China, having served Obama’s speechifying purposes as the
jobs-stealing boogeyman, then becomes a prop for presidential
self-congratulation on the environment. “In Beijing,” he said, “we made
an historic announcement. The United States will double the pace at
which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time,
to limiting their emissions.” This is Obama, Enviro-Man. But, wait! Here
comes Obama as Frack-Man, who has overseen the hyper-production of U.S.
oil and gas and turned the White House into PR central for the fracking
industry. “We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil
and protect our planet. And today, America is number one in oil and
gas.” One million new barrels of U.S. oil per day have flooded world
markets, further encouraging fossil fuel-intensive development and
global warming. He is a super-fracking enviro-marvel.
Weaponized U.S. oil production threatens to destabilize Russia, Iran
and Venezuela – and possibly the entire global economy, which is
slumping and does not need the extra fuel. But oil warfare is clearly
Obama’s purpose. Sanctions are just gravy. “We’re upholding the
principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small by opposing Russian
aggression and supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO
allies,” he said, celebrating his alliance with Ukrainian Nazis.
-- Glen Ford, "State of the Union 2015: Lethal, Predatory, Delusional" (Black Agenda Report).
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Truest statement of the week II
Uday Al-Zaidi is the brother of journalist Muntadher Al-Zaidy, who
threw “the shoe that went around the world” at George W. Bush on
December 14th, 2008 “… for the widows and orphans and all those killed
in Iraq.”
In Court he testified that watching the US President he had “felt the blood of the innocent people bleeding from beneath (Bush’s) feet”, compelling his action.
Representation to the Iraqi government at the highest level is incumbent on all those to whom humanity and human rights is utmost priority. No time can be wasted. Rivers of blood have bled, literally, from Iraqi feet and bodies, from Abu Ghraib to the innumerable secret prisons. Delay will near certainly be death.
It is also incumbent upon the UN’s relevant organizations, UNAMI and all other such international organizations that pressure be brought on the Iraqi Authorities for Mr Al-Zaidi’s immediate release.
It is further imperative to draw Prime Minister Al-Abadi’s attention to his personal responsibility for the safety of Mr Al-Zaidi and all others under government detention. Should human rights and international law in Iraq now count for even less than the woeful post-invasion standing, the Prime Minister will surely eventually be held accountable in international law for the horrifying abuses with his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki.
-- Felicity Arbuthnot, "Uday Al-Zaidy: Another Life in the Balance in 'The New Iraq'" (Dissident Voice).
In Court he testified that watching the US President he had “felt the blood of the innocent people bleeding from beneath (Bush’s) feet”, compelling his action.
Representation to the Iraqi government at the highest level is incumbent on all those to whom humanity and human rights is utmost priority. No time can be wasted. Rivers of blood have bled, literally, from Iraqi feet and bodies, from Abu Ghraib to the innumerable secret prisons. Delay will near certainly be death.
It is also incumbent upon the UN’s relevant organizations, UNAMI and all other such international organizations that pressure be brought on the Iraqi Authorities for Mr Al-Zaidi’s immediate release.
It is further imperative to draw Prime Minister Al-Abadi’s attention to his personal responsibility for the safety of Mr Al-Zaidi and all others under government detention. Should human rights and international law in Iraq now count for even less than the woeful post-invasion standing, the Prime Minister will surely eventually be held accountable in international law for the horrifying abuses with his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki.
-- Felicity Arbuthnot, "Uday Al-Zaidy: Another Life in the Balance in 'The New Iraq'" (Dissident Voice).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Sunday.
First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
We got up very early for us, got the edition up.
And what did we come up with:
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
And that's what we came up with.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Sunday.
First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
We got up very early for us, got the edition up.
And what did we come up with:
Another truest for Glen Ford.
Another for Felicity Arbuthnot,
It's really amazing to watch Americans pretend they give a damn about Iraq by trashing a movie or a dead man while refusing to call out Barack's request for US combat troops on the ground in Iraq.
I (Jim) begged Ava and C.I. to tackle this film. A piece we did last week was big in terms of e-mails and C.I. has twice addressed the film at The Common Ills. They didn't want to but agreed in the end and this is a powerful and important piece.
Stan raised the issue of the documentary and we quickly assembled a group based on who had seen the documentary.
Ruth brought this one to our attention.
We love ICH's content. We hate the comments.
Oh, Nancy, you're so begging for exposure.
What we listened to while working on this edition.
A response to the State Of The Union Address.
And another.
Michigan Greens focus on their state.
Repost from Great Britain's Socialist Worker.
And that's what we came up with.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: We speak out when?
We're confused.
While some supposedly against the Iraq War wasted all that time trashing a film, they failed to get the word out on the White House's efforts to get US troops on the ground in Iraq in combat.
The White House sent US Secretary of State John Kerry to argue, December 9th, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Congress must pass an authorization for US President Barack Obama's actions in Iraq and Syria and that this legislation must include that Barack can send US combat troops into Iraq.
When do we plan to address that?
The peace movement -- or what now passes for it -- keeps ignoring it.
They have time to trash a film and trash a dead man.
Because they 'care,' you understand.
They just don't want to work to stop Congress from okaying ground troops for combat in Iraq.
A number of groups are planning a protest in DC . . . for mid-March.
Do you really think Congress won't have passed an authorization by then?
And are you unable to plan a protest and to call for people to demand their representatives in Congress refuse to give Barack authority to put US troops into combat?
Just US troops being in Iraq means they may get into combat.
That's what happened to Canadian forces.
Last week, the Canadian government acknowledged that combat took place for Canada and the Islamic State. Al Jazeera reports:
Canadian special forces have clashed with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group by exchanging gunfire in Iraq in recent days, in the first confirmed ground battle between Western troops and ISIL, a senior officer has said.
The Canadians came under mortar and machine gun fire while training Iraqi troops near front lines and shot back in what Canadian special forces commander Brigadier General Michael Rouleau described as self-defence, killing the ISIL fighters.
Rouleau said the melee had taken place in the previous seven days and was "the first time we've taken fire and returned fire" in Iraq, where the armed group has overrun large areas.
And instead of dealing with reality, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper distorted reality to put those objecting to war on the defensive (see The Common Ills' "Harper hits (and gropes?) below the belt").
If you don't know which side the White House is on, you missed the State Department's Brett McGurk's Tweet:
The peace movement needs to be calling out what Barack's doing in Iraq right now -- not in mid-March.
While some supposedly against the Iraq War wasted all that time trashing a film, they failed to get the word out on the White House's efforts to get US troops on the ground in Iraq in combat.
The White House sent US Secretary of State John Kerry to argue, December 9th, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Congress must pass an authorization for US President Barack Obama's actions in Iraq and Syria and that this legislation must include that Barack can send US combat troops into Iraq.
When do we plan to address that?
The peace movement -- or what now passes for it -- keeps ignoring it.
They have time to trash a film and trash a dead man.
Because they 'care,' you understand.
They just don't want to work to stop Congress from okaying ground troops for combat in Iraq.
A number of groups are planning a protest in DC . . . for mid-March.
Do you really think Congress won't have passed an authorization by then?
And are you unable to plan a protest and to call for people to demand their representatives in Congress refuse to give Barack authority to put US troops into combat?
Just US troops being in Iraq means they may get into combat.
That's what happened to Canadian forces.
Last week, the Canadian government acknowledged that combat took place for Canada and the Islamic State. Al Jazeera reports:
Canadian special forces have clashed with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group by exchanging gunfire in Iraq in recent days, in the first confirmed ground battle between Western troops and ISIL, a senior officer has said.
The Canadians came under mortar and machine gun fire while training Iraqi troops near front lines and shot back in what Canadian special forces commander Brigadier General Michael Rouleau described as self-defence, killing the ISIL fighters.
Rouleau said the melee had taken place in the previous seven days and was "the first time we've taken fire and returned fire" in Iraq, where the armed group has overrun large areas.
And instead of dealing with reality, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper distorted reality to put those objecting to war on the defensive (see The Common Ills' "Harper hits (and gropes?) below the belt").
If you don't know which side the White House is on, you missed the State Department's Brett McGurk's Tweet:
PM Stephen Harper on #Canada's SOF in #Iraq: "If those guys [from #ISIL] fire at us, we're going to fire back and we're going to kill them."
19 retweets
16 favorites
The peace movement needs to be calling out what Barack's doing in Iraq right now -- not in mid-March.
Media: American Sniper
American Sniper is a film directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper as Iraq War veteran Chris Kyle who served as a sniper and wrote his life story in a memoir entitled, yes, American Sniper. The film is both a critical and a commercial success having scored Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing and made over $170 million in ticket sales in the US alone.
The reaction to the film has largely been positive.
It's also brought out a lot of ugly on our side (the left) -- some of which was touched on last week in "The Big Ugly: Lindy West."
Before we get to reactions, let's deal with the film which we were forced to see as a result of the controversy.
We're not fans of the war genre and would have been just fine never seeing the film.
Bradley Cooper is amazing and Sienna Miller was solid enough to have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress (she wasn't). Clint Eastwood being nominated for Best Director wouldn't have surprised us. But he wasn't nominated. Clint has been before, has even won the Award. He was also one of the five directors nominated for Outstanding Directing by the Directors Guild of America. The only director nominated for the Academy Award this year that wasn't nominated by the DGA was Bennett Miller who's been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director twice before (his current nomination is for Foxcatcher).
