Too Busy
I'm just too busy to post here, folks. It will probably be a couple more weeks before things slow down.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Why Are Our Popular Voices So Obnoxious?
Every Monday in the NY Times Business Section there is a listing of the top 10 most popular TV shows, movies, DVDs, albums, and music singles for that week. And every Monday, I’m reminded how out of touch I am with American popular culture because it is rare that on those lists that total fifty separate pieces of popular entertainment that I can find more than one or two things that I have seen or heard or want to see and hear.
It’s not like these popular entertainments are things I don’t know about. I’ve read reviews about most of the items listed and when it comes to music, I’ve listened to snippets of most of it. And while it’s true that much of it is just plain dumb to my ears and eyes, there is another factor that makes me pass when it comes to spending my entertainment dollar. Most of it either has too much violence or is too obnoxious.
Car crashes and bloody bodies just aren’t my thing. And neither is listening to some rude person make money as a serial insulter. For example, last week I rented the movie Borat not because I thought I would like it but because it was so popular. I found it to be one of the most awful attempts at comedy I've seen in a long while. I didn’t get the appeal. I know I’m out of touch.
I was blithely unaware of just how out of touch I was until one day about eight years ago I sat in the waiting room of a doctor’s office. The TV was on and I looked up to watch. Several white trash adults were screaming at each other and throwing chairs. A Jewish looking guy - I stopped wearing a certain style of glasses partly because sometimes I would be mistaken for this guy at airports - seemed to be gleefully supervising all of this mayhem. I was revolted. I asked someone what I was watching. “Jerry Springer,” they said. I asked if this show was popular. “It’s huge,” they said. I just shook my head.
It’s a free country. People watch and listen to what they like. I just don’t get why they like it. Jerry Springer. Don Imus. Howard Stern. O’Reilly. These are incredibly hateful and cynical people. They exploit the worst aspects of human nature on a regular basis. And they are all incredibly rich because of it.
Imagine these people as your neighbors. Jerry Springer would be the kind of guy who would take his dog to your lawn to do his daily business and never clean up. Don Imus would be the kind of guy who shows up drunk at your July 4th bar-b-que and hits on your 16-year-old daughter. Howard Stern would be holding raucous parties all night long and when you wake up in the morning, you’d find panties, beer cans, and vomit against your house. O’Reilly would be the crank who leaves your wife obscene phone messages, has a house full of loaded guns and shot the paperboy once mistaking him for an intruder.
These are creepy people, folks. Every time I hear their voices I cringe. Why oh why are people listening to them?
This week, Don Imus got in trouble for disgustingly racist comments he made about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Those comments didn’t sound a whole lot nastier and vile than other things he’s said in the past. I’ve heard his show. He spews venom on a daily basis. And for some reason, the American public finds him entertaining.
If Don Imus is ultimately fired because of this, it would be a great thing as far as I’m concerned.* And while we’re at it, why don’t we fire the whole lot of them. We can do a lot better, honest. Instead of giving the most obnoxious people in America a voice on the airwaves why don’t we make a change and see what entertainment can come from people who are kind, witty and caring?
*He has been fired! Ding dong, the Wicked Witch is dead. This blog posting I'm certain had everything to do with it. One jerk down, three more to go!
Every Monday in the NY Times Business Section there is a listing of the top 10 most popular TV shows, movies, DVDs, albums, and music singles for that week. And every Monday, I’m reminded how out of touch I am with American popular culture because it is rare that on those lists that total fifty separate pieces of popular entertainment that I can find more than one or two things that I have seen or heard or want to see and hear.
It’s not like these popular entertainments are things I don’t know about. I’ve read reviews about most of the items listed and when it comes to music, I’ve listened to snippets of most of it. And while it’s true that much of it is just plain dumb to my ears and eyes, there is another factor that makes me pass when it comes to spending my entertainment dollar. Most of it either has too much violence or is too obnoxious.
Car crashes and bloody bodies just aren’t my thing. And neither is listening to some rude person make money as a serial insulter. For example, last week I rented the movie Borat not because I thought I would like it but because it was so popular. I found it to be one of the most awful attempts at comedy I've seen in a long while. I didn’t get the appeal. I know I’m out of touch.
I was blithely unaware of just how out of touch I was until one day about eight years ago I sat in the waiting room of a doctor’s office. The TV was on and I looked up to watch. Several white trash adults were screaming at each other and throwing chairs. A Jewish looking guy - I stopped wearing a certain style of glasses partly because sometimes I would be mistaken for this guy at airports - seemed to be gleefully supervising all of this mayhem. I was revolted. I asked someone what I was watching. “Jerry Springer,” they said. I asked if this show was popular. “It’s huge,” they said. I just shook my head.
It’s a free country. People watch and listen to what they like. I just don’t get why they like it. Jerry Springer. Don Imus. Howard Stern. O’Reilly. These are incredibly hateful and cynical people. They exploit the worst aspects of human nature on a regular basis. And they are all incredibly rich because of it.
Imagine these people as your neighbors. Jerry Springer would be the kind of guy who would take his dog to your lawn to do his daily business and never clean up. Don Imus would be the kind of guy who shows up drunk at your July 4th bar-b-que and hits on your 16-year-old daughter. Howard Stern would be holding raucous parties all night long and when you wake up in the morning, you’d find panties, beer cans, and vomit against your house. O’Reilly would be the crank who leaves your wife obscene phone messages, has a house full of loaded guns and shot the paperboy once mistaking him for an intruder.
