Culture

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘He didn’t think he was a good man’: new book reveals unseen portrait of JFK

      by

      J Randy Taraborrelli has already written five books on the Kennedy family but his sixth, JFK: Public, Private, Secret, is his first that’s directly about John F Kennedy, 35th US president from 1961 until his assassination in Dallas two years later.“I have been writing about the Kennedys from Jackie’s perspective for 25 years,” Taraborrelli said, referring to Jacqueline Kennedy, the first lady who lived for another 30 years after he was shot, a figure of worldwide fascination.Taraborrelli’s first book about the Kennedys “was Jackie, Ethel, Joan: Women of Camelot, and that was in 2000. And then I did After Camelot, which was a lot about Jackie and her marriage to [Aristotle] Onassis,” the Greek shipping tycoon, “Camelot” the name given to the Kennedys’ apparently charmed circle, in reference to the legendary court of King Arthur.“I also did Jackie, Janet and Lee, which was about Jackie and her mom [Janet Auchincloss] and her sister [Lee Radziwill]. Two years ago, I did Jackie: Public, Private, Secret, which was Jackie, cradle to grave. When that was successful, I thought, ‘It’s time to tell JFK’s side of the story.’”Evidently, Kennedy books sell. So do books by Taraborrelli, whose subjects have also included Diana Ross, Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra, Cher and Elizabeth Taylor.View image in fullscreenFor JFK, he turned to the vast Kennedy archives but also his own extensive interviews, looked at anew, and new sources including Monroe’s publicist, Patricia Newcomb, now 95, and Janet Des Rosiers Fontaine, once secretary and girlfriend to JFK’s father, Joseph Kennedy, now 100 years old.Readers “know what they’re going to get when they read one of my books,” Taraborrelli said. “It’s not going to be … a blow-by-blow of every moment in JFK’s political history. I wanted to do more of a human portrait, something people can [use to] really sort of understand this man and like him or hate him, at least.”Taraborrelli’s central theme is JFK’s treatment of women.“We’ve always looked at JFK as this unconscionable cheating husband,” he said. “I wanted to maybe not defend him as much as explain him, try to get into his head and tell his side of the story. This book is really a companion to Jackie: Public, Private, Secret. When you read them both, you really get a full picture of that marriage.”It’s a sympathetic picture. Taraborrelli’s JFK is a relentless adulterer but one who came to some realization of his weakness, through the painful consequences of his behavior, through a belatedly deepening connection to his wife, and through the trials of office.Taraborrelli said: “The thing about JFK is that as unconscionable as his actions were, he still had a conscience, which made it even more difficult for him, because if you have no conscience, then you can just be a crappy person and you’re OK with it. It’s when you have a conscience that it causes problems for you internally.”JFK’s behavior has certainly caused problems for his reputation. As Taraborrelli was writing, Maureen Callahan published Ask Not: The Kennedys and the Women They Destroyed, a lacerating account, ceding nothing to the trappings of glamor and power.Taraborrelli did not read it: “If it had come out at a different time, I might have. But when books start coming out while I’m working on a book, I don’t even want to know what’s in them, because I don’t want to inadvertently repeat the same material or be in some way influenced.“I also made a decision early on with JFK that I did not want [the book] to be a compendium of all of his affairs … an A-through-Z list of every woman he ever slept with, because these women, many of them have written books of their own, and many of them have been interviewed for books. Their stories have been told.View image in fullscreen“I wanted to find women that made a difference, like Joan Lundberg actually made a difference in his life. Judith Exner made a difference, though I don’t believe anything she ever said about anything. She was there, you know. Mary Meyer made a difference. Marilyn Monroe makes a difference, historically if not personally.”Whether JFK had an affair with Monroe is part of a conspiracy-laced legacy fueled by Kennedy’s policies and presidency, his proximity to organized crime (in part through Exner, also involved with a Chicago mobster), and his assassination, all of it fuel for a thriving publishing industry of labyrinthine what-ifs. Taraborrelli says he has no wish to join it. He deals with the assassination in a few final pages, pointedly ignoring old questions: did killer Lee Harvey Oswald act alone, what did the CIA know. Releases of government files came and went. Taraborrelli stayed focused on his man.He thinks there was no Monroe affair – chiefly, though Jackie expressed concern, because no evidence exists. But Taraborrelli does say JFK had a previously unknown affair with Lundberg, a Californian air hostess, in the 1950s, when he was an ambitious senator from Massachusetts. It ended for Lundberg with Kennedy paying for an abortion.Taraborrelli said: “JFK met Joan when he was on the outs with his family. Jackie had a stillbirth in 1956 and JFK did not return from a vacation to be with his wife. It took him a week to get back. And when he got back, everybody in the family, both sides of the family, wanted nothing to do with him. In fact, Jackie’s mom was so upset that she made him sleep in the servants’ quarters over the garage.“And so he went to Los Angeles, and he met [Lundberg], and she didn’t know anything about him, other than that he was a famous senator, but she didn’t know him personally, and she didn’t know anybody in his life. And he was able to open up to her honestly and use her as sort of a pseudo-therapist to try to work out some of his issues. And he was trying to grapple with how could he have done this to his wife?”As Callahan shows, Kennedy men doing unconscionable things to women has never been rare. JFK’s nephew, Robert F Kennedy Jr, is now US health secretary, after extensive coverage of his philandering and its tragic consequences.Of JFK, Taraborrelli said: “At one point, Joan said to him, ‘I think that you’re a good person.’ And he said, ‘No, I’m really not.’ He did not even think he was a good man. He said he felt like he was stuck in himself and he couldn’t figure out a way to get out.”Nor could Kennedy’s sister, Rosemary, who endured developmental difficulties and whose father arranged in 1941 “for brain surgery that went terribly wrong, turned her into an invalid, and then he institutionalized her and told the family they needed to forget she existed, and they all did, but JFK held this shame that he let this happen to the sister he loved.View image in fullscreen“In the book, you realize that if he was able to disassociate himself from his own sister, who he loved, then how was he to feel about a baby Jackie had that died, who he didn’t know? It’s like he didn’t have empathy. Jackie realized that, so she found Rosemary, the sister [JFK] had not seen in 15 years, and she encouraged him to go to and reconnect with his sister, because she knew he could not be a fully realized man, holding this dark secret and feeling ashamed.“And so that was another building block. And then when their son Patrick died [living less than two days in August 1963] that was another building block.”As Taraborrelli sees it, such experiences helped bring “Kennedy out of himself” on the brink of his death, “turn[ing] him into a different man, a man with good character … and so in this book, you see JFK take accountability for his mistakes. He says, ‘The way that I was was painful, and by painful, I mean shameful.’“He also takes accountability as a president when the Bay of Pigs [the 1961 invasion of Cuba], for instance, is a disaster. It was something he inherited from [President Dwight D] Eisenhower but he didn’t blame the other administration, ‘I have to clean up that guy’s mess,’ all that stuff. JFK went to the American people and said, ‘I’m the president. This is my responsibility. I did this, and I’m sorry.’ And guess what? His approval rating went up to 85%, because people want a president who takes accountability.“But he had to become a man who could take accountability first, and he did. That’s a great story, and I think it’s a really hopeful story to tell, especially in these days when we question what is leadership and what do we expect from our leaders.”

