J. Timothy Gratz

[Pat Speer]

I was, and continue to be, friendly with Tim, but I supported his ouster from the Forum. His skin was a bit thin and he was too lawsuit-happy, first threatening Shannon with litigation, and then John. When John quoted something Tim said out of context, Tim responded not by pointing it out to John, but by threatening to sue him. Which is a bit ridiculous, in my book. If I remember correctly, he later admitted he was a bit tired of being the token GOP spokesman on the forum. Of course, trying to defend Bush's policies would be enough to wear anyone out. Look at Colin Powell and Scott McClellan, for two.

Tim, as so many, was full of contradictions. As John pointed out, he was an outspoken supporter of the civil rights movement, and would frequently defend LBJ on those grounds. And yet he was a Goldwater Republican and a member of the YAF. Both Goldwater and the YAF were outspoken supporters of "state's rights," which back then meant the right to enact policies designed to prevent blacks from voting.

[Greg Parker]

Any word on Tim's return?

John

No, he has not accepted the invitation to rejoin the forum.

I heard from him back in February, when he said he was putting together a fundraising event for an anti-Slavery coalition that was held in late March, and he would be busy until then. (Did you know that 40% of the world's chocholate comes from Africa where the factories are full of enslaved children?).

He said he kept monitoring the forum however.

While we are on different sides of the political fence, I get along with JTG.

BK

Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc.

I have a sneaking respect for the Timster, too... but it's always the same old game with certain groups...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/states/south_dakota/

*********************************************************

"Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc."

We must've been posting at the same exact time, Greg. I never saw this before posting my reply. If this is the case then that's too bad. I just wish T.G. would come back clue us in, but why should he even want to bother. I guess we're probably "small time" to him by now, anyway.

I can assure those in doubt that Tim's commitment to the anti-slavery cause is genuine. He's been telling me about it for months. The links he's sent me have mostly been related to the film "Amazing Grace," an historical epic about William Wilberforce's campaign to end the slave trade in England. While some of the supporters of the anti-slavery cause are right-wing churches, with an anti gay and anti-abortion agenda, none of the links he's sent me have said anything about this.

See for yourself:

www.freedomdaykeywest.com

www.onevoicetoendslavery.com

www.ijm.org

Gee Pat... I could send you a lot of links that having nothing to do with those things. either.

To quote from the link I provided in a previous reply "... the equation of abortion and slavery is hardly new – George W. Bush famously alluded to it in his last presidential campaign – it seems even more tasteless in this context, where activists are seeking to change the subject from actual, modern-day slavery."

Incidently, there's another Gratz using the guise of civil rights to actually undermine that very concept... Jennifer Gratz. She presides over something calling itself The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

http://www.michigancivilrights.org/jengratzbio.html

She has been aided and abetted in these endeavors by the Center for Individual Rights - an alleged public interest law firm set up specifically to end affirmative action and other civil rights initiatives.

If she is not herself a member of YAF, she draws a lot of support from that organization.

To Terry and others who have posted on this matter... I commend your willingness to see the good in people, but sometimes doing so is a risky proposition.

To John S... well said, though I do hope Tim does come back. This latest episode in the Life & Times of J Timonthy Gratz is just business as usual for the Religious Right. I bear him no malice for that which is expected behavior.

[John Simkin]

I can assure those in doubt that Tim's commitment to the anti-slavery cause is genuine. He's been telling me about it for months. The links he's sent me have mostly been related to the film "Amazing Grace," an historical epic about William Wilberforce's campaign to end the slave trade in England. While some of the supporters of the anti-slavery cause are right-wing churches, with an anti gay and anti-abortion agenda, none of the links he's sent me have said anything about this.

See for yourself:

www.freedomdaykeywest.com

www.onevoicetoendslavery.com

www.ijm.org

The money for Amazing Grace comes from right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz. It is no coincidence that the radical right want to promote the image of William Wilberforce as a brave campaigner against slavery. Wilberforce was himself a right-wing politician with a long record of being opposed to universal suffrage, trade union rights, equality of women.

Wilberforce was not in fact against slavery until shortly before his death. As Wilberforce pointed out in a pamphlet that he published in 1807: "It would be wrong to emancipate (the slaves). To grant freedom to them immediately, would be to insure not only their masters' ruin, but their own. They must (first) be trained and educated for freedom."

Wilberforce campaigned against the slave trade. Unlike those on the left who campaigned against the institution of slavery on moral grounds, Wilberforce was against the slave trade for economic reasons.

Wilberforce had been converted to the campaign against the slave trade by Adam Smith who argued that capitalists could obtain higher profits from free workers than slaves (Smith provided plenty of examples from the costs of production of sugar, etc. throughout the British Empire).

Although it is important to study Wilberforce when dealing with the slave trade it is also important to look at the role of others like Elizabeth Heyrick (Wilberforce refused to allow women hold senior positions in the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade), Olaudah Equiano, Ottabah Cugoano and Zamba Zembola.

It is in the interests of the right to portray the campaign against slavery as being led by conservative white males like J. Timothy Gratz. In fact, the truth is very different.

For a full debate on the subject of slavery and the activities of Philip Anschutz, see these two threads:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7308

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5954

[Pat Speer]

John and Greg, I humbly request you watch the movie before you persist in presenting it as a piece of right-wing propaganda. It is anything but. Wilberforce is presented as a friend to the common man. In the movie, he is heavily influenced by the guilt of a former slave ship captain, the writer of the song Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney, and by his friendship with a former slave turned best-selling author. The film focuses on the moral arguments against the slave trade, although it does acknowledge that Wilberforce and his collaborators had to play politics and make the slave trade uneconomical, before they could kill it.

Not everything Tim Gratz touches is tainted by his right-wing beliefs.

[John Simkin]

John and Greg, I humbly request you watch the movie before you persist in presenting it as a piece of right-wing propaganda. It is anything but. Wilberforce is presented as a friend to the common man.

Exactly. He wasn't. He was an enemy of the working man.

[Pat Speer]

John and Greg, I humbly request you watch the movie before you persist in presenting it as a piece of right-wing propaganda. It is anything but. Wilberforce is presented as a friend to the common man.

Exactly. He wasn't. He was an enemy of the working man.

Okay, so we're in agreement then that the film is not right-wing propaganda, as right-wing propaganda would not present a bleeding heart liberal, as Wilberforce is presented in the movie, as both courageous and heroic, and successful businessmen as petty and selfish. If there's anything "right-wing" about the movie it's that insists morality and Christianity can be used to better society. Well, duh. Any film about Martin Luther King would make the same points.

As far as Anschutz's role... it's distant. His company also produced Sahara and Ray, not exactly right wing propaganda. Anschuitz is a businessman, pure and simple. He's currently trying to re-build downtown L.A. He wants to glitz it up. Nothing about a church on every corner, last I heard.

[John Dolva]

The point of Amazing Grace is the epiphany that the brutal slave Captain had. It's not an uncommon 'phenomena' that happens and that really changes people. Hence the potency of the song. For some it happens on their death bed, for some in time to spend the rest of their life working to undo the 'evil' they have wrought. That's a good thing.

Tim always struck me somewhat as a person manipulated. A 'good heart', but a conservative upbringing that introduces contradictions. That's how it seems. On the other hand that is also a good cover.

There is a story behind the Cocoa trade that has similarities to the Congo issues (uranium, minerals, UN, fights between left and right) that ran concurrent with the Kennedy assassination. Walker, and other right wigers of the day, had a finger in this pie.

One must in this instance also be aware of the issues of eugenics and patronage. Sure Tim may very well be doing the right thing, but I think it could also be an intervention of sorts. The coffee trade and the Vietnam War is another similar issue. It has also similarities to other interventions to regulate third world primary industries which sounds all very nice but the eventual outcome can often be that the people who are supposed to be helped are merely dispossessed or disarmed.

Taking into account the civil war in the Ivory Coast, which is basically where this Cocoa comes from, the 'ploy' of ending a slave trade of children could be a cover for an intervention that in the end does nothing for the people themselves.

Edited April 13, 2007 by John Dolva

[Greg Parker]

John and Greg, I humbly request you watch the movie before you persist in presenting it as a piece of right-wing propaganda. It is anything but. Wilberforce is presented as a friend to the common man. In the movie, he is heavily influenced by the guilt of a former slave ship captain, the writer of the song Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney, and by his friendship with a former slave turned best-selling author. The film focuses on the moral arguments against the slave trade, although it does acknowledge that Wilberforce and his collaborators had to play politics and make the slave trade uneconomical, before they could kill it.

Not everything Tim Gratz touches is tainted by his right-wing beliefs.

That may be true, Pat. But his involvement with the "abolitionist" movement most certainly is.

The website for the International Justice Mission was one of the links Tim sent you. Presumably this was meant to imply an association with that organization.

Read on...

Overall, the Bush administration has devoted more than $295 million in anti-trafficking program assistance in more than 120 countries, according to the State Department. More than 2,800 people around the world have been convicted of trafficking-related crimes in the past three years, and 24 countries have enacted new anti-trafficking legislation. One of George W. Bush’s favorite U.S. programs is the International Justice Mission (IJM), which is run by Gary Haugen, 41, author of Good News About Injustice, and Sharon Cohn, 34, the organization’s vice president of interventions, who has overseen brothel raids in Cambodia.

* * *

It’s impressive stuff. But human-rights activists, program officers, and health-care educators who work to help trafficking victims describe a dark side to the “abolitionist” movement. The movement’s most prominent figures include right-wing policy-makers, a Jewish “moral entrepreneur,” and evangelical leaders, whom critics call overzealous and moralistic. Together, the “abolitionists” have formed a potent political force (“It’s the most powerful coalition for human rights in America today -- perhaps in the world -- all under the radar screen of the press,” says one of its adherents) known for steamrolling opponents and stifling dissenting voices. Some say they’re even snuffing out organizations that don’t adhere to a party line regarding prostitution.

Organizations are denied funds if they refuse to sign a “loyalty oath,” as one senior officer with an NGO describes a new clause on federal-aid contracts that require grant recipients to say they oppose prostitution.

In addition, Bush’s most celebrated programs, including the IJM, are scorned by anti-trafficking activists in places where they operate. A brothel raid led by the IJM last May in Thailand resulted in the freeing of 29 women. But the women were arrested, and to some, it didn’t feel much like freedom. “The women became very annoyed when told they had been ‘rescued,’” say the authors of a Shan Women’s Action Network report. “They said, ‘How can you say this is a rescue when we were arrested?’”

And though the particular fates of these 29 women are unclear, experts say it’s often the case that when prostitutes -- many of whom come from the notorious Shan State in Burma (now officially called Myanmar), where systematic rape and human-rights abuses are common -- are “freed” from Thai brothels, they end up in a worse situation. Legally, these women cannot claim refugee status in Thailand. “After ‘rescue,’ their situation will be made known to Burmese authorities, local village officials and family members,” according to the report. “Under these circumstances, a safe and beneficial return home is impossible.”

For Cohn, the important thing is freeing women and children from bondage. She speaks convincingly about the horrors of being “serially raped,” especially if you’re a 6-year-old child. And she’s proud of the fact that, so far in 2004, the IJM has saved 152 victims of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. IJM officers try to follow up with the women and children they’ve saved and make sure they’re OK, she says.

Regarding the Thailand episode, Cohn says: “It’s probably safe to say we have a different perspective of the raid. Seven underage girls were rescued. If there’s even one girl, she’d still have the right not to be raped day and night.”

Miller has run into opposition not just from the usual suspects among on-the-ground advocates from NGOs. People within the State, Justice, and other departments have become incensed. Recently, Miller has expanded his reach to the Department of Defense, which will change its military code so soldiers can be court-martialed for visiting a prostitute.

And there have been minor diplomatic dustups. The “Trafficking in Persons Report” contained a case study of a 15-year-old Thai girl taken to Tokyo and raped in a karaoke bar. The report concealed the girl’s real name and called her “Sirikit.” As it turns out, Sirikit is the name of a venerated Thai queen, and it wasn’t pleasant when news of this goof reached the Thai press. “Oh, my gosh, it was terrible,” says Miller, nearly climbing out of his chair. “It’s embarrassing. We had to send them an apology.”

On a more serious level, people who’ve met Miller and worked with his staff say he’s created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Some people have suffered recriminations, been “blacklisted,” or lost their funds. Yet according to several sources, none of whom was at all willing to speak on the record, Miller isn’t even the kingpin.

* * *

The muscle guy in the “abolitionist” movement is Michael Horowitz, 66. A Jewish kid from the Bronx who went to City College and then to Yale Law School, Horowitz served as general counsel for the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, and is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington. Referred to by author Allen Hertzke as a “moral entrepreneur” in Hertzke’s newly published book, Freeing God’s Children, Horowitz is the one, activists and program officers say, who calls the shots.

The other leading figures are Charles Colson, a former Nixon counsel and an influential evangelical leader; Donna Hughes, the University of Rhode Island professor whose congressional testimony helped lay the groundwork for the August 2004 change in federal contracts and who writes articles on the subject for the National Review; Laura Lederer, a former anti-pornography crusader; and Lisa Thompson, a trafficking specialist with the Salvation Army. “Horowitz is the Charlie to their Angels,” says an administration official.

Full text here:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...;articleId=8763

As for watching the movie... not a chance in hell of me contributing to the coffers of those whose aims are abhorrent to me.

[John Simkin]

Okay, so we're in agreement then that the film is not right-wing propaganda, as right-wing propaganda would not present a bleeding heart liberal, as Wilberforce is presented in the movie, as both courageous and heroic, and successful businessmen as petty and selfish. If there's anything "right-wing" about the movie it's that insists morality and Christianity can be used to better society. Well, duh. Any film about Martin Luther King would make the same points.