These are creepy people, folks. Every time I hear their voices I cringe. Why oh why are people listening to them?
This week, Don Imus got in trouble for disgustingly racist comments he made about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Those comments didn’t sound a whole lot nastier and vile than other things he’s said in the past. I’ve heard his show. He spews venom on a daily basis. And for some reason, the American public finds him entertaining.
If Don Imus is ultimately fired because of this, it would be a great thing as far as I’m concerned.* And while we’re at it, why don’t we fire the whole lot of them. We can do a lot better, honest. Instead of giving the most obnoxious people in America a voice on the airwaves why don’t we make a change and see what entertainment can come from people who are kind, witty and caring?
*He has been fired! Ding dong, the Wicked Witch is dead. This blog posting I'm certain had everything to do with it. One jerk down, three more to go!
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Civil War Begins
A couple of months ago I said I wouldn’t write about the Duke lacrosse affair anymore. I’ll make an exception today.
A couple of days ago, there was a column in Newsday about - yet again - the Duke lacrosse affair. The column was simply a mouthpiece for John Burness, vp of pr at Duke and someone I know pretty well. It trashed the lacrosse players and its former coach. It defended the actions of Duke leadership. The article was hardly news. I’d like to talk about how I think an article like that gets written.
Articles like that don’t happen by accident. They don’t happen because a Duke vp flies off the handle. The article has an explicit purpose and its creation undoubtedly has been vetted by Duke leadership. Even before the criminal charges are dropped, the “civil war” between the Duke lacrosse players and Duke has begun. Duke is drawing a line in the sand. It’s saying, “You want money? It isn’t going to be easy. You want other concessions such as apologies? Forget about it.”
News is rarely about truths. Rather, it’s about perspectives on events. Something happens, in this case a drunken party that got out of control and a woman who cried rape. The media descends and reports the details. But what makes it news is the emotional response of people to the event. And that emotional response is all over the board. It includes the conservative white man who is outraged over three students getting arrested for little more than getting drunk. It includes the liberal black woman who is outraged over a group of white students lying to get a couple of black girls into their house and paying for them to strip. The spectrum of views and emotional responses is wide. The level of outrage on both sides is great. That’s what makes it a major story.
There are cries from the public for the media to report “the truth.” But usually, what that means is “report the truth as I see it.” That version of the truth is often much more black and white than the actual event. Very few people want the grayness reported. They have a preconceived idea of what happened. What the press tends to do is cater to these preconceived ideas. Want to believe that the lacrosse players are all exemplary citizens who have been railroaded? You can find that “truth” somewhere in the media to satisfy you. Want to believe that the lacrosse players are scum who even if they aren’t convicted did something awful? You can find that “truth” as well. The media doesn’t provide truth. It provides narratives that appeal to its audience. The truth is usually boring, complicated, and dry. Boring, complicated and dry does not sell newspapers or drive people to watch TV.
One perspective that rarely gets mentioned is that of Duke leadership. So I’m going to try to put myself in their shoes. It’s a unique perspective, one that tends to be very narrow. It’s certainly not a common perspective and as such won’t sell any newspapers.
People in Duke leadership are married to their jobs. I know them. I’ve talked to them. Everything they do or say is at least partly through the perspective of the Duke lens. They don’t possess the ability to step outside of that perspective or at least I haven’t seen them possess that ability. When Duke does well they are ecstatic. When Duke doesn’t they get angry and irritable. And to a man, they believe their own hype.
When bad publicity happens – and there is always something bad happening in every institution - they will do everything in their power to protect the image of Duke University. What’s interesting is that from their perspective, the creator of that bad publicity is less a person than they are a threat to the institution and to them personally. That’s certainly the case with regard to the Duke lacrosse players.
The Duke lacrosse affair is undoubtedly the biggest publicity nightmare that any Duke leader will see in his or her lifetime. A lacrosse team holds a party with strippers that makes the national news. Day after day it’s on the front page. It’s a nightmare for Duke leadership. The reputation of their cherished institution is taking a beating around the world. They have to work day and night dealing with this media onslaught. They try everything to get the event off the front page. Nothing works. They are angry as hell that the university is being dragged through the mud.
Their emotional response is simple, “What the f*ck were these kids doing sullying the reputation of my university?” It doesn’t matter that other teams have held stripper parties. It doesn’t even matter much whether these students are guilty or innocent. When you are wed to your job to the degree these folks are, it’s all about one question: is this good for Duke or is this bad for Duke? And this event regardless of the truths is very bad for Duke.
You blame those kids for all of your troubles. They held the party. Their coach told them “don’t do anything stupid.” And they were stupid. They abused the trust that Duke placed upon them as ambassadors of good will.
A year goes by. It looks like the charges against the players will be dropped. But the storm hasn’t ended. You know civil suits are coming. Books are forthcoming as well that will again air Duke’s dirty laundry. You are sick and tired of dealing with this issue. You want to go back to the days when you were working to “make Duke great” not being the equivalent of a Dutch boy scurrying around plugging holes in dams.