The film is neither pro-war not anti-war in our opinion.
It's open-ended and ambiguous allowing the viewer to form their own opinion.
Clint Eastwood declares that the film is anti-war.
And it may be in a film world where Platoon and Coming Home and All Quiet on the Western Front qualify as anti-war because their theme, like American Sniper's theme, is how war damages the human spirit.
We weren't surprised by the theme.
It's a standard in American films.
We were surprised by some of the criticisms.
The film, for example, was slammed for not focusing on Iraqis.
Who has ever focused on Iraqis in the never-ending Iraq War?
Not the New York Times and it's one of the few news outlets that has kept a bureau in Baghdad.
The focus has never been on the Iraqis.
And that's true of The Nation magazine.
Take the worst War Crime in Iraq, the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi on March 12, 2006 by US soldiers who also killed her parents and her five-year-old sister.
We covered it here.
Elsewhere?
After Katha Pollitt at The Nation was called out repeatdly, the 'feminist' mentioned Abeer finally. A single-sentence.
There were convictions for these crimes.
The Nation magazine couldn't bother. Katha Pollitt couldn't bother. (As we've long noted, the late Alexander Cockburn had a CounterPunch and Nation column that mentioned Abeer long before 'feminist' Katha found time.)
But what US war film has treated a real people the US declared war on as valid characters in a film?
There's Casualties of War and Redacted -- both directed by the great Brian DePalma.
Anyone else spring to mind?
Even Reds, which we love, doesn't really illuminate the Russians.
That's pretty much a given for most films throughout the world. They tend to focus on one group, the one of the country financing the film. That's true of France's Indochine (a great film carried by Catherine Deneuve) and most others.
So this notion that Clint made a huge mistake in bringing to life a memoir of an American soldier, of telling the story -- as the book did -- from his point of view?
Our response to the little whiners is: Have you ever seen film before in your damn lives?
Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan were among those doing real harm.
Moore declared snipers were "cowards" and then wanted to play like he hadn't said anything insulting.
Cindy Sheehan spewed hate at the late Chris Kyle in a blog post and made it even worse last week by insisting that it was Chris versus her son Casey.
Moore realized he'd gone way too far and tried to walk it back repeatedly.
It's really too late for that.
And Moore's nonsense of "I employ this veteran and that?"
It's bulls**t.
There's no doubt that Cindy and Moore embrace some veterans.
Some.
Those who will recant their actions and match the fury Moore and Sheehan feel and display.
The service members didn't declare war.
They have every right to feel proud or ashamed or neutral on what they saw and what they were ordered to do.
They are not the ones who gave the orders for war.
We've watched cowardly Michael Moore whore for Barack non-stop.
But he's not going to support a service member who won't call out the war?
Does he not get how cowardly he looks?
And Cindy needs to grasp that her son is only one of many Americans killed in the Iraq War. And if his death causes her grief, she might remember that other families grieve as well.
Some will argue that this nonsense that has been spewed at the film was productive.
It wasn't.
Why aren't we talking about the White House requesting Congress authorize Barack's actions in Iraq and give Barack the power to put US troops into on the ground combat in Iraq?
Why aren't we talking about that?
Instead we're talking about a film.
Instead, the film is being used to slime and slam a dead American vet.
Cindy can't talk about Iraq anymore but damned if she can't use it.
She's planning a DC action this March on the anniversary of the war.
How is her hatred supposed to help turnout?
More to the point, how do her remarks or Michael's help anyone?
Veterans saw what happened in the last weeks as the crazy was unleashed by people like Max Blumenthal. Thing is, that human trash, no real standing?
Blumenthal's not even famous for his father. No one knows who he is and his career ended the minute The Daily Beast let him go (fired!).
But Moore and Sheehan have been presented as anti-war voices and the two are recognized as such and what do their statements do now?
Sliming a dead man, holding him accountable for a war he didn't start, that helps bring over what people to the movement?
Does it make veterans feel welcome?
They really haven't been joining the peace movement in the last years -- mainly because there is no peace movement.
Cindy herself says in a press release:
Organizing against the wars has been challenging during the Obama administration because so many people who would identify as 'antiwar' misplaced a lot of hope in Obama ending the wars. As a matter of fact, Obama has expanded the wars abroad, drone bombing, assassinations of US citizens without trial, and the police state here in the states. It's time to reclaim our principles as members of a global community and join together in Washington DC and stop giving Obama a 'chance.'
Is it less challenging when you're attacking American soldiers?
The box office appears to have spoken.
Americans aren't opposed to Chris Kyle.
They may be proud of him, sad for him or any mixture.
But they don't hate him.
And the hate they've seen spewed at him only slows -- or even halts -- the peace movement's ability to recruit new activists.
A wall's now up.
Cindy could remove the wall she created.
She'd have to acknowledge she spoke out of anger and that, of course, all lives matter.
That's really not inconsistent with her past expressed beliefs.
We're against the ongoing Iraq War. We always have been.
We have no problem calling out those responsible for the war.
That would be the leaders and the policy makers.
We will call out service members when they break the law.
Steven D. Green was the ringleader in the conspiracy against Abeer. We called him out repeatedly for his crimes which were War Crimes.
But Chris Kyle didn't commit War Crimes.
Yes, he killed Iraqis.
We wish no Iraqis had been killed -- we did not and do not support US troops being in Iraq.
But if troops are sent into a foreign country, guns will go off. People will be ordered to kill.
That happens in war.
Chris did what he was trained to do and what he was ordered to do.
You're going to have a hard time convincing Americans that he's a criminal as a result.
And if you continue to make that argument, you're just going to ensure that attempts to restart any movement are useless.
The reaction to the film has largely been positive.
It's also brought out a lot of ugly on our side (the left) -- some of which was touched on last week in "The Big Ugly: Lindy West."
Before we get to reactions, let's deal with the film which we were forced to see as a result of the controversy.
We're not fans of the war genre and would have been just fine never seeing the film.
Bradley Cooper is amazing and Sienna Miller was solid enough to have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress (she wasn't). Clint Eastwood being nominated for Best Director wouldn't have surprised us. But he wasn't nominated. Clint has been before, has even won the Award. He was also one of the five directors nominated for Outstanding Directing by the Directors Guild of America. The only director nominated for the Academy Award this year that wasn't nominated by the DGA was Bennett Miller who's been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director twice before (his current nomination is for Foxcatcher).
The film is neither pro-war not anti-war in our opinion.
It's open-ended and ambiguous allowing the viewer to form their own opinion.
Clint Eastwood declares that the film is anti-war.
And it may be in a film world where Platoon and Coming Home and All Quiet on the Western Front qualify as anti-war because their theme, like American Sniper's theme, is how war damages the human spirit.
We weren't surprised by the theme.
It's a standard in American films.
We were surprised by some of the criticisms.
The film, for example, was slammed for not focusing on Iraqis.
Who has ever focused on Iraqis in the never-ending Iraq War?
Not the New York Times and it's one of the few news outlets that has kept a bureau in Baghdad.
The focus has never been on the Iraqis.
And that's true of The Nation magazine.
Take the worst War Crime in Iraq, the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi on March 12, 2006 by US soldiers who also killed her parents and her five-year-old sister.
We covered it here.
Elsewhere?
After Katha Pollitt at The Nation was called out repeatdly, the 'feminist' mentioned Abeer finally. A single-sentence.
There were convictions for these crimes.
The Nation magazine couldn't bother. Katha Pollitt couldn't bother. (As we've long noted, the late Alexander Cockburn had a CounterPunch and Nation column that mentioned Abeer long before 'feminist' Katha found time.)
But what US war film has treated a real people the US declared war on as valid characters in a film?
There's Casualties of War and Redacted -- both directed by the great Brian DePalma.
Anyone else spring to mind?
Even Reds, which we love, doesn't really illuminate the Russians.
That's pretty much a given for most films throughout the world. They tend to focus on one group, the one of the country financing the film. That's true of France's Indochine (a great film carried by Catherine Deneuve) and most others.
So this notion that Clint made a huge mistake in bringing to life a memoir of an American soldier, of telling the story -- as the book did -- from his point of view?
Our response to the little whiners is: Have you ever seen film before in your damn lives?
Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan were among those doing real harm.
Moore declared snipers were "cowards" and then wanted to play like he hadn't said anything insulting.
Cindy Sheehan spewed hate at the late Chris Kyle in a blog post and made it even worse last week by insisting that it was Chris versus her son Casey.
Moore realized he'd gone way too far and tried to walk it back repeatedly.
It's really too late for that.
And Moore's nonsense of "I employ this veteran and that?"
It's bulls**t.
There's no doubt that Cindy and Moore embrace some veterans.
Some.
Those who will recant their actions and match the fury Moore and Sheehan feel and display.
The service members didn't declare war.
They have every right to feel proud or ashamed or neutral on what they saw and what they were ordered to do.
They are not the ones who gave the orders for war.
We've watched cowardly Michael Moore whore for Barack non-stop.
But he's not going to support a service member who won't call out the war?
Does he not get how cowardly he looks?
And Cindy needs to grasp that her son is only one of many Americans killed in the Iraq War. And if his death causes her grief, she might remember that other families grieve as well.
