Sunday, November 22, 2009
*Photographer's Corner- The Great Depression Photographs Of Dorothea Lange
Click on title to link to "Wikipedia's" entry for the great photographer Dorothea Lange.
Photographer's Corner- The Great Depression Era Photographs of Dorothea Lange- A Book Review
Click on title to link to Jonathan Raban's "The New York Review Of Books" article reviewing Linda Gordon's "Dorothea Lange: A Life Beyond Limits".
* From The HistoMat Blog- On Marxist Theorist Walter Benjamin
Click on title to link to a HistoMat Blog entry for the great Marxist cultural theorist Walter Benjamin.
Markin comment:
I have noticed over the past several years that the name Walter Benjamin has been more prominently mentioned in the academic Marxist journals and, of all places, positively mentioned in "The New York Review Of Books" articles. I first became aware of the work of Walter Benjamin many years ago in the the leftist cultural journal, "The New Left Review" when there was also something of a previous emerging interest in his work.
It is always necessary to have first-rate cultural theorists on our side. I just wish we could get more Trotskys to lead the struggles, as well. Of course the bourgeoisie is happy to let us have our academic Marxist icons, or at least will tolerate them. Our fighting revolutionary leaders are a different story. They still, for the most part, utter Trotsky's name with anguish and trepidation. I note that hatchet man Robert Service has a new 'biography' of Trotsky out (touted as the definitive bio). I will review that 'thing' after I have read it.
Markin comment:
I have noticed over the past several years that the name Walter Benjamin has been more prominently mentioned in the academic Marxist journals and, of all places, positively mentioned in "The New York Review Of Books" articles. I first became aware of the work of Walter Benjamin many years ago in the the leftist cultural journal, "The New Left Review" when there was also something of a previous emerging interest in his work.
It is always necessary to have first-rate cultural theorists on our side. I just wish we could get more Trotskys to lead the struggles, as well. Of course the bourgeoisie is happy to let us have our academic Marxist icons, or at least will tolerate them. Our fighting revolutionary leaders are a different story. They still, for the most part, utter Trotsky's name with anguish and trepidation. I note that hatchet man Robert Service has a new 'biography' of Trotsky out (touted as the definitive bio). I will review that 'thing' after I have read it.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
*OUTRAGE: Civil Rights Lawyer Lynne Stewart Jailed- Free Lynne Stewart Now!
Click on title to link to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee site.
Markin comment, November 21, 2009:
Below is a repost of a commentary that I posted on this site in January 2008. I can only repeat here what I said there and in the headline- Free Lynne Stewart Now!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Defend Lynne Stewart!
I have just added a link to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee. Please read about this case at that site. Also note that here appeal is coming up for oral arguments before the Federal Appeals Court this week (January 28 2008). Below is a commentary I made at the time of her sentencing in October 2006 that I repost here.
COMMENTARY
WE NEED LAWYERS WHO ARE FUSS-
MAKERS NOT RAINMAKERS
FREE CO-DEFENDANTS YOUSRY AND SATTAR
Well, the Bush Administration has finally got New York Attorney Lynne Stewart (DESPITE HER DISBARMENT I WILL CONTINUE TO CALL HER ATTORNEY) where they want her. Ms. Stewart had previously been indicted on the vague and flimsy charge of "materially" aiding terrorism by essentially, on the record presented by the government at the trial, providing zealous advocacy for her client, Sheik Rahman, who had been convicted in various terrorist schemes including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. At a trial in Federal District Court in New York City where the prosecution used every scare tactic in the post- 9/11 “War on Terror” playbook she was convicted. On October 16, 2006 she was finally sentenced on the charges. The federal judge in the case noting the severity of the crime but also the invaluable service that Ms. Stewart had rendered to the voiceless and downtrodden sentenced her to 28 months.
This sentence has been described as victory of sorts by Attorney Stewart and other commentators. The ever upbeat Ms. Stewart is quoted as stating that she, like some of her clients, could do that time “standing on her head”. Well, that may be, but the fact of the matter is that Attorney Stewart should not have been indicted, should not have been convicted and most definitely not sentenced for her actions on behalf of her client. Only the fact that the judge did not totally surrender to the government’s blatant appeals to “national security” issues and sentence her to the thirty years that they requested makes this any kind of “victory”. That joy over any lesser sentence could be considered as such is a telling reminder of the times we live in.
This case and the publicity surrounding it has dramatically warned any attorney who is committed to zealous defense of an unpopular or voiceless client to back off or face the consequences. The chilling effect on such advocacy, in some cases the only possible way to truly defend a client in this overheated reactionary atmosphere, is obvious. Moreover, the whole question of “material” aid to terrorism is a Pandora’s box for any political activist or even a merely interested non-political participant in any organization on the government’s “hit” list.
The government has the possibility of appealing the sentence to the Federal Court of Appeals so as of today October 18, 2006 the travails of Ms. Stewart are not over. Moreover, her conviction is still on appeal. From what I can gather in any reasonably quiet appeals court some of more blatant actions by the prosecution at trial would warrant, at minimum, a new trial if not the overturning of the conviction. Again, in these times such confidence may be unwarranted. I might add the “people’s lawyer” Lynne Stewart needs financial help to wage these new battles. Please consider sending a donation to the Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or to the organization I support- the Partisan Defense Committee- which will forward the donation. You can google either organization for addresses.
REVISED: NOVEMBER 2, 2006
ADDED NOTE: IN ANOTHER TELLING TALE OF THE TIMES THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE MASS MEDIA "NEGLECTED" TO INFORM THAT MS. STEWART'S ARAB TRANSLATOR , MOHAMED YOUSRY RECEIVED A 20 MONTH SENTENCE AND PARALEGAL ABDEL SATTAR RECEIVED 24 YEARS- NO THAT IS NOT A MISPRINT-24 YEARS. I MAKE UP OF THAT EGREGIOUS MISTAKE HERE. NEEDLESS TO SAY- FREE STEWART, YOUSRY AND SATTAR.
Markin comment, November 21, 2009:
Below is a repost of a commentary that I posted on this site in January 2008. I can only repeat here what I said there and in the headline- Free Lynne Stewart Now!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Defend Lynne Stewart!
I have just added a link to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee. Please read about this case at that site. Also note that here appeal is coming up for oral arguments before the Federal Appeals Court this week (January 28 2008). Below is a commentary I made at the time of her sentencing in October 2006 that I repost here.
COMMENTARY
WE NEED LAWYERS WHO ARE FUSS-
MAKERS NOT RAINMAKERS
FREE CO-DEFENDANTS YOUSRY AND SATTAR
Well, the Bush Administration has finally got New York Attorney Lynne Stewart (DESPITE HER DISBARMENT I WILL CONTINUE TO CALL HER ATTORNEY) where they want her. Ms. Stewart had previously been indicted on the vague and flimsy charge of "materially" aiding terrorism by essentially, on the record presented by the government at the trial, providing zealous advocacy for her client, Sheik Rahman, who had been convicted in various terrorist schemes including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. At a trial in Federal District Court in New York City where the prosecution used every scare tactic in the post- 9/11 “War on Terror” playbook she was convicted. On October 16, 2006 she was finally sentenced on the charges. The federal judge in the case noting the severity of the crime but also the invaluable service that Ms. Stewart had rendered to the voiceless and downtrodden sentenced her to 28 months.
This sentence has been described as victory of sorts by Attorney Stewart and other commentators. The ever upbeat Ms. Stewart is quoted as stating that she, like some of her clients, could do that time “standing on her head”. Well, that may be, but the fact of the matter is that Attorney Stewart should not have been indicted, should not have been convicted and most definitely not sentenced for her actions on behalf of her client. Only the fact that the judge did not totally surrender to the government’s blatant appeals to “national security” issues and sentence her to the thirty years that they requested makes this any kind of “victory”. That joy over any lesser sentence could be considered as such is a telling reminder of the times we live in.
