"Conservatism, not Radicalism, threatens the free exchange of ideas, intellectual tolerance, and the life of the mind in Academia." - Herbert Shapiro
"In any discussion of the problems in our world today, racism must rank high. Not because we are soft-minded liberals obsessed with countless crimes throughout history induced by colour, religion, tribalism or chauvinism of one kind or another. But because the poison which we hoped and believed had been eradicated in our own time by the knowledge of the ultimate evil- the gas-chamber murders committed by the Nazis--is in fact still present, not in any one area of discrimination or racism, or in a restricted number of specific rulers or governments, but in all humankind. I call it "Inner Racism."-
Gitta Sereny, "The Healing Wound"
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
sam enderby•5 days ago An entertaining piece but I am wondering about a couple of things in the article. One, just how old was Mr. Moustaki when he visited Henry Miller in Brooklyn? I would have thought Mr. Miller left Brooklyn a long, long time ago, before Mr. Moustaki was even born. Miller often wrote about his Brooklyn days and if memory serves when he returned to America after living in Paris during the '30's it wasn't to Brooklyn he returned but to California. Second, and this is kind of weird but is that a photograph of Albert Speer on the bookshelf behind Mr. Moustaki?
Moustaki met Henry Miller in Santa Monica (not in Brooklyn), in 1970 and again a few years later. On the bookshelf we see a photograph of the actor/singer Serge Reggiani, mentioned in the article.
Maybe its being unemployed for over two years that makes these foolish leaps into the BlogoSphere a sort of therapy
Oil On Canvas "PIAF" by JACQUELINE JOLLES
for me, a Kilroy moment if you will at my advancing age rather like a mid-life or later-in-life crisis Grafitti etched in the ether. This GeorgeMoustaki by the way wrote the lyrics for the famous EdithPiaf song, Milord, which was a big hit fifty years ago - I remember it being played a lot at the New York World's Fair in '64 particularly around the area where they sold those Belgium Waffles - and of course it still remains a real hand-clapper at assorted old-age and retirement entertainments. Curious the subject matter but nevertheless a catchy tune. I don't think many Amercian fans remember the lyric but the melody does linger. Anyway, these interplays do amuse me and probably cause my addressees to think me a little meshugga. The subject was featured in "The Tablet" -again ( see the Anna Breslaw riff a few blogs back). Although he did not write the article it was nice of Mr. Jakubowicz to respond. He probably thought now why would anybody want a photo of Albert Speer on their shelf. Who is this nut who thinks Serge is Speer? I think its interesting that a woman, Marguerite Monnot, wrote the music and Moustakis the words if only because of the suggestiveness, shall we say, of the theme. Still in all a fine tune. As a matter of fact as I was watching some of Mrs.Romney's speech last night I couldn't get the damn tune out of my head - it may be unfair (to say the least) but I often look upon candidate's wives as props, someone who more likely than not is pulled out of the shadows and thrust in the glare of the media spotlight because of some nebulous political propriety.
"Je qu'une ombre de la rue (I'm just a shadow of the street)."
But Mrs. R seemed up to the challenge announcing at the onset, " I cannot wait to see what we are going to all do together. This isgoing to be so exciting."
The music starts off a little jaunty, "Allez venez, Milord, vous asseoir a ma table ( Come along, Milord, sit at my table)".
There's something that sounds like an accordian or is that a concertina? Drumsticks beating time on the sidewalk? She will speak of Love. "I want to talk to you frommy heart about our hearts," she smiles to the delegates.
A piano faintly floats in behind the beat softly, insistent. "Et prenez bien vos aises vos peines sur mon coeur (and make yourself at ease your troubles on my heart)."
There may be horns quietly following. "Tonight," she starts to sing, "I want totalk to you about Love. I want to talk to you about the deep and abiding Love I have for a man I met at adance many years ago."
The voice stronger now, growing emphatic, melodious. "Lamour, ca fait pleurer comme quoi l'existence les chances pour les reprendre apres (Love makes one cry and Life gives you all your chances to take them back)."
She is singing passionately now, a hard throaty alto-like stress to the words, "I am not sure if men really understand this, but I don't think there is a woman in Amercia who really expects her life to be easy."
Yes, she sang this at the Republican Convention and it will be the only honestly heartfelt words spoken to the party that if elected would do everything they can to bring those words to fruition !
Back to the verse, quick, before the words sink in and they move you back to the shadows. "Laissez-vous faire, Milord, venez dans mon royaume (Relax, Milord, come into my kingdom)."
The piano is loud now each singular note a proclamation and the La's will start any second. "Mitt," the voice soaring now," would be the first to tell you that he is the most fortunate man in the world.
