MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar

Lines in the Sand

The standing ovation Newt Gingrich got from his white, Republican supporters in South Carolina for calling President Obama the “food stamp president” is just a stunning display of deliberate obtuseness in action. What exactly do these people think they’re applauding? The bit where Their Man Gingrich conveniently overlooks that the state of our economy, which President Obama inherited from Bush, Jr. — a state that was caused in large part by the corporate greed and lack of regulation that the Republican party heartily endorses — has screwed a lot of people over financially and directly contributed to the need for families to rely upon food stamps to, you know, eat?

Now, the “food stamp President” nonsense is an important issue, yes. But beyond that, there’s an overarching problem with the flood of barely concealed racism inherent in so many things that come out of this man’s mouth. The things like “poor kids lack a work ethic,” and his idea to get rid of adult janitors and pay poor students to clean their schools, and his saying things like how he doesn’t want to give Black people food stamps, he wants to give them work (conveniently ignoring the part where the majority of people on food stamps are not Black, but I guess he doesn’t want them to work). Al Sharpton made the point on Rachel Maddow tonight that if this was really about food stamps, Gingrich would have said “people on food stamps” not “Black people on food stamps.”

These issues go way beyond one standing ovation for Newt Gingrich. More and more, this presidential race is becoming about both the race divide and the class divide. And there’s a lot of overlap there, but we need some unity here. There is a clear line in the sand being drawn in what will ultimately be a showdown once we get through the primaries and find out who President Obama has to run against, and that line has to do with the very core beliefs we have as a people about not only what our country was founded on, but what we want it to be.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon