RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
American Sniper Proves Obama's Politics Beat Cheney's Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Friday, 30 January 2015 16:11

Rich writes: "The tumult surrounding American Sniper is in many ways more interesting than the film itself."

Bradley Cooper plays
Bradley Cooper plays 'American Sniper' Chris Kyle. (photo: Warner Bros.)


American Sniper Proves Obama's Politics Beat Cheney's

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

30 January 15

 

Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich talks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: the American Sniper debate and the Koch brothers' bankrolling of the Republican Party.

lint Eastwood's American Sniper just completed its second weekend as the No. 1 movie in the country, and, with the attendant controversy drawing in the likes of Michael MooreNewt GingrichJohn McCain (not to mention Howard DeanSeth Rogen, and even Noam Chomsky), it looks to be one of the rare war movies that is both a commercial success and a political flashpoint. Why has American Sniper created such a storm when so many other Iraq and Afghanistan war movies have not?

The tumult surrounding American Sniper is in many ways more interesting than the film itself. Its record-shattering box-office performance — not only crushing all previous Iraq War films but also all of its Oscar competitors — is a testament to brilliant under-the-radar marketing by Warner Bros., a vacuum of mainstream entertainment for red-state cineplex audiences not exactly pining to see Birdman or The Grand Budapest Hotel, the steady ascent of Bradley Cooper, and the passing of time since the height of the Iraq War, from which America officially withdrew more than three years ago. Plus, Chris Kyle’s story is powerful, whatever one’s moral judgment about his wartime role as a sharpshooter, even if it is somewhat clunkily and repetitively told by Eastwood. Would that this movie were as taut as Million Dollar Baby and as moving as Flags of Our Fathers, the World War II film that is in some ways Sniper’s thematic companion piece in the Eastwood canon.

Of course, the political debate is boosting the box office further; people want to see what all of the shouting is about. But that controversy says more about knee-jerk ideology than it does about what’s actually in the film. Sniper is not the unalloyed glorification of wartime carnage some on the left claim it to be, nor the flat-out endorsement of “good old traditional American values” claimed by Rush Limbaugh. And much of the debate is just flat-out ridiculous. Both Chomsky and McCain have opined at length about American Sniper even as they both freely conceded they hadn’t bothered to see it.

I’m second to no one in my outrage about the Iraq War, but I would hardly call this film an endorsement of that war; it’s an endorsement of the Americans who volunteered to fight it. If anything, Sniper is the very opposite of a recruiting poster for further American military adventures in the Middle East. The Iraqis are xenophobically and all but uniformly presented as duplicitous, indistinguishable “savages” (in Kyle’s lingo) unworthy of American sacrifice. The war is presented as a quagmire with nothing that can be called “victory” in the offing. The soldiers who fought the war, Kyle included, are seen as returning home in various forms of mutilation, physical and psychological, to an inadequate support system. That’s why it’s no surprise that Jane Fonda has praised Sniper: In some ways it does resemble her Vietnam film Coming Home.

And in this sense the film is where the country is politically, at least as far as present and future military engagement goes — far closer to Barack Obama than Dick Cheney. Eastwood’s performance with a chair may have done nothing for Mitt Romney, but American Sniper is more of a boost for the anti-interventionist foreign policy of Rand Paul than the unreconstructed neo-con hawkishness of most of Paul’s erstwhile Republican opponents, Romney included.

Meanwhile, if liberals want to find a movie celebrating a real-life war hero that’s really worth getting angry about, I nominate The Imitation Game. As Christian Caryl writes in a definitive takedown in the New York Review of Books, the filmmakers’ fictionalization of the genius British code-breaker Alan Turing “managed to transform the real Turing, vivacious and forceful, into just the sort of mythological gay man, whiney and weak, that homophobes love to hate.” It’s rather incredible that a gay-rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, is lending its imprimatur to this movie for its Oscar campaign.

