And why or how exactly ? I dunno… Seems notable, though.

 
via Laughing Squid
 
Thanks Aaron Dilloway !

 
Here it is: The Chinese “model” opera that shares its name with the wonderful 2nd solo LP by DM patron saint Brian Eno, who lifted the title after finding it in a book of postcards (such as the one pictured above) in San Francisco. I’ve always been curious, so it’s another marvelous artifact of the YouTubes that it’s here for easy perusal. A description of what we’re seeing via the Wikipedia:

Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy (Chinese: 智取威虎山; pinyin: zhì qǔ wēihǔ shān) is a Beijing opera, and one of the eight model plays allowed during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The story is based on the novel Lin hai xue yuan (林海雪原), which in turn, is based on the real life story of an incident in 1946 during the Chinese Civil War, involving a communist reconnaissance team soldier Yang Zirong (杨子荣) who disguised himself as a bandit to infiltrate a local gang of bandits, eventually helping the main communist force to destroy the bandits. Unlike other characters depicted in the opera and novel, the protagonists’ name and the bandits’ names were real.
A film version directed by Xie Tieli was released in 1970 and currently Hong Kong film director Tsui Hark is making a new version of it. His movie is scheduled to be released at the end of 2012.

And naturally, the lovely Brian Eno song of the same name from said LP.

Field marshal Rove?

The leader of the Tea Party Patriots organization issued an apology on Tuesday to Karl Rove after the group sent out a fundraising email with a doctored photo depicting the GOP adviser in a Nazi uniform.

Wait a minute? Republicans calling other Republicans Nazis??? Whoa! This means the Tea party blockheads are beginning to hate Rove with the same sort of bile these characters normally reserve for Obama? How very, very fascinating!

The solicitation was titled, “Wipe the Smirk Off Karl Rove’s Face” and read:

“Karl Rove believes he can raise hundreds of millions of dollars, crush the Tea Party movement and protect the big-government status quo in Washington from millions of freedom loving Americans.”

Hilarious, but all too predictable. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that gives me more joy than to see the country’s DUMBEST voting block splintering into angry, impotent… hate cults. To watch the disciplined Republican Party devolve into fractious groups that utterly despise each other—in real time, yet—is such a deeply pleasurable thing.

From all appearances, the GOP still cannot fathom the demographic tidal wave that hit them in the ass on Election day. Forget about all this talk of “rebranding.” I mean, these guys are fucked—fuckity fuck fuck fucked—and the smartest ones in their ranks have figured this out. They’ve got an insurmountable problem on their hands called their own voters!

How can you cater to the lowest IQ buffoons, racists, gun nuts, women haters, Creationist lunatics and cranky old people for decades and then try to turn that barge of fools around on a dime, all the while losing elections and presenting your biggest donors with NOTHING for the return on their (huge) investments? It can’t be done and I think the younger Republicans realize the brand is now so badly tainted and beyond repair that they’re starting to think “Why bother with these dipshits?”

The savvy old hands like Newt Gingrich know this. When he waged his notoriously vicious scorched earth campaign against Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries last year, it quite obviously got to the point where Gingrich just didn’t give a fuck anymore. He wasn’t in it for the good of his party (if he was he never would have considered running in the first place), he was only in it for himself. Even longtime Gingrich watchers were shocked by the hardcore nature of his attacks. Republicans aren’t supposed to speak ill of their fellow Republicans. Haven’t they heard of Reagan’s 11th Commandment? Newt pissed on Romney with gleeful abandon.

Turns out that might’ve been Newt just clearing his throat for his latest scheme…

Gingrich was left badly in debt by his ill-fated Presidential candidacy. One of his think tanks was forced into bankruptcy last Spring and he was reportedly nearly $6 million in debt by June. Say what you want about Newt, he’s got a pretty astute sense of what the most numbnuts conservative punter really cares about. If “Newt Inc.” (as Gingrich calls his various enterprises) is faltering, what’s (newly) poor Newt gonna do? It’s reinvention time.

If the party’s fucked anyway, I predict that Gingrich is going to make a new career out of what he previewed last year, and that is vilifying “the Republican establishment” for fun and profit. I’m pretty sure he looks at the carcass of the GOP like a vulture would, as something to be picked clean. I can’t say I blame him.

Even if the Republican Party moving forward from 2013 is relegated to a mere shadow of its former self, a diminishing and rapidly dying-off fiefdom of free market/Fox News/Christianist idiocy, what’s left of the GOP will still be an awful lot of people. Newt can be the leader of that club. He’ll never, ever get near the White House, but there are tens of millions of dollars in it for him to wrest a good portion of the GOP and divert it into his own personal cash cow. Newt can do that demonizing Karl Rove as the personification of the establishment and setting himself up as the “anti-Rove.”

I think it could happen. If there is one thing the Tea partiers love, it’s a mean cuss. Who’s meaner than Newt Gingrich? I can’t see their allegiance going readily to other GOP figures. And look how visible he’s been lately. Newt has adroitly sniffed the fart of populist rage that the GOP’s rank and file feel towards the party’s establishment. There’s a cheap and cheerful way for him to capitalize on it and that is to pile on Karl Rove.

What’s hilarious to me, though, is how Gingrich manages to keep a straight face while saying shit like this, as he wrote in Human Affairs:

I am unalterably opposed to a bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states. This is the opposite of the Republican tradition of freedom and grassroots small town conservatism.

So wrote the man whose entire run at the nomination was funded by ONE billionaire, Sheldon Adelson!

Obviously Gingrich believes Republicans have the memory of goldfish, but you can see how he’s positioning himself and it’s clever. If you have Rove leading the establishment Republican charge and the Newtster setting himself up to profit from the appearance of combating Rovers influence, well, grab some popcorn, this is going to get good.

 
Most of us do it everyday without thinking. Tell that someone special we love them. But do it in Cameroon and you could end-up in gaol.

That’s what happened to Roger Jean-Claude Mbédé, who was sentenced to 3-years in prison in 2011 for sending another man an SMS that read:

“I’m very much in love w/u.”

Mbédé was detained by Cameroon’s Secretary of State for Defense (SED) on “suspicion of homosexuality.”

He was formally charged with “homosexuality and attempted homosexuality” on March 9th, 2011.

He was then tried and on April 28th, 2011, Mbédé was found guilty on both charges and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment at Kondengui Central Prison.

His sentencing was condemned by Human Rights Watch, who described it as “a gross violation of Mbede’s rights to freedom of expression and equality.”

In prison “many suspects were tortured or otherwise treated poorly in custody until they gave confessions, which were then used as evidence against them.”

In 2011, 14 people were prosecuted for homosexuality, 12 were convicted.

Roger’s 3-year conviction led to a campaign by Amnesty International and Rights activists, which saw Roger provisionally released on bail in July 2012, on health grounds. However, an appeals court upheld the 3-year sentence against Roger.

All Out is running a campaign to help release Roger from jail:

Roger still has to serve 2 more years in jail under horrible conditions, but Cameroon’s President Biya could free Roger from this sentence and end the anti-gay laws that jailed him in the first place. Biya has made statements that could indicate he’s evolving ont his issue and he knows that Cameroon’s reputation is at stake.

All Out have started a petition to President Biya, and Justice Laurent Esso which reads:

TO: PRESIDENT BIYA AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE LAURENT ESSO

We call on you to free Roger Jean-Claude Mbédé, who was jailed for sending a text message, and to place a moratorium on Cameroon’s discriminatory anti-gay laws.

These laws deny basic human rights to many Cameronians like Roger and create an environment of hostility and fear. End the use of laws that make it a crime to love who you choose and encourage their permanent repeal.

If you want to help with getting Roger released from prison then please sign and share this petition. Thank you.
 

 
There is a long (10 pages) story that The New York Times Magazine published on its website today (”Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?” by Robert Draper) that performs a highly informative—and often highly amusing—autopsy on just how badly the GOP fucked up the 2012 election.

There are LOL gems throughout the piece, but there’s one section that stood out for me when the author attends some focus groups in Columbus, Ohio with media-saavy G.O.P. pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson:

About an hour into the session, Anderson walked up to a whiteboard and took out a magic marker. “I’m going to write down a word, and you guys free-associate with whatever comes to mind,” she said. The first word she wrote was “Democrat.”

“Young people,” one woman called out.

“Liberal,” another said. Followed by: “Diverse.” “Bill Clinton.”“Change.”“Open-minded.”“Spending.”“Handouts.”“Green.”“More science-based.”

When Anderson then wrote “Republican,” the outburst was immediate and vehement: “Corporate greed.”“Old.”“Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.” “Narrow-minded.” “Rigid.” “Not progressive.” “Polarizing.” “Stuck in their ways.” “Farmers.”

That was what an all-female focus group told her. The young males in Anderson’s focus groups used terms of endearment like “racist,” “out of touch” and “hateful” to describe the Grand Old (and getting older by the day) Party.

Later that evening at a hotel bar, Anderson pored over her notes. She seemed morbidly entranced, like a homicide detective gazing into a pool of freshly spilled blood. In the previous few days, the pollster interviewed Latino voters in San Diego and young entrepreneurs in Orlando. The findings were virtually unanimous. No one could understand the G.O.P.’s hot-blooded opposition to gay marriage or its perceived affinity for invading foreign countries. Every group believed that the first place to cut spending was the defense budget. During the whiteboard drill, every focus group described Democrats as “open-minded” and Republicans as “rigid.”

“There is a brand,” the 28-year-old pollster concluded of her party with clinical finality. “And it’s that we’re not in the 21st century.”

 

 
Now contrast Kristen Soltis Anderson’s angle on the GOP’s problems with that of conservative Republican chucklehead House Judiciary Chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. Smith is the guy who was pushing the “Keep Our Communities Safe Act” in 2011, something that if signed into law would have authorized the government to lock up certain illegal aliens indefinitely.

Now Smith, a longtime DREAM act opponent who is about as dumb as a bag of wet hair, is warning Republicans that “immigration is exactly the wrong subject to use to attract Hispanic support” in an editorial he penned for Politico yesterday (”5 reasons GOP should avoid immigration trap”) urging the GOP to oppose immigration reform because it would give Democrats “millions of votes”:

Does anyone really think Republicans are going to outbid Democrats on giving benefits to illegal immigrants?

And fifth, you have to be a little suspicious when liberal Democrats tell Republicans they have to support amnesty to win elections. Do Republicans really think they have the best interests of the GOP at heart?

Immigration is the field Democrats want to lure Republicans to play on. Why? Because Democrats know they’ll win.

Democrats have done the math and realize that legalization inevitably would give them millions of votes, meaning more victories in congressional and presidential elections.

No shit, dumbass. Why didn’t the GOP figure this out a long time ago? Were the results of the US census too “liberal” for their liking?

The Stupid Party strikes again. But immigration isn’t the only pile of, uh, “trap” that the Republicans have stepped in: I can’t wait to see the Republicans tie themselves tightly up in knots trying to defeat a measly increase in the minimum wage! (That was one of the sneakiest things Obama pulled on the GOP during the State of the Union address—there were several—and they fell for it hook, line and sinker).
 

 

 
The answers are at the bottom of the image.

h/t Lawrence LaFerla via Ayn Rand collected Social Security

 
The playwright David Mercer was born in 1928, in a working class district of Wakefield, in the north of England. He was raised amid the poverty and hardship that bred the instinctual Socialism of his father and uncles, which they had learned from experience, and gathered from books by Wells, Shaw, Lenin and Marx. This was Mercer’s first taste of the politics, handed-down, father-to-son, which was to influence all of his writing.

He quit school at 14, and worked as an apprentice technician, before he signed-on for 4-years with the Royal Navy. He went on to study at King’s College, Newcastle, then married and moved to Paris, where he tried his hand as an artist, before deciding he was best suited at being a writer. He wrote long, rambling novels influenced by Wyndham-Lewis. The practice taught him he could writer, but his novels were too abstract and had no relation to how he truly felt. This taught him that he could write but was not a novelist, he therefore started writing plays.

His first Where the Difference Begins (1961) was originally intended for the stage, but was produced for television by the BBC. The play was a valediction to the old men of Socialism, the Keir Hardie inspired patriarchical socialism being left behind by the active Marxism of a younger generation. The play reflected the difference between his father’s beliefs and Mercer’s own—though Mercer was smart enough to be critical of his own ideals.

The play was successful and he followed it with A Climate of Fear (1962), which dealt with conscience under the threat of a possible nuclear war, and The Birth of a Private Man (1963), concerning the problems of maintaining strong political conscience within an affluent environment.

Mercer brought a naturalism to the theater of ideas—he discussed issues of Empire, politics and patriarchy in plays such as, The Governor’s Lady (1965) and After Haggerty (1970), while his television plays, The Parachute (1968), which starred fellow playwright John Osborne, and On The Eve of Publication (1969) with an incredible central performance by Leo McKern, and Shooting the Chandelier (1977) with Alun Armstrong and Edward Fox, which have shaped TV drama right through to present day (in particular the works of Stephen Poliakoff or David Hare), though David Mercer himself is all too often forgotten.

Though a Socialist, Mercer was never blinkered to the follies and mistakes of Socialism, Communism and the politics of the Left. He was aware that the aim of political revolution was often frustrated by the inherited conventions of society, and by the frailty of human emotion and mind. This was shown to it great effect in the film version of his play, Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment (1966), in which David Warner, had an obsessional relationship with Marxism, apes, and his ex-wife (Vanessa Redgrave), that led him to (literally) become a revolutionary “gorilla” determined to derail his ex-wife’s new relationship. 
 

 
With thanks to NellyM
 
More from David Mercer and the theater of politics, after the jump…
 

For the record, that’s not “Rearden Metal,” it’s made of aluminum
 
The Atlas Shrugged jewelry line was not just inspired by the Ayn Rand novel—the pieces are actual reproductions from the ill-fated Atlas Shrugged film! What? You didn’t know there was a two-part Atlas Shrugged movie?!? That’s because it bombed horribly! (They spent $20 million on the first installment and didn’t even earn back $5 million. On the second they spent $10 million, and didn’t earn earn back $3.5 million.)

But, for a mere $159.00, you can warm the blackened cardiac lacuna of your very own Dagny Taggart and help the producers pay their investors back…
 

 
This pendant goes for $129.95 in silver, or $489.95, if you want to spring for the gold. You can even special order it for a Valentine’s Day arrival, but like anything with value, only a limited number are available for the rush delivery!

And if you’re shopping for the man in your life, snag the “Who is John Galt?” necktie, for a pittance at $79.95.

At least it’s actually silk

In some ways, merchandising the ever-living hell out of this commercial failure seems like the most intuitive thing one could possibly do to dig oneself out of a $15 million hole, but sorry, if I’m going to reward true free market innovation, I’m holding out for slutty Objectivist lingerie.

They could call the line “RANDy”!

 
Helen Mirren interviewed about her starring role as Maggie, a rock singer, in David Hare’s play Teeth ‘n’ Smiles, and its revival at the Wyndham’s Theater in London’s West End, 1976.

The play related the events of a May Ball at Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1969, when a fading rock band are hired to perform to the College’s indifferent students, leading to a meeting of two very different worlds, which ends with Maggie burning down the marquee, in which the band played. Teeth ‘n’ Smiles originally opened at the Royal Court in 1975 to some mixed reviews for its author, but generally positive reviews for its star.

With its revival on the West End, Helen appeared on BBC’s news and current affairs show Tonight, where she was asked by interviewer Donald MacCormick, whether she thought the production would have a good West End run?:

‘You never can tell with the West End. You have a play here that is not usual West End material, in the sense that it’s not middle aged and middle class, particularly. It’s got a lot of swear words in it, a lot of very loud music. On the first public preview quite a lot of people walked-out, quite early on in the play when the first music takes place as it was too loud.’

Dame Helen was attracted to the central role of Maggie because the character had “balls” though she did find the part “worrying” as it made her feel “unattractive.” She explained this here and in other interviews given at the time:

I’m very like Maggie in many ways, only she’s much more ballsy and gutsy than me. I endorse most of what Maggie says, in fact in many ways it’s difficult to talk about her because I feel so close to her…

When I was first offered the part I was so scared. I’ve never wanted to play a part so much since I played my first part when I was seven years old [Gretel]. I get very bored going to the theatre now. I’d much rather go to rock concerts [JJ Cale, Dr John and Led Zeppelin are among her favourites]. So when I was offered the part of Maggie, a singer, well, I’m not a natural audience, I’m a performer, I had to do it. Of course I felt scared about the singing, I love singing but I can’t sing. [Nick Bicat, music director for the production, says she can sing ‘because she’s herself and very brave’.]                       (Time Out, 1975, parentheses in the original)

There aren’t many good parts for actresses. Maggie is a good strong part and that’s quite rare in modern theatre. So I like it for that. I don’t like it because it gets to me in a funny sort of way. Perhaps too close to sides of me I don’t much like. But it just makes me feel unattractive.

… Maggie’s doing it [struggling with a boring middle-class background] in one way. I don’t think that’s the only way to do it, possibly. But I’ve always had this sneaking admiration for people who go to the extremes of energy and wit. They’re terribly, horribly destructive often, but there’s something really fascinating and very lovable about them. I find it very difficult to let go. I mean I find it practically impossible to let go. I just get very sulky instead. I don’t think I can do a Maggie at all. I’m too self-conscious.

… When I played Miss Julie, it was the same cathartic experience, because you let it go. You let it all come out without ever actually committing yourself personally – although I do try to commit myself personally as much as possible on stage and try to make it as real and present as possible.                     (NME, 1976)

Teeth ‘n’ Smiles was very much an important part of its day, reflecting a time when London’s theaters were filled with old school socialist machismo—where male writers (David Hare, Howard Brenton, David Edgar, Trevor Griffiths, amongst others) dealt with the issues of politics and society, often with little recourse (or collaboration) to women.

Ms. Mirren has thankfully gone on from strength-to-strength, to become one of England’s greatest actresses.
 

 
Previously on Dangerous Minds

Bugger the Natives: The Trial of Howard Brenton’s ‘The Romans in Britain’

 
With thanks to NellyM
 

“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”—George Bush

Redditor ClaraRinker uploaded this image with the subject: “My 5-year-old came home with this assignment on Friday. Nearly stroked out trying to read it.”

ClaraRinker then wrote in the thread, “Dad brought it in this morning and showed it to the director, who wouldn’t tell him who wrote it but did say that the person responsible has a Bachelor’s in Education. Ahem.”

Oh dear…

Via reddit