"Vous aviez le beau role on avrait dit le roi vous marchiez en vainqueur ( You were so beautiful, you could have been mistaken for a king, you were walking victoriously)."
There is some rhythmic clapping in the distance, the drum beats louder, the accordion ascends. She will promise that her man will not fail. "Je chante les milords (I sing about Milords)."
And now everyone :LA, LA, LA, LA MILORD, LA, LA......
Georges Moustaki, Poetic French Singer, Dies at 79
Roland Witschel/European Pressphoto Agency
Georges Moustaki, shown performing in 1983 with the singer Marta Contreras, was known for his melancholy ballads.
By MAÏA de la BAUME
Published: May 25, 2013
PARIS — Georges Moustaki, a singer and songwriter who wrote Édith Piaf’s hit song “Milord” and won wide popularity in France for his poetic lyrics and melancholy ballads, died on Thursday in Nice, France. He was 79. His death was confirmed by his longtime agent, Marie-Ange Mirande, who said that Mr. Moustaki had had emphysema. His death prompted an outpouring of emotional tributes. The French president, François Hollande, called him a “hugely talented artist whose popular and committed songs have marked generations of French people.” Mr. Moustaki, instantly recognizable by his bushy beard and long white hair, belonged to the generation of French singers — including Jacques Brel, Serge Gainsbourg, Léo Ferré and Georges Brassens — who composed many of their own songs, writing lyrics with a poetic sensibility. Mr. Moustaki started his career as a songwriter, composing about 300 songs for some of the most popular singers in France, including Ms. Piaf, Yves Montand and Serge Reggiani. “Milord,” his first hit, told the story of a “girl from the harbor” who falls in love with an elegant Englishman. Mr. Moustaki wrote it for Ms. Piaf, and the two became lovers, though she was more than 20 years his senior. It was later interpreted by Bobby Darin and Cher. Mr. Moustaki made his name as a singer in 1969 with “Le Métèque” — a pejorative word for foreigner — in which he described himself as a “wandering Jew” and a “Greek shepherd.” He wrote and performed many other songs, including “Ma Liberté” and “Ma Solitude.”Mr. Moustaki, whose real name was Giuseppe Mustacchi, was born on May 3, 1934, in Alexandria, Egypt, where his parents, both of Greek origin, had emigrated. His father, Nessim, ran a bookstore that drew visitors from across the Middle East. Mr. Moustaki first performed as a pianist and singer in Brussels and Paris, but his career took off after he met Mr. Brassens, who became his mentor, and fell in with singers of the Left Bank, including Mr. Brel and Juliette Gréco. Mr. Moustaki’s songwriting career peaked in the 1960s and ’70s with songs like “Sarah,” performed by Mr. Reggiani, and “La Dame Brune” (“The Lady With Brown Hair”), written for the singer Barbara (Monique Serf). He later pursued a solo career, giving concerts in Africa, Japan and the United States, including at Carnegie Hall in the early 1970s. He performed in Italian, Portuguese, Arabic and Greek and grew passionate about Brazilian music. After a 50-year career, Mr. Moustaki recorded his last album in 2008 and announced a year later that he could no longer sing because of his emphysema. He is survived by a daughter, Pia. His philosophy was reflected in his 1973 song “Declaration”: “I declare a permanent state of happiness and the right of everyone to every privilege. I say that suffering is a sacrilege when there are roses and white bread for everyone.”
Singer-songwriter Georges Moustaki, who wrote some 300 songs for
France's most popular singers, including Édith Piaf and Yves Montand,
was born in Alexandria, Egypt on this date in 1934. His parents were
Greek Jews from Corfu who spoke many languages and owned the Cité du
livre, an outstanding bookstore in Alexandria. He became a Paris
nightclub performer in his late teens and became a songwriter for Piaf
in the late 1950s. She was nineteen years his senior, and their love
affair became a scandal-sheet obsession. As a performer, Moustaki sang
in French, Italian, English, Greek, Portuguese, Arabic, and Spanish. In
1969, he wrote "Le Métèque" (a pejorative word for a Mediterranean
immigrant), in which he described himself as a "wandering Jew" and a
"Greek shepherd." After other singers and the record companies rejected
it, Moustaki recorded it himself and produced a hit that was the number
one song in France for six weeks. "A small, subliminal settling of
scores," he observed, "became the hymn of anti-racism and the right to
be different, the cry of revolt of all minorities." Moustaki toured the
world as a performer. He died of emphysema at the age of 1979 and was
buried in Paris's Père Lachaise Cemetery just yards from the grave of
Edith Piaf. To see him performing, click here and scroll down.