      JFK: Public, Private, Secret is out now More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Chipping away at democracy’: authors fear outcome of US supreme court’s LGBTQ+ book ruling

      by

      Sarah Brannen, an illustrator and children’s book author, was riding in the car with her sister when she received an alert on her phone in late June. She was in a group chat with other authors whose books were being debated in a US supreme court case, and the messages soon poured in. Her book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which highlights a same-sex marriage, was at the center of a contentious case that had widespread implications for public school education throughout the nation.As per the 27 June ruling, a group of Maryland parents now have the option to remove their public elementary school students from classes where Uncle Bobby’s Wedding and other storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes are read. The justices decided through a 6-3 vote that the Montgomery county school board violated parents’ right to freely exercise their religion by forbidding kids from opting out of instruction. The parents argued that the board impeded them from teaching their kids about gender and sexuality in a way that aligned with their belief system.“I’m terribly concerned that one of the implications of this is that LGBTQ children and children with LGBTQ families will see some children having to leave the classroom because they’re reading a book about their families,” Brannen said. “I think it is just a terrible thing to tell young children that there’s something wrong with them so that some children can’t even hear about their family.”Brannen and other authors whose books are at the center of the case fear that the ruling could lead to parents taking their children out of any lessons that they disagree with in the future, including inclusive tellings of history. Additionally, they contend that it’s important that public school education reflects the world, which consists of diverse family structures, gender and sexual identities. Teaching kids about LGBTQ+ people and diverse families can make them more empathetic and socially competent, studies have found. Along with Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which was illustrated by Lucia Soto, the parents’ complaint included six other books, including Born Ready by Jodie Patterson, My Rainbow by US representative DeShanna Neal and Trinity Neal, and Pride Puppy! by Robin Stevenson.View image in fullscreen“When you start to chip away at what public education was created to do,” said Neal, “you are chipping away at the very foundation of what democracy, and liberty and freedom are supposed to be.”‘Critical thinkers that can move America forward’Research has shown that it is never too young to expose children to diversity, said Rachel H Farr, a University of Kentucky professor and associate chair of psychology. Her work focuses on LGBTQ+ parents and families. She has found that kids with LGBTQ+ parents report having higher social competence than their peers because they have learned to accept that it is OK for people to be different. Exposure to diverse family structures through books, she said, could also help kids with heterosexual parents better understand the world around them.“When children learn about people who may be different than they are, that can help with things like understanding … that people can have a different point of view,” Farr said. “That can help with things like perspective-taking, kindness, empathy, a sense of belonging: things that I think many of us would argue are experiences and skills that we want children and people around us to have.”In Born Ready, a transgender boy expresses his frustration with being misgendered, until he comes to a place where he feels affirmed in his gender identity. For Patterson, the recent ruling symbolizes a shift in education from a place where preconceived beliefs are challenged and individual thoughts are formed, to a space where students are taught from a narrow perspective. It is likely that students will encounter LGBTQ+ people throughout their lives, she said, and it is important that they be prepared.“It is imperative to have experiences that are beyond the belief you might hold at that moment, so that we can be a talented country with critical thinkers that can move America forward,” Patterson said. “And I do believe that all the progress that we’ve seen in America has been through collaboration through thought, through bringing opposing opinions together and finding a space that is not necessarily one or the other but a combination.”If parents can choose to opt their children out of subjects that they don’t believe in, she said, “does that also allow for people like Native Americans to opt out of a story about Christopher Columbus or Black families to opt out of what we call American history, which is often unjustly told through the eyes of white men?” Patterson sees it as dangerous for people to not be exposed to ideas that they disagree with, because it makes them singularly informed.In the dissenting opinion of the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the decision “threatens the very essence of a public education”, adding that it “strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society”.View image in fullscreenAccording to Farr’s research, schools are an important platform for children to learn how to form their opinions. Exposure to diversity, she said, has been shown to instill children with values of respect and kindness.“The flip side of not exposing kids to diversity, unfortunately, is that the opposite can happen. It might inadvertently increase bias, suggesting that there is only one right way to think or to be in the world,” Farr said, “as opposed to developing an appreciation that there’s a lot of different ways to be in the world, and to express oneself.”Stevenson, the author of Pride Puppy!, a story about a queer family attending a Pride parade, thinks that allowing students to leave the classroom will also make queer families invisible. The ruling “segregates books about queer people, books about families like mine, and treats these books differently from other books, and in so doing, it sends a terribly harmful message to all kids, but particularly to kids who are LGBTQ+ themselves, and kids from LGBTQ+ families”, Stevenson said. “It also has the potential to accelerate this epidemic of book bans that we are already in the midst of.”As the US supreme court deliberated on the case, DeShanna Neal, a Delaware representative and co-author of My Rainbow, worked with their legislative colleagues on a bill to protect book bans in the state of Delaware. In My Rainbow, Neal makes a rainbow-colored wig for their trans daughter, Trinity, to help her express her gender identity. The Freedom to Read Act passed on 30 June, which Neal sees as a sign that they and their colleagues are working to keep the state safe. After it passed, Neal received a text message from a colleague that read: “You will never have to worry about My Rainbow being banned in Delaware.” More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The ongoing fight to replace racist monuments in the US: ‘requires a lot of perseverance’