Some will argue that this nonsense that has been spewed at the film was productive.
It wasn't.
Why aren't we talking about the White House requesting Congress authorize Barack's actions in Iraq and give Barack the power to put US troops into on the ground combat in Iraq?
Why aren't we talking about that?
Instead we're talking about a film.
Instead, the film is being used to slime and slam a dead American vet.
Cindy can't talk about Iraq anymore but damned if she can't use it.
She's planning a DC action this March on the anniversary of the war.
How is her hatred supposed to help turnout?
More to the point, how do her remarks or Michael's help anyone?
Veterans saw what happened in the last weeks as the crazy was unleashed by people like Max Blumenthal. Thing is, that human trash, no real standing?
Blumenthal's not even famous for his father. No one knows who he is and his career ended the minute The Daily Beast let him go (fired!).
But Moore and Sheehan have been presented as anti-war voices and the two are recognized as such and what do their statements do now?
Sliming a dead man, holding him accountable for a war he didn't start, that helps bring over what people to the movement?
Does it make veterans feel welcome?
They really haven't been joining the peace movement in the last years -- mainly because there is no peace movement.
Cindy herself says in a press release:
Organizing against the wars has been challenging during the Obama administration because so many people who would identify as 'antiwar' misplaced a lot of hope in Obama ending the wars. As a matter of fact, Obama has expanded the wars abroad, drone bombing, assassinations of US citizens without trial, and the police state here in the states. It's time to reclaim our principles as members of a global community and join together in Washington DC and stop giving Obama a 'chance.'
Is it less challenging when you're attacking American soldiers?
The box office appears to have spoken.
Americans aren't opposed to Chris Kyle.
They may be proud of him, sad for him or any mixture.
But they don't hate him.
And the hate they've seen spewed at him only slows -- or even halts -- the peace movement's ability to recruit new activists.
A wall's now up.
Cindy could remove the wall she created.
She'd have to acknowledge she spoke out of anger and that, of course, all lives matter.
That's really not inconsistent with her past expressed beliefs.
We're against the ongoing Iraq War. We always have been.
We have no problem calling out those responsible for the war.
That would be the leaders and the policy makers.
We will call out service members when they break the law.
Steven D. Green was the ringleader in the conspiracy against Abeer. We called him out repeatedly for his crimes which were War Crimes.
But Chris Kyle didn't commit War Crimes.
Yes, he killed Iraqis.
We wish no Iraqis had been killed -- we did not and do not support US troops being in Iraq.
But if troops are sent into a foreign country, guns will go off. People will be ordered to kill.
That happens in war.
Chris did what he was trained to do and what he was ordered to do.
You're going to have a hard time convincing Americans that he's a criminal as a result.
And if you continue to make that argument, you're just going to ensure that attempts to restart any movement are useless.
Documentary roundtable
Ava: February 22nd, the 87th Academy Awards presentation will air on ABC. For the purpose of this roundtable, we're dropping back to last year's awards to note the winner for Best Documentary Feature. Betty's kids did the
illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.
Ava (Con't): Let me toss to Stan whose idea it was to do something on this film.
Stan: 20 Feet from Stardom is a documentary directed by Morgan Neville which focuses on a few backup singers. I enjoyed performances -- both archival and ones appearing for the first time in the film -- by Merry Clayton, Lisa Fischer, Tata Vega, Darlene Love and The Waters, among others. If you focus on those performances and on some people who deserve larger recognition getting that recognition you can applaud the film. I think it was worthy of the Academy Award and the only other possible winner last year was Jehane Noujaim and Karim Amer's The Square. These were attempts at truth -- as opposed to a known liar who was nominated and who has repeatedly -- this White male -- distorted facts about incidents involving the Black community. So I was especially glad that he and his partner lost. But I was watching 20 Feet from Stardom again because it's now on Netflix and I was bothered by a number of issues.
Ava: Which is how we come to this roundtable which is composed of The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, and me; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. The film is supposed to be about back up singers but it's really more narrow than that. Betty?
Betty: Sheryl Crow started as a backup singer and she appears in the film briefly. She is White. So was one of Sting's backup singers in the film. David Lasley is a White and he's a backup singer who was featured. I don't know his work.
C.I.: He's also a songwriter. His most famous song is probably Maxine Nightingale's "Lead Me On" which he wrote with Allee Willis.
Betty: I love that song! And that goes to a problem I had with the film. They didn't tell us that. I didn't know it so I didn't know they didn't tell us that. But throughout the film, I kept thinking, "Why aren't they telling us anything?" Darlene Love, they covered.
C.I.: Somewhat.
Betty: But with Darlene we knew she sang lead on some songs that were billed to the Crystals -- a sixties girl group -- a Black group produced by Phil Spector. Merry Clayton? Why was she even in the film? If you can't note the hook she sings on Tori Amos' "Cornflake Girl," why are you even bothering to include her. I like Merry and I love her singing. But my point is no context was really provided.
Ann: I believe Betty's talking about when artists were presented that they show up and we get some b.s. on the screen listing five or so acts they did backup vocals for -- not even told it was touring or album work or what.
Betty: Yes, that's what I'm complaining about.
Ann: And that's such a valid point. And that was true of everyone in the film for the most part. I mean, Lou Adler produced the Mamas and the Papas among others. At one point, Merry's walking down a hall and mentions that "Carol" would stick her head out of a studio in this hall and ask her to come sing on a track. Carole who? Carole King. And the tracks were on the best selling Tapestry album -- which Lou Adler produced. But we're not even told Merry's talking about Carole King, let alone that there really is no "Way Over Yonder" on that album without Merry's vocals.
Isaiah: Merry also provided back up vocals on Carole King's Music album.
Rebecca: And this was needed, this sort of information, in the documentary. But let's point out that Merry and others in the documentary took part in the 2014 MusicCares awards, they performed. And the award for person of the year was Carole King who made a point to thank people for their work on Tapestry but did not thank Merry who was sitting there in the audience.
Ava: Carole didn't thank any woman to be clear. Toni Stern co-wrote "It's Too Late" -- the massive number one single from the album and Carole didn't bother to thank Toni either. This sexism, this refusal to acknowledge female peers is something we noted and addressed in "Carole King's Conditioned Role and Desire (Ava and C.I.)." We note, for example, that she meets John Lennon and Yoko Ono but can't even bothered with speaking to Yoko. Or she reduces Carole Bayer Sager to a co-writer of Carole's own bad non-hit "Anyone At All" while refusing to note that Carole Bayer Sager is the gifted co-writer of "That's What Friends Are For," Diana Ross' "It's My Turn," Aretha Franklin's "Ever Changing Times," Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better," Rita Coolidge's "I'd Rather Leave While I'm In Love," Patti LaBelle and Michael McDonald's "On My Own," and so many more including "A Groovy Kind Of Love."But while Carole King gives background on the men in her book, she just tosses the women out and dispenses with them quickly. I believe we noted she presents Carole Bayer as a friend she co-wrote "Anyone At All" with and never mentions anything Carole Bayer wrote which was a hit or that Bayer is not just a friend she got to write a song with in the 90s but a longterm songwriter whose career dates back to the sixties and whose won numerous awards.
Isaiah: The Grammy, the Golden Globe, the Academy Award.
Kat: The latter for co-writing the theme to Arthur, "Best That You Can Do." And while Carole Bayer Sager's winning awards for writing for films, Carole King was recording two songs for the cheaply made Care Bears movie. Carole also didn't thank Joni Mitchell who sings on the Tapestry album. Let's be clear that she slighted all women in her acceptance speech the same way she did in her book.
Ty: One of the things that I didn't like was the ahistorical nonsense. The director makes Darlene Love the heart of the film and to do so he hypes her like crazy. In 1958, Darlene joins The Blossoms and the film tells you they are new, there is nothing like them, they change music. Prior to this, the film insists, there were only White backup singers. That damn lie is obviously untrue. But let's pretend the White film maker is attempting to say the pop charts only had White backup singers. Prior to 1958? We're not going to do a huge fact check, we're just going to note Ray Charles and The Raelettes. Ray forms the Raelettes in 1956. The Raelettes predate the Blossoms and are better known. Over the years, this group of singers will include Mable John -- who does briefly appear in the documentary, Minnie Riperton and Merry Clayton among others.
Ann: And on that topic, White back up singers, they were dismissed so rudely. First off, you're talking about a different genre and a different time. To ridicule them for being able to read music? How shameful and that nonsense came from White idiots like Bruce Springsteen.
Kat: What the f**k was Bruce doing in the film? His knowledge of backup singers is limited to cheating on his first wife by sleeping with one and then marrying her. Bruce is so stupid throughout the film. He insists he wanted the Phil Spector sound early on but later realized it was about youth -- the sound required youth. What a stupid ass. Does he not know the age of the session musicians on, for example, "Spanish Harlem"? What a damn fool.
Ty: And he and others stated repeatedly that back up singing was the church, was the Black church. No, it wasn't. Motown, more than any other label, utilized lead and backing vocals. Mary Wilson has long stated how offensive it was to her when 'critics' would say Diana Ross and the Supremes needed to "get back to the church" like Aretha when their singing wasn't rooted in the church. Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, the Four Tops, etc, they weren't rooted in church vocals. There's nothing wrong with church vocals. But stop pretending that African-Americans sing like they're in the church. Dionne Warwick never has.