Perhaps representatives of the Duke lacrosse families have already contacted you and the preliminary demands related to future civil suits are huge, maybe not just in terms of money but also in terms of public apology and personnel changes. You are collectively outraged. Not only have those bastards sullied Duke and made your job hell, but now they want to be the tail that wags the dog.
It’s time to play rough. They may get some money, but not nearly as much as they want. They sure as hell aren’t going to get anything more than money. So you start to go on the offensive in little and big ways, most of them private.
One public thing you do is have your p.r. guy call in a chip to an old buddy who happens to be a reporter for a newspaper in the neck of the woods where the lacrosse players families live. You tell him your side of the story. The kids are bad apples. The coach was rotten. Duke did nothing wrong. It’s your way of signaling to those families that this is a “teachable moment.” They are about to be taught a lesson that when attacked, Duke fights back.
Even before the dropping of criminal charges, the civil war has begun.*
*I note that given that this article was followed a couple of days later by the declaration of innocence of the lacrosse players, the timing couldn't have been worse; the article, designed to be a calculated attack, instead turned out to be a p.r. blunder.
A couple of months ago I said I wouldn’t write about the Duke lacrosse affair anymore. I’ll make an exception today.
A couple of days ago, there was a column in Newsday about - yet again - the Duke lacrosse affair. The column was simply a mouthpiece for John Burness, vp of pr at Duke and someone I know pretty well. It trashed the lacrosse players and its former coach. It defended the actions of Duke leadership. The article was hardly news. I’d like to talk about how I think an article like that gets written.
Articles like that don’t happen by accident. They don’t happen because a Duke vp flies off the handle. The article has an explicit purpose and its creation undoubtedly has been vetted by Duke leadership. Even before the criminal charges are dropped, the “civil war” between the Duke lacrosse players and Duke has begun. Duke is drawing a line in the sand. It’s saying, “You want money? It isn’t going to be easy. You want other concessions such as apologies? Forget about it.”
News is rarely about truths. Rather, it’s about perspectives on events. Something happens, in this case a drunken party that got out of control and a woman who cried rape. The media descends and reports the details. But what makes it news is the emotional response of people to the event. And that emotional response is all over the board. It includes the conservative white man who is outraged over three students getting arrested for little more than getting drunk. It includes the liberal black woman who is outraged over a group of white students lying to get a couple of black girls into their house and paying for them to strip. The spectrum of views and emotional responses is wide. The level of outrage on both sides is great. That’s what makes it a major story.
There are cries from the public for the media to report “the truth.” But usually, what that means is “report the truth as I see it.” That version of the truth is often much more black and white than the actual event. Very few people want the grayness reported. They have a preconceived idea of what happened. What the press tends to do is cater to these preconceived ideas. Want to believe that the lacrosse players are all exemplary citizens who have been railroaded? You can find that “truth” somewhere in the media to satisfy you. Want to believe that the lacrosse players are scum who even if they aren’t convicted did something awful? You can find that “truth” as well. The media doesn’t provide truth. It provides narratives that appeal to its audience. The truth is usually boring, complicated, and dry. Boring, complicated and dry does not sell newspapers or drive people to watch TV.
One perspective that rarely gets mentioned is that of Duke leadership. So I’m going to try to put myself in their shoes. It’s a unique perspective, one that tends to be very narrow. It’s certainly not a common perspective and as such won’t sell any newspapers.
People in Duke leadership are married to their jobs. I know them. I’ve talked to them. Everything they do or say is at least partly through the perspective of the Duke lens. They don’t possess the ability to step outside of that perspective or at least I haven’t seen them possess that ability. When Duke does well they are ecstatic. When Duke doesn’t they get angry and irritable. And to a man, they believe their own hype.
When bad publicity happens – and there is always something bad happening in every institution - they will do everything in their power to protect the image of Duke University. What’s interesting is that from their perspective, the creator of that bad publicity is less a person than they are a threat to the institution and to them personally. That’s certainly the case with regard to the Duke lacrosse players.
The Duke lacrosse affair is undoubtedly the biggest publicity nightmare that any Duke leader will see in his or her lifetime. A lacrosse team holds a party with strippers that makes the national news. Day after day it’s on the front page. It’s a nightmare for Duke leadership. The reputation of their cherished institution is taking a beating around the world. They have to work day and night dealing with this media onslaught. They try everything to get the event off the front page. Nothing works. They are angry as hell that the university is being dragged through the mud.
Their emotional response is simple, “What the f*ck were these kids doing sullying the reputation of my university?” It doesn’t matter that other teams have held stripper parties. It doesn’t even matter much whether these students are guilty or innocent. When you are wed to your job to the degree these folks are, it’s all about one question: is this good for Duke or is this bad for Duke? And this event regardless of the truths is very bad for Duke.
You blame those kids for all of your troubles. They held the party. Their coach told them “don’t do anything stupid.” And they were stupid. They abused the trust that Duke placed upon them as ambassadors of good will.
A year goes by. It looks like the charges against the players will be dropped. But the storm hasn’t ended. You know civil suits are coming. Books are forthcoming as well that will again air Duke’s dirty laundry. You are sick and tired of dealing with this issue. You want to go back to the days when you were working to “make Duke great” not being the equivalent of a Dutch boy scurrying around plugging holes in dams.
