truth

Paul McCartney sauntered onto the stage of the Fonda Theatre, took in the 1,200 faces before him — “I can see the whites of your eyes,” he said — then offered up a brief history lesson about where we’d gathered Friday night.

The Fonda, he told us, opened 100 years ago; back then, he added, it was called the Music Box.

“Cool little place, innit?”

At 83, McCartney is well into his cool-little-place era.

Last year the rock legend played a string of concerts at New York’s tiny Bowery Ballroom while in town for “Saturday Night Live’s” 50th anniversary; a few months after that, he hit the Santa Barbara Bowl as a kind of warm-up for the latest leg of his Got Back world tour.

Paul McCartney and his band during sound check for Friday’s show.

(MJ Kim)

Friday’s underplay — the first of two instant sell-outs at the Fonda — came as McCartney is drumming up interest in a new studio album he’ll release in May. Outside the venue, a double-decker bus was parked with signage advertising the LP, which is called “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” after a road in his Liverpool hometown.

But that hardly seemed like the purpose of the show itself, which lasted about an hour and 40 minutes and didn’t even include a performance of the album’s lead single. The truth is that Sir Paul genuinely appears to get a kick out of these intimate gigs — out of standing right in front of a crowd and doing the magic trick that is a song like “Get Back” or “Jet” or “Got to Get You Into My Life.”

And why wouldn’t he?

If a Paul McCartney concert in an arena or a stadium is a finely honed spectacle of boomer nostalgia and industrial-strength charm, one of his shows in a club or a theater is a chance to play music, which after six and a half decades still clearly turns his wheels.

You wouldn’t say the shows remind McCartney that he’s a regular guy. (Those six and a half decades have made him anything but.) What they might do, though, is remind him why he became so widely adored — valuable self-knowledge for an artist whose great subject has always been the transformative power of love.

Here, as in Santa Barbara, he and his seven-piece band (which featured three horn players) did a pared-down version of the most recent Got Back set, opening with a killer one-two punch — “Help!” into “Coming Up” — that alone said plenty about McCartney’s range and endurance.

“Let Me Roll It” had a funky swagger, while “Getting Better” chugged with cheerful insistence; “I’ve Just Seen a Face” showed off the group’s crisp harmonies and “Lady Madonna” its tight rhythmic interplay. After “Let ’Em In,” McCartney asked his band member Brian Ray to show off the song’s all-important bass line: a single note plucked over and over and over again.

Friday’s show was the first of two at the Fonda.

(MJ Kim)

He did a few other comic bits, including a memory of Tony Bennett singing without a microphone as a way to demonstrate the excellent acoustics of a concert hall — the punch line was that he later saw Bennett do the same thing at the Beverly Hilton — and some gentle ribbing of the folks sitting up in the “posh seats” of the Fonda’s balcony. Among them, McCartney pointed out, was Morgan Neville, director of the recent “Man on the Run” documentary about McCartney’s life in the aftermath of the Beatles’ breakup.

He also noted that his wife, Nancy Shevell, was in the house and dedicated “My Valentine” to her; truth be told, that one was a bit dreary, as was “Now and Then,” the so-called last Beatles song released in 2023 using machine learning to complete a scratchy demo left behind by John Lennon.

“Thank you, John, for writing that lovely song,” McCartney said afterward, which made it a little harder not to like.

In any event, there were more classics to come, not least a buoyant “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” and a “Let It Be”/“Hey Jude” twofer that inspired such a lusty singalong that McCartney probably could’ve gotten away with lip-syncing if he’d wanted to.

But of course he didn’t want to — that was kind of the whole point.

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.

WARNING: Contains spoilers about the Handcuffed final.

The sheer number of people who pulled out proves just how hard Channel 4’s Handcuffed: Last Pair Standing was: challenging 18 Brits to remain handcuffed to a total stranger. And not just any total stranger – one a team of producers have judged will create the most explosive TV possible.

Tonight, viewers saw Staffordshire porn star Rob, 32, and West Sussex homemaker Charlie, 44, make it all the way to the end, winning the show and a suitcase bulging with £100,000. Now, after the pre-recorded series, they explain whether they stayed in touch and just what they plan to do with the winnings.

The reality is quite sweet – with the pair very much in each other’s lives. Speaking about the moment they were uncuffed, Rob said: “It felt great! I just wanted to shout “FREEDOM” at the top of my lungs. It was a nice moment, but also a little sad moment knowing that my partner has now got to go.”

Charlie added: “It was a huge relief. We actually had to wait quite a long time! It wasn’t like we were instantly un-handcuffed. It was a crazy experience but a huge relief. It took a while to get used to doing things on my own, but that’s maybe because I was very overtired.”

But fans of the couple will be pleased to hear that they have stayed in touch in a major way. Charlie explained: “I’ve learned so much from Rob. He’s such a gentle giant and a kind person. It’s lovely now that we don’t have to keep our friendship secret.

“We can meet up and we’ve been texting a lot. He’s been chatting to my husband Simon! I’ve been chatting to his mum! He and his family are coming over to our house this Friday night to celebrate. I learned so much from walking beside him.

“It was a once in a lifetime experience. Rob was really keen that I didn’t put everyone else’s needs first and I’ve tried to implement that since. We talked about a lot of things! Rob is a very deep person and he’s a very good listener.”

Rob said: “One of the first things I’m going to do is a huge Costco run of food and drink and go out with Tilly to feed the homeless. I was very inspired watching what she did on the programme – I’d like to do a few acts of kindness. I’m also going travelling round South East Asia and investing in a new business. And then I’ll put the rest in savings for a rainy day.”

