As of yesterday I let myself be sucked into a debate over government standards for lightbulbs that begin to go into effect in 2012 (a.k.a. THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT) and effectively — though not technically — ban common types of incandescent lightbulbs. Here is the initial claim being made, as well as a link to an article from FOX News:
Awesome! We get to step back in time 200 years and go back to dim, lights or oil lamps, all because some environmentalist wacko decided that Thomas Edison sucks! How long will it be before we’re talking about the evil LED lighting companies who are making gross profits off of us? Just watch, when the tax revenue from utility taxes goes in the toilet, they’ll either raise the tax on electricity, or they’ll tax LED lig*
*Facebook truncated this post; I did not
Claim: Environmentalists think Thomas Edison sucks. This article says that the government will make you pay $50 for lightbulbs.
Me: No, and only for really expensive LED lightbulbs. Read the damn article, not just the headline.
Rebuttal: Okay, fine, but I hate the arbitrary date that someone decided on. And my lighting options are no light, bad fluorescent light, or $50 bulbs.
Me: You will have had five years to make the transition from when this was passed by Congress in 2007 to 2012. And CFLs come in m any different sizes and colors, and they’re cheap.
Rebuttal: Well, something is being forced on me that doesn’t work as well as the original thing. I don’t like the government telling me what to do.
Me: The government exists to do things the people cannot; ensuring clean air, for example.
Rebuttal: China pollutes more than we do; why should we care?
I was sad to hear last week that Daniel Schorr had died. Like many journalists of his era such as Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, his voice carried that memorable white male gravitas that perhaps only Brian Williams of NBC still effects, and that palely.
Anyway, despite earning a trophy in second grade for perfect spelling and an erstwhile career as a copy editor, I was surprised when reading Schorr’s obituary to see his name spelled “Schorr;” I had always, in my head, spelled it “Shore,” not only because it seemed appropriate phonetically, but also metaphorically by the way his voice washed over me as a listener. And it occurs to me that, over the years, I have been surprised to learn the true spellings of many of my favorite NPR personalities:
Howard Berkes isn’t Howard Burkas
Diane Rehm isn’t Diane Ream
Carl Kasell isn’t Karl Castle
And the biggest disappointment thus far, because I remember him from early childhood when my mom listened to NPR during breakfast before school:
Robert Siegel isn’t Robert Seagull
Rest in peace, Mr. Schorr, and long live the rest of NPR’s phonetically challenging staff.
I know, I know, it’s been AGES since I’ve said anything (and longer since I’ve said anything worth reading). Rest assured, oh three-point-two-five readers, I am still alive, and I still have Opinions on Things that Need to be Addressed.
For today’s Opinion, I’ll start with Doug Batchelor‘s recent sermon on women in not in the ministry. This was fucking appalling, and I’m ashamed that people weren’t walking out of his sermon in droves. There is no excuse for misogyny. None. Doug Batchelor needs a restraining order to keep him away from pulpits, and his ovis-audience needs to check their cud before they chew it. (Although I suppose these people seem like the type who blindly swallow, but that may not be the best metaphor….)
Chiefly amongst my uncharitable toughts toward the mallustrous preacher man is that I hope purgatory is real, or that hell is temporary, but I also hope that purgatory/hell is individualized per a person’s sins. My hell, for example, would be full of engineers who dam rivers and that abomination of imitation chocolate, carob. And from that experience, I expect I would learn to respect others’ work and not be so quick to stuff what appears to be chocolate in my mouth. Doug Batchelor’s hell, I hope, would be full of women who are more intelligent than he is, and not only preach but are fucking preachERS. I also believe, in this imaginary purgatory/hell, that close-minded people will take longer to learn their lessons, and in doing so, be there longer. Batchelor’s going to steam for awhile, I think. Though I prefer not to conjecture on the length of my interment.
