Kamal Abbas is General Coordinator of the CTUWS, an umbrella advocacy organization for independent unions in Egypt. The CTUWS, which was awarded the 1999 French Republic’s Human Rights Prize, suffered repeated harassment and attack by the Mubarak regime, and played a leading role in its overthrow. Abbas, who witnessed friends killed by the regime during the 1989 Helwan steel strike and was himself arrested and threatened numerous times, has received extensive international recognition for his union and civil society leadership.
Here is his statement:
KAMAL ABBAS: I am speaking to you from a place very close to Tahrir Square in Cairo, “Liberation Square”, which was the heart of the Revolution in Egypt. This is the place were many of our youth paid with their lives and blood in the struggle for our just rights.
From this place, I want you to know that we stand with you as you stood with us.
I want you to know that no power can challenge the will of the people when they believe in their rights. When they raise their voices loud and clear and struggle against exploitation.
No one believed that our revolution could succeed against the strongest dictatorship in the region. But in 18 days the revolution achieved the victory of the people. When the working class of Egypt joined the revolution on 9 and 10 February, the dictatorship was doomed and the victory of the people became inevitable.
We want you to know that we stand on your side. Stand firm and don’t waiver. Don’t give up on your rights. Victory always belongs to the people who stand firm and demand their just rights.
We and all the people of the world stand on your side and give you our full support.
As our just struggle for freedom, democracy and justice succeeded, your struggle will succeed. Victory belongs to you when you stand firm and remain steadfast in demanding your just rights.
We support you. we support the struggle of the peoples of Libya, Bahrain and Algeria, who are fighting for their just rights and falling martyrs in the face of the autocratic regimes. The peoples are determined to succeed no matter the sacrifices and they will be victorious.
Today is the day of the American workers. We salute you American workers! You will be victorious. Victory belongs to all the people of the world, who are fighting against exploitation, and for their just rights.
How inspired are you by the thousands of students from Wisconsin high schools who began walking out of class four days ago and have now occupied the State Capitol building and its grounds in Madison, demanding that the governor stop his assault on teachers and other government workers? I have to say it’s one of the most exciting things I’ve seen in years.
We are, right now, living in an amazing moment of history. And this moment has happened because the youth around the world have decided they’ve had enough. Young people are in revolt — and it’s about time.
You, the students and young adults, from Cairo, Egypt to Madison, Wisconsin, are now rising up, taking to the streets, organizing, protesting and refusing to move until your voices are heard. Effing amazing!! It has scared the pants off those in power, the adults who were so convinced they had done a heckuva job trying to dumb you down and distract you with useless nonsense so that you’d end up feeling powerless, just another cog in the wheel, another brick in the wall. You’ve been fed a lot of propaganda about “how the system works” and so many lies about what took place in history that I’m amazed you’ve been able to sort through all the bs and see the truth for what it is. This was all done in the hopes you would just keep your mouths shut, get in line and follow orders. And don’t rock the boat. Because if you do, you could end up without a good job! You could end up looking like a freak! You’ve been told politics isn’t cool and that one person really can’t make a difference.
And for some beautiful, unknown reason, you’ve refused to listen. Maybe it’s because you’ve figured out that we adults are about to hand you a very empty and increasingly miserable world, with its melting polar ice caps, its low-paying jobs, its incessant war machine, and its plan to put you in permanent debt at age 18 with the racket known as college loans.
On top of that, you’ve had to listen to adults tell you that you may not be able to legally marry the person you love, that your uterus isn’t really yours to control, and that if a black guy somehow makes it into the White House, he must’ve entered illegally from Kenya.
Yet, from what I’ve seen, the vast majority of you have rejected all of this crap. Never forget that it was you, the young people, who made Barack Obama president. First you formed his army of election volunteers to get him the nomination. Then you came out in record numbers in November of 2008. Did you know that the only age group where Obama won the white vote was with 18-29-year-olds? The majority of every white age group over 29 yrs. old voted for McCain — and yet Obama still won! How’d that happen? Because there were so many youth voters of all races — a record turnout that overcame the vast numbers of fearful white adults who simply couldn’t see someone whose middle name was Hussein in the Oval Office. Thank you young voters for making that happen!
Young people elsewhere in the world, most notably in the Middle East, have taken to the streets and overthrown dictatorial governments without firing a shot. Their courage has inspired others to take a stand. There’s a huge momentum right now, a youth-backed mojo that can’t and won’t be stopped.
