Monday, May 23, 2011
Continued
Just as it was wrong for the McCarthyites to go after ALL people with Communist sympathies (they clearly should have distinguished more between those with simply ideas and those who actually "collaborated"), so, too, is it wrong for the progressives of today to go after everybody who cooperated with a) the FBI and b) the HUAC..............................................................................................In Mr. Reagan's case, there are at least a handful of mitigating factors to consider. 1) There WERE Communists in Hollywood - some of which in fact WERE causing trouble. 2) Mr. Reagan was NOT a rubber stamp for McCarthy/HUAC. In fact, he criticized them both. "I was all for kicking Communists out of Hollywood, but some members of the HUAC, ignoring standards of truth and fair play, ganged up on innocent people and tried to blacklist them." 3) Mr. Reagan was far from the only famous "friendly witness" to testify before the HUAC. Among the others to testify was Gary Cooper, Robert Montgomery, Robert Taylor, and Aldolphe Menjou. 4) Mr. Reagan received numerous physical threats from competing unions. At one point he actually needed 24 hour guard protection. Under those circumstances, it is easy to see why he would indeed cooperate. 5) There is zero evidence that Mr. Reagan's cooperation resulted in anybody's life being "destroyed" (and, besides, it was Hollywood that ultimately created the blacklist, not the U.S. government). 6) The Conference of Studio Unions (the CSU) had at least some Communist membership. And it was this union that called for the strike in 1945. The full union, when Mr. Reagan put it up to a vote, voted a resounding 2,748 to 509 to cross the line. 7) It was absolutely clear that some of the liberals in Hollywood simply couldn't grasp the fact that Mr. Stalin was as murderous a gangster as Hitler and that the Soviet Union had evil intentions. 8) Reagan (along with Olivia de Havilland and others) formed an industry council to reach out to people who were being threatened with blacklisting and help clear them. The council also pushed to protect actors who were the focus of rumor and innuendo................................................................................................Look, folks, I'm not saying that what Mr. Reagan did was completely pure/honorable. Yes, I have read sections of his House testimony and, while they didn't seem overly blatant, I cannot vouch for any FBI conversations that he also may have had....What I can say, though, more declaratively, is that for Rachel Maddow to simply say that "Reagan was a friendly witness", and to also leave it at that - well, let's just say that it isn't top flight journalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Ok, first there was ZERO proof that Reagan named names. Then, when you found out you were wrong on that, the argument changed to there being ZERO evidence that his narcing destroyed any lives.
If it could be proven that Reagan's narcing destroyed someone's life -- and they weren't a Soviet agent plotting revolution... what lame excuse would you come up with then to continue apologizing for this miserable excuse for a human being?
During his testimony Reagan said, "There has been a small group within [SAG] which has consistently opposed the policy of the guild board and officers of the guild, as evidenced by the vote on various issues. That small clique referred to has been suspected of more or less following the tactics that we associate with the Communist Party".
What he's doing here is implying that anyone who disagrees with him (in his role as SAG prez) is a Commie. This probably explains why he was SAG president for so many years. Clearly the vague words he used in his testimony were meant to intimidate anyone who might disagree with him (in his role as SAG prez).
I wouldn't be surprised if he turned in people he KNEW were innocent just because they opposed his rule as SAG prez.
I am totally unconvinced by your argument. Reagan was a shit president and a shit human being. He should have been blacklisted for his shameful narcing on his coworkers. May he rot in hell.
BTW, I most certainly am aware that Stalin was a bad guy. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Do you buy into the loony conspiracy theory put forward by dmarks and Rusty in the previous thread suggesting that CPUSA was planning and capable of violent revolution?
A few may have been planning (or wishing and hoping), but I believe that to suggest they were actually capable... that, IMO, is total boobery..
"I wouldn't be surprised". Is that the same as "I'm guessing". There WERE Communists in Hollywood and they WERE trouble-makers, some with probable Soviet connections. And they were outvoted 5-1 to strike in 1945. Look, I don't know the entire story here. But neither do you (this, though, I'm sure that you'll go through the rest of your days with nary a nuance).
Reagan as SAG prez: SAG members who disagree with the way my clique and I run things are Commie agitators.
Reagan as POTUS: The USSR is an "evil empire".
GWB: You're either with us or you're against us.
Is that nuance?
I know nuance. I think you take nuance too far. I think you're an enabler and apologist for rotten politicians who have done (and are doing) damage to our country.
