Showing posts with label McCarthyism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCarthyism. Show all posts

25 February 2013

Lamar W. Hankins : Questions Ted Cruz Won't Answer

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the inquisitor. Photo by Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images.
Questions that Rafael Edward
'Ted' Cruz won’t answer
Cruz’s performance has been described by various commentators and reporters as disgraceful, appalling, embarrassing, slanderous, impertinent, uncivil, moralistic, swaggering, belligerent, nasty, disrespectful, and demagoguing.
By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / February 25, 2013

As a smart guy who went to Princeton and Harvard, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas must have missed the courses that taught how to do research. Some of the questions he asked former Sen. Chuck Hagel in recent hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which considered Hagel’s nomination to head up the Pentagon, demonstrated the most embarrassing ignorance, if not mendacity, that has been heard recently in the Senate. For now, I’ll attribute Cruz’s questions and comments to the former.

To demonstrate how questions can be used to cast aspersions on someone’s character, consider the following questions for Sen. Cruz.

Question: Mr. Cruz, do you now or have you ever associated with anyone involved, directly or indirectly, with the Cuban American National Foundation?

Question: Are you aware that the Cuban American National Foundation has been implicated as a terrorist organization because of its alleged support for planning and funding terrorist attacks within Cuba, including a September 1997 bombing that killed an Italian tourist in Havana?

Question: Have you ever been associated with or supported the Cuban-born anti-Castro terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, who claimed in 1998 that he received financial support from the Cuban American National Foundation for a bombing campaign carried out in 1997 in Cuba, and who has also been linked with the 1976 bombing of Cubana Airlines flight 455, which killed 73 passengers (all of whom were civilians)?

Question: Are you aware that several ranking members of the Cuban American National Foundation have been the subject of major drug trafficking prosecutions, including that of Gaspar Jiménez and Rolando Mendoza?

Question: Do you now support the extradition to Venezuela of the Cuban-born exile Luis Posada Carriles based on the terrorist activities he is alleged to have committed there?

These questions have more justification than those Sen. Cruz (R-TX) asked of Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearings.. The aspersions Cruz cast against Hagel at the hearings were as close to McCarthyism as anything we have heard in recent years, as Cruz suggested that Chuck Hagel had received money from terrorist groups that have opposed Israel. Cruz wanted to know if Hagel had received speaking fees to address a group called “Friends of Hamas.” What led to these allegations is a comedy of right-wing error and dishonesty that would be tragic if the players had credibility with anyone except Cruz’s Tea Party friends.

New York Daily News reporter Dan Friedman explained on February 19 that he was the inadvertent source for the crazy (and false) right-wing notion that Hagel had received money from terrorist groups:
When rumors swirled that Hagel received speaking fees from controversial organizations, I attempted to check them out. On Feb. 6, I called a Republican aide on Capitol Hill with a question: Did Hagel’s Senate critics know of controversial groups that he had addressed? Hagel was in hot water for alleged hostility to Israel. So, I asked my source, had Hagel given a speech to, say, the "Junior League of Hezbollah, in France"? And: What about "Friends of Hamas"?

The names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed -- let alone that a former senator would speak to them. Or so I thought.
On February 9, a story at the website Breitbart.com suggested that the White House was ducking providing information about sources of Hagel’s foreign income because one of the sources of money was “Friends of Hamas.” It claimed that the White House refused to deny that information. The author, Ben Shapiro, tweeted about the matter to 40,000 people.

The story was then picked up by RedState.com and the National Review’s The Corner. Fox News host Mike Huckabee commented on the matter while visiting Israel. Lou Dobbs, the gloating host of a business show on Fox, Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, and right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt all spread the false and malevolent information.

The allegation, in the form of a question, based on a fictitious name of a nonexistent group went viral. And none other than Sen. Ted Cruz used the completely false story to support his vote in committee against Hagel. The smear of Hagel was complete, for it supported the claim that he was anti-Israel. Republicans used it to justify a filibuster against a vote in the Senate on Hagel’s nomination, though it has been predicted that the nomination will be approved during the last week in February.

Cruz’s smear of Hagel also included an attack on Hagel’s patriotism. Cruz claimed that Hagel is anti-military. But even John McCain could not abide this attack. He upbraided Cruz by vouching for Hagel’s patriotism. After all, Hagel is a war hero who served his country with courage as an infantry squad leader, was wounded twice in Vietnam (for which he received two Purple Hearts), and has fought for the needs of veterans and military families ever since.

Cruz’s performance has been described by various commentators and reporters as disgraceful, appalling, embarrassing, slanderous, impertinent, uncivil, moralistic, swaggering, belligerent, nasty, disrespectful, and demagoguing. In an attempt to praise Cruz, Republican Sen. David Vitter from Louisiana, said that Cruz has a “really sharp sort of disciplined legal mind.” I guess honesty and integrity are not part of a “sort of disciplined” thought process.

Cruz appears to be just the sort of politician Texans still oriented toward the John Birch Society love to vote for, which is why they get elected again and again. But such politicians poison the political system with their mendacity, contributing to the cynicism of many voters. Only 48.9 % of eligible Texans participated in the 2012 election in which Cruz won his Senate seat. Cruz attracted the votes of less than 28% of the eligible voters, which is enough to win in this political culture.

When over 51% of eligible voters are so repelled by both major political parties that they won’t bother to vote, there is something terribly wrong in the land. I’ve often attributed this malaise to inadequate emphasis on the duties of citizenship, but it is difficult to convince disillusioned voters that the candidates of the major parties can make a difference in their lives or in the governance and direction of the country.

Until the major parties, or third parties still developing, talk and act convincingly about the need to change our civic culture, voters who sit on the sidelines will continue to allow the Ted Cruzes of the state to win by default.

A few politicians moved in that direction this past election by promoting the narrative that we are a country built on a social contract that means the government serves the needs of all the people so that commerce can flourish and no one is left behind because of inequality, misadventure, misfortune, or intentional exploitation by the powerful. They understand that those who succeed do so because of the help provided by a government that builds and maintains the infrastructure for us all, and because of the opportunities that some of us have, but not all of us enjoy, due in large part to the accident of birth.

But most Texans will require more to believe that our political, social, and economic systems now rigged in favor of the powerful can change. They have no reason to believe that our laws mean much when the powerful are not prosecuted for their misdeeds and crimes. Contrary to the common shibboleth, we are not a nation based on laws and the enforcement of those laws when the powerful are seldom held to answer for their transgressions, as in the Wall Street debacle of the past decade.

So long as corporations can dominate the country and pollute our earth, water, and skies with impunity, leaving the mess for the rest of us to clean up, or live and die with, there is little reason for non-voters to give up their disillusionment. These corporations make huge profits and slough off their polluting by-products for the rest of us to pay, so their executives and stock-holders can benefit.

All who open their eyes and minds can see that the deck is stacked against those who are not wealthy and powerful. Equality of opportunity and justice are just figments of the imagination, achieved only rarely in reality. People like Ted Cruz will always take advantage of such a system, destroying lives and reputations if necessary to achieve their goals.

And Cruz will never answer the questions posed above because he believes that terrorism against Castro’s Cuba is always justified, as is terrorism committed by the U.S. and Israel. But it is his view that no other country or group should be allowed to take such actions to achieve their interests.

Ted Cruz is a man for all Tea Party seasons, who believes that extremism based on lies is no vice.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins. Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

08 October 2010

BOOKS / Harry Targ : Teach Your Children Well


Raising kids to be radical:
'Annie Shapiro and the Clothing Workers' Strike'


By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / October 8, 2010

Teach, your children well
Their father's hell
Did slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked
The one you'll know by.
-- Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young
One hundred years ago Hannah Shapiro, known as “Annie” among her fellow workers, sewed pants pockets at one of the Hart, Shaffner, and Marx men’s clothing factories in Chicago. She worked 10 hours a day, unless the foreman demanded more pants produced than usual. She earned four cents for every pocket she sewed.

Annie and her parents came from Russia to the United States in 1905 and the family settled on the west side of Chicago. Her father, a former rabbi, earned a modest living teaching Hebrew and Annie, the oldest of eight children, had to go to work to help support the family. She began working when she was 12 and was employed at HSM, when she was 17.

On a bright and sunny day, September 22, 1910, Annie went to work early in the morning. She was saddened to think that she would not leave work until it was dark. Upon arrival, Annie and her fellow workers were informed by the foreman on the floor that the piece rate for each pocket sewed would be cut from four cents to three and three quarter cents. This was the last straw for Annie who experienced daily indignities at the work place involving work rules and wages. She decided she had had enough and stormed off the job.

As she marched down the stairs from the fifth floor, she heard the tramp of many feet. Her fellow workers followed her off the job. Thus, as a result of the spontaneous leadership of Annie Shapiro the great Hart, Schaffner, and Marx strike of 1910 was launched. Eventually 40,000 workers from job sites around the city would march in solidarity with the HSM workers. Workers would receive support from noted progressive lawyer Clarence Darrow, the Women’s Trade Union League, and after a time, the United Garment Workers Union.

After a month’s general strike, HSM agreed to the establishment of a workers’ grievance committee but refused to recognize a union in the factory. That was to come later with the formation of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, but workers all around the city learned a valuable lesson: the power of the working class comes from solidarity, organization, and action.

