Connect with us

Breakfast of Champions.

Published

on

Responsibility in America is fading, and Glenn Beck’s cries of Nazism and fascism have nothing to do with the real thing, nor are they making America — or her people — better.

Yesterday

Kurt Vonnegut died three years ago yesterday. In 1973, when I was but eleven, he published “Breakfast of Champions.” It is, as Vonnegut wrote, “a tale of two lonesome, skinny, fairly old white men on a planet which was dying fast.” It overwhelmed The New York Times. In “Is Kurt Vonnegut Kidding Us?,” the Times wrote,

“He makes pornography seem like any old plumbing, violence like lovemaking, innocence like evil, and guilt like child’s play.

“Mr. Vonnegut takes care of most of what is absurd and downright evil in American civilization–everything from Vietnam to sex, from war to massage parlors.”

The Times said Vonnegut “skewer[ed] everything that is absurd and evil in the rest of civilization–from Nazis to paranoia, from genocide to people bogged down in their various bad chemistries.”

It became one of his all-time best-selling books.

But in a sense, neither “Breakfast of Champions,” nor Vonnegut, have much of anything to do with this piece, except they told tales of “everything that is absurd and evil in the rest of civilization…” So, actually, in a sense, they have everything to do with this piece.

Yesterday deserves to not be forgotten. And then there’s that “those who forget the past…” cliché, too.

Today

There was a war of cognitive dissonance in my head Saturday night. I was home watching Stanley Kramer’s Oscar-winning 1961 drama, “Judgment At Nuremberg” on TCM. My boyfriend sent me a text, saying, “Glenn Beck is being utterly ridiculous on Fox!” And then, “I highly suggest you watch. He’s convincing students why liberals are bad.”

So there I was. Switching back and forth between, “Judgment At Nuremberg” and “Glenn Beck.” Consider the irony. A show about the evils of Nazis and fascism, and a show about the evils of, well, “Nazis” and “fascism.”

“Judgment At Nuremberg” should be required viewing for every student, certainly the ones Beck was brain-washing, but really, every American. There are several themes repeated throughout the film: “Everyone was doing it, we had no choice,” “We did not know,” “No one will take responsibility,” and “Everyone is to blame, so no one is.”

There are many parallels between Stanley Kramer’s work of fiction based on fact, and Glenn Beck’s work of fiction based on fact. And there is this one compelling difference: Kramer may have worked in the entertainment industry, but he was trying to teach America a truthful and honest lesson. Beck (the $32 million-dollar man,) admits he is an entertainer, and Beck has never taught anyone in America anything about truth or honesty.

(Don’t believe me? Let’s put Beck’s work to the truth meter. Actually, the “Poltifact Truth-O-Meter.” Of the fourteen statements non-partisan Politifact fact-checked, only one was rated “true.” The rest were rated varying degrees of “false,” up to and including two rated “Pants on Fire.”)

It’s no coincidence “Judgment At Nuremberg” was on Saturday night. Sunday was National Holocaust Remembrance Day. Civil rights activist and author David Mixner had a few words to say yesterday:

Nor should we forget that our country was among those that turned a number of Jewish refugees away from our shores and sent them back to Europe to face certain death. Or the fact that we were aware of the camps and did nothing to stop them from being built and becoming factories of death. That our military opposed diverting resources from the war for bombing the rail lines leading to the camps. Of course, one of the great moral dilemmas of the war was the debate about the morality of bombing the camps themselves, killing those inside, in an effort to save other lives. In our remembrance of this dark horror, we should always examine the key question that is posed in the United States Holocaust Museum, “What did we know and when did we know it?”

“What did we know and when did we know it?” It sounds like the questions asked during Watergate. And after we realized there were no W.M.D.s in Iraq.

The New York Times’ Frank Rich on Sunday, in “No One Is to Blame for Anything,” was asking the same question, and coming up with the same answers we heard in “Judgment At Nuremberg.” “Everyone was doing it, we had no choice,” “We did not know,” “No one will take responsibility,” and “Everyone is to blame, so no one is.”

Rich takes on the big banks, Alan Greenspan, the Vatican, (as Maureen Dowd did,) Tiger Woods, the Bush administration, and, to a degree, Barack Obama.

“I was right 70 percent of the time, but I was wrong 30 percent of the time,” said Alan Greenspan as he testified last week on Capitol Hill. Greenspan — a k a the Oracle during his 18-year-plus tenure as Fed chairman — could not have more vividly illustrated how and why geniuses of his stature were out to lunch while Wall Street imploded.”

