Posts Tagged ‘right wing’

israelis.si (1)

​‘No children left in Gaza!’ Right-wing Israeli mob mocks deaths in anti-Gaza chant

 

The video was published by Israeli journalist Haim Har-Zahav.

The chant also contains the words “I hate all Arabs” and “Gaza is a graveyard,” according to the pro-Palestinian news resource Electronic Intifada.

 

 

Palestinian officials say that in total over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed in the fighting, with over 215,000 displaced in Gaza. The Israeli military says it has lost 53 soldiers during Operation Protective Edge.

 

jacefsdfsdfsdfsdfdsfsdf

 

Dick jokes ahead…

 

“I feel your pain, and it’s fuckin’ hilarious.”

 

THE CITY OF CONVERSATION COVER050

The City of Conversation: Remembrances by Steve Jonas

May 28, 2014

The Planetary Movement

My wife and I recently saw a new play entitled “The City of Conversation,” at the Lincoln Center Theatre in New York City.  The play is centered on the adult life of a once-famous “Washington Hostess,” a power-broker of sorts for whom there were several real-life models.  In the days before the Reagan/Gingrich/Tea Party GOP, when there was true give-and-take between the Democrats and Republicans, on some level at least, these women played an important role in bringing leading members of both parties together for informal negotiations, out of the public eye.  The brilliance of the play is that it intertwines public and personal lives, the political and the emotional, and how they interact, in this particular telling leading to no good outcomes on the latter side.  Historically, in three acts, it is set in 1979, 1987 and 2009.  But it does reach back to the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon era as well.

This column is not a review.  It is rather a collection of some of the remembrances that I had during the play, which covers the period of my adult political life.  Some are related directly to the substance of the play; many are not, but the play brought them up into my consciousness.  And so let me share some of them with you.

There was President Kennedy’s little-remembered “American University” speech of June, 1963.  In it he essentially proposed taking Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev up on his earlier proposal to try “Peaceful Co-existence” as the basis for relations between the US and the USSR.  With that speech, perhaps even more than with his not-too-well hidden intent to withdraw US forces from Viet Nam after the 1964, JFK signed his own death warrant.

Many of us who fought hard against the War on Viet Nam from the beginning of the escalation (I was marching in 1965 when people would come up on the street and ask “what’s the Viet Nam War?”), wondered just why it was that LBJ gave up on the Great Society, only to get sucked into the “Big Muddy.”  Had he not, he would have gone down in US history as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.  Only recently did a Johnson tape come to light in which he offered his prime reason: He was afraid that if he didn’t escalate, the Republicans would call him a “commie.”  And we are still living with the droppings of the Era of McCarthyism.

Just before the 1968 election, the Democratic candidate, Sen. Hubert Humphrey wanted to declare that he would end the Vietnam War right after election, just as Dwight D. Eisenhower had done with the Korean War. For reasons that have never been clear, the by-then totally lame-duck Johnson told him, “No!” and for equally unclear reasons Humphrey listened to him.  In the meantime, the GOP candidate Richard Nixon was secretly negotiating with the right-wing South Viet Namese government which Johnson was trying to steer towards a settlement at the “Paris Peace Talks” to scuttle these talks (which they did).  Johnson knew about the treason but decided to do nothing with the information.

Sen.  George McGovern’s 1972 Democratic candidacy, featuring the slogan “Bring America Home,” was doomed from the start when the right-wing Democratic establishment, the predecessors of the Democratic Leadership Council, led by Washington State’s Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the “Senator from Boeing,” refused to support him.  McGovern was portrayed by Nixon as a weak-kneed, lily-livered liberal.  Not once did George McGovern, whom I later came to know (he wrote the Foreword to my first political book, The New Americanism) ever mention that during World War II, when Nixon had a nice desk job in the US Navy, McGovern, was flying 35 missions (volunteering for an extra 10 over the required 25) piloting one of the “flying coffins” (because it was so difficult to escape from when hit by enemy fire) B-24 bombers.  George, who had survived the famous Second Ploesti Raid (Romanian oil fields, vital to the Nazi war effort), didn’t have a chance.

On Nixon, I recall that when in 1972 I saw the first article in the New York Times about the Watergate break-in (front page, but a single column, “below the fold”), at which time there was not the least hint that Nixon had anything to do with it, having known of “Tricky Dick” as he used to be called, since he ran his first red-baiting campaign against the unsuspecting California Congressman Jerry Voorhis in 1946.  I said to myself, “Nixon’s behind this one.”

