Goss: master of the obvious (source: CNN)This headline from CNN:
CIA Chief Defends Agency Over bin Laden Hunt
Goss: ‘We know more than we can say’
Or less…
Later in the story, Goss has this illuminating explanation for why the agency’s having so much trouble finding Al Qaeda’s leaders:
[They] haven’t been found “primarily because they don’t want us to find them and they’re going to great lengths to make sure we don’t find them,”
For this, they made him CIA chief??
Posing with FC Barcelona soccer shirt before game against Israeli team: traitor to his Party, traitor to his team? (credit: AP)Shimon Peres has done just about everything he can to telegraph he’s leaving the Israeli Labor Party for Ariel Sharon’s new Kadima except making the actual announcement. First, there were the hours of meetings with Sharon shortly after his defeat in the Labor leadership primary. In the past day or so, Peres’ chief Labor ally, Dahlia Itzik bolted Labor for Kadima. Then, Peres’ brother, Gigi, made repulsive racist comments on Israeli radio about Amir Peretz’s North African ethnicity:
“Peretz and his people are a foreign body in the Labor Party, like General Franco in Spain,” Gershon (Gigi) Peres told Army Radio in an interview.
“They were the Falangists who came from southern Spain,” Peres continued, who came to infiltrate as a fifth column into Madrid, and destroyed the magnificent republic.”
Referring to Peretz’ former Knesset faction, Gigi Peres said “This game is entirely clear – the One Nation people came from North Africa, took over, and shot them in the back.”
Whether or not Shimon Peres approved his brother’s comments matters very little. The fact that someone so close to him mounted such an offensive attack on Peretz certainly indicates that the Peres family (including the political scion) is not terribly happy with the Party’s new leader.
Then Peres made this statement of praise for Sharon:
“The real change is not in the Labor Party. The real change is in the Likud Party [i.e. in Sharon leaving Likud],” Peres said Tuesday in Barcelona. “Mr. Sharon took a different direction for a Palestinian state. He wants to continue the peace process.”
We won’t have long to wait for the other shoe to drop and for Peres to hightail it out of Labor.
According to Haaretz, rumors have it Peres will not run as an MK candidate on the Kadima list. Rather, he will become a super ambassador for the peace process:
Sharon may offer Peres a future position as effective “special ambassador for peace affairs” in future negotiations with Arabs. Were Sharon to win re-election, such an appointment would place Peres at the center of all regional and international contacts toward diplomatic progress toward peace with the Palestinians, the report said. Sharon’s senior adviser Uri Shani is said to have made the offer to Peres in a meeting at the end of last week.
Of course, this begs the question–why would Sharon need a foreign minister if he’s ceding control of the most important real estate in the portfolio to Peres, who wouldn’t even be elected?
Peres’ abandonment of his life-long political home means one thing to me: those who voted him out as Labor leader were absolutely right in doing so. If he could turn his back on his party so easily, it can only mean that the Party and its principles were not intrinsic for him, but only a means to an end, which was wielding power for power’s sake. Peres risks becoming a political fossil (many would say he’s long been one) who is increasingly irrelevant to Israeli politics.
Ephraim Sneh, a current Labor MK who did not support Peretz in the leadership fight had this to say to Peres:
“This party of Sharon’s cannot be a ‘home’ for a person who has the ideology of peace and of the Labor Party,” Sneh said.
“Sharon is moving with cleverness, witth cunning, to set out a map in the West Bank, in Judea and Samaria, that is a recipe for the continuation of the conflict.
Referring to Peres, Sneh concluded, “A man who has worked so hard for the sake of peace, and received a Nobel Prize for it, will not lend his fand to a plan that is a hoax.”
“I very much hope he has not changed his world view.”
His remarks already sound prescient.
Dahlia Itzik, not out of the Labor Party more than a few hours has already slung some traditional Israeli red-baiting slurs Peretz’s way:
“As I look at those joining the Labor Party, it’s entirely clear that the party has adopted a diplomatic policy platform that is more Meretz than Meretz – it is Rakah [the former Israeli Communist Party] – even left of Rakah.”
She should be seen as a stalking horse for Peres. But what she’s doing does not do Peres a favor. It merely drags him down into the gutter with her.
I’m a member of Democrats.com and participate in its forum. When I write a post about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that relates to the Democratic Party, I sometimes will post a summary of my post and a link to it at the forum. I should also note that I am a life-long Democrat.
After writing a post critiquing the Party’s hawkishly pro-Israel stance, I created a thread at Democrats.com and linked to my blog post. This is what I wrote:
The National Jewish Democratic Council & the National Democratic Committee itself seem to believe the only credible position to take on the conflict is one that is hawkishly pro-Israel. When Howard Dean goes to Israel he meets mostly with Likud politicians and security hawks. You’d never know there’s a dove in Israel based on his Israel trip blog. In fact, there aren’t any Palestinians or Israeli Arabs in the region either based on the names he met as listed on the NJDC site.