Rebecca: I think a theme can emerge, one that the film ignores, in that the mid-to-late 60s finds a number of British White performers using African-Americans to appear soulful and to get a 'church sound.'
Isaiah: Not only would I agree with that, I think you can make a similar argument of use about the director of this documentary. And I want to be on record stating that Bruce Springsteen's remarks were both idiotic and borderline racist -- and I'm being kind and saying "borderline."
Betty: I found his racist and offensive. He needed to shut his damn mouth. Sting was one. Sting spoke of the backup singer and didn't try to deliver a history lesson or speak for Black America. Bette Midler spoke about backup vocalists. I didn't mind that at all. Unlike Bruce, Bette's known for her work with backup singers. That alone gave her standing to speak. The fact that her remarks were also intelligent was an added bonus.
Stan: I would agree with that 100%. She really was the only 'star' artist featured who knew what she was talking about.
C.I.: What about Patti Austin?
Stan: See that goes to the issue about the film failing to identify people. I don't really consider Patti a backup singer. She's done that but she's also had hits and she's moved over to jazz where she's found real glory. I felt the film was better when she spoke but I don't think most people watching knew who she was because the film failed to provide her background -- there was no, "She hit number one with 'Baby Come To Me,' she won a Grammy in 2008 for one of her jazz albums . . ." It was just, "Here's Patti Austin."
Rebecca: For a documentary allegedly about women, there was way too much worship by the director of men.
Isaiah: I would agree with that. And ask: Who the hell is Claudia Lennear? Oh, she was an Ikette? Okay. So she was used to provide church and soul? To Tina Turner? What nonsense. The film was more interested in telling you she slept with Mick Jagger, that she's supposedly the inspiration for the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" and that she posed for Playboy. Why the f**k am I supposed to care about any of that?
Ty: I found the film insulting and a White rescue attempt. It reminds me of the idiots who whine about Florence Ballard and how Berry Gordy made Diana Ross the lead singer of the Supremes. Flo had a powerful voice. It just wasn't marketable because it was the generic powerful voice. Sorry ladies in the film, but that applies to some of you as well. Diana had a unique sound and that's what Berry picked up on. There's this notion that anyone could have been a star when it requires a lot of work and a lot of luck.
Betty: Right. In noting the hits that Carole Bayer Sager had co-written, Ava mentioned Rita Coolidge. Rita was a backup singer. That's how she got her start. The film seemed unwilling to note that you could and many did crossover. That also includes Minnie Riperton whose famous forever for her hit "Loving You." Did Darlene have a hit making voice? In the sixties, yes. But that same voice as an adult solo artist? I don't think so. She sings like a little girl -- in terms of range and the purity of the notes. Judy Garland did as well but Judy never dominated the pop singles chart -- not even in the pre-rock and roll era. There is nothing, for example, sensual about Darlene's voice. I can remember hearing her version of "Love On The Rooftop," for example, and thinking, "Eh." Then hearing Cher sing it and thinking, "That's a song." Now Darlene's a great back up singer and a great oldies artist but let's not pretend that she had the maturity to move beyond it -- vocally had the maturity.
Kat: And, if we're naming women who were backup singers, Cher was a backup singer on most of Phil Spector's big hits in the sixties -- including "You've Lost That Loving Feeling." A fact that the movie ignores as it rushes to insist that Darlene and the Blossoms were the backup singers for Phil. Yes, they were on many songs but they weren't the only ones.
Ann: Merry Clayton going on Soul Train to perform Neil Young's "Southern Man" was an embarrassment. What label, what sane label, would let her go out looking like that. The hair was embarrassing. A really weak attempt at a fro. The blue jeans were awful and made her ass look flat. The t-shirt was just an embarrassment and made it look like she was about to clean the attic, not go out on stage and entertain.
Stan: I didn't see any serious evaluation of that. I saw a lot of 'we was robbed!' Well you kind of robbed yourself in many cases.
Ava: C.I.?
C.I.: Well there are numerous opinions in this roundtable and that goes to the fact that what makes a recording star is so vague and so happenstance. Luck can't be underestimated. But, to the Ikettes, why would you do this film and not note PP Arnold. Now she's a friend so I'm going to include her and maybe I'm biased out of friendship. But PP is your counter-argument to Darlene Love or any other woman in the film. She was singing back up with the Ikettes, they go to England to tour with the Stones in 1966 and PP decides to go solo. And she has a series of hits initially and racks up a hit about every 12 or so years after her initial run. That's a career. A solo artist career. Pat has much to be proud of and if you're doing a film on the topic the documentary focused on, I don't know why you would present Darlene Love as the centerpiece to make an argument that PP Arnold's career refutes.
And that's not to insult Darlene or take anything away from her but to note the director made a victims' film.
Stan: I would so agree with that. And Betty's right about Darlene's voice. It's powerful, it's in tune but it really is more of a juvenile's voice. Ronnie Spector had a more limited range but her voice is a star's voice -- and as the lead singer of the Ronnettes, she sang many hits. It's not noted in the film that Darlene's been kind of bitchy about Ronnie over the years in interviews -- insulting Ronnie's singing, for example, putting it down. I would guess that would also hurt the way people see you. I don't think Darlene's necessarily a bad person, I just didn't like the documentary zooming in on her and presenting a lot of hype where reality was needed.
Kat: And Ronnie, like Diana Ross, has a commercial voice. In popular music, what makes a hit recording artist is not necessarily a two octave range, etc. You have to have personality in your voice itself. Barry Manilow, for example, has personality. I'm not a huge fan of his but I will note that his voice is distinct and like no other.
Isaiah: And I'd like to point out that Bette Midler and Stevie Wonder knew what they were talking about and more footage of both should have been featured.
Ava: As we wind down, let me note that Darlene's also insulted Vikki Carr over the years and Carr's version of "He's A Rebel." That's the only reason Phil recorded Darlene doing the song, Carr's version was about to come out and he wanted to beat it. But Darlene's made insulting remarks about Carr's singing over the years indicating Carr is bland and white bread and blah blah. Vikki Carr's real name is Florencia Bisenta de Casillas Martinez Cardona and she was born in El Paso, Texas. Sometimes Darlene Love's a little stupid And sometimes so is 20 Feet from Stardom. The five films nominated for Best Documentary Feature this year are Laura Poitras, Mathilde Bonnefoy and Dirk Wilutzky's Citizen Four, John Maloof and Charlie Siskel's Finding Vivian Maier, Rory Kennedy and Kevin McAlester's Last Days in Vietnam, Wim Wenders, Juliano Ribeiro Salgado and David Rosier's The Salt of the Earth and Orlando von Einsiedel and Joanna Natasegara's Virunga. This is a rush transcript.
Ava (Con't): Let me toss to Stan whose idea it was to do something on this film.
Stan: 20 Feet from Stardom is a documentary directed by Morgan Neville which focuses on a few backup singers. I enjoyed performances -- both archival and ones appearing for the first time in the film -- by Merry Clayton, Lisa Fischer, Tata Vega, Darlene Love and The Waters, among others. If you focus on those performances and on some people who deserve larger recognition getting that recognition you can applaud the film. I think it was worthy of the Academy Award and the only other possible winner last year was Jehane Noujaim and Karim Amer's The Square. These were attempts at truth -- as opposed to a known liar who was nominated and who has repeatedly -- this White male -- distorted facts about incidents involving the Black community. So I was especially glad that he and his partner lost. But I was watching 20 Feet from Stardom again because it's now on Netflix and I was bothered by a number of issues.
Ava: Which is how we come to this roundtable which is composed of The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, and me; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. The film is supposed to be about back up singers but it's really more narrow than that. Betty?
Betty: Sheryl Crow started as a backup singer and she appears in the film briefly. She is White. So was one of Sting's backup singers in the film. David Lasley is a White and he's a backup singer who was featured. I don't know his work.
C.I.: He's also a songwriter. His most famous song is probably Maxine Nightingale's "Lead Me On" which he wrote with Allee Willis.
Betty: I love that song! And that goes to a problem I had with the film. They didn't tell us that. I didn't know it so I didn't know they didn't tell us that. But throughout the film, I kept thinking, "Why aren't they telling us anything?" Darlene Love, they covered.
C.I.: Somewhat.
Betty: But with Darlene we knew she sang lead on some songs that were billed to the Crystals -- a sixties girl group -- a Black group produced by Phil Spector. Merry Clayton? Why was she even in the film? If you can't note the hook she sings on Tori Amos' "Cornflake Girl," why are you even bothering to include her. I like Merry and I love her singing. But my point is no context was really provided.
Ann: I believe Betty's talking about when artists were presented that they show up and we get some b.s. on the screen listing five or so acts they did backup vocals for -- not even told it was touring or album work or what.
Betty: Yes, that's what I'm complaining about.
Ann: And that's such a valid point. And that was true of everyone in the film for the most part. I mean, Lou Adler produced the Mamas and the Papas among others. At one point, Merry's walking down a hall and mentions that "Carol" would stick her head out of a studio in this hall and ask her to come sing on a track. Carole who? Carole King. And the tracks were on the best selling Tapestry album -- which Lou Adler produced. But we're not even told Merry's talking about Carole King, let alone that there really is no "Way Over Yonder" on that album without Merry's vocals.