Although I’ve long since left your age group, I’ve been so inspired by recent events that I’d like to do my bit and lend a hand. I’ve decided to turn over a part of my website to high school students so they — you — can have the opportunity to get the word out to millions more people. For a long time I’ve wondered, how come we don’t hear the true voices of teenagers in our mainstream media? Why is your voice any less valid than an adult’s?
In high schools all across America, students have great ideas to make things better or to question what is going on — and often these thoughts and opinions are ignored or silenced. How often in school is the will of the student body ignored? How many students today will try to speak out, to stand up for something important, to simply try to right a wrong — and will be swiftly shut down by those in authority, or by other students themselves?
I’ve seen students over the years attempt to participate in the democratic process only to be told that high schools aren’t democracies and that they have no rights (even though the Supreme Court has said that a student doesn’t give up his or her rights “when they enter the schoolhouse door”).
It’s always amazed me how adults preach to young people about what a great “democracy” we have, but when students seek to be part of it, they are reminded that they are not full citizens yet and must behave somehow as indentured servants. Is it any wonder then why some students, when they become adults, don’t feel like participating in our political system — because they’ve been taught by example for the past 12 years that they have no say in the decisions that affect them?
We like to say that we have this great “free press,” and yet how free are high school newspapers? How free are you to write or blog about what you want? I’ve been sent stories from teenagers that they couldn’t get published at school. Why not? Why must we silence or keep out of sight the voice of our teenagers?
It’s not that way in other countries. The voting age in places like Austria, Brazil or Nicaragua is 16. In France, students can shut down the country by simply walking out of school and taking to the streets.
But here in the U.S. you’re told to obey and to basically butt out and let the adults run the show.
Let’s change that! I’m starting something on my site called, “HIGH SCHOOL NEWSPAPER.” Here you will be able to write what you want and I will publish it. I will also post those articles that you’ve tried to get published at your school but were turned down. On my site you will have freedom and an open forum and a chance to have your voice heard by millions.
I’ve asked my 17-year-old niece, Molly, to kick things off by editing this page for the first six months. She will ask you to send her your stories and ideas and the best ones will be posted on MichaelMoore.com. I’ll give you the platform you deserve. It will be my honor to have you on my site and I encourage you to take advantage of it.
You are often called “our future.” That future is today, right here, right now. You’ve already proven you can change the world. Keep doing it. And I’d be honored to help you.
P.S. When can you get started? Right now! Just go here and register. (You can use a made-up name if you want and you don’t have to name your school.) Then once you’re done, start submitting blogs, music, video and more!
This is a great idea. For all the talk of the youth being the future of the democratic Party it doesn’t seem like anyone’s doing anything tangible to engage them. Good for Michael Moore.
This week’s Ali Velshi/Christine Romans economic conventional wisdom show featured much of the usual garbage I’ve come to expect from the show. They even had Gloria Borger on to explain Village thinking so we don’t have scratch our heads wondering where the gasbags come up with this stuff.
But, they did feature Dean Baker this week-end (who might as well have been speaking in tongues for all they could wrap their minds around what he was saying.) And they had this highly unusual exchange:
VELSHI: Time now to go beyond the headlines. Christine Romans is back. Joining me also is Pete Dominick, my good friend, host of Sirius XM “Standup.” Guys take a look at this chart. If you’re part of the red line, you’re going to see a red line and a blue line emerging. If you’re part of that red line, congratulations, you’re in the top 5 percent income bracket in the United States. Almost everyone else, however, your wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years. In fact, this chart goes back to 1917; your wages have been largely stagnant for a very long time. Christine, you talk about this a lot. I have heard you talk about this for years, the fact that the middle class is disconnected from progress and growth. How did this happen?
ROMANS: How did it happen? Did it happen because of globalization? Did it happen because we don’t have a manufacturing policy in this country or was it a national economic strategy? Did it happen because we sort of outsourced those jobs to multimillion dollar corporations who are looking for other countries for their profit and growth. I mean it is a combination of a lot of different things. But the bottom line is when you’re talking about the American dream, which is do better than the generation before you, unless you’re in that top line, and that ain’t happening.
PETE DOMINICK, HOST, SIRIUS XM’S “STAND UP:” If you have a red shirt and much like the top 5 percent Christine. Let’s go to the wall, you love to go to the wall. I want to examine politics. I don’t know where 1981 is, but I think it’s somewhere around here. We just talked about it, you just talked about who these people are, and who these are people, and these are people. These are voters, these are voters. These people got these people to vote for their interests, period. That is it, these people are still voting for their interests because these —
VELSHI: What happened toward the end here? Manufacturing jobs disappeared and markets started to take off.
DOMINICK: You could lay another graph over this, the demise of unions starts right around here, when unions are strong, union works who are middle class or who are not — I love the life. Politics.
VELSHI: Here’s a remarkable point, Pete. The rich got the average, the middle class to vote for policies that sustain them. Policies like for instance, extending a tax cut to the wealthiest in society. Christine, explain the psychology there, explain why 95 percent of the people support the system that enriches the top 5 percent?
DOMINICK: The American dream. They are going to be them some day Ali.
ROMANS: This recession has made the wall between the haves and the have-nots a lot harder to climb.
VELSHI: Interesting.
DOMINICK: Here’s another thing I want to talk to you about, as if the middle class hasn’t been battered enough. Food and clothing prices, you know this they’re going up as a result of rising global commodity prices. Christine quickly walk us through this.
ROMANS: This is the big story of the money story of the week guys. So look you’re talking about companies that are starting to say we can start passing along these higher raw materials prices, and that’s going to be everything from meat to poultry to eggs. You’re already seeing that. You’ve got grain prices that are historic. Then you take a look at cereal.
VELSHI: Or maybe the packages get smaller.
ROMANS: Or maybe the packages get smaller, or they have fewer manufacturers. Even some of these things that go into beauty products, those have been going up. Apparel, cotton prices are at record highs, they have more than doubled.
VELSHI: A 10 percent.
ROMANS: A 10 percent. This is a great CNNMoney story; you’re going to see really chintzy t-shirts and jeans that have fake pockets.
DOMINICK: Here’s one thing, I don’t eat meat, I don’t eat breakfast, I use baking soda, I go naked, I don’t have a refrigerator. I have a question for you, what’s the top ingredient in corn flakes? Corn right?
ROMANS: Well that’s a very good point. Because you look at refrigerators, Whirlpool, LG, said they are going to be raising prices, one of the reasons is they have moved overseas, many of their manufacturing people, guess what prices are rising, it’s also costing more to ship stuff halfway around the world to come back. Because of fuel costs and labor prices are going up from the quote, unquote cheap labor market. So it is a lot of different things.
VELSHI: Good to see you both as always. A very animated discussion. It’s the first time I have ever seen Pete Dominick play an economist. Very nice. Good to see you Pete.
DOMINICK: It’s politics.
Velshi then went on to lecture about “tough choices” and deficits and all the usual beltway rot. I’m fairly sure that the economy press is a lost cause. Even when confronted with what should produce at least a moment re-evaluation of the current thinking, they fall right back into their patterns.
Still, it’s good to see it, even if it blows right past them.
Here’s the latest on the bipartisan closed door negotiations to further sacrifice the average American worker on the alter of the deficit Gods.
Top Senate Democrats tried to scotch efforts by Majority Whip Richard Durbin to include Social Security in comprehensive deficit-reduction negotiations, illustrating the challenge facing the bipartisan talks.
The discussion occurred during a closed-door White House meeting this week among negotiators including Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a key lieutenant.
President Barack Obama attended, although his contribution to the conversation couldn’t be learned. Previously, the administration has offered general support for bipartisan debt-reduction talks.
The confrontation, as well as a flare-up on the right over taxes, illustrates the difficulty of reaching a deal on deficit-control legislation, and how fear of upsetting the party line on particular policies could trump the issue of controlling the debt. […] Democratic interest groups have been gearing up for a fight on Social Security, and Messrs. Schumer and Reid don’t want to get in the way. On Friday, Edward Coyle, executive director of the liberal Alliance for Retired Americans, accused House Republicans of threatening Social Security with the spending cuts they are pressing for the current fiscal year. But negotiators appear to be holding firm.
“If Sen. Schumer is serious about fighting to protect Social Security from harmful cuts, he can join the large group of Members already doing that,” said a Senate official involved in the bipartisan negotiations. “But if he’s trying to use Social Security as an excuse to do nothing to reduce the deficit, he’s going to be pretty lonely.”
A spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Brian Fallon, said the senator “believes it is vital to rein in the deficit, but Social Security is not the nub of the problem, and focusing on it distracts from any serious effort to bring the budget into balance.”