Those "tactics" that he was referring to, dude, were death threats. Are you saying that you WOULDN'T have cooperated with the FBI? And frigging Reagan had nothing to do with the blacklists, anyway. Those were concocted by the studio heads. And I NEVER defended Bush's policies. That is a lie. I only defended him against charges that he was a Hitleresque Nazi. As for Reagan, I have admitted on MANY occasions was an overrated President. It's you and your frigging good guys and bad guys (though, I do tend to agree with Reagan that the Soviets and Communism were evil - you, apparently do not).
You want some more nuance/irony? The Kennedy family was seemingly a huge admirer of Joe McCarthy (not a mega surprise in Joe Sr.'s case - he was also an admirer of Hitler for a while). Robert Kennedy worked as assistant counsel to McCarthy during the hearings and continued to admire him after (once walking out of a speech by Edward R. Murrow). And JFK never once criticized McCarthy, even when the shit was coming down. Joe McCarthy wd, a part of Camelot. LOL
How can you -- on one hand accuse me of not seeing nuance, and on the other hand proclaim Communism to be "evil"?
What good did declaring the USSR an "evil empire" do? Just like GWB's "axis of evil" claim... the only point of it was to gin up the support of the base.
So, is your deal "nuance" when it suits your "moderate" facade but chuck it when defending right-wingers who go the black and white route for political reasons?
Bush's axis of evil speech was dumb (especially considering that the Iranians had just got done helping us in Afghanistan). Again, I do not support Bush. Why do you keep throwing him at me?............You don't think that the Soviet Union, the country that prompted the Cuban missile crisis, the country that pretty much enslaved all of Eastern Europe was evil? I mean, yeah, maybe it wasn't the best/diplomatic thing for Reagan to so boldly proclaim it publicly like he did but, come on, he was kind of right (I know, I know, we're not perfect, either). I did like the "Tear down this wall speech."
I don't think that Reagan was ginning up anything. The man really and truly hated Communism, Soviet Union style communism, especially. Say what you want about the guy. He did have convictions......."Defending right wingers". Show me one instance in which I was supportive Mr. Bush's policies (foreign policy, especially). Your throwing of him in here is a total red herring.
I truly hate plutocracy, Reaganomic style plutocracy especially. I'll say what I want about the guy... his brain was apparently addled even back then... LONG before the alzheimer's set in.
I threw out statements from two Republican presidents I thought sounded similar. That was my reason for bringing up bush. It was not to imply that you are "supportive [of] Mr. Bush's policies (foreign policy, especially)".
The red herring you're accusing me of introducing... very similar to how much you read into the "appeared as friendly witness" line from RM's story about the Hucksterbee cartoons.
W-dervish: "and on the other hand proclaim Communism to be "evil"?
Maybe he is aware of the fact that this form of socialism (the dominant one of the 20th century) has a worse historic record than Nazism.
dmarks: ...this form of socialism has a worse historic record than Nazism.
That isn't true. This form of Communism as instituted by the USSR under Stalin resulted in many deaths, but the theory behind Communism says nothing about killing people to achieve it's goals.
The majority of people who sign up for Communism do so because they believe the result will be a fairer and more equal society... NOT because they are gung-ho for mass murder.
In fact, what Communists argue is that the exact opposite is true... that it is Capitalism that kills...
The point is that believers in Communism or Socialism aren't following an "evil" ideology... they are following the ideology they believe is in the interest of their fellow human beings.
You can say they're wrong about that, but you absolutely can NOT call them evil.
A FEW EXAMPLES OF HOW CAPITALISM KILLS...
It is estimated that 45,000 people die EACH YEAR due to a lack of health insurance.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by GWB's illegal invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq so bush's cronies could make billions on war profiteering.
w-dervish said "but the theory behind Communism says nothing about killing people to achieve it's goals."
The dominant theorists of communism, Lenin and Mao, killed large numbers of people.
"The majority of people who sign up for Communism do so because they believe the result will be a fairer and more equal society"
How stupid can they be? These people must be completely ignorant of world affairs. I mean, is Stalin's genocide of 7 million Ukrainians considered to be an honest mistake by them?
"In fact, what Communists argue is that the exact opposite is true... that it is Capitalism that kills..."
And yet the ideology they argue for has a much worse record than Capitalism.
"The point is that believers in Communism or Socialism aren't following an "evil" ideology..."
I suppose the same thing can be said of the followers of National Socialism, a deadly ideology which on the record isn't as bad a Communism.
