Donna Ferentes
jubliado
No, I'm saying that your invocation of "recent converts" is something of a diversion.Random said:
Galloway deserts constituents to chase Jane Fonda's.....autograph!
- Thread starter Groucho
- Start date
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I've not said that either, have I?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
You're just wriggling here. Either the date of conversion is an issue for you or it isn't. Care to make things clear?
IMO Fonda, after supporting (overtly or tacitly) a recent slew of US wars has now thrown her hat into the anti-war ring. Fine, like Is aid, this might help. But we need to be very careful about allowing members of the ruling class onto anti-war platforms, and if we have hope of their becoming parts of an anti-capitalist movement then we need to watch Fonda etr all like hawks.
Disagree?
IMO Fonda, after supporting (overtly or tacitly) a recent slew of US wars has now thrown her hat into the anti-war ring. Fine, like Is aid, this might help. But we need to be very careful about allowing members of the ruling class onto anti-war platforms, and if we have hope of their becoming parts of an anti-capitalist movement then we need to watch Fonda etr all like hawks.
Disagree?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
No, what I'm doing is avoiding having you put words in my mouth.Random said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Who is "we" here? In what sense do we get to "allow" anything?Random said:
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Getting excited about Fonda's ex-husbands is a total diversion. Hanoi jane is still detested by the US right and having her onside can only help the anti-war movement. During the election campaign Kerry fell over himself trying to prove that a photo of him and Fonda just standing togther was a fake. It was a fake and it says bundles about her role during a previous war that Republicans should try to 'smear' Kerry's campaign in this way. Vietnam is the ghost haunting them in Iraq. If Fonda can help strengthen that link in peoples' minds then all the better.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Donna Ferentes said:
Then why aren't you answering my questions, in your own words? Do you think they are all irrelevant?
The 'we' is the broad anti-war movement; didn't really think I'd have to spell that out. The 'we' that organises demos, meetings, etc and decides who speaks and who doesn't.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Yawn. Give it a bloody rest.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Donna Ferentes said:
So you're refusing to clarify your eariler statements, refusing to answer my questions, and it's all too boring?
You can see why this might cause people to characterise you as a diletante sneerer rather than someone with the ability to back up their aloof assertions, surely?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
No, I can see why somebody might characterise it as a refusal to have you put words dishonestly in my mouth, since it is you not I who have made an issue of "media millionaries" and then tried to claim I have a position on them.
As for wheher you think I'm a dilletante, just imagine how little I care for your opinion on the subject. You should experience no difficulty, having been imagining my opinions quite happily so far on the thread.
As for wheher you think I'm a dilletante, just imagine how little I care for your opinion on the subject. You should experience no difficulty, having been imagining my opinions quite happily so far on the thread.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I did. I did so twice. You ignored it.Random said:
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
As far as I can see, you said 'you can't pick and choose' and 'this would include everyone'.
If you think these are adequate on their own, then fine -- but I think there are important issues about both those points, namely that we always *can* pick and choose -- there isn't some obviously 'right' anti-war movement. Plus your assertion that excluding previously people linked to controllers of media corporations would be too exclusive, and that's just plain wrong.
If you think these are adequate on their own, then fine -- but I think there are important issues about both those points, namely that we always *can* pick and choose -- there isn't some obviously 'right' anti-war movement. Plus your assertion that excluding previously people linked to controllers of media corporations would be too exclusive, and that's just plain wrong.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I made other points as well as these, and indeed before them.Random said:
I also asked who you meant by "we" and got the answer "the broad antiwar movement" in which case you're not going to have any measure of agreement on who should speak and who shouldn't in the first place. Which is why you can't pick and choose. Unless you think Jane Fonda would be unacceptable to the movement as a whole, which is scarcely likely, is it?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Poor old Hitch. Look at who his friends are now.
Anyway, I must wriggle my way to a staff meeting.
Anyway, I must wriggle my way to a staff meeting.
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
I saw Jane Fonda and Peter Hitchens on Question Time recently - the hatred Peter Hitchens had for Fonda was unbelieveable. But I thought Fonda made some good points about Peter Hitchens in response (she even told him to 'go and read his brother on Henry Kissinger')...
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
rebel warrior said:
she never! did she?
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
Pickman's model said:
she never! did she?
Yep - it was a bit shocking that she still had some respect for Christopher Hitchens - few other anti-war people still do.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
phew! well i never! you may wish to read chomsky's comments on fonda in that triangle book (iirc) he wrote.rebel warrior said:
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
rebel warrior said:
She's be out of the loop for a long time.
Though it was odd watching Question Time once and having Peter
Hitchens seem like the most left wing panelist! That is until the subject moved from Iraq onto the monarchy and family!
