Skip to content

Month: May 2019

A very nice gesture

A very nice gesture

by digby

Not even Morehouse College administrators knew the announcement was coming.

Addressing the college’s class of 2019, Robert F. Smith, a man who is richer than Oprah Winfrey, made a grand gesture straight out of the television mogul’s playbook.

“My family is going to create a grant to eliminate your student loans,” he said on Sunday morning, bringing the approximately 400 students in caps and gowns to their feet.

“This is my class,” he said.

In January, Mr. Smith, a billionaire, donated $1.5 million to the collegeto fund student scholarships and a new park on campus. He received an honorary degree at the graduation on Sunday.

The value of the new gift is unclear because of the varying amounts the students owe, but the money will be disbursed through Morehouse College and will apply to “loans students directly have for their college education,” a representative for Mr. Smith said.

Because Morehouse was not informed of Mr. Smith’s plans before the ceremony, details about how the money would be distributed were not immediately available.

A private equity titan, Mr. Smith founded Vista Equity Partners in 2000.

After making a fortune in software, he was named the nation’s richest African-American by Forbes. According to that financial magazine, Mr. Smith’s estimated net worth is $5 billion, making him richer than Ms. Winfrey, who previously held the title of the wealthiest black person.

The amount he is spending is pocket change for him if he’s worth 5 billion. But it means a whole lot to those people who are starting their adult lives without any debt.

Over the past 20 years, average tuition and fees at private four-year colleges rose 58 percent, after accounting for inflation, while tuition at four-year public colleges increased even more, by over 100 percent, according to research from the College Board.

According to federal data, the average federal student loan debt is $32,000. The standard repayment plan for federal student loans is up to 10 years, but most students, according to research, take far longer than that to pay off their balances.

For the students at Morehouse, an all-male, historically black college in Atlanta that costs about $48,500 per year to attend, the gift could be transformative, especially in the unsettled years after graduation.

In an interview with the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Elijah Dormeus, a 22-year-old business administration major carrying $90,000 in student debt, said: “If I could do a backflip, I would. I am deeply ecstatic.”

It would be great if every graduating class had the same opportunity.

.

A peek into his addled mind

A peek into his addled mind


by digby

I don’t know what set him off today, but this is why it’s not a good idea to have an unfit, mentaly unstable, ignoramus running the country. Someone might take this the wrong way …

He has certain ideas about what a president might do to win an election if he felt he needed to. He’s made that clear in the past:

This is how he thinks. He’s not hiding it.

.

Molly Ivins on Roe vs Wade

Molly Ivins on Roe vs Wade

by digby

I thought I’d reprise this one from a few months back…

In light of the Supreme Court nomination hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, a man who is absolutely guaranteed to vote to end abortion rights for women and take us back to an antediluvian state of biological imprisonment The Texas Observer ran a Molly Ivins piece written in the aftermath of the 1973 landmark ruling establishing a woman’s right to abortion. It’s 73, so it’s interesting (depressing?) to see how little the fight has changed. I urge you to read the whole thing. She was such a wonderful writer.

The following is just one part in which she profiles the lawyer, Sarah Weddington, who represented Jane Roe.

Weddington, who had thought she would either win or lose the case by a one-vote margin, is now convinced that the best course for the states is to do nothing at all. She will presumably have some influence in this area since she is a member of the Texas House of Representatives. At last check, no legislator had introduced any abortion legislation, although there were rumors that there might be some. But in fact, most politicians dislike nothing more than having to vote on such things — there is no way they can come out without losing support. Many of them not only dread the prospect, they have a positive phobia about it.

Weddington herself is something rather special. Although she feels she was not able to relate well to the Solid Rock League, if one can feature any abortion reformer ever getting along with that group, it would be Weddington. She is, to use an old-fashioned term frowned on by Women’s Lib, a lady, a perfect lady. She is grave, graceful and composed. “It’s not that Sarah doesn’t have a sense of humor,” said Ann Richards, an Austin housewife who was part of Weddington’s campaign braintrust. “It’s just that you gotta prep her a little. You say, ‘Now, Sarah, I’m about to tell you a funny story,’ and then she’ll just laugh and enjoy it as much as anyone. But you gotta warn her first, because it just doesn’t occur to her that someone might throw in a joke in the middle of serious business.”

WEDDINGTON was recently mousetrapped in this regard by that nefarious jokester Cactus Pryor, who was preparing his annual spoof for the Headliners Club. Weddington, along with several dames of importance, was invited to pass preview judgment on a proposed new addition to a well-known Austin restaurant. The women were told that the restaurateur planned to open a Women’s Only section featuring topless waiters, two of whom then appeared and showed their impressive torsos to the group. Most of the other political wives in the group got off with a noncommittal, “Oh, my, my” reaction. But ol’ Sarah gravely launched into a lecture to the restaurateur, assuring him that while she meant no insult to these very nice-looking young men, nevertheless, she had never approved of Men Only sections and . . . The episode was being filmed for use at the Headliners.