The White House meeting Wednesday took place before The Wall Street Journal published an article Thursday detailing the Senate negotiations. The substance of the talks somewhat eased the concern of the Democratic leaders about Social Security, and gave Sen. Durbin some room to press forward, though without any commitment of support.
Aides familiar with the talks say Democratic leaders are willing to let them play out. A framework for deficit-cutting legislation could be circulated to a broader group of senators when they return early next month after a Presidents Day recess.
According to aides familiar with the bipartisan talks, Social Security is being treated gingerly. Under one proposal, lawmakers would be given two years to draft an overhaul to put the system on sounder financial footing. If that effort fails, Congress would be required to vote on the presidential debt commission’s Social Security plan, which would raise the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes, gradually raise the retirement age and slow the annual growth of benefits.
Under the initial discussions, negotiators don’t appear to be inclined to include penalties, should the Senate vote down any changes to Social Security.
That’s cute.
Similar tensions are playing out on the right. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group, wrote to the three main Republican negotiators, Sens. Coburn, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Mike Crapo of Idaho, calling the putative deal a violation of the group’s “no new taxes” pledge, which most Republican lawmakers have signed.
“There’s no real bill to talk about with a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist said of the deficit negotiations Friday.
The Senators blustered about their oath to the constitution, but they got the message.(And no it is not adequate to “end” some tax breaks in exchange for benefits cuts. Corporations and the wealthy hire very expensive lobbyists and lawyers to insure that they will find new ways to protect their wealth. Ending an arcane tax break is never any guarantee that revenues will actually rise.)
The President’s position wasn’t reported, but Durbin has often been his proxy in previous legislative battles, so it wouldn’t be surprising for him to be working from the White House side in this. I would guess that certain Senators believe he is anyway.
Andrew Breitbart, speaking from the Tea Party counter-protest in support of Governor Scott Walker in Madison, Wisconsin, told National Review Online that Obama’s support for the state worker demonstrations in Wisconsin is “deeply un-American”:
Breitbart led a large rally this afternoon at the state capital. The large turnout, he tells us, sends a strong signal to politicians interested in taking on the public-sector unions. “This is a message that is being sent around the country to other governors that the tea party is going to have their back,” he says. “This is a message that we are sending, and Wisconsin is sending, to Ohio, to California, to all the governors out there that are about to make hard decisions.”
Turning to the White House, Breitbart calls President Obama’s involvement in union activism “deeply un-American.”
“What you have is the president of the United States organizing anarchists, public-sector unions in order to intimidate Americans,” he says.
I was going to ask what this bozo has to do to lose credibility and then I remembered Glenn Beck.
It’s awfully important that the good guys win this one. It’s simply not possible for this country to be prosperous and have a decent future if hucksters like Beck, Breitbart and Palin actually manage to do the Big Money Boyz’s dirty work and completely destroy liberal institutions.
As I watch Don Rumsfeld lie all over television this morning it makes me feel nostalgic for the good old days. Remember when the press gushed over him as if he were Justin Bieber? It’s a wonder anyone has any respect for the profession left at all:
“Everyone is genuflecting before the Pentagon powerhouse,” noted Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz (12/13/01). Since the war in Afghanistan started, Kurtz observed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was “getting better press than Rudy Giuliani.” Rumsfeld, Kurtz wrote, was “America’s new rock star.” Why do so many journalists revere Rumsfeld? His “rough-hewn charm and no-nonsense demeanor” are part of it, says Kurtz. And dozens of other journalists concur, often citing his “candor” and describing him as “plain-spoken” and a “straight-shooter.” Journalists’ comments about Rumsfeld range from the flattering to the obsequious to the downright bizarre. “Sixty-nine years old, and you’re America’s stud,” Tim Russert told Rumsfeld when he interviewed him on NBC’s Meet the Press (1/20/02); Larry King informed him that “you now have this new image called sex symbol” (CNN‘s Larry King Live, 12/06/01). Fox News‘ Jim Angle (12/11/01) called him “a babe magnet for the 70-year-old set.” “I love you, Donald,” Margaret Carlson announced on CNN‘s Capital Gang (12/23/01), where the Time magazine columnist appears regularly in the role of left-of-center pundit. Carlson’s Time magazine colleague, veteran defense correspondent Mark Thompson, told the Chicago Tribune (10/22/01), “Although he has not told us very much, he has been like a father figure.” While the father-figure angle might be better left to a psychoanalyst, Thompson is on to something when he says that the “straight-shooter” doesn’t actually tell reporters very much–and what he does say is often contradictory. Invoking the “fog of war” to explain why he could provide no information about Afghan civilian casualties, Rumsfeld told a Pentagon press briefing in early December (Washington Post, 12/5/01), “With the disorder that reigns in Afghanistan, it is next to impossible to get factual information about civilian casualties.”