In light of the affairs of Tiger Woods, John Edwards, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, and — oh hell, why not — all the men in South Carolina, can we the media please reconsider the word “mistress”? A mistress, by definition, has power and control over the man she’s having sex with, be it monetary, authority, or ownership; having a one-night stand with a Las Vegas stripper or sleeping with your public relations strategist, aide’s wife, or Argentinian liason does not give them that kind of control. For the most part, these women are under the spell of power, so to speak, not powerful themselves. Sure, they can go public with the info, but all that brings is a she-said, he-said situation.
So let’s dispense with calling desperate women mistresses. I am, however, in full favor of calling the men in these cases “assholes.” No problem there.
I’m sure this has been done and done well by others, but I’m bored and procrastinating on two stacks of grading. Thus: reality television shows I would actually watch:
Dancing with the Star Trek Wars: extra points to anyone who costumes up as Jabba; minus points for any Jar Jars; Data might have a bit of trouble really feeling the music, but I imagine he’d be able to process it.
Survivor: ‘Real America’: Equipped with the latest Glenn Beck novel, contestants learn to survive using only personal freedom and family values.
Iron Chevre: Contestants get to eat all the cheese they want. (I would so go on this show.)
The Biggest Loose Woman (or Man): Oh wait, they already have this — it’s called “The Bachelor.”
The Real Housewives of Remote Alaska: When your groceries get flown into you once a month or less, see what it takes to plan ahead and make do. And anyone who even mentions the erstwhile governor gets voted off the show and immediately deported to Russia.
Extreme Makeover: Infant Edition: Is your child bald? Fat? Are her cankles too chubby or his head too melon-like? No worries — plastic surgeons are standing by to make your child into the shape you always dreamed of.
Project Runaway: Fashion shows actually do something worthwhile and raise money for homeless teens.
Are You Smarter than a PhD?: Seriously, let’s get some respect for people who devote a decade of their life to getting academically hazed. And all teacher-contestants automatically win a chili pepper on RateMyProfessor(dot)com.
Big Brother: TRL: Unlike the no-privacy house where fabulously beautiful people do stupid things, this would just be normal people, all videos courtesy of governmental security cameras. The show will suck, but thankfully that doesn’t matter in reality television — the outrage will power huge ratings.
Keeping Up with the Whoosiwhatsits: Stories about people who really don’t deserve to be famous. First guest: Balloon Boy!
Clever teenager takes on the establishment and (usually) wins? The media uses its platform to mock itself? A family of doctors is dysfunctional? And really, what is wrong with cowboys in spaceships? Well, the problem with those ideas is that they were the premises of shows I liked, and they all got canceled, usually within one season but inevitably right around the time I start liking them (Veronica Mars, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Out of Practice, Firefly). Obviously this is because they have intelligent writing, and the rest of America is much more pedestrian in its taste –
[...See, I wrote that ironically, but then couldn't bring myself to delete it, which means that I believe it to be true, at least to a significant degree. ]
Anyway, shows I like get canceled, and there’s nothing like getting 18 episodes into Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip on Hulu before bothering to look it up on IMDB, only to find that, yeah, I’ve got four more episodes and that’s it. The end. Kaput.
I’m sure you could lump any five shows together and find commonalities, and other bloggers who are more in touch with current culture could weigh in with more credibility, but I find a couple of these shows — Veronica Mars and Studio 60, at minimum — to be the types of shows that deal with current cultural issues in a way that is more relevant than any print or television entertainment news. Veronica Mars hit on an uncountable number of issues, not limited to teen sexuality and virginity, racism and being Arab in America, class warfare between the haves and the have-nots, underage drinking, binge drinking, Christianity, and much more; Studio 60 took those same issues and gave them a primetime adult venue. Moreover, Studio 60 attempted to put a right-wing Christian in a starring role, a fabulous setup for culture war plotlines between her and her left-wing co-stars.
Both critically acclaimed shows? Canceled.
Unless you’ve been backpacking the Appalachian Trail for the past 12 months (euphemistically or not), you’ve noticed that America has entered another culture war — or perhaps our ongoing war has deepened; one that is flamed by intolerance and bigotry. Shows that attempt to confront the crazy — which is on both sides, albeit moreso on the right these days — don’t succeed because they’re up against mindless blather and reality television that showcases humanity at its worst. We are a tabloid civilization and only a few people are willing to think about the issues dividing us.
