Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Mike Farrell: M*A*S*H Star Takes on Cause to Stop the Death Penalty

By Christopher Moraff, Common Sense. Posted October 12, 2007.


Former M*A*S*H star Mike Farrell talks about life as a Marine, an actor and an activist in the fight to eliminate the death penalty.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Christopher Moraff

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Most people remember him as the mild-mannered and loyal Captain B.J. Hunnicutt from the television series M*A*S*H, but in real life actor Mike Farrell is a deeply committed activist and outspoken advocate for human rights and the abolition of the death penalty. His memoir Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist was released in February by Akashic Books.

I caught up with him, Farrell was recuperating from an ankle injury he sustained following a 7,000-mile motorcycle trip (another one of his passions) and preparing for a cameo on the show Desperate Housewives. He was also trying hard to finance a movie about the Terri Schiavo case, a project he says has so far met with considerable resistance from the right wing.

Christopher Moraff: You were in the service during the early 1960s. Tell me about that experience.

Mike Farrell: I joined the Marines because I bought into all that stuff about John Wayne and America and if you read the book you know there was some psychological stuff about my father - that I was trying to prove myself to him even though he had already died a year earlier. And I was in the situation of being in a working class family having graduated from High School having no plans on going to college and I knew I was going to be drafted.

So for me it was a confluence of a lot of pressures and thoughts and events and probably the most motivating one was to demonstrate to myself and the ones around me that I was a man and learning how to be one. So I joined and immediately regretted it. It was a hideous dispiriting experience to be part of this machine that was really anti-human on most levels. Although I didn't see it that way I just knew that it hurt and was miserable and where they were just digging us down in every way they could and I finally came to see what the process was about, how they operate, why they do what they do and what their rationale was for it; but still it was a pretty lousy experience.

After being in San Diego and advanced infantry training at Pendleton I was sent to Okinawa with the 3rd Marines, so I got to see what an occupying force that doesn't identify itself as an occupying force, what impact it has on the local community and I was then sent to Japan for a while where I saw a little less distinct version of the same thing.

CM: So you weren't in Vietnam?

MF: No I was in the Marines between Korea and Vietnam I was very fortunate in that. When we were on the ship on the way to Okinawa, we were told that we were changing course to go into Indochina as it was then known, and if in fact those orders were to be followed we were to prop up a friendly regime in that country so it would have been one of the earliest deployments of U.S. troops in Vietnam at the time, but fortunately for me they changed the orders.

CM: What do you think of the current occupation of Iraq and what would you say to those who never served in the military but seem happy to send others to fight the war?

MF: Well that's a well put question. I opposed the war from the beginning. I formed a group called Artists United to Win without War (co-founded with Robert Greenwald) to question the Bush administration and the media's slavish repetition of all the Bush propaganda and I'm firmly an antiwar person. I'd like to make clear I don't consider myself a pacifist because as I indicated I joined the service, I would defend my country if it came to that. I have high regard for pacifists, many of whom are some of my closest friends but it's not a view that I can personally adopt... But I think the attack on Afghanistan was done incorrectly and inappropriately and I thought the invasion of Iraq was a hideous demonstration of the kind of desire for empire and the kind of bullying behavior that the United States has been known for in recent years.

So I've opposed the war from the beginning and I think what we've done - or they, unfortunately they now have become we - have besmirched the entire reputation of our nation in the eyes of many of the world's people for years to come.

Two tangential thoughts, I was with Mary Robinson who was the President of Ireland and is now the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in about 2005 and we had a conversation about the hideousness of the Iraq debacle and she said, 'You know, people of the world at this point understand the difference between the administration and the American people. They understand that the Bush administration's policies and decisions are not necessarily reflective of the people of the United States, many of whom oppose much of their behavior,' but she said if the election in 2006 validates them and these policies, then it will be a much different story. I think that was a prophetic statement and I hated to see that [Bush] was able to stampede people on the basis of fear of terrorism into further support for all of his craziness.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: mike farrell, mash

Christopher Moraff is the editor of Common Sense and frequent contributor to In These Times. He has also written for the American Prospect Online, Boulder Weekly and Entrepreneur Magazine, among other publications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Misleading title
Posted by: colinmeister on Oct 12, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to this story because the title suggested it was about the death penalty, but it rambled on about TV shows and wars for 3 pages before the title subject was mentioned.

The death penalty is wrong, if for no other reason than that the criminal justice system is not perfect. Poisoning, electrocuting, shooting, or hanging just one innocent person in the name of justice is plainly wrong, and many innocents have been killed in the past. We need to get rid of this barbaric system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misleading title Posted by: Tim Brown
Good interview, good man.
Posted by: nc green on Oct 12, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The death penalty is wrong because state-sponsored murder is wrong. Period. The argument that innocent people get executed and therefore the death penalty is wrong is only a valid argument because it helps us convince the morally stunted that we shouldn't be using our collective authority to kill people.

"The price of privilege is absolute integrity."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misleading Label; Good Interview
Posted by: Tim Brown on Oct 12, 2007 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're right; it was mislabeled. Chris spoke with Mike Farrell about his new book "Just Call Me Mike: Journey to Actor and Activist". When you get the chance you should read it; he is quite an interesting and genuine man. You can also check out an exerpt from the book at www.commonsensemag.org. The link is under his photo on the interview page.

Tim Brown
Chief Editor
Common Sense Magazine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TRUE, THEY DO GET AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 12, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But sign me up anyway. The fact that the death penalty exists at all throws a light on murder trials that I believe interferes with jury decisions. In some states jurors don't even know if it applies. That's decided by a judge. We should get rid of it. There are no rich people on death row. Only poor people who get stuck with court appointed layers, some of whom are not up for the job they have. And too many of the wrong people are convicted. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mend it don't end it
Posted by: veive on Oct 12, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are some folks who simply don't deserve to live because of their utter disregard for the lives of others. It wouldn't take much to ensure the proper administration of the death penalty. If the justice system believes a person should die, then that person should be able to get the best lawyer(s) available on the defense at the state's expense. It's okay to execute for some crimes as long as you've got the right perp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mend it don't end it Posted by: rinthy
» RE: Mend it don't end it Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: Mend it don't end it Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: Mend it don't end it Posted by: Bibsi
The only beneficiary of the death penalty are the lawyers (and judges, clerks...).
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 12, 2007 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the built-in appeals, all the wrangling, all the time, all the make sure that mistakes aren't made, which sometimes are.

In addition to occasionally misplacing justice (for the victim) and creating a travesty of justice (for the sometimes falsely accused), retaining the death penalty under a Constitution that requires pseudo-heroic (read: expensive) efforts to justify said penalty just feeds the sharks and serves as a New-Deal type jobs program for those who've hitched their wagon to the public legal industry.

Having said that, while I prefer the candidates that I support to oppose the death penalty, it isn't the deciding factor, i.e., I'll vote for a candidate who supports the death penalty and supports our individual liberties over a vote-buying collectivist crook who opposes the death penalty any day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deterrent effect: how to make it more meaningful
Posted by: lc on Oct 14, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1972 Herat, Afghanistan: 3 hangman's apparatus in the town square were being taken down as I drove through town after a public hanging. 2002 Kabul soccer stadium: a women accused of making love with the wrong man is shot in the head in front of the sporting crowd and shown on American TV. Capital punishment, Afghan style, does have a deterrent effect lacking in the American system.
If the US wants to kill to show that killing is wrong, then it should be on TV, the only show on tv and everybody should have to watch. Only the victim's survivors should be allowed to "pull the plug" and execute the killer. If no surviving family member of the victim can be found to "pull the plug" then the killer gets life in prison.
I spent two years in prison for importing pipes from India. If I had the choice of life in prison or death I would opt for kill me now and get it over with. Life in prison is a far worse penalty than the death sentence; unless you take twenty years to work it through the legal system, another unique American form of tortue.
IM
Belteshazzar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oy, the death penalty
Posted by: clarence on Oct 14, 2007 11:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that IF I WERE GUILTY I would far prefer quick death to life in prison. Considering the kind of things you get the death penalty for, I'd probably spend most of the years waiting for it to finally happen figuring out how to do it myself, so I didn't have to spend the nights living with myself.
The reality is, our system is so Byzantine that, for example, exculpatory evidence can't be introduced because a filing deadline has expired. The 15+ years it takes to finally actually get around to bumping someone off means that even if they were guilty then, they aren't necessarily the same person they were when they committed the crime. And only the Dimbulbs and Hanitys dispute the fact that it's only the poor and minorities who ever find themselves "eligible" for the death penalty. Represented often by inexperienced or openly hostile lawyers.
To me, the most compelling argument against the death penalty is what it does to the soul of the executioner. He is a contract killer. He happens to be hired by the most powerful gang on the block, but he is still a murderer for hire. He flips the switch, the guy croaks and he collects his check. He may have read that witnesses have recanted, or that DNA evidence links someone else to the crime. No one asks him whether he thinks the guy deserves it or not. They just find a guy who's willing to bump off other humans, no questions asked, for a check. And he does his job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Farrel himself is more
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Oct 17, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of an issue than the death penalty, in my opinion. I watched MASH for years before I realized what annoyed me - the theme song promoted suicide, and the main characters ridiculed normal sex between a man and a woman, while those funny doctors often masqueraded comic homosexuality.

I have asked myself why the writers, directors and actors did that, and the answer is deeply disturbing because it involves people I thought I knew all my life, but in fact didn't know at all. I'm not even sure they know themselves what they were doing because MASH had a profound influence on the young people of that time. So how many disillusioned and depressed young men were inspired to commit suicide or turn Gay because of it?

Thus, I find it an act of sickening hypocricy for Mike Farrel to now oppose the death penalty when for so many years he himself helped to insinuate suicide into the minds of countless young men in the English speaking World. Has he apologized? Has he changed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]