At their annual winter retreat, the Koch brothers revealed that they plan to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, which essentially gives them the resources of a third major political party. (The Times notes that in the 2012 cycle the Republican National Committee and its congressional committees spent $657 million combined; the Kochs spent just under $400 million.) Now that the Kochs may be more powerful than the Republican Party, what can we expect from the candidates?

Those who take the Kochs’ money are going to have to dance to their tune — as they would to that of any big donor. And the crazy truth is that the GOP base is so far right that the Kochs may actually make the party “more moderate,” as Daniel Schulman of Mother Jones argued last year. Keep in mind that “moderate” is a relative term. The Kochs believe that what’s good for Koch Industries is good for the USA. So they want to eliminate any tax they can, gut government regulations (especially environmental regulations that impinge on their gas and petrochemical businesses), crush unions, “privatize” Social Security and most other government social programs, and fund climate-change denial.

But they are also libertarians more or less. David Koch is a self-described “social liberal” who has endorsed gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and presumably favors abortion rights. He was cool to the Iraq War and is in favor of cutting defense spending. Such stands put him at odds with at least two of the GOP presidential hopefuls (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio) who turned up at the Kochs’ Rancho Mirage retreat last weekend seeking their favor and cash.

Earlier this week, Politico published a detailed look at the internal plans for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. They note that almost all of the top positions have been filled, except for communications director. If you were interviewing candidates for the position, what would you be looking for?

This is a tall order. Left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton is something of a gaffe machine, particularly when it comes to her defensive efforts to portray herself as an economic populist and deflect talk about her buckraking on the speaking circuit. Her book-tour claim that she left the White House “dead broke” proved not to be a one-off. “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and business that create jobs,” she said nonsensically when appearing at a forum with Elizabeth Warren in October. This is déjà 2008 all over again. It doesn’t help, either, that she hates the press, with the apparent exception of Rupert Murdoch, whom she continues to court, according to a Times report this week.

The lead of the Politico article is buried in its very last paragraph, where it’s noted that the “next critical task” for the Clinton campaign is “developing her message.” Indeed! What Hillary Clinton actually stands for beyond party boilerplate — and, more pointedly, what she would actually want to do as president — is the question that remains unanswered. Until it is, it doesn’t matter who is put in charge of communicating it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Will the Obama Admin Finally Bring CIA Torturers to Justice? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Friday, 30 January 2015 16:07

Timm writes: "The woman who will probably be the nation's top lawyer opened the door to prosecuting the men and women responsible for the CIA's torture program on Wednesday. And whether the President who nominated her likes it or not, she should act on it as soon as she's in office."

A detainee is carried into the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. (photo: Shane T. McCoy/Reuters)
A detainee is carried into the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. (photo: Shane T. McCoy/Reuters)


ALSO SEE: Loretta Lynch: 'Waterboarding Is Torture'


Will the Obama Admin Finally Bring CIA Torturers to Justice?

By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK

30 January 15

 

he woman who will probably be the nation’s top lawyer opened the door to prosecuting the men and women responsible for the CIA’s torture program on Wednesday. And whether the President who nominated her likes it or not, she should act on it as soon as she’s in office.

President Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch, in her first Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, admitted that certain actions taken by the CIA constituted torture and were illegal. In an exchange with Senator Patrick Leahy in which he asked her if waterboarding was torture, she responded:

Lynch: “Waterboarding is torture, Senator.” Leahy: “And thus illegal?” Lynch: “And thus illegal.”

Given her comments, Lynch should immediately appoint a special prosecutor to seek charges against the CIA for waterboarding three detainees (and likely many more) as soon as she’s confirmed. Since there is no statute of limitations on torture, and the UN Convention Against Torture – ratified by the Senate and signed by President Reagan – requires that the United States prosecute violators, this should be an open and shut case for Lynch.

Lynch did not indicate if she’d read the recently-released executive summary of the CIA torture report, and was not asked if she considered many of the other barbaric and sadistic actions described in the report – such as extended sleep deprivation, beatings, and anal rape – as torture, but she could certainly direct a prosecutor to investigate those claims as well.