"To
his admirers, his persona suggested a borderless utopia of freedom,
brotherhood, and harmony... with a gentle, wistful sense of romance
mixed in." --Billboard magazine
Arithmetic was always easy up until my junior year anyway. It was what it was- adding and subtracting and dividing and multiplying- precise, logical, exact. Numbers abstractly represented by letters and postulates about many-sided shapes and angularities with discriminating laws all had a definite symmetry and even a beauty , if you will, and for most of my public school life it was a cinch. Until trigonometry class and Vicki L., but that's another post - maybe. So why do I have such a hard time understanding the Budget "proposals" as put forth by that presuming vice-president, Paul Ryan ? Granted putting together such a
Professor Ryan
"blueprint" for the entire country plus generations yet unborn (I mean he's got all these non-specific disbursements going out to the year 2050 or something before this thing even talks about being balanced!) is quite a daunting prospect and he is so seemingly self-assured and oh so arrogant in judging himself so highly for doing this wonderful thing in behalf of the Amercian people that his whole congressional reputation rests on this document and this after 14(?) years in Congress and now he can be vice-president because he's the guy who wrote THE budget for Amercia while drafting as many anti-choice and anti-women's legislation as he can between ab crunches and buttock pinches . Is it all just a matter of cash-in, cash-out? Of course not, but is it all because we happen to live in an Ayn Rand novel? von Ryan thinks so and therein lies - everything. What I really don't get at all - or maybe I'm just afraid of what I really think- at all, is how anyone can possibly consider this Paul Ryan and his equally facile buddy, Mitt, as serious contenders to anything. I mean its the easiest thing in the world nowadays to see just what these cabbageheads stand for-if anything- their words and deeds are there for anyone to see and hear and how anyone can listen to a Mitt not answer a public question without reacting with a "UH?" or a Ryan try to elide over his voting record for the past 14 years or come up with an intelligent answer to the details left out of his miraculous budget plan without wincing is either a fool or is so given over to the idiotic mantra of "taking our country back" that he or she is too incapacitated by racism to be a viable, thinking human being in the first place. Paul Ryan is described by the indiscriminate media as the Intellectual Leader of the Republican Party-if this was a court trial and I was a prosecutor I would simply turn to the judge now and say, "the people rest". Paul Ryan is yet another one of "our"
The Leadership
youngguns (see previous post regarding that young Congresswoman from Alabama or the last one mentioning Eric Cantor) who came of age in the Time of Reagan and someday this epochal convulsion will generate thousands of doctoral dissertations hopefully anent what finally went wrong with Amercia.
"She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the welfare state, who feel guilty at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts," so wrote the late GoreVidal in a review of Ayn Rand's philosophy back before the Mets had even started their unremarkable first half century, " For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good.." Which I am sure has benefitted Mssrs Ryan and Mitt very nicely over the years especially if those stories about Ryan shorting Treasuries before the market meltdown in '08 are accurate or was that purchasing Goldman Sachs after that inside meeting with Paulson? Mitt of course has never done anything wrong as his income tax returns show (only the poor pay taxes as the Queen of Mean once said), although I would like to see the earlier paperwork on who he got to invest "seed" money in Bain . I heard something about right-wing death squad money from El Salvador or some such wacky tale like that. Say it ain't so, Mitt. If it does pan out its just one more Reagan connection which I guess all the young Republican heroes can enjoy. Paul Ryan was born in 1970 (I have socks older than he is, rimshot) so he's 10(?) when Reagan is elected and is starting college when Bush, Sr is elected. These are formative years for a young man and a young man enamored of Ayn Rand (she loved the young men herself as long as they didn't get her pregnant - for she was a great defender of a woman's right to abortion, or as long as they didn't ask her to marry him- She was a
denigrator of the so-called family unit, or invite her to pray with them- she was an avowed atheist, someone only a Paul Ryan could idolize ) who stands on extremes himself, should be a constant wonder for the snoozing media . Children raised on the carefully coifed image of Ronald Reagan and the seductive greed of Ayn Rand are a clear and present danger to present day Amercia. There's an interesting "insight" into this bizarre woman athttp://exiledonline.com/paul-ryans-guru-ayn-rand-worshipped-a-serial-killer-who-kidnapped-and-dismembered-little-girls/ .
