You are hereForums / Miscellaneous Chit-Chat / What do you know about Van Jones and Mark Lloyd.

What do you know about Van Jones and Mark Lloyd.


By BlakeyV - Posted on 27 August 2009

 My question is in the title,,,I will not link ya to any sites cause I know they will not be of your choosing so please inform me about these 2 men the best ya can.

Van Jones?

I know he's black, which scares a lot of neo-cons, unless they are submissive black, like Steele.

But if you want to know more about him, here are a couple of Time magazine articles:

Bring Eco-Power to the People (2007) - Van Jones is on a mission to clean up both pollution and poverty in the inner city

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686811,00.html

Heroes of the Environment 2008 - Van Jones

 http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781_1841811,00.html

and

The 2009 TIME 100 - Heroes & Icons

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1894289_1894360,00.html

 

Van Jones was at least at one time a self described communist and black nationalist.  He told the East Bay Express (Oakland alternative paper) in an interview about the Rodney King riots of 1992:

I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.  I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."

 

Mark Lloyd has advocated much more government control over radio and tv programming than we have traditionally had in the U.S.

Neither one are people I'd like to see working in the Obama administration and it just adds more fuel to the fire of those who think Obama has been too friendly with leftist radicals over the years. 

 

I guess I'm missing something -- I've been out of the news and political loop for a while, being very busy at work.

Is President Obama considering Lloyd and/or Jones as members of the Administration?  Perhaps I should catch up on stuff.

 

Van Jones is Obama's "Special Advisor For Green Jobs."

Mark Lloyd was appointed by Obama to be the "Chief Diversity Officer" at the FCC. 

I think this is another case of conservatives trying to smear anyone involved in the Obama administration. This "communist" which you quote from long ago in the wake of the Rodney King misjustice (and that's what it was) will be in charge of green jobs? Oh, no, this is a secret plot to turn us into a communist nation run by blacks-sounds dangerous. And the worst you can find on Mark Llyoyd is that he once advocated for more control of radio and TV? As someone who is conservative on family values, have you seen what some radio and TV shows allow kids access to (thank goodness there are some parental controls, but you know not all parents do this.) I'm all for freedom of speech, but I do cringe at some of the hate talk (seen over the years on both sides) that could spur violence. Perhaps you would not have a problem if they were targeting obscene rap albums?

Have you checked the resumes of all the Bush appointees? Seen how many have been charged with corruption or something else, gone to prison or had a shady past? With all of the liberal torture allowances, can you imagine how many probably should be under investigation for not following our constitution? Ofcourse not, Jones and Lyoyd are a good diversion from those facts.

wow,,,pull your heads out of the sand and really look at these people he is associated with,,How did Jones get in?? No one has that answer.. Lloyd believes we should go to a system they use in Venezuela about the voice people here,,,Kelley it doesnt matter if you like what you here on radio or not,,turn it off if you dont but another voice is what makes this country great,,you cant silence a voice,,how come and why does this administration think they can...What exactly are they about, only have one voice so no one questions them...their plans....all I ask is to not to keep going for the feel good what an amazing story Obama is ,,first black man,,blahblah,,and look around him also at what he is trying to do. IT IS UNAMERICAN. There is no 2 ways about it,,,None zip zero.

I'm afraid your head is in the sand, Blakey.

"This is McCarthyism at its worst, guilt by association--any association. But this works with high RWAs for exactly the same underlying psychological reason: those tight circles. High RWAs believe, strongly, that you’re judged by the people you associate with. That’s why they try to minimize their contact with “others.” If someone has some sort of connection with a bad guy, any sort of connection, that means he’s a bad guy too. Unless, of course, he’s your guy, as in McCain’s Keating connection, or Palin’s husband who joined an organization that wants Alaska to secede from the United States."

----

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

How is it McCarthyism when the guy admitted he was a communist?

Operative word here: "was" a communist.

He also spent a great deal of time working to address poverty in the inner city.

But before I go any further, please tell me what you think being a communist MEANT to people like that during that period.

What do you think a communist's core values were?

I have yet to hear him repudiate his radical beliefs, but hopefully he has.

A communist is someone who believes in the abolition of private ownership and private property and that the means of production should be commonly owned and that the central government controls all industry and the economy.

I would assume that a communist's core values was the belief that the above system was the best way to achieve an equal and just society.