Remember when he would hold press conferences and the reporters would giggle like schoolgirls at his every utterance? Pentagon briefings were so much fun in those days.
But nothing can beat the paeans to his many manliness from wingnut women of all ages. It was a sight to behold.
Men are likely to say they admire the way he knows his mind and talks tough or straight, or the way he managed so deftly to keep the press in its place, or, in the more general terms, what he has done and is doing for the country. Women, on the other hand tend to express their feelings about him less specifically, saying that they find him to be a particularly attractive combination of good-looking and smart and sexy. Both descriptions, however, can basically be summed up in a word that has for a considerable period of time been deprived of public legitimacy.
The word is manliness.
… [B]y the time he departed the White House there were few women and even fewer men who would with any sincerity have awarded Clinton the status of sex-hero, let alone — O happy invention! — “studmuffin.” That designation would have to await the arrival of a high-achieving, clear-headed, earnest, no-nonsense, Midwestern family man nearly seventy years old. The times, in other words, they were a-changin’.
That’s nothing to what they said about Bush, of course, but these were heady times for right wing women who love a man in a warrior costume. And Rummy was always in the mix. Here are six right wing women sitting around talking during this era:
ROLLINS: What is your definition of virility? Does it have a role in political leadership?
WALTER: It’s a nebulous quality for a political leader. Bill Clinton was virile—in a very sleazy way. There’s also the sex appeal of someone like Don Rumsfeld. President Bush possesses this intangible something—you really saw it on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Testosterone and camaraderie—many people responded to it. In George W. Bush, people see a contained, channeled virility. They see a man who does what he says, whose every speech and act is not calculated. Bill Clinton showed a lot of outward empathy and he was very articulate but I don’t think many of us would have trusted him with our daughters.
GAVORA: If virility equates with strength, then there is no question that Bill Clinton lacked it completely. Bush has shown that he has it. His willingness to go after terrorism root and branch despite the widespread opposition among our European allies and even some at home, and to withstand that pressure, is strength. Bill Clinton made surface gestures. He refused to go against the media, popular opinion, the pinstriped boys at the State Department, because he lacked that strength.
HAYS: The most masculine man I ever knew was my grandfather, who supported seven children and never failed to stand when a woman came into the room. Bill Clinton is virile, but he’s not masculine or mature. He never became a grown man.
O’BEIRNE: When I heard that he grew up jumping rope with the girls in his neighborhood, I knew everything I needed to know about Bill Clinton. There’s no contest between Clinton and Bush on masculinity. Bill Clinton couldn’t credibly wear jogging shorts, and look at George Bush in that flight suit.
ROLLINS: But why do so many American women love Bill Clinton?
SCHAEFER: You can learn a lot jumping rope with girls. It won’t make you sexually attractive, but it will make you a more effective, patient listener.
O’BEIRNE: Bill Clinton did understand, from the matriarchy he grew up in, how to appeal to women in that modern way.
HAYS: Clinton could feel your pain like one of your girlfriends. But he could never make a decision like Bush has had to make. He would still be trying to negotiate with the terrorists. The use of force, which until recently was passé, has come back. Clinton couldn’t use force except in a motel room.
Say what you will about these days, but at least we don’t have to put up with this drivel.
Rummy meanwhile is on his redemption tour, all over the TV, saying things like “heavens to betsy” and “oh my goodness” and it’s not getting the laughs it used to from the press. It’s tough being a “rock star” has been.
Hear no evil, see no evil: Goring and Hess on trial
“These men saw no evil, spoke none, and none was uttered in their presence. This claim might sound very plausible if made by one defendant. But when we put all their stories together, the impression which emerges of the Third Reich, which was to last a thousand years, is ludicrous.”