Weddington has a unique family background for a small-town Texas girl. Her daddy has a Ph.D. and her mother a master’s. Her father, for many years a Methodist preacher in a series of small Texas towns, is now head of the Methodist youth program for this state. Weddington skipped a couple of grades of public school and so graduated from McMurray College in Abilene, magna cum laude, at the age of 19. She was certified to teach high school English and speech, but her practice teaching sessions convinced her that she wasn’t cut out to be a teacher. She looked around, and because higher education was an accepted thing in her family, had no hesitation about entering law school, which she finished at about the age most students complete their undergraduate work. She became interested in the Women’s Movement during her senior year in law school. She practiced briefly in Fort Worth and came back to Austin to open a practice with her husband Ron. Ron Weddington, who is also from Abilene, had spent several years in the service and so graduated from law school a few years after Sarah.

According to law school friends, Ron was the outgoing, social Weddington, while Sarah’s natural reserve and relative unsophistication made her a quieter, less party-going type. “I had never even been to a party where liquor was served until after I graduated from college,” said the minister’s daughter. On one famous occasion, she got annoyed with Ron and decided to “show him.” She forthwith got extremely drunk and subsequently quite sick. “I don’t think you even noticed,” she said to her husband with some asperity. “Not notice?!” protested Ron. “Hell, honey, I had to pour you into the car.” Weddington (Sarah) has not since been known to overindulge.

WEDDINGTON and her law school classmate Linda Coffee started doing spadework on Texas’ abortion law as a result of their interest in feminism. When Jane Roe came to Coffee, Weddington volunteered to serve as co-counsel. The James Madison Constitutional Law Institute of New York helped with some of the expenses. Weddington wound up doing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court mostly, she says, because Coffee had joined a Dallas law firm and didn’t have much time to devote to the case. Weddington had worked on it all summer. Ron Weddington observed, “Sarah feels uncomfortable if she doesn’t know absolutely everything about every single angle of any case she’s working on. Hell, I’ve tried to tell her, a lot of lawyers really don’t know what they’re doing when they go into court. But you can’t make Sarah relax about it.”

Weddington had attended some sessions of the Women’s Political Caucus and finally decided that the only way women were ever going to get any experience in politics above the stamp-licking level was to try it themselves. So she pinned up her long, red-blonde hair in an effort to look more respectable and went down and filed for the Legislature. “At the beginning, I never thought I would win,” she said.

“Hell,” said Ann Richards, “I never thought she would lose.”

Sarah had first a dedicated hard-corps, then a whole troop and finally almost an army of women out working for her. Many of the women had worked in politics for years, making coffee, addressing envelopes, and being carefully excluded from all decision-making. But they had picked up ideas and expertise they were anxious to try out. Richards, who had worked in the North Dallas Women’s Club, Linda Anderson, whose husband Jamie worked in Sissy Farenthold’s campaign, Caryl Yontz, who had been with Yarborough’s P.R. people, and a legion more of very bright women who had wanted to get involved in politics but who had been turned off by the low-level jobs available in men’s campaigns. Weddington’s campaign was a slightly chaotic attempt at participatory democracy: it took more time and more effort, but even the lowly stamp-lickers were in on the decisions. The only male in the braintrust was Ron, who eventually left Farenthold’s campaign to sit in on this interesting thing his wife, of all people, had going. He handled the media work.

THEY RAISED money by giving parties. They had beer and chili ’til it ran out of their ears. Ron couldn’t believe the girls were mad because they had raised “only” $300 or $400 at the first party. “For a local campaign, with no big press job!” he gasped. But they thought they could do better.

At the big Travis County Democratic Fair fundraiser in the spring of ’72, Weddington knew her opponent would be handing out expensive favors, flashy gizmos dreamed up by professional political P.R. types. Ann Richards gnawed her nails for a few days over that and finally thought, “Well, when they pick up all this junk from the other candidates, they’ll need something to carry it in.” So for 13 bucks they acquired a couple hundred shopping bags and stuck Weddington stickers on them so everyone else’s expensive favors went into Weddington’s tote bags.

Richards, who has never been short on brass, decided that the best thing to do with Sarah was to trot her around and introduce her to everyone who would logically oppose her. “We did this Laurel and Hardy routine,” said Richards. “I’d go in to jolly ’em up and break the ice and then Sarah would come on all soft and reserved and ladylike. She’d ask for advice and listen to it. She’s a great listener. Then people felt they had a stake in her. During the runoff, the Alarmed Citizens of Austin had her on their bad list. We called them the Alarmed Dingalings.”

Cactus Pryor observes that the Alarmed Citizens consisted mostly of Sam Wood, editor of the Austin American-Statesman, charging up and down Congress Avenue on a horse screaming, “The students are coming! The students are coming!”

Richards, nothing daunted, marched Weddington off to meet Sam Wood. Wood told her he had read, as he was sure everyone had, that blacks regarded abortion as a racist plot to lower or wipe out the black population. Didn’t she think her advocacy of abortion might hurt her in the black precincts? “Why, I’ve heard that too, Mr. Wood,” said Weddington sweetly. “But, you know, the funny thing is that I’ve only heard it from black men.”

And so they persevered, that group of women who turned out to know so much about politics. And they won. Weddington gives all the credit to her crew of women and the women give all the credit to Weddington and it’s a downright rose festival, it is. But Weddington, who is not what you could call a real politician, is at least too smart to turn loose of her ladies. She’s got them volunteering right and left, at her citizens’ information center, sitting in on committee meetings she can’t make, and here and there and everywhere. She’s got three big plummy, juicy committee assignments and, in typical Weddington fashion, instead of rejoicing over her power she’s worrying about whether she can handle it. The women who work for her have no doubts at all.



sigh …

Righteous fury, fully justified

Righteous fury, fully justified

by digby

Now that it looks like Roe vs Wade is very likely about to become a relic of the past with Trump’s court majority and states all over the country enacting laws like El Salvador’s, it’s dawning on people that maybe the women who’ve been pounding the tables over this for years weren’t actually wrong after all.

Rebecca Traister channels their rage:

For as long as I have been a cogent adult, and actually before that, I have watched people devote their lives, their furious energies, to fighting against the steady, merciless, punitive erosion of reproductive rights. And I have watched as politicians — not just on the right, but members of my own party — and the writers and pundits who cover them, treat reproductive rights and justice advocates as if they were fantasists enacting dystopian fiction.

This week, the most aggressive abortion bans since Roe v. Wade swept through states, explicitly designed to challenge and ultimately reverse Roe at the Supreme Court level. With them has come the dawning of a broad realization — a clear, bright, detailed vision of what’s at stake, and what’s ahead. (If not, yet, full comprehension of the harm that has already been done).

As it comes into view, I am of course livid at the Republican Party that has been working toward this for decades. These right-wing ghouls — who fulminate idiotically about how women could still be allowed to get abortions before they know they are pregnant (Alabama’s Clyde Chambliss) or try to legislate the medically impossible removal of ectopic pregnancy and reimplantation into the uterus (Ohio’s John Becker) — are the stuff of unimaginably gothic horror. Ever since Roe was decided in 1973, conservatives have been laboring to roll back abortion access, with absolutely zero knowlege of or interest in how reproduction works. And all the while, those who have been trying to sound the alarm have been shooed off as silly hysterics.

Which is why I am almost as mad at many on the left, theoretically on the side of reproductive rights and justice, who have refused, somehow, to see this coming or act aggressively to forestall it. I have no small amount of rage stored for those in the Democratic Party who have relied on the engaged fury of voters committed to reproductive autonomy to elect them, at the same time that they have treated the efforts of activists trying to stave off this future as inconvenient irritants.

This includes, of course, the Democrats (notably Joe Biden) who long supported the Hyde Amendment, the legislative rider that has barred the use of federal insurance programs from paying for abortion, making reproductive health care inaccessible to poor women since 1976. During health-care reform, Barack Obama referred to Hyde as a “tradition” and questions of abortion access as “a distraction.” I’ve spent my life listening to Democrats call abortion a niche issue — and worse, one that is somehow repellent to voters, even though support for Roe is in fact among the most broadly popular positions of the Democratic Party; seven in ten Americans want abortion to remain legal, even in conservative states.

You can try to tell these Democrats this — lots of people have been trying to tell them for a while now — but it won’t matter; they will only explain to you (a furious person) that they (calm, wise, knowledgeable about politics) understand that we need a big tent and can’t have a litmus test and please be reasonable: we shouldn’t shut anyone out because of a difference on one issue. (That one issue that we shouldn’t shut people out because of is always abortion). Every single time Democrats come up with a new strategy to win purple and red areas, it is the same strategy: hey, let’s jettison abortion! (If you object to this, you will be told you are standing in the way of the greater progressive project).
[…]
Also about how, for years, I’ve listened to Democratic politicians distance themselves from abortion by calling it tragic and insisting it should be rare, instead of simply acknowledging it to be a crucial, legal cornerstone of comprehensive health care for women, people with uteruses, and their families. I have seethed as generations of Democrats have argued that if we could just get past abortion and focus instead on economic issues, we’d be better off. They never seem to get that abortion is an economic issue, and that what they think of as economic issues — from wages and health care to housing and education policy — are at the very heart of the reproductive justice movement, which understands access to abortion to be one (pivotal!) part of a far broader set of circumstances that determine if, when, under what circumstances, and with what resources human beings might have and raise children.