Perhaps representatives of the Duke lacrosse families have already contacted you and the preliminary demands related to future civil suits are huge, maybe not just in terms of money but also in terms of public apology and personnel changes. You are collectively outraged. Not only have those bastards sullied Duke and made your job hell, but now they want to be the tail that wags the dog.
It’s time to play rough. They may get some money, but not nearly as much as they want. They sure as hell aren’t going to get anything more than money. So you start to go on the offensive in little and big ways, most of them private.
One public thing you do is have your p.r. guy call in a chip to an old buddy who happens to be a reporter for a newspaper in the neck of the woods where the lacrosse players families live. You tell him your side of the story. The kids are bad apples. The coach was rotten. Duke did nothing wrong. It’s your way of signaling to those families that this is a “teachable moment.” They are about to be taught a lesson that when attacked, Duke fights back.
Even before the dropping of criminal charges, the civil war has begun.*
*I note that given that this article was followed a couple of days later by the declaration of innocence of the lacrosse players, the timing couldn't have been worse; the article, designed to be a calculated attack, instead turned out to be a p.r. blunder.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Anonymity and Inner Demons
Recently, the creator of Wikipedia made a call for better, more civil behavior in the blogosphere. Hooray. He recommends the end of anonymous comments. Hooray again. I doubt if his recommendations will make much of a difference. But at least someone is being sane.
I don't see the value of anonymous comments or blogs. If someone can't put their name behind something, it has no value to me. Anonymity allows people to slander, misstate, and in general behave in a reprehensible way without any repercussion. If you are going to write something, my view is that you need to stand behind what you write. And if you are unwilling to stand behind what you write, then you shouldn't be writing anything at all, should you?
The excuses given for anonymity don't hold any water. People are afraid of their words coming back to haunt them in their workplace or in their search for a new job. So? Welcome to the real world. What you say and what you write should have consequences. If they don't, then what's the point of writing and talking in the first place?
There is the argument out there that anonymity gives people an ability to say things they just couldn't otherwise. I agree. However, given the "liberty" of anonymity people write and say things no one really needs to hear. I've read blogs with copious anonymous comments. They tend to be full of insults, slander, gossip, and falsity. Supposedly in the wild, wild web, I'm supposed to just filter that out and find the good stuff, the writing that is wonderfully insightful and wouldn't be possible without anonymity. Sorry folks. I don't possess that ability to filter out the crap and find the gold. And the ratio of the former to the later is so large on the blogosphere that even if I did, it isn't worth my time.
Then there is the "free speech" argument. Speak away! Write away! But have the decency to put your name behind what you say.
What anonymity tends to do is bring out the inner demon and crackpot in everyone. People write scary and awful things that they would never, ever put in a public forum if they didn't have the cloak of anonymity. It's the equivalent of going to the bathroom. Yes, everyone has to. No one else wants to see it.
I can see an occasional use for anonymity. For example, if you witness your boss behaving in an illegal way, you might want to send an anonymous note to someone above him. It makes sense to avoid the potential fallout from your boss. But you better damn well be sure that what you are witnessing is indeed illegal.
There are probably a slew of other examples where anonymity makes sense. But in the blogosphere - which is mostly opinion based material - it has no real purpose. What's the value of giving voice to people who don't have the guts to say something publicly?
The most popular use of anonymity (in terms of audience at any rate) seems to be that of female bloggers consumed with sex who give juicy details of their romps in and out of bed with famous and powerful and not-so-famous and not-so-powerful others. Who cares? No one needs to know. It's just stupid gossip. They're making most of that stuff up anyway. If the blogger is a sex fiend, let her go public. Maybe she can make a name for herself and generate bundles of cash with a sex video series.
And then there is a basic problem I have of engaging in a dialogue with an anonymous figure. What's the point? For example, somewhere on the blogosphere you can find an extensive anonymous rebuttal to something I wrote related to the Duke lacrosse affair. I didn't even go past skimming it. Unless I know who wrote it, why should I bother? Although bloggers would like to claim otherwise, blogosphere opinions almost always matter little in the world. That said, anonymous blogosphere opinions have no worth at all.
The value of the blogosphere is that it allows for a great variety of opinion. But that opinion needs to be harnessed in some way. I don’t care if someone is writing on the web or for the Wall Street Journal, that person needs to show some civility in their discourse. And if they can’t or if they don’t have the strength in their own convictions to use their name, why should anyone bother to read? There is no need to empower the weak in the knee with a forum.
Recently, the creator of Wikipedia made a call for better, more civil behavior in the blogosphere. Hooray. He recommends the end of anonymous comments. Hooray again. I doubt if his recommendations will make much of a difference. But at least someone is being sane.
I don't see the value of anonymous comments or blogs. If someone can't put their name behind something, it has no value to me. Anonymity allows people to slander, misstate, and in general behave in a reprehensible way without any repercussion. If you are going to write something, my view is that you need to stand behind what you write. And if you are unwilling to stand behind what you write, then you shouldn't be writing anything at all, should you?
The excuses given for anonymity don't hold any water. People are afraid of their words coming back to haunt them in their workplace or in their search for a new job. So? Welcome to the real world. What you say and what you write should have consequences. If they don't, then what's the point of writing and talking in the first place?