I’ve written this post on the subject.
Bill Harding, a forum moderator, took offense at my post. In his reply, he used anti-Semitic canards to denigrate my concerns about the Party’s position vis a vis the Mideast conflict.
In addition, Harding warned me not to include a link to my blog within my signature. Since the forum specifically allows links within signatures (some forums don’t) and since the site’s rules do not disallow signatures which include blog links, basically Harding was making up the rules as he went along. And of course, he was singling me out for special treatment. Harding claims there IS such a rule:
our policy is that you can post your own blog in your profile, but not with every post.
But I could find no such rule. To further reinforce the notion that he’s making up the rules as he goes along, Harding closed the thread so that no one can participate further in it and he provided no reason for doing so. He’s also prohibited me from creating any new threads. And he even removed the link to my blog post about the Party’s positions regarding the I-P conflict. The site definitely does not prohibit such linking nor did Harding ever object to that link. Quite an overreaction and I’d say Bill’s having a fit of pique. Bill claims he’s a Democrat, but to me he’s an Autocrat. But this doesn’t make for good moderation.
Harding writes in reply to my appeal for the Democrats to develop a more progressive and balanced view of the I-P conflict:
Your opinion is swayed by divided loyalties, and somewhat by religion. My opinion is based on nothing but pure, unadulterated, patriotic Americanism.
This is the tired old ‘dual loyalty’ canard raised by American anti-Semites from time immemorial. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about anti-Semitism and dual loyalties:
…Analysts of modern anti-Semitism point out that its essence is scapegoating: features…felt by some group to be undesirable…are believed to be caused by the machinations of a conspiratorial people whose full loyalties are not to the national group.
[Wikipedia, anti-Semitism]
My religion does not motivate me to advocate a progressive approach for the Party toward Israelis and Palestinians and I resent anyone who claims otherwise. Helping Israelis and Palestinians make peace is of the utmost importance not only for the parties involved, but for all Americans and everyone around the world. It is not a narrow parochial or religious concern.
And this too from Harding is a deeply offensive:
“Your statement is typical of a special interest group seeking to put its own selfish interests before the wants and needs of ALL Americans.”
An American Jew who wishes the Democratic Party to have a more progressive view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is NOT a “selfish special interest.” I’m a good American, a good Democrat and I resent the hell out of Harding’s calcified, borderline anti-Semitism.
In addition, Harding’s defensiveness regarding criticism of the Party’s agenda (“You would do better to rail against the neocon PNAC Republicans for supporting the Saudis, than to blame Howard Dean for the problems in the Middle East”) does neither the Party nor the Mideast conflict a service. A party (or website supporting such a party) which does not want to hear criticism is a party which is in defensive mode and not ready to grow and change in seeking to make itself a majority party once more.
Harding also seemed more interested in policing my comments than in moderating a poster to the same thread who wrote this:
The easiest way to ensure this windfall for the few is to keep kids (like some I know) indoctrinated, so that “Niggers, Jews, and Faggots” roll off their lips.
Harding was in the thread attacking my own comments & yet did nothing to remove this far more offensive one.
I find it disturbing that Harding is a moderator of this forum espousing such classical anti-Semitic views. I suppose one could argue that his views are not intentionally anti-Semitic. If they aren’t then at the least they’re deeply insensitive and don’t belong at a site which supposedly supports the tolerant values of the Democratic party. In addition, as a moderator of a forum myself, I find it interesting that Democrats.com allows its moderators to take such adversarial, & offensive positions towards fellow members.
I’ve written a complaint about Harding’s behavior to the site. We’ll see what, if any response they have. More than likely, they’ll see me as the troublemaker and close ranks around one of their own. All of this begs the question: what positive role can Democrats.com play in the political debate when one of its moderators represents such backward views; and why would anyone, Jewish or otherwise, want to participate in its forums?
Actually, my blog post title is a misnomer. Unlike President Bush, who has a fairly coherent policy regarding the conflict, the Democrats have none. They do have an Israel policy and it goes something like this: support Israel right down the line, never refer to the Palestinians, never criticize any Israeli policy even the most reprehensible, and never attempt to make your own statements about the conflict correspond to the more moderate views of the vast majority of American Jews and Israelis. Basically, Democrats have ceded their Mideast policy to AIPAC.