-Justice Robert Jackson (chief counsel for the U.S. at the first Nuremberg trial in 1946)
Herman Goring. Rudolf Hess. Hans Frank. Wilhelm Frick. Joachim von Ribbentrop. Alfred Rosenberg. Julius Streicher. Any one of those names alone should send a chill down the spine of anyone with even a passing knowledge of 20th Century history. Picture if you will, all of those co-architects of the horror known as the Third Reich sitting together in one room (along with a dozen or so of their closest personal friends). This egregious assemblage really did occur, in the courtroom where the first Nuremberg trial (November 1945 to October 1946) was held. Through the course of the grueling 11-month long proceedings, a panel of judges and prosecutors representing the USA, the Soviet Union, England and France built a damning case, thanks in large part to the Nazis themselves, who had a curious habit of meticulously documenting their own crimes. The thousands of confiscated documents-so neatly typed, well-annotated and (most significantly) signed and dated by some of the defendants, along with gruesome films the Nazis took of their own atrocities, helped build one of the most compelling cases…well, of all time. By the time it was over, out of the 24 defendants (several of whom were tried in absentia for various reasons), 12 received a sentence of death by hanging, 7 were given prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life, and the remainder were either acquitted or not charged. One of the biggest fish sitting in the docket, Herman Goring, ended up “cheating the hangman” by committing suicide in his cell (Martin Bormann, one of the condemned tried in absentia, had already beat him to the punch-although his 1945 suicide in Berlin was not confirmed until his remains were identified in a 1972 re-investigation).
Hollywood would be hard pressed to cook up a courtroom drama of such epic proportions; much less a narrative that presented a more clearly delineated battle of Good vs. Evil. Granted, in the fog of war, the Allies undoubtedly put the blinders on every now and then when it came to following the Geneva Convention right down to the letter-but when it comes to the short list of parties throughout all of history who have willfully committed the most heinous crimes against humanity, there seems to be a general consensus amongst civilized people that the Nazis are the Worst.Bad.Guys.Ever…right? At any rate, this is why a newly-restored U.S. War Department documentary, produced over 60 years ago and never officially released for distribution in America (until now) may well turn out to be the most riveting courtroom drama that will hit theaters this year.
Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today (made in 1948) was written and directed by Stuart Schulberg, who had worked with John Ford’s OSS field photography unit, which was assigned by the government to track down incriminating Nazi film footage to be parsed by the Nuremberg prosecution team and help build their case. Schulberg’s brother Budd (who later became better known in Hollywood as the screenwriter for On the Waterfront and A Face in the Crowd) was a senior officer on the OSS film team; he supervised the compilation of two films for the U.S. prosecutors; one a sort of macabre Whitman’s Sampler of Nazi atrocities, from the Third Reich’s own archives, and the other assembled from that ever-shocking footage taken by Allied photographers as the concentration camps were being discovered and liberated by advancing troops in early 1945. Stuart Schulberg, in turn, mixed excerpts from those two films with the official documentation footage from the trial to help illustrate the prosecution’s strategy to address the four indictments (conspiring to commit a crime against peace; planning, initiating and committing wars of aggression; perpetrating war crimes; and crimes against humanity).
So why had Schulberg’s film (commissioned, after all, by the U.S. government to document a very well-known, historically significant and profound event in the annals of world justice) never been permitted open distribution to domestic audiences by same said government? After being shown around Germany in 1948 and 1949 as part of the de-Nazification program, extant prints of the film appeared to have vanished somewhere in the mists of time, with no documented attempts by the U.S. government to even archive a copy. Even the man who had originally commissioned the film, Pare Lorentz (who at the time of the film’s production was head of Film, Theatre and Music at the U.S. War Department’s Civil Affairs Division) was given the brush off by Pentagon brass when he later petitioned to buy it and distribute it himself. A 1949 Washington Post story offered an interesting take on why Lorentz had been stonewalled, saying that “…there are those in authority in the United States who feel that Americans are so simple that they can only hate one enemy at a time. Forget the Nazis, they advise, and concentrate on the Reds.” (There are several layers of delicious, prescient irony in that quote…so I won’t belabor it).
Luckily for us, Stuart Schulberg’s daughter Sandra, along with Josh Waletzky, embarked on a five-year mission back in 2004 to restore this important documentary. Now, I should mention here that the term “restore”, in this particular case, does not necessarily refer to crystalline image quality (they have done the best they can with what is purported to be the best existing print, located at the German Film Archive). They did have better luck with the soundtrack; they found what sounds to my ears to be fairly decent audio from the original trial recordings, which they painstakingly matched up as best they could to reconstruct the (long-lost) sound elements from the original. Voice-over narration has been newly re-recorded (by Liev Schreiber, who is a bit on the dry side, but adequate enough). It is chilling to hear the voices of these defendants; even if it is at times merely a “jawohl” or a “nein”- one hopes that it is enough to give even the most stalwart of Holocaust deniers cause for consternation (or at least…the tiniest little nervous twitch).