      by

      After nearly half a decade, Vinnie Bagwell, a self-taught sculptor-artist, is still waiting for the million dollars that the New York City department of cultural affairs promised for her to work on monument Victory Beyond Sims, after winning the artist competition to replace the monument of Dr J Marion Sims in 2020.“It just requires a lot of diligence and perseverance,” she said to the Guardian. “A lot of times, people don’t realize how important and impactful art in public places is until they see it.”Sims was a 19th-century gynecologist known for experimenting on 12 enslaved and poor immigrant women without consent. City officials removed his monument in April 2018 after a unanimous vote by the Public Design Commission.Bagwell will be the first Black woman to have a memorial on Fifth Avenue. Bagwell began sculpting in 1993 and created the First Lady of Jazz in Yonkers, the first public artwork made by a contemporary African American woman commissioned by a municipality in the United States.Her 9ft (2.7-meter) monument is of a Black woman with 14ft wings, only the second Black Angel statue to be visible publicly in the US.The shape of Africa cut away from the woman’s heart symbolizes the enslavement of 12 million people over hundreds of years. On her right side the braille will read “My Soul looks back and wonders how I got over!” and on the left it will read “Primum non nocere!” (First do no harm).View image in fullscreenTo honor the suffering of Sims’s victims, whose anguish brought advancement to the field of gynecology, there will be 12 women silhouetted on her back. A slave ship is also depicted on the back to illustrate the inhumanity of slavery. The names of the survivors we know will be emblazoned into the helm of the garment.Bagwell hopes that the monument, which will be across the street from the New York Academy of Medicine, will function as a vehicle of change for the community. “Women are more under fire now than we were before. So many of us women have lost a lot of the right to control our bodies. New York is still safe, but [women in] Arkansas aren’t,” she says. “When you look at some of the things that this particular administration is talking about, they’re talking about going backward; that is still something to be concerned about.”Bagwell’s situation is not unique, with many other cities also stalling progress to replace Confederate statues and symbols. However, Vinnie has encountered many obstacles.First, a committee chose artist Simone Leigh as the winner, even though community members had voted for Bagwell. After a heated debate, the city ultimately reversed its decision. Then, the city attempted to cut $250,000 from its budget but failed. Bagwell has been waiting longer than the typical 90 days after signing her contract to receive the money.In a statement to the Guardian, the department stated its excitement about the project moving forward. “New York City has taken bold steps in the effort to foster a collection of public artworks that better reflect who we are as a city, including this project – long called for by the local community – to commission a new monument for this site in East Harlem,” they note.“This administration remains committed to fostering a diverse, vibrant public art collection that more fully represents the vast range of stories, experiences, and backgrounds that define New Yorkers. We’re excited for the Victory project to move ahead.”View image in fullscreenOn 23 June, the design commission voted unanimously to approve Bagwell’s designs, and she can now begin work.Bagwell’s situation reflects a broader failure to follow through on legislation and promises made following the 2020 racial justice protests, where Americans dismantled statues of Confederate soldiers that stood in their communities after the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man.In 2021, Joe Biden passed legislation to replace the monument of Roger Taney, a pro-slavery chief justice who served on the court from 1836 until 1864, with one of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American supreme court justice, in the United States Capitol. The intended deadline for the building of the statute was December 2024, but that month, a source familiar with the matter said the joint committee on the library had only just signed off on a memorandum to begin the process.Now, a 2025 executive order signed by Donald Trump mandating that the secretary of the interior restore monuments removed in the last five years puts in jeopardy the already fragile progress made by past laws to diversify the public landscape in the US.Jamaican sculptor Basil Watson said that it’s “very possible” that more people are now in support of removing objects that help tell Black stories. “It’s the risk we take that is part of the struggle,” he said. Watson worked to replace a Confederate monument with a John Lewis memorial in Decatur, Georgia. “It would be a tragedy if it were to be removed, but then we’ll just have to do it again,” he said. “The journey cannot be stopped.”In 2017, Trump tweeted: “the beauty [Confederate monuments] that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!”This debate on the rise and fall of monuments dates back to the 1870s. In 1876, Frederick Douglass called into question the making of the Emancipation Memorial, built by artist Thomas Bell in Washington DC. The creation of the statute was funded using donations from recently freed people.View image in fullscreenWhile the city created the monument to honor emancipation, it depicted a white man holding out his hand over a chained kneeling Black man, a design Douglass found problematic. “What I want to see before I die is a monument representing the Negro, not couched on his knees like a four-footed animal, but erect on his feet like a man,” he said. DC officials removed the statute in 2021, and advocates are still discussing its replacement.Nearly 150 years after Douglass’s speech, only 10% of the top 50 national monuments are of Black and Indigenous people, according to an audit completed by the Monument Lab, a non-profit public art and history studio.