President Bush, on the other hand, while he has at times been erratic in his approach, has been willing to expend political capital to attain progress. Condi Rice made a brave decision to lay her prestige on the line in her all-night bargaining session between Israelis and Palestinians over the Rafah border crossing. The result yesterday was the creation of the first Palestinian controlled border crossing. What have the Democrats done in any practical sense to create any forward movement in the process? It’s all well and good to sit on the sidelines and boast about how impeccable your pro-Israeli credentials are. But I’d choose a politician who gets down off his high horse and actually does something.
Dean meets with Bibi “enemy of Israeli poor” Netanyahu (source: NJDC)Let’s take a look at recent Democratic activities regarding Israel. I’ve already written a critique of Howard Dean’s September, 2005 Israel tour in which he curiously seems to have forgotten that any Palestinians live in the region. He also has forgotten that any Israeli-Arabs exist. He seems to have forgotten that there are any other Israeli political leaders than Ariel Sharon and the Likud (oh yes, he did meet with Shimon Peres who led Labor into oblivion by joining in the current coalition).
Howard Dean knows better. He knows there are Palestinians who oppose terror and Hamas and who want a negotiated settlement with Israel. But you wouldn’t know it from his statements. Howard Dean knows there is a progressive Israeli alternative to Sharon’s cynical policies. You wouldn’t know it from the list of Israeli leaders with whom he met while there.
Here’s the latest Howard Dean statements on Israel as relayed by the National Jewish Democratic Council. You’ll never guess where he delivered them–before an AIPAC audience of course:
“Literally from Israel’s birth, as that great Democrat Harry Truman took the courageous step to immediately extend America’s hand to recognize the State of Israel, Democrats have done all we can to foster the special, enduring relationship between the two countries. Maintaining Israel’s security is a key U.S. national security interest….
“We all support the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security. But, the establishment of a Palestinian state must be contingent on the cessation of violence and terror. The Palestinian Authority must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and continue the on-going transformation to leaders untainted by terror.”
Dean has swallowed Sharon’s policy hook line and sinker. We will not negotiate with the Palestinians until they stop all violence against Israel, the latter says. The only problem with this is it contravenes the Road Map (something Sharon claims he’s in favor of) which calls for a cessation of Palestinian terror going hand in hand with Israel’s full cessation of settlement expansion (which hasn’t happened). You’ll notice that there’s no mention in Dean’s statement of any Israeli responsibilities regarding the peace process. In his formulation, if no Palestinian state is established it will be solely the Palestinians’ fault. This of course flies in the face of reality on the ground in which there’s more than enough blame to go around.
Clinton at Israel’s security barrier: “This is not against the Palestinians” (credit: AP)And then there’s Hillary Clinton. She joined Bill for the Yitzchak Rabin memorial rally and a nice tour of the Security Barrier in which she found nothing but laudatory things to say about it. In fact, she had the absolute chutzpah to say, “this isn’t against the Palestinians.” Tell that to the scores of thousands of Palestinians who will no longer be able to access their fields, visit relatives in the West Bank or get to a hospital quickly due to this fence which “isn’t against them”:
“The priority of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, and that is why I have been a strong supporter of Israel’s right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have taken the International Court of Justice to task for questioning Israel’s right to build the fence, and on this trip, I wanted to see the fence with my own eyes. Joined by some of my friends from New York – Harold Tanner, Malcolm Hoenlein, Susie Stern and Michael Miller -I stood on a hilltop in Gilo and received a detailed briefing from Col. Danny Tirza who oversees the Israeli government’s strategy and construction of the security fence.
“…I proceeded to a meeting with Prime Minister Sharon, where we discussed many of the same issues. During the meeting, we were reminded of the threats that Israel faces. An aide to the Prime Minister interrupted to inform him of a Qassam rocket attack on the town of Sderot, a community that lies near the Gaza strip. Sderot has been the site of many attacks over the years and the urgency of the situation made it even clearer to me how important it is for the U.S. and Israel to remain united against terror and for the Palestinian Authority to take immediate steps against the terrorists who attack Israel and threaten the transition of Palestinians to a better future.”
[from Senator Clinton's website]
I suppose we need to cut Clinton some slack since she represents New York with its large Jewish population. But there is a false assumption in her thinking that New York Jews have no interest in a just solution to the conflict; that they are not critical of Israel; that they support unilateral Israeli policies like the Security Barrier which are arrived at with no prior consultation with Palestinians (who are deeply affected by it). I maintain that a Democrat can have a nuanced position that balances legitimate needs and interests of both parties. Very few American Jews believe that Israel’s interests are the only ones that should be taken into account. Yet you wouldn’t know that if you read Clinton’s and Dean’s accounts of their Israel trips. Note the reference to Malcolm Hoenlein’s participation in her visit to the Security Barrier. He is the hard-right president of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, who had to be goaded by Ariel Sharon before he expressed any support for Gaza withdrawal.