His Budget is really not that hard to figure out when you consider that most of the agenda put forth by the republicans is an easy formula to memorize (easier than the multiplication table up to 12 anyway or easier than memorizing the first two decimals of Pi (after 3.); easier than remembering - for some of us at least- your home phone number), take from the have-nots and give it to the Haves; take from the Poor and give it to the rich. That pretty much covers it- all of it -now if they could just stop people from voting. This of course is the not so dirty little secret of Amercian democracy for what is happening today in states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, others(?) is the blatant dissembling of everything we had once held dear. Not to belabor this because such a topic deserves so much more than this Unread Blog can give it - more than NBC, CBS, and pick your favorite newspaper can also - yet it is connected to the candidacy of Mitt and Ryan and unless there is an extraordinary effort to get out the vote come election day everything people have lived and died for during the past 100 years will be scrapped. Thanks to the Young Guns like Ryan and Eric Cantor and their Inarticulate and Shameless leader, Mitt, Voting Rights in at least three (and maybe more) key states will be denied a large Minority bloc (read: Democrats);
rights that were inscribed in Law at least 5 years before Paul Ryan was born; rights that people died for before Ryan flexed his scrawny biceps; better people certainly than Ryan and Cantor and Mitt and all the Republicans and even some of the Democrats who are not standing up to this abomination, better than solitary bloggers who sit on their old worn out asses and never enter the fray they once were part of, complicit in their absence condemned by their silence. It's interesting to note that among the many Republican -led state legislatures there have been numerous attempts in the past two years, especially, to curtail the right to vote to many citizens under the ruse of combatting voter fraud and its only the Republicans who introduce such legislation; and with the recent moronic decision by a judge in Pennsylvania and with what is happening in Ohio and Florida (and what has happened) it is tantamount to a hate crime. Now some idiot who is running for U.S. Senate in Missouri wants to throw out the Voting Rights Law of 1965 which "prohibited states from imposing any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the U.S. to vote on account of race or color". It prohibited, too, the dubious practice of having voters in certain regions of the country (guess) pass so-called literacy tests in order to vote. It established Federal Oversight of Election Administration in states that- at that time - had an extensive history of discriminatory voting practices - they could not implement any change affecting voting without First obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice. These "COVERED JURISDICTIONS" as they were called included most of the Southern States and several heavily populated minority counties in others, including Brooklyn, NY and about 5 counties in Florida. It is interesting to note that the covered jurisdictions did not cover the states of Ohio or Pennsylvania or Arizona(?) and I wonder what other currently-controlled Republican state? Wisconsin?
Paul Ryan is on Record stating that the reason he got involved in Public Service in the first place IS Ayn Rand. In 20 years in Washington, D.C. he has stayed within the purview of such stalwarts of public policy as Bill Kristol (another prodigal son) and George Will ( who if he's not talking baseball he's braying at the moon) and William Bennett ( the Education Poseur) or the Amercian Enterprise Institute which somehow gets millions to sit around and offer research papers on what corporate Amercia wants from Amercians and then offer live pundits to go on Fox and others to sing hymns to Ronald Reagan and our wonderful free-enterprise system. And no one within this limited but exclusive sphere ever pointed out to him the utter stupidity and absurdity of that statement? Then again, this is a man who is now able to stand in front of a large group of hand-picked Republican Seniors at some "retirement" reservation with his own Mother in tow and just LIE about what his medicare program is all about and what the President's is not. With his mom by his side. What I wouldn't give to be able to call out these politicos who for obvious, nay nefarious reasons determinedly lie about their true intentions by offering their potential voters, read: victims, words that belie the opposite. There "oughta be a law" as an old cartoonist wrote. There are precedents in the case histories of our jurisprudence of "companies" deliberately Misrepresenting to the Public and the Courts have ruled that the Practice Cease immediately. Well, if Companies or Corporations are People according to the Mitt and by extension his best-mate, Ryan, who hasn't denied it, why cannot we hold them to the decision as put forth by the Court in say the Federal Trade commission v. Winsted, 1922***. The Commission had complained that the Winsted Hosiery Company had deliberately mislabeled theirunderwear's wool content to undermine their competition while deceiving the buying public. It seems the Company used different names or brands for the "wool" they sold to retailers and none of the brands thus offered had as much as 10% of the stuff if anything. "By means of the labels and brands of the Winsted Company bearing such words, part of the public is misled into selling or into buying as all wool, underwear which in fact is in large part cotton. And these brands and labels tend to aid andencourage therepresentations of unscrupulous retailers and their salesmen who knowingly sell to their customers as all wool, underwearwhich is largely composed of cotton." It is even admitted in the decision that such a deceptive way of doing business was wide-spread within the industry itself, "the trade," it continues," is not deceived by them"; the representatives of Winsted argued that even if consumers are misled because they do not understand the trade signification of the label or because some retailers deliberately deceive them as to its meaning, the result is in no way legally connected with unfair competition. This was the cincher for the Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court recognized the unsoundness of this argument and so stated in the words of LouisBrandeis,"
Brandeis
The labels in question are literally false... and are palpably so. All are calculated to deceive and do in fact deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public. That deception is due primarily to the words of the labels..And they show also that the practice constitutes an unfair method of competition..For when misbranded goods attract customers by means of fraud which they perpetrate, trade is diverted from the producer of truthfully marked goods. That these honest manufacturers might protect their trade also by resorting to deceptive labels is no defense to this proceeding brought against the Company in the public interest." The Court found for the Commission while remarking that a substantial part of the public "was still misled by the use of the labels" and so the public had an interest in stopping the practice as wrongful. So Paul Ryan and his mom will probably go right along pulling the wool over the aging eyes of his prospective buyers, I mean voters because it is afterall business, I mean politics as usual in Amercia . His words are the Republican brand, the label they present to the voting consumer. Today there's more integrity in the knit underwear trade than in any Republican running for office.
Its been a long-running Amercian Tradition that candidates for high (and not so high) office must pander, as they say or rather "kiss ass" as Mitt's handlers like to say, to Jewish voters
A Fringe of Blue
Oil on canvas by Jacqueline Jolles
who are conveniently located in certain large metropolitan centers from coast to coast and so are able to make their numbers and- now wait for it - influence perhaps more than they would appear to be given the size of the Jewish population in Amercia. Is it 3% or .03% or .003% of the total population ? Jews vote in large percentages in Amercia because for all its shortcomings Amercia has always been the Democratic ideal ( Judge Brandeis would take exception to the word ideal in this instance because "among Jews," he once wrote, "democracy was not an ideal merely. It was a practice-a practice made possible by the existence among them of certain conditions essential to successful democracy,") to the millions of Jewish immigrants who have found refuge here (I'm waxing nostalgic but.._) and they in turn "have been proud of the privilege of exercising the right belonging to members of a free people and eager to further the commoninterests of the entire country". (One of those essential conditions Brandeis named was a developed sense of community.) Curious phrase now, "common interests". But at one time in the not too long ago it was a sort of unifying exposition of what it meant to be a responsible Amercian. That's how the Foreign Language Division of the DemocraticNational Committee
would express the Democratic principles they were striving for during the Franklin Roosevelt campaigns all through the thirties. In looking to encourage and expand their voting support they had their campaign literature printed in all the languages of (seemingly) all the immigrants in the country (I think the effort was supervised by a Teamster official and he had a lot of great help). Remember this was during the time of the Great Depression and all those New Deal programs that for the last 30 years(at least) the Republicans have been trying to unceremoniously repeal and denigrate.
(And as if on cue the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings -today! Aug 2, 2012! - on a Bill to make English the only Officiallanguage of Amercia.)
Even in this Imperfect Union of a country back then there was an effort to gain the support of African-Americans, get them to change political parties - a majority at the time were Republican-and to a large extent the Roosevelt campaigns succeeded. I guess their "colored Advisory Division" played a role (although I'm just being a smart-ass now). The inspiring words of this literature and public utterances of their representatives at that time make the current and more recent campaigns of our time shamelessly shallow, certainly not worthy of our more nobly stated values, which is not to say that there was a time in our history when civility and noblesse defined our public discourse but there has been a diminuendo over time of the language of discourse itself- a cheapening if you will-rendering a candidate's words and phrases unintelligible and quite dumb and obviously quite acceptable to the current Amercian voters. Palinesque, in a word. Of course I'm not suggesting that there has been no technological advances in communications these past 75 years or so, which has everything today under a constant media watch 24 hours a day-relentlessly feeding the corporate outlets for the voting consumer. Still, with the luxury of hindsight and google(sometimes) it does make for a melancholy contrast and a plaintive plea for the printed word and support of public education. Nevertheless it was a time of noble sentiments and immigrant aspiration (isn't that what Amercia is? ok, with the exception of Arizona):
B.G. Richards: Speaker and Writer
"Citizens of immigrant origin coming from different lands and voicing their aspirations in many different languages have always sought to join their interests with and share the hopes of the native sons and daughters of Amercia. And a hundred years of Amercian history testifies to the splendid contributions which citizens of alien origin have made to the progress, the material as well as spiritual enrichment of the country." (The quote is from a radio address specifically aimed at the large immigrant population (read: jewish) in New York City on the eve of the 1936 election on WEVD)"We all vote as Amercians. But it is also our privilege and duty to study, to interpret, to seek a better understanding of Amercia's destiny and future and within the bounds of absolute loyalty to give form and meaning to a new sense and higher obligation of our evolving democracy."
