All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[worstblogever]

So, Roy Blunt will not run again in 2022.

Could Democrats take this one?

Depends on who the GQP put up as a candidate. That state has been pushing rapists for Governor like Greitens, and domestic terrorists like Josh Hawley for Senators. Maybe they'd like something a little more... functional? Let's just say functional... as a Senator this time around. I would love to see a comeback by Emmanuel Cleaver, but would also like to see someone on the left everyone could get excited about. Cori Bush would be too polarizing to win, but I'd love it.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The rights to Jud Süß are owned by a charitable foundation which tightly controls when and where it can be shown. Basically for academic purposes. They sued a Hungarian neo-nazi party for illegally screening the film.

IF the rights' holders of GWTW are able to forward receipts of the profits of the film to a separate trust and an organization dedicated to civil rights, let's say the NAACP or BLM for sake of argument, if they appoint independent custodians then I think the issues would be fine. They would be tasked with making sure that the movie's presented always with a disclaimer, that it's promotions are carefully done.

The Germans at least have a semi-plausible claim that the Nazi period was not indicative of their history and culture as a whole...

The first European pogroms in recorded history happened in Germany during the People's Crusade when local barons led violence against Jews in Rhineland. Martin Luther, considered a quasi-founding father figure in Germany, wrote anti-semitic tracts. Jud Suss was itself based on a German language book several centuries old. Anti-semitism was common across Europe of course but in no way can Germany say that it had no precedents in its history.

...and can just restrict anything having to do with that era to its own hermetically sealed bin,

That's not what German historians and artists and others have argued. Quite the opposite in fact.

...but if America were to try to eliminate every part of our history that has anything to do with genocide, slavery, or racism, we'd have literally nothing left, we wouldn't even have a country at all.

1) We don't have "to eliminate every part of our history". We need to acknowledge the past in all its shame and horror and make no excuses for it.

2) The rest of your argument is so asinine as to beggar disbelief. "We'd have literally nothing left" is just a toxic insult to the intelligence. Have you ever fathomed that by honest national accounting we would in fact gain in great quantity and greater quality than what we have had before?

"This raises the question - why is the authentic culture...that of the masters and not of the slaves?...there are plenty of people today who claim to be advocate for or aficionados of 'Southern heritage' - but who choose to define that heritage as a celebration of the Confederacy and the antebellum South. But doesn't Southern heritage also belong to those who fought, resisted, and endured slavery, and who created wonderful music, food, and literature in spite of slavery? Why celebrate the former and not the latter?"
-- Steven Attewell

[Malvolio]

Depends on who the GQP put up as a candidate. That state has been pushing rapists for Governor like Greitens, and domestic terrorists like Josh Hawley for Senators. Maybe they'd like something a little more... functional? Let's just say functional... as a Senator this time around. I would love to see a comeback by Emmanuel Cleaver, but would also like to see someone on the left everyone could get excited about. Cori Bush would be too polarizing to win, but I'd love it.

That's the problem with Missouri. You have somewhat cosmopolitan cities like St. Louis and Kansas City, but in between you've got a lot of Yeee-ha! There's a similar thing in Pennsylvania with a lot of red-hats in between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. My Mom used to call it Pennsyl-tucky and I thought she was just making a cute joke, but now I know that there was a bit of political commentary there.

[DrNewGod]

Yeah, but McConnell had been recently reelected, and it's unlikely he'll seek another term since he'll in his early 80's once this one ends, so he had no reason to kiss Trump's ass. That bit of fealty made no sense to me.

I've been unable to figure it out either. He got what he wanted from Trump: a massive top-end tax cut, and a SCOTUS heavy with the Federalist Society picks. The only thing that I can see is maybe he hopes to hold the party together long enough, with enough Senate seats that a 2025 Republican president gets to replace a few more justices, and plant more federal judges on the lower benches.

[inisideguy]

That’s probably more along the lines of sexism. Though, staying on Switzerland, what even remotely practical purpose does this ban serve, anyways?