Of course, the chances of actual accountability for the CIA is incredibly slim, given the agency can even get away with spying directly on the Senate itself with no consequences. True to form, the Justice Department hasn’t bothered to read their copy of the full Senate report on CIA torture (which runs almost 7,000 pages) despite having it for months. As Huffington Post’s Ali Watkins reported the same day Lynch testified, the Justice Department has disgracefully left the package containing the report unopened, despite the clear lawlessness documented inside it.

Senator Richard Burr, the new Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is currently trying to claw back copies of the full torture report that are spread around the executive branch, for fear that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against federal agencies could force the report’s release. (Congress is exempt from the FOIA). Journalist Jason Leopold and the ACLU already have separate, active lawsuits demanding the document, both of which the Justice Department is vigorously opposing.

Open government advocates are understandably nervous that Lynch may be as addicted to secrecy as the current Attorney General. An internal watchdog criticized Lynch’s response to FOIA requests as a US Attorney in New York, and she gave evasive answers about her commitment to openness at her hearing on Wednesday. But she can immediately put these concerns to rest by dropping the Justice Department’s resistance to the FOIA lawsuits as soon as she is confirmed.

Given that she believes the CIA’s behavior is illegal, and the government can not use the classification system to cover up illegality, maybe we can all look forward to her enforcing the law as our new attorney general – but after years of waiting for someone in the Obama administration to do exactly that, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

"We have no comment for you."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Sellouts: The Senate & the Keystone XL Pipeline Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Friday, 30 January 2015 13:56

Pierce writes: "Instead of discussing (again) what a dreadful idea the pipeline is, let's mention the nine (!) Democratic senators who voted to submarine the White House in favor of this catastrophe waiting to happen."

Hundreds risk arrest at the White House protesting the Keystone XL pipeline. (photo: Al-Jazeera America)
Hundreds risk arrest at the White House protesting the Keystone XL pipeline. (photo: Al-Jazeera America)


Sellouts: The Senate & the Keystone XL Pipeline

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

30 January 15

 

ell, the Senate is now set to double-dog dare the president to veto a bill mandating the construction of our old friend the Keystone XL pipeline, the continent-spanning death funnel designed to bring the world's dirtiest fossil-fuel down from the environmental hellspout of northern Alberta, through this country's most valuable farmland, and down to the refineries on the coast, and thence to the world.

Instead of discussing (again) what a dreadful idea the pipeline is, let's mention the nine (!) Democratic senators who voted to submarine the White House in favor of this catastrophe waiting to happen.

Nine Democrats joined a unanimous Republican caucus to support the bill: Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

OK, Heidi Heitkamp is about one head-scarf short of being an oil sheikh at this point, and Joe Manchin is hopeless on any issue involving the extraction industries because coal. But what the hell is up with Tom Carper? What's Delaware's dog in this fight? Shipping, I guess, and the same thing could be said for Bob Casey, Jr., who is following the family tradition of bailing on his party when it suits him. (The residents of Pennsylvania, with their land fracked half to death and their water capable of being used as lighter fluid, should be alerted to the fact that their junior senator voted with the industries that have done the damage.) Donnelly of Indiana voted for it so nobody would call him a tree-hugger on the radio, and I suspect Mark Warner wanted to burnish his "centrist" credentials as well. These are all very lame excuses, but Claire McCaskill has none. Of the nine poltroons, her state is closest to the proposed route of the death funnel, and it will be most affected by whatever happens when the pipeline breaks, because it will, because it is a pipeline and they break. That doesn't mean she hasn't tried to cobble one together.

"It's going to be either moved by train, or it's going to be moved by barge, or it's going to be moved by pipeline. The safest way for it to be moved is by pipeline. It also has the benefit of more jobs," said McCaskill when asked about her vote for a pipeline bill offered by Senate Democrats within weeks of losing their majority in last November's mid-term elections.