This case and the publicity surrounding it has dramatically warned any attorney who is committed to zealous defense of an unpopular or voiceless client to back off or face the consequences. The chilling effect on such advocacy, in some cases the only possible way to truly defend a client in this overheated reactionary atmosphere, is obvious. Moreover, the whole question of “material” aid to terrorism is a Pandora’s box for any political activist or even a merely interested non-political participant in any organization on the government’s “hit” list.
The government has the possibility of appealing the sentence to the Federal Court of Appeals so as of today October 18, 2006 the travails of Ms. Stewart are not over. Moreover, her conviction is still on appeal. From what I can gather in any reasonably quiet appeals court some of more blatant actions by the prosecution at trial would warrant, at minimum, a new trial if not the overturning of the conviction. Again, in these times such confidence may be unwarranted. I might add the “people’s lawyer” Lynne Stewart needs financial help to wage these new battles. Please consider sending a donation to the Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or to the organization I support- the Partisan Defense Committee- which will forward the donation. You can google either organization for addresses.
REVISED: NOVEMBER 2, 2006
ADDED NOTE: IN ANOTHER TELLING TALE OF THE TIMES THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE MASS MEDIA "NEGLECTED" TO INFORM THAT MS. STEWART'S ARAB TRANSLATOR , MOHAMED YOUSRY RECEIVED A 20 MONTH SENTENCE AND PARALEGAL ABDEL SATTAR RECEIVED 24 YEARS- NO THAT IS NOT A MISPRINT-24 YEARS. I MAKE UP OF THAT EGREGIOUS MISTAKE HERE. NEEDLESS TO SAY- FREE STEWART, YOUSRY AND SATTAR.
Friday, November 20, 2009
* OUTRAGE: Lynne Stewart: Heroic Human Rights Lawyer Jailed -Free Lynne Stewart Now!- From Steve Lendman's Blog
Click on title to link to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee website. Free Lynne Stewart Now! Free All The Class War Prisoners!
From "SteveLendmanBlog"
Friday, November 20, 2009
Lynne Stewart: Heroic Human Rights Lawyer Jailed
Lynne Stewart: Heroic Human Rights Lawyer Jailed - by Stephen Lendman
On November 20, New York Times writer Colin Moynihan broke the news headlining:
"Radical Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terrorist Is Jailed," then saying:
"Defiant to the end as she embraced supporters outside the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Lynne F. Stewart, the radical lawyer known for defending unpopular clients, surrendered on Thursday to begin serving her 28-month sentence for assisting terrorism."
Fact check:
Stewart did what all attorneys should, but few, in fact, do - observe the American Bar Association's Model Rules saying all lawyers are obligated to:
"devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel."
Also to practice law ethically, morally and responsibly to assure everyone is afforded due process and judicial fairness in American courts. Sadly and disturbingly, Stewart was denied what she did for others heroically, unselfishly, and proudly. More on that below.
Stewart (prison number 53504-054) is now jailed at:
MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
Betrayed by American Justice
For 30 years, Stewart worked heroically to defend America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted, never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. Where others wouldn't go, she defended controversial figures like David Gilbert of the Weather Underground, Richard Williams of the United Freedom Front, Sekou Odinga and Nasser Ahmed of the Black Liberation Army, and many more like them. She knew the risk, but did it fearlessly and courageously until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002 for:
-- "conspiring to defraud the United States;
-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;
-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and
-- two counts of making false statements."
She was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that included a gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. When imposed, they prohibit discussion on topics the Justice Department (DOJ) rules outside of "legal representation," so lawyers can't discuss them with clients, thus inhibiting their defense.
At former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark's request, she joined him as part of Rahman's court-appointed defense team. In his 1995 show trial, he was convicted and is now serving a life sentence for seditious conspiracy, solicitation of murder, solicitation of an attack on American military installations, conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to bomb in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center attack despite evidence proving his innocence on all charges.
The DOJ's case wasn't about alleged crimes. It reflected his affiliations and anti-western views. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya - a 1997 US State Department-designated "foreign terrorist organization." In the 1980s, however, he helped the CIA recruit Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. For his work, he got a US visa, green card, and State Department-CIA protection as long as he was valued. When no longer, he was targeted along with Stewart.
Her case was precedent-setting, chilling, and according to the Center of Constitutional Rights Michael Ratner:
sent "a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."
Her attorney, Michael Tigar, called it:
"an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice (with) at least three fundamental faults:
-- (it) attack(ed) the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition;
-- the right to effective assistance of counsel (by) chill(ing) the defense; (and)
-- the 'evidence' in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private-attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and e-mails; I have never seen such an abuse of government power."
Her 2004 - 2005 show trial was a mockery of justice with echoes of the worst McCarthy-like tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court to prejudice the jury, and prosecutors vilified Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views. In addition, days before the verdict, the militant pro-Israeli Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse displaying her address. It threatened to "drive her out of her home and out of the state," and said she "needs to be put out of business legally and effectively."
It was part of the orchestrated scheme inside and outside the courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and intimidate other lawyers to expect the same treatment if they dare represent unpopular clients effectively.
On February 10, 2005 (after a seven month trial and 13 days of deliberation) she was convicted on all five counts. Under New York state law, she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. On October 17, 2006, she was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment, but remained free on bond pending appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Stewart Ordered to Prison
The Justice for Lynne Stewart web site (lynnestewart.org) announced the news. On November 17, the Appeals Court revoked her bond, upheld the verdict, ordered her surrender forthwith, but stayed it until November 19 at 5PM to let her attorney file a motion for reconsideration. It was denied, so she must report to federal marshals as directed. A November 19 conversation with Lynne and her husband Ralph confirmed it.
The situation remains fluid, dire, and complicated by Stewart's battle with breast cancer. She has surgery scheduled for December 7, unlikely now, but if done in prison or where authorities direct, it won't be the quality she deserves.
In its ruling, the three judge panel (John Walker, Guido Calebresi and Robert Sack) was firm, hostile and belligerent in upholding the lower court's conviction. Judge Sack accused Stewart of lying and called for a longer sentence. "We think that whether (she) lied under oath at her trial is directly relevant to whether her sentence was appropriate," he wrote, and directed District Court Judge John Koeltl to re-sentence her "so as to reflect that finding." Judge Walker was even harsher, calling the original sentence "breathtakingly low." Judge Calabrese said: "I am at a loss for any rationale upon this record that could reasonably justify a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment for this defendant."
They all said Stewart was "convicted principally with respect to (her violating) measures by which (she) had agreed to abide," namely SAMs. They rejected her "argument that, as a lawyer, she was not bound by (them), and her belated argument collaterally attacking their constitutionality." They also:
"affirm(ed her conviction) of providing and concealing material support to the conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country (and) of conspiring to provide and conceal such support....We conclude that the charges were valid (and) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. We also reject Stewart's claims that her purported attempt to serve as a 'zealous advocate' for her client provides her with immunity from the convictions...."
"Finally, we affirm Stewart's convictions for knowingly and willfully making false statements....when she affirmed that she intended to, and would, abide by the SAMs. In light of her repeated and flagrant violation of (them), a reasonable factfinder could conclude that (her) representations that she intended to and would abide by the SAMs were knowingly false when made. We reject the remaining challenges to the convictions. (We) affirm the district court's rejection of Stewart's claim that she was selectively prosecuted on account of her gender or political beliefs....We therefore affirm the convictions in their entirety."
They redirected her case to District Court Judge Koeltl for re-sentencing. The DOJ wants 30 years. Koeltl originally imposed 28 months, let Stewart remain free on bond pending appeal, implied his decision might be overturned because of a gross miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the Bush administration at the time, and handed it a major defeat. Her fate is now in his hands, but justice has already been denied at a time we're all as vulnerable as she if we dare resist state policies, unchanged under an administration no different from its predecessor.