Its along the lines as when someone goes to various countries around the world that country expects the travelers to follow the norms of that culture. Its easy to condemn Switzerland which I don't have a problem with. What I do have a problem with is picking and choosing who we condemn. That just makes things simple. Switzerland is a pretty open country compared to any muslim country. So lets be honest with the debate here. You think the Swiss are racist cause they don't want burkas? Ok thats nice. How about the freaking countries that literally make their women wear burkas or cover up. Or why don't you head down to your average muslim country and start acting like Joe white guy, see how they treat ya day to day. Racism and anti cultural issues aren't confined to Western Europe and the USA.

[OopsIdiditagain]

We should treat racists movies like Gone with the Wind the same way we treat racist/sexist books and plays in literature courses.

That’s probably more along the lines of sexism. Though, staying on Switzerland, what even remotely practical purpose does this ban serve, anyways?

According to some of the posters campaigning for this, stopping terrorism. Imo I think it's more about assimilation. I don't know how to feel about niqab/burqa bans because even majority Muslim countries like Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia banned them.

[Bruce Wayne]

But those limits are part of the checks & balances system so that no one branch of our government can go too far off the rails without one of the other branches having a way to try and step in.

The executive and judicial branches becoming stronger in recent years ("imperial presidency") is a direct result of the Republicans under McConnell neutering Congress and basically forcing the other two branches to pick up the slack. The checks/balances of the Constitution is pretty much an ideal that's less and less possible in a reality where there's only two working branches.

[PwrdOn]

The first European pogroms in recorded history happened in Germany during the People's Crusade when local barons led violence against Jews in Rhineland. Martin Luther, considered a quasi-founding father figure in Germany, wrote anti-semitic tracts. Jud Suss was itself based on a German language book several centuries old. Anti-semitism was common across Europe of course but in no way can Germany say that it had no precedents in its history.



That's not what German historians and artists and others have argued. Quite the opposite in fact.



1) We don't have "to eliminate every part of our history". We need to acknowledge the past in all its shame and horror and make no excuses for it.

2) The rest of your argument is so asinine as to beggar disbelief. "We'd have literally nothing left" is just a toxic insult to the intelligence. Have you ever fathomed that by honest national accounting we would in fact gain in great quantity and greater quality than what we have had before?

"This raises the question - why is the authentic culture...that of the masters and not of the slaves?...there are plenty of people today who claim to be advocate for or aficionados of 'Southern heritage' - but who choose to define that heritage as a celebration of the Confederacy and the antebellum South. But doesn't Southern heritage also belong to those who fought, resisted, and endured slavery, and who created wonderful music, food, and literature in spite of slavery? Why celebrate the former and not the latter?"
-- Steven Attewell

Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that slavery happened and was bad, the difficult part is acknowledging that all of the good things that we like about America also came out of that system. That the American colonies would never have even survived, much less become the economic powerhouse that we are today, were it not for the abundance of empty land and free labor. That all of the rights and liberties we claim are universal only came about because having a class of workers that weren't considered to be people allowed all white men to enjoy a lifestyle and privileges usually reserved only for aristocrats. There's a reason why actually living up to all of the high-minded ideals cynically spouted by our slave owning founders has proven to be so difficult. It's easy to say that a bunch of racist Confederate plantation owners were the bad guys, it's a lot harder to admit that all of us, just by virtue of participating in the American consumer culture and enjoying the lifestyle here, are also contributing to the perpetuation of much of the same problems.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It's easy to say that a bunch of racist Confederate plantation owners were the bad guys,

Considering that we still have Lost Cause historiography believed by a lot of people and statues of Confederates are hard to tumble across the full nation, I am not sure it's easy to say even that.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

That's the problem with Missouri. You have somewhat cosmopolitan cities like St. Louis and Kansas City, but in between you've got a lot of Yeee-ha! There's a similar thing in Pennsylvania with a lot of red-hats in between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. My Mom used to call it Pennsyl-tucky and I thought she was just making a cute joke, but now I know that there was a bit of political commentary there.