There is the argument out there that anonymity gives people an ability to say things they just couldn't otherwise. I agree. However, given the "liberty" of anonymity people write and say things no one really needs to hear. I've read blogs with copious anonymous comments. They tend to be full of insults, slander, gossip, and falsity. Supposedly in the wild, wild web, I'm supposed to just filter that out and find the good stuff, the writing that is wonderfully insightful and wouldn't be possible without anonymity. Sorry folks. I don't possess that ability to filter out the crap and find the gold. And the ratio of the former to the later is so large on the blogosphere that even if I did, it isn't worth my time.
Then there is the "free speech" argument. Speak away! Write away! But have the decency to put your name behind what you say.
What anonymity tends to do is bring out the inner demon and crackpot in everyone. People write scary and awful things that they would never, ever put in a public forum if they didn't have the cloak of anonymity. It's the equivalent of going to the bathroom. Yes, everyone has to. No one else wants to see it.
I can see an occasional use for anonymity. For example, if you witness your boss behaving in an illegal way, you might want to send an anonymous note to someone above him. It makes sense to avoid the potential fallout from your boss. But you better damn well be sure that what you are witnessing is indeed illegal.
There are probably a slew of other examples where anonymity makes sense. But in the blogosphere - which is mostly opinion based material - it has no real purpose. What's the value of giving voice to people who don't have the guts to say something publicly?
The most popular use of anonymity (in terms of audience at any rate) seems to be that of female bloggers consumed with sex who give juicy details of their romps in and out of bed with famous and powerful and not-so-famous and not-so-powerful others. Who cares? No one needs to know. It's just stupid gossip. They're making most of that stuff up anyway. If the blogger is a sex fiend, let her go public. Maybe she can make a name for herself and generate bundles of cash with a sex video series.
And then there is a basic problem I have of engaging in a dialogue with an anonymous figure. What's the point? For example, somewhere on the blogosphere you can find an extensive anonymous rebuttal to something I wrote related to the Duke lacrosse affair. I didn't even go past skimming it. Unless I know who wrote it, why should I bother? Although bloggers would like to claim otherwise, blogosphere opinions almost always matter little in the world. That said, anonymous blogosphere opinions have no worth at all.
The value of the blogosphere is that it allows for a great variety of opinion. But that opinion needs to be harnessed in some way. I don’t care if someone is writing on the web or for the Wall Street Journal, that person needs to show some civility in their discourse. And if they can’t or if they don’t have the strength in their own convictions to use their name, why should anyone bother to read? There is no need to empower the weak in the knee with a forum.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
On the Tyranny of Boomers
When I get sick is about the only time I’ll watch TV. My brain is in a fog. I can’t read. My IQ drops 50 points. And even then TV is kind of dumb. But it’s tolerable. I can’t believe so many people watch something so mentally lame on a regular basis. The comedies have dumb joke after dumb joke. The dramas have predictable endings. The news is as shallow as a kiddie pool. OK, OK, I’m grouchy because I’m sick. I admit it.
The one good thing about watching TV every once in a while is that through commercials and shows you get an inkling of American lifestyles. It’s as close as I get to seeing what American homes are like nowadays.
Without TV, I wouldn’t know a thing about how America lives. I live in a bubble of leftys; for many, English is a second or third language. And I’ve always lived in a bubble of some sort. In the home I grew up, I didn’t even speak English until I was about four. I learned it by watching TV. And those families on those shows seemed completely foreign to me. Without TV, I wouldn’t have even known how to behave when I was invited to an American home for dinner. As a kid, I was more like Borat (without the mustache) than I was like Beaver Cleaver.
What comes across on TV today is that Americans eat a lot of processed food. I knew that by watching people in checkout lines in groceries and seeing all of those premade meals in aluminum tubs getting scanned. But on TV, I get to see what’s inside those tubs. It looks gross. It costs a lot of money, too. I don’t get the appeal.
And there’s another thing that’s happening on TV that’s a bit worrisome. Boomers rule. There are all of these commercials for drugs no one under the age of 50 would take, make-up to take away wrinkles, etc. If I were a twenty or thirty something, I’d look at all of those ads for Flomax (watching a bunch of old guys happily walking into a bathroom is not something even I want to see; if my prostrate enlarges, I might feel differently) and purple pills and think, “Hey, don’t I matter?”
The programming at night tends to be boomer oriented. In a typical drama, some boomer guy or gal is in charge of some non-boomer assistants. The boomer head honcho is wise and hard working. The assistants try hard to please the head honcho, but frequently make mistakes. Can’t someone thirty years old do something great on his or her own?
Probably the most glaring example of boomer tyranny is the blockbuster show American Idol. Three boomers weigh heavily on the performances of twentysomethings desperately trying to become pop stars. Those “kids” have to smile and just eat all of the criticism from these fossils. Worse yet, in order to have a chance at stardom they have to sing boomer chestnut after boomer chestnut of pop song, music they will never sing again should they become successful.
I’m guessing that if I had cable, I’d find lots of channels oriented toward people under 50. But network TV – which is what I get – is boomerville 24/7. Right now boomers are dominating the information flow on TV. Twenty years from now they will be draining government coffers with all of their hospital visits. It isn’t a pretty sight.