In a November 17 news conference, Stewart said:
"I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much not to." In criticizing the Court's decision, she said its timing "on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from offshore prison in Guantanamo" suggests that lawyers appointed to represent them may face the same fate as she. "If you're going to lawyer for these people, you'd better toe very close to the line that the government has set out (because they'll) be watching you every inch of the way, (so those who don't) will end up like Lynne Stewart. This is a case that is bigger than just me personally (but she added that she'll) go on fighting."
So will her lawyer, Joshua Dratel, who said he'll pursue it "as far and as long as we can," including a possible Supreme Court review. The Obama US attorney's office was silent, effectively affirming a gross injustice at a time the due process and judicial fairness thresholds are so low that all Americans risk the same fate as Lynne.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Global%20Research/index.php?cmd=archives.year&ProgramID=33&year=9
posted by Steve Lendman @ 3:18 AM
From "SteveLendmanBlog"
Friday, November 20, 2009
Lynne Stewart: Heroic Human Rights Lawyer Jailed
Lynne Stewart: Heroic Human Rights Lawyer Jailed - by Stephen Lendman
On November 20, New York Times writer Colin Moynihan broke the news headlining:
"Radical Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terrorist Is Jailed," then saying:
"Defiant to the end as she embraced supporters outside the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Lynne F. Stewart, the radical lawyer known for defending unpopular clients, surrendered on Thursday to begin serving her 28-month sentence for assisting terrorism."
Fact check:
Stewart did what all attorneys should, but few, in fact, do - observe the American Bar Association's Model Rules saying all lawyers are obligated to:
"devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel."
Also to practice law ethically, morally and responsibly to assure everyone is afforded due process and judicial fairness in American courts. Sadly and disturbingly, Stewart was denied what she did for others heroically, unselfishly, and proudly. More on that below.
Stewart (prison number 53504-054) is now jailed at:
MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
Betrayed by American Justice
For 30 years, Stewart worked heroically to defend America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted, never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. Where others wouldn't go, she defended controversial figures like David Gilbert of the Weather Underground, Richard Williams of the United Freedom Front, Sekou Odinga and Nasser Ahmed of the Black Liberation Army, and many more like them. She knew the risk, but did it fearlessly and courageously until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002 for:
-- "conspiring to defraud the United States;
-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;
-- providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and
-- two counts of making false statements."
She was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that included a gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. When imposed, they prohibit discussion on topics the Justice Department (DOJ) rules outside of "legal representation," so lawyers can't discuss them with clients, thus inhibiting their defense.
At former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark's request, she joined him as part of Rahman's court-appointed defense team. In his 1995 show trial, he was convicted and is now serving a life sentence for seditious conspiracy, solicitation of murder, solicitation of an attack on American military installations, conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to bomb in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center attack despite evidence proving his innocence on all charges.
The DOJ's case wasn't about alleged crimes. It reflected his affiliations and anti-western views. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya - a 1997 US State Department-designated "foreign terrorist organization." In the 1980s, however, he helped the CIA recruit Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. For his work, he got a US visa, green card, and State Department-CIA protection as long as he was valued. When no longer, he was targeted along with Stewart.
Her case was precedent-setting, chilling, and according to the Center of Constitutional Rights Michael Ratner:
sent "a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."
Her attorney, Michael Tigar, called it:
"an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice (with) at least three fundamental faults:
-- (it) attack(ed) the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition;
-- the right to effective assistance of counsel (by) chill(ing) the defense; (and)
-- the 'evidence' in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private-attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and e-mails; I have never seen such an abuse of government power."
Her 2004 - 2005 show trial was a mockery of justice with echoes of the worst McCarthy-like tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court to prejudice the jury, and prosecutors vilified Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views. In addition, days before the verdict, the militant pro-Israeli Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse displaying her address. It threatened to "drive her out of her home and out of the state," and said she "needs to be put out of business legally and effectively."
It was part of the orchestrated scheme inside and outside the courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and intimidate other lawyers to expect the same treatment if they dare represent unpopular clients effectively.
On February 10, 2005 (after a seven month trial and 13 days of deliberation) she was convicted on all five counts. Under New York state law, she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. On October 17, 2006, she was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment, but remained free on bond pending appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Stewart Ordered to Prison
The Justice for Lynne Stewart web site (lynnestewart.org) announced the news. On November 17, the Appeals Court revoked her bond, upheld the verdict, ordered her surrender forthwith, but stayed it until November 19 at 5PM to let her attorney file a motion for reconsideration. It was denied, so she must report to federal marshals as directed. A November 19 conversation with Lynne and her husband Ralph confirmed it.
The situation remains fluid, dire, and complicated by Stewart's battle with breast cancer. She has surgery scheduled for December 7, unlikely now, but if done in prison or where authorities direct, it won't be the quality she deserves.
In its ruling, the three judge panel (John Walker, Guido Calebresi and Robert Sack) was firm, hostile and belligerent in upholding the lower court's conviction. Judge Sack accused Stewart of lying and called for a longer sentence. "We think that whether (she) lied under oath at her trial is directly relevant to whether her sentence was appropriate," he wrote, and directed District Court Judge John Koeltl to re-sentence her "so as to reflect that finding." Judge Walker was even harsher, calling the original sentence "breathtakingly low." Judge Calabrese said: "I am at a loss for any rationale upon this record that could reasonably justify a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment for this defendant."
They all said Stewart was "convicted principally with respect to (her violating) measures by which (she) had agreed to abide," namely SAMs. They rejected her "argument that, as a lawyer, she was not bound by (them), and her belated argument collaterally attacking their constitutionality." They also:
"affirm(ed her conviction) of providing and concealing material support to the conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country (and) of conspiring to provide and conceal such support....We conclude that the charges were valid (and) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. We also reject Stewart's claims that her purported attempt to serve as a 'zealous advocate' for her client provides her with immunity from the convictions...."
"Finally, we affirm Stewart's convictions for knowingly and willfully making false statements....when she affirmed that she intended to, and would, abide by the SAMs. In light of her repeated and flagrant violation of (them), a reasonable factfinder could conclude that (her) representations that she intended to and would abide by the SAMs were knowingly false when made. We reject the remaining challenges to the convictions. (We) affirm the district court's rejection of Stewart's claim that she was selectively prosecuted on account of her gender or political beliefs....We therefore affirm the convictions in their entirety."
They redirected her case to District Court Judge Koeltl for re-sentencing. The DOJ wants 30 years. Koeltl originally imposed 28 months, let Stewart remain free on bond pending appeal, implied his decision might be overturned because of a gross miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the Bush administration at the time, and handed it a major defeat. Her fate is now in his hands, but justice has already been denied at a time we're all as vulnerable as she if we dare resist state policies, unchanged under an administration no different from its predecessor.
In a November 17 news conference, Stewart said:
"I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much not to." In criticizing the Court's decision, she said its timing "on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from offshore prison in Guantanamo" suggests that lawyers appointed to represent them may face the same fate as she. "If you're going to lawyer for these people, you'd better toe very close to the line that the government has set out (because they'll) be watching you every inch of the way, (so those who don't) will end up like Lynne Stewart. This is a case that is bigger than just me personally (but she added that she'll) go on fighting."
So will her lawyer, Joshua Dratel, who said he'll pursue it "as far and as long as we can," including a possible Supreme Court review. The Obama US attorney's office was silent, effectively affirming a gross injustice at a time the due process and judicial fairness thresholds are so low that all Americans risk the same fate as Lynne.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Global%20Research/index.php?cmd=archives.year&ProgramID=33&year=9
posted by Steve Lendman @ 3:18 AM
Thursday, November 19, 2009
*Present At The Creation- Writer Gore Vidal’s Novel On The Rise Of The American Imperium- “Empire”-A Review
Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of an interview with Gore Vidal in 2007.