Isaiah: Merry also provided back up vocals on Carole King's Music album.
Rebecca: And this was needed, this sort of information, in the documentary. But let's point out that Merry and others in the documentary took part in the 2014 MusicCares awards, they performed. And the award for person of the year was Carole King who made a point to thank people for their work on Tapestry but did not thank Merry who was sitting there in the audience.
Ava: Carole didn't thank any woman to be clear. Toni Stern co-wrote "It's Too Late" -- the massive number one single from the album and Carole didn't bother to thank Toni either. This sexism, this refusal to acknowledge female peers is something we noted and addressed in "Carole King's Conditioned Role and Desire (Ava and C.I.)." We note, for example, that she meets John Lennon and Yoko Ono but can't even bothered with speaking to Yoko. Or she reduces Carole Bayer Sager to a co-writer of Carole's own bad non-hit "Anyone At All" while refusing to note that Carole Bayer Sager is the gifted co-writer of "That's What Friends Are For," Diana Ross' "It's My Turn," Aretha Franklin's "Ever Changing Times," Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better," Rita Coolidge's "I'd Rather Leave While I'm In Love," Patti LaBelle and Michael McDonald's "On My Own," and so many more including "A Groovy Kind Of Love."But while Carole King gives background on the men in her book, she just tosses the women out and dispenses with them quickly. I believe we noted she presents Carole Bayer as a friend she co-wrote "Anyone At All" with and never mentions anything Carole Bayer wrote which was a hit or that Bayer is not just a friend she got to write a song with in the 90s but a longterm songwriter whose career dates back to the sixties and whose won numerous awards.
Isaiah: The Grammy, the Golden Globe, the Academy Award.
Kat: The latter for co-writing the theme to Arthur, "Best That You Can Do." And while Carole Bayer Sager's winning awards for writing for films, Carole King was recording two songs for the cheaply made Care Bears movie. Carole also didn't thank Joni Mitchell who sings on the Tapestry album. Let's be clear that she slighted all women in her acceptance speech the same way she did in her book.
Ty: One of the things that I didn't like was the ahistorical nonsense. The director makes Darlene Love the heart of the film and to do so he hypes her like crazy. In 1958, Darlene joins The Blossoms and the film tells you they are new, there is nothing like them, they change music. Prior to this, the film insists, there were only White backup singers. That damn lie is obviously untrue. But let's pretend the White film maker is attempting to say the pop charts only had White backup singers. Prior to 1958? We're not going to do a huge fact check, we're just going to note Ray Charles and The Raelettes. Ray forms the Raelettes in 1956. The Raelettes predate the Blossoms and are better known. Over the years, this group of singers will include Mable John -- who does briefly appear in the documentary, Minnie Riperton and Merry Clayton among others.
Ann: And on that topic, White back up singers, they were dismissed so rudely. First off, you're talking about a different genre and a different time. To ridicule them for being able to read music? How shameful and that nonsense came from White idiots like Bruce Springsteen.
Kat: What the f**k was Bruce doing in the film? His knowledge of backup singers is limited to cheating on his first wife by sleeping with one and then marrying her. Bruce is so stupid throughout the film. He insists he wanted the Phil Spector sound early on but later realized it was about youth -- the sound required youth. What a stupid ass. Does he not know the age of the session musicians on, for example, "Spanish Harlem"? What a damn fool.
Ty: And he and others stated repeatedly that back up singing was the church, was the Black church. No, it wasn't. Motown, more than any other label, utilized lead and backing vocals. Mary Wilson has long stated how offensive it was to her when 'critics' would say Diana Ross and the Supremes needed to "get back to the church" like Aretha when their singing wasn't rooted in the church. Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, the Four Tops, etc, they weren't rooted in church vocals. There's nothing wrong with church vocals. But stop pretending that African-Americans sing like they're in the church. Dionne Warwick never has.
Rebecca: I think a theme can emerge, one that the film ignores, in that the mid-to-late 60s finds a number of British White performers using African-Americans to appear soulful and to get a 'church sound.'
Isaiah: Not only would I agree with that, I think you can make a similar argument of use about the director of this documentary. And I want to be on record stating that Bruce Springsteen's remarks were both idiotic and borderline racist -- and I'm being kind and saying "borderline."
Betty: I found his racist and offensive. He needed to shut his damn mouth. Sting was one. Sting spoke of the backup singer and didn't try to deliver a history lesson or speak for Black America. Bette Midler spoke about backup vocalists. I didn't mind that at all. Unlike Bruce, Bette's known for her work with backup singers. That alone gave her standing to speak. The fact that her remarks were also intelligent was an added bonus.
Stan: I would agree with that 100%. She really was the only 'star' artist featured who knew what she was talking about.
C.I.: What about Patti Austin?
Stan: See that goes to the issue about the film failing to identify people. I don't really consider Patti a backup singer. She's done that but she's also had hits and she's moved over to jazz where she's found real glory. I felt the film was better when she spoke but I don't think most people watching knew who she was because the film failed to provide her background -- there was no, "She hit number one with 'Baby Come To Me,' she won a Grammy in 2008 for one of her jazz albums . . ." It was just, "Here's Patti Austin."
Rebecca: For a documentary allegedly about women, there was way too much worship by the director of men.
Isaiah: I would agree with that. And ask: Who the hell is Claudia Lennear? Oh, she was an Ikette? Okay. So she was used to provide church and soul? To Tina Turner? What nonsense. The film was more interested in telling you she slept with Mick Jagger, that she's supposedly the inspiration for the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" and that she posed for Playboy. Why the f**k am I supposed to care about any of that?
Ty: I found the film insulting and a White rescue attempt. It reminds me of the idiots who whine about Florence Ballard and how Berry Gordy made Diana Ross the lead singer of the Supremes. Flo had a powerful voice. It just wasn't marketable because it was the generic powerful voice. Sorry ladies in the film, but that applies to some of you as well. Diana had a unique sound and that's what Berry picked up on. There's this notion that anyone could have been a star when it requires a lot of work and a lot of luck.
Betty: Right. In noting the hits that Carole Bayer Sager had co-written, Ava mentioned Rita Coolidge. Rita was a backup singer. That's how she got her start. The film seemed unwilling to note that you could and many did crossover. That also includes Minnie Riperton whose famous forever for her hit "Loving You." Did Darlene have a hit making voice? In the sixties, yes. But that same voice as an adult solo artist? I don't think so. She sings like a little girl -- in terms of range and the purity of the notes. Judy Garland did as well but Judy never dominated the pop singles chart -- not even in the pre-rock and roll era. There is nothing, for example, sensual about Darlene's voice. I can remember hearing her version of "Love On The Rooftop," for example, and thinking, "Eh." Then hearing Cher sing it and thinking, "That's a song." Now Darlene's a great back up singer and a great oldies artist but let's not pretend that she had the maturity to move beyond it -- vocally had the maturity.
Kat: And, if we're naming women who were backup singers, Cher was a backup singer on most of Phil Spector's big hits in the sixties -- including "You've Lost That Loving Feeling." A fact that the movie ignores as it rushes to insist that Darlene and the Blossoms were the backup singers for Phil. Yes, they were on many songs but they weren't the only ones.
Ann: Merry Clayton going on Soul Train to perform Neil Young's "Southern Man" was an embarrassment. What label, what sane label, would let her go out looking like that. The hair was embarrassing. A really weak attempt at a fro. The blue jeans were awful and made her ass look flat. The t-shirt was just an embarrassment and made it look like she was about to clean the attic, not go out on stage and entertain.
Stan: I didn't see any serious evaluation of that. I saw a lot of 'we was robbed!' Well you kind of robbed yourself in many cases.
Ava: C.I.?
C.I.: Well there are numerous opinions in this roundtable and that goes to the fact that what makes a recording star is so vague and so happenstance. Luck can't be underestimated. But, to the Ikettes, why would you do this film and not note PP Arnold. Now she's a friend so I'm going to include her and maybe I'm biased out of friendship. But PP is your counter-argument to Darlene Love or any other woman in the film. She was singing back up with the Ikettes, they go to England to tour with the Stones in 1966 and PP decides to go solo. And she has a series of hits initially and racks up a hit about every 12 or so years after her initial run. That's a career. A solo artist career. Pat has much to be proud of and if you're doing a film on the topic the documentary focused on, I don't know why you would present Darlene Love as the centerpiece to make an argument that PP Arnold's career refutes.
And that's not to insult Darlene or take anything away from her but to note the director made a victims' film.
Stan: I would so agree with that. And Betty's right about Darlene's voice. It's powerful, it's in tune but it really is more of a juvenile's voice. Ronnie Spector had a more limited range but her voice is a star's voice -- and as the lead singer of the Ronnettes, she sang many hits. It's not noted in the film that Darlene's been kind of bitchy about Ronnie over the years in interviews -- insulting Ronnie's singing, for example, putting it down. I would guess that would also hurt the way people see you. I don't think Darlene's necessarily a bad person, I just didn't like the documentary zooming in on her and presenting a lot of hype where reality was needed.
Kat: And Ronnie, like Diana Ross, has a commercial voice. In popular music, what makes a hit recording artist is not necessarily a two octave range, etc. You have to have personality in your voice itself. Barry Manilow, for example, has personality. I'm not a huge fan of his but I will note that his voice is distinct and like no other.
