Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Delong says you're wrong. You should read the Vox interview I linked to, and then we can discuss it. If you have read it, maybe we can try discussing what he said instead of pretending we haven't read it.

If you’re going to refute my disagreement with an article in which I clearly refer to the centerpiece argument of the article, indicating I must have read it, citing the article to state that I’m wrong isn’t going to cause the conversation to progress in any meaningful manner. It’s just one of those things... like gravity.

ETA: If I didn’t disagree with that point in the article, what other one would I disagree with? I read no other resonant observations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The exchange of various insults is all politically driven in my mind. Republicans represent places where displaying bigotry against Muslims benefits them electorally. They are trying to win places where taking umbrage about antisemitism might get them track (e.g., Florida). Omar lives somewhere where there Israel is likely viewed very skeptically.

At some point, you need sensible discussions, and cutting back on fodder for the crazies is important, especially with this bizarre fundy/AIPAC alliance going on. I'd like Omar to be part of that discussion, but she's going to do much better if she gets more diplomatic and less partisan about it - diplomacy is hard and requires enormous care with every word you say. It's a forgotten art in DC.

But maybe Israel is also just a third rail of politics and trying to deal with it will just come to no good.

That’s a pragmatic point I acknowledge. But if always followed, doesn’t that sort of realpolitik hold us back? Doesn’t it perpetuate bad policies?

Omar won’t lose her seat. And someone needs to call bullshit on the right’s faux outrage. I think in her case, stepping on a third rail is a surgical move that can enable rethinking some policies that just aren’t working, and are aruguably not humane. It can start a needed debate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Omar should stand her ground.

I have no doubt that she will stand her ground on the substance, and she should. But as GGG says, she's got to be diplomatic on the issue (as she was with the initial apology), and that means picking different worlds that aren't so easily contorted.

I wouldn't say that she needs the active support of local jewish progressives to keep her seat, but it certainly helps to have them on her team, and organizing and turnout in her district are absolutely critical to DFL statewide candidates. If she becomes someone who gets reelected just because of the makeup of her district, rather than someone who drives turnout, she will be much more vulnerable within the party.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Omar won’t lose her seat. I think in her case, stepping on a third rail is a surgical move that can enable rethinking some policies that just aren’t working, and are aruguably not humane. It can start a needed debate.

She can do that without suggesting that U.S. Israel policy is driven by money (it isn't really) or mentioning dual allegiances.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

She can do that without suggesting that U.S. Israel policy is driven by money (it isn't really) or mentioning dual allegiances.

Greenwald raised that with her, I thought, and she just responded. If I raise the issue of Israel’s motives and you think they’re all about US aid, are you not allowed to state that?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

She can do that without suggesting that U.S. Israel policy is driven by money (it isn't really) or mentioning dual allegiances.

It's not all about money, but the AIPAC expenditures sure don't hurt. And Adelson (probably the Israel supporter who has done the most to tie together the radical right in the US and Netanyahu and the anti-Peace crowd in Israel) does indeed expect a return on his investments.

I don't think it is in any way anti-semitic to suggest that donors give seeking to influence outcomes. I do think it is antisemitic to suggest that Jews control Hollywood, DC, or anywhere else with their money. AIPAC and Adelson are doing nothing different than other PACS and donors.

The use of the off-the-cuff musical quote to say "it's all about the benjamins" gets caught because this is an area where a bit of hyperbole bumps into a truckload of history. She's just got to be more careful and use more qualified statements, otherwise, the Fox News crowd is just lurking about waiting to jump her.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Sure, if you ignore the sentences that follow the one you quoted I do seem pretty shallow.

Sorry, did not mean to take what you said out of context. You said, "Wouldn't a movie from the doctor's perspective have to focus on how he despises the poorly spoken/educated? Would that have been better?" I did not respond to this because my understanding is that the Green Book is about a musician, so I did not understand what you were talking about, and I thought it was simpler to omit it. Is your point that there's no reason to try to make movies from a black perspective because everyone is flawed in some way? I don't want to put words in your mouth and you didn't say that, but if you did say that it would seem kinda silly.

And maybe it was just a movie to sell tickets and tell a sort of interesting story?

Until the Academy decided to recognize it as the best movie of the year, which is when this conversation came back.

It is sort of hard to tell a story set in 1960, without making it real for, you know, 1960?

You could make it real for 1960 by telling the story with a, you know, black person as the main character.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you’re going to refute my disagreement with an article in which I clearly refer to the centerpiece argument of the article, indicating I must have read it, citing the article to state that I’m wrong isn’t going to cause the conversation to progress in any meaningful manner. It’s just one of those things... like gravity.

ETA: If I didn’t disagree with that point in the article, what other one would I disagree with? I read no other resonant observations.

Delong has all these reasons which he discusses for what he says, and if you aren't going to engage with why he says what he says, what's the point? Centrist Democrats have never had the votes to do things on their own. Previously, they tried to pass bipartisan legislation with moderate Republicans, at the expense of doing things that would please lefty Democrats, for reasons Delong describes. That model is failed. Notwithstanding their donors, there aren't enough centrist Democrats to do things on their own. Delong is saying that it's time to partner with and make concessions to the people to their left instead of their right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

She can do that without suggesting that U.S. Israel policy is driven by money (it isn't really) or mentioning dual allegiances.

Paul Waldman (cites omitted):

Ilhan Omar certainly didn’t say that Jews have dual loyalty. For instance, in one of the tweets that got people so worked up, Omar said, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” You’ll notice she didn’t say or even imply anything at all about Jews. She said that she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true. Many on the right have called for her to be removed from that committee (see here, or here, or here, or here). Her argument, to repeat, isn’t about how Jews feel about Israel, it’s about what is being demanded of her.