When I get sick is about the only time I’ll watch TV. My brain is in a fog. I can’t read. My IQ drops 50 points. And even then TV is kind of dumb. But it’s tolerable. I can’t believe so many people watch something so mentally lame on a regular basis. The comedies have dumb joke after dumb joke. The dramas have predictable endings. The news is as shallow as a kiddie pool. OK, OK, I’m grouchy because I’m sick. I admit it.
The one good thing about watching TV every once in a while is that through commercials and shows you get an inkling of American lifestyles. It’s as close as I get to seeing what American homes are like nowadays.
Without TV, I wouldn’t know a thing about how America lives. I live in a bubble of leftys; for many, English is a second or third language. And I’ve always lived in a bubble of some sort. In the home I grew up, I didn’t even speak English until I was about four. I learned it by watching TV. And those families on those shows seemed completely foreign to me. Without TV, I wouldn’t have even known how to behave when I was invited to an American home for dinner. As a kid, I was more like Borat (without the mustache) than I was like Beaver Cleaver.
What comes across on TV today is that Americans eat a lot of processed food. I knew that by watching people in checkout lines in groceries and seeing all of those premade meals in aluminum tubs getting scanned. But on TV, I get to see what’s inside those tubs. It looks gross. It costs a lot of money, too. I don’t get the appeal.
And there’s another thing that’s happening on TV that’s a bit worrisome. Boomers rule. There are all of these commercials for drugs no one under the age of 50 would take, make-up to take away wrinkles, etc. If I were a twenty or thirty something, I’d look at all of those ads for Flomax (watching a bunch of old guys happily walking into a bathroom is not something even I want to see; if my prostrate enlarges, I might feel differently) and purple pills and think, “Hey, don’t I matter?”
The programming at night tends to be boomer oriented. In a typical drama, some boomer guy or gal is in charge of some non-boomer assistants. The boomer head honcho is wise and hard working. The assistants try hard to please the head honcho, but frequently make mistakes. Can’t someone thirty years old do something great on his or her own?
Probably the most glaring example of boomer tyranny is the blockbuster show American Idol. Three boomers weigh heavily on the performances of twentysomethings desperately trying to become pop stars. Those “kids” have to smile and just eat all of the criticism from these fossils. Worse yet, in order to have a chance at stardom they have to sing boomer chestnut after boomer chestnut of pop song, music they will never sing again should they become successful.
I’m guessing that if I had cable, I’d find lots of channels oriented toward people under 50. But network TV – which is what I get – is boomerville 24/7. Right now boomers are dominating the information flow on TV. Twenty years from now they will be draining government coffers with all of their hospital visits. It isn’t a pretty sight.
Friday, April 06, 2007
One more for Mitt
I had to finish the set, folks. Now I'm free of song parodies for Republican candidates, honest. I'm still sick as a dog, though. Yuck.
Flip Flop
(sung to Splish Splash)
Flip-flop, I was running for an office
The Governor of Massachusetts
And flip-flop, you know how things are
I sounded like a liberal on every issue
But now I want to move to Washington DC
And money and votes don’t grow on trees
So flip-flop, you know how things are
Mitt Romney’s got to do whatever it takes
I’ve been flipping and flopping
Been like a drunk walking
Forget about my past
I change positions fast, yeah
Flip-flop, stem cells and right to choose
I use to think those were both great
But flip-flop, you know how things are
I wouldn't stand a chance in any Red State
So I’m changing my ways, try to show a new face
Praying for the far right to endorse my race
So flip-flop, you know how things are
Mitt Romney’s got to do whatever it takes
I had to finish the set, folks. Now I'm free of song parodies for Republican candidates, honest. I'm still sick as a dog, though. Yuck.
Flip Flop
(sung to Splish Splash)
Flip-flop, I was running for an office
The Governor of Massachusetts
And flip-flop, you know how things are
I sounded like a liberal on every issue
But now I want to move to Washington DC
And money and votes don’t grow on trees
So flip-flop, you know how things are
Mitt Romney’s got to do whatever it takes
I’ve been flipping and flopping
Been like a drunk walking
Forget about my past
I change positions fast, yeah
Flip-flop, stem cells and right to choose
I use to think those were both great
But flip-flop, you know how things are
I wouldn't stand a chance in any Red State
So I’m changing my ways, try to show a new face
Praying for the far right to endorse my race
So flip-flop, you know how things are
Mitt Romney’s got to do whatever it takes
Thursday, April 05, 2007
You Don’t Know Him, But…
My brain is still fried. Now my ears are plugged and I can’t hear a thing (although many who know me would say I’ve never been good at listening). All of this means that clear thinking is a remote possibility and I’m best sticking to song parodies.
But this song parody deserves a preface because no one knows the person that I'm roasting.
I note that yesterday fellow Wisconsin native Tommy Thompson threw his hat in the ring for the Republican presidential nomination. He’s a four-term governor of my home state. He’s the kind of slow-witted, plain speaking guy Americans seem to favor in politics. We don’t like our presidents to act too smart. We feel threatened when a politician speaks using complex sentences and correct grammar.