So what is the “lesson for today” that we can glean from this straightforward and relatively non-didactic historical document? Unfortunately, humanity in general hasn’t learned too awful much; the semantics may have changed, but the behavior, sadly, remains the same (e.g. we call it “ethnic cleansing” now). “Crimes against humanity” are still perpetrated every day-so why haven’t we had any more Nurembergs? If it can’t be caught via cell phone camera and posted five minutes later on YouTube like Saddam Hussein’s execution, so we can take a quick peek, go “Yay! Justice is served!” and then get back to our busy schedule of eating stuffed-crust pizza and watching the Superbowl, I guess we just can’t be bothered. Besides, who wants to follow some boring 11-month long trial, anyway (unless, of course, an ex-football player is somehow involved). Or maybe it’s just that the perpetrators have become savvier since 1945; many of those who commit crimes against humanity these days wear nice suits and have corporate expense accounts, nu? Or maybe it’s too hard to tell who the (figurative) Nazis are today, because in the current political climate, everyone and anyone, at some point, is destined to be compared to one. Maybe we all need to watch this film together and get a reality check.
Tonight? Broadway. Tomorrow…
R.I.P. Kenneth Mars 1936-2011
He helped Mel Brooks prove that, in skilled hands, even the Third Reich can be funny.
The wingnut version of the Wisconsin protests. All the dirty hippies are befouling the public square again:
People who have been following the demonstrations closely reported that Madison was a chaotic scene. “The place is under siege by union thugs, rent-a-mobs, and high schools kids let out of school because the teachers have abandoned their posts,” explained The New American magazine’s Ann Shibler, who has received continuous updates on the protest as it developed from sources within the Capitol. “That beautiful and recently restored building has been trashed. Bands of thugs are roaming the halls, blockading restrooms, stairwells, and elevators,” she said. “They scream and yell, bang drums, and run around with clenched fists, banging on the windows and doors of the locked legislators’ offices.” She also said students were being used for political purposes and that “thugs” had been bussed in from Illinois. “Keep in mind the majority of these thugs are teachers, who are teaching impressionable children,” she said, noting that Gov. Walker should have called in the National Guard already to prevent the “teachers’ union mobocracy” from overrunning the capitol. “I would also fire every teacher that abandoned their post over this across the state.” A State Senate staff member reported similar lunacy at the Capitol over the three days of protests. “The police have advised that we lock our doors,” said staffer Jolene Churchill in an e-mail Thursday. “Groups of young kids are marching through the halls yelling at the top of their lungs,” she explained, noting that drums were banging, restrooms and elevators were blockaded, and that there had been vandalism on Wednesday. “Angry crowds are pounding on our glass windows,” she reported. “Please, please pray for our state.” Despite the fear, chaos and damage they inflicted, organizers and protest leaders were quite happy with the demonstrations. “I have never been prouder of our movement than I am at this moment,” Wisconsin AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt told the crowd.
Does anyone remember this?
I don’t recall anyone accusing those fine folks of being filthy and destructive but then that’s one of the very special provinces of rightwingers. I recall living in the south as a kid and listening to tales of civil rights protesters allegedly defecating in the streets. These people always have fevered imaginations when it comes to protests that don’t involve their own Real Americans wearing tri-cornered hats and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. The other side isn’t someone they disagree with — they are animals and they treat them like animals:
Oh,and in case anyone’s forgotten, this was how the “spontaneous” Health Care protests were organized:
This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by “angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior” at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.
This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.
The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:
Tea Bagger Memo
– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”
– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”
The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the country for more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”
All this nonsensical talk about “thugs” in Wisconsin must be evaluated in light of their recent boorish behavior over the health care battle. So let’s just say that Teabaggers now calling for the smelling salts after their recent foray into protest politics is more than a little bit much.