“The story of this continent is not reflected in our monument landscape in full,” said Paul Farber, the director and co-founder of the Monument Lab. “The monuments we have tell a partial story. Adding a monument or the selective removal of a monument can have a profound effect for a city or town. If we don’t respond to the erasures, the lies by design we will be doomed to repeat. Our audit also showed that 99.4% of monuments were not taken down in 2021 or 2022.”The Trump administration’s influence has now rolled back even that little bit of progress. This year, Pete Hegseth rolled back the names of two military forts to their namesakes of confederate soldiers. Following pressure from Republicans, Washington DC’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, also ordered the destruction of the Black Lives Matter plaza in front of the White House.Trump has proposed reviving his controversial National Garden of American Heroes, using money cut from the National Endowment for the Humanities, which ended hundreds of grants for libraries, museums and archives. The garden would include George Washington and Christopher Columbus statues alongside Martin Luther King Jr, Kobe Bryant and Whitney Houston.“When you look at some of the things that this particular administration is talking about, they’re talking about going backward,” Bagwell says. “That is still something to be concerned about.”View image in fullscreenNationally, Republicans have been mixed on the issue of inclusion in public spaces. A Kentucky state senator, Chris McDaniel, is still advocating for the replacement of a Confederate statue. In 2020, he pre-filed a bill that would replace Jefferson Davis in the Capitol Rotunda with Carl Brashear, the first African American US navy master diver born in Tonieville, Kentucky.“His story is inspirational,” he says. “That’s what monuments are supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be able to point to people and say: ‘This is somebody you can look up to.’”McDaniel’s bill to replace Davis in the Capitol is at a standstill as the Kentucky Capitol Arts Advisory Committee and other legislators must weigh in on who they believe deserves to be honored.Mississippi’s Republican governor, Tate Reeves, has shown mixed messages about Confederate symbols in his state. During the 2020 election, almost 73% of people in Mississippi voted to remove the Confederate flag with a new state’s flag. “This is not a political moment to me but a solemn occasion to lead our Mississippi family to come together, to be reconciled and to move on,” Reeves said after the vote and before it was eventually replaced.In the same year, Reeves simultaneously opposed the removal of Confederate monuments. “I reject the mobs tearing down statues of our history, north and south, Union and Confederate, founding fathers and veterans,” he says. “I reject the chaos and lawlessness, and I am proud it has not happened in our state.” ​Bryan Stevenson, the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative who led the building of Legacy Sites in Montgomery, Alabama, a civil rights museum that works to reshape the racist narratives about African Americans in Alabama, explains Reeves’s messaging.“I think it’s a struggle, a competing narrative, and sometimes they give away a little something by holding on to something that makes what they’re giving away feel acceptable,” he tells the Guardian. Stevenson says it “is about power, because most of the people who are kind of in control of these things [are] aligned, in my view, with this problematic history. We can’t accept just what [they’re] gonna give” us.Some artists who have worked to replace Confederate monuments with ones that honor Black history have succeeded and received praise despite government resistance. In Roanoke, Virginia, the city sculptor commissioned Lawrence Bechtel to replace a statue of Confederate general Robert E Lee with one of Henrietta Lacks.View image in fullscreenLacks’ cells, now called HeLa, were taken without her knowledge in 1951 and have now become vital to medical research; they have been used to develop polio and Covid-19 vaccines. It took about four years for the city to raise the money for the statue and a year from the contract being signed for Bechtel to build the monument.“I had bought a veil to cover it over, and everyone was invited to come close as the veil was pulled off, and people just mobbed it. It was fantastic,” he says. “It was just wonderful. It was very uplifting.” Bechtel said he has yet to receive a negative email.Watson, who built a monument of John Lewis to replace a memorial put in place by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, recalls the community’s excitement about the monument before he even finished. “The idea of putting up John Lewis in its place was quite exciting for the community, and since it has been up, I have had nothing but positive responses,” he says.Watson remains steadfast in his belief that the inclusivity of public art is crucial. “I think we artists need to represent our community; we need to have our values represented in our environment,” he says. “I think it’s important that we do have art in our community that represents the truth, represents our values, represents our history, and points our way forward.”Stevenson, a civil rights lawyer, believes that reclaiming the narrative in public spaces can challenge the racist narratives embedded into some Americans’ mindset.When he first started working in public art, there were 59 markers and monuments honoring the Confederacy in his state yet none paid tribute to Alabama’s history of being the state with one of the largest slave populations, so he and his team worked to create plaques in public spaces that honored those who were enslaved.View image in fullscreenHe refers to the process of reframing public conversation as narrative work, responding to the racist views long perpetuated by institutions. With the building and taking down of monuments, he suggests that we need a new framework to tell the full story of American history as a nation.“I think we have to find a better way to help people in this country recognize that there’s a place for people of African descent in this country and that our stories can’t be denied any longer,” Stevenson says.Bagwell also emphasizes the importance of honoring African Americans’ vital contributions to American society through public art. “It’s just stunning that we have made so much out of so little,” she says. “The contributions we’ve made to this country are phenomenal, and they should be remembered because we are very much a part of what made America great in the first place.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      California legislature acts to keep film and TV production at home