'Within the bounds of absolute loyalty' was always the fulcrum, the framing disposition of whatever attended the Jewish aspiration and hope in Amercia. There should never be any doubt and no one should dare overstep their bounds in this their new home, this democratic paradise, this land of freedom. Whatever they did and however they did it the Jewish Amercian did it as a loyal Amercian. In expounding on "the Jewish Community Sense", Louis Brandeis would quote from Ahad Ha-Am ("One of the People"), a much revered figure among "cultural zionists" who in his time advocated a Palestine that was more a spiritual center than political for Jews and always with an equal accommodationist policy in dealing with the Arab residents of the area. In this conception the individual and the community is strengthened by the social feeling in the individual," by not isolating himself or herself with an existence bounded by birth and death but being part of a larger whole, as a limb of the social body. The center of gravity,
if you will, shifts from the individual to the community, "and with this the problem of life becomes not of individual but of social life. I live for the sake of the perpetuation and happiness of the community of which I am a member." Brandeis saw this as the very essence of a triumphant twentieth century democracy! And it was written and published for all to read before he was confirmed as the first Jew to be named to the Supreme Court in 1916. For over 40 years ( we're being contemporaneous with the radio address so we're talking since the great East European immigration years) and perhaps since before the common era the menacing charge of dual loyalty was used by the enemies of the Jews first as a Denigration of their religious practices and later as a political wedge to wrest whatever civil and national rights they once had; always the foreigner in the midst. And although these charges through the years were always rejected and disproved they were forever present. Even during the 1936 Campaign the Enemies of the Jews, the right-wing extremists in Amercia, who would up until and even after Pearl Harbor placate and defend the Nazis - took to callingFDR a Sephardic Jew ( much like the right-wing-Corporately financed TeaParty-ers and others refer to President Obama as a Muslim or "foreign" or go listen at their closed doors - that's right I made the analogy, calling a racist a racist) All through these pre-War years there was a strong isolationism prevailing in Amercia and a whole lot of ill-feelings toward (usually) Jews who were agitating for a fight with Hitler. "On Capital Hill in Washington," one of these Right-wing pamphlets read, "we have a Congress made up predominantly of Gentiles. Scarcely a day passes that the Hebrew bloc does not find some way to bring a vast "nazi" scare to its attention." The tract continues, "How many conscientious congressmen are aware of this ensuing preponderance of Jews in our present Federal Government - that it amounts to their taking orders from the Kingdom of Israel in our midst instead of from the good Amercians who brought about their election?" There were thousands of these printed up too by any number of right-wing Christian Patriots ( as a matter of fact that was the name of one of their political organizations- the "Christian Party" - even the Koch boys are not that salient.)
I imagine it were those "common interests" that made over 90% of the eligible Jews vote for Roosevelt in each of his elections. I'm sure if you're like me (and who isn't?) your parents and grandparents were enamoured of FDR and only much later became - if at all- a little disillusioned when more and more information squeezed out about his policy and dealings with assorted efforts to 1.) help save the Jews during the war and 2.) his less than tepid stance as to the promise of a Jewish state later. But there was nothing but a huge majority support for his domestic programs and overall leadership during a most trying time. The radio continues:
"Without forfeiting the rights of any class, without restricting the opportunity of any of the more fortunate elements, without diminishing any of the extravagant luxuries, in which the more wealthy continue to revel, the Roosevelt Administration has brought benefit, welfare, health and, above all, hope and encouragement to millions of our people."
Wha the f__!! I couldn't help but boldface that given the state of our own disfunctional governance today (another easy mark -like Podhoretz). Even with some of the worst people elected to Congress in those years and I mean downright mean and racist ( now remember kids this is Amercia in the years oh say between 1936 and just before Amercia goes to war in 1941) like a John Rankin, Democrat from Mississippi,
Rep. John E. Rankin, Mississippi
Someone called him an equal opportunity bigot
who was an Outspoken Anti-Semite AND Racist bigot of the first degree - and yet, voted for most of the New Deal legislation . This guy later even accused Albert Einstein of being a Communist Agitator! In 1944 there was an enormous Explosion at a California port where the navy was loading Munitions, A horrific fireball killed over 320 Sailors. (google Port Chicago, near San Francisco) When the Navy asked Congress for $5000 for the victims families Rankin convulsed when he learned that most of the sailors were Black- he had them lower the amount (to about half). Can you imagine? On June 5, 1941 a few weeks after the Jewish citizens of Paris started to be hunted down and "rounded up" and just over two weeks before the Nazis invaded Russia , there was a particularly rancorous exchange on the floor of the House of Representatives between a congressman from New York named Morris Edelstein and the aforementioned John Rankin. It seems Rankin had loudly proclaimed ( there was no mincing back them -you said what you said and you said what you thought-what you always thought and if you were a cracker from Mississippi well..no one had to guess what you really thought) from the floor that "Wall streetbankers and International Jewry were dragging the country into war." Rep. Edelstein was himself an immigrant from Poland and at age 55 or so had been suffering from an ailing heart.