Let it be moved in all those ways, but let Canadian oil be moved through Canada, which is a harder sell, because they take their environmental regulations -- and their treaties with their indigenous peoples -- a lot more serious than we do. So we serve as North America's Louisiana, with our own Cancer Corridor. Which reminds me:

The vote is a big win for Louisiana lawmakers. Before December's Senate runoff in that state, the two candidates, incumbent Democratic senator Mary Landrieu and her challenger, GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy, both pushed bills to approve the pipeline. The House approved Cassidy's bill, but the Senate defeated Landrieu's and he went on to take her Senate seat in the election.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Open Letter to John McCain: Get Out of Washington, You Low-Life Scum Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 30 January 2015 13:05

Gibson writes: "What would you call a veteran who answers a veteran's question about providing more jobs to veterans by saying it's his 'highest priority,' only to vote against more jobs for veterans when he's back in Washington?"

Arizona Senator John McCain. (photo: AP)
Arizona Senator John McCain. (photo: AP)


Open Letter to John McCain: Get Out of Washington, You Low-Life Scum

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

30 January 15

 

ear Senator McCain,

What would you call a war veteran who answers a veteran’s question about providing more jobs to veterans by saying it’s his “highest priority,” only to vote against more jobs for veterans when he’s back in Washington? What would you call a veteran who was tortured, survived miraculously, got elected to the U.S. Senate, sent more young men to die in a foreign war, voted to deny them jobs and benefits, and yet demands the arrest and full prosecution of those who exercise the constitutional rights he supposedly fought for? To borrow phrasing from you, Senator, I would call you low-life scum.

The Code PINK protesters you called “low-life scum” during a Senate hearing this week are Americans exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, which you swore an oath to defend both as a naval officer and as a member of Congress. These protesters were also within their right to make a citizens’ arrest against someone who has committed a felony – in this case, war crimes. It’s critical for you to understand why these protesters are patriotic Americans and not “low-life scum,” as you called them.

When Henry Kissinger, whom you just vociferously defended from the dais, authorized the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia in 1969 and 1970, his actions killed over 40,000 people, including civilians who had nothing to do with the Vietnam War. Kissinger has said he did so to stop North Vietnamese troops from using Cambodia as a staging ground. However, research has shown that all Kissinger’s bombing campaign did was pave the way for the brutal Khmer Rouge to take over Cambodia, then use the B-52 bombings as propaganda to justify their cause, leading to more death and destruction. Kissinger illegally bombed a sovereign nation that we never officially declared war on, destabilized its government, and allowed a violent, autocratic regime to seize power. If that isn't a felony, I don't know what is.

Washington D.C. statute allows for citizens’ arrests in the case of a felony. And in Code PINK’s case, war crimes are certainly a felony offense. When you called on the capitol police, it should’ve been to arrest Kissinger, not Code PINK activists. But your classless outburst during that hearing is indicative of the allegiances you hold, and the longstanding hypocrisy of your entire Congressional career.

Despite going through a war firsthand, and going on record saying “war is wretched beyond description,” you are one of the loudest voices consistently in favor of going to war with anyone at the drop of a hat. You bragged to a conservative radio host that nobody supported President Bush's war in Iraq more than you. You were the first member of the Senate to call for airstrikes on Syria. You’ve openly said you’d like to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. You even made a joke about bombing Iran at a campaign rally. As a Vietnam veteran, haven't you had enough war for one lifetime?

Speaking of veterans, I would think that someone who has personally experienced the worst imaginable hell of war would be the first one to stand up for veterans when given the chance. But you, Senator McCain, have turned your back repeatedly on America’s veterans when they asked for even the most concrete necessities.