Among her list of Israelis with whom she met, you’ll find Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom (Likud), Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz (Likud), Ariel Sharon (then Likud), IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz (a hardline security hawk), and Amir Peretz (Labor). Is it an accident that of all the Israeli leaders she lists, only one maintains dovish views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Someone might come back and tell me that she met with others not listed on her website. That may be so, but I’m going by what she wants the public to know. And she seems to want to avoid any taint of dovish tendencies or interest in the Palestinian half of the conflict. I think it’s shameful. There has to be a better way. Is there no Democratic politician who can set such an example?
Casey meets with neocon darling, Natan Sharansky–what’s he doing meeting with a political ally of George Bush? (credit: NJDC)The NJDC also highlighted an Israel visit by Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey. He had this to say about Israel:
“It was a moving experience to pray at the Kotel, and to learn so much about the triumphant story of the Jewish people as well as the challenges they face today as a democracy and a thriving diverse economy. And it was eye-opening to witness the country’s critical security needs, and to discuss those needs with key Israeli leaders. Israelis have a right to live in peace and security, and America has an obligation to build on our close strategic partnership with Israel.”
Mr. Casey was particularly moved by a quote from the book of Zachariah that was affixed to a plaque in the Jewish section of the Old City; the quote reads, “There shall be old men and old women dwelling in the streets of Jerusalem… and the streets of the city will be full of boys and girls.” Mr. Casey commented, “This passage has been brought to life since Israel regained control of the Old City in 1967. It is our responsibility to help Israel ensure that the streets of Jerusalem will remain safe for young and old for generations to come.”
To hear Democrats tell it, there’s only one salient fact in the Mideast–and that is Israel’s security interests. You’ll note that Casey’s quotation from Zachariah seems to imply only Jewish old men and women and Jewish children live in the Old City. You wouldn’t know that anyone else might live there as well. Actually, if the Sharon government has its way East Jerusalem Palestinians will become ever more constricted. Israel aims to make living conditions there so intolerable that either they will leave or become so bottled up they’d wish they could leave. Democrats do neither Israelis, Palestinians, nor American Jews a favor when they pretend only Israel and its interests matter.
I started to write this post a year ago or so after first seeing Dumbo (that’s right, I never saw it during my entire child–or adulthood–for that matter) with my then 3 year old son. The film just bowled me over it was so good. But what initially inspired me to write about it was the first time I realized that the film was actually a political allegory.
But I stopped myself from writing because I said to myself: “what are you, an adult, doing writing something serious about a cartoon?” I wondered whether I was overanalyzing it and attaching too much importance to it. But after posting here about Alison Krauss’ wonderful cover of Baby Mine and doing added research about the film, I decided that–as one of the greatest animated film of all time–it certainly merits further discussion.
The film debuted in 1941, several weeks before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As such, I see several of the elephant scenes as an allegory of the era. At the time, Americans were agonizing over what their response to the rise of Hitler and Japanese fascism should be. As a nation, we were outraged by the depredations of Nazism. But we also had a lingering romance with isolationism represented by Charles Lindbergh and his American Firsters.
Before I present my thesis, I want to acknowledge that Walt Disney appears to have been an undeniable bigot who hated an assortment of groups and races including Jews, African-Americans, trade unionists, homosexuals, etc. I realize that part of what I write below will appear to fly in the face of Disney’s prejudices. But if you consider that many writers contributed to the development of Dumbo’s storyline, plot and dialogue, its possible that what I view as Dumbo’s philo-Semitism was actually intentional to the story.
In the scene in which the circus elephants first see Dumbo’s ears, I see Dumbo as personifying Europe’s Jews under threat from Hitler. Dumbo first appears as an adorable baby elephant–until the others witness his extraordinary ears. To me, this represents Hitler’s hateful propaganda which caricatured Jews for their long noses and other objectionable qualities:
Oh! – Look at him!
Look at him!
Oh, what a– Oh, look!
Oh, you sweet little thing. – He is cute, isn’t he?
Oh, he is a darling little baby.
Adorable. Simply adorable.
Did you ever see anything so cunning?
Isn’t he a darling!…Is it possible? – Isn’t there some mistake?
Just look at those, those–
E-A-R-S.
Those what? Oh, ears!
These! Aren’t they funny? Oh!
Oh, my goodness. – What a temper.
Oh, what did I do? Well, tell me.
Did I say anything? – Perfectly harmless remark.
I just said that they’re funny, and they are funny.
They certainly are. – After all, who cares…
about her precious little Jumbo?
Jumbo? You mean Dumbo.
Dumbo.
Dumbo, I say. – That’s good.
Dumbo! That’s good. – Dumbo.
[screenplay transcript from Script-O-Rama]
Later, the same elephants gossip about Dumbo’s mother, who’s been thrown into prison for protecting her baby from the taunting of unruly circus patrons:
Well, I heard today that they have put her in solitary confinement.
No! – You don’t mean it!
Oh, how awful for her!
Well, l-I must say, l-I don’t blame her for anything.
You’re absolutely right. It’s all the fault of that little–
F-R-E-A-K.
Yes, him with those ears that only a mother could love.
What’s the matter with his ears?
I don’t see nothin’ wrong with ‘em. I think they’re cute.
Ladies, ladies! It’s no laughing matter at all.
Oh. Oh, she’s right, girls.
Don’t forget that we elephants have always walked with dignity.
His disgrace is our own shame.
Yes, that’s true. That’s very true. – Oh, indeed it is.
Well, frankly, I wouldn’t eat at the same bale of hay with him.
No. Right. – Me either, dearie.
I should say. -Nor I. That’s just how I feel about it.
Here he comes now.
Hmm. Pretend you don’t see him.
Shh.
Timothy Mouse, who will become Dumbo’s mentor and biggest fan, steps forward in an act of immense bravery (a mouse facing down a tentful of elephants!) and shames the elephants for their treatment of Dumbo:
How do ya like that? Givin’ him the cold shoulder.
Poor little guy.
There he goes, without a friend in the world.
Nobody to turn to.
Oh, I’ll do somethin’ about this.
A mouse!
So ya like to pick on little guys, huh?
Well, why don’t you pick on me?
A proud race.
Overstuffed hay bags!
Boo!
When I first heard the line “A proud race” it brought chills down my spine. Introducing the word “race” into a film in 1941 couldn’t help but bring to mind Hitler’s race-hatred against Jews. In that case, the elephants are akin to Nazis and Dumbo and his mother are akin to Jews facing discrimination merely for (among other things) their physical appearance. Like Europe’s Jews, the elephant chorus views Dumbo as bringing shame upon his race through his “otherness.”
Later in the story, the elephant’s complete their social ostracism of Dumbo after he causes the collapse of the big top:
They fixed him good.
What do you mean? – Wh-What did they do?
Did they beat him? – What is it, darling?
Oh. Well, they’ve gone and made him–
Oh, dear, I just can’t say it. – Out with it!
Made him a clown.
A clown?
No! – Yes.
Oh, the shame of it.
Let us take the solemn vow.
From now on, he is no longer…
an elephant.
To me, the echoes of Hitler’s demonization of the Jews are evident here as Dumbo, like the Jews, is hounded out of the elephant fraternity.
Emily Woodward at Popmatters.com, agrees that the film is a political allegory though she posits a different approach to the above scene:
Dumbo…is set against the other circus elephants, who may be seen as representing the European Allies. Key among these is Dumbo’s mother,…separated from her son throughout much of the film, just as America was cut off from Great Britain and other allies at the time of Dumbo’s release.
This strikes me as wrong-headed and unpersuasive. Though I do find much of her review to be cogent and informative. She propounds an interesting allegorical characterization of the circus ringmaster:
At the beginning of the film, the other elephants treat Dumbo with cruel condescension. They know precisely how big an elephant’s ears should be, and they ridicule Dumbo for not measuring up. The rest of the circus community also ostracizes him. With its assortment of jeering clowns and faceless roustabouts, this community exhibits a sinister mob mentality, suggesting Fascism and, by association, Nazism. Significantly, the circus is presided over by a preening, bombastic Italian ringmaster, an apparent caricature of Mussolini (voiced by Herman Bing).
I would agree with everything in this passage except what she writes about the ringmaster. With his preening moustache, grandiloquent speechifying, goose-stepping gait, gleaming uniform, he clearly represents a fascist dictator. But I do not see him as Italian. His accent is clearly German (the voiceover is by Herman Bing, who I assume is German-American, though I have not researched this). As such, the reference to Hitler seems clear.
Dumbo is, for me a philo-Semitic allegory which contains deep empathy for the plight of European Jewry under the heels of fascism. As such, it must’ve seemed revelatory to viewers of the film at the time it first debuted. Not only did Dumbo represent the height of Disney’s cartooning art and a deeply-felt storyline, but the political-allegorical subtext would’ve lent the film even more authenticity and power. For this and many other artistic reasons, Dumbo deserves its reputation as one of the finest animated films ever made.