The "Pennsyltucky" stuff is no joke. Lots of red hat wearing, hillbilly MAGA types in the western half of the state, their support of Trump helped him win PA back in 2016. Lots of guns in the state too, I think I heard or read somewhere once that only Texas has more gun owners (mostly hunters) than PA, I suspect we also have our fair share of militias as well. In the 62 years I've lived in PA, I've never been further west than Valley Forge (25 miles from my front door as the crow flies), and I have NO intention of ever traveling any further than that. Too much craziness in the western half.

[TheDarman]

So, Roy Blunt will not run again in 2022.

Could Democrats take this one?

It’s doubtful.

It is a state that has moved away from Democrats since 2012. Trump beat Biden in Missouri by 15 points. McCaskill won in 2012 against a very poor candidate that lost down ballot while Romney carried the state.

Now, Tester won Montana—a state that went for Trump by sixteen points—and Manchin won West Virginia—a state won by Trump by forty (!) points. But that is probably the kind of Democrat would could win here: a moderate Democrat concerned with reaching out to Republicans—voters and politicians alike.

Who would that be? I don’t know. McCaskill seems unlikely. She was defeated in a blue wave election year by current Senator Hawley. She also compromised a bit on her liberal credentials to appease Trump voters and still lost. Jason Kander would be a strong candidate—he performed better than Clinton down ballot against an opponent who was more popular than Trump. But he would need a lot of coaxing. He said today that he wasn’t interested in hopping in that race.

Frankly, it’s a long shot—even more difficult to pick off than Ohio. Former presidential candidate, Tim Ryan, is considering a look at running in Ohio. That’s a state Trump won by eight points in both of his presidential runs but Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, won in 2018. Ryan might be able to pull something off in Ohio under the right circumstances. I’d say that is more likely than Missouri, but that still isn’t saying anything. As of now, these are the Senate races to watch:

Arizona: Democrat Incumbent (Lean Democrat)
Georgia: Democrat Incumbent (Lean Democrat)
Pennsylvania: Republican Incumbent RETIRING (Lean Democrat)
Wisconsin: Republican Incumbent* (Toss-Up)
North Carolina: Republican Incumbent RETIRING (Lean Republican)
Ohio: Republican Incumbent RETIRING (Likely Republican)
Iowa: Republican Incumbent* (Likely Republican)
Florida: Republican Incumbent (Likely Republican)
Missouri: Republican Incumbent RETIRING (Likely Republican)

*Potentially retiring

Ultimately, it is a decent Senate map for Democrats. They aren’t defending very difficult seats (these are seats they have won recently and who are approved of in their states). There are some pick up opportunities, such as Pennsylvania (I think the Democrat Lieutenant Governor is a stronger candidate than anyone emerging on the other side of the aisle) and Wisconsin (with Ron Johnson potentially being a liability for the party in a state that has swung back in recent years towards Democrats—and whose state will really benefit from the relief package Biden got through without their senator’s vote).

That said, Democrats being in the majority have a few advantages. 1) They are defending fewer relatively competitive seats. 2) Given this, they can pump money into more challenging races. 3) This forces Republicans to pour money into even states like Missouri to keep a non-incumbent nominee afloat.

Honestly, the upper chamber is more of a toss-up this next year. Despite typical seat losses for the party that controls the White House, there aren’t many deeply vulnerable Democrats up for election. Some of the closest seats are Republican held seats currently. And Republicans have wider territory to defend.

As for the House, things may be more dire there. Once redistricting happens, they are bound to lose seats. California, Colorado, and New York (potentially) will have redistricting done by independent commissions. Given blue states have a lower chance of locking Republicans out than red states have at doing the same to Democrats, Republicans can pick up the majority just by drawing the right districts.

The big question is if HR1 gets through. And, if it does, what parts get stripped out through litigation. Will the independent commission stand, given that the power to draw districts rests with the states explicitly? Can the independent commissions be justified under the 14th and 15th amendments, like other voting rights legislation or will a 6-3 Conservative-Liberal Supreme Court side with Republican challenges?

It's unclear. But it is clear that if Democrats stand ANY shot of retaining the House, they need to at least prevent voter suppression.