This inspiring story is told in a new book written for kids by children’s author Marlene Targ Brill. The book, Annie Shapiro and the Clothing Workers’ Strike, Millbrook Press, 2011, tells the story of Annie in words and attractive illustrations, and includes a script for children’s use in theatrical performances.

Beyond this being a blatant advertisement for a book written by my sister and about my wife’s aunt, I have been intrigued for a long time about education, consciousness raising, and the importance of transmitting progressive narratives from generation to generation.

For me, this is a vital project, particularly given the general ignorance and denial of history in our culture. Even so-called radical scholars reject “historical narratives,” defending a “post-modern” understanding of the world that emphasizes the here and now and the absolute subjectivity of the world.

Thinking about the question of how to reclaim and communicate progressive history to the young, I came across a recent book by Julia L. Mickenberg, Learning From the Left: Children’s Literature, the Cold War, and Radical Politics in the United States, Oxford Press, 2006. In this book Professor Mickenberg presents a history of the impacts of anti-communism on children’s political culture in the Cold War era. (Also, she and Philip Nel edited a collection of representative children’s stories from this period called Tales for Little Rebels, NYU Press, 2010.)

Paradoxically, as radical novelists, essayists, and journalists were blacklisted from publication outlets and public school and university teachers lost jobs or were censored because of what they taught, a small space was opened up for writers and educators in children’s literature. “Red hunters” were able to purge from education, kindergarten through college, curricula and reading materials that studied and advocated for peace, racial justice, equality, and worker rights. But they ignored the children’s book publishing field.

Mickenberg describes in rich detail the many children’s books that addressed these subjects, and in addition, the array of children’s books on science that presented physics and biology from the standpoint of materialism, dialectics, and evolution.

Mickenberg reports that children of the 1950s read books about African American and white kids befriending each other, kids from different countries engaging in common activities, kids enjoying the environments in which they lived, and in some cases books about active, engaged girls and women. Perhaps most important, many children’s stories emphasized the role of people, particularly young people, in bringing about change.


Mickenberg suggests some possible meanings of her research:

The young people in their teens and twenties who joined the Civil Rights Movement and called themselves the “New Left,” who protested the Vietnam War, who formed consciousness-raising groups, and who imagined a kind of “liberation” for their own children through books like Free to be You and Me (1974) had grown up in an age marked by conformity and the repression of dissent. Yet they also managed to find material promoting interracial friendship, critical thinking, “science for the citizen,” and a “working-class Americanism.” Through trade books, many children learned a version of history that was left out of their textbooks, and they found stories that encouraged them to trust their imaginations and to believe that the impossible was possible.

The task of progressives today is to pass along the stories of myriad Annie Shapiro's to young people. History and consciousness, after all, can be a material force. “Teach your children...”

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

04 August 2010

Jay D. Jurie : The 'New Zeal' of Right Wing Propagandist Trevor Loudon

Trevor Loudon. Image from USA Survival News.

New Zealand's Trevor Loudon and the
Right-wing propaganda machine


By Jay D. Jurie / The Rag Blog / August 4, 2010

Until I came across the KeyWiki site I didn't know I had my very own "Wiki" page. When I went to "my" page I discovered it focused exclusively on the political side of my life.

KeyWiki describes itself as
...a bipartisan knowledge base focusing primarily on corruption and the covert side of politics in the United States and globally. While particular interest is taken in the left, KeyWiki serves to expose covert politics on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Accompanying this description was a photo of the Statue of Liberty.

Wondering who might be responsible for all this, the KeyWiki "team" identified only one individual, named Trevor Loudon, while "members of the KeyWiki team will be added below shortly."

As it turns out, Trevor Loudon is a resident of Christchurch, New Zealand. Since New Zealand has a multiparty parliament it is a little odd that he describes his site as "bipartisan." His description makes it clear he is focusing on the U.S., so perhaps he means "bipartisan" in the U.S. context. If that's the case, then his "knowledge base" is virtually nonexistent when it comes to exposing "covert politics" on the right.

For example, a search on his site for David Horowitz -- one of the few members of the New Left who became an outspoken conservative -- produced information only about his incarnation on the left several decades ago. There were no pages or listings for well-known figures on the right such as Bay Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Nikki Haley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly, though there are links on the companion KeyWiki.org site to blogs operated by Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin.

Statue of Liberty photo by David Prior / KeyWiki.

Thinking maybe these were insufficiently "covert," I tried several others, including Bo Gritz, Eric Rudolph, and Randall Terry, turning up nothing. I thought he might have entries for well-known white supremacists David Duke or Tom Metzger, or for well known anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers such as Don Black or Willis Carto, but again, nothing. There wasn't even a listing for the Ku Klux Klan.

There is no information on right-wing elected officials such as Michelle Bachmann, John Cornyn, Ron Paul, or Joe "You lie!" Wilson. Loudon maintains a separate blog called New Zeal ("promoting liberty in New Zealand and beyond") on which he re-posted a Washington Times op-ed piece by former Representative and nativist Tom Tancredo (R-CO), in which Tancredo wrote: "Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al-Qaeda," to which Loudon approvingly appended "well said."

There are a lot of items about individuals and groups on the left, including denunciatory articles about legislators Neil Abercrombie and Dennis Kucinich, and negatively-framed information about Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders, among others.

There's a list of "key organizations" that includes the Apollo Alliance, the Center for American Progress, Committees of Correspondence, Democratic Socialists of America, Institute for Policy Studies, and the New Party. Several other organizations and publications also rate considerable attention, including the Communist Party USA, In These Times, the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), the New American Movement (NAM), and The Rag Blog.

A September 2008 blog article ("therealbarackobama") by Brenda J. Elliott was entitled "Has Trevor Loudon found the Ayers-Dohrn-Obama 'smoking gun'?" According to Elliott, MDS was behind the creation of Progressives for Obama. Carl Davidson of Progressives for Obama responded that MDS "had nothing to do" with it, "nor did any one of the other alphabet soup of left groups you list." Elliott further asserted "MDS is the brains behind the SDS brawn."

America's Survival Inc. president and Accuracy in Media blogger Cliff Kincaid and Loudon co-authored a 32-page article entitled "From Arms to Education to Political Power: Return of the SDS and the Weather Underground" to further smoke out MDS. Loudon and Kincaid found that under the auspices of MDS, the new SDS, the Center for American Progress and pro-Barack Obama elements were ominously coalescing:
Key to this overall effort is the MDS, which unites Rudd, Ayers, Dohrn and other members of the SDS and Weather Underground from many different socialist and communist organizations.
These assertions are certain to generate some laughter among those actually familiar with the organizations in question.

Former Obama administration "green jobs" director Van Jones was among those singled out by Loudon for special attention. Kincaid has used a Loudon link about Jones on his blog. Glenn Beck has given Loudon a shout-out for "exposing" Jones and Joel Rogers of the New Party. Another shout-out comes from Andrew Breitbart, who conjured up the recent brouhaha over Shirley Sherrod.

Loudon has expended considerable energy making a case that Obama boyhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a secret Communist. According to Loudon, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan "doesn't lean left. She leans socialist-communitistic (sic) first."

In fact, Loudon's preoccupation with individuals with links, no matter how obscure, to (real or perceived) socialist or communist organizations puts him at the center of a revival of the redbaiting tactics of former Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Among the reasons I apparently rate my own KeyWiki page is I once signed a petition in support of academic freedom for, in Loudon's word, "terrorist" Bill Ayers. Loudon's definition of terrorism seems highly selective, or he must look across the Pacific to find it.

Nowhere does he mention the deadly French intelligence services bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in the Auckland harbor, or refer to that as a terrorist act. Nor does Loudon have anything to say about an incident in which New Zealand police pointed automatic weapons at the passengers of a Maori-operated school bus.

The Rag Blog's Jay D. Jurie: Sufficiently 'covert'? Image from Jay's KeyWiki page, in a photo lifted from Next Left Notes.

My page shows me as a signer of a statement several decades ago that advocated closer working relations between NAM and the Socialist Party USA. I owe Loudon a debt of gratitude for this, as I had forgotten all about it. After being reminded of this, my regret is that those closer working relations never materialized.

Virtually all "Rag Bloggers," including Marion Delgado, have some listing on KeyWiki. Thorne Dreyer and David Hamilton are among those who have interested Loudon most. In fact, simply writing for The Rag Blog or signing the Progressives for Obama petition appears to be enough to rate your own KeyWiki page. And Loudon seems to consider The Rag Blog a virtual mouthpiece for his theoretical MDS/Progressives for Obama nexus.

[It should be pointed out that The Rag Blog is an independent progressive newsweekly, published by the non-profit New Journalism Project, and has no affiliation with any political group or party.]

Still left unanswered is the question about why Loudon hasn't exposed covert politics on the right?

Since KeyWiki has only been in existence since April, perhaps he's just been preoccupied with filling in the left-wing side.

A larger question is why has a New Zealander like Loudon created a Wiki site primarily concerned with the U.S.? Answers to these two questions seem to overlap. In several of his writings Loudon makes it clear he is a committed "Americanphile." He apparently sees New Zealand as a satellite for what he believes, but the U.S. is the mother ship.

What are those beliefs? Several on-line sources identify Loudon as a member of the "Zenith Applied Philosophy" or ZAP cult, based upon an admixture of Scientology, Eastern mysticism, and John Birch-style laissez-faire capitalism. Loudon's admiration for the U.S. and its traditions is apparently limited to that which conforms to his laissez-faire outlook. He has taken it upon himself to help chart the rightful course for the U.S.

Whereas its site claims "KeyWiki isn't a part of any political party and we don't support candidates," Loudon is a former vice-president of New Zealand's ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) Party. ACT appears to be more or less the equivalent of the U.S. Libertarian Party. According to its website, ACT espouses "free market classical liberalism" and "...seek[s] to rebuild diplomatic and political relationships with Australia and the United States." ACT also seeks to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States.

All of the above makes it patently obvious that Loudon is engaged in the "covert politics on the right of the political spectrum." Rather than engage in honest pursuit of knowledge or debate, his modus operandi is duplicity. While KeyWiki masquerades as objective or balanced its real purpose is to conceal the advancement of a right-wing agenda.

In the deceitful pursuit of this purpose Loudon is not alone, as the shameful Breitbart attack on Shirley Sherrod makes evident. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently wrote of "a cynical right-wing propaganda machine."

Trevor Loudon has not only helped fuel this machine with half-truths, distortions, and fabrications, but is one of its drivers.

[Jay D. Jurie is a proud Rag Blogger who teaches public administration and urban planning and lives near Orlando, Florida.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

13 May 2010

Amy Goodman : In Praise of Lena Horne

Singer, actress, and civil rights activist Lena Horne died this week at 92. Photo by Cinetext / Sportsphoto Ltd / Allstar.

She fought segregation, McCarthyism:
Singing Lena Horne’s praises

By Amy Goodman / May 13, 2010
'Mississippi wanted its movies without me. It was an accepted fact that any scene I did was going to be cut when the movie played the South.' -- Lena Horne
Lena Horne died this week at the age of 92. More than just a brilliant singer and actress, she was a pioneering civil rights activist, breaking racial barriers for generations of African-Americans who have followed her. She fought segregation and McCarthyism, was blacklisted, yet persisted to gain worldwide fame and success. Her grandmother signed her up as the youngest member of the NAACP as a 14-month-old.

Hers is the story of the 20th century, of the slow march to racial equality, and of remarkable perseverance.

Horne's career began in Harlem's renowned Cotton Club, where African-Americans performed for an exclusively white audience. She joined several orchestras, including one of the first integrated bands, and then landed the first meaningful, long-term contract for an African-American actor with a major Hollywood film studio, MGM. Her contract included provisions that she would not be cast in the stereotypical role of a maid. She was never given full acting roles, though, only stand-alone singing scenes.

"I looked good and I stood up against a wall and sang and sang. But I had no relationship with anybody else," she told The New York Times in 1957. "Mississippi wanted its movies without me. It was an accepted fact that any scene I did was going to be cut when the movie played the South."

During the World War II years, she toured with the USO, entertaining troops. At Camp Joseph T. Robinson in Arkansas, she learned she would be performing for a segregated whites-only audience. Afterward, she gave an impromptu performance for the African-American troops and was again angered when German POWs imprisoned at the base were allowed to crowd into the mess hall. She insisted they be thrown out.

Horne, in a 1966 Pacifica Radio interview, recalled a watershed moment in Cincinnati. She was touring with a band, and on the night of the boxing match between Joe Louis and Max Schmeling of Nazi Germany, Horne, who didn't care for boxing, found herself backstage with the band members, around the radio, rooting for Louis:
I said, ‘He's mine.' And I didn't want him to be beaten. ‘He's ours.' I think that's the first I remember ever identifying with another Negro in that way before. I was identifying with the symbol that we had, of a powerful man, an impregnable fortress. And I didn't realize that we drew strength from these symbols.
Paul Robeson, the great African-American singer and activist, had a profound influence on Lena Horne. In the Pacifica interview, she recalled,
Paul taught me about being proud because I was Negro... he sat down for hours, and he told me about Negro people... And he didn't talk to me as a symbol of a pretty Negro chick singing in a club. He talked to me about my heritage. And that's why I always loved him.
The association with Robeson, a proud, outspoken activist, contributed to Horne's blacklisting during the McCarthy era.

James Gavin, who wrote the definitive biography of Lena Horne, Stormy Weather, told me:
Lena Horne was a very brave woman and is not given credit for the activism that she did in the 1940s, at a time when a lot of the black performers that she knew were simply accepting the conditions of the day as the way things were and were afraid of rocking the boat and losing their jobs. And Lena never hesitated to speak her mind.
Gavin described Horne's appearance at the 1963 March on Washington, where she took the microphone and unleashed one word, "Freedom!" She appeared with the great civil rights leader Medgar Evers at an NAACP rally, just days before he was assassinated. She worked with Eleanor Roosevelt on anti-lynching legislation, and supported SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the National Council of Negro Women (led by Dorothy Height, another civil rights leader, who died last month at the age of 98).

Horne's biographer Gavin says she was filled with anguish for not doing enough. But Halle Berry thinks otherwise. When Berry became the first African-American woman to win the Academy Award for best actress in 2001, she sobbed as she held up her Oscar in her acceptance speech:
This moment is so much bigger than me. This moment is for Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Diahann Carroll. ... And it's for every nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

© 2010 Amy Goodman

[Amy Goodman is the host of Democracy Now!, a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 800 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.]

Source / TruthDig.com / CommonDreams.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

15 January 2010

Textbooks in Texas : Rehabilitating Joe McCarthy?

Sen. Joseph McCarthy displays one of his many reports on Communists he found in the woodwork. Photo from Wisconsin History.

What did you learn in school today?
Efforts to vindicate commie-hunting senator


By Justin Elliott / January 15, 2010
See 'Who stays and who goes? Texas Board of Education meeting in Austin,' Below.
When we last checked in on the U.S. history textbooks standards setting process in Texas, the conservative-dominated State Board of Education was mulling one-sided requirements to teach high school students about Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority.

Now, in the home stretch of a process that will set the state's nationally influential standards, a liberal watchdog group is worried that the State Board of Education will try to push through changes to claim that communist-hunting Sen. Joseph McCarthy has been vindicated by history, among other right-wing pet issues.

The Republican-dominated board is meeting in Austin to vote on amendments to the current draft standards.

"The social conservative bloc is pressing for the standards to turn Joseph McCarthy into an American hero," says Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that aims to "counter the religious right."

The conservative effort to turn public opinion in McCarthy's favor began way back in 1954 -- while the Wisconsin senator was still in office -- with the publication of William F. Buckley's McCarthy And His Enemies.

If such an amendment is proposed, Quinn expects it to come from outspoken conservative board member Don McLeroy, who has been talking up the idea. In a note to curriculum writers last fall, McLeroy encouraged them to "read the latest on McCarthy -- he was basically vindicated."

We last encountered McLeroy in September when he argued that minority groups should be thankful to the majority for granting them rights. ("For instance, the women's right to vote. ... The men passed it for the women.")

A requirement to teach America's "Christian or Biblical heritage" is one of the other clauses conservatives may try to get into the standards, Quinn says.

What's at stake here is not just what Texas students learn in high school. Because the state represents one of two largest markets in the country, publishers tailor their books to the Texas standards. Those same textbooks are then sold in smaller states around the country.

The current standards draft (.pdf) has lost some of the biased requirements that had raised the ire of liberal groups. Back in October, a curriculum writing team made up of educators jettisoned the requirements that students be able to "identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals," including the Moral Majority and Gingrich. Schlafly remains on a list (see page 54) of political leaders, but she is alongside figures like Thurgood Marshall and Hillary Clinton.

But at this stage, the curriculum writing team as well as an expert review board are out of the picture. Now, the board members will have to vote on amendments proposed by their colleagues. The final vote will come in March.

It was at this same point in the '08-'09 science textbook standards process that conservative members began to offer technical amendments about purported gaps in the fossil record, and the impossibility of natural selection, Quinn says. Members who were in favor of teaching evolution became confused in some cases about what they were voting on.

While amendments to the history standards may be easier to understand, McLeroy and the rest of the conservative bloc are at least as passionate about leaving their mark this time around.

He told the Washington Monthly (in a lengthy feature very much worth reading):

"The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation. But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan -- he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last 20 years because he lowered taxes."

Source / TPM Muckraker
Former San Antonio mayor and HUD secretary: He's out.

Who stays and who goes?
Texas Board of Education meeting in Austin


AUSTIN – Early efforts by social conservatives on the State Board of Education to give more emphasis to religion in the teaching of U.S. history came up short Thursday as a majority of board members opted for a more traditional approach to the subject.

Among the proposals shot down by a majority of board members was a requirement to include "religious revivals" as among the major events leading up to the American Revolution.

That proposal, offered by board member Terri Leo, R-Spring, would have called on fifth-graders to study religious revivals alongside the Boston Tea Party.

Only members of the social conservative bloc -- all Republicans -- supported the idea, while other Republicans and Democrats opted to stay with the recommendation of a writing team of Texas teachers and academics on the topic.

The divided vote came as the board on Thursday considered scores of amendments to proposed curriculum standards for social studies, spelling out what students should be taught in history, government, geography and other social studies classes from elementary grades through high school.