Despite the stirring elements of Dumbo I discuss above, there is much that is base and despicable in the screenplay. And this corresponds to the various deep-seated prejudices from which Walt Disney himself suffered:
Disney projected his own sense of alienation onto “others” in Hollywood, namely, Jews, blacks, and union workers. In retaliation against the studio moguls, who were predominantly Jewish, he refused to employ Jews in high-level positions at his studio or as actors in his live-action features. Not until 1969, two years after Disney’s death, did a Jewish actor, Buddy Hackett, feature prominently in a Disney film, The Love Bug. Disney Studios also denied black workers even minimal opportunities, as technicians and support personnel. Such racism is apparent in the crow sequence in Dumbo…The black caricatures are shown to be anonymous members of a marginal group. Only one is given a name, “Jim Crow”…
[Leonard] Mosely reports that Disney saw union workers as a third parasitic subset of U.S. society. It is significant that many of Disney’s employees had gone on strike in the spring of 1941, costing his studio some $2 million and paralyzing operations for almost three months. The release date for Dumbo had to be pushed back several months, awaiting final changes that could only be made after production resumed. These changes included the insertion of a new scene featuring drunken clowns. Thinly veiled caricatures of the strikers at Disney, they scheme to “hit the big boss [the ringmaster] for a raise.”
Woodward would’ve made her argument even stronger had she referred to the film’s roustabout sequence and song. The circus workers have no names, no separate identities, no distinguishable facial features (except that they are black). The song they sing is about as stereotypical and subtly hateful as you could get:
…We work all day We work all night
We never learned to read or write
We’re happy-hearted roustabouts
Hike, ugh, hike, ugh hike, ugh, hikeWhen other folks have gone to bed
We slave until we’re almost dead
We’re happy-hearted roustabouts…We don’t know when we get our pay
And when we do we throw our pay away
When we get our pay we throw our money all away
We get our pay when children say
With happy hearts It’s circus day today
Then we get our pay just watching kids on circus day
Muscles aching Back near breaking
Eggs and bacon’s what we need
Yes, sir! – Boss man houndin’
Keep on poundin’
For your bread and keep
There ain’t no letup
Got to set up
Pull that canvas
Drive that stake
Want to doze off Get them clothes off
But must keep awakeHep! Heave! Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave!
Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave! Hep! Heave! Hep!Swing that sledge Sing that song
Work and laugh the whole night long
“You happy”-”hearted roustabouts”
Pullin’, poundin’ tyin’, groundin’
Big top roundin’into shape
Keep on workin’ Stop that shirkin’
Grab that rope,you hairy ape
Poundin’, poundin’
Poundin’, poundin’
Despite the odious prejudices inherent in the lyrics, the music and the scene powerfully represent the back-breaking labor necessary to present the tremendously popular circuses of the day.
The jive crow, When I See an Elephant Fly sequence near the movie’s conclusion also traffics in stereotypes as Woodward notes above. The crows talk jive, dress like flamboyant African-American males and flaunt various ethnic stereotypes. That being said, the song sequence is absolutely vital and full of tremendous wit and energy. Unlike the roustabouts, these crows are each brimming with humor and character. And as the song is meant as a rousing closing number, it is central to the entire film. One could argue that despite his personal hatreds, Walt Disney has allowed African-Americans to steal his film.
The greatness of Dumbo is that despite the prejudices introduced into it by its creators, the film rises above them to champion the oppressed and downtrodden. It gives them hope that they might use those very qualities which mark them as despised to eventually vindicate themselves and triumph over their adversity.
When you have kids, you know they’re going to constrict your cultural experiences because you won’t have much time anymore for those languorous restaurant meals, nights at the cinema, lectures, concerts, etc. In short, you’re in for a grim few years. That being said, most of us don’t expect that our cultural horizons may actually be broadened by having children. That’s what happened to me.
It’s so easy to fall into the trap of buying the Thomas the Tank Engine, Baby Einstein, Wiggles crap that passes for popular toddler entertainment these days. Pop that sucker into the VCR and it’s instant 30 minutes of tranquility on the baby front. But if you figure that stuff insults your intelligence and probably will insult your child’s (even if they appear to like it), then you’ve got to work hard to find alternatives. My alternatives usually run to the classics. For music, it’s Pete Seeger, Sweet Honey in the Rock and the like. For video, give me the Disney Classics (and Warner Brothers cartoons too) anytime. We’ve managed to find Fantasia, Bambi, Silly Symphonies, Dumbo at Costco and ordered Snow White from Amazon Marketplace.
Dumbo is an absolute classic. It’s almost revelatory cartooning. If you look at the Silly Symphonies cartoons of the early 30s, you’ll see some ingenious, inventive cartooning. But the storylines, drawing and characterization are all bare-bones and basic. They are elements of an artistic whole that is still gestating and in-the-making. Yes, there is music, there is drawing, there is character development. But all of these seem to exist as distinct elements.