[MajorHoy]

. . . In the 62 years I've lived in PA, I've never been further west than Valley Forge (25 miles from my front door as the crow flies), and I have NO intention of ever traveling any further than that. Too much craziness in the western half.

I went to Penn State for four years at the beginning of the 1980s, and out in State College (just about smack dab in the middle of the state) there seemed to have been a decent balance.
'Course, we're talking about 40 years ago . . .

[Mister Mets]

So, Roy Blunt will not run again in 2022.

Could Democrats take this one?

It would be a stretch.

The state had a Democratic Senator until 2018.

Jason Kander came within three points of upsetting Roy Blunt in 2016.

However, Kander has already said he doesn't want to run. The gubernatorial election was not close, despite Governor Mike Parson being elevated to the position when the previous Governor resigned in disgrace. In that case, the Democrats nominated a statewide official State Auditor Nicole Galloway. The state attorney general election was also not close.

Historically, midterms go poorly for the party in the White House, and it's really hard for candidates for Congress to defy national trends.

Democrats would need an excellent candidate (someone with sufficient reputation to run for office without being too tied to the party establishment), and they would need Republicans to pick someone terrible. Granted, it was the state where Republicans nominated Todd Akin nine years ago.

[Gray Lensman]

Exactly. IN Europe, nobody wishes to burn those movies nor do critics consider them great movies. They are preserved as evidences of past complicity and anti-semitic evidence.

SO Griffith, Gone with the Wind, and other horror-shows should be treated in the same way. Not destroyed or anything but definitely not institutionalized.

For a variety of reasons, movies about American genocide (various westerns) and slavery (GWTW) still have some kind of popular favor in a way the Nazi movies don't.

From my understanding D. W. Griffith is still taught in film classes, because despite all the problems with his films, he still pioneered many techniques still used in film today. You can't teach the history of film without devoting some time to him. Crash Course has a series on the history of film and he gets substantial parts of one episode, although they rightly bring up how racist his films were and what that did in addition to the filmography stuff.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

From my understanding D. W. Griffith is still taught in film classes, because despite all the problems with his films, he still pioneered many techniques still used in film today. You can't teach the history of film without devoting some time to him.

There's more to Griffith than The Birth of a Nation. It's absolutely true that Griffith is technically and visually a talented film director and that he made some films that are still worth seeing. His best work as most film scholars admit are the short films he made before Birth...stuff like "The Musketeers of Pig Alley" (the world's first gangster film), "A Corner in Wheat" (an anti-capitalist short film that was a favorite of Soviet film-makers), "The Avenging Conscience" (an adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart). Those stuff you can still see and enjoy without any racist baggage whatsoever.

Had he made just these shorts, Griffith would still be a major figure and would have a higher reputation without the stain of his first feature. The films he made after Birth, like Way Down East and Broken Blossoms are also interesting (also far shorter). So Griffith's technical breakthroughs and achievements, many of which were featured in his shorts before his first feature, don't depend on Birth to be acknowledged and appreciated.

Likewise as arguably the greatest film-maker of the first half of the 20th Century noted:

"Certain shrewd businessmen, seeking to advertise [The Birth of a Nation], made assertions to the effect that I have praised it and have stated that in its time Birth of a Nation greatly influenced my creative work. I emphatically protest against these assertions. True, I've always given Griffith his due as an outstanding master of the bourgeois film. But this can in no way be applied to Birth of a Nation. This film has never been shown here [U.S.S.R.] and I saw it abroad after The Battleship Potemkin appeared and therefore I could in no way have been influenced by Birth of a Nation. The disgraceful propaganda of racial hatred toward colored people which permeates this film cannot be redeemed by purely cinematographic effects in this production."
— Sergei Eisenstein


The problem with The Birth of a Nation is that it's a racist film but it's also well made so that means that Griffith lent his talent and craft in service to an evil ideology much like William Shakespeare gave Anti-Semitism its great work of art when he made The Merchant of Venice with a well-written anti-semitic caricature.