      by

      Hollywood’s home state of California will more than double annual tax incentives for film and television production to $750m under a measure passed by the Democratic-led legislature on Friday.The increase from the current $330m was approved as part of a broader tax bill that is expected to be signed into law by California’s governor, Gavin Newsom.Newsom has advocated for the boost, a step to help reverse a years-long exodus of production from California to places such as Britain, Canada and other US states that offer generous tax credits and rebates.Producers, directors, actors and crew members have warned lawmakers that Hollywood was at risk of becoming the next Detroit, the former automaking capital devastated by overseas competition.Permitting data showed production in Los Angeles, the location of major studios including Walt Disney and Netflix, fell to the second-lowest level on record in 2024. California has lost more than 17,000 jobs since 2022 from its declining share of the entertainment industry, according to union estimates.Producer Uri Singer said he shot three films in New York to take advantage of its tax incentives. He received a California tax credit to shoot his current project, a horror flick called Corporate Retreat, in Los Angeles.“You can get such good cast and crew that are available that makes shooting in LA financially better,” he said. “Besides that, creatively you find here anyone you want, and if you need another crane, within an hour you have a crane.“Plus, “the crew is happy because they go home every day,” Singer added.“The Entertainment Union Coalition applauds today’s announcement,” said Rebecca Rhine, the president of a coalition of unions and guilds that represent writers, musicians, directors and other film professionals, in a statement. “The expanded funding of our program is an important reminder of the strength and resiliency of our members, the power of our broad-based union and guild coalition, and the role our industry plays in supporting our state’s economy.”“It’s now time to get people back to work and bring production home to California,” Rhine added. “We call on the studios to recommit to the communities and workers across the state that built this industry and built their companies.”Local advocates applauded California’s expansion of tax incentives, though they said more needs to be done.Writer Alexandra Pechman, an organizer of a Stay in LA campaign by Hollywood workers, called on traditional studios and expanding internet platforms to commit to a specific amount of spending in California to support creative workers.“It’s time for the studios and streamers to do their part to turn this win into real change for all of us,” Pechman said.Industry supporters also are pushing for federal tax incentives to keep filming in the United States.Donald Trump claimed in May that he had authorized government agencies to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced overseas. The movie tariff has not been implemented. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Seth Meyers on Trump’s falling approval rating: ‘Worth remembering that people don’t like this’

      by

      Late-night hosts spoke about how Donald Trump’s presidency is proving unpopular with Americans, looking at the cruelty of his deportation strategy and the response to protests in Los Angeles.Seth MeyersOn Late Night, Seth Meyers spoke about Trump’s approval rating going down this past week and in particular he looked at how people are against his extreme immigration strategy.“People don’t even approve of Trump on immigration and that’s what people wanted him for,” he said.Meyers called his tactics “needlessly cruel” before speaking about his appearance at the Kennedy Center this week where he went to see a performance of Les Misérables.Trump was booed by many and Meyers said it was “like Darth Vader getting booed on the Death Star”.He said it was “worth remembering that people don’t like this stuff” and that while Trump might have promised to crack down on criminality, instead he has been “letting Stephen Miller run rampant” targeting everyday workers.Meyers called it a “wildly unpopular crackdown on innocent people living their lives” and Trump now trying to control the narrative showed how he is “terrified” of losing more support.Stephen ColbertOn the Late Show, Stephen Colbert said that there was a possibility that thunderstorms might force Trump to cancel the military parade planned for the weekend.“You made God mad and now he’s shooting lightning at your birthday tanks,” Colbert joked.He added: “If he gets too wet, it all slides off and someone has to carry his face and his hair around in a bucket.”It’s proving to be an unpopular plan already with six in 10 Americans calling it a bad use of government money. “He’s already throwing a big military parade out in Los Angeles,” Colbert added.This weekend will also see planned pushback across the US dubbed the “No Kings” protests. Trump was asked if he saw himself as a king this week and he claimed that was not how he saw himself. “Why dost thou sons look so inbred?” Colbert quipped.He also spoke about Trump’s unpopular visit to the theatre and joked about his dumb responses to questions on the red carpet. “His brain is wet bread,” he said before joking that Trump probably believes Les Misérables is about a character called “Lester Misérables”.Trump has raged against drag performances at the Kennedy Center so some decked-out drag queens walked in to watch the show near Trump. “That is amazing except for anyone sitting behind them,” he said.Colbert also looked at the coverage of the Los Angeles protests, ridiculing a CNN segment that commented on the smell of weed during a peaceful demonstration. “They better call a Swat team and a taco truck,” he said.This week also saw the Trump administration target the use of any “improper ideology” at the National zoo. “All monkeys doing it in front of our preschoolers must be married,” Colbert said.Jimmy KimmelOn Jimmy Kimmel Live! the host joked about surviving the “post-apocalyptic hellscape” that is Los Angeles.He also brought up the “Maga-friendly” Kennedy Center and how Trump going to see Les Misérables was “like Kanye going to see Fiddler on the Roof”.He added: “Usually when Trump watches a staged rebellion, it’s Fox News’s coverage of the riots here in LA.”Kimmel joked that Trump was “putting out fires with his brain” given how calm things have really been in the city, and compared it with the January 6 riot where Trump and his followers called those involved “concerned citizens on a sightseeing tour”.He spoke about the the planned protests this weekend, saying: “I really hope that doesn’t put a damper on Trump’s big birthday parade.”This week also saw Trump admit in an interview to once playing the flute when he was younger. “I feel like I’d have the same reaction to a gorilla using a curling iron,” Kimmel said.In other news, Rand Paul’s refusal to support Trump’s bill that would increase the national debt also saw him disinvited from this year’s White House picnic, but after he told reporters, Trump claimed this wasn’t the case. “Trump thought RuPaul was trying to get in,” he joked. More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘These guys are idiots’: Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black call out government’s Harvey Milk erasure