Rep. Morris Edelstein, New York
He replied heatedly to Rankin, " I deplore the idea that any time anything happens, whether it be for a war policy or against a war policy, men in this House and outside this House attempt to use the Jews as a scapegoat. I say it is unfair and I say it is Un-Amercian." He then left the House chamber and collapsed in the cloakroom and died. Rankin refused to release the text of his remarks to the press until after he was able to revise them. It was reported, by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, that he did not give any outward evidence of being "perturbed" by Edelstein's death. Politics is life and death. http://archive.org/stream/congressionalrec87bunit#page/n604/mode/1up
"If all conditions effecting our lives and all ideals animating our strivings are to be interpreted anew in every generation in the light of the changes brought by time and tide, then the aims and purposes of Amercia may also be re-examined and reviewed in the light of new needs and new demands imposed upon us by an advancing era."
Rankin and Edelstein were members of the same political party. It certainly was a different dynamic in the long ago and I don't think it stresses the imagination to project Rankin on the Republicans today and I'm so mean-spirited as to imagine that if that good ol' boy ran today in his home state he'd probably be elected - again.
This time he'd be greeted in the House by that young gun himself, Eric Cantor, the lone Jewish republican in that chamber. Funny thing ( to me, at least) is that Rankin, given his horrific existence - I mean this cracker would continuously and unabashedly use the n-word on the floor of the House without any censure ( I guess he wasn't the only one) or fear of impeachment; he was on record for saying he would refuse to sit next to Rep. Adam Clayton Powell; once called columnist Walter Winchell, not exactly a flaming liberal himself, "the little kike"; hated the UN; was a ranking member of the odious HUAC and so never investigated the kkk because he considered it an old Amercian tradition and yet, was a strong supporter of Roosevelt's New deal programs, an advocate for government economic intervention, especially for poor rural communities (for poor Blacks, too?), and was a chief sponsor of the GI BILL. As far as I know, Eric Cantor has never uttered the n-word on the floor of the House; has never said that he would refuse to sit next to Barbara Lee or Nancy Pelosi for that matter; has never called a columnist a little kike; and yet, as Majority leader in The House (the first Jew so honored? Hey, Rankin, suck on that) at a time of such economic
the Majority Leader-a
bar-mitzvah portrait
distress and military conflicts unresolved over seas he has helped preside over a legislative process that has done next to nothing to help the "common interests" of most of the people in this country and has tried everything to unhinge, if you will, and undo everything that this country has instituted to help the more needful and unfortunate amongst us, which basically includes about 90% of everybody else. He has been the leader in obstructing and blocking and stalling everything the Obama Administration has attempted to do to try to alleviate the economic distress that has faced this nation for the past 4 (& longer) years and then has the chutzpah to blame the failure on Obama alone; a southern boy himself he has thought nothing of misinforming and covering up his own reasons for not being more of a mentsch when it comes to governance and the role of government - like the rest of his party he doesn't believe in doing anything for the people of this country at all; he is of a mind to rather short his own portfolio's U.S. treasury bonds during the market's downturn; he tried to give a $46 BILLION gift to the much heralded 1% when he proposed a bill that would have granted businesses with fewer than 500 employees a 20% tax break ( businesses such as hedge funds and pro sports teams like the NYYankees); he travels with his good buddies on the various Energy and commerce committees to the "besieged" coal and oil industries and rails about regulations and safety laws intended for the workers of these companies; Eric Cantor is one of the wealthiest members of Congress - his worth is estimated at anywhere between 5 and 9 Million, not bad for a guy whose salary , according to congressional guidelines is $193,400 per ( his wife is a former Goldman, Sachs V.P. so they're very comfortable). According to Ron Kampeas in a JTA article Cantor has never attended any formal White House Jewish function while Obama has been President and then lies about it and says he has been to these affairs ( and yes he has been invited -to those Chanukah parties and various Jewish Heritage month events). Is he afraid he would have to sit next to...nah. He did not attend the big dinner for Shimon Peres ( THE President of ISRAEL !) because he says he had to attend his son's High school graduation. The graduation as has been pointed out was a morning affair -in Richmond, Cantor's home, a 90 minute car ride to his office in D.C..
Mitt Romney is honored to have the support of many of the Jewish Community's Leading thinkers, diplomats, and political leaders and so he has started his Jews for RomneyCoalition co-chaired
Jews for Romney
by none other than our boy, Eric Cantor. Like most Jews I know Eric must be taken by the Mitt's generous humanitarian quality, his honest hopes for the betterment of the Amercian people, his excellent record on healthcare, his pronouncements on the world stage, his command of public speaking as he had shown on a recent trip to Israel:
"One, I recognize the hand of providence in selecting this place. I’m told in a Sunday school class I attended — my son Tagg was teaching the class. He’s not here. I look around to see. Of course he’s not here. He was in London. He taught a class in which he was describing the concern on the part of some of the Jews that left Egypt to come to the promised land, that in the promised land was down the River Nile, which would provide the essential water they had enjoyed in Egypt. They came here recognizing they must be relied upon, themselves and the arm of God to provide rain from the sky. And this therefore represented a sign of faith and a show of faith to come here. That this is a people that has long recognized the purpose in this place and in their lives that is greater than themselves and their own particular interests, but a purpose of accomplishing and caring and building and serving."