Joshua Holland at Alternet has compiled all the information necessary for liberals to make the arguments about Wisconsin. (Please click the link for all the background and linkage)
1. Wisconsin’s public workers have already “made sacrifices to help balance the budget, through 16 unpaid furlough days and no pay increases the past two years,” according to the Associated Press. The unions know their members are going to have to make concessions on benefits, but they rightly see the assault on their fundamental right to negotiate as an act of war. 2. There are already 13 states that restrict public workers’ bargaining rights and it hasn’t helped their bottom lines. As Ed Kilgore notes, “eight non-collective-bargaining states face larger budget shortfalls than either Wisconsin or Ohio,” and ” three of the 13 non-collective bargaining states are among the eleven states facing budget shortfalls at or above 20%.” 3. This isn’t just about public employees. What even a majority of the protesters don’t know is that Walker’s law would also place all of the state’s Medicaid funding in the hands of the governor. State senator Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton — one of the Dem law-makers who fled the state to block a vote on the bill — told local media that this amounted to “substantial Medicaid changes” that put “the governor, all of a sudden… in charge of Medicaid, which is SeniorCare, which is BadgerCare …and he has never once said what he intends to do” with those programs. But the provision led journalist Suzie Madrak to conclude that “the end game for all this is to defund state Medicaid programs and make it impossible to serve as part of the new health care safety net.” 4. Health-care costs, rather than workers’ greed, are what has driven up the price of employees’ benefits. But generally speaking, those public sector health-care costs have grown at a slower clip than in the private sector.5. Public employees’ pensions account for just 6 percent of state budgets. This has nothing to do with the state’s fiscal picture. Aside from potentially undermining Wisconsin’s public health-care system, it’s really about destroying the last bastion of unionism in the American economy: public employees. As Addie Stan wrote on AlterNet’s front page:
Walker is carrying out the wishes of his corporate master, David Koch, who calls the tune these days for Wisconsin Republicans. Walker is just one among many Wisconsin Republicans supported by Koch Industries — run by David Koch and his brother, Charles — and Americans For Prosperity, the astroturf group founded and funded by David Koch. The Koch brothers are hell-bent on destroying the labor movement once and for all.
Consider these facts:6. Last year, more working people belonged to a union in the public sector (7.9 million) than in the private (7.4 million), despite the fact that corporate America employs five times the number of wage-earners. 37 percent of government workers belong to a union, compared with just 7 percent of private-sector employees. 7. Whether in the public or private sector, union workers earn, on average, 20 percent more than their non-unionized counterparts. They also have richer retirement and health benefits — the “union compensation premium” rises to almost 30 percent when you include those bennies. That workers can still negotiate from a position of strength somewhere in the US is simply unacceptable to the right, and that’s what this is about. As you might expect, the tool they’re using in their campaign is a pack full of lies and distortions about public employees. Here are some answers to those falsehoods:8. Public sector workers have, on average, more experience and higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector (they are twice as likely to have a college degree). 9. When you adjust for those factors, they make, on average, 4 percent less than their private-sector counterparts.10. Like any group of workers with a high union density, they have better benefits, on average. But even including those benefits, state and local employees still make less in total compensation than they would doing the same work in the private sector. 11. In 2007, the average pension for a public sector worker was $22,000. Not exactly caviar dreams.12. Many public employees are not eligible for Social Security — those pensions, and whatever they can put away on their own, is all that they’ll have in their golden years.
I wrote a lot during the last election about Schwarzenneger’s attempt to break the public employee unions in California a few years back. Schwarzenneger wasn’t quite as bold, but then he had a Democratic legislature, so he put it to the ballot. And you may recall how the unions fought back:
This thing didn’t come out of nowhere. The fight against public employees has been bubbling for some time. But the conservatives in both parties are playing with fire if they go too far with it. Going after middle class workers is a very risky political prospect. (You could see how nervous they got when their crusade against paying for 9/11 workers’ health care was revealed.) But if they can destroy the public employee unions, they think it will be worth it. The Democrats will be almost completely unarmed post Citizens United and will be 100% (as opposed to only 75% now) co-opted by the Big Money Boyz — and that, of course, is the point.
This move by Gov. Scott Walker is one of a series of power grabs by Republicans with the intent of achieving some of their long time goals; destroying unions and the middle class and getting rid of our public education system.
If our political conversation was sane, we would have Democrats all over the TV discussing the underlying political motivations here instead of joining the freak out about deficits, particularly when someone like Walker pushed through tax cuts to exacerbate the problem. This is the missing element in the story that puts it in the proper context and decouples average people from the conventional wisdom. But they need to be told.