When the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) urged you to pass the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits & Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014, you voted against even bringing it to the floor for debate, despite the fact that several of your Republican colleagues supported it. You claim to support better healthcare for veterans, and that bill would’ve provided that care by, among other things, expanding the Comprehensive Caregiver Assistance Program, and advanced veterans’ retirement payments even in the event of a government shutdown. As a fellow veteran who bears permanent scars of war, how could you deny your brothers and sisters at the PVA this vote?

After you came home from Vietnam, where you endured years of cruel imprisonment, solitary confinement, and torture, where would you be if you didn’t have for a father a four-star admiral who commanded all U.S. forces in Vietnam? Unlike you, many of the veterans who are lucky enough to come back from the wars you eagerly sent them off to don’t have wealthy, highly-connected families to support them when they return stateside. Almost 50,000 veterans today are struggling to survive on the streets despite serving their country. Yet when you were given multiple opportunities to show your commitment to homeless veterans, you did nothing.

When the House of Representatives passed the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, which would have funded the transition for veterans to go from wandering the streets to having a roof over their head, you allowed the bill to die, and said nothing. You even allowed your party to kill the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act of 2009, which would have provided homes for single mothers who served their countries with distinction in the military. But as bad as your inaction was on those bills, it still wasn’t your biggest slight to America’s veterans.

At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Meg Lanker-Simons, a veteran and journalist, asked you about providing more jobs to veterans, 14 percent of whom are unemployed. You responded, to her face, that you were going to “try to find more and better ways to hire veterans,” that chronic unemployment of veterans was a “national disgrace,” and that making more jobs available to veterans was your “highest priority.” But just a month later, when the Senate was voting on the Veterans Job Corps Bill, which would’ve paired veterans up with job opportunities based on their skill sets, you mocked the idea before voting it down. While your reason was that the $1 billion cost was too high, the bill would have paid for itself by $1 billion of new revenue for the office of Veterans’ Affairs. So, Mr. McCain, not only are you a hypocrite, but a liar as well. If you didn’t run for elected office to serve your fellow veterans, why did you run in the first place?

With a net worth of over $10 million, you are one of the richest members of Congress. And as everyone learned in 2008, you own 8 properties, making you one of the wealthiest 0.01 percent of Americans. During your Congressional career, you voted 19 times against increasing the minimum wage, yet in 2010, you voted to extend George W. Bush’s tax cut package. That was a complete 180 from your earlier position against it, in which you rightly called it “generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower and middle-income taxpayers.” You also voted for a $700 billion bailout of the big banks that crashed our economy in 2008. Those same banks gave you almost $2 million in campaign and leadership PAC donations between 2005 and 2010, including over $50,000 from bailout king Goldman Sachs. If someone who didn’t know any better took a look at that data, they would think you’re only in office to serve yourself.

You’ve been in Washington long enough, Senator McCain, and you’ve done enough damage to veterans and working people. Either resign now with some semblance of dignity, or prepare to be thrown out of office in 2016.



Carl Gibson, 25, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Obama Signs Executive Order Closing Congress Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 29 January 2015 15:52

Borowitz writes: "In a historic Oval Office ceremony on Thursday morning, President Barack Obama signed an executive order closing Congress, effective immediately."

(photo: Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)
(photo: Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)


Obama Signs Executive Order Closing Congress

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

29 January 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

n a historic Oval Office ceremony on Thursday morning, President Barack Obama signed an executive order closing Congress, effective immediately.

The President said that the move would dramatically increase the efficiency of the federal government, noting how much he had accomplished since he stopped working with Congress in November.

Additionally, he said, the elimination of Congress would result in annual savings of more than five billion dollars, which Obama said would be refunded to American taxpayers.

Acknowledging that “some sticklers” would argue that the Constitution calls for three branches of government, the President said, “All this order does is reduce that number by one.”

The initial public reaction to the President’s decision appeared to be overwhelmingly positive, as news of the executive order sent his approval rating soaring to seventy-nine percent.

Asked by reporters if he had any message for members of Congress, the President said, “I got it from here.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 Next > End >>

Page 2573 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN