Category Archives: Culture

Deja Vu All Over Again

Culture, Politics

For me, one of the most enlightening moments in the aftermath of the tragic events in Buffalo on Saturday came when a number of journalists and pundits were chastised for referring to the shooter as a “lone gunman.” What were the critics of this reporting trying to tell us? While one person pulled the triggered, he had a host of accomplices who created the environment in which he believed his actions were acceptable, if not justified.

In the course of drafting the historical novel which has taken me away from this blog for the past several months, the research took me to Tallahatchie County, Mississippi in 1956. This was the time and location of the infamous torture and murder of Emmett Till, only one of several similar violent responses to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. What was it about northeast Mississippi that made it the epicenter of mid-20th century racial conflict?

David Halberstam's Mississippi apprenticeship - Columbia Journalism Review

One possible answer was provided by then aspiring journalist David J. Halberstam.  Seventeen years before this Pulitzer Prize winning author published The Best and the Brightest, Halberstam penned an article for The Reporter titled, “Tallahatchie County Acquits a Peckerwood.”  Following the acquittal of Elmer Kimbell after the murder of Clinton Melton, an African-American gas station attendant, he wrote:

A friend of mine divides the white population of Mississippi into two categories. The first and largest contains the good people of Mississippi, as they are affectionately called by editorial writers, politi­cians, and themselves. The other group is a smaller but in many ways more conspicuous faction called the peckerwoods.

The good people will generally agree that the peckerwoods are trou­blemakers, and indeed several good people have told me they joined the Citizens Councils because otherwise the peckerwoods would take over the situation entirely.  But while the good peo­ple would not act with the rashness of and are not governed by the hatred of the peckerwood, they are reluctant to apply society’s normal remedies to the peckerwood. Thus it is the peckerwoods who kill Negroes and the good people who acquit the peckerwoods

David Halberstam, “Tallahatchie County Acquits a Peckerwood,” The Reporter, April 19, 1956.

Sound familiar? From his own manifesto, we know the Buffalo assailant is an anti-Semitic, white supremacist. But he is someone who Halberstam, if covering the weekend events, would also call a “neo-peckerwood.” But the phrase in Halberstam’s article that haunts me is, “…several good people have told me they joined the Citizens Councils (the organization created to fight school integration) because otherwise the peckerwoods would take over the situation entirely. “

How is that any different from Mark Esper, John Bolton, Bill Barr, Kellyanne Conway and every other former member of the previous administration who claimed they were protecting us or “the peckerwoods would take over the situation entirely?” No, they did not protect us. They silently endorsed the behavior.

And how are Tucker Carlson, Elyse Stefanik and a host of MAGA-inspired candidates for office in 2022 distinguishable from the “good people” of Tallahatchie County who believed their silence in the face of bigotry and hate made them better than the peckerwoods. Stefanik, the third highest ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives believes she is absolved of her complicity by Tweeting, “Our nation is heartbroken about the tragic news of horrific loss of life in Buffalo.” Just days after calling those across the aisle pedophiles and grifters who were promoting illegal immigration, a dog whistle for “replacement theory.”

Is there no one in the Republican leadership who will recognize how they contribute to the bile that has poisoned the body politic and the nation? Rather than banish the Liz Cheneys who dare call them out, is there not one member of the current party elite who will emulate Prince Escalus in Act V of Romeo and Juliet when he chastises the lovers’ parents for creating the conditions which led to a tragic end. “See what a scourge is laid upon your hate.” Instead of ending his screed with “All are punished,” a modern day Prince would declare, “All are peckerwoods.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Cavett Emptor

Culture, Media

Blogger’s Note: I started drafting this post in mid-December while making my list of Festivus grievances. But, as often happens, the narrative did not come together and the partially completed entry was relegated to the “drafts” folder. However, my desire to share the content was energized by two recent events.

Last Sunday’s Washington Post Magazine included an essay by Anna Peele titled, “How do you host television in 2022?” Peele suggests the lack of civility in our every day political and cultural discourse demands a rethinking of the role of talk show hosts. She further claims several TV hosts including Seth Meyers, Ziwe, Padma Lakshmi, Andy Cohen and Keke Palmer have successfully made the transition. Peele focused on how each of these entertainers interacted with their guests.

What Peele failed to address is a more existential question, “When is a talk show not a talk show?”

Look up “The Tonight Show” on Wikipedia.org. It is described as “an American late-night talk show that has aired on NBC since 1954.” The Johnny-Come-Lately imitations, e.g., “The Late Show with David Letterman” and then “…Stephen Colbert” (CBS) or “JimmyKimmell Live” (ABC), are also characterized as “talk shows.”

I guess that depends on your definition of “talk show.” If you had never watched any of the late night programs, you might look forward to a conversation between the host and one or more guests. Last night, the first guest on Colbert appeared at the 31 minute 03 second mark preceded by the opening monologue, commercial break, the regular bit “Meanwhile,” and a second commercial break. The same is true for the rest of the late-night array of “talk shows.” Jimmy Kimmel had a filmed parody of how anti-vaxxers might approach the Heimlich maneuver featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger. And Seth Meyers regularly peppers the first half of his alloted 60 minutes with bits like “You’re Burnt,” “Day Drinking,” or “Back in My Day.”

Monday night’s edition of “Late Night with Seth Meyers” presented that moment of irony which visually captured the topic. Meyer’s studio band is unique in that it features a different guest drummer each week. Before introducing his first guest, Meyers welcomed this week’s percussionist Stevie Nistor, currently on tour with Sparks, who happened to be wearing a tee shirt with a caricature of Dick Cavett.

Some of us are old enough to remember Cavett’s ABC entry into late night television in 1968 following years as a staff writer for Jack Paar and Johnny Carson. He had one more thing in common with his two mentors, a mid-American upbringing, having been born and raised in Gibbon, Nebraska. (NOTE: Paar grew up in Canton, Ohio; Carson in Corning, Iowa.)

But Cavett chose a different path from Carson or his ABC predecessor Joey Bishop. Knowing he could not compete with Carson, the anointed “king of late night TV,” Cavett took his cue from Paar. Although the show bore his name, the focus was always on the guests many with whom he established long-term relationships. They included celebrities from every walk of life including John and Yoko Ono (featured in the film Forrest Gump), Muhammed Ali, Noel Coward, Norman Mailer, then aspiring Massachusetts senator John Kerry, Katherine Hepburn and Groucho Marx. (NOTE: Marx gave Cavett the honor of introducing him at his last public performance, a one-man show An Evening with Groucho Marx at Carnegie Hall on December 16, 1972.)

Katharine Hepburn on <em>The Dick Cavett Show</em> in 1973. When the actress first met the talk-show host, she immediately asked him about “the man who died.” (Photo: Everett Collection)

Cavett would open his show with the obligatory monologue, but it was clear he was as anxious as the audience to get to his guests. Most shows dedicated the entire 90 minutes to one interview. And on rare cases after the show was cut back to one hour, longer conversations with the likes of Hepburn and Marx were broadcast on consecutive nights. Due to the personal relationships with many of his guests outside the confines of the TV cameras, the interviews more resembled a casual exchange between old friends rather than host digging for a sound bite and guest plugging his/her latest project.

In this sense he, rather than Johnny Carson, became the successor to Jack Paar. This was never more evident than occasions when the conversation turned to a mutual experience Cavett shared with a guest. Like Paar, he would introduce the topic, “Remember the time we…” But would stop in mid-sentence, then add, “No, you tell it much better.”

The answer to Anna Peele’s question, “How do you host television in 2022?” is obvious. The same way you did in 1968. The times were not that much different than today. The nation was divided. We were engaged in an unpopular war. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were murdered. Chicago and Miami were the scenes of violent protests. In good times and bad, you do what Dick Cavett did. Focus on who we are, not on what we are doing at the moment.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Turning Over an Old Leaf

Culture, Politics

While browsing the titles in the “New Releases” section of my local bookstore, I came upon The Newest Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin. Certainly, these most vocal critics of “cancel culture” would not exploit a Mark Twain classic to further their faux crusade against anything that makes conservative snowflakes uncomfortable. Was I ever wrong.

In Chapter 1, we find Tom and his brother Sid newly relocated in a foster home. The young lads have been removed from Aunt Polly’s care by Child Welfare Services. Rumors of her alternate lifestyle had been reported by neighbors to the local authorities.

“This is no place to raise children,” one told the judge at the custody hearing. “These boys need a mother and father.”

“Will you take them in?” asked the judge.

“You’re joking, of course. How do you expect me to find the time to organize the protest at the next school board meeting if I have to look after these hoodlums. We’d all be better off if these boys had never been born.” (If the book is ever adapted as a movie, this scene will fade to black while Alanis Morissette sings “Ironic.”)

But, that was just a preview of what was to come. In Chapter 2, Tom’s foster parents ask him if he wants to earn some spending money by whitewashing the school library. He agrees and is handed several cardboard boxes, a shovel and a list of names.

“What are these for?” Tom asks. “Won’t I need a bucket and brushes?”

“No, Tom. This is a different kind of whitewashing. Don’t think of it as work. It’s more like a scavenger hunt. Collect all the books by people on this list and put them in the cardboard boxes.”

“But what’s the shovel for?”

“You have to bury the boxes. Due to the drought from this hot spell and lack of rain, the city is prohibiting all controlled burns.”

“Wouldn’t this have been more like an ‘out of control’ burn?”

“Watch your mouth, boy. You’re lucky you have a place to live and someone who feeds you. And forget about being paid.”

I had read enough and put the book back on the shelf.

POSTSCRIPT

The New Adventures of Tom Sawyer was nominated for the national book award as the best metaphorical teaching tool to help students understand racial and gender injustice. DeSantis and Youngkin immediately called for the book to be removed from all public school and community libraries.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

A Nation Divided

Culture

Yesterday’s Supreme Court session at which the justices heard arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was just the latest salvo in the culture wars which continue to demarcate two very distinct camps or tribes within the American populace. Perhaps it is no coincidence that, on the same day, Harvard University released the 42nd edition of its Youth Poll, a survey of 18 to 19 year-olds conducted by the Kennedy School of Public Policy. As Carl Jung might say, “Synchronicity runs deep.”

Buried beneath the headline about Joe Biden’s flagging approval rating among young Americans were the following:

  • 35 percent of respondents believe there will be a second civil war in their lifetimes.
  • 25 percent believe at least one state will secede from the union.

This raises the legitimate concern whether the United States which emerged from the first war between the states can survive in this cultural environment. One need look no farther than the editorial pages of the Washington Post or New York Times, cable news, talk radio or Facebook to know it would be a waste of time and space to add my two cents to the discussion.

What no one else is talking about is whether the union could survive a physical partition, as suggested by the Harvard survey. Forget the confederacy. Consider the following map created by the Guttmacher Institute based on current state efforts to restrict or protect a woman’s right to choose.

State Policy Trends 2019: A Wave of Abortion Bans, But Some States Are Fighting Back | Guttmacher Institute

Does this remind you of anything, especially after Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Florida, South Carolina and Texas join the list of pro-life states? Maybe the 1947 partition of Pakistan following Indian independence from Great Britain. How did that work out? The physical divide became problematic resulting in the creation of an independent Bangladesh 24 years later as illustrated below.

How about the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Again, the physical separation has hampered attempts to find a single broker who can negotiate a peace covering both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. When it comes to love, perhaps