The board worked late into the night, concentrating on curriculum standards for elementary and middle schools, before adjourning. It will take up high school standards -- expected to generate the most debate -- today.

Much of the discussion Thursday night was over which historical figures should be covered in history classes and textbooks, as board members added several new people while deleting others who were recommended by curriculum writing teams last year.

Among those dropped from the elementary school standards were former San Antonio Mayor and Clinton Cabinet member Henry Cisneros and labor leader Delores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farm Workers with Cesar Chavez. Also deleted was the first female governor of Texas, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson.

Board critics said the three were not worthy of inclusion in the standards. Huerta was cited by one board member for her membership in the Democratic Socialists of America.

On the other hand, board members added former Texas Supreme Court Justice Raul Gonzalez, the first Hispanic elected to the high court.
[....]
Social conservatives on the board have called for the new standards to reflect the major role of religion in U.S. history, and they were expected to offer several other amendments to achieve that.

But various groups have cautioned against the board including any requirement that could jeopardize the religious freedom rights of students.

The social studies requirements will remain in place for the next decade, dictating what is taught in government, history and other social studies classes in all elementary and secondary schools.

-- Terrence Stutz / Dallas Morning News / Jan. 15, 2010
Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

18 October 2009

Dick Flacks : Pete Seeger's Project


Celebrating Pete Seeger:
Our political troubador

More than any other individual, he had conceived and fostered a tradition of protest song that drew from a number of cultural roots, had significant political consequence, and reshaped the forms and content of popular music.
By Dick Flacks

[This article also appears in the Autumn issue of Jewish Currents. A longer version was published on Truthdig.]

Pete Seeger turned 90 on May 3rd, providing the occasion for a huge celebratory concert in Madison Square Garden featuring a wide array of popular musicians. In the two years prior, Pete got more mainstream attention than he’d received in the previous seventy years.

Bruce Springsteen toured internationally with a large band playing material from Pete’s folksong repertory. There was a documentary film in theaters and on public television, Pete Seeger: The Power of Song. Two new biographies are in the stores ("To Everything There Is a Season": Pete Seeger and the Power of Song, by Allan Winkler, and The Protest Singer: An Intimate Portrait of Pete Seeger, by Alec Wilkinson), and David King Dunaway’s earlier work, “How Can I Keep From Singing”: The Ballad of Pete Seeger, has been updated and republished.

There’s even an ongoing campaign to get Seeger nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The attention he is now getting is certainly deserved, given his life story and his influence on American music. One feature of that story, however, is that he is one of the least-known famous people in America. I use protest music a lot in my teaching about social movements, and over the years I’ve found that fewer than five percent of my students can identify him. Even with the attention he’s received in recent years, he remains paradoxically shadowy, given his political and cultural influence.

This paradox goes to the heart of what his life project has been. One obvious reason for Seeger’s marginalization has been his commitment to the political left.

His father, noted composer and musicologist Charles Seeger, was an important leader of the cultural front fostered by the Communist Party during the 1930s. Charles helped form a composers’ collective that sought to create a new music for revolutionary workers and to preserve and reinvigorate folk and vernacular musics as an alternative to commodified mass culture (its members included Marc Blitzstein, Aaron Copland and other young radical musicians).

So Pete grew up immersed in the left. He joined the Young Communist League during his brief time at Harvard, and was a Communist Party member (according to his biographers) during most of the 1940s. Although he dropped formal membership in the CP in the late 1940s, he was one of the star cultural figures of the communist-oriented left for many years after.

Teenagers like me and my wife (both red-diaper babies) were proud that Pete was “ours,” appearing at the benefits, hootenannies, summer camps and rallies that defined much of our cultural lives during the 1950s, when kids of our background felt pretty isolated from the political and cultural mainstream. His allegiances made him the prototype of the blacklisted entertainer -- and it was the blacklist that excluded him from television and blanked him out of the awareness of mainstream America.

That exclusion did not derail Pete’s life project. On the contrary, it compelled him to fulfill that project rather than succumb to temptations or demands that might have come from more conventional commercial success. I want here to spell out what that project was, and how it affected history.

Alec Wilkinson’s new biography defines Seeger as the epitome of the rugged individualist. We see him in very old age, living in a house he built on the banks of the Hudson River. He, his wife Toshi, and their small children moved there in the 1940s, and their lives were indeed rugged -- without electricity and running water for a while, they chopped wood and grew food in a clearing in the forest.

Near the end of the book, we see Seeger and members of his clan collecting sap and making maple syrup. Wilkinson appreciates the paradox that this man, long reviled as a communist, has tried to live the American ideal of the self-made, self-sufficient man.

But Seeger was a Communist, and continues to describe himself as a “communist with a small c.” He was raised by his father to see music as a group activity, dependent on the people’s participation, more than as a realm of individual accomplishment dependent on the virtuosity of a few.

“Vernacular” music, said Charles Seeger, is the foundation from which all other musics derive, and music, in turn, should aid in inspiring people “into more independent, capable, and democratic action.” We can read in these lines the principled foundation for Pete Seeger’s seventy years as an artist and political being. They are a primary source for the life project he began to formulate and implement when he was in his early 20s.

I use the word “project” instead of “career” because Seeger himself resisted talking about his “career.” From the outset, he sought to channel his ambition toward social and cultural change and to exorcise his strivings for personal recognition.

In the early 1940s, the Almanacs even performed anonymously (with Pete often using an assumed name), emulating various European artistic collectives of that time. A number of politically committed young musicians were part of the Almanacs collective, but Pete, in his early 20s, was the most disciplined -- focused on keeping the group together and achieving its shared purpose, which was to create new songs, rooted in vernacular music, with lyrics that might mobilize political action.

The Almanac Singers, 1941. From left, Bess Lomax, Pete Seeger, Millard Lampell, Woody Guthrie, Arthur Stern, Sis Cunningham.

The Almanacs’ most lasting songs were those like Woody Guthrie’s “Union Maid” that became anthems of the CIO organizing campaigns or spurred anti-Nazi sentiment to support the war effort (“The Sinking of the Reuben James”).

In the entertainment world, there was something new and attractively fresh about the fusion of folk music and contemporary topics. The middle-class Almanacs, especially Seeger, undoubtedly thought that their unprofessional style (they wore blue jeans or overalls, and their performances were deliberately unpolished) would help them forge connections to the working-class audiences they hoped to reach.

That assumption has often been mocked; workers were much more likely to want the polished performances of Tommy Dorsey, Bing Crosby or the Andrews Sisters. But the mockery misses the deeper aim of Seeger’s project, to make space for a popular music created not for the commercial market but for sustaining the “democratic action” envisioned by his father.

The Almanacs’ collective didn’t last long, in part because several members entered the military. While in uniform, Seeger continued his project, recording songs of the Spanish civil war and a number of other topical songs (accompanied by other emerging folksingers such as Burl Ives, Josh White, and Sonny Terry). He served in the Philippines as an entertainer for wounded GIs and learned quite a bit about how music can work to build collective morale. By war’s end, he was certain that making politically relevant music was his life’s work.

After the war, Seeger’s energies turned toward organizational entrepreneurship rather than merely performing. He sparked the formation of a national “People’s Artists” network of leftwing music-makers to serve as a booking agency, a publisher of song-filled newsletters and books, and a support framework for advancing a popular music relevant to political action.

In the immediate postwar period, leftists hoped that the dynamism of the 1930s labor movement would continue and that the social democratic logic of the New Deal would be followed by the post-FDR government. Seeger imagined that his people’s music network would be wedded to the unions and other social movements, providing fertile ground for growing a leftward popular culture.

But a profound split in the union movement on the “Communist” issue dashed such optimism, and the increasing tempo of the Red Scare thoroughly marginalized the network Seeger had worked so hard to build.

Still, his penchant for organizational entrepreneurship was an important dimension of his work that deserves more attention than any of his biographers provide. Seeger’s major successes have included the song magazines Sing Out! and Broadside, which published and publicized the politically conscious new songwriting of the 1960s; the Newport

Folk Festivals of the late ’50s and ’60s, which brought together a new generation of troubadours with a vast array of traditional performers; a book, originally mimeographed, How To Play the 5-String Banjo, which inspired tens of thousands to play this largely forgotten instrument; the formation of the Freedom Singers (Cordell Reagon, Bernice Johnson, Charles Neblett and Rutha Mae Harris), who toured (with Toshi as their agent) to raise awareness and money for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and the Clearwater Sloop, which sparked the movement to clean up the Hudson River and became the center of an ongoing environmental education program.

None of these efforts was single-handedly created by Seeger, of course. In fact, his biographers suggest that he was not exactly a detail person. Toshi took on many of the managerial tasks his work required (while managing their household of three children in their log cabin). But Pete always had the ability to make the impossible seem plausible and thereby inspire and goad others to help fulfill his various organizational visions.

It’s a rare thing for an artist to be so aware of the need for institution-building, but Seeger saw from the start that cultural change is inextricably bound up with social organization.