And no, of course it’s not just Democrats I’m mad at. It’s the pundits who approach abortion law as armchair coaches. I can’t do better in my fury on this front than the legal writer Scott Lemieux, who in 2007 wrote ablistering rundown of all the legal and political wags, including Ben Wittes and Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Cohen and William Saletan, then making arguments, some too cute by half, about how Roe was ultimately bad for abortion rights and for Democrats. Some like to cite an oft-distorted opinion put forth by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has said that she wished the basis on which Roe was decided had included a more robust defense of women’s equality. Retroactive strategic chin-stroking about Roe is mostly moot, given the decades of intervening cases and that the fight against abortion is not about process but about the conviction that women should not control their own reproduction. It is also true that Ginsburg has been doing the work of aggressively defending reproductive rights for decades, while these pundits have treated them as a parlor game. As Lemieux put it then, it was unsurprising, “given the extent to which affluent men safely ensconced in liberal urban centers dominate the liberal pundit class,” that the arguments put forth, “greatly understate or ignore the stark class and geographic inequites in abortion access that would inevitably manifest themselves in a post-Roe world.”
[…]
And still those who are mad about, have been driven mad by, these injustices have been told that their fury is baseless, fictional, made of chewing gum and recycled copies of Our Bodies Ourselves. Last summer, the day before Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Supreme Court, CNN host Brian Stelter tweeted, in response to a liberal activist, “We are not ‘a few steps from The Handmaids’ Tale.’ I don’t think this kind of fear-mongering helps anybody.” When protesters shouted at Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings a few weeks later, knowing full well what was about to happen and what it portended for Roe, Senator Ben Sasse condescended and lied to them, claiming that there have been “screaming protesters saying ‘women are going to die’ at every hearing for decades” and suggesting that this response was a form of “hysteria.”

I have never been more filled with rage about this than I was during the health care debate. My spittle-flecked posts are almost scary to read at this point. But we saw it happening. We’ve always seen what was coming. And now it’s here. Don’t let anyone shut you down with fatuous arguments about being respectful of people’s religious beliefs and “reaching out” to the other side. These hypocrites have shown who they really are with their blind support for Donald Trump.

As Traister says:

Vote, as they say, as if your life depended on it, because it does, but more importantly: other people’s lives depend on it. And between voting, consider where to aim your anger in ways that will influence election outcomes: educate yourself about local races and policy proposals, as well as the history of the reproductive rights and reproductive-justice movements. Get engaged not just on a presidential level — please God, not just at a presidential level — but with the fights for state legislative power, in congressional and senate elections, all of which shape abortion policy and the judiciary, and the voting rights on which every other kind of freedom hinges. Knock doors, register voters, give to and volunteer with the organizations that are working to fightvoter suppression and redistricting and expand the electorate; as well as to those recruiting and training progressive candidates, especially women and women of color, especially young and first-time candidates, to run for elected office.

You can also protest, go to rallies. Join a local political group where your rage will likely be shared with others.

Above all, do not let defeat or despair take you, and do not let anyone tell you that your anger is misplaced or silly or in vain, or that it is anything other than urgent and motivating. It may be terrifying — it is terrifying. But this — the fury and the fight it must fuel — is going to last the rest of our lives and we must get comfortable using our rage as central to the work ahead.

.

He tried to get them to shut down the counterintelligence investigation too

He tried to get them to shut down the counterintelligence investigation too

by digby

There’s so much in the Mueller report that people don’t realize. Even if you’ve read it, there are things that just pass you by until someone else brings it up.

Karoli Kuns at C&L caught this exchange between Chris Hayes and Marcy Wheeler:

HAYES: Marcy, you had called attention to this Lewandowski moment in the report which has not gotten a lot of attention. According to Lewandowski, Trump asked him to bring a note telling Jeff Sessions to give a speech that would say the following. This is while they are investigating what they know is a breach, this hack by a foreign adversary. “Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with a special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let them move forward with election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections. This is an attempt to shut down the whole thing.”

Remember what Trump has said about email and other communications — don’t use them. Instead send notes or speak in person. But Trump was angry with Sessions, so he decided to use an intermediary to get his message across.

And as Marcy explains, it’s even worse than Hayes described.

WHEELER: Not just to shut down the investigation into Trump, but also an attempt to shut down the investigation into the Russian hacking. No one gets this. NO one gets that in the summer of 2017 at the same time that Trump had just met for the first time with Vladimir Putin in this crazy meeting in the G-20, he went to Lewandowski and dictated to him in the report and made him write it down and he said, ‘[Trump] never dictated anything to me before.’

He makes him write it down and in that paper, he said go tell Sessions to shut down the investigation into the Russians who hacked us in 2016. He can investigate what’s going to happen in 2018 and 2020, but not in 2016. That’s crazy. No one knows that Trump tried to shut down the entire investigation, not just his side, but the Russian side as well.

These things did not happen because Lewandowski didn’t carry out the order. He passed it off to someone else who also didn’t carry it out. But as Lawfare Managing Editor Quinta Jurecic explains, “An attempt at obstruction is the same thing as obstruction.”

Anyone who reads the entire Mueller report (I’m on my second pass through it now) can only conclude that Trump is extremely compromised and impeachment hearings should begin immediately. Now that the “bipartisan” threshold has been crossed, thanks to Justin Amash, it’s time for Democrats to exercise their full Article I powers.

But sure. Let’s just flail around whining and bitching without using every tool in the arsenal to lay out the case for the nation and the world. That will surely send the message that the rule of law is still operative.

The president has tried to stop any investigation into the Russia interference and sabotage, not just his own involvement. And now his hand-picked henchman, William Bar, is trying to stop whatever investigation is happening into current interference and sabotage. (That’s the message being sent to every member of the intelligence community and law enforcement who even thinks of taking a close look at it.)

That’s traitorous behavior. Leaving it up to the voters to slog through a 400-page report and sort through the noise of the cacophonous media to figure that out is an abdication of duty by the elected officials in Washington.