In Dumbo, they all fuse together in an organic whole. I remember the first time I watched the film I thought I was watching the equivalent of a cartoon musical–just as bold and enveloping as any of the great Broadway musicals of the era. Listen to any of the wonderful Dumbo songs like Casey Jr. (Comin’ Down the Track), Look Out for Mr. Stork, When I See an Elephant Fly, the vivid, but politically objectionable Song of the Roustabouts, and Baby Mine, and you immediately notice that they function within the film in the same way that the great Broadway songs do. They illuminate character, they embody action, they advance the plot. In a word, they are seamless and organic to the film itself. The composers were recognized for their achievement when they won an Oscar for Best Musical Scoring.
Many film critics rank it as one of the greatest animated films of all time. Jon Fortgang, writing at Britain’s Channel 4, says:
Scene from Baby Mine sequence in French pressbookTouching, comic, visually inventive and emotionally convincing, this remains a jewel in the crown of Disney’s golden age.
I certainly agree.
Baby Mine is one of the sweeter, more touching lullabies of film history. As it’s sung, you see the entire circus menagerie bed down in their railroad cars for the night with mom and dad animals cuddling their “new arrivals.” Of course, Dumbo and his mom are the only ones who cannot share in this bliss as she is chained up for her “bad behavior.” They must settle for twining trunks together through the prison bars. Both the music and the action combine to create a powerful emotional experience.
I was delighted to discover that Disney, which is very smart and hip in the ways it markets its film music, enlisted Alison Krauss to cover the song for Country Disney: The Best of Country Sing the Best of Disney (1996). Alison always conveys a song impeccably and she does so once more with Baby Mine (hear it). It’s just the sweetest and most lovely cover you can imagine. The original was nominated for Best Song Oscar (it lost out to Hammerstein and Kern’s The Last Time I Saw Paris). Bonnie Raitt also covered the song for another Disney tribute album. Her version is cool and slightly bluesy. It’s nice, but I’ll take Alison’s version any day.
For weeks, we’ve been reading that the Justice Department is investigating Rep. Bob Ney’s (R., OH) relationship with Jack Abramoff. The Washington Post writes:
source: R.J. Matson, Roll CallProsecutors have already told…Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), and his former chief of staff that they are preparing a possible bribery case against them, according to two sources knowledgeable about the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The events…that interest investigators are connected to the purchase by Abramoff and [business partner] Kidan of SunCruz Casinos, owner of a fleet of Florida gambling boats. Ney twice placed comments in the Congressional Record about SunCruz, first criticizing its former owner when Abramoff and Kidan were in difficult purchase negotiations and then, in October, praising Kidan’s new management. Abramoff and Kidan are facing trial in January on charges of defrauding lenders in their purchase of the casino boats.
Ney, and many other Republicans, allegedly dined and hosted events at Abramoff’s Signatures restaurant without paying. Abramoff also took Ney, Tom DeLay and other Republican House members on a golf junket to Scotland. It appears that Abramoff solicited contributions to his Capital Athletic Foundation (a supposed non-profit that was in reality a means of “laundering” and concealing the origin of the funds) from his Indian tribe clients. That money was used, in turn, to fund the golf outings and other questionable wining and dining of key politicians who wielded power over Indian affairs issues in the House.
What’s new and eye-opening about the Post story is that it names new names who’ve possibly become ensnared in the burgeoning scandal:
35 to 40 [Justice Dept.] investigators and prosecutors on the Abramoff case are focused on at least half a dozen members of Congress, lawyers and others close to the probe said. The investigators are looking at payments made by Abramoff and his colleagues to the wives of some lawmakers and at actions taken by senior Capitol Hill aides, some of whom went to work for Abramoff at the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, lawyers and others familiar with the probe said.
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R), now facing separate campaign finance charges in his home state of Texas, is one of the members under scrutiny, the sources said. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) and other members of Congress involved with Indian affairs, one of Abramoff’s key areas of interest, are also said to be among them.
Prosecutions and plea deals have become more likely, the lawyers said, now that Abramoff’s former partner — public relations executive Michael Scanlon — has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy and to testify about gifts that he and his K Street colleagues showered on lawmakers, allegedly in exchange for official favors.
The Times wrote an editorial this week which noted that the net could be cast even wider:
An enterprising inquiry by The Associated Press uncovered no fewer than 33 lawmakers from both parties who suddenly pressed the Interior Department for special consideration of a relatively obscure Abramoff tribal cause. They did so, it turns out, while at the same time receiving more than $800,000 in campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff’s elaborate lobbying and fund-raising machine…
Speaker Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, received $21,500 for his campaign kitty seven days before writing a letter to Interior officials reflecting the Abramoff position in a tribal casino rivalry. A similar pleading resulted in $10,000 in donations for the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. The lawmakers deny any sort of quid pro quo, insisting they were only expressing their long-held opposition to expanding tribal gambling.