His most promising mainstream venture was the effort by the Almanacs’ successor group, the Weavers, to work commercial venues. The quartet, born out of the People’s Artists cultural left, was discovered and signed by Gordon Jenkins of Decca, one of the largest record labels of the 1940s and ’50s. Jenkins produced a series of enormous hits with the Weavers, and they were booked into many of the leading club and concert venues. Rightwing entrepreneurs quickly went after them, however, largely based on Seeger’s long association with “Communist” politics, and only two years after they had burst on the scene, the Weavers’ commercial career was over.

Seeger quickly embarked on a perpetual tour of America’s college campuses, summer camps, and auditoriums, where he honed a solo performance style and repertory that defined him as a musician. In the process, he brought into being a ragtag army of young fans. His commitment to his project was embodied in his particular performance style: The goal was not to display his own talent, nor to thrill an audience, but to bring songs to people so that they could make them their own.

Every Seeger performance was centered on group singing. Simply getting a mass audience to join in requires skill, but he aimed further -- to teach new songs, and to foster singing in harmony. He particularly relished teaching South African songs in their original language (most famously “Wimoweh”) with two or three competing melodic lines.

There is an empowering effect in the very sound of a singing assembly. There is a persuasive effect that can come when audience members sing lyrics expressing a political perspective or commitment. There is a sense of mutual validation when a crowd of people sing together in an attitude of resistance. And once you sing a song, there is a good chance that you will be able to reproduce it by and for yourself, with no need for the professional performer to evoke it.

By working as a song leader and teacher, Pete was achieving Charles Seeger’s wish for a mode of musical performance that had an ability to “aid in the welding of the people into more independent, capable, and democratic action.”

Pete Seeger’s blacklisting by network TV lasted at least fifteen years and made it impossible for him to have access to mass audiences in the U.S. Still, his cultural impact steadily increased during those years. When the Weavers reunited in an historic Carnegie Hall Christmas season concert in 1955 in defiance of the blacklist, the recording of this event on the upstart Vanguard label hit the charts, and the group continued to tour and record for several more years (although Seeger separated from it).

Seeger drew ever larger concert crowds, including many of the young who heard him first at summer camp or college campus. He recorded dozens of albums for Folkways in that period.

Meanwhile, a pop-centered folksong revival became commercially huge. The Weavers’ imitators, led by the Kingston Trio and, later, Peter, Paul and Mary, sold millions of records. The resulting commodification inevitably denatured and contradicted Seeger’s project.

His support of the Newport Folk Festivals helped provide alternative, more authentic access to rooted musics and performers. By the early 1960s, a musical rebellion against pop folk was in the works, as a band of young troubadours, consciously following in Woody and Pete’s footsteps, started singing. Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Phil Ochs, Odetta and many others performed in new folk clubs, recorded on upstart labels, appeared at civil rights and ban-the-bomb rallies, and dominated the college tours.

The folk music revival became a political as well as cultural phenomenon. The festivals, concerts and clubs where folk fans congregated were among the prime social spaces for shaping awareness and engagement with the civil rights movement and the New Left.

Pete Seeger sings "If I Had a Hammer" at a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) rally in Greenwood, MS, 1963. From "Pete Seeger: The Power of Song."

Pete Seeger’s belief in the power of song derived in large part from the fact that a number of great social movements were fueled by music. There is a tradition of labor song in America, dating from the 19th century, and a number of songs from that tradition continue to this day to help define the identities of labor organizers and raise spirits on the picket line.

Seeger’s dream of a singing mass movement was much more fully realized, however, in the civil rights struggle. As marchers gathered in churches to prepare to challenge segregation with their very bodies, traditional songs and song styles used in African-American churches were turned into hymns of solidarity and shared risk-taking, with lyrics adapted for the occasion.

It was Seeger who had first made “We Shall Overcome” known to civil rights activists in the 1950s, and his concerts in the early ’60s taught the new freedom songs to mass audiences in the north. The music of the southern movement was an important factor in forging a moral identification with it among northern students -- an identification that led to a flood of volunteers to southern organizing campaigns.

By his mid-40s, Pete Seeger could take satisfaction that his decision to organize his life around a principled project and disdain a “career” had changed history. More than any other individual, he had conceived and fostered a tradition of protest song that drew from a number of cultural roots, had significant political consequence, and reshaped the forms and content of popular music.

He had revived the social role of the troubadour -- a special kind of intellectual, who, as Bruce Springsteen said at Madison Square Garden, pointed a dagger at the heart of Americans’ illusions about their history while telling their stories in song. But Seeger performed in ways that intended, and sometimes succeeded, in empowering audience members to sing their own songs and find capacities for democratic action through that singing.

If he’s often portrayed as a victim of blacklist and censorship, it is clear that his long marginalization from the mainstream was necessary for the fulfillment of his project. When he refused to discuss his political allegiances with the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1955 (basing his non-cooperation on his First Amendment rights rather than on the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination), Seeger’s courageous stance led the committee to charge him with ten counts of contempt of Congress, each punishable by a year in jail.

Trial and appeal of these charges took seven years and reinforced his blacklisting. In the end, the Court of Appeals overturned his conviction. It was in many ways a costly time for the Seegers, yet as a result he came, says Wilkinson, to “typify the principles of all the brave people he sang about.”

In our time, troubadours have become icons of resistance, and Pete Seeger did quite a bit to popularize them, most notably the Wobbly bard Joe Hill and Woody Guthrie. Then, in the 1960s and ’70s, iconic troubadours emerged all over: Bob Marley in Jamaica, Victor Jara in Chile, Vladimir Vysotsky in the Soviet Union, Wolf Biermann in East Germany, Cui Jian in China, Miriam Makeba in South Africa.

Some, like Jara, explicitly used Seeger and Guthrie as models. All were able to achieve iconic stature and profound popular affection despite, and because of, persecution, censorship, martyrdom. Meanwhile, all over the world, many hundreds of other singers have taken on the troubadour role, not as heroes and martyrs, but, like Seeger, as cultural workers pursuing various versions of his project.

Left to right, Joan Baez, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Seeger and Tom Morello celebrate Seeger's 90th birthday at Madison Square Garden, Sunday, May 3, 2009. Photo by Timothy A. Clary / AFP / Getty.

The Madison Square Garden 90th birthday celebration featured many American musicians of this sort. Some like Bruce Springsteen and Dave Matthews have had enormous commercial success, and most of the others on stage are probably better known to a wider public than Seeger himself. Their participation was evidence of the cultural effect of his project, as each star testified, explicitly or implicitly, to the pull of Seeger’s devotion to social movements and his challenges to the constraints of the culture industry.

That event was the culmination of several years during which the “entertainment industry” and the state not only stopped blacklisting Seeger but bestowed honors on him: enrollment in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Kennedy Center Award, the President’s Medal of Freedom.

A cynic might say that in America, political troublemakers are marginalized and suppressed, then canonized when they are safely old or dead; that’s how we periodically persuade ourselves that we really are a free country.

At 90, Pete, we imagine, must feel enormous personal fulfillment. How rewarding to get to sing Woody Guthrie’s radical verses to “This Land is Your Land” at the inauguration concert for our first black president, side by side with one of the biggest stars of popular music! Still, I can hear him saying: “Yes, but will the human race survive the 21st century? There’s a fifty-fifty chance. We’ve got a lot of work to do.”

[Dick Flacks is emeritus professor of sociology at University of California, Santa Barbara. His many writings on U.S social movements include Making History: The American Left and the American Mind. He hosts a weekly radio show, “Culture of Protest,” which can be heard on Thursdays 6-7p.M. EST at www.kcsb.org. He has co-authored the forthcoming Playing for Change: Music and Social Movements with Rob Rosenthal, to be published by Paradigm publishers.]

Source / Jewish Currents

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

15 September 2009

Culture Wars and Witch Hunts : Anne Braden, Van Jones and Yosi Sargent

Rosa Parks Interviewed by Anne Braden. Photo from Wisconsin Historical Images.

The many fronts of the culture wars
The Van Jones resignation has particular meaning for people like me with life experience in the coalfields, where the exploitation of land and people by the coal industry is made even more brutal by the dichotomy between jobs and the environment.
By Anne Lewis / The Rag Blog / September 15, 2009
“Use every attack as a platform…” -- Anne Braden
Ask anyone involved in black liberation, peace, gay rights, environmental justice, welfare rights, anti-poverty, or the women’s movement. All of us heard others attacked, if not ourselves, as socialists or communists. Those words were used to distract us, to divide us, to marginalize us, and to destroy effective leadership.

I’m currently working on a film about Anne Braden. Anne Braden had a great deal to say about anti-communism. She put her body and her mind into the struggle for black liberation, beginning in 1951 when she led a delegation of white women to Mississippi to protest the legal lynching of Willie McGee. She said, “We are here because we are determined that no more innocent men shall die in the name of white southern womanhood.”

In 1954, Anne Braden and her husband Carl bought a house for a black couple in a white suburban Louisville neighborhood. The house was fire bombed. In the midst of white backlash against Brown v. Board of Education, the local prosecutor charged the Bradens and five other white progressives with “sedition” for fomenting strife between the races as part of a communist plot. Carl was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.

Anne Braden and the other defendants traveled across the country to tell the story. They succeeded in freeing Carl at least temporarily. They raised up the issues of open housing and integration. They found new allies and forged a greater unity. When Carl was once more sent to prison for his ideas, Dr. King headed a petition drive for clemency. Please go here for excerpts from the film in progress.