You hold a very narrow view of what right-wing propaganda is. It is a lot more than attacking liberals. For over 200 years history textbooks in the UK have portrayed change as taking place as a result of the ruling class feeling sorry for the masses. The truth is the masses, black and white, forced the ruling class into introducing reforms.

[Pat Speer]

Okay, so we're in agreement then that the film is not right-wing propaganda, as right-wing propaganda would not present a bleeding heart liberal, as Wilberforce is presented in the movie, as both courageous and heroic, and successful businessmen as petty and selfish. If there's anything "right-wing" about the movie it's that insists morality and Christianity can be used to better society. Well, duh. Any film about Martin Luther King would make the same points.

You hold a very narrow view of what right-wing propaganda is. It is a lot more than attacking liberals. For over 200 years history textbooks in the UK have portrayed change as taking place as a result of the ruling class feeling sorry for the masses. The truth is the masses, black and white, forced the ruling class into introducing reforms.

It would be a damned shame if people refused to see this fine film because people who've never seen it have incorrectly and foolishly labeled it right-wing propaganda. It would also be a damned shame if people stopped watching fine films and television programs merely because someone distantly associated with the film or program has political views they dislike. If this were standard behavior, we would have few fine films, as most every film-maker would be horrified by the thought of alienating the market. The hope for the world is for people to find common ground. This movie finds common ground, and shows that what now seems so obvious--that slavery is evil and should be eradicated--was not always so obvious, and only became obvious through the efforts of people of good will.

While Wilberforce is the "hero" of the film, he is not depicted as an unwavering moral force. It is through his contact with others that he receives the strength to carry on his fight. The film's ethical center is held by two men. One is Oloudaqh Equiano--a former slave turned writer and abolitionist, played by African musician Youssou N'Dour. The other is John Newton, a repentant slave ship captain and composer of the hymn Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney. The film does not depict Wilberforce the leader of the anti-slavery movement as much as the sole voice of the movement in Parliament. Even there, however, he has the behind-the-scenes help of William Pitt, who is under pressure to hide his anti-slavery convictions, seeing as the royals are making a killing, literally, from the slave trade.

Anyone interested in seeing the film should do so, without fear they will be brain-washed into voting Republican.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Greg Parker]

As far as Anschutz's role... it's distant. His company also produced Sahara and Ray, not exactly right wing propaganda. Anschuitz is a businessman, pure and simple. He's currently trying to re-build downtown L.A. He wants to glitz it up. Nothing about a church on every corner, last I heard.

Pat, yes, he produced "Ray". His major contribution was insisting on toning down the drugs and sex aspects of the story. He is slowly and deliberately changing the landscape - and I'm not talking about downtown LA. His influence and power in Hollywood is growing, and is driven by his Religious Right agenda.

It would be a damned shame if people refused to see this fine film because people who've never seen it have incorrectly and foolishly labeled it right-wing propaganda.

You could make a case for just about any film being propaganda. From what I've read, this appears on the face of it, to be propaganda serving Evangelicals. But the real purpose seems to be to build support for the work of Conservative charities - such as IJM. It may be getting some bipartisan political support in the States, but it is all too clear that it is dividing those organizations in the field. Funding is being denied unless they sign up to the agenda of the Christian Right. As one pundit put it, the bottom line is the same catch-cry as used for the "war on terror"... you're either with us, or you're against us". In any case, the propaganda issue is not why I won't see it. I simply won't throw money into Anschutz' war chest.

It would also be a damned shame if people stopped watching fine films and television programs merely because someone distantly associated with the film or program has political views they dislike. If this were standard behavior, we would have few fine films, as most every film-maker would be horrified by the thought of alienating the market. The hope for the world is for people to find common ground. This movie finds common ground, and shows that what now seems so obvious--that slavery is evil and should be eradicated--was not always so obvious, and only became obvious through the efforts of people of good will.

There is no such thing as "common ground" with these people. As above, it is the "with us or against us" mentality. It is hurting many organizations, and by extension, the victims of exploitation.

While Wilberforce is the "hero" of the film, he is not depicted as an unwavering moral force. It is through his contact with others that he receives the strength to carry on his fight. The film's ethical center is held by two men. One is Oloudaqh Equiano--a former slave turned writer and abolitionist, played by African musician Youssou N'Dour. The other is John Newton, a repentant slave ship captain and composer of the hymn Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney. The film does not depict Wilberforce the leader of the anti-slavery movement as much as the sole voice of the movement in Parliament. Even there, however, he has the behind-the-scenes help of William Pitt, who is under pressure to hide his anti-slavery convictions, seeing as the royals are making a killing, literally, from the slave trade.

Anyone interested in seeing the film should do so, without fear they will be brain-washed into voting Republican.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Greg Parker