It seems absolutely idiotic that given the numbers of past legislators who’ve been charged with similar quid pro quo (or you could call it outright bribery) arrangements and ousted that these brilliant solons wouldn’t have been quite as brazen as they appear to have been.
This case now rises in importance because if even a handful of these people are indicted I would think it’d be hard for them to run credible campaigns in the midterm elections. This in turn could hurt Republican’s chances of retaining control of the House.
Please, can someone come up with a good name for this scandal? Every scandal worthy of the name deserves, well…a name worthy of the scandal. There’s always Neygate or Delaygate and they almost rhyme. But they don’t acknowledge the potential scope of the matter. Abramoffgate doesn’t roll trippingly off the tongue or keyboard. I like Red Scorpiongate, but it’s too obscure and off-topic. Indiangate is probably too politically incorrect. I think we’ve somehow got to get away from the Watergate echoes. They make new scandals seem a pallid comparison to the original. But I think Jack’s breaking new ground here and deserves his own fresh notoriety in the D.C. Scandal Hall of Fame. How about a few other suggestions from my readers?
One wonders why Abramoff himself has not been indicted. Could he be bargaining for a deal as well? It’s nice for the feds to have Scanlon in the bag, but to bring down some of the most powerful players in Washington will take a lot more substantiating evidence. I would think they’ll need at least a few more plea bargains from individuals who can nail the key players. Abramoff would be big for them. However, Abramoff was such a key player in the fraud that it’s hard to stomach striking a deal with him.
On a related matter, if any Hollywood screenwriters are reading, I think this story would make a tremendous film. Abramoff, while a horrid human being, would make a great film character: the greed, self-absorption, deceit, arrogance and sheer chutzpah are qualities made for cinema. Diane Gordon, one of my readers, has suggested George Clooney for the part. Personally, I think George is a little too smart and a little too pretty for the part. You need an actor who can portray Abramoff’s grotesque personality traits along with his tremendous will to power. You’d have to work hard to humanize the guy since he seems, at least from what you read, to be so utterly detestable. It’d be a hard act for an actor. But Jack Abramoff and this scandal are too juicy NOT to become a movie.
The Bush Administration this week charged Jose Padilla (finally after three years in confinement without charge and mostly without legal representation) with:
Two counts of conspiracy: to further murder and kidnapping outside the United States and to provide material aid to terrorists. He is also charged with directly providing material aid to terrorists.
–New York Times
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick describes the gradual dissolution of the Justice Department’s case against Padilla over time as various Supreme Court decisions in other cases have indicated trying Padilla as an enemy combatant would likely fail before an unreceptive Supreme Court.
Another Times article notes that the government turned away from trying Padilla as an enemy combatant because its two main witnesses had been tortured in secret CIA prisons overseas. Justice did not think U.S. courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) would look kindly on evidence gained through torture.
All of the above describes the gradual dismantling of Bush’s legal approaches to fighting terror. And we should only expect such a dissolution to continue.
The parallels between Bush legal strategy against terror and the Palmer raids organized by Woodrow Wilson’s attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, seem obvious. A few months ago, I wrote this about FBI harassment of Arab-Americans:
Actually, the FBI’s clear and outrageous harassment of Muslim-Americans since 9/11 reminds me of two other infamous times in American history when we allowed our justice system to ride roughshod over immigrant groups whose ethnicity or political views were considered unpopular. In the 1920s, the Palmer raids threw thousands of immigrant anarchists and Communists out of the country without charges or trials.
Roger Burbach and Ben Clarke wrote this apt passage about the Palmer connection on September 11, 2002:
Attorney-General John Ashcroft’s flagrant violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is analogous to what happened when another attorney-general, A. Mitchell Palmer, carried out “the Palmer Raids” of 1919. Then over 5,000 people were arrested, most without warrants, and about 250 were deported. Many of the deportees, including the renowned early feminist and anti-war activist Emma Goldman, had lived in the United States as immigrants for decades. Like Ashcroft’s internal war on terror, this earlier violation of the US Constitution came as government officials and the media whipped up domestic hysteria over an alleged “Red Scare”, while a US expeditionary force was dispatched abroad, in this case to Russia to support the conservative “white Russians” in a civil war against the Bolshevik Red Army.
The Palmer Raids, like that other emblem of American shame, the WWII Japanese internment, mark nadirs in America’s commitment to constitutional law. I believe that Bush’s war on terror too will join their ranks as one of the more odious examples of presidents who turn away from bedrock principles to pursue political vendettas or deeply misguided policies.
.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