The Van Jones resignation has particular meaning for people like me with life experience in the coalfields, where the exploitation of land and people by the coal industry is made even more brutal by the dichotomy between jobs and the environment.

Last spring, Van Jones told the Ohio Valley Environmental Council, a grassroots environmental group, that Appalachia would be a focus for green jobs. In another statement, Van Jones said, "This movement also has to include the coal miners." He went on to compare “clean” coal to “unicorns pulling cars.” Jones united environmental and economic justice in terms that working people understand. This unity, reflected in coalitions like the Blue Green Alliance and the Apollo Project, is critical to our movement.

In 1984, I documented a coal strike against A.T. Massey Coal in the area around Matewan. Please go here for a stream of the documentary. I interviewed now CEO Don Blankenship, listed on AlterNet as one of "the 13 scariest Americans” for his destruction of the mountains, denial of global warming, and attempted corruption of the Supreme Court of West Virginia.

It’s ironic that Don Blankenship was conducting a gala Labor Day event at the same time that Van Jones resigned his position. In Holden, West Virginia, to an estimated 75,000 supporters of coal, Blankenship blasted any attempt to control climate change stating, “Only God can change the earth’s climate.”

“Mine War on Blackberry Creek” and the Anne Braden project are produced with Appalshop, an arts and education NGO supported throughout its forty year history by the National Endowment for the Arts.

Another Glenn Beck victim: Yosi Sargent. Photo from SF Gate.

On September 10, Yosi Sargent was removed from his office as Communications Director at the NEA. Glenn Beck attacked both Sargent and the NEA as “Nazi” propagandists, based on tapes of a conference call asking artists to participate in Michelle Obama’s “United We Serve.” (I wonder what Glenn Beck would say about art created in the WPA, which brought us Jackson Pollack as well as Ben Shahn and Russell Lee.)

Sargent brought hip-hop, street artists, and grassroots arts groups to the White House. The attack against him smacks of racism and homophobia and commercialism. And so the culture wars begin once more.

We’re used to fanatic attacks on the National Endowment for the Arts spearheaded by the American Family Association. The American Family Association not only inflict on us their views on “decency,” they lobby against regulation of the oil industry, against hate crime legislation, and against the Employee Free Choice Act. And so attacks against culture and economics combine in a dangerous mix with religion.

The next human targets in the witch hunt are Mark Lloyd, Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission; Cass Sunstein, Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; and Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. Any one of these would be a heart-felt loss.

McCarthyism was far from over when McCarthy was condemned by the U.S. Senate in 1954. It wasn’t over in 1975 with the disbanding of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Assaults on affirmative action, the rise of the Klan and other neo-fascist organizations, Reaganomics and its assault on the working class, welfare deform, the killing of doctors who perform abortions – we really haven’t had a break. These attacks are cultural and ideological as well as economic.

Universal health care is a human right. No human being is “illegal.” Separate but equal is never equal. Young people should be treated with gentleness. The sick elderly should be cared for with dignity. Everyone should have adequate food and housing. The earth must be treated with respect or we will have no clean air to breathe or water to drink. Women have the right to control their bodies. The right questions all of these and calls them “racist,” “socialist,” and “fascist.” We need to reclaim the ground of common sense.

Here are four ideas for action, largely based on Anne Braden’s approach.
  1. Defend the first victims without fear, equivocation, or apology. We lost an opportunity with the Reverend Wright.
  2. Protect the rights of free speech and association. Anne Braden said that the right of free speech combined with freedom of association constitutes the right to organize.
  3. Analyze the attacks and understand their sources. Don’t stop at Glen Beck. Follow the money.
  4. Turn every attack into an opportunity for green jobs, for cultural democracy, for social change.
[Anne Lewis is an independent filmmaker frequently associated with Appalshop and a Senior Lecturer at UT-Austin. Credits include: "Morristown: in the Air and Sun," a working class response to globalization; "Fast Food Women" (POV and London Film Festival Judges' Choice); "On Our Own Land" about a citizens' effort to stop strip mining (duPont Award); and Associate Director, "Harlan County, U.S.A." "Anne Braden: Southern Patriot" is co-directed with Mimi Pickering. Anne is a proud member of Local 6186 CWA-TSEU and CWA-NABET. Anne's website is www.annelewis.org.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

08 September 2009

The Afrikaner Party : GOP vs. Van Jones & Team Obama

Van Jones (top) "should sue the living shit out of Glenn Beck."

The Afrikaner Party draws first blood:
Van Jones, Obama and the audacity of capitulation


By Tim Wise / The Rag Blog / September 8, 2009

Van Jones, special advisor to the President's Council on Environmental Quality, has resigned from the administration. To be honest, he was forced out. Oh, perhaps not directly, but if not, then by the stunning silence of his employer. An employer more concerned about appeasing the right-wing bullies who sought to make Jones a liability for him, than about standing up for a brilliant thinker on both economics and ecological issues, and confronting the conservative talk-show hosts who have libeled and slandered Jones (literally) over the past month.

The right has shown no shame in their relentless pursuit of Jones's political scalp. They have fabricated from whole cloth details of his life, calling him a convicted felon and instigator of the 1992 Los Angeles riots. This, in spite of the fact that he has no criminal record whatsoever and wasn't even in Los Angeles when those riots were happening.

His arrest at that time was part of a sweep of dozens of peaceful marchers in San Francisco, involved in a protest at the time of the riots. He was released, charges were dropped, and he was paid damages by the city. This is not what happens to criminals, but rather, innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

Jones should sue the living shit out of Glenn Beck, his employers at Fox News, and every other prominent liar who has repeated the baseless allegations of his criminal record in recent weeks. He should wipe them out, take their money, leave them penniless and begging on the streets, without health care. They would deserve it. Perhaps Beck's AA sponsor or the Mormons who he credits with "saving" his wretched soul can then take care of him and his family. Since surely he wouldn't want the government to lend a hand.

They have twisted other aspects of Jones's past, suggesting his brief stint with a pseudo-Maoist group makes him a secret communist in the heart of government, this despite his more recent break with such groups and philosophies, in favor of a commitment to eco-friendly, sustainable capitalism. They have called him a black nationalist, which he admits to having been for a virtual political minute in his youth, and have suggested he's a "truther" (one who believes George W. Bush masterminded the 9/11 attacks as an "inside job").

As for this last charge, their evidence consists of Jones's signature on a petition, which originally called merely for more openness about the pre-9/11 intelligence available to the former administration, but which was later altered to reflect the conspiratorial lunacy of its creators. Jones, and many others who reject the truthers' nonsense, were tricked into signing and were appalled by the final product. But none of this matters to the right. Because after all, none of it was ever the point.

This is not about convicted felons. The right loves convicted felons, as long as their names are Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy. The former of these (whose convictions were eventually vacated on a technicality) helped direct an illegal war from the Reagan White House, which claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Nicaraguans. And the latter helped plan the Watergate break-in, advocated political assassination during his time in the Nixon White House, and even advised folks on how to kill federal agents several years ago, from his radio show perch ("head shots" he roared). But none of his friends on the right ever suggested that such talk put him beyond the pale, or should result in him being silenced.

This is not about having an arrest record. After all, there are many anti-abortion zealots with arrest records, hauled in and then ultimately released after blocking access to family planning clinics. But Glenn Beck doesn't make them public enemy number one. Nor would he, or any of his political soulmates, seek to prevent such persons from having roles in a future Presidential administration. Indeed, they would likely consider such a record a bonafide qualification for higher office.

This is not about believing in conspiracy theories. Surely not. Beck of all people can hardly condemn anyone for that -- even if Jones did subscribe to such things, which he doesn't -- for it is he who believes, among other things that Obama is planning on a mandatory civilian defense corps, which will be like Hitler's SS, that Obama "hates white people" and has a "deep seated hatred for white culture," that Obama is pushing health care merely as a way to get reparations for black people, and that he secretly wants to bankrupt the economy to force everyone to work for ACORN.

It is Beck who is among the leading voices suggesting that the President's upcoming speech to schoolchildren -- in which he will implore them to study hard -- is really just an attempt to indoctrinate them into a new version of the Hitler Youth. No, these people love to push nonsensical conspiracy theories. It is their bread and butter. It is all they have, in fact.

Nor is this about Jones's remarks in a speech, given prior to becoming part of the administration, to the effect that the reason Republicans get things done is that they're willing to be "assholes," while many Democrats, including Obama, aren't. Conservatives don't mind that kind of talk. They loved it when Dick Cheney said go "fuck yourself" to Senator Patrick Leahy in 2004. Not to mention, right-wingers say far more offensive things than that, on a regular basis, but remain in good standing, and are surely never condemned by their fellow reactionaries.

What's worse: Jones calling Republicans assholes, or Rush Limbaugh saying that most liberals should be killed, but that we should "leave enough so we can have two on every campus -- living fossils -- so we will never forget what these people stood for?"**

What's worse, Jones's asshole remark, or Ann Coulter saying, among the many venomous syllable strings that have toppled from her lips, that the only thing Tim McVeigh did wrong was choosing to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, rather than the New York Times building?

This is not about socialism, as Jones is not a socialist. Oh sure, he's associated with some, and might still be friends with several to this day. And so what? Martin Luther King Jr. associated with socialists and communists because they supported the civil rights struggle and the black freedom movement at a time when the rabid anti-communists were at the forefront of attempts to maintain formal white supremacy.