Isaiah: And I'd like to point out that Bette Midler and Stevie Wonder knew what they were talking about and more footage of both should have been featured.
Ava: As we wind down, let me note that Darlene's also insulted Vikki Carr over the years and Carr's version of "He's A Rebel." That's the only reason Phil recorded Darlene doing the song, Carr's version was about to come out and he wanted to beat it. But Darlene's made insulting remarks about Carr's singing over the years indicating Carr is bland and white bread and blah blah. Vikki Carr's real name is Florencia Bisenta de Casillas Martinez Cardona and she was born in El Paso, Texas. Sometimes Darlene Love's a little stupid And sometimes so is 20 Feet from Stardom. The five films nominated for Best Documentary Feature this year are Laura Poitras, Mathilde Bonnefoy and Dirk Wilutzky's Citizen Four, John Maloof and Charlie Siskel's Finding Vivian Maier, Rory Kennedy and Kevin McAlester's Last Days in Vietnam, Wim Wenders, Juliano Ribeiro Salgado and David Rosier's The Salt of the Earth and Orlando von Einsiedel and Joanna Natasegara's Virunga. This is a rush transcript.
Tweet of the week
John Todd
They raise 'em real stupid at Information Clearing House
As long as you don't read the comments, Information Clearing House is a good site.
If you read the comments, however, you're immediately sucked into the sewer.
We were reminded of that when we came across this comment regarding the prime minister of Israel being invited to address the US Congress.
This is not "tantamount to treason" -- Michael's remarks, however, are tantamount to grave stupidity.
Treason is a serious charge.
You'll never make it stick when the action is inviting and/or hosting a leader of a government -- especially one allied with the US government.
Treason is a serious charge and people should not make it lightly.
But when Thom Hartman unleashes the crazy, many more follow.
Thom.
The great Thom.
And his brother Thed.
And Thimmy.
Equally true, embarrassing Barack isn't a crime.
If it were, they would have had to have thrown Barack into prison for his own actions years ago.
If you read the comments, however, you're immediately sucked into the sewer.
We were reminded of that when we came across this comment regarding the prime minister of Israel being invited to address the US Congress.
For the US congress to permit this idiot to speak in such a way is
tantamount to treason, which if I am correct is still punishable by
death. If they carry on with this idea to humiliate Obama, they should
all be charged with treason, after all, if you or Iwere to do the same
in such a public space, I'm sure we would not get away with it.
This is not "tantamount to treason" -- Michael's remarks, however, are tantamount to grave stupidity.
Treason is a serious charge.
You'll never make it stick when the action is inviting and/or hosting a leader of a government -- especially one allied with the US government.
Treason is a serious charge and people should not make it lightly.
But when Thom Hartman unleashes the crazy, many more follow.
Thom.
The great Thom.
And his brother Thed.
And Thimmy.
Equally true, embarrassing Barack isn't a crime.
If it were, they would have had to have thrown Barack into prison for his own actions years ago.
Nancy Pelosi wants to talk ethics
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he's caused a little conflict of late.
As Debra J. Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) notes, US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is having a hissy fit over the Republican leadership in the House inviting Netanyahu to speak to the House of Representatives.
Nancy's outraged. It's wrong she says.
Nancy didn't defend the Dixie Chicks in 2003. For Natalie Maines' remarks onstage in London, the Dixie Chicks were banned from radio and only US Senator John McCain loudly raised an objection to that.
Not Nancy.
Yet Nancy stood -- stood up -- in the halls of Congress to applaud a president of Mexico insulting Americans.
If Nancy felt -- and her silence indicates she did -- that the Dixie Chicks were treated fairly, then how does she justify applauding a foreign leader -- on US soil, in the halls of Congress -- insulting Americans?
Nancy says the Republican leadership was "out of order" to invite the Israeli prime minister.
"Out of order"?
The way she blackmailed an opponent -- who had a campaign event where underage volunteers -- ages 18 and 19 -- were photographed drinking alcohol provided by the US House Representative's office -- so that she could be elected House Minority Leader in 2002?
Was that not out of order?
Was her participating with a state's questionable (second) attempt at redistricting -- participating with Republican leadership of that state -- to have the opponent redistricted out of office, was that not out of order?
As they well know in Louisiana, corpses don't have to remain underground -- they can float to the surface.
Nancy may think she's buried her victims deeply enough.
But she's wrong.
And she's in no place to lecture anyone else about ethics.
This edition's playlist
1) Prince's Lotus Flow3r.
2) Sade's Soldier of Love.
3) Chrissie Hynde's Stockholm.
4) Carly Simon's Have You Seen Me Lately?
5) Maps Vicissitude.
6) Aimee Mann's The Forgotten Arm.
7) Stevie Nicks' 24 Karat Gold
8) Phoebe Snow's Phoebe Snow Live.
9) Cloud Nothings' Here and Nowhere Else.
10) Bonnie Raitt's Slipstream.
Paralyzed Veterans of America Responds to President's State of the Union Address
This is Paralyzed Veterans of America's response to the State of the Union Address:
Six
words uttered by President Barack Obama during his "State of the Union"
speech that embody the unbridled optimism of a country touched by war
for more than a decade. Optimism defined by a comfortable displacement
from the events of September 11, 2001, when people loved the troops
because they didn't have to be the troops who answered the call
following the most egregious attack on the homeland by a foreign enemy.
For them — and for Paralyzed Veterans of America — the page has not turned.
Army specialist Curtis Spivey became a paralyzed veteran with a traumatic brain injury following an IED blast in Iraq. He died at a VA medical center after suffering a brain aneurysm. His wife, Aida, and 2-year old daughter, Marianna, would subsequently experience hard times that would endure well beyond the grief of losing Curtis. Money, benefits, and support would serve as mere band aids to the emotional hemorrhaging they feel to this very day. It is those stories that our service officers and clinical advocates never forget as they carry out our mission. We will not turn the page on our veterans, their families, and caregivers for, in the words of Plato, "only the dead have seen the end of war."
Paralyzed Veterans of America reinforces its commitment to ensuring that a new generation of veterans comes home and enjoys the opportunity to live the American Dream they helped defend. Whether that means holding the Department of Veterans Affairs accountable for reducing the disability claims backlog, delivering timely and quality healthcare, or fostering career opportunities, Paralyzed Veterans will not relent. Even as we ensure accountability, we gladly assume the burden of caring for those who have borne the battle through the myriad programs and services we offer, free of charge and with no government support, for our nation's heroes.
It is through their lives that the story of this era is still being written and the cost of war still being accrued. Paralyzed Veterans of America calls on our government leaders and ordinary citizens to follow through on the promise to support our heroes. That promise includes timely delivered benefits that should not be eroded or viewed as a handout. It also includes continued investment in the VA healthcare system, which represents the only hope for successful transition and recovery for the many severely disabled veterans.
Learn more about Paralyzed Veterans of America
Sherman Gillums Jr., Deputy Executive Director of Paralyzed Veterans of America and paralyzed veteran
veterans
"But tonight, we turn the page."
 |
Sherman Gillums Jr.
|
Army specialist Curtis Spivey became a paralyzed veteran with a traumatic brain injury following an IED blast in Iraq. He died at a VA medical center after suffering a brain aneurysm. His wife, Aida, and 2-year old daughter, Marianna, would subsequently experience hard times that would endure well beyond the grief of losing Curtis. Money, benefits, and support would serve as mere band aids to the emotional hemorrhaging they feel to this very day. It is those stories that our service officers and clinical advocates never forget as they carry out our mission. We will not turn the page on our veterans, their families, and caregivers for, in the words of Plato, "only the dead have seen the end of war."
Paralyzed Veterans of America reinforces its commitment to ensuring that a new generation of veterans comes home and enjoys the opportunity to live the American Dream they helped defend. Whether that means holding the Department of Veterans Affairs accountable for reducing the disability claims backlog, delivering timely and quality healthcare, or fostering career opportunities, Paralyzed Veterans will not relent. Even as we ensure accountability, we gladly assume the burden of caring for those who have borne the battle through the myriad programs and services we offer, free of charge and with no government support, for our nation's heroes.
It is through their lives that the story of this era is still being written and the cost of war still being accrued. Paralyzed Veterans of America calls on our government leaders and ordinary citizens to follow through on the promise to support our heroes. That promise includes timely delivered benefits that should not be eroded or viewed as a handout. It also includes continued investment in the VA healthcare system, which represents the only hope for successful transition and recovery for the many severely disabled veterans.
Learn more about Paralyzed Veterans of America
Sherman Gillums Jr., Deputy Executive Director of Paralyzed Veterans of America and paralyzed veteran
veterans
President Admonished for Overlooking Veterans in SOTU
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America issued the following:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 20, 2015) – Tonight, President Obama failed to address critical priorities for the veteran community, including restoring trust in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after last summer’s scandals and reforming veteran mental health care services. Despite praising the Joining Forces initiative to improve veteran unemployment and mentioning the VA disability claims backlog, the President remained silent on critical veterans issues.