Consider the following NBC breakdown of Studio 60′s viewers (bolding is mine):
“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” is averaging a 4.0 rating, 9 share in adults 18-49 and 9.8 million viewers overall (through November 6) and has increased its rating week-to-week in 18-49 with each of its last two telecasts. “Studio 60″ has consistently delivered some of the highest audience concentrations among all primetime network series in such key upscale categories as adults 18-49 living in homes with $75,000-plus and $100,000-plus incomes and in homes where the head of household has four or more years of college.
I am not making the point that people who with more education are “smarter” than people with less education, but I have found that people with more education tend to be more willing to confront issues like racism and classism to find out why the exist: what feeds them, what drives them, and treat the problem, as opposed to people who would rather either ignore the issues altogether and pretend they don’t exist, or treat the symptoms instead of the underlying condition. So when I see that Studio 60 had a relatively educated audience, I wonder what it would take to get less educated people to consider the culturally divisive issues of our day. And somehow, I don’t think the answer is reality television, whose producers prefer the lurid to the thoughtful and the pithy 20-second tearful endings to any investigation or real discussion.
*
I suppose you could dismiss this as the rant of an overeducated English major who’s bitter that her shows get canceled, but I hope you won’t. We’re seeing more and more evidence that America’s divide is growing, and although I am loathe to give credibility to feelings (emotions can be stupidly misleading), I can’t help but feel that this build-up isn’t going to be solved by presidential speeches; if at all, it’s going to be deflated with water-cooler conversations. A catalyst for this could be intelligent television, if only we could have some.
Just finished listening to Nicholas Kristof and his wife and fellow Pulitzer Prize winner Sheryl WuDunn talk about their new book, “Half the Sky,” on the Diane Rehm Show. In the book, Kristof and WuDunn tackle the issue of global women’s rights, and on the show they devoted part of the segment to what people can do to help. Because it’s such a huge issue with so many facets, WuDunn suggested just picking one women’s right issue to be yours, such as genital mutilation or sex trafficking, and then pick a place to support: China, Cambodia, India, Mexico, Sudan, etc. Both journalists recommended three websites where you can make donations and show your support for helping to end these human rights abuses, and they are kiva.org, givology.org, and globalgiving.com.
About this time last year, I remember wondering, “Hey, will Jon Stewart have anything to talk about when Obama gets elected?”, thereby effectively eliminating myself as a contender for America’s Top Prognosticator. Suffice it to say, I did not imagine that conservatives — who so decried liberals’ furor over Bush 43 — would themselves turn into the angry, irrational scrum that they have become. You see, I grew up among conservatives — smart, thoughtful ones, people whom I admired. And I have no idea what the hell happened to them. I’m not old enough to have a huge frame of reference, but I see this country becoming more and more polarized, and it’s despicable. Rational debate? Pfft, forget that — let’s take up arms instead!
So I have this to say: If you believe the smirking Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin are voices of reason and thoughtfulness, get the hell out of my life. Similarly, if you like the snarkiness of Keith Olbermann or Maureen Dowd for anything other than humor, you are too far gone. In either case, I don’t think you exist as a contributing member of society. I’ll still recognize your right to exist, and your fucking good luck we’ve got a constitution that guarantees that right.
I do believe in listening to what others have to say, and trying to understand different points of view — it’s how we learn and how we relate to others. But there has to be something rational to begin with, as well as a willingness to listen, and people who are solely interested in their ratings and the shock value of their words are not people interested in civil discourse. They’re talking heads, and if you parrot them and their beliefs, you’re pathetic. That brain you have? Use it.
Remember Jon Stewart on Crossfire? Remember what he said about the sniping between the left and the right?
Some timely highlights:
“You are part of their [politicians'] strategies.”
“We need help from the media, and they’re hurting us.”
“You’re doing theatre when you should be doing debate.”