.

Oh my. A Deutsche bank whistleblower …

Oh my. A Deutsche bank whistleblower …

by digby


And she has something interesting to say:

Anti-money laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.

The nature of the transactions was not clear. At least some of them involved money flowing back and forth with overseas entities or individuals, which bank employees considered suspicious.

Real estate developers like Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner sometimes do large, all-cash deals, including with people outside the United States, any of which can prompt anti-money laundering reviews. The red flags raised by employees do not necessarily mean the transactions were improper. Banks sometimes opt not to file suspicious activity reports if they conclude their employees’ concerns are unwarranted.

But former Deutsche Bank employees said the decision not to report the Trump and Kushner transactions reflected the bank’s generally lax approach to money laundering laws. The employees — most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their ability to work in the industry — said it was part of a pattern of the bank’s executives rejecting valid reports to protect relationships with lucrative clients.

“You present them with everything, and you give them a recommendation, and nothing happens,” said Tammy McFadden, a former Deutsche Bank anti-money laundering specialist who reviewed some of the transactions. “It’s the D.B. way. They are prone to discounting everything.”

Ms. McFadden said she was terminated last year after she raised concerns about the bank’s practices. Since then, she has filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators about the bank’s anti-money-laundering enforcement.

Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said the company had intensified its efforts to combat financial crime. An effective anti-money laundering program, she said, “requires sophisticated transaction screening technology as well as a trained group of individuals who can analyze the alerts generated by that technology both thoroughly and efficiently.”

“At no time was an investigator prevented from escalating activity identified as potentially suspicious,” she added. “Furthermore, the suggestion that anyone was reassigned or fired in an effort to quash concerns relating to any client is categorically false.”

Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for the Trump family’s many business interests, said: “We have no knowledge of any ‘flagged’ transactions with Deutsche Bank.” She said the Trump Organization currently has “no operating accounts with Deutsche Bank.” She did not respond when asked if other Trump entities had accounts.

Karen Zabarsky, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said: “Any allegations regarding Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Kushner Companies which involved money laundering is completely made up and totally false. The New York Times continues to create dots that just don’t connect.”

Deutsche Bank’s decision not to report the transactions is the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s long, complicated relationship with the German bank — the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with the real estate developer.

If it were anyone else I’d say they couldn’t have been so stupid and arrogant as to do those kinds of shenanigans in 2016 and 2017. Obviously, with Trump and Kushner that’s not operative. They are that stupid and arrogant.

.

National sterilization of the mind by @BloggersRUs

National sterilization of the mind
by Tom Sullivan

Knowledge is power. But knowledge is not its only source. Those who hoard power view education as a threat to be controlled and managed. The financial elite, political power brokers, and resurgent fascists fear a population with knowledge. A population with the ability to think critically and to challenge the fire hose of bullshit that now drowns out critical thought is a threat. Better to keep power concentrated where it belongs: at the top.

“In a world where nothing is true, all that is left to choose from are competing fictions,” writes Henry Giroux in a two-part analysis for Salon. “One consequence is that everything begins to look like a lie.”

In such a world, the better lie becomes de facto truth. The better liar, de facto king.

Across the globe, the forces of free-market fundamentalism are using media establishments and public and higher education to reproduce the corporate-driven culture of neoliberalism. In addition, they are waging an assault on the historically guaranteed social provisions and civil rights provided by the welfare state, public schools, unions, feminist organizations and social services, among others, all the while undercutting public faith in the defining institutions of democracy.

As a teacher and public intellectual, Giroux sees “manufactured illiteracy” as a tool of control under “neoliberal fascism” that renders all misfortunes individual failings “regardless of whether the roots of such problems lie in larger systemic forces.” Educating the population in such a desocialized environment make teaching “a form of militant hope,” and “a moral and political practice.”

Pedagogy, Giroux insists, “is always political because it is connected to the acquisition of agency.”

What the Donald Trumps, the Viktor Orbáns, their contingent allies both financial and political, and fawning acolytes demand is a form of national sterilization of the mind.

Restoring agency, Giroux suggests, involves education in “defense of the public good, the commons and a global democracy.” Corporatized, privatized education has erased civic literacy, substituting “an obsession with accountability schemes, an audit culture, market values, and an unreflective immersion in the crude empiricism of a data-obsessed, market-driven society.”

The effort to terraform our minds and build better consumers as a substitute for civic engagement requires remaking the culture and erasing the ideals that built the world’s most durable democracy. The merciless logic of shareholder capitalism is an old complaint here. And here and here and here.

Where America once stood for the kind of country people would want, now it stands for the kind of stuff we hope to buy. Where once some of the best educated leaders the world ever produced launched an experiment in democracy that challenged old thinking, thinking is just what today’s leaders hope to eradicate and replace with bread and circuses. Forced-birth conservatives want American babies, lots of babies, then to sterilize their minds.

Giroux offers re-radicalized teaching as an antidote to civic illiteracy. How that manifests today is anyone’s guess. Life in the creeping fascist world he describes resembles one of those dreams in which faced with imminent threat, the dreamer is paralyzed, unable to flee.