Book Review
Empire: A Novel, Gore Vidal, Random House, New York, 1987
The name Gore Vidal should be no stranger to the readers of this space. I have in the recent past reviewed his earlier American historical novels “Burr”, “Lincoln”, and “1876” that form something of a backdrop to the book under review, “Empire”. Although I have noted, in those previous reviews, that I generally take my history lessons “straight” from historical writers, occasionally, as with the case of Vidal, I am more than happy to see history tweaked a little in novel form. Vidal does not disappoint here, although the cast of characters, past and present, overall form a weaker story line at the end of the 19th century with the rise of the power-driven American imperial impulses than his earlier efforts. That may say something about what kind of misbegotten characters the age produced, variously known as the “Gilded Age”, “The Age Of The Robber Barons” and the “Age Of The Rise Of The American Imperium”, as those in power threw into the dustbin of history that quaint and old-fashioned term coined by Lincoln about the American republic being “the last, best hope for mankind”.
Vidal’s historical novels work on two levels, which may account for their appeal to political types like me. First is the thread that holds all the novels together in the person, fictionalized or not, of Aaron Burr and his progeny, or better, alleged progeny who, helter-skelter, keep making odd appearances in each work and generally product a main character for each succeeding novel. Here the Burr connection is in the person of Caroline Sanford, a young, feisty, independent woman of the late 19th century linked to Burr through her grandfather (maybe)who wants to take her part in a quintessentially man’s world riding the crest of the rising prominence of the print media. Her struggle for her place in the sun (and her fight with her half-brother over rightful inheritance)is the core personal story told here.
The second level is the liberal use of real historical figures, usually high government officials or other worthies, as seen in their “off-duty” endeavors, usually pursuing some power position or a sexual adventure. Or both. That’s about right for this milieu, agreed? Although the gap between fictional and real characters is sometimes blurred, here mainly Lincoln’s old personal White House secretary John Hay who now has come, front and center, into his own as President McKinley’s Secretary of State in the aftermath of the 1898 Spanish-American War, that ‘splendid little war that started the American republic full-throttle on the road to the imperium. Obviously, no Gilded Age period piece is complete without many pages on the “exploits”, political and military, of one “Teddy” Roosevelt. Brother Vidal takes old Teddy down a peg or two here.
To finish off the period, and to note the decline of the original Puritan/Yankee spirit that drove the early history of this country, the last major prominent member of the Adams clan(excluding Brook Adams who has a cameo role here), Henry, is brought in as a weak conscious-driven counterweight to the “hard-pans” (read: new rich) who would dominate the American scene in the 20th century and whose progeny still burden us today. This is a quick read but a thoughtful novel of the perils of America's starting down that imperial road to replace the British Empire as the main world power. Worst though we are still dealing with the ramifications of those decisions today. Read the real history but also read Vidal.
Book Review
Empire: A Novel, Gore Vidal, Random House, New York, 1987
The name Gore Vidal should be no stranger to the readers of this space. I have in the recent past reviewed his earlier American historical novels “Burr”, “Lincoln”, and “1876” that form something of a backdrop to the book under review, “Empire”. Although I have noted, in those previous reviews, that I generally take my history lessons “straight” from historical writers, occasionally, as with the case of Vidal, I am more than happy to see history tweaked a little in novel form. Vidal does not disappoint here, although the cast of characters, past and present, overall form a weaker story line at the end of the 19th century with the rise of the power-driven American imperial impulses than his earlier efforts. That may say something about what kind of misbegotten characters the age produced, variously known as the “Gilded Age”, “The Age Of The Robber Barons” and the “Age Of The Rise Of The American Imperium”, as those in power threw into the dustbin of history that quaint and old-fashioned term coined by Lincoln about the American republic being “the last, best hope for mankind”.
Vidal’s historical novels work on two levels, which may account for their appeal to political types like me. First is the thread that holds all the novels together in the person, fictionalized or not, of Aaron Burr and his progeny, or better, alleged progeny who, helter-skelter, keep making odd appearances in each work and generally product a main character for each succeeding novel. Here the Burr connection is in the person of Caroline Sanford, a young, feisty, independent woman of the late 19th century linked to Burr through her grandfather (maybe)who wants to take her part in a quintessentially man’s world riding the crest of the rising prominence of the print media. Her struggle for her place in the sun (and her fight with her half-brother over rightful inheritance)is the core personal story told here.
The second level is the liberal use of real historical figures, usually high government officials or other worthies, as seen in their “off-duty” endeavors, usually pursuing some power position or a sexual adventure. Or both. That’s about right for this milieu, agreed? Although the gap between fictional and real characters is sometimes blurred, here mainly Lincoln’s old personal White House secretary John Hay who now has come, front and center, into his own as President McKinley’s Secretary of State in the aftermath of the 1898 Spanish-American War, that ‘splendid little war that started the American republic full-throttle on the road to the imperium. Obviously, no Gilded Age period piece is complete without many pages on the “exploits”, political and military, of one “Teddy” Roosevelt. Brother Vidal takes old Teddy down a peg or two here.
To finish off the period, and to note the decline of the original Puritan/Yankee spirit that drove the early history of this country, the last major prominent member of the Adams clan(excluding Brook Adams who has a cameo role here), Henry, is brought in as a weak conscious-driven counterweight to the “hard-pans” (read: new rich) who would dominate the American scene in the 20th century and whose progeny still burden us today. This is a quick read but a thoughtful novel of the perils of America's starting down that imperial road to replace the British Empire as the main world power. Worst though we are still dealing with the ramifications of those decisions today. Read the real history but also read Vidal.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
***Tales From The 1950s Crypt- “Revolutionary Road”- This Ain’t “Ozzie And Harriet”
Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of the trailer for the movie, "Revolutionary Road".
DVD Review
Revolutionary Road, based on the book by Richard Yates, starring Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio, DreamWorks Productions, 2008
Over the past period I have seemingly endlessly retailed the experiences of my young adulthood during the 1960s, the time of the “generation of ‘68”. That makes me, obviously, a child of the 1950s, the time period of this very interesting movie, “Revolutionary Road”, based on a book by the darkly sardonic writer, Richard Yates. I have also seemingly endlessly pointed out my experiences and the effects they had as a result of growing up among the marginally working poor in that ‘golden age’. I am fond of saying that I didn’t know there was any other condition than being poor for a long time. Well, I did find out there were other conditions although in my youth I would still have had a hard time relating to the story line of this film. The ‘trials and tribulations’, then, of an upwardly mobile, prosperous young couple, the Wheelers, Frank and April, with the mandatory two charming children (although amazingly well hidden throughout the film) and a nice leafy suburban house in some nice town in Connecticut would have gone over my head. Now though I can a little more readily appreciate the seamy psychologically paralyzing side of that existence.
As graphically portrayed in the film, that seamy side that also provided some of the most powerful scenes in the movie, and best acting moments by both Winslett and DiCaprio (last seen together in "Titanic") the central driving force of the story is the emptiness of middle class existence in the 1950s. Cookie-cutter is the word that came to mind as Frank and April try to break the golden bonds that keep them tied to their old life. One of the nice moments cinematically is the sequence involving Frank’s routine workday morning ritual catching the train to New York City (along with all the other felt-hatted men, the symbol of success in that period). Another sober moment is when April takes out the rubbish in their deathless suburban tract and realizes that this life is not for her.
But how to break those golden chains? The issues presented here about consumerism, meaningless and vacuous work, the isolated role of women in the nuclear family (and the question of women's reproductive rights that drives the final section of the film), the eternal struggle for security in an individualistically-driven society are all issues that got a fuller workout and wider airing in the 1960s (and since). In a sense the ‘whimsical’ Wheelers were too early. They were before their time. However, although times have changed, I will bet serious money that if you go to some Connecticut train station headed to New York City on any Monday morning you will see, two generations removed and without the hats, men and women making that same meaningless trip that old Frank made. Yates was definitely onto something about the nature of modern capitalist social organization. But I will confess something, although I know better now the stresses of that fate, I would not have minded, minded at all, growing up in that little ‘cottage’ the Wheelers called home. That, however, is a story for another day. In the meantime note this. I am glad, glad as hell, that I followed my version of 'revolutionary road', not theirs.