Particularly disappointing was the President’s failure to affirm his administration’s support for urgent passage of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act – historic bipartisan legislation that will increase access to quality mental health care and combat veteran suicide. With 22 veterans dying by suicide every day, IAVA has partnered with more than 20 veteran service organizations and partners and lawmakers from both parties to promote the bill, named after Marine veteran Clay Hunt who died by suicide in 2011.
“Tonight, the Commander-in-Chief once again thanked our veterans and servicemembers for their selfless service to our country. However, actions speak louder than words,” said IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff. “Yes, the President must speak to many constituencies in the State of the Union, but no other group fought and sacrificed for its country like veterans. After the VA scandal and marking more than 13 years of combat, veterans were hoping for a proactive policy agenda from our President. As the recent success of the film “American Sniper” attests, our country is beginning a sober discussion on the impact of the post-9/11 wars on our servicemembers, their families and our country, and we had hoped for the President to lead that conversation. He didn’t.”
Rieckhoff continued, “This next year will be crucial for the veteran community as more servicemembers return home and transition to civilian life. But in the address tonight, the President rarely mentioned veterans. Veterans exist, and many among us need assistance, particularly in the often overlooked area of mental health care. But we refuse to have our issues swept under the rug, and we will not rest until Congress passes and the President signs the Clay Hunt SAV Act, designed to combat the tragedy of 22 veterans dying by suicide every day.”
“Furthermore, in last year’s address the President committed to slashing the VA’s disability claims backlog. A year later, we are nowhere near “backlog zero.” Currently, more than 242,000 veterans are still waiting to get the benefits they earned. The state of the union is strong, but the state of the VA is still smoldering. Last summer, IAVA members and veterans across the country were shocked to learn about the alleged misconduct and wrongdoing at VA hospitals. For many veterans, the VA health care system is their only health care system. While we appreciate the efforts of Sec. McDonald and his team to enact reforms, we are frustrated the President did not mention how he will restore veterans’ faith in the VA after months of scandal. Our veterans don’t deserve to be ignored,” said Rieckhoff.
IAVA looks forward to Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) delivering the Republican response to the State of the Union Address. As the first female combat veteran elected to serve in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Ernst is in a unique position to fight for the nation’s veterans, particularly the female soldiers who bravely served the country. Sen. Ernst served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and currently serves as a Lt. Colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. IAVA urges her to publicly address the veteran suicide crisis and to endorse urgent passage of the SAV Act as well.
At IAVA offices in Washington, D.C. and New York City, veterans attended SOTU watch parties and live-tweeted the President’s address using the hashtag #SOTUVets.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 20, 2015) – Tonight, President Obama failed to address critical priorities for the veteran community, including restoring trust in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after last summer’s scandals and reforming veteran mental health care services. Despite praising the Joining Forces initiative to improve veteran unemployment and mentioning the VA disability claims backlog, the President remained silent on critical veterans issues.
Particularly disappointing was the President’s failure to affirm his administration’s support for urgent passage of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act – historic bipartisan legislation that will increase access to quality mental health care and combat veteran suicide. With 22 veterans dying by suicide every day, IAVA has partnered with more than 20 veteran service organizations and partners and lawmakers from both parties to promote the bill, named after Marine veteran Clay Hunt who died by suicide in 2011.
“Tonight, the Commander-in-Chief once again thanked our veterans and servicemembers for their selfless service to our country. However, actions speak louder than words,” said IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff. “Yes, the President must speak to many constituencies in the State of the Union, but no other group fought and sacrificed for its country like veterans. After the VA scandal and marking more than 13 years of combat, veterans were hoping for a proactive policy agenda from our President. As the recent success of the film “American Sniper” attests, our country is beginning a sober discussion on the impact of the post-9/11 wars on our servicemembers, their families and our country, and we had hoped for the President to lead that conversation. He didn’t.”
Rieckhoff continued, “This next year will be crucial for the veteran community as more servicemembers return home and transition to civilian life. But in the address tonight, the President rarely mentioned veterans. Veterans exist, and many among us need assistance, particularly in the often overlooked area of mental health care. But we refuse to have our issues swept under the rug, and we will not rest until Congress passes and the President signs the Clay Hunt SAV Act, designed to combat the tragedy of 22 veterans dying by suicide every day.”
“Furthermore, in last year’s address the President committed to slashing the VA’s disability claims backlog. A year later, we are nowhere near “backlog zero.” Currently, more than 242,000 veterans are still waiting to get the benefits they earned. The state of the union is strong, but the state of the VA is still smoldering. Last summer, IAVA members and veterans across the country were shocked to learn about the alleged misconduct and wrongdoing at VA hospitals. For many veterans, the VA health care system is their only health care system. While we appreciate the efforts of Sec. McDonald and his team to enact reforms, we are frustrated the President did not mention how he will restore veterans’ faith in the VA after months of scandal. Our veterans don’t deserve to be ignored,” said Rieckhoff.
IAVA looks forward to Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) delivering the Republican response to the State of the Union Address. As the first female combat veteran elected to serve in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Ernst is in a unique position to fight for the nation’s veterans, particularly the female soldiers who bravely served the country. Sen. Ernst served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and currently serves as a Lt. Colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. IAVA urges her to publicly address the veteran suicide crisis and to endorse urgent passage of the SAV Act as well.
At IAVA offices in Washington, D.C. and New York City, veterans attended SOTU watch parties and live-tweeted the President’s address using the hashtag #SOTUVets.
How radical are the Greens? (Socialist Worker)
This is a repost of Great Britain's Socialist Worker:
Many people who are sick of austerity rightly want to use May’s general election to boot out the Tories. To some the Green Party seems an attractive alternative.
Some 2,000 people joined the party in 24 hours on Thursday of last week. In September last year the Green Party had fewer than 20,000 members. That has more than doubled to over 47,000—that’s more than either Ukip or the Lib Dems.
And opinion polls show rising support for the party, especially among young voters. The growth of the Greens shows widespread disillusionment with the main parties.
A recent poll by Lord Ashcroft found that 20 percent of Green Party supporters voted Lib Dem in 2010. Many of those were students attracted by a promise of scrapping tuition fees.
Now some look to the Greens for something more principled. Others, who’ve been inspired by the left parties Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, even see the Greens as a British equivalent.
The exclusion of the Green Party from the televised leaders’ debates will reinforce the impression that it represents a radical alternative kept out by the establishment. Support for the Labour Party has also been in long-term decline and many ordinary people don’t see it offering an alternative to the Tories.
Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls has repeatedly said he is committed to Tory spending plans. And while Labour leader Ed Miliband often talks about the “cost of living crisis”, he refuses to back health workers striking against low pay.
It’s true that many of the Green Party’s policies are well to the left of Labour’s. They include scrapping university tuition fees and renationalising the rail industry.
The Greens have pledged to turn the minimum wage into the living wage and cap bankers’ bonuses. They say they are against austerity and the scapegoating of migrants.
Strike
The Greens supported the London bus strike earlier this month and were part of the Yes campaign during the Scottish independence referendum. So it would seem that the Greens share many of the demands and aspirations of those who want to fight for a better world.
But the party’s record in office undermines these radical credentials. The Green Party has controlled Brighton and Hove council since 2011. But rather than resisting austerity, it has implemented cuts.
Refuse workers in Brighton held a series of strikes in 2013 and 2014 against an attack on their wages. The council wanted to force through pay cuts of up to £4,000. And in 2004 the Greens even formed a coalition with the Tories and Lib Dems to run Leeds City Council.
For two years, the party propped up the Tories while they cut funding for services such as libraries, day centres for the elderly and hostels for homeless people. Their national election agent at the time, Chris Rose, justified this by saying, “None of the mainstream parties are worth anything.
“It doesn’t really matter which one we work with, just what the outcome is. We can’t stay on the sidelines forever.”
The experiences of Green governments elsewhere provide similar examples. In Germany, the Green Party formed a “Red-Green” coalition government with the Labour-type Social Democrats.
As part of that coalition it attacked pensions and welfare, and pushed for privatisation of public services. It also abandoned its pacifist and anti-nuclear principles by backing the war in Afghanistan and the continuation of nuclear power.
In Ireland the Greens joined a coalition with the right wing Fianna Fáil, which launched a brutal assault on working class living standards. The party was wiped out in the 2011 Irish general election as a result, losing all of their MPs.
This raises an important question—what could a genuine radical left alternative look like, and how can we build it? The major problem with the Green Party is that it tries to unite people across class divisions behind its own particular vision for capitalism.
This ignores the real conflict at the heart of capitalist society. This is between the capitalist ruling class—the bosses, the big business owners and the bankers—and the working class, whom they exploit for profit.
The interests of the capitalists and the workers are in direct contradiction with each other. They cannot be united behind a utopian vision of a fairer, greener capitalism. But because the Greens are committed to this, they will only act within the limits of what is considered to be “rational” within capitalism.
If elected they try to balance between classes—and usually come down on the side of the bosses. Of course, the Labour Party also tries to reconcile the interests of workers and bosses.
But there is an important difference. The Labour Party is organically linked to the working class. It was formed a century ago following a series of defeats for the “new unions”.
Workers
Trade union leaders were looking for a way to defend their interests by mediating between capital and workers through parliament, rather than organising strikes. But the Labour Party still represented a step forward in the sense that workers were organised together politically for the first time.