It’s odd how we want our presidents to act like hayseeds. We are the most powerful, influential country in the world. You’d think that we’d want someone who is smart and articulate to be in charge. No. We want someone who we’d feel comfortable talking to at a bar. Like many girls in high school and college have been conditioned to do, presidential candidates are supposed to hide their intelligence. That won’t be a problem with Mr. Thompson. He doesn’t have any intelligence to hide.
And of course, Mr. Thompson will undoubtedly make the claim that he is a Washington outsider despite his years working for the Bush administration. This too is desirable to the American public. It’s why US Senators have such a hard time getting elected as presidents. Washington is bad, you see. Nothing good can come from that place. It’s full of bureaucracy and deadwood and corruption. We need something fresh from outside!
Excuse me, but tell me there is no bureaucracy, deadwood and corruption in a state governorship. Politicians are politicians, folks. It comes with the territory. Yet in presidential election after presidential election, people buy this bill of goods that someone from the outside – usually a past-governor - is going to clean up the mess in DC. It hasn’t happened yet. Politics are inherently messy and corrupt no matter what the scale. Still good things often get done. It’s a wonder that they do, but they do.
OK, OK, I promised a parody. My apologies to Cindy Walker, who originally wrote this song and is one of my songwriting heroes. She is undoubtedly rolling over in her grave. Sorry about that, Cindy. I have a cold. I’m not thinking straight. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.
You Don’t Know Me
(sung to the classic tune of the same name made famous by Ray Charles)
Stuart Rosh
I’m Tommy Thompson
And in the past
I was Governor of Wisconsin
But more than that
You should be impressed
That I once headed HHS
But you don’t know me
(And you never will)
No you don’t know the one
Who turned Medicare
Into a financial boon
For drug firms everywhere
Now your pharmacy bill
Is a bitter pill
But you don’t know me
(And you never will)
Yes I know my name recognition is near zero
But that’s not stopping me from trying this time
In my own mind I’m a major hero
And delusionary behavior is hardly a crime
I have no money
But I’ll try something new
I’ll ride Bush’s coattails
To Pennsylvania Avenue!
You say his coattails aren't there
I guess I don't have a prayer
Cause you don’t know me
And you never will
(sob, sob, sob)
My brain is still fried. Now my ears are plugged and I can’t hear a thing (although many who know me would say I’ve never been good at listening). All of this means that clear thinking is a remote possibility and I’m best sticking to song parodies.
But this song parody deserves a preface because no one knows the person that I'm roasting.
I note that yesterday fellow Wisconsin native Tommy Thompson threw his hat in the ring for the Republican presidential nomination. He’s a four-term governor of my home state. He’s the kind of slow-witted, plain speaking guy Americans seem to favor in politics. We don’t like our presidents to act too smart. We feel threatened when a politician speaks using complex sentences and correct grammar.
It’s odd how we want our presidents to act like hayseeds. We are the most powerful, influential country in the world. You’d think that we’d want someone who is smart and articulate to be in charge. No. We want someone who we’d feel comfortable talking to at a bar. Like many girls in high school and college have been conditioned to do, presidential candidates are supposed to hide their intelligence. That won’t be a problem with Mr. Thompson. He doesn’t have any intelligence to hide.
And of course, Mr. Thompson will undoubtedly make the claim that he is a Washington outsider despite his years working for the Bush administration. This too is desirable to the American public. It’s why US Senators have such a hard time getting elected as presidents. Washington is bad, you see. Nothing good can come from that place. It’s full of bureaucracy and deadwood and corruption. We need something fresh from outside!
Excuse me, but tell me there is no bureaucracy, deadwood and corruption in a state governorship. Politicians are politicians, folks. It comes with the territory. Yet in presidential election after presidential election, people buy this bill of goods that someone from the outside – usually a past-governor - is going to clean up the mess in DC. It hasn’t happened yet. Politics are inherently messy and corrupt no matter what the scale. Still good things often get done. It’s a wonder that they do, but they do.
OK, OK, I promised a parody. My apologies to Cindy Walker, who originally wrote this song and is one of my songwriting heroes. She is undoubtedly rolling over in her grave. Sorry about that, Cindy. I have a cold. I’m not thinking straight. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.
You Don’t Know Me
(sung to the classic tune of the same name made famous by Ray Charles)
Stuart Rosh
I’m Tommy Thompson
And in the past
I was Governor of Wisconsin
But more than that
You should be impressed
That I once headed HHS
But you don’t know me
(And you never will)
No you don’t know the one
Who turned Medicare
Into a financial boon
For drug firms everywhere
Now your pharmacy bill
Is a bitter pill
But you don’t know me
(And you never will)
Yes I know my name recognition is near zero
But that’s not stopping me from trying this time
In my own mind I’m a major hero
And delusionary behavior is hardly a crime
I have no money
But I’ll try something new
I’ll ride Bush’s coattails
To Pennsylvania Avenue!
You say his coattails aren't there
I guess I don't have a prayer
Cause you don’t know me
And you never will
(sob, sob, sob)
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Songwriting For a Cause, Part II
My brain is fried from my cold. I slept eight hours in the daytime yesterday. Last night my fever ended. I'm getting better. But I can't think worth a damn. Even reading the Raleigh N&O - where I am right now - is challenging! And when that happens it's best to stick to writing parody song lyrics.