I think it would be better if rather than recommend Peter Hitchens read his brother's book on Kissinger, if she recommended Christopher Hitchens read his own book on Kissinger!
Personally, I think Christopher Hitchens will be a hard person to debate, not because he has heavyweight arguments backing him, but just because he is such a maverick these days and his line of reasoning is so bizaare and incoherrent that it is hard to know where he is coming from - I recently heard him give a classic imperialist justification of US behaviour at Abu Ghraib, something along the lines of - "Yes it's bad, but Amnesty International and other human rights do-gooders would not dare say that it was better under Saddam, if one thing justifies the US invasion it is that things HAVE improved at Abu Ghraib"
Probably, Hitchens will do his usual line of slurring, for instance he claims that Cindy Sheehan is an arch-antisemite , and generally argues these days through personal attacks - but the ex-trotsyist popinjay will be able to get a few hits because of Galloway's achiles heel, his uncritical attitude to dictators like Castro and (though he said he has had a rethink) comments on the USSR.
Oddly, I picked up a collection of essays that C.Hitchens had written only just over 10 years ago and there were very sharp defenses of Chomsky (A figure he now mocks) and the Palestinian struggle, there was also a critique of Connor Cruise O'Briens journey from supporter of the Algerian National liberation struggle to apologist for imperialism - another essay he should re-read.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
Pickman's model said:
I wondered how long it would take before someone would mention, Fonda's lamentable support for Israel during the brutal 1982 invasion of Lebanon - though Zionism is quite common on the American centre-left, remember Palestinian-American Edward Said's essays lamenting the fact that the Americans most ardent in the anti-Vietnam and anti-Apartheid movement and other national liberation struggles, somehow couldn't bring themselves to extend the same solidarity to the Palestinians, which was a taboo subject, apparently more recently Fonda has met with Israeli peace activists, hopefully a sign that she has re-thought her earlier errors
Hopefully, if she hasn't already rethought her position on Israel, Galloway will be able to talk some sense to her - though I note that she did visit a Palestinian refugee camp in 2002: http://vikingphoenix.com/public/CelebrityFiles/TurnerandFonda/JaneFonda/jfonda-17.htm
Some commentators have suggested that her trip to Lebanon in 82 with then husband Tom Hayden (Ex-Vietnam radical who had made his peace with the establishment) was more his thing, to do with his trying to woo Jewish voters at home by supporting Israel
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Donna Ferentes said:
The anti-war movement, as a broad coalition, makes hundreds of decisions about picking and choosing. I think that the past politics of anti-war celebrities should be a factor, especially when talking about media millionaires. I think that should be a point of concern for the entire anti-war movement, except possibly the Lib-Dem wing.
It is a special point of concern for those who want the anti-war and anti-capitalist movements to be as united as possible; I would have thought that this description would include the Respect Party. I can see Bolshibhoy's point about Fonda being useful as a link to Veit Nam, but your defence of Fonda seems to be based on nothing so principled or specific, but rather being based on a rejection of the very idea of picking and choosing. Are you seriously saying this is a practical impossibility?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Hellooooooooo. MP elected on antiwar ticket.energy said:Surely this is the ideal time to work with his constituents when he is not distracted by parliamentary affairs?
He has one of the poorest constituencies in Britain, but it seems he couldn't care a flying fuck about them, only his own media image
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Unless you can provide some evidence- I'll take that with a pinch of salt.
She has changed her position since but in the 1980s she strongly supported the Israeli invasion.
Michael Parenti's book MakeBelieve Media: The Politics of Entertainment features quotes from her press interviews around the time of the release of her film Rollover.
It's a shame that she has decided to rejoin the anti-war movement two and a half years after the invasion - and when she has a book to promote too
But I can't help thinking that perhaps her decision to finally speak out against the warmongers should be welcomed, regardless of her motives (her attitude towards Israel leaves a lot to be desired though from what has been mentioned here...)
Having said that, her decision to finally speak out ties in nicely with the suggestion from some that the foreign policy elite in America are now quite split on Iraq, (hence the reason for Cindy Sheehan receiving so much coverage recently, for example). Maybe it is finally 'safe' for Fonda to air her anti-war views again..?
But I can't help thinking that perhaps her decision to finally speak out against the warmongers should be welcomed, regardless of her motives (her attitude towards Israel leaves a lot to be desired though from what has been mentioned here...)
Having said that, her decision to finally speak out ties in nicely with the suggestion from some that the foreign policy elite in America are now quite split on Iraq, (hence the reason for Cindy Sheehan receiving so much coverage recently, for example). Maybe it is finally 'safe' for Fonda to air her anti-war views again..?
Similar threads