Rick Blaine tried fleeing to Casablanca to numb painful memories with alcohol. He ended up rejoining the fight against fascism.

SIFF-ting through cinema, Pt. 1 (11 Films!) By Dennis Hartley @denofcinema5 #SIFFnews #SIFF

Saturday Night at the Movies

SIFF-ting through cinema, Pt. 1

By Dennis Hartley

The Seattle International Film Festival kicked off May 16, so over the next several posts I’ll be sharing film reviews. SIFF is showing 410 films over 25 days. Navigating such an event is no easy task, even for a dedicated buff. Yet, I trudge on (cue the world’s tiniest violin). Hopefully, some of these films will be coming soon to a theater near you…

The Invisible Witness (Italy) – This neo-noir/murder mystery unfolds via flashbacks. A well-to-do businessman accused of murdering his mistress consults with a defense attorney 3 hours before he is to be taken into custody and officially charged. He claims to be the victim of an elaborate setup. The circumstantial evidence does not seem to be in his favor. Some moments of genuine suspense, but otherwise by-the-numbers genre fare that was rather obviously made while driving under the influence of The Usual Suspects.

Rating: **½ (North American Premiere; Plays May 18, 22, & 23)


Who Let the Dogs Out?
(Canada) – Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn, because I have hated that tuneless ear worm since I first heard it in 2000. That said, my opinion obviously holds no sway in the grand scheme, because it remains one of the most ubiquitous anthems of the last 20 years. For me, the biggest question here is: “Why?” However, for “cultural curator” Ben Sisto the most nagging question was “Who?” …as in, who actually wrote the song? Triggered by a “sloppy” Wikipedia entry regarding authorship of the Baha Men’s one-hit-wonder, Sisto went on an 8-year quest to solve the mystery. As Sisto continues to run the chalk backwards, the story becomes curiouser and curiouser; both Roshomon-style mystery and unexpected treatise on the objective psyche.

Rating: *** (Plays May 19 & 25)

Wild Rose (United Kingdom) – Yes, it’s the oft-told tale of a ne’er-do-well Scottish single mom, fresh out of stir after serving time for possessing smack, who pursues her lifelong dream to become a country star and perform at The Grand Old Opry. How many times have we heard that one? This crowd-pleasing dramedy is a lot better than you’d expect, thanks to a winning lead performance from Jessie Buckley. Besides…there’s a cameo by the BBC’s legendary “Whispering Bob” Harris!

Rating: ***½ (Plays May 18 & May 24)

An Affair (Norway) – There’s an old Woody Allen joke: “Those who cannot do, teach. Those who cannot teach, teach gym.” A disenchanted, 40-ish housewife takes a job teaching gym (to the chagrin of hubby). If she was seeking excitement, she gets that and more after one of her students begins stalking her. In real life, if a high school teacher received a text from a student saying “You look hot when you run!” followed by a dick pic-she’d put the kibosh on it right then and there-but we’d only have a 10-minute movie. You’ll yell at the protagonist for her inappropriate choices, but if you’re a sucker for steamy erotic thrillers-this film will still seduce you (you’ll hate yourself in the morning).

Rating: *** (Plays May 19 and May 20)


Cold Case Hammarskjold
(Denmark) – Initially, Mads Brugger’s documentary promises to be straightforward investigative journalism regarding the mysterious 1961 plane crash in Zambia that killed UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarsjkold. But around the halfway mark, Brugger pivots, now claiming (admitting?) it may all just be a wild conspiracy theory. Either way, it’s a riveting political thriller (and if true-very disconcerting). I was reminded of Orson Welles’ (more playful) semi-documentary ‘F’ for Fake, which teases the viewer’s perceptions regarding what it’s “about”.

Rating: ***½ (Plays May 19 & 21)

Putin’s Witnesses (Latvia) – While watching this extraordinarily intimate behind-the-scenes look at Vladimir Putin as he (sort of) campaigns for the Russian presidency in 2000, I began to think “OK…the guy who made this film is now either (a.) Dead (b.) Being held at an undisclosed location somewhere in Siberia or (c.) Living in exile…right?” I was relieved to learn that the correct answer is (c.) – Director Vitaly Mansky is currently alive and well and living in Latvia. In 1999, Manksy (a TV journalist at the time) was assigned to accompany Putin on the campaign trail; hence the treasure trove of footage he had at to draw from in creating this unique capture of a significant moment in Russian political history. The most amazing sequence doesn’t even involve Putin…Mansky and his cameras are right there in the living room of noticeably unwell outgoing president Boris Yeltsin as he anxiously watches TV coverage with his family on election night in 2000. When former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev pops onscreen in an interview, Yeltsin (likely half in the bag) flies into a rage, yelling at the TV and demanding that it be turned off (Armando Ianucci couldn’t have written a funnier scene).

Rating: **** (Plays May 19 & 23)

Monos (Columbia) – Lord of the Flies meets Aguirre: The Wrath of God in this trippy war drama. A squad of teenage South American guerilla fighters undergo intense training for an unspecified contemporary conflict. Initially, it’s just a game to them; but after a bloody skirmish, they rebel against their adult commander and flee into the dense mountain jungle with a female American hostage in tow. Brutal, visceral, and one-of-a-kind. It’s the Apocalypse Now of child soldier films.