      by

      Sean Penn, the Oscar-winning actor of the 2008 Harvey Milk biopic Milk and Milk writer Dustin Lance Black have spoken out against US defense secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to remove the gay rights icon’s name from a navy ship.“This is yet another move to distract and to fuel the culture wars that create division,” Black told the Hollywood Reporter in a phone call on Wednesday. “It’s meant to get us to react in ways that are self-centered so that we are further distanced from our brothers and sisters in equally important civil rights fights in this country. It’s divide and conquer.”Penn, who won his second best actor Oscar for playing the former San Francisco supervisor, added in an email: “I’ve never before seen a Secretary of Defense so aggressively demote himself to the rank of Chief PETTY Officer.”The order to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, christened in San Diego in 2021 for the prominent gay rights and navy veteran, was part of an internal memo that was leaked on Tuesday. The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson confirmed that the ship’s new name “will be announced after internal reviews are complete”.The timing of the decision for mid-June, a month meant to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community, was reportedly intentional. The renaming is supposed to ensure “alignment with president and SECDEF objectives and SECNAV priorities of reestablishing the warrior culture”, referring to Donald Trump, Hegseth and navy secretary John Phelan, according to the memorandum.“Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander in chief’s priorities, our nation’s history and the warrior ethos,” the Pentagon said in a statement.“These guys are idiots,” Black told the Hollywood Reporter. “Pete Hegseth does not seem like a smart man, a wise man, a knowledgeable man. He seems small and petty. I would love to introduce him to some LGBTQ folks who are warriors who have had to be warriors our entire life just to live our lives openly as who we are.”Milk, written by Black and directed by Gus Van Sant, depicted Milk’s political ascendancy in San Francisco, where he became the first publicly gay man to be elected to public office when he won a seat on the city’s board of supervisors. He was assassinated along with mayor George Moscone by former city supervisor Dan White in 1978. White was convicted on two counts of voluntary manslaughter and served just five years in prison.The USNS Harvey Milk was initially named in 2016 during the administration of Barack Obama. According to the leaked memo, Phelan is also considering new titles for vessels named after such civil rights icons as Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman and Cesar Chavez.“Harvey Milk is an icon, a civil rights icon, and for good reason,” Black said. “That’s not going to change. Renaming a ship isn’t going to change that. If people are pissed off, good, be pissed off – but take the appropriate action. Do what Harvey Milk had said we need to do, and it’s about bringing back together the coalition of the ‘us’-es that helps move the pendulum of progress forward. Stop the infighting and lock arms again. That’s what Harvey would say.” More

    • 238 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      We in the cultural sector must stand up to Trump’s attacks – if not now, when? | Gus Casely-Hayford

      by

      In one of his recent Truth Social posts, Donald Trump appeared to fire Kim Sajet – the fearless and utterly brilliant director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC. The president used his social media platform to claim that Sajet’s support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) made her unsuitable for her role. “Upon the request and recommendation of many people, I am hereby terminating the employment of Kim Sajet as Director of the National Portrait Gallery”, Trump wrote. “She is a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position. Her replacement will be named shortly.”Where to start? By now, we all know the arts has become the terrain for a brutal proxy battle for hearts and minds. A culture war 2.0, where not just reputations are at stake, but institutions, whole sectors and ways of thinking. But I am hoping that even Trump’s support base have begun to grow a little bored with these attacks on figures and institutions in the cultural sector. The culture war has moved beyond farce into the deeply tragic.I am sure even many of the president’s most loyal supporters know deep down that the Smithsonian (a vast complex of 21 museums) is a genuine force for good, an institution that represents so much of the US at its very best. And like the Kennedy Center, the cultural institution that Trump took control of earlier this year, or the universities his administration has attacked, the Smithsonian is a fish in a barrel: easy to bully, its financial destiny in significant part tied to public funding, with limited scope to defend itself. This contrived political theatre damages critical institutions, threatens the careers of talented, dedicated people, and its repercussions will be deep and long-lasting.Good museums are not sleepy institutions trapped in heritage-aspic. Across its 178-year history, the Smithsonian has consistently evolved to reflect ambient change and address public need. Like many other national museums around the world, these changes, particularly in recent years, have been driven by an aspiration to engage and enfranchise, to broaden audiences and to catalyse national conversations. I would have thought that seeking to give value back to a greater number of the population is uncontroversial. Institutions this important, mostly sponsored by the public, must simply, continually, work to be ever more universal, inclusive and open. Left or right, that has value. In times like these, when we are, as citizens of western democracies, so riven and divided, the arts have a job to do of being a space for inclusive debate.But the truth is that DEI isn’t some new-fangled indulgence. That drive to be inclusive is what good museums were created to deliver. Twenty-five years ago, I began my career at the British Museum. I still remember reading its founding purpose for the first time. The British Museum was created for “all studious and curious persons”. I remember thinking that the word that does the really hard work in that statement is “all”. The British Museum was created in the mid-18th century around an inclusive imperative, around the idea that we might all hope to find ourselves reflected in its spaces and concerns.Its founders must have recognised the powerful need for a national museum: it was created at a time when Britain was going through a period of existential anxiety, when Scots were rebelling; the country needed a unifying narrative. I am sure the British Museum’s founders knew exactly what they were doing when they committed the institution to that beautifully enfranchising ambition of being for us all. And yes, I know museums have so often failed miserably to live up to these inclusive objectives, but we must never stop trying, nor relinquish the basis on which the public can hold us to account.Universities and museums are vital for healthy societies, and their independence, their bravery, their sometimes maddening honesty, underpins so much that is important. We undermine that at our peril. I spent a number of treasured years as a Smithsonian museum director and fell for its ethos and its dedicated people. It was founded on an ambition to propagate “the increase and diffusion of knowledge”. It was created to enable transformational change through sharing and empowering US citizens with knowledge, with truth. I cannot think of a time when this has been more important.It is unclear whether Trump has the authority to fire Sajet. What is clear is that his move is designed to demoralise her and all my former Smithsonian colleagues. That’s why, directing a different museum now, across the Atlantic, I feel moved to write. We in the cultural sector everywhere need to stand up and be counted, we need to celebrate Kim Sajet, we need to not retreat from diversity here in Britain. To my former colleagues, I say that speaking the truth and having the courage to do so when it is difficult does not make you unsuitable for your roles in a demographically complex democracy; it is probably the most important aspect of what we are called upon to do. It is easy writing the diversity action plan, but having the moral courage to stand up for those principles when they are needed – that is heroic.

      Gus Casely-Hayford is a curator, cultural historian, broadcaster and lecturer who is currently the director of V&A East More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The genteel, silver-tongued thinker who fathered US conservatism – and paved the way for Trump

