaires’ Hospital in Paris, and although he applied to rejoin his regiment, Fawcett was turned down.

In three months at the end of the war, Fawcett married six Jewish women who had been trapped in concentration camps, a procedure that entitled them to leave France with an automatic American visa.

By 1948 Fawcett was back in action, this time against the Communists in the Greek civil war, fighting in a lounge suit in the guise of a journalist, since no foreigners were supposed to be involved. The following year, he returned to Paris and began his career as an actor, working in the theatre, radio and films. During the next 25 years he appeared in two films with Sophia Loren, knew Orson Welles and William Holden, and in Rome - between two of her six husbands - became the lover of Hedy Lamarr.

In 1956 he spent three months helping to rescue refugees from the Hungarian uprising and, following riots in the Belgian Congo in 1959, joined a friend with a private plane in missions to rescue people who had become trapped and unable to escape the fighting.

Fawcett made his last two films in the mid-1970s, playing the lead in one and in the other, Up The Antique Stairway (1975), supporting Marcello Mastroianni.

Later in the 1970s, short of money and in poor health from a recurrence of tuberculosis, Fawcett accepted an invitation from an old friend, Baron Ricky di Portanova, a wealthy figure in Houston’s high society, to supervise the building of a huge new swimming pool complex at his mansion.

Fawcett moved in, and although his new billet afforded access to the best doctors in Houston, he failed to settle. In June 1979, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, he announced that he was leaving for that country to pass on to the Afghan resistance fighters tactics he had learned in the Foreign Legion.