Today, Labour offers little in the way of an alternative to the Tories. Yet it retains a weakened relationship with the working class. Trade unions remain the main source of funding for the Labour Party. And the unions, which organise around six million workers, are represented at the Labour Party conference and vote in its leadership elections.
The Green Party has no such link to the working class. It was formed as the People Party in the early 1970s by a group of small business owners, property agents and solicitors. One of its founders was former Tory councillor.
Today the Green Party has many activists who will be on protests, visit picket lines and attend public meetings. But the party does not focus on building a fightback among the working class—instead its primarily focuses on elections. This means relying on the relative passivity of most of its supporters and simply asking them to vote for its candidates.
In this sense, it can act as a barrier to building a genuine radical left alternative. This is not to say that socialists should adopt a hostile attitude to supporters of the Green Party. We want to work with all those who resist austerity and fight to build a better world.
We will support left Green MP Caroline Lucas who will be standing for re-election in Brighton. And we think it’s wrong that the Green Party has been excluded from the televised leadership debates. But it is important that we also work to build an alternative to capitalism based on working class self-activity.
The left has to get its act together. Electorally, this means fighting for a more united left that can challenge both Labour and the Greens. The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) is a step towards this. Socialist Worker will be supporting TUSC candidates and use their campaigns to build resistance in the workplaces and on the streets.
And more generally, it means working inside trade unions and other campaigns to strengthen workers ability to fight back. Only the working class has the power to get rid of capitalism. By organising together, workers can use their collective economic strength to bring the system to its knees and take control of society.
Left reformism, the state and the problem of socialist politics today
by Paul Blackledge, International Socialism 139 isj.org.uk/?id=903
Britain and the crisis of the neoliberal state
by Alex Callinicos, International Socialism 145 bit.ly/1sGmXtq
The State and Revolution
by Vladimir Lenin, £6.95
Available at Bookmarks, the socialist bookshop. Phone 020 7637 1848. or go to bookmarksbookshop.co.uk
How radical are the Greens?
The Green Party’s left wing policies are winning it more support. But the party’s record in office shows that it can’t be relied on to stand up for workers, writes Nick Clark
Caroline Lucas giving a keynote speech at the conference of the Green Party in 2006 (Pic: Kaihsu Tai)
Many people who are sick of austerity rightly want to use May’s general election to boot out the Tories. To some the Green Party seems an attractive alternative.
Some 2,000 people joined the party in 24 hours on Thursday of last week. In September last year the Green Party had fewer than 20,000 members. That has more than doubled to over 47,000—that’s more than either Ukip or the Lib Dems.
And opinion polls show rising support for the party, especially among young voters. The growth of the Greens shows widespread disillusionment with the main parties.
A recent poll by Lord Ashcroft found that 20 percent of Green Party supporters voted Lib Dem in 2010. Many of those were students attracted by a promise of scrapping tuition fees.
Now some look to the Greens for something more principled. Others, who’ve been inspired by the left parties Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, even see the Greens as a British equivalent.
The exclusion of the Green Party from the televised leaders’ debates will reinforce the impression that it represents a radical alternative kept out by the establishment. Support for the Labour Party has also been in long-term decline and many ordinary people don’t see it offering an alternative to the Tories.
Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls has repeatedly said he is committed to Tory spending plans. And while Labour leader Ed Miliband often talks about the “cost of living crisis”, he refuses to back health workers striking against low pay.
It’s true that many of the Green Party’s policies are well to the left of Labour’s. They include scrapping university tuition fees and renationalising the rail industry.
The Greens have pledged to turn the minimum wage into the living wage and cap bankers’ bonuses. They say they are against austerity and the scapegoating of migrants.
Strike
The Greens supported the London bus strike earlier this month and were part of the Yes campaign during the Scottish independence referendum. So it would seem that the Greens share many of the demands and aspirations of those who want to fight for a better world.
But the party’s record in office undermines these radical credentials. The Green Party has controlled Brighton and Hove council since 2011. But rather than resisting austerity, it has implemented cuts.
Refuse workers in Brighton held a series of strikes in 2013 and 2014 against an attack on their wages. The council wanted to force through pay cuts of up to £4,000. And in 2004 the Greens even formed a coalition with the Tories and Lib Dems to run Leeds City Council.
For two years, the party propped up the Tories while they cut funding for services such as libraries, day centres for the elderly and hostels for homeless people. Their national election agent at the time, Chris Rose, justified this by saying, “None of the mainstream parties are worth anything.
“It doesn’t really matter which one we work with, just what the outcome is. We can’t stay on the sidelines forever.”
The experiences of Green governments elsewhere provide similar examples. In Germany, the Green Party formed a “Red-Green” coalition government with the Labour-type Social Democrats.
As part of that coalition it attacked pensions and welfare, and pushed for privatisation of public services. It also abandoned its pacifist and anti-nuclear principles by backing the war in Afghanistan and the continuation of nuclear power.
In Ireland the Greens joined a coalition with the right wing Fianna Fáil, which launched a brutal assault on working class living standards. The party was wiped out in the 2011 Irish general election as a result, losing all of their MPs.
This raises an important question—what could a genuine radical left alternative look like, and how can we build it? The major problem with the Green Party is that it tries to unite people across class divisions behind its own particular vision for capitalism.
This ignores the real conflict at the heart of capitalist society. This is between the capitalist ruling class—the bosses, the big business owners and the bankers—and the working class, whom they exploit for profit.
The interests of the capitalists and the workers are in direct contradiction with each other. They cannot be united behind a utopian vision of a fairer, greener capitalism. But because the Greens are committed to this, they will only act within the limits of what is considered to be “rational” within capitalism.
If elected they try to balance between classes—and usually come down on the side of the bosses. Of course, the Labour Party also tries to reconcile the interests of workers and bosses.
But there is an important difference. The Labour Party is organically linked to the working class. It was formed a century ago following a series of defeats for the “new unions”.
Workers
Trade union leaders were looking for a way to defend their interests by mediating between capital and workers through parliament, rather than organising strikes. But the Labour Party still represented a step forward in the sense that workers were organised together politically for the first time.
Today, Labour offers little in the way of an alternative to the Tories. Yet it retains a weakened relationship with the working class. Trade unions remain the main source of funding for the Labour Party. And the unions, which organise around six million workers, are represented at the Labour Party conference and vote in its leadership elections.
The Green Party has no such link to the working class. It was formed as the People Party in the early 1970s by a group of small business owners, property agents and solicitors. One of its founders was former Tory councillor.
Today the Green Party has many activists who will be on protests, visit picket lines and attend public meetings. But the party does not focus on building a fightback among the working class—instead its primarily focuses on elections. This means relying on the relative passivity of most of its supporters and simply asking them to vote for its candidates.
In this sense, it can act as a barrier to building a genuine radical left alternative. This is not to say that socialists should adopt a hostile attitude to supporters of the Green Party. We want to work with all those who resist austerity and fight to build a better world.
We will support left Green MP Caroline Lucas who will be standing for re-election in Brighton. And we think it’s wrong that the Green Party has been excluded from the televised leadership debates. But it is important that we also work to build an alternative to capitalism based on working class self-activity.
The left has to get its act together. Electorally, this means fighting for a more united left that can challenge both Labour and the Greens. The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) is a step towards this. Socialist Worker will be supporting TUSC candidates and use their campaigns to build resistance in the workplaces and on the streets.
And more generally, it means working inside trade unions and other campaigns to strengthen workers ability to fight back. Only the working class has the power to get rid of capitalism. By organising together, workers can use their collective economic strength to bring the system to its knees and take control of society.
Left reformism, the state and the problem of socialist politics today
by Paul Blackledge, International Socialism 139 isj.org.uk/?id=903
Britain and the crisis of the neoliberal state
by Alex Callinicos, International Socialism 145 bit.ly/1sGmXtq
The State and Revolution
by Vladimir Lenin, £6.95
Available at Bookmarks, the socialist bookshop. Phone 020 7637 1848. or go to bookmarksbookshop.co.uk
Highlights
This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.
"I Hate The War" -- most requested highlight of the week.
"I Hate The War" -- most requested highlight of the week.
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Conversati..." -- Isaiah's latest comic.
"Kat's Korner: Put a DNR order on Madonna's Rebel H..." -- Kat calls out Madonna's barely beating heart.
"Oh, Bob, really?" -- Elaine, Marcia, Ann, Mike, Trina and Kat note music.
"none of you liked sunday's episode of 'revenge,'" "Cosby," "The Originals," "revenge," "not thrilled with revenge," "Wrong about the mole," "state of affairs," "Justified?" and "More on The X-Files" -- Rebecca, Mike, Marcia, Ruth and Stan cover TV.
"X-Men," "J-Lo," "That awful Selma film." "Jamie Dumbf**k" and "Selma -- tell the truth!" -- Stan, Marcia and Betty go to the movies.
"The shocker!" and "THIS JUST IN! BARRY JR. HAS AN EX-WIFE!" -- it's as though Shonda Rhimes is scripting the news.
"Child care is too expensive?" -- Elaine makes a solid point and then some.
"Now he plans to fix parenting" and "THIS JUST IN! COMING NEXT OBAMACHILDCARE!" -- Cedric and Wally offer a preview.
"Arsalan Iftikhar and MSNBC need to apologize" -- Ann calls it out.
"Revisiting the last post" -- Ruth goes further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