DVD Review
Revolutionary Road, based on the book by Richard Yates, starring Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio, DreamWorks Productions, 2008
Over the past period I have seemingly endlessly retailed the experiences of my young adulthood during the 1960s, the time of the “generation of ‘68”. That makes me, obviously, a child of the 1950s, the time period of this very interesting movie, “Revolutionary Road”, based on a book by the darkly sardonic writer, Richard Yates. I have also seemingly endlessly pointed out my experiences and the effects they had as a result of growing up among the marginally working poor in that ‘golden age’. I am fond of saying that I didn’t know there was any other condition than being poor for a long time. Well, I did find out there were other conditions although in my youth I would still have had a hard time relating to the story line of this film. The ‘trials and tribulations’, then, of an upwardly mobile, prosperous young couple, the Wheelers, Frank and April, with the mandatory two charming children (although amazingly well hidden throughout the film) and a nice leafy suburban house in some nice town in Connecticut would have gone over my head. Now though I can a little more readily appreciate the seamy psychologically paralyzing side of that existence.
As graphically portrayed in the film, that seamy side that also provided some of the most powerful scenes in the movie, and best acting moments by both Winslett and DiCaprio (last seen together in "Titanic") the central driving force of the story is the emptiness of middle class existence in the 1950s. Cookie-cutter is the word that came to mind as Frank and April try to break the golden bonds that keep them tied to their old life. One of the nice moments cinematically is the sequence involving Frank’s routine workday morning ritual catching the train to New York City (along with all the other felt-hatted men, the symbol of success in that period). Another sober moment is when April takes out the rubbish in their deathless suburban tract and realizes that this life is not for her.
But how to break those golden chains? The issues presented here about consumerism, meaningless and vacuous work, the isolated role of women in the nuclear family (and the question of women's reproductive rights that drives the final section of the film), the eternal struggle for security in an individualistically-driven society are all issues that got a fuller workout and wider airing in the 1960s (and since). In a sense the ‘whimsical’ Wheelers were too early. They were before their time. However, although times have changed, I will bet serious money that if you go to some Connecticut train station headed to New York City on any Monday morning you will see, two generations removed and without the hats, men and women making that same meaningless trip that old Frank made. Yates was definitely onto something about the nature of modern capitalist social organization. But I will confess something, although I know better now the stresses of that fate, I would not have minded, minded at all, growing up in that little ‘cottage’ the Wheelers called home. That, however, is a story for another day. In the meantime note this. I am glad, glad as hell, that I followed my version of 'revolutionary road', not theirs.
*Writer’s Corner- Dalton Trumbo’s Anti-War Classic “Johnny Got His Gun”
Click on title to link to Wikipedia's entry for Dalton Trumbo's classic anti-war novel "Johnny Got His Gun".
Book Review
Johnny Got His Gun, Dalton Trumbo, Vintage, New York, 1993
The subject of war has had all sorts of novelistic treatments, the most successful usually trending lightly on the war action itself and delving into the personal choices and consequences of the characters as their central aim. In that odd sense the most compelling novelistic treatments are either pro-war (for some seemingly rational reason like defending one’s country or coming to the aid of a smaller, weaker country, etc.) or neutral to the more physical and psychological dimensions of the situation. A flat out, anti-war (or, to use a more vague term, pacifistic) treatment is usually not successful either because it has a “preaching to the choir” quality or strikes some false chord. That is not the case with Dalton Trumbo’s “Johnny Got His Gun”.
Although this novel was written under the sign of the Hitler-Stalin Pact in the late 1930s , reflected in Communist International and American Communist Party political line as one of intense opposition to Western war preparations it brings more home truths than merely another piece of ‘communistic’ propaganda and it would be incorrect even for staunch anti-Stalinists to dismiss it out of hand. Joe, the main character here, maimed beyond belief and repair, is every mother’s son, every American mother’s son. His interior monologue, as he remembers his past, his lost youth, his desires and the useless way he was used in the last days of World War I is almost unique in the way the story unfolds. It certainly is not for the faint-hearted, or the weak-minded. As steps are now being taken to up the ante in Afghanistan, another one of those wars to ‘defend’ democracy this thing should be required reading for every mother, and every mother’s son and daughter who seeks to put him or herself in harm’s way.
Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye
words and music Traditional
While on the road to sweet Athy, hurroo, hurroo
While on the road to sweet Athy, hurroo, hurroo
While on the road to sweet Athy
A stick in me hand and a drop in me eye
A doleful damsel I heard cry,
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
With your drums and guns and drums and guns, hurroo, hurroo
With your drums and guns and drums and guns, hurroo, hurroo
With your drums and guns and drums and guns
The enemy nearly slew ye
Oh my darling dear, Ye look so queer
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Where are your eyes that look so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that look so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that look so mild
When my poor heart you first beguiled
Why did ye run from me and the child
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
Where are your legs with which ye run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs with which ye run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs with which ye run
When first you learned to carry a gun
Indeed your dancing days are done
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home
All from the island of Sulloon
So low in flesh, so high in bone
Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg
Ye're an armless, boneless, chickenless egg
Ye'll be having to put a bowl to beg
Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye.
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home
All from the island of Ceylon;
So low in the flesh, so high in the boon.
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Extra lyrics I found:
They're rolling out the guns again, hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again, hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again
But they never will take our sons again
No they never will take our sons again
Johnny I'm swearing to ye.
Chords: KEY D
Background: Which came first the chicken or the egg. I first learned about "Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye" from a popular American version written during the Civil War. That song "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" was first published in 1863 as "Words and Music by Louis Lambert," which was a pseudonym for Patrick Sarsfield, 1829-1892. Patrick was a native of Ireland who emigrated to Boston. "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" is a rousing song about a hero returning from war.
The first published version of "Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye" came out several years after Sarsfield's song. Nevertheless, it is strongly believed to have originated in Ireland.
It's a much more somber song that tells about the woes and horrors of war in the popular folk tradition of describing the body parts blown off a soldier who does not come home to his love.
Book Review
Johnny Got His Gun, Dalton Trumbo, Vintage, New York, 1993
The subject of war has had all sorts of novelistic treatments, the most successful usually trending lightly on the war action itself and delving into the personal choices and consequences of the characters as their central aim. In that odd sense the most compelling novelistic treatments are either pro-war (for some seemingly rational reason like defending one’s country or coming to the aid of a smaller, weaker country, etc.) or neutral to the more physical and psychological dimensions of the situation. A flat out, anti-war (or, to use a more vague term, pacifistic) treatment is usually not successful either because it has a “preaching to the choir” quality or strikes some false chord. That is not the case with Dalton Trumbo’s “Johnny Got His Gun”.
Although this novel was written under the sign of the Hitler-Stalin Pact in the late 1930s , reflected in Communist International and American Communist Party political line as one of intense opposition to Western war preparations it brings more home truths than merely another piece of ‘communistic’ propaganda and it would be incorrect even for staunch anti-Stalinists to dismiss it out of hand. Joe, the main character here, maimed beyond belief and repair, is every mother’s son, every American mother’s son. His interior monologue, as he remembers his past, his lost youth, his desires and the useless way he was used in the last days of World War I is almost unique in the way the story unfolds. It certainly is not for the faint-hearted, or the weak-minded. As steps are now being taken to up the ante in Afghanistan, another one of those wars to ‘defend’ democracy this thing should be required reading for every mother, and every mother’s son and daughter who seeks to put him or herself in harm’s way.
Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye
words and music Traditional
While on the road to sweet Athy, hurroo, hurroo
While on the road to sweet Athy, hurroo, hurroo
While on the road to sweet Athy
A stick in me hand and a drop in me eye
A doleful damsel I heard cry,
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
With your drums and guns and drums and guns, hurroo, hurroo
With your drums and guns and drums and guns, hurroo, hurroo
With your drums and guns and drums and guns
The enemy nearly slew ye
Oh my darling dear, Ye look so queer
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Where are your eyes that look so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that look so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that look so mild
When my poor heart you first beguiled
Why did ye run from me and the child
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
Where are your legs with which ye run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs with which ye run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs with which ye run
When first you learned to carry a gun
Indeed your dancing days are done
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home
All from the island of Sulloon
So low in flesh, so high in bone
Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg
Ye're an armless, boneless, chickenless egg
Ye'll be having to put a bowl to beg
Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye.
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home
All from the island of Ceylon;
So low in the flesh, so high in the boon.
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Extra lyrics I found:
They're rolling out the guns again, hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again, hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again
But they never will take our sons again
No they never will take our sons again
Johnny I'm swearing to ye.
Chords: KEY D
Background: Which came first the chicken or the egg. I first learned about "Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye" from a popular American version written during the Civil War. That song "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" was first published in 1863 as "Words and Music by Louis Lambert," which was a pseudonym for Patrick Sarsfield, 1829-1892. Patrick was a native of Ireland who emigrated to Boston. "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" is a rousing song about a hero returning from war.
The first published version of "Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye" came out several years after Sarsfield's song. Nevertheless, it is strongly believed to have originated in Ireland.
It's a much more somber song that tells about the woes and horrors of war in the popular folk tradition of describing the body parts blown off a soldier who does not come home to his love.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
*Poet’s Corner- Early Soviet Poet Vladimir Mayakovsky
Click on title to link to the Vladimir Mayakovsky Internet Archive to read some of his poems, especially from the famous "The Bedbug" volume.
Vladimir Mayakovsky 1922
You
Source: The Bedbug and selected poetry, translated by Max Hayward and George Reavey. Meridian Books, New York, 1960;Transcribed: by Mitchell Abidor.
You came –
determined, because I was large,
because I was roaring,
but on close inspectionyou saw a mere boy.
You seized and snatched away my heartand
beganto play with it –
like a girl with a bouncing ball.
And before this miracle
every womanwas either a lady astounded
or a maiden inquiring:
“Love such a fellow?
Why, he'll pounce on you!
She must be a lion tamer,a girl from the zoo!”
But I was triumphant.I didn’t feel it –the yoke!
Oblivious with joy,
I jumped and leapt about,
a bride-happy redskin,
I felt so elated and light.
Vladimir Mayakovsky 1922
You
Source: The Bedbug and selected poetry, translated by Max Hayward and George Reavey. Meridian Books, New York, 1960;Transcribed: by Mitchell Abidor.
You came –
determined, because I was large,
because I was roaring,
but on close inspectionyou saw a mere boy.
You seized and snatched away my heartand
beganto play with it –
like a girl with a bouncing ball.
And before this miracle
every womanwas either a lady astounded
or a maiden inquiring:
“Love such a fellow?
Why, he'll pounce on you!
She must be a lion tamer,a girl from the zoo!”
But I was triumphant.I didn’t feel it –the yoke!
Oblivious with joy,
I jumped and leapt about,
a bride-happy redskin,
I felt so elated and light.
*From The Pen Of Early Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky- On Henrik Ibsen
Click on title to link to the Anatol Lunacharsky Internet Archive's copy of his essay on the great Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen. Lunacharsky may have been a 'soft' Bolshevik and conciliatory toward Stalin, when the deal went down and the Russian Left Opposition was defeated, but he certainly has some interesting and thoughtful insights on the "culture wars" of his day.
*From The Pen Of Early Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky-On Marcel Proust
Click on title to link to the Anatol Lunacharsky Internet Archive's copy of his essay on the great French writer Marcel Proust. Lunacharsky may have been a 'soft' Bolshevik and conciliatory toward Stalin, when the deal went down and the Russian Left Opposition was defeated, but he certainly has some interesting and thoughtful insights on the "culture wars" of his day.
*From The Pen Of Early Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky- On Maxim Gorky
Click on title to link to the Anatol Lunacharsky Internet Archive's copy of his essay on the great Russian writer Maxim Gorky. Lunacharsky may have been a 'soft' Bolshevik and conciliatory toward Stalin, when the deal went down and the Russian Left Opposition was defeated, but he certainly has some interesting and thoughtful insights on the "culture wars" of his day.
*From The Pen Of Early Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky- On Russian Poet Mayakovsky
Click on title to link to the Anatol Lunacharsky Internet Archive's copy of his essay on the great Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky. Lunacharsky may have been a 'soft' Bolshevik and conciliatory toward Stalin, when the deal went down and the Russian Left Opposition was defeated, but he certainly has some interesting and thoughtful insights on the "culture wars" of his day.
*From The Pen Of Early Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky-On George Bernard Shaw
Click on title to link to the Anatol Lunacharsky Internet Archive's copy of his essay on the great British writer George Bernard Shaw. Lunacharsky may have been a 'soft' Bolshevik and conciliatory toward Stalin, when the deal went down and the Russian Left Opposition was defeated, but he certainly has some interesting and thoughtful insights on the "culture wars" of his day.
*From The Pen Of Early Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky- On Dostoevsky
Click on title to link to the Anatol Lunacharsky Internet Archive's copy of his essay on the great Russian writer Dostoevsky. Lunacharsky may have been a 'soft' Bolshevik and conciliatory toward Stalin, when the deal went down and the Russian Left Opposition was defeated, but he certainly has some interesting and thoughtful insights on the "culture wars" of his day.
*From The Pen Of Early Soviet Culture Commissar Anatol Lunacharsky- On Pushkin
Click on title to link to the Anatol Lunacharsky Internet Archive's copy of his essay on the great Russian writer Pushkin. Lunacharsky may have been a 'soft' Bolshevik and conciliatory toward Stalin, when the deal went down and the Russian Left Oppposition was defeated, but he certainly has some interesting and thoughtful insights on the "culture wars" of his day.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
*On The 20th Anniversary Of The Fall Of The Berlin Wall- From The Pen Of Alan Woods- A Guest Commentary
Click on title to link to an "In Defense Of Marxism" article (via Renegade Eye)by Alan Woods on November 9, 2009 the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Markin comment:
This article by Alan Woods is a useful general commentary that does a fairly good job of highlighting the events of that period. Two weaknesses in the article though. A little too strong emphasis on the anecdotal evidence that some of those who thought that so-called "market socialism" would be better than the bureaucratized central planning system that they known. There is no, or little, evidence that this post-dated "buyer's remorse" noted in the article has led to anything stronger than some grumbling.
More importantly, there is no information in the article about what the International Marxist Tendency's policies were at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and what they were advising their co-thinkers to do. In short how to fight for the political revolution (or at least fight off the counterrevolution) For an article attempting to teach the lessons of history and to educate today's youth that is a serious shortcoming. Unless one believes that nothing could be done and that one should just follow the crowd. That would be worse.
Markin comment- November 16, 2009
This last point is of no mere academic interest. I am personally, painfully, aware of what an incorrect orientation, or rather a somewhat early studied indifference toward the events of 20 years ago surrounding the demise of the deformed and degenerated workers states signaled above all by the fall of the Berlin Wall had on future revolutionary prospects. I have noted elsewhere in this space (see "*On The 20th Anniversary Of The Fall Of The Berlin Wall - The Defeated Fight To Save Socialism- The International Communist League View", Novemeber 2, 2009) what the demise of the Soviet Union and the other non-capitalist states of East Europe have had on the prospects for socialism. The learning of the lessons of that hard truth will be the subject for a future fuller commentary but for now here is an outline of my thinking on the matter.