Does he listen to himself?
It is beyond me, really, to fully understand why a fellow Jew, younger than I, with an education to die for, someone obviously ambitious, comfortable, in a position of some power to effect the lives of millions of his fellow citizens - for the good, finds the crass and insulting candidacy of Mitt Romney the better choice for Amercia. I should rather say how is it that he finds a home in today's Republican party. Is it a matter of nem de gelt or is it a matter of being of a same mind with such craven hypocrites and racists? The Jewish vote is certainly not worth all of anyone's time, really, its in the deep pockets and activism of some of its community; according to a recent AP article 60% (!) of the Democratic Party coffers come from Jewish contributors. Does Sheldon Adelson contribute such huge sums to the Republicans because he can't stand the thought of poor people receiving healthcare or medicaid or the fact that there's a Schvatze in the White House - OR - is he afraid that the Democratic Dept of Justice will finish their investigation and indict him for bribing foreign officials so he could save his gambling business? Even Roy Cohn was a Democrat. Brandeis was still wary that " a single though inconspicuous instance of dishonorable conduct on the part of a Jew in any trade or profession has far-reaching evil effects extending to the many innocent members of thecommunity ( actually he used the word race - remember it was 1915). Large as this country is,no Jew can behave badly without injuring each of us in the end." Theold what- will- the- goyim- think still applies but obviously not as much. Adelson is only an embarrassment to Jews and only to Democratic-voting ones at that. He doesn't care a fig about Amercia's economic plight or the fact that the party he gives hundreds of millions(!) to wants to take away healthcare from the poor and aging. He's got his and wants to keep it. The radio address echoes:
"While the Republican party continues to seek the greatest good of the smallest number, the Democratic party and all forward looking citizens have under the leadership of President Roosevelt, reached out and striven for the benefit, welfare and social advancement of the great bulk, of the largest numbers of the people..The mute, inarticulate masses, the underprivileged, the forgotten, the neglected, the groping discouraged men and women, who lives have become dislocated by rapidly changing and upsetting new age - all these have at last found their voice in the great eloquence and humanitarian fervor of ...
For the great cause of humanity, of freedom, of democracy and of a larger Amercian destiny is essentially one, and when President Roosevelt speaks for Amercian welfare and wider opportunities for the average man he also affirms our faith in humanity and human freedom throughout the world."
WASHINGTON (JTA) — America is not a kibbutz, Mitt Romney said, in a bid to underscore his commitment to individual liberties.
“It’s individuals and their entrepreneurship which have driven America,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said at a Chicago fundraiser Tuesday, in remarks first reported by BuzzFeed. “What America is not (is) a collective where we all work in a kibbutz or we’re all in some little entity, instead it’s individuals pursuing their dreams and building successful enterprises which employ others and they become inspired as they see what has happened in the place they work and go off and start their own enterprises.”
Romney just returned from a visit to Israel last week where he praised the country’s culture as a critical element in boosting its economy.
Kibbutzim, although internally adhering to varying degrees of collective principles, long ago adjusted to interacting with Israel’s free-market economy.
Republicans fault President Obama’s supposed “lack of leadership” for the coming fiscal cliff, but during an interview on CNBC Tuesday afternoon, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) could not say where the GOP was willing to compromise to avoid half a trillion dollars of military cuts or the wave of expiring tax breaks.
Pressed by host Maria Bartiromo, Cantor was unable to detail even one possible area where Republicans were willing to negotiate with Democrats:
BARTIROMO: So what are you willing to give on, Congressman? When you look at what the two sides are basically sticking to their guns, can it really be realistic to say taxes can never go up, that, you know, taxes should stay where they are forever in any environment? What are you willing to give on?
CANTOR: First of all, raising taxes is not the answer. We all know that. This problem is too large to think we can tax our way out of it. What we really need to be focused on is how big do we want the government to be, and begin to assess our priorities so we can manage down the deficit. That’s clearly how it is. Once we get a plan in place where, in fact, we’ve got a solution to the overspending, you know, we can begin to tell people their tax revenues will go to be paying off the deficit. But the problem is, Maria, there’s been an unwillingness to face up to the hard facts that there are obligations that have been assumed by the taxpayers, frankly, and there’s not enough money to satisfy those obligations. That’s what we have to sit down, iron out the differences, and go forward.