“As he has previously said in defending his inability to spot the colossal bubble, “Everybody missed it — academia, the Federal Reserve, all regulators.”

(But as I have said before, “No one could have predicted” is always false. Someone reputable, always, already has.)

Rich writes,

“Such is our current state of national fecklessness that the gold medal for prompt contrition by anyone on the public stage belongs, by default, to David Letterman.”

He continues:

“Former Bush propagandists will never lack for work in this climate. It’s remarkable how often apologists for Wall Street’s self-inflicted calamity mirror the apologists for Washington’s self-inflicted calamity of Iraq. In the case of that catastrophic war, its perpetrators and enablers almost always give the same alibi: “Everyone” was misled by the same “bad intelligence” about Saddam Hussein’s W.M.D. Hence, no one is to blame and no one could have prevented the rush to war.

“That, of course, is no more true than Greenspan’s claim that “everyone” was ignorant of the potentially catastrophic dangers in the securitization of subprime mortgages.”

“No top player in the Bush administration has taken responsibility for his or her role in selling faulty intelligence products without exerting proper due diligence. There have been few unequivocal mea culpas from those who failed in their oversight roles during the housing bubble either — whether Greenspan, the Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson or Timothy Geithner in his pre-Obama incarnation leading the New York Fed.”

Indeed.

Rich chose the Titanic as a metaphor for his piece, but he got the “why” wrong.

“If the captain of the Titanic followed the Greenspan model, he could claim he was on course at least 70 percent of the time too.”

The problem the Titanic had wasn’t that they were off course. They were on course. The problem was that they weren’t reading to the messages people were sending them. Same as Greenspan and the big banks. And Bush.

Rich should have used “Judgment At Nuremberg.” For many reasons, including that the Vatican plays a role in both yesterday’s and today’s atrocities. (And lest anyone accuse me of equating the Holocaust with the problems of today, let me firmly, and unlike the Vatican, answer that in no way am I.)

Tomorrow

Rich reminds us of Obama’s Inaugural call for “a new era of responsibility.”

But responsibility is a word no one likes. It’s a word no one wants to understand. Ironically, it’s the very lack of responsibility that has led us to this disaster we call America in the twenty-first century.

I look around and all I see and hear these days is an appalling lack of responsibility. Glenn Beck’s irresponsible lies. The banking and insurance industry’s profit over people problem that has thrown this country and its people into devastation. Politicians’ greed and corruption. The past few weeks, the past few months, hell — the past decade is strewn with a total lack of accountability or responsibility.

But it’s that appalling lack of responsibility that comes in large part because we had a president who did things like tell us to go shopping after 9/11. Because we have a Church, as Maureen Dowd wrote yesterday, and as the Pope wrote decades before, that is more concerned with the “good of the universal church” than the children it should have protected. Because we have politicians who lie and cheat on their spouses and vote in the interests of corporations instead of constituents. And because we have a Supreme Court that just made that even easier.

No one, it seems, wants to act responsibly or be responsible. No one, it seems, wants to do the right thing.

Too few are willing to play by the rules. Too few are willing to take a stand. Too few are willing to open their eyes, dig for the truth, and realize that they have a responsibility that extends beyond their nose, beyond their front door, beyond their own self-interest.

Yes, perhaps I’m talking about the Republicans. But I’m also talking about the Democrats who are waiting — stalling — (until after the November elections?) to take on repealing DADT, dragging their feet on ENDA and the UAFA. Forget about even talking about repealing DOMA.

But it doesn’t end there. I’m also talking about you and me. I’m talking about playing by the rules and about taking on more responsibility that we might think is necessary — or fair. Because someone has to.

So why should the “average man or woman” take responsibility for what’s outside their front door? Why should we follow the rules, be good role models, help our neighbors, not run red lights, not lie, not cheat on our spouses — or our taxes?

Simple. Because it’s the right thing to do.

Because we’re better than our leaders.

We have to be. There’s really little choice left.

Of “Breakfast of Champions,” The Times wrote that Vonnegut,

“…wheels out all the latest fashionable complaints about America–her racism, her gift for destroying language, her technological greed and selfishness–and makes them seem fresh, funny, outrageous, hateful, and lovable, all at the same time.”

It would seem yesterday’s “fresh, funny, outrageous, hateful, and lovable” complaints about America have gotten far worse, and seem far less fresh, funny, outrageous, or lovable. Just more hateful.

It’s our responsibility to cure the causes of these complaints. And it’s our responsibility to fight those who perpetuate them, like Glenn Beck.

Responsibility. It’s the Breakfast of Champions.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

32 mins ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

17 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.