Which is to say that the socialists and the communists were on the right side, and the red-baiters were on the wrong one. Which was also true about the fight for the 40-hour work week, the 8-hour day, the end of child labor, the right of women to vote, and every other advance for freedom and justice in this nation in the past 100 years. But of course, Glenn Beck explained on the radio this past July 4th that he "hates the last 100 years of American history," so I guess we know what side he would have been on in all those battles.

Let's be clear, this is about one thing only: namely, the attempt by the right to exploit white reactionary fears about black militancy. It is the same tactic they tried with Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2008. They did not confront Wright's narrative -- the accuracy of which was far stronger than they would like to admit -- nor do they actually grapple with Jones's ideas (it is doubtful that Beck has even read Jones's best-selling book, for instance).

Rather, they present a caricature, a bogey man with black skin, an occasional scowl, and an attitude. Angry, confrontational, "uppity," and too close to the President. Which means that Wright=Obama=Jones=Malcolm X. It's a trope the right has banked on for years: using racial memes and symbols to scare Jim and Susie Suburb. Put the face of black anger out there and watch your devotees respond like Pavlov's dog.

It's something I first saw up close and personal in 1992. The woman I was dating at the time was an interior designer and had scored a contract to decorate the VIP lounges at the Houston Astrodome for the GOP National Convention. I viewed it as a great opportunity to do some enemy reconnaissance, so I lurked around the literature tables and took in the imagery beamed from the jumbotrons to the assembled conventioneers.

One afternoon, we arrived before the main hall was opened to the delegates, and as I looked up at the screens above the floor, I saw the image that would be there to greet them as they entered a half-hour later: a massive, pixillated image of hip-hop artist Ice-T, whose speed metal band Bodycount had recently gotten in trouble for their song, "Cop Killer." The Republicans wanted their delegates to know who the enemy was. Not just Ice-T, but anyone who listened to his music, anyone who looked like him.

And that is what the attack on Van Jones is about: exploiting white fears and anxieties. Anxieties about a black President, anxieties about a basket-case economy (which they're trying to blame on the black President even though it was well in the crapper before he came along), anxieties about a changing demographic balance in the nation (which animates their fear and anger over immigration), anxieties about a popular culture whose icons look less and less like them as the years go by.

And so they play up the militant black guy image, turning a low-level bureaucrat into a "Green Jobs Czar," (the latter of which term they have sought to spin into a communist thing, despite the fact that the Russian Czars were actually the royalist pigs who were thrown out by the Russian left, a small historical detail which doesn't matter to illiterate people of course), and making him the bad guy who's running the Obama administration from behind the scenes.

No, it's not only about race. But if you think it's merely a coincidence that the right has sought to make Jones such an issue -- rather than some of the other administration officials they are now threatening to "expose" (two of whom are white) -- then you haven't been paying attention to Republican and conservative politics for the past forty years.

This is what they do. It's the only language they speak, at least fluently. Which is why when John McCain -- to his credit -- tried to move away from this method a bit, and refused to push the Jeremiah Wright theme during the general election campaign, so many on the hard-right criticized him. They didn't want him to talk about Bill Ayers: they wanted him to talk about Wright. Even though Ayers was the one with the criminal record and the links to political violence, while Wright was the military veteran and preacher with a storied history of community contributions.

Why? Because they knew that Wright would be the better image. To link Obama to a white radical is one thing. But to link him to a black one? Oh, much, much better. This is why, in the instant case, they kept pushing Van Jones's non-existent connection with the Los Angeles riots, and his supposed felony record. Nothing better than a marauding criminal black man to get white fears into the stratosphere.

This is, it appears, the emerging political agenda of the Republican Party, and certainly its right-wing: a group that has decided, apparently, to go all in as a party of angry white people (and the few folks of color willing to look past their incessant race-baiting). They have circled the wagons, all but given up on reaching out to black and brown voters, and are putting all of their chips on white.

And everything they are saying about Van Jones was what people like them said about civil rights leaders in the 50s and 60s: about Dr. King and Ralph Abernathy, and John Lewis, and Fannie Lou Hamer. They were communists, and revolutionaries, and a danger to the republic.

Make no mistake, had they been old enough in those days, Beck and every modern-day movement conservative would have stood with the segregationists, with the bigots, with the mobs who burned the buses carrying freedom riders. They would have stood with the police in Philadelphia, Mississippi, even as they orchestrated the killing of Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner. They would have stood with Bull Connor in Birmingham.

How do we know? Easy. Because not one prominent conservative spokesperson of that time did the opposite. Not one. That's who they are. And the minute you forget that, the minute you insist on treating them better than they would treat you, the minute you insist on playing by rules that they refuse to as much as acknowledge, all is lost. They do not believe in democracy. They believe in power. White power. They believe in the past. They are Afrikaners, and it's about time we started calling them that.

(**) This quote, which appears in David Neiwert's book The Eliminationists was reported originally in the Denver Post, December 29, 1995.

[Tim Wise is the author of four books on race. His latest is
Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama (City Lights: 2009). This article was also posted at Progressives for Obama.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

06 September 2009

The New McCarthyism : Van Jones Fed to King CONG

Portrait of Van Jones by Robert Shetterly / Americans Who Tell the Truth.

Obama has fed his green Jones to King CONG
With clarity and verve [Van] Jones finally brought to the mainstream the critical message that what’s good for the environment is also good for the economy.
By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / September 6, 2009
See 'The right wing's assault on Van Jones and the progressive left' by Carl Davidson, and the article that started it all, 'Van Jones scandal threatens Obama presidency' by Cliff Kincaid, Below.
Van Jones has been fed to King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes & Gas).

Obama’s one serious green bright spot has been sacrificed at the McCarthyite altar of the corporate bloviation machine.

The brilliant, charismatic Jones was responsible for the administration’s single significant accomplishment to date. With clarity and verve Jones finally brought to the mainstream the critical message that what’s good for the environment is also good for the economy.

The convenience of this simple truth has long been known to the green power movement. Since the early 1970s we have argued that converting away from fossil and nuclear fuels -- coal, oil, nukes & gas -- and onto a Solartopian system based on renewables and efficiency is the only route to long-term prosperity. With community-based solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, mass transit, increased efficiency and efficiency, we can and must build a sustainable economy that will create jobs and geo-political stability.

An early articulation of this green-powered vision came at the “Toward Tomorrow” Fair at the University of Masschusetts, Amherst, in 1975. As the “No Nukes” movement was just gathering grassroots steam, we envisioned a community-based Solartopian energy system that would guarantee full employment and a survivable planet.

For the next quarter century, the No Nukes movement helped drive atomic energy into its economic and ecological black hole. As fossil fuels became ever more unsustainable, the vision took shape. Wind, solar and efficiency technologies boomed ahead.

But the multi-trillion-dollar fossil/nuke industry is nothing if not entrenched. Throughout the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush nightmare it made common wisdom of the Big Lie that saving the environment meant economic sacrifice. In fact, except for King CONG’s short-term mega-profits, the opposite has always been true.

Van Jones finally broke through. As an informed, exciting and compelling presenter, Jones made clear that the “green collar economy” is tangible and terrific. In his writings, mass meetings, television and legislative testimony, Jones turned the corner on the message that what’s good for the environment is not only good for the economy, it’s essential. Appearing with the likes of Robert Redford on Larry King, and much more, Jones finally injected into the mainstream the message that there will be no prosperity, no full employment, and no survivable planet without the necessary and doable conversion to a green-powered Earth.

With Jones running point, Obama has in fact made millions of critical dollars available for renewable energy. The Stimulus Package does include a significant sector of cash for those wishing to bring wind, photovoltaics and other Solartopian systems into their home, office and industrial energy mix.

But we’ve seen this before. Jimmy Carter took halting steps up the Solartopian highway in the late 1970s. Tens of thousands of green jobs were created in California and elsewhere. Then Ronald Reagan ripped the solar water heater off the White House roof and Gov. George Deukmejian killed Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax credit program. The industry went into a tailspin, those thousands of jobs disappeared, and America’s dependency on foreign oil soared out of control.

With Jones gone we have to worry that Obama might now repeat history. The pretext for forcing Jones out was pathetic. Like millions of Americans he signed a petition asking for an investigation into the 9/11 felling of the World Trade Center. He used the dreaded term “asshole” to accurately describe some Republicans, and then used it to describe himself and his friends. He may have said some things that some right winger might’ve construed as racist.

Did he kill someone? Did he engage in torture? Did he steal money? Is he a lousy parent?

This is McCarthyism at its most lethal, and administrative timidity at its most dangerous. If groveling to the corporate bloviators is Obama’s strategy for making change, we are in deep deep trouble.

In fact Van Jones, as imperfect as the rest of us, was Obama’s critical firestarter in a green-powered revolution that is decades overdue. While the likes of Glenn Beck can crow over his demise, it’s the gargantuan King CONG barons of fossil/nuke who are really in the saddle. Pushing Van Jones aside is a major coup for the destroyers of the planet, and a big loss for those of us who would re-power and save it.

We will, of course, continue to fight against fossil and nuclear power and for a green-powered Earth. But as it has been for decades, the going is rough. Will this administration really be with us?

[Harvey Wasserman’s Solartopia: Our Green-Powered Earth is at www.harveywasserman.com. In 1973 he helped coin the phrase “No Nukes.”]

The right wing's assault on Van Jones and the progressive left

By Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog / September 6, 2009

Here's the motherlode piece fueling the rightwing blogosphere that helped bring down Van Jones. The text will show you that it won't stop here. They will use everything they can to cripple and take down Obama from the right, and will use more and more sham "connections," such as with me, to do it.

The right is aiming at any alliances between the liberals and the progressive left to destroy both. Their success here in this case, thanks to capitulation on this matter by the White House, shows why liberals have always been rather weak and wavering when the right bares its fangs, and why we, the progressive left, have to take up the slack, bringing others along with us. Moreover, it shows we need better and stronger organization to back up our gains.

Finally, it show the stupidity and futility of those on the left who want to aim their main fire at this time at Obama's presidency, and end up carrying water for the right wing populists and proto-fascists. None of this means we shouldn't criticize Obama's wars and take to the streets against them. But it does mean you have to study how to deliver the main blow to the immediate rising danger. If you want to lend a hand, make use of the PayPal button at Progressives for Obama. Even better, join or organize a PDA and/or a CCDS chapter, or something similar that you like better. But get organized.
Van Jones scandal threatens Obama presidency

By Cliff Kincaid / September 5, 2009

Our media have been slow to grasp the significance of the Van Jones story.

Reporting from near the home turf of embattled Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle says it's clearly a bad sign when White House flak Robert Gibbs is asked if Jones still enjoys the confidence of the President and merely replies that Jones "continues to work in this administration."

But the White House has to know that, if Jones goes, the questions won't end. Who appointed him? Who looked into his background? Who knew what and when?

Gibbs knows that the Jones controversy undermines confidence in the President, who bears ultimate responsibility for the appointment. Gibbs also has to know that, if Jones' background can sink Jones, the President himself is in trouble. Obama has decades of friendly associations with communists and terrorists, ranging from Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis in his youth in Hawaii to communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in Chicago when he was doing community organizing and running for political office.

By comparison to Obama, when it comes to nefarious connections, Jones is a piker.

Curiously, it's not Jones' communist background which has proven to be the most controversial. Rather, it's his two apologies in a week for statements calling Republicans "assholes" and having signed a 9/11 truth statement blaming the terrorist attacks on U.S. officials.

It's the communism, stupid.

As Professor Paul Kengor points out, "We now know that even the most authoritative sources, such as the seminal Harvard University Press work, The Black Book of Communism, were conservative when estimating only 100 million deaths at the hands of communist governments. The latest research, for instance, claims that Mao Zedong alone was responsible for the deaths of at least 60-70 million in China, and Joseph Stalin alone may well have killed 60 million in the USSR-those are just two communist countries that managed to far surpass the entire combined death toll of World War I and II, the two worst wars in the history of humanity."

Do we want adherents of this foreign ideology of mass murder holding high government positions?

Van Jones, of course, is only a symbol of the problem. And communists are not required to promote communist policies. The Obama Administration is pursuing the destruction of anti-communist Honduras, in order to please Hugo Chavez, the Marxist ruler of Venezuela currently on a friendly visit to terrorist Iran. This is a scandal that deserves at least as much attention as Van Jones' communist connections.

Our media have been slow to grasp the significance of the Van Jones story. Some news outlets have only reluctantly covered it because of the Jones statements about Republicans and 9/11.

But Jones' communist background has been known since April 6, when New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon revealed it in striking detail. This was only a few weeks after the appointment was announced. Joseph Farah's World Net Daily then picked up the story and ran several important follow-ups.

While the Jones appointment has now become both a White House and Democratic Party scandal, one prominent Republican has already gotten burned as a result of her association with the identified communist.

Meg Whitman, the former president and CEO of eBay who is running for Governor of California, has been forced by the controversy to disavow her previous comments in support of Jones. She says, "My husband and I met him and many others on a cruise sponsored by National Geographic and The Aspen Institute. He talked about supporting job growth in California, but of course I did not do a background check of his past over dinner."

Look who else was on the "Arctic Expedition for Climate Action 2008" cruise with Jones:
  • Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
  • Larry Brilliant, Director, Google.org
  • President Jimmy Carter & Rosalynn Carter
  • Senator Tom Daschle & Linda Daschle
  • John Fahey, President, National Geographic
  • Mike Finley, President of the Turner Foundation
  • Walter Isaacson, President, the Aspen Institute
  • Andy Stern, President, Service Employees International Union
  • R.E. "Ted" Turner, Chairman, Turner Foundation, Inc.
  • Governor Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor, Colorado>
On March 27, 2009, the Aspen Institute gave its Energy and Environment Award in the category of "Individual Thought Leadership" to Van Jones.

Although Whitman now says that she wasn't able to do a background check on Jones over dinner, she had previously said that she "got to know him very well."

Here's what she said, in comments captured on You Tube: "There's a guy over in Oakland, I think his name is Van... Jones. And he and I were on a cruise last summer in the Arctic for climate change. And I got to know him very well. And a lot of the work he's doing to enfranchise broader communities I'm a big fan of. He's done a marvelous job... I'm a huge fan of his. He is very bright, very articulate, very passionate. I think he is exactly right."

For someone who "got to know him very well," she seemed to have some trouble remembering his name. In any event, while Whitman endorsed Jones and his work, at least she didn't hire him. The White House did.

According to the Van Jones website, "In March 2009 Van went to work as the special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality." What does this phrase "went to work" really mean?

As we have previously reported, the Obama Transition Project developed a 7-page questionnaire of 63 questions for people seeking top administration jobs. Here are some of the questions:
  • Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.
  • Please identify all speeches you have given. If available please provide the test [sic] or recordings of each such speech or identify any recordings of speeches of which you are aware.
  • If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to an email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect if it were made public, please describe.
The final question 63 was all-encompassing: "Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect."

But it's not known if Jones ever filled out the questionnaire. It seems doubtful.

The New York Times said that for those who managed to fill out the questionnaire and clear those hurdles, "the reward could be the job they wanted. But first there will be more forms, for security and ethics clearances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Government Ethics."

So was Jones subjected to a security investigation by the FBI? No one seems to know. It seems doubtful.

I went to the website of the Office of Government Ethics, which collects and posts "Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports or Other Covered Records." I put the name "Van Jones" into the search engine and "0 records" turned up.

It turns out that this data base only includes individuals "nominated or appointed by President Obama with the advice and consent of the Senate." Since Jones didn't have to go through a Senate confirmation hearing, he didn't have to complete any of these forms.

The President, of course, didn't have to fill out those forms, either. He didn't have to go through an FBI background check. So the same questions being asked about Van Jones can be asked about Obama. Van Jones and his supporters know it. They probably know more about the President than we do. And that gives them political leverage and potential blackmail material.

As we argued in a previous column, it appears that a Communist Party spin-off, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS), was instrumental in some way in getting Jones his job. A one-time secret member of this network, Rep. Barbara Lee, is a close friend of both Jones and Obama. Jones comes from Oakland, California, and Lee represents Oakland. They worked together on the "green jobs" issue before Jones "went to work" at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Lee hailed the Jones appointment.

Another key CCDS official is Carl Davidson, a Marxist and former SDS activist described by blogger Trevor Loudon as "a big fan and promoter of Van Jones' work." Indeed, the latest edition of the "CCDS Mobilizer" notes that Davidson participated in New York City's annual "Left Forum" in April of this year where he "presented Van Jones' program for Green Jobs for inner city youth, but framing it as a larger structural reform project that could, if done right, unite a progressive majority and help get us out of the current crisis."

In other words, the "Green Jobs" project is a disguised form of socialism.

Loudon reports that Davidson has pushed Van Jones and his agenda at every opportunity -- just as he was pushing Obama as a political candidate in the 1990s. "Davidson was an ardent supporter of Obama for several years and helped organize the famous peace rally in Chicago in where Obama pinned his colors to the anti-Iraq war cause," Loudon explains.

If you go to the CCDS website, you'll see that one of the speakers at the recent CCDS convention was Angela Davis, former CPUSA candidate for vice president. I saw a picture of Davis on the first floor of the Ella Baker Center in Oakland when I was there in April looking into the Van Jones controversy. Jones founded the Ella Baker Center.

Rep. Lee, in her book, Renegade for Peace & Justice, talks about her work as "Comrade Barbara" in the Black Panther organization with Angela Davis, "the noted African American member of the Communist Party." Davis was a key endorser of the July 17-19, 1992, national CCDS conference, "Perspectives for Democracy and Socialism in the '90s." One of the topics was, "Toward a Socialist United States?" Jones spoke to a CCDS fundraiser in 2006.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the scandal threatens not only the job of Van Jones but the Obama presidency.

The evidence suggests that a communist network has a direct pipeline into the White House. It is a network that includes the President himself.

So how can Obama fire Jones without putting his own presidency in jeopardy? This is the dilemma that grips the White House.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report.]

Source /AIM Report

Glenn Beck's attack on Van Jones



Also see BOOKS / Van Jones' 'Green Collar Economy' by Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog / September 6, 2009

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.