Rating: **** (Plays May 20)



Anthropocene: The Human Epoch
(Canada) – Co-directors Jennifer Baichwal, Nicholas de Pencier and Edward Burtynsky put the band back together for this update on their cautionary 2007 eco-doc Manufacturing Landscapes. In my original review of that film, I likened the photographic imagery to “…a scroll through Google Earth images as reinterpreted by Jackson Pollock or M.C. Escher”. I’m sad to report there’s been little improvement on humankind’s mistreatment of our planet-as evidenced by this likewise visually striking and equally sobering document.

Rating: *** (Plays May 20 & 23)

Honeyland (Macedonia) – Filmmakers Ljubomir Stefanov and Tamara Kotevska spent three years documenting the daily hard-scrabble life of Hatidze Muratova, a “bee hunter” who lives in the Balkans. She supports herself and her elderly mother by selling raw honey to local village merchants. When a family of Turkish itinerant farmers sets up camp next door, the delicate and carefully cultivated balance of her bee colony’s productivity is potentially threatened. A unique meditation on human nature…and on nature itself.

Rating: *** (Plays May 21 & 25)

X: The eXploited (Hungary) – This dark, brooding neo-noir from Hungarian writer-director Karoly Ujj-Meszaros mostly succeeds at being dark and brooding. It begins promisingly with an interesting protagonist; a top-flight female police detective who has been relegated to desk duty because of an acute panic disorder, initiated by her late husband’s suicide (he was also a detective). Nonetheless, she is enlisted by a new department head to help investigate a string of suicides that may have been staged. Unfortunately, the film is ultimately bogged down by a murky, pointlessly byzantine plot.

Rating: ** (Plays May 22, 24 & 26)


David Crosby: Remember My Name
(USA) – David Crosby marvels aloud in A.J. Eaton’s film that he’s still above ground …as do we. Cameron Crowe produced this doc, edited from several days of candid interviews he conducted with the 77 year-old music legend. Crosby relays all: the sights, the sounds, the smells of six decades of rock ‘n’ roll excess. I was left contemplating this bittersweet line from Almost Famous: “You’ll meet them all again on the long journey to the middle.”

Rating: ***½ (Plays May 24 & 25)

Previous posts with related themes:
2019 SIFF Preview

More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter

Dennis Hartley


.

More neo-fascist stirrings

More neo-fascist stirrings

by digby


This piece in the Washington Post about the mainstreaming of White identity in Europe will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up:

Was it an invitation to cocktails or the start of a far-right conspiracy? In Europe, these days, it can be hard to tell. But this week Austrian media are reporting that the links between Martin Sellner and Brenton Tarrant were rather more extensive. Sellner is the clean-cut leader of the Austrian Identitarian Movement; Tarrant is the man charged with shooting up two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The two exchanged emails in 2018 after Tarrant made a donation to the Identitarians; Sellner sent Tarrant a link to his YouTube page and invited him for a beer in Vienna. Tarrant booked a hotel in Vienna, though we don’t know if he got there.

Why does it matter? Because Sellner represents a curious phenomenon in European politics: the far-right middleman. Unlike the neo-Nazis of old, the Identitarians don’t wear jackboots, don’t shave their heads, don’t lurk in the shadows. They have slick websites, professional videos and formal organizations in several European countries, including Britain, France and Germany, as well as Austria. They attract attention with “happenings” — interrupting a play performed by refugees and pouring fake blood on the stage — rather than just marching and shouting. They claim they aren’t racists, that they respect all cultures — and insist that they just want to preserve their own. Quietly, they maintain links with extremists like Tarrant while also socializing with the now-mainstream politicians of the “far-right” Austrian Freedom Party, which is a part of the current Austrian ruling coalition. And, in practice, they are steadily pushing racist, conspiratorial thinking from the fringes of the Internet into the political mainstream — and not just in Austria.

Of course they deny that this is what they are doing. In a video he made in English — the Identitarians are keen to be in touch with their white-supremacist American counterparts — Sellner describes himself as a “patriot,” shows off the lovely Austrian countryside, and talks about free speech and cultural identity. Everyone else denies that this is what they are doing, too: Heinz-Christian Strache, the Freedom Party leader and vice chancellor of Austria, sued to stop the circulation of a photo of himself having dinner with several Identitarians. The suit failed; but Strache has just been taped musing, among other things, about how he might take control of the Austrian press, so perhaps he’ll find a way.

Nevertheless, the movement’s ideas have crept into the Freedom Party’s official language. Pay attention when you hear the phrase “Great Replacement,” which Strache has used in Facebook posts: This is a secret plot, believed to be orchestrated by Jews, to replace white Europeans with Muslims, and it is the central Identitarian myth. Also pay attention when you hear talk of “defending Europe” from “invasion,” and of the need for “remigration” (or, less politely, ethnic cleansing). These are Identitarian ideas, too, and they are spreading quickly. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London has tracked online references to the “Great Replacement” and discovered some 1.5 million on Twitter alone. The institute has also tracked the term “remigration,” which began spreading in Germany following meetings between the Identitarians and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the far-right party that is now the third-largest group in the German parliament.