Anyone like Van Jones who still believed that nonsense in the 1990s was either a fool or extremely misguided. 

I disagree with you that he was a fool or extremely misguided. He is a product of his culture and environment.

There was a lot of things that are/were attractive to disenfranchised people in the communist-style of society. Keep in mind that communism, like many socially/politically constructed -isms, exist on a continuum and not all versions look, feel, or are executed alike. The version you want to equate him with may be a long way off on the spectrum with what he and those like him envisioned. So you are very likely applying a label that's convenient for you and more defines YOUR perception than HIS reality.

I also don't know why someone would need to "repudiate" so-called radical beliefs. Especially if they didn't think they were so radical, just probably not really attainable. Or he might have discovered other flaws in them. He doesn't need to go public with something like a shift in political consciousness.

What strikes me about him, and I will agree that I've not done a lot of study on him, nor do I feel the need to, but what strikes me about him from what I have seen is that he appears to have a strong sense of helping people and doing so in ways that will empower them and not make the dependent on "the system."

 Some have even said that Jesus' vision or expectation of how we should live was a form of communism. How far off from Jesus' teachings is: From everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need?

 Labels can really be limiting sometimes, especially when no one is coming from the same experiential reality.

 

I agree that Communism can mean different things to different people and he was likely just young and stupid at the time.  

But as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  This is the USA and a Communist or socialist revolution is unlikely in the near future, so anyone who is advocating that as the solution to the problems of the inner city is a fool.

What the inner city needs is entrepreneurship, not someone like Van Jones preaching outdated Marxist crap.

Oh good grief.

How is he advocating for a "communist" revolution in the near future? Or outdated "marxist crap"? From everything I read, he was and IS in fact preaching entrepreneurship for the inner city. Maybe you should actually read some of the TIMES articles about him?

And we so romanticize the Hippies and they were all for the most part communists.

They even LIVED in communes.

Then there are Co-ops which are a form of communism.

I think it is the height of arrogance to call him "stupid" at the time. You have no idea what his intentions were and are. You see the word "communist" and put on your tinfoil hat.

I personally don't see the problem.

Oh, for the record, there was a guy in my platoon who was a communist.  And we were in the Army Security Agency, which required an in-depth security clearance. 

 

"And we so romanticize the Hippies and they were all for the most part communists."

You got that right, just more liberal media bias. 

Yes, look at all the hype about Woodstock.   A bunch of spoiled, rich kids get together for a bad concert, smoke weed, get naked, and wallow in the mud for 3 days and for the last 40 years we are told they "changed the world."

When was the last time you read or heard anything in the media about the Young Americans For Freedom either now or 40 years ago?  

As to your main point, I don't think it is arrogant to call someone stupid for advocating Marxism in the 1990s.  Those that refuse to study history are ignorant.  Name me one country that was Communist that was successful?  I can name you a dozen that brought massive misery and sorrow to their citizens.

Brandon said: " Those that refuse to study history are ignorant."

You just don't see the cognitive dissonance there in that statement, do you?

What makes you think I'm in any way, shape or form defending communist countries? **cough China cough**

I'm trying to defend against narrow and/or closed minds who have a singular definition of something locked into their head and can't possibly imagine anyone else's journey in life might lead them to different perspectives on what social justice should look like.

To you communism (lower case c) equals sedition and tyranny.

To someone else it equals fairness, taking care of the least among them, and equality. John Lennon's "Imagine," for example, was a nod to lower-case social communism.

Keep pumping away, Brandon, there's still no boogeyman there.

Exactly.

Capitalism can also be horrible, just look at all the boom and busts over the decades. Perspective is what it is all about.

You can take anything that seems bad and find something good out of it and vice versa.

 

Bad concert at Woodstock???  Feel free to trash hippies, mud and drugs at Woodstock but the music was wonderful.  No one felt it changed the world, particularly after the murder at the Altamont Rolling Stones concert not long afterwards.  It appears you have a big chip on your shoulder about Baby Boomers.

"No one felt it changed the world"

You wouldn't know that from reading or watching the various media coverage of the last 40 years about Woodstock. 

I have nothing against baby boomers.  I'm simply making an artistic judgement. Monterey Pop Festival held in 1967 with some of the same acts was excellent.  