Throughout most of the last half of the 1980s I (and here in this commentary I speak solely for myself), and some other political associates I was working with at the time, some in Europe although none directly in Germany, had our eyes and political antennae focused on what we consistently considered the alarming situation in the Soviet Union (and to a lesser extent China, the other important workers state). Frankly, the bubbling up of intensely pro-capitalism opposition from various East European countries caught me by surprise, at least its intensity. Moreover, toward the destruction of the Berlin Wall as anything other than a secondary symbolic gesture I was rather agnostic.
Why? Two basic reasons that bear directly on my comments on the Wood article above. First, I overestimated the commitment of the various Stalinist bureaucracies to preserving their own workers states (the desire to hold onto state power for their own personal or political reasons). If one of the prerequisites for revolution (or, as here, counter-revolution) is that the old ruling regime cannot, or will not, defend itself against popular mass action then this proved to be massively true in 1989. Above all I thought the East German bureaucracy, as pivotal as the DRG was to the military and political interest of the Soviet Union, would…hold out in the short term. I was ready to make, devoted Trotsky admirer or not, a tacit bloc with any wing of the crumbling Stalinist bureaucracies that would just not give up (at least until we could organize the pro-communist, anti-Stalinist political revolution against them).
Secondly, I underestimated the extent of the rejection of socialism among the populations, including the working classes, of the East European states as a whole. This view certainly underestimated the identification in the popular mind of Stalinism and socialism (a continuing one, by the way). For a whole bunch of historical reasons, including feelings of national oppression by the presence of Soviet troops, I knew that some sections of the population had always been hostile to socialism, in any form. Rather than cut across that clearly and cleanly with a call for a new Bolshevik Party to rally whatever pro-socialist forces were around and to fight against the counter-revolutionary actions unfolding I drifted along trying to deny reality. And that reality, from our pro-communist perspective, was that rather than an amorphous mass this situation was driven by serious counter-revolutionary impulses. The media images might have been wrapped up in “democratic” rhetoric but no Western imperialist was unhappy with what they saw unfolding among the “people”. I think, for now at least, these comments should buttress my case for the need to learn the lessons of the history of this period for our side. We already know their "death of communism" side. More, and I think much more, later.
Markin comment:
This article by Alan Woods is a useful general commentary that does a fairly good job of highlighting the events of that period. Two weaknesses in the article though. A little too strong emphasis on the anecdotal evidence that some of those who thought that so-called "market socialism" would be better than the bureaucratized central planning system that they known. There is no, or little, evidence that this post-dated "buyer's remorse" noted in the article has led to anything stronger than some grumbling.
More importantly, there is no information in the article about what the International Marxist Tendency's policies were at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and what they were advising their co-thinkers to do. In short how to fight for the political revolution (or at least fight off the counterrevolution) For an article attempting to teach the lessons of history and to educate today's youth that is a serious shortcoming. Unless one believes that nothing could be done and that one should just follow the crowd. That would be worse.
Markin comment- November 16, 2009
This last point is of no mere academic interest. I am personally, painfully, aware of what an incorrect orientation, or rather a somewhat early studied indifference toward the events of 20 years ago surrounding the demise of the deformed and degenerated workers states signaled above all by the fall of the Berlin Wall had on future revolutionary prospects. I have noted elsewhere in this space (see "*On The 20th Anniversary Of The Fall Of The Berlin Wall - The Defeated Fight To Save Socialism- The International Communist League View", Novemeber 2, 2009) what the demise of the Soviet Union and the other non-capitalist states of East Europe have had on the prospects for socialism. The learning of the lessons of that hard truth will be the subject for a future fuller commentary but for now here is an outline of my thinking on the matter.
Throughout most of the last half of the 1980s I (and here in this commentary I speak solely for myself), and some other political associates I was working with at the time, some in Europe although none directly in Germany, had our eyes and political antennae focused on what we consistently considered the alarming situation in the Soviet Union (and to a lesser extent China, the other important workers state). Frankly, the bubbling up of intensely pro-capitalism opposition from various East European countries caught me by surprise, at least its intensity. Moreover, toward the destruction of the Berlin Wall as anything other than a secondary symbolic gesture I was rather agnostic.
Why? Two basic reasons that bear directly on my comments on the Wood article above. First, I overestimated the commitment of the various Stalinist bureaucracies to preserving their own workers states (the desire to hold onto state power for their own personal or political reasons). If one of the prerequisites for revolution (or, as here, counter-revolution) is that the old ruling regime cannot, or will not, defend itself against popular mass action then this proved to be massively true in 1989. Above all I thought the East German bureaucracy, as pivotal as the DRG was to the military and political interest of the Soviet Union, would…hold out in the short term. I was ready to make, devoted Trotsky admirer or not, a tacit bloc with any wing of the crumbling Stalinist bureaucracies that would just not give up (at least until we could organize the pro-communist, anti-Stalinist political revolution against them).
Secondly, I underestimated the extent of the rejection of socialism among the populations, including the working classes, of the East European states as a whole. This view certainly underestimated the identification in the popular mind of Stalinism and socialism (a continuing one, by the way). For a whole bunch of historical reasons, including feelings of national oppression by the presence of Soviet troops, I knew that some sections of the population had always been hostile to socialism, in any form. Rather than cut across that clearly and cleanly with a call for a new Bolshevik Party to rally whatever pro-socialist forces were around and to fight against the counter-revolutionary actions unfolding I drifted along trying to deny reality. And that reality, from our pro-communist perspective, was that rather than an amorphous mass this situation was driven by serious counter-revolutionary impulses. The media images might have been wrapped up in “democratic” rhetoric but no Western imperialist was unhappy with what they saw unfolding among the “people”. I think, for now at least, these comments should buttress my case for the need to learn the lessons of the history of this period for our side. We already know their "death of communism" side. More, and I think much more, later.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
*In Pete Seeger's House- "Rainbow Quest"-Herbert Manana
Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of Pete Seeger's now famous 1960s (black and white, that's the give-away)"Rainbow Quest" for the performer in this entry's headline.
Markin comment:
This series, featuring Pete Seeger and virtually most of the key performers in the 1960s folk scene is a worthy entry into the folk archival traditions for future revivalists to seek out. There were thirty plus episodes (some contained more than one performer of note, as well as Pete solo performances). I have placed the YouTube film clips here one spot over four days, November 10-13, 2009 for the reader's convenience.
Markin comment:
This series, featuring Pete Seeger and virtually most of the key performers in the 1960s folk scene is a worthy entry into the folk archival traditions for future revivalists to seek out. There were thirty plus episodes (some contained more than one performer of note, as well as Pete solo performances). I have placed the YouTube film clips here one spot over four days, November 10-13, 2009 for the reader's convenience.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
*In Pete Seeger's House- "Rainbow Quest"- Ramblin' Jack Elliott
Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of Pete Seeger's now famous 1960s (black and white, that's the give-away)"Rainbow Quest" for the performer in this entry's headline.
Markin comment:
This series, featuring Pete Seeger and virtually most of the key performers in the 1960s folk scene is a worthy entry into the folk archival traditions for future revivalists to seek out. There were thirty plus episodes (some contained more than one performer of note, as well as Pete solo performances. I have placed the YouTube film clips here one spot over four days, November 10-13, 2009 for the reader's convenience.
San Francisco Bay Blues
Words & Music by Jesse Fuller, 1954
Recorded by Peter, Paul & Mary, 1965
B7 E A Edim E E7
I got the blues when my baby left me down by the Frisco Bay;
A F#m Cdim E E7
An ocean liner came and took her away.
A B7 E G#m C#m
I didn't mean to treat her bad, she was the best gal I ever had;
F#7
She said good-bye, made me cry,
B7 F#7 B7
Made me wanna lay down my head and die.