Not all of this is new: Jacob Davey, the author of a forthcoming Institute for Strategic Dialogue paper on this subject, told me that fears of “white genocide” date back decades. But new communications technologies, plus the new international coordination of the far right, plus current politics — the migration crisis and jihadist terrorist wave — have created a perfect storm. Davey calls it a “linking tool” that taps into different debates all over the world. It also radicalizes. The “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory provides a path from mainstream conversations about the impact of migration and the compatibility of Islam and democracy to calls for mass “remigration” — to the legitimization of murder. Most people won’t be radicalized all the way, but a few will. To its more unbalanced adherents, fears of a “Great Replacement” create a sense of urgency, of an existential crisis that requires immediate, violent action.

I’m explaining all of this because it’s also the hidden background to a number of recent news stories. The “manifesto” published by Tarrant referred explicitly to migrant “invasions.” The synagogue shooting suspect in Poway, Calif., said he believed that “global Jewish elites” were secretly plotting to change the ethnic composition of the United States. The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect also said Jewish organizations were bringing in “hostile invaders.” The obsession with the Jewish financier George Soros, a feature of far-right propaganda everywhere from Hungary to Alabama, is linked to this set of ideas. And when President Trump or Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini talk about immigrant “invasions,” they are nodding and winking to Identitarianism, too.



Read on … It’s chilling.

Meanwhile, you may have heard that the Trump administration refused to sign on to the Christchurch statement this week, sending a very strong signal about where the current US government stands on this:

The United States broke with 18 governments and five top American tech firms Wednesday by declining to endorse a New Zealand-led effort to curb extremism online, a response to the live-streamed shootings at two Christchurch mosques that killed 51.

White House officials said free-speech concerns prevented them from formally signing onto the largest campaign to date targeting extremism online. But it was another example of the United States standing at odds to some its closest allies.

Leaders from around the globe, including British Prime Minister Theresa May, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, signed the “Christchurch Call,” which was unveiled at a gathering in Paris that had been organized by French President Emmanuel Macron and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter also signed on to the document, pledging to work more closely with one another and governments to make certain their sites do not become conduits for terrorism. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was among the attendees at the conference.

The document was nonbinding, but reflected the heightened global frustration with the inability of Facebook, Google and Twitter to restrain hateful posts, photos and videos that have spawned real-world violence.

The governments pledged to counter online extremism, including through new regulation, and to “encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online.”

The companies agreed to accelerate research and information sharing with governments in the wake of recent terrorist attacks. “It is right that we come together, resolute in our commitment to ensure we are doing all we can to fight the hatred and extremism that lead to terrorist violence,” Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter said in a joint statement. (Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

But the White House opted against endorsing the effort, and President Trump did not join the other leaders in Paris. The White House felt the document could present constitutional concerns, officials there said, potentially conflicting with the First Amendment, even though Trump previously has threatened to regulate social media out of concern that it’s biased against conservatives.

Hours after declining to sign the document, the White House escalated its war against social media by announcing an unprecedented campaign asking Internet users to share stories of when they thought they were censored by Facebook, Google’s YouTube and Twitter, companies the president frequently takes aim at for alleged political censorship.

They don’t care about free speech. They care about not upsetting their white supremacist supporters, including the terrorists. It couldn’t be more obvious.

.

QOTD: Beto O’Rourke

QOTD: Beto O’Rourke

by digby

I thought this answer to Joy Reid’s question about whether or not it’s time to impeach was pretty good:

O’Rourke: I think the only way to compel the testimony, to get the evidence and have the facts so that there is accountability and justice for what has been done and to prevent future attacks on our democracy, is to move forward with impeachment.

It should be the option of last resort and we are clearly there with this administration. A candidate invited the involvement of a foreign power in our democracy and then did everything in his power to obstruct just that — and he’s still doing that today — so if we’re going to affirm that we’re a nation of laws and that no person, no matter what position he holds, is above the law, there have to be consequences.

And impeachment is the only way that we’re going to get the facts, the evidence, the truth necessary to make sure that we save this democracy.

Joy Reid: Do you think at this point that the office of the president is too powerful and too hard to control when they have a partisan congress or even part of the Congress is in their favor?

O’Rourke: The short answer is yes. If you look at the wars that we are in — 28 years in Iraq, 18 years in Afghanistan, and Somalia and Yemen, Libya as well — there’s a clear case where the presidency has gone well past the constitutional mandate and Congress has abnegated theirs.

When you look at this investigation into Russia’s involvement in our democracy and the continuing threat that they pose and the fact that we have not been able to get to the truth, nor has Congress been able to see all the evidence we have yet another example.

Part of that is the presidency and the administration. And part of it is, per your earlier question, Congress standing up and asserting itself regardless of party or consequences in the next election or how this stuff polls. 

If we’re going to follow the constitution, if we’re going to live up to our promise, if we’re going to ensure that this democracy survives this administration, we’re going to need a Congress that’s willing to assert itself and stand up for those whom they purport to represent.

.