And here’s the ultimate irony: Dual loyalty is precisely what AIPAC demands, and what it gets. Again, it makes this demand not of Jews, but of every member of Congress, and even of politicians at the state level whom you wouldn’t think would be conducting foreign policy. And it is working.

Take, for instance, the wave of state laws passed in recent years in opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in which a state would refuse to do business with anyone who supports BDS. In some cases, those laws require that contractors sign a document promising not to support any boycott of Israel. It’s illustrated by the case of a speech pathologist in Texas who sued over a requirement that she sign such a pledge to work in a public school district. That is literally a demand that she pledge her loyalty to Israel. She’s not Jewish, and the officials who demanded that she do so aren’t either; the Texas Republican Party is not exactly an organization dominated by Jews. When Gov. Greg Abbott (R) — also not a Jew — proclaims that “Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies,” he’s expressing his dual loyalty.

Yet, when Omar says she shouldn’t have to do the same, everyone jumps up to accuse her of anti-Semitism, on the bogus grounds that 1) //she is secretly referring to Jews and not to what she is being asked to do; and 2) it’s some kind of anti-Semitic smear to even raise the issue of people being asked to promise their allegiance to Israel, when the truth is that members of Congress are asked to do just that.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Paul Waldman (cites omitted):

You can believe all that and also want Ilhan to be more careful about how she says things. Here is the perspective of the Minneapolis Jewish woman who directed a documentary about Omar:

https://twitter.com/NorahShapiro/sta...59789868122113

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You can believe all that and also want Ilhan to be more careful about how she says things. Here is the perspective of the Minneapolis Jewish woman who directed a documentary about Omar:

https://twitter.com/NorahShapiro/sta...59789868122113

I am really, really tired of charges of anti-Semitism being used cynically for political advantage. I also wish Omar wouldn't say things that smack of anti-Semitism, for multiple reasons.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I am really, really tired of charges of anti-Semitism being used cynically for political advantage. I also wish Omar wouldn't say things that smack of anti-Semitism, for multiple reasons.

Agree and agree.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sorry, did not mean to take what you said out of context. You said, "Wouldn't a movie from the doctor's perspective have to focus on how he despises the poorly spoken/educated? Would that have been better?" I did not respond to this because my understanding is that the Green Book is about a musician, so I did not understand what you were talking about, and I thought it was simpler to omit it. Is your point that there's no reason to try to make movies from a black perspective because everyone is flawed in some way? I don't want to put words in your mouth and you didn't say that, but if you did say that it would seem kinda silly.

Ahh, this explains it. You don't know what you're talking about, but still have very clear opinions.

The musician is an uber educated doctor (as in PhD) who is quite bothered by the white guy's loutish behavior. He often expresses the view that the white's behavior/speech etc. is unacceptable coming from his driver. The level of this displeasure is limited in the movie, but if we got more of it, it might be harder to like the doctor (again that is the musician). Also, a flaw in the movie (which cannot possibly have been the best movie, as it has flaws) is that the doctor
has some peculiar aspects that are not explained. Example: he sits on a throne when greeting visitors. Why? Who knows. He also seems to have no interaction with anyone other than his man servant. He might be a very weird person is he were more the focus.

Now, it is supposed to be "based upon a true story." One could have written the story to make him less unlikable and strange. But then, see, that "true story" stuff would go away.

The white guy is lead because the back story is his family. The doctor (again this is the musician) has no apparent family, so the equivalent scenes would have been him sitting on a throne ordering his butler around.

Again, making the movie from the doctor's (Ty- this is the musician) POV might result in a less desirable movie because of who the doctor seems to have been. I guess my question was how can people just reject the movie based on who is lead, when it seems to be possibly a clear choice for story purpose. But maybe you've answered the question? Ignorance combined with a lack of story telling ability?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So the FB meme hating on Green Book? Essentially it is asking what if Anne
Frank was instead told from the stand point of the guy who hid them.

I have not seen the movies it won over. But think Green Book can't be the best? Still:

A movie from the standpoint of the guy who hid Anne Frank would be a valid story. I really don't get this controversy. Green Book was very flawed, and the lack of detail about the doctor (what is with the throne etc.) is a real question/weakness. If you want to say it shouldn't have won, fine. But from what I see, pushing the Italian guy to the front seems a valid choice. Wouldn't a movie from the doctor's perspective have to focus on how he despises the poorly spoken/educated? Would that have been better? A white guy drove this asshole around the south? I don't know the "actual story" hinted at in the meme. Something about how the reality was left out. Any idea what was left out of that actual story?

I haven't seen Green Book. But a couple of things:

1. I'm sure this is about perspective. Of course Hollywood tells the story from the white person's perspective. Even though the black character is a world class pianist navigating The South in 1962, the story is told through the driver's eyes? Really? Also, Shirley's family had a huge problem with the movie's accuracy. The fucking movie had the white guy teaching the black guy how to eat fried chicken--completely made up.

2. A lot of people were comparing this year's Best Picture category to 1990 when fucking Driving Miss Daisy won best picture and Do the Right Thing wasn't even nominated. It was ridiculous that Driving Miss Daisy was even nominated. But it won against some very good movies. Anyway, this year, it was Green Book beating another Spike movie people really seemed to like*--BlacKkKlansman.

3. I think black people are fairly sick of white savior movies. I know white people love this shit, but it's enough already.

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sdC6RxaY-Q

TM

*I didn't think much of it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

And maybe it was just a movie to sell tickets and tell a sort of interesting story? It is sort of hard to tell a story set in 1960, without making it real for, you know, 1960?

I don't understand this response. You asked why people are upset about it. Ty answered that it's told from the perspective of a talented black man's driver. Your response is that it's not possible to capture 1960s race relations without telling it from a white man's perspective?

TM