Refrain:
B7 E A Edim E E7
Well I ain't got a nickel, and I ain't got a lousy dime–,
A F#m Cdim G#7
She don't come back, I think I'm gonna lose my mind.
A B7 E G#7 C#7
She ever comes back to stay, it's gonna be another brand new day,
A B7 E Cdim B7
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay.
Bridge:
E A Edim E A Edim E
Well, I'm sittin' here on the back porch, don't know which way to go;
A F#m G#7
The gal that I'm so crazy about, she don't love me anymore.
A Cdim F#m E G#m C#m
Think I'm gonna take a freight train, 'cause I'm feelin' blue,
F#7 C#m7-5 F#7 B7 F#7 B7
Gonna ride it to the end of the line, thinkin' only of you.
Refrain:
B7 E A Edim E E7
Well I ain't got a nickel, and I ain't got a lousy dime–,
A F#m G#7
She don't come back, I think I'm gonna lose my mind.
A B7 E G#7 C#7
She ever comes back to stay, it's gonna be another brand new day,
A B7 E Cm7-5 C#7
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay,
A B7 E Fdim(IV) C#7
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay,
A B7 E A7 Am7 E6
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay.
I've been playing this song for years, since Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of it, and I learned to enjoy it all over again when Eric Clapton included his version on "Unplugged." Recently I transposed it, just for kicks...and found that it became fun to play all over again because of the new chord progression.
Recent visitor Gordon Jackson forwarded me a short bio on composer Jesse Fuller, reprinted in part here:
In 1951, Fuller decided to devote himself entirely to his music, and over the next decade he built a small cult following. He often used a one-man band setup he had devised that allowed him to play guitar, harmonica, hi-hat with castanets, and his own invention, the footdella (a piano-string bass operated with a foot pedal). He wrote, 'San Francisco Bay Blues" in 1954, and five years later appeared at the Monterey Jazz Festival. Fuller became popular in Europe and England, and toured the U.S. regularly throughout the Sixties. It wasn't until the mid-Fifties that he began recording, cutting his early tracks for Prestige (later reissued on Fantasy). In 1976, he died of heart disease. (From the Rolling Stone Encyclopaedia of Rock and Roll. 1983.)
Markin comment:
This series, featuring Pete Seeger and virtually most of the key performers in the 1960s folk scene is a worthy entry into the folk archival traditions for future revivalists to seek out. There were thirty plus episodes (some contained more than one performer of note, as well as Pete solo performances. I have placed the YouTube film clips here one spot over four days, November 10-13, 2009 for the reader's convenience.
San Francisco Bay Blues
Words & Music by Jesse Fuller, 1954
Recorded by Peter, Paul & Mary, 1965
B7 E A Edim E E7
I got the blues when my baby left me down by the Frisco Bay;
A F#m Cdim E E7
An ocean liner came and took her away.
A B7 E G#m C#m
I didn't mean to treat her bad, she was the best gal I ever had;
F#7
She said good-bye, made me cry,
B7 F#7 B7
Made me wanna lay down my head and die.
Refrain:
B7 E A Edim E E7
Well I ain't got a nickel, and I ain't got a lousy dime–,
A F#m Cdim G#7
She don't come back, I think I'm gonna lose my mind.
A B7 E G#7 C#7
She ever comes back to stay, it's gonna be another brand new day,
A B7 E Cdim B7
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay.
Bridge:
E A Edim E A Edim E
Well, I'm sittin' here on the back porch, don't know which way to go;
A F#m G#7
The gal that I'm so crazy about, she don't love me anymore.
A Cdim F#m E G#m C#m
Think I'm gonna take a freight train, 'cause I'm feelin' blue,
F#7 C#m7-5 F#7 B7 F#7 B7
Gonna ride it to the end of the line, thinkin' only of you.
Refrain:
B7 E A Edim E E7
Well I ain't got a nickel, and I ain't got a lousy dime–,
A F#m G#7
She don't come back, I think I'm gonna lose my mind.
A B7 E G#7 C#7
She ever comes back to stay, it's gonna be another brand new day,
A B7 E Cm7-5 C#7
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay,
A B7 E Fdim(IV) C#7
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay,
A B7 E A7 Am7 E6
Walkin' with my baby by the San Francisco Bay.
I've been playing this song for years, since Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of it, and I learned to enjoy it all over again when Eric Clapton included his version on "Unplugged." Recently I transposed it, just for kicks...and found that it became fun to play all over again because of the new chord progression.
Recent visitor Gordon Jackson forwarded me a short bio on composer Jesse Fuller, reprinted in part here:
In 1951, Fuller decided to devote himself entirely to his music, and over the next decade he built a small cult following. He often used a one-man band setup he had devised that allowed him to play guitar, harmonica, hi-hat with castanets, and his own invention, the footdella (a piano-string bass operated with a foot pedal). He wrote, 'San Francisco Bay Blues" in 1954, and five years later appeared at the Monterey Jazz Festival. Fuller became popular in Europe and England, and toured the U.S. regularly throughout the Sixties. It wasn't until the mid-Fifties that he began recording, cutting his early tracks for Prestige (later reissued on Fantasy). In 1976, he died of heart disease. (From the Rolling Stone Encyclopaedia of Rock and Roll. 1983.)
*In Pete Seeger's House- "Rainbow Quest"- The Reverend Gary Davis Holds Forth
Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of Pete Seeger's now famous 1960s (black and white, that's the give-away)"Rainbow Quest" for the performer in this entry's headline.
Markin comment:
This series, featuring Pete Seeger and virtually most of the key performers in the 1960s folk scene is a worthy entry into the folk archival traditions for future revivalists to seek out. There were thirty plus episodes (some contained more than one performer of note, as well as Pete solo performances. I have placed the YouTube film clips here one spot over four days, November 10-13, 2009 for the reader's convenience.
"I’m on My Way"
Im on my way from misery to happiness today
Im on my way from misery to happiness today
Im on my way to what I want from this world
And years from now youll make it to the next world
And everything that you receive up yonder
Is what you gave to me the day I wandered
I took a right, I took a right turning yesterday
I took a right, I took a right turning yesterday
I took the road that brought me to your home town
I took the bus to streets that I could walk down
I walked the streets to find the one Id looked for
I climbed the stair that led me to your front door
And now that I dont want for anthing
Id have al jolson sing Im sitting on top of the world
Ill do my best, Ill do my best to do the best I can
Ill do my best, Ill do my best to do the best I can
To keep my feet from jumping from the ground dear
To keep my heart from jumping through my mouth dear
To keep the past, the past and not the present
To try and learn when you teach me a lesson
And now that I dont want for anything
Id have al joison sing Im sitting on top of the world.
Markin comment:
This series, featuring Pete Seeger and virtually most of the key performers in the 1960s folk scene is a worthy entry into the folk archival traditions for future revivalists to seek out. There were thirty plus episodes (some contained more than one performer of note, as well as Pete solo performances. I have placed the YouTube film clips here one spot over four days, November 10-13, 2009 for the reader's convenience.
"I’m on My Way"
Im on my way from misery to happiness today
Im on my way from misery to happiness today
Im on my way to what I want from this world
And years from now youll make it to the next world
And everything that you receive up yonder
Is what you gave to me the day I wandered
I took a right, I took a right turning yesterday
I took a right, I took a right turning yesterday
I took the road that brought me to your home town
I took the bus to streets that I could walk down
I walked the streets to find the one Id looked for
I climbed the stair that led me to your front door
And now that I dont want for anthing
Id have al jolson sing Im sitting on top of the world
Ill do my best, Ill do my best to do the best I can
Ill do my best, Ill do my best to do the best I can
To keep my feet from jumping from the ground dear
To keep my heart from jumping through my mouth dear
To keep the past, the past and not the present
To try and learn when you teach me a lesson
And now that I dont want for anything
Id have al joison sing Im sitting on top of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)