But too many of the musicians at Woodstock were zonked out on drugs (bad LSD), the sound was atrocious and was plagued by technical problems.  

Much of what you hear on the various Woodstock albums isn't even actually from the concert.  The soundtrack was heavily edited and used performances from other concerts.

 

. 

That you completely missed the direct reference to the entire subculture that was part of the Hippie movement and instead flap on about Woodstock, the liberal media and Young Amercians for Freedom in direct reply to my comments is very telling.

The Hippie movement for the most part was a bunch of crap.  Most of it was about getting stoned and getting laid.  All the peace and love stuff disappeared pretty quickly in 1973 after the draft ended which should tell you something.

IMO, Imagine by John Lennon is his low point as an artist.  But that is for the most part just a matter of personal taste.

I just hate how the media gives so much time to the hippies and ZERO times to the conservatives like YAF when they do retrospectives of the 1960s. 

Brandon, you are so full of sh*t about the Hippies.

For one thing it was never EVER an organized "movement."

Sheesh.

It was a subculture that was real and the people involved had genuine social concerns.

If you don't know about something, perhaps your best course of action would be to shut up about it.

Many "hippies" opted for a commune-style of living. They tried to live the social definition of communism.

That was the point of my reference to them.

You need to get past the media issues -- the media has absolutely NOTHING to do with my references to them, but you clearly can't get past that -- and read some of the studies and materials written about them.

And, yet again, the reference to Imagine was not about his artistic skills. 

Are you afraid you might learn something positive about communistic ideology, so you keep avoiding the context?

Obviously, there were some "hippies" who were really concerned about things like peace and the ecology (to use a 60s/70s term).  But the percentage who actually lived those ideas or lived in communes were relatively low compared to those who were just in it for sex, drugs and rock & roll.

As a Christian, I believe that man is sinful and due to his fallen state "communistic ideology" does not work in the real world. 

And yet, Jesus apparently felt otherwise.

Again, Brandon, there were more than "some" -- the subculture was pervasive. Your speculative "percentages" are wild guesses based on your predisposed belief.

You really need to get your information from other places besides cinema representations and media romanticism.

Otherwise, makes for a really one-sided discussion, as has been evidenced.

Jesus did not feel otherwise.  The reason Christians believe Jesus came to this world was to offer salvation from this sinful nature.  Christians also believe that this world will continue to be imperfect until Christ returns and God has his final judgement.

Neither of us have any statistics on the amount of hippies who were sincere or lived in communes, so that is all just conjecture.

I do know that in 1972, the first year 18 year olds could vote, Nixon got 48% of the youth vote compared to McGovern's 52%.   So almost half of the nation's youth voted for the Republican.  I would like to see more attention given to this part of the baby boomer generation.

Yes, Jesus did feel otherwise. You can deny it if it doesn't conform to your view of the world, if you want to, but he did, in fact, preach an existence for his followers closer to the communistic ideology. (lower-case "c" - socially constructed, not governmental or politically based).

He preached that we are our brothers' keeper.

Then there's Matthew: 

Matthew 25: 35-40 "‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ "

The ideology behind a communistic society is one of classlessness and co-dependence. In theory it would create a classless society of abundance and personal freedom, in which all people would enjoy an equal social status and an equal economic status, sharing both lands and goodss, with those most capable taking care of those least capable.

I agree with you that it's probably not an attainable society, based on man's nature. But how one can claim that is not on par with Jesus' teachings is beyond me.

Again, one doesn't have to like self-described communists. That's perfectly fine, but the fact remains, for many of us, merely being a communist does not make one a boogeyman. That someone is idealistic enough to think that people in the inner city can benefit from a classless society doesn't make them a monster or a destroyer of our values.

I'm just sayin'.

 

We should all keep Matthew 25: 35-40 handy to share with those who fight against health care reform. When we deny a sick woman health coverage, we are in essense denying it to Jesus. It's amazing that Republicans sell themselves as the religious, moral values party and yet they ignore this scripture.

The commune life is similar to the Franciscan Friars (Roman Catholic, based on the life of Francis of Assissi) My friend is a Friar and is very embraces that lifestyle in which they all take care of one another, have certain duties, some travel to poor countries or do community service together. I know some of them "secretly" campaigned for Barack Obama in plain clothes. They think Pres. Obama "gets it" when it comes to community service, helping the poor, and working together to change the ills of society (like crime and health care access for all.)

I'll take my conjecture, having lived through that time period, over your conjecture based on selective knowledge of the era any day of the week.

I'm not saying Jesus did not instruct his followers to take care of their fellow man. But Communism involves the state forcing one to share his wealth with others.  There is a big difference.

 

Yes, there is a difference between the force used by the state to enforce certain behavior from a community voluntarily behaving in a certain way. 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

And there you go again.

"Communism" is more than your definition.

Because someone believes in the theory and idealogy of a communistic society does not necessarily mean they believe that it should be forced by the state.

Many believed it could be accomplished from the bottom up.

THIS is the point of what I am saying.

Therefore, that someone 20 years ago believed that could happen, and even might still believe in the IDEA of a socially communistic society does not make that person a boogeyman.

You say it does. Some of us respectfully disagree.

But at least we had the opportunity to try to clarify for you what the difference in your rigid belief structure is and our perception of reality.

For the record, that someone is labeled either "communist" or "socialist" does not scare me nor make me dismiss them as not having something to bring to the table in our country.

EXACTLY for the reason that there are all sorts of levels and definitions for both.

 

 

Sorry, TheCharp, but anyone who wants society to own my property or the fruits of my labor (communists and socialists) as well as those who believe that the only way to achieve socialism is through violent overthrow of the system (communists) scare me.

So I have to respectfully disagree with you.

I understand the ideals behind communism and socialism, and I agree that they can work out on very small scales. However, over a certain technological level (which includes the freedom and ability for individuals to travel between communities) then it becomes impractical as it runs against the desires of human nature at a certain point.

One might say that economies of scale work against them. 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

"Therefore, that someone 20 years ago believed that could happen, and even might still believe in the IDEA of a socially communistic society does not make that person a boogeyman"

Maybe it doesn't make them a "boogeyman," but it does IMO make them appear either foolish or naive.

Human misery, shortages of basic necessities and totalitarianism has been the result of every society that has attempted Marxism.

I would prefer our president not hire people who once espoused those ideas. 

Man, I missed alot while I was at the NY state Fair!!!

BTW, TC I like everything you said and your thoughts on it all. I like hippies, after all I am a grateful dead fan. Often times, I think I was born at the wrong time.....

I would have totally dug the 60's. 

As a Christian, I believe that man is sinful and due to his fallen state "communistic ideology" does not work in the real world.  

Brandon, you trip me out, dude.

Even when I considered myself a Christian, I thought that that was what Christians were working towards.

Not necessarily communism, but some kind of better world where everyone was their brothers' keepers and everything. Now you say that it's not the nature of mankind to be that way so why even try?

The mind boggles, man. Seriously.

I mean, I can observe mankind and not believe in a personal God and agree with you -- that it's futile to try to create a world of peace and responsibility without some kind of rule of (human) law to enforce it. But I never expected someone who follows the religion that is supposed to bring peace and goodwill to men would believe that. 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

Tin, I'm surprised that concept is so surprising to you.  

Christian theology clearly teaches that the world will not be made whole until Christ returns and establishes his kingdom on Earth.

Well, it's probably the whole "good works" versus "grace" thing.

I'd have to ask my pastor friend for better clarification. 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

That's not to say that a) Christians don't try to remake the world in their ideals whether or not God wills it, and b) whatever their faults, sinful man can and do attempt to get along-- it just never is up to God's standards.
----

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

I was going to stay out of this one, but I have something to add.  I was around during the hippie movement, and although  I believed in some of the things they stood for, I didn't participate.  My parents would have never allowed it...lol 

Which brings me to my point..The hippies weren't as prevalent in our part of the world as they were on the west coast, and the larger metropolitan areas of the country.  But to marginalize the importance and reality of the movement is to fool yourself.  The "counter-culture" as a whole forever changed our way of life..some for good, some for the worse.  The civil rights movement, women's rights, lowering the voting age, environmental awareness, the sexual revolution, the peace movement, a more widespread use of drugs, the widespread acceptance of our differences are among the things that were a result of the hippie movement.  The majority of them may not have lived in communes, but the majority did believe in their ideals enough to really live them for a time.  Youth is a time of idealism, and thinking we can change the world.  If only a minority of those young people actually lived their ideals, they wound not have been able to change our society so completely and permanently.