"..they are following the ideology they believe is in the interest of their fellow human beings."
Then they are grossly missinformed, due to the facts of the historic record of Communism and Socialism.
You are also overlooking that most of these people in question joined the CPUSA, which was controlled by the USSR. A full endorsement of Soviet-brand socialism and all it entails.
"You can say they're wrong about that, but you absolutely can NOT call them evil."
Either way, they are evil:
Either they
1) Endorse the worst mass-murdering political movement in history, with crazy willful ignorance about what it did
2) They join it full well knowing what it means. I recall an interview with some American Communists on NPR. It was an elderly couple. Their child was murdered as part of Mao's Cultural Revolution. This couple saw it as a necessary sacrifice for the cause.
Blind people, or evil people. There's no such thing as a well intentioned and well informed communist, the exact same way for one of the other major branches of sociaiism, Nazism.
If you are talking to a communist or a Nazi, you can rest assured you are talking to a genocidal kook, or someone with zero knowledge of world affairs and history.
"It is estimated that 45,000 people die EACH YEAR due to a lack of health insurance."
Why do you blame this on capitalism? The problem comes from medical care costs being too high. A huge blame for this is interference from government (i.e. socialists) allowing frivolous lawsuits to pass, and labor laws which force hospitals to charge so much more for care. This death toll would be a lot less without frivolous lawsuits, and if healthcare workers were paid fair wages..... more capitalism would save lives.
and the rest...."Hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by GWB's illegal invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq"
Flat out lies on multiple counts.
These retaliations are fully legal. Despite the ravings of unqualified armchair attorneys. It's pretty clear here that you us the word "illegal" to apply to situations that are quite legal, but you don't like them. But go ahead, repeat the same old pro-terrorist lies. I know you will.
The REAL death toll in Iraq is no more than 101,421... and the vast majority have been killed by our enemies, the terrorists. The toll in Afghanistan is far less. The death tolls in both countries since the US launched its retaliations is less than had the terrorists been allowed to remain in power.
"..could make billions on war profiteering."
Now that is a nutty conspiracy theory. If your nutty conspiracy theory were true. Bush and Clinton would not have given Saddam Hussein a full DECADE to comply with cease-fire requirements. Instead, as Bush did not want war except as a last resort, he gave Saddam plenty of time to comply and stop his aggression.
It should also be pointed out that the death toll from the policies socialism (Saddam's regime) is well documented to be in the many hundreds of thousands. A death toll that was higher before the US and allies were forced to launch their legal retaliation.
But I suppose it's all good since he was a socialist.
Bush told the truth, and saved lies.
The REAL death toll from the illegal bush invasion of Iraq is well over 1 million. QUALIFIED ACTUAL attorneys are on record as believing both of bush's invasions were illegal and bush is a war criminal.
In my opinion there is no such thing as a well-intentioned and well-informed bush apologist... they are either willfully blind or evil. I think that if you are talking to a bush apologist you can rest assured you are talking to a genocidal kook, or someone with zero knowledge of world affairs and history.
Case in point, Nazism is a form of fascism, not socialism. As often is the case with tyrants, Hitler hijacked the socialist worker's party with false promises.
There is a history of greedy tyrants tricking people with tales of equality that are often partially fulfilled (to keep up the illusion) but never completely fulfilled.
Tyrants posing as benevolent leaders while offering greater power to the wealthy elites don't fare as well because most people don't want that!
You keep offering up these examples of fake socialist and communist countries to "prove" how much they suck.
You insist that the CPUSA was "controlled" by the USSR, but I say that is (near) total bullshit. Otherwise we could have arrested them all for being agents of a foreign power. I do not believe that happened dmarks.
Allowing someone to sue when they are injured isn't "frivolous". What's driving up healthcare costs is GREED. Greedy health insurance companies that should be put out of business by the government when we transition to a single-payer system.
Saddam was (in part) a quasi/fake socialist... primarily he was a TYRANT. Absolutely ZERO of the deaths under Saddam's regime can be attributed to socialism. Socialism saves lives. Capitalism (AKA legalized greed) costs lives.
FYI, all but delusional bush apologists know that bush lied and people died. It is my opinion that bush should be executed for his war crimes.
You're flat-out lying when you say my objections to illegal wars are "pro-terrorist". I'm anti-terrorist. I believe bush apologists (like you) must be pro-terrorist, as the policies you support make terrorism worse.
Post a Comment