So today it's McCain. Mitt Romney is so boring that he's going to be tough to write a song about.
He’s Not McCain
(sung to Still The Same by Bob Seger)
Stuart Rosh
What happened? Where is all of the straight talk?
Now he tries to walk the Fundamentalist walk
Who is he now? Why is he trying to win
Votes from people who hate him?
He’s undergone a transformation
Rumors are something happened at a campaign stop
One of those fundraisers at two grand a pop
They poured him a drink an eerie blue
And by the time he was through
His brain had turned to goo
He’s not McCain
He lost his personality
He’s not McCain
Somewhere near Branson, Missouri
He’s not McCain
He’s more like Pat Robertson
He’s not the same
Or maybe some other alien
He’s telling us we’re helping all of the Iraqi’s
He’s living in an alternate reality
There was a time he was so refreshing
Now he’s just depressing
If he dropped out it would be a blessing
My brain is fried from my cold. I slept eight hours in the daytime yesterday. Last night my fever ended. I'm getting better. But I can't think worth a damn. Even reading the Raleigh N&O - where I am right now - is challenging! And when that happens it's best to stick to writing parody song lyrics.
So today it's McCain. Mitt Romney is so boring that he's going to be tough to write a song about.
He’s Not McCain
(sung to Still The Same by Bob Seger)
Stuart Rosh
What happened? Where is all of the straight talk?
Now he tries to walk the Fundamentalist walk
Who is he now? Why is he trying to win
Votes from people who hate him?
He’s undergone a transformation
Rumors are something happened at a campaign stop
One of those fundraisers at two grand a pop
They poured him a drink an eerie blue
And by the time he was through
His brain had turned to goo
He’s not McCain
He lost his personality
He’s not McCain
Somewhere near Branson, Missouri
He’s not McCain
He’s more like Pat Robertson
He’s not the same
Or maybe some other alien
He’s telling us we’re helping all of the Iraqi’s
He’s living in an alternate reality
There was a time he was so refreshing
Now he’s just depressing
If he dropped out it would be a blessing
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Songwriting for a Cause
I note that the inimitable Merle Haggard aka “The Hag” has written a campaign song for Hillary Clinton, Let’s Put a Woman in Charge. You can find it here. I’m not stepping on fellow Californian The Hag’s toes that’s for sure. He has dibs on songwriting for Hillary. And like The Hag, I admire her. That said, the other potential Democratic candidates could use a song, too. I started to write an original song for Obama, but it’s way too early for me to come out in support of one candidate.
However, the Republicans also need songs desperately. What’s a campaign without a theme song? And while I’m not going to waste the effort to write an original song for any of them, their candidates are ripe for parody. As part of a series of unknown length, below is my ode to one of their candidates, Rudy Giuliani.
That’s Giuliani!
(sung to the tune of That’s Amore!)
Stuart Rosh aka Stuart Rojstaczer
In New York City where money is king
When they pay off a cop
This is what they sing…
Which New York resident
Wants to be president?
That’s Giuliani!
Which past city mayor
Has come out for school prayer?
That’s Guiliani!
He’s a moderate
But you can bet
He’ll swing to the right
When he runs
He’ll change every stance
Like a pair of his pants
To please Republicans
Who’s made every contortion
When it comes to abortion?
That’s Guiliani!
Whose adulterous affairs
Will get him nowhere
With the right?
It takes a lot more than money
To win an election
If he gets the nomination
There will be defections
Who will blow a couple fuses
After he loses?
That’s Guiliani!
I’d post an mp3 of me singing this thing – I can do a barely convincing vocal impression of Dean Martin - but I have one very nasty spring cold. I’d end up sounding like Shel Silverstein.
I note that the inimitable Merle Haggard aka “The Hag” has written a campaign song for Hillary Clinton, Let’s Put a Woman in Charge. You can find it here. I’m not stepping on fellow Californian The Hag’s toes that’s for sure. He has dibs on songwriting for Hillary. And like The Hag, I admire her. That said, the other potential Democratic candidates could use a song, too. I started to write an original song for Obama, but it’s way too early for me to come out in support of one candidate.
However, the Republicans also need songs desperately. What’s a campaign without a theme song? And while I’m not going to waste the effort to write an original song for any of them, their candidates are ripe for parody. As part of a series of unknown length, below is my ode to one of their candidates, Rudy Giuliani.
That’s Giuliani!
(sung to the tune of That’s Amore!)
Stuart Rosh aka Stuart Rojstaczer
In New York City where money is king
When they pay off a cop
This is what they sing…
Which New York resident
Wants to be president?
That’s Giuliani!
Which past city mayor
Has come out for school prayer?
That’s Guiliani!
He’s a moderate
But you can bet
He’ll swing to the right
When he runs
He’ll change every stance
Like a pair of his pants
To please Republicans
Who’s made every contortion
When it comes to abortion?
That’s Guiliani!
Whose adulterous affairs
Will get him nowhere
With the right?
It takes a lot more than money
To win an election
If he gets the nomination
There will be defections
Who will blow a couple fuses
After he loses?
That’s Guiliani!
I’d post an mp3 of me singing this thing – I can do a barely convincing vocal impression of Dean Martin - but I have one very nasty spring cold. I’d end up sounding like Shel Silverstein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)