If you ever saw Easy Rider, you know what Hollywood thought people in South Louisiana thought of the counterculture.  Seriously, there was quite the hippie scene in Jackson Square and on Decatur Street in New Orleans during that era.

I'm not saying they had no impact, just that it is overrated and that conservative youth from the same era are given ZERO visibility. 

The conservative youth from that era did what, exactly, to change society???   I don't think the impact of the counterculture can be overstated, as it was huge.  I'm not arguing that it was good or bad....just that it's impact on our society as whole was tremendous, and changed life as we knew it.

The youth who were involved in the conservative movement of the 1960s laid the foundation for the Reagan Revolution and modern conservatism.

 They never did anything as "sexy" as riot at the 1968 Democratic Convention or takeover Columbia University, but they had many smaller accomplishments like getting Firestone to cancel plans for a tire plant in Communist Romania and making sure the John Birch Society didn't take over the conservative movement. But their biggest impact on society was moving the Republican Party away from the Nelson Rockefellers and toward the Ronald Reagans.

John Andrew wrote a fascinating account of conservative 1960s youth called "The Other Side of the Sixties:  Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of Conservative Politics." 

The mainstream media would have you believe that there were no conservative youth in the counterculture era but as I pointed out Nixon got half the youth vote in 1972. 


First of all, conservatives youth, by definition, do not try to "change society". I mean, that's what conservatism is -- resistance to change.

And I agree with that, mostly.

While I also agree that youth is a time of "idealism", I also believe that idealism is a dead end which takes age to realize.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

I see that Brandon appears to be judging this man based on his narrow definition/examples of communism. Based on his definition, he feels justified in his judgement. But I commend theCharp for the excellent points made. It really made me think of how we often try to clump one group/term or another into a general assumption/conclusion without even reading up on what that idividual accomplished in his/her work or the context of where the confusion came from.

It reminds me of when Powell endorsed Obama and said he was fed up with all those trying to label Obama a Muslim. Instead of the normal defense ("he is a Christian, you have no proof") he said, "So what if he WAS a Muslim. There are many great Muslims in our country, many who serve our country, and why shouldn't they aspire to be president one day." His statement almost knocked me over with the clarity I was waiting for. Judge a person by their heart and actions, not some label.

In some defense of Brandon, I would rather have a Muslim in the Executive branch than a communist.

Heck, I'd rather have a socialist than a communist, but that's just because of the difference in their tactics. Not that I would want any socialists in government, either. 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

I guess Bernie Sanders is on your Dog House list then?

Well, yeah.

(Note, though, that I said "in the Executive branch". If the people of Vermont are stupid enough to elect Bernie Sanders then I can't say much for them except that I still believe in term limits.) 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams

No, I'm not judging him solely on the fact that he at one time says he was a communist.  

I'm also judging him by the fact that he was one of the founders and leaders of STORM, Standing Together To Organize a Revolutionary Movement.  

Mr. Jones beliefs and works over the last 17 years makes him the kind of person who should not be working in the Obama administration and I'm sorry that Obama continues to associate with such radicals.   

Well, then, I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this. Please don't lose too much sleep over this "communist" appointee. He will do just fine and won't "shake up the government" as we know it.
As I previously stated, it is a very minor position.  Not like he's Secretary of Defense or State.  It just gives Obama detractors more fuel to add to the fire.

Glenn Beck and the rest were making such a big deal out of the STORM-Van Jones connection that I figured I'd see what they were talking about.  This is the only document I could find from STORM and I had to find it by typing in the entire group's name, not just the acronym.  This is their interpretation of their group after it was dissolved.  It's pretty interesting, really not very scary, and IMHO does not present much of a case against Van Jones, given his youth at the time.   These folks were idealistic, fairly naive, but sincerely wanted to make a positive difference in their communities and weren't all that well-versed in communism or socialism, but they did try to educate themselves.  They were often bogged down in organizational social issues.  Take what you will from it, not just limiting yourselves to what Beck and his cronies have deliberately cropped.  Since Beck, et al. focused also on a narrow narrative of their 9/11 statement, I took a good look at that also.  It's on pages 28-29 if you don't want to muddle through the entire thing. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19223898/Reclaiming-Revolution-history-summation-lessons-from-the-work-of-STORM-

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.