He added: “I learned a lot. I learned that money doesn’t always buy happiness. It’s important to spend a lot of time with your friends and family, and that I was putting work before everything. I was working too hard and not having an equal balance. And Charlie taught me how to make sourdough!”

Speaking about what they learnt about themselves during the programme, Rob said: “I learned that I need to take a little bit of a step back and prioritise different things in my life. And I want to get a bit more into baking and cooking.”

Charlie said: “That I can slow down, and be a bit more patient. And that I can take some time to rest and recharge, so then I can be my best for myself and others.”

Tonight viewers saw host Jonathan Ross taking the final pairings to Loch Lomond in Scotland to take part in a Mr & Mrs quiz to see who knew each other best. The final three – Charlie and Rob, Tilly and Anthony and Morag and Angie – all then competed in a handcuffed race from Scotland, to Wales and on to London.

Viewers saw Charlie and Rob scramble onto a bus where Jonathan was waiting with the key to unlock them – and a case full of the cash.

In these times when it is once again fashionable to accuse Commander Chávez of mistakes, whether real or imagined. As we mark 13 years since his untimely death on March 5, 2013, I would like to highlight the value of truth in his political actions. Truth was manifest in the responsibility he assumed for his actions; the consistency between his words and deeds; the acknowledgment of his own mistakes, when it is easier for most people to point out the mistakes of others; and his sincere efforts to correct them. To the above, I would add that when he had to make tactical and strategic shifts in the course initially set, Chávez always had the political honesty to explain in detail why he was doing so, and he courageously took responsibility for them before the people.

There are countless examples which can be found in many of his speeches. I will mention just a few. Beginning with the day of his introduction to the Venezuelan people, February 4, 1992: “Unfortunately, for now, the objectives we set for ourselves were not achieved in the capital city, that is, we here in Caracas did not manage to control power… And I, before the country and before you, take responsibility…” Then in the streets and in the 1998 election campaign: “Let’s go to the Constituent Assembly,” and on February 2, 1999, in what would be his first act of government, he signed the decree calling for the constituent process, and we went to the Constituent Assembly.

In April 2002, he surrendered to the coup leaders, without thinking about saving his own “skin”: “I am an imprisoned president; you decide what to do with me.” After his release, with a cross in his hand, he stated that “it was necessary for all sectors of the country to make a greater effort, with all the goodwill we can muster, to be able to live together in peace, accepting the rules of the game.”

In 2005, he called for the Bolivarian Revolution to take on a socialist character. In the 2006 election campaign, he said, “Let’s go for socialism!” and explained in detail why this strategic shift was necessary. He outlined the characteristics of our socialism, 21st-century Bolivarian socialism, which, as he insisted until his last public words, had to be “essentially democratic” or it would not be socialism at all.

In the elections of December 6, 2006, Commander Chávez obtained the highest number of votes and was re-elected. In December 2007, while awaiting the results of the referendum on constitutional reform and hearing reports of a close count, he called a meeting of the party leadership in Miraflores. I said to him at that meeting: “President, let’s wait for the final count, and if we lost, we lost, but if we won, we won.” He replied with a sharp look: “I don’t want a victory like that, let’s go out and acknowledge defeat now.” And that’s what he did.

In September 2010, we won a majority in the National Assembly. Without a doubt, it was a resounding political victory. But Chávez identified a warning sign: in quantitative terms, the difference in votes between Chavismo and the opposition was minimal. Once again, he assumed political responsibility. In January 2011, he published the “Strategic Lines of Political Action,” a deeply self-critical document.

Late May 2011, he told me: “Elías, I feel like something is wrong with me.” June 2011, after undergoing the necessary tests, on national television: “Cancer cells have been detected in my body.” Easter Week 2012, during a mass in Barinas, broadcast live: “We must be aware that I have an illness that limits my life… Christ, give me your cross.”

On the night of December 8, 2012, in a public address, he raised the possibility of not continuing among us and explained in detail the constitutional procedures that would have to be followed if he were to be permanently incapacitated. That day, once again, he decided to tell us the truth, no matter how hard it was:

Some colleagues told me it wasn’t necessary, or have said in recent hours that it wasn’t necessary to say this. In truth, I could have said almost everything I said tonight from Havana… But I believe that the most important thing, what my soul, my heart, and my conscience tell me, the most important thing… has been this, Nicolás. The most important thing.

“The most important thing”: telling the truth, explaining the reality to the people, the decision he had made, and the steps that needed to be taken.

But that political honesty was not just an individual value. It was the political conviction that the people formed a collective wisdom, a conscious body that knew how to understand and draw its own conclusions about situations. That is why he was so careful to keep them informed at all times.

I once heard him say: “There are those who say that you shouldn’t speak plainly to the people, because then the adversary will seize on that truth and manipulate it against you.” That, Chávez said, is to think that the people are mentally eunuchs. The people understand, more often than not, more than some leaders. For Chávez, speaking the truth was always a decisive show of trust and respect for the people.

And “most importantly,” it was also to make clear for posterity his conviction about the democratic path of the revolution he had led:

In all circumstances, we must guarantee the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution, the victorious progress of this revolution, building the new democracy that is here mandated by the people in the Constituent Assembly; building the Venezuelan path to socialism, with broad participation and ample freedom, which are being demonstrated once again in this gubernatorial election campaign, with candidates here and candidates there. Freedom, complete freedom.

With the power of truth, the truth of his project and his life, Chávez managed to accumulate immense political strength based on the moral autoritas he gained by never peddling falsehoods or shirking his responsibilities, much less in defeat or when he made mistakes. That same moral authority comes not only from consistency between words and deeds, but also from trying to act despite difficult circumstances as well as from recognizing and explaining when and why it is not possible to achieve a certain goal. I stand by that way of doing politics. With Chávez forever!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: CEDES