“You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.”
“The absurdity of the system provides us with the most material, and that is best served by sort of the theatre of it all, y’know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it’s helped.”
Remember that? Good stuff. It’s still applicable. Crossfire may have been canceled as a result, but Begala and the Bowtie are doing guest commentator stints, and there’s a whole horde of other hosts wasting brains and energy.
I know it’s idealistic, but I’d like just one show — just one! — that didn’t worry about the ratings and did concern itself with meaningful debate. So far, the only place I ever see something even resembling that is on the The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer because there is a moderator who keeps things in check, and the guests manage to exhibit self-control that is totally lacking on other shows — yes, including the Sunday talking-head programs such as Meet the Press and that ilk. The moderator model should be used on other shows, and the print media should encourage point/counterpoint columns where there is thoughtful, engaged debate — not a competition to see who can talk louder or whose soundbite is repeated most often.
One of the quandries I face daily on Facebook is people I’m friends with posting links to articles of their own particular political persuasion. I reason that if they post them, they’re intending to share ideas. So how do I express my ideas on the subject, especially when I vehemently disagree? Will this friend be angry, avoidant, embarrassed, hurt? Might I do irreparrable damage to our friendship, and could it ever be worth it?
And I do the same thing — or at least I did: during the election I posted to Facebook many articles on politics, so I know others probably feel the same way I feel right now: conflicted. It’s easy to disagree with someone, but hard to express it sometimes, especially when it’s someone you’re friends with. Or someone who may soon be classified as “someone you used to be friends with.”
Specifically, today a friend posted an article by Pat Buchanan which, aside from its mass generalizations and utter lack of sources*, contains the following gem toward the end:
Oh, yes. Obama also promises everybody a college education.
Coming to America to feast on this cornucopia of freebies is the world. One million to 2 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arrive every year. They come with fewer skills and less education than Americans, and consume more tax dollars than they contribute by three to one.
Wise Latina women have more babies north of the border than they do in Mexico and twice as many here as American women.
As almost all immigrants are now Third World people of color, they qualify for ethnic preferences in hiring and promotions and admissions to college over the children of Americans.
All of this would have astounded and appalled the Founding Fathers, who after all, created America – as they declared loud and clear in the Constitution – “for ourselves and our posterity.”
Excuse me? Am I the only one who read that as, Those people of color are threatening white America!?
As disgusting and perplexing (and, regarding the entire article, poorly written and woefully organized) as I find this message, I find it more disturbing that a friend posted this on Facebook.
So what’s a “friend” to do? Say something? Keep your mouth shut? Block him from the news feed?
In this case, I honestly felt like I couldn’t not say something; that saying nothing would be tacit approval. So, I did, and now the pit of my stomach is in knots and I don’t want to check back in, because while I was careful to phrase my comment as a question, asking if perhaps the message had a racist edge to it and avoiding accusing my friend of espousing racism, I really don’t want to see how I’m probably about to be crucified by this friend’s right-wing associates. I’m not sure if I could do anything other than make people offended.
But if, in the off chance I could make people rethink what they’ve just read, wouldn’t it be worth it?
Yet the little part of my brain that I’m constantly trying to hush up because it screws with my self-esteem is saying, Maybe you’re wrong. Maybe you misread it. But I don’t really see how it could’ve been interpreted another way, though I’m sure many will try.
Well, maybe I am wrong. TELL ME IF I’M WRONG. Because if I’m wrong it means that this friend isn’t as thoughtless and callous and far-gone as it seems. I just can’t believe people are using racist rhetoric in this century — and people I know and love are sharing it.
*This is forgiveable in opinion columns, but I found it particularly egregious in this one.
I’d like to know what the fuck is up with Facebook. It has obviously accessed my contacts list from my Gmail account (which is a friend search option I NEVER enabled), and now I’m getting “suggestions” to be friends with everyone I’ve ever e-mailed: students, colleagues, the merest of acquaintances. Haven’t found anything on Google to say that others are noticing it, so I guess I’ll keep digging…