      by

      Back when the “public intellectual” was still a thriving species in America, the conservative writer William F Buckley Jr was one of the most famous – of any political stripe.On the PBS television show Firing Line, which he hosted weekly until 1999, he debated or interviewed people ranging from ardent rightwingers to black nationalists. In between, he edited the magazine National Review, wrote three columns a week, wrote or dictated hundreds of letters a month, and was known to dash off a book while on vacation. He was photographed working at a typewriter in the back of a limousine as a dog looked on. In Aladdin (1992), Robin Williams’s genie does Buckley as one of his impressions.Buckley’s extraordinary energy is captured in a sweeping new biography that also uses its subject to tell a larger story of the American right. “As far as I’m concerned, he invented politics as cultural warfare, and that’s what we’re seeing now,” the writer Sam Tanenhaus said.View image in fullscreenTanenhaus spent nearly three decades researching an authorized biography that was published on Tuesday, titled Buckley: The Life and Revolution that Changed America.Buckley is often remembered as the architect of the modern conservative movement. For decades he worked to unite anti-communists, free marketeers and social conservatives into the coalition behind the Reagan revolution. Yet today, almost two decades since Buckley’s death in 2008, the conservative landscape looks different. Free trade is out, economic protectionism is in. The Republican party’s base of support, once the most educated and affluent, is now increasingly working-class.Even as Donald Trump remakes the right in his own image, however, Tanenhaus sees Buckley’s thumbprints.One of the biggest is Trumpism’s suspicion of intellectual elites. Although Buckley was a blue blood and loved the company of artists and literary people, he memorably said that he would “sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University”. His first book, in 1951, accused professors of indoctrinating students with liberal and secularist ideas – more than half a century before the Trump administration’s bruising attempts to pressure Ivy League universities into political fealty.Tanenhaus, the former editor of the New York Times Book Review, spoke to me by video call from his house in Connecticut. He is a gregarious and funny conversationalist. At one point, he paused a digression about Joan Didion to observe: “Wow. There’s a vulture in my backyard. For God’s sake.” He said he looked forward to reading my piece about him, “unless you’re saying bad stuff about me. Then send it to me and say: ‘My editors made me write this.’”Our free-flowing, one-and-half-hour conversation gave me some sense of why Tanenhaus’s biography took so long to write. It also made me better understand how the conservative Buckley was charmed into the decision to allow a self-described “lifelong unregistered liberal Democrat” unfettered access to his papers, and to give that person the final – or at least most comprehensive – word on his life.The outcome is a lively, balanced and deeply researched book. At more than 1,000 pages, including end matter, the hardback is an engrossing, if occasionally wrist-straining, read.View image in fullscreenTanenhaus was born in 1955, three weeks before Buckley published the first issue of National Review. Writing the book, he said, often felt like a kind of “reconstructive journalism” where he relived history that he had experienced but never considered in its context. As a liberal and an “unobservant, ignorant, secular Jew”, he also had to try to understand someone with whom he had little in common, politically or culturally.Although Buckley’s views on some subjects evolved over time, “he was pretty and firmly entrenched with two foundational ideas,” Tanenhaus said. “One was Catholicism, which was the most important thing in his life. The second was a kind of evangelical capitalism.”Unlike many of his mentors and allies, who tended to be ex-Marxists or ex-liberals, Buckley was not an ideological convert. His father, a wealthy, devoutly Catholic and rightwing oilman from Texas who raised his large family in Connecticut and across Europe, loomed large over his early life.Buckley and his nine siblings were desperate to impress their father. He was loving to his family and also racist, in a “genteel Bourbon” way, and antisemitic, in a more vitriolic way. In 1937, when Buckley was 11, his older siblings burned a cross in front of a Jewish resort. He later recounted the story with embarrassment but argued that his siblings did not understand the gravity of what they were doing.Although Buckley came to make a real effort to purge the right of racist, antisemitic and fringe elements, Tanenhaus thinks his upbringing held sway longer than most people realize. One of the most interesting sections of the book concerns Camden, South Carolina, where Buckley’s parents had a home. In the 1950s the town became notorious for violence against black people and white liberals.View image in fullscreenDuring his research, Tanenhaus discovered that the Buckleys – who were considered by their black domestic workers to be unusually kind relative to the white people of the area – also funded the town’s pro-segregation paper and had ties to a local white supremacist group. After a spate of racist attacks in Camden, Buckley wrote a piece in National Review condemning the violence, but not segregation itself. He defended segregation on the grounds that white people were, for the time being, the culturally “superior” race.Buckley’s views on race began to change in the 1960s. He was horrified by the Birmingham church bombing that killed four little girls. During his unsuccessful third-party campaign for mayor of New York in 1965, he surprised both conservatives and liberals by endorsing affirmative action. In 1970 he argued that within a decade the United States might have a black president and that this event would be a “welcome tonic”.Despite his patrician manner and distinct accent, Buckley had a savvy understanding of the power of mass media and technology. National Review was never read by a wide audience, but Buckley and his conservative vanguard fully embraced radio, television and other media. A technophile, he was one of the first to adopt MCI mail, an early version of email. Tanenhaus thinks he would thrive in the age of Twitter and podcasts.Yet the current era feels a world away in other respects. For one, Buckley’s politics rarely affected his many friendships. “His best friends were liberals,” Tanenhaus said. He greatly admired Jesse Jackson. It was not strange for Eldridge Cleaver, the black nationalist, and Timothy Leary, the psychonaut, to stop by his house.Buckley was deeply embarrassed by the notorious 1968 incident in which Gore Vidal called him a “crypto-Nazi”, on-air, and Buckley responded by calling Vidal an alcoholic “queer” and threatening to punch him. It was an exception to a code of conduct that Buckley generally tried to live by.“If he became your friend, and then you told him you joined the Communist party, he would say: ‘That is the worst thing you can do, I’m shocked you would do it, but you’re still coming over for dinner tomorrow, right?’” Tanenhaus laughed. “It’s just a different worldview, and we don’t get it because we take ourselves more seriously than he did.”Being the authorized biographer of a living person entails a special relationship. You become intimately familiar with your subject – perhaps even good friends, as Tanenhaus and his wife did with Buckley and his socialite wife, Pat. Yet you also need critical distance to write honestly.It was impossible to finish the book “while he was still alive”, Tanenhaus said. He realized in retrospect that Buckley’s death was “the only way that I could gain the perspective I needed, the distance from him and the events that he played an important part in, to be able to wrap my arms around them”.He thinks Buckley also understood that a true biography would be a full and frank accounting of his life. “I think that, in some way, he wanted someone to come along and maybe understand things he didn’t understand about himself.”Despite his disagreements with Buckley’s politics, Tanenhaus was ultimately left with a positive assessment of him as a person. “He had a warmth and generosity that are uncommon. When you’re a journalist, part of your business is interacting in some way with the great, and the great always remind you that you’re not one of them. They have no interest in you. They never ask you about yourself. Buckley was not like that.”He is not sure what he would have made of Trump. Buckley was willing to criticize the right, and was an early critic of the Iraq war, Tanenhaus said. Yet “conservatives can always find a way to say: ‘Whatever our side is doing, the other side is worse.’”View image in fullscreenThis is Tanenhaus’s third book about conservatism. I asked what he thinks the left most misunderstands about the right.He instantly responded: “They don’t understand how closely the right has been studying them all these years.” He noted that Buckley surrounded himself with ex-leftists and that he and other conservatives made a point of reading left and liberal books and studying their tactics of political organizing.But that doesn’t seem to go the opposite direction. Leftists and liberals “don’t see that the other side should be listened to, that there’s anything to learn from them. And they think, no matter how few of them there are, that they’re always in the majority.”Buckley once said that his “idea of a counter-revolution is one in which we overturn the view of society that came out of the New Deal”, Tanenhaus said. Today, Trump is aggressively moving, with mixed success, to roll back the federal administrative state – a vestige of Buckley’s vision of unfettered capitalism, even if Trump’s other economic views aren’t exactly Buckley’s.“It would not be far-fetched to say we are now seeing the fulfillment of what he had in mind,” Tanenhaus said. More