Ronald Reagan, counseled by the famous political consultant Lee Atwaterbrought racism into the mainstream of Republican politics.  In March, 1980, he symbolically opened his Presidential primary campaign in the tiny town of Philadelphia, MS.  It just happened to be the site of the murder of the three civil rights workers during the “Freedom Summer” of 1964 (one of whom, Andy Goodman, I had known a bit at high school).

Reagan also was the first to make abortion rights a political issue.  Starting down that track from the beginning, he made the resignations of George and Barbara Bush from their long-time Board memberships with Texas Planned Parenthood a condition of giving the Vice-Presidential nomination to Bush.  On energy policy, one of Reagan’s first acts as President was to shut down, on January 21, 1981, the Federally-funded alternative energy research program that President Carter had started, as well as ordering the removal of the solar panels that the former president installed on the roof of the White House.  The Global Warming Denial Movement is a direct descendant of the Reagan Presidency.   Just imagine where this country could have been in the alternative energy technology movement had that program stayed in place.  But Big Oil was as much behind Reagan as it is behind the present whole of the GOP/TP.

And oh yes, in the 1980 election Reagan’s victory was called a “Landslide.”  Actually, he got 50% of the vote, Jimmy Carter got 43% and a third party candidate (for whom I had worked), former Congressman John Anderson, got 7%.

On “Iran-Contra,” during his Presidency Reagan broke the law by supporting the right-wing rebels in Nicaragua, such support being specifically prohibited by an Act of Congress.  (He also broke the law by secretly dealing with the Iranian “terrorists,” with whom, during the 1980 Presidential Campaign, much like Nixon he committed treason by bargaining with them not to release the US Embassy hostages until after the Presidential election, thus making sure that Carter would continue to be saddled with the continuing crisis.)  “Iran-Contra” eventually got to a joint Congressional Committee.  Ted Kennedy and other liberals were kept off the Committee by Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, the Democratic fixer for the GOP, who would in the future play a similar role on the “9/11 Commission.”  It is interesting to note that current Democratic “fixer,” Cong. Steney Hoyer, has arranged to keep such liberal lights as Cong. Alan Grayson off the newly minted House “Benghazi” (Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi) Committee.  Hamilton also arranged for Col. Oliver North, who was at the center of the Iran-Contra plot, to be given Congressional immunity.  Otherwise, he would have been forced to take the Fifth, which likely would have rightly led to Reagan’s impeachment.

The appearance of two gay men in the third act of the play (2009) made me think back to the first AIDS Crisis, which broke about in the middle of the Reagan Presidency.  Reagan, so strongly indebted politically as he was to the “Revs.” Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who had immediately labelled AIDS as, “God’s punishment for the sins of homosexuality,” of course Reagan had known many gays during his days in Hollywood, including the “Male Archetype” Rock Hudson, who happened to have been one of the early victims of the dread disease, couldn’t bring himself to mention the word (AIDS) for more than two years after it had been coined.

Finally, you might ask, why so many negative memories and so many that feature Republicans and Ronald Reagan.  Only because it is the Republicans,and the policies with which they have been running our country, whether in the majority in Washington or not, and gradually running it into the ground, for the bulk of my adult life.  And, it was Ronald Reagan, the “failed B-movie actor,” as he is described by the leading liberal at the beginning of the play, who set the pattern on so many levels for what the Republican Party and our nation have become today.

Yes indeed, Sean, “What would Reagan do?”  One only has to look at the record.

Jerad-Amanda-Miller-Joker-Harley-Quinn

Why doesn’t this surprise me at all?

Jerad Miller Vegas Cop Killer Speaking at Bundy Ranch | Jerad Miller Bundy Ranch

 

 

odessa3

Video evidence from the fascist murderers themselves, evidence of war crimes, mass murder…

 

Odessa explained.

 

MV5BMTcyNzk4Nzg4N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTkxMDI2MDE

 

So What’s Noah with You?

By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Noah is a mighty motion picture. And so too was Noah, or whoever the real life person or personages, and his/her/their experiences, upon whom the various myths and legends were based, a mighty man. There are at least 500 Flood legends/myths in cultures around the world. As for the broader subject of creation legends/myths, there are a ton of those too. Noah the movie offers a variation on both the Creation story and Flood story that is told in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Wikipedia sums the latter up pretty neatly:

 “The Book of Genesis (from the Latin Vulgate, in turn borrowed or transliterated  from Greek Hebrew: “In [the] beginning”) is the first book of the Hebrew Bible  (the Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament. [1]

“The basic narrative expresses the central theme: God creates the world (along  with creating the first man and woman) and appoints man as his regent, but man  proves disobedient and God destroys his world through the Flood. The new post- Flood world is equally corrupt, but God does not destroy it, instead calling one  man, Abraham, to be the seed of its salvation. At God’s command Abraham  descends from his home into the land of Canaan, given to him by God, where he  dwells as a sojourner, as does his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Jacob’s name  is changed to Israel, and through the agency of his son Joseph, the children of  Israel descend into Egypt, 70 people in all with their households, and God  promises them a future of greatness. Genesis ends with Israel in Egypt, ready for  the coming of Moses and the Exodus. The narrative is punctuated by a series of  covenants with God, successively narrowing in scope from all mankind (the  covenant with Noah) to a special relationship with one people alone (Abraham  and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob). [2]“

The movie is powerful stuff, with a fine acting performance in the lead role by the hyper-versatile Russell Crowe. It is to my taste a bit over-long, but it has phenomenal special effects and settings (apparently many of them in Iceland) and for those reasons alone is well-worth seeing (although at this juncture you will likely have to wait until it comes out on Blue-Tooth). But of course it is the story that is the real grabber and raiser-of-controversy.

Noah comes along fairly early in Genesis and does in the film too, but not before there are some notable diversions from the usual modern telling, which do have some of the Christian Right rather upset. The “Bible,” as they are fond of telling us, is the “inerrant word of God.” That presents a problem right off, for one has to wonder exactly which version of the Bible are they talking about. The one, so I am told, usually referred to is the one that is usually referred to as the “King James Version.”

1395774132000-XXX-NOAH-MOV-JY-3439--62963200

The problem with it as the “inerrant word of God” is that it was actually written, at the behest of the nobles and churchmen who, following the death of Elizabeth I, accepted James VI of Scotland as her successor to the throne, as James I of England, by a committee. After the religious wars in England in the 16th century, won by the protestant Church of England, the English ruling class wanted to make sure that such wars would not return. And so for one thing, 47 theologians and scholars were commissioned to create the translation that would become the standard book for the Church of England (of which, conveniently the Monarch was the Head, and still is, for that matter). It came to be known as the ” King James Version.”

47 men with a collective ear for “God’s word?” Hmmm. And of course there were many other translations that had been done over the centuries from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin text, the first in English having been done about a century earlier by one William Tyndale. Couldn’t his, or any of the others for that matter, have been the “inerrant word of God?” Ah well, we’ll never know, will we?

Which leads us to another irritant for the Christian Right. Noah, when referring to the higher power, uses the term “Creator,” rather than “God.” It happens that as an atheist, I am totally happy with Noah’s use of that term, as I am with its appearance in the US Declaration of Independence. As far as I am concerned, the creator of us all is the combination of the laws of chemistry, physics, and biology which first produced the Universe, then our Solar system, and eventually, through the Laws of Evolution, us. Could the movie Noah have meant the same thing? Well, hey, we’ll never know, but he could have.

The BIG one is of course that the movie’s Cain is not just a simply bad famer guy who somehow passes down evil to future human generations. He is a REALLY bad guy who creates something akin to industrial-destructive-capitalism which becomes the scourge of the Earth (sound familiar?) And the Flood, by golly, is not simply the Creator’s punishment for humans being bad people. It is God’s punishment specifically for what Cain had created. This one really has the Right bent out of shape. For in the movie Cain’s creation was well on its way to destroying all of the Creator’s creations, including all of the other animals and the plants as well. And the Creator didn’t like that. (For another approach to the “the Creator is unhappy” story, see an earlier OpEdNews column of mine).

And so he, she, it or they, ordered the deluge, of which Noah was warned and for which he built a very (as in very, very) large lifeboat, for yes, his family and as many other species, plant and animal, that could be crammed on board. The results of the depredations of Cain and his industrial/capitalist successors sounds just like those predicted for anthropogenic global warming, which is well on its way to creating The Sixth Extinction. That of course, is a message that the Right, well beyond the Christian Right, just doesn’t like one bit.

But hey, we know that the Creation story in whichever version of the Judeo-Christian Bible one happens to subscribe to, is just one of hundreds of them. And the Flood story in the same book is just one of hundreds too. So who indeed is to say that the telling in this movie’s version of the Creation/Noah story is not the correct one?

 

ilse_koch2

 

Report: The Kochs, A Nazi Past, Oil & The Foundation of The Right

 

Ilse Koch is the most famous of all Germans accused of having committed atrocities during the war.   She was the wife of the commandant of the Buchenwald camp.   She was twice convicted in post-war trials,  once by an international court and once by her own country.   The chief charges against her were cruelty to inmates,  including murder,  but what she is best-known for is the making of human-skin ornaments,   including the lampshades of which we’ve all heard.

 

The John Birch Society

The foundation is financed via the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch,  a founding member of the John Birch Society.  Koch  “wrote admiringly of Benito Mussolini’s suppression of Communists in Italy, and disparagingly of the American civil-rights movement.

download

 

I can be critical of Jon Stewart, but this is the funniest take down of religious pundit idiots I’ve seen in quite a while.

“Noah” Is “Not a Documentary”

 

 

APTOPIX Venezuela Election

 

The truth about Venezuela: a revolt of the well-off

Major media outlets have already reported that Venezuela’s poor have not joined the right-wing opposition protests, but that is an understatement: it’s not just the poor who are abstaining – in Caracas, it’s almost everyone outside of a few rich areas like Altamira, where small groups of protesters engage in nightly battles with security forces, throwing rocks and firebombs and running from tear gas.

Walking from the working-class neighborhood of Sabana Grande to the city center, there was no sign that Venezuela is in the grip of a “crisis” that requires intervention from the Organization of American States (OAS), no matter what John Kerry tells you. The metro also ran very well, although I couldn’t get off at Alta Mira station, where the rebels had set up their base of operations until their eviction this week.

 

reagan_ghostbusters-620x412

Kieran Kelly recommended this Salon article — which is actually a revisionary look at the films of Harold Ramis.*

Baby boomer humor’s big lie: “Ghostbusters” and “Caddyshack” really liberated Reagan and Wall Street
Harold Ramis was a master of subversive comedy. But the politics of “Caddyshack” and rude gestures have backfired

* I am not in complete agreement with anyone concerned.  While the films could be criticized for their targets and execution, I don’t think the writer makes his case.  The terminology used displays some dissonance, and he rejects a nuanced, complex reading of the films.

“And that makes for a pretty liberal film, right? I mean, who else makes fun of country club grandees except for us lefty authority-questioners?

Well, free-market conservatives do.”

Here the writer steeps his clumsy criticism in the pop left/right knee jerkism we’ve come to expect out there in the mainstream.  Presenting his false argument about “authority-questioners”, it’s almost condescending.  Authority isn’t a virtue.

The reason these movies stand out and endure is because they have complexity.  They aren’t meant to tell you want to think, but to give you the opportunity to do so.  Without that complexity and challenge, there’s no classic.

Perhaps the article’s best dig is:

“The kind of liberation the rude gesture brings has turned out to be not that liberating after all, but along the way it has crowded out previous ideas of what liberation meant—ideas that had to with equality, with work, with ownership.”

Here, the author, Thomas Frank, almost makes his point.  But the dissonance, in light of what he argued previously, sinks his argument.  How he can lay all of this on Ramis and Company, in the context of a farcical comedy, is unclear.   But work and ownership, Frank says, are intrinsic to his idea of liberation.

Like the Ghostbusters?

Frank just decried the idea of the small business startup, but now he’s in favor of work and ownership.  Well make your mind up, Frank.

“Here the martinet is none other than a troublemaking EPA bureaucrat; the righteous, rule-breaking slobs are small businessmen—ghost-hunting businessmen, that is, who have launched themselves deliriously into the world of entrepreneurship.”

Yes, work and ownership.  In fact bureaucracy and the EPA itself can have problems, misdirected activities, harm.  That’s the nature of power and authority, and in this case unaccountable power: the EPA man is not the one facing jail.  Reading too much into this EPA angle may be biasing any fair interpretation of the film.

The EPA bureaucrat made a unilateral decision that was disastrous while choosing ignorance over the consequences of said decision.  It is that kind of reasoning that is the true target, not the Environmental Protection Agency or the concept of reasonable regulations.  That’s the distinct difference that received no mention.

In some ways I agree with Frank that these films chose some easy targets and largely symbolic middle fingers.  That would make them less effective, in the political context, not more.  Trying to pin the Reagan era on Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and friends is too much of a stretch to be taken seriously.  The photo (above) that Salon chose to go with seems a tad dishonest in its complete dissing of Ramis and his widely beloved works.

Unthinking lefties are as unpalatable to me as unthinking right wingers, and perhaps were to Ramis too.  We must confront these challenges and the myriad opposing ideas, even in comedy, if we’re to stand the test of time.

dirty-harry-letter

 

Starship_Troopers

Starship Troopers: One of the Most Misunderstood Movies Ever

There’s a theme emerging here where films are reexamined and dissected for the better.  Sucker Punch got a similar 2nd chance at life with this video essay:

I had to stand up for the Burton/Depp Alice in Wonderland.  I know that Josh Olson stood against the tide with Speed Racer (which I haven’t seen, so he might be full of it!).

I always liked Starship Troopers for what it was, not considering it some kind of master work, but I did get the dark satirical view lording over it.  It seemed in direct conflict with the underlying source material, as if Verhoeven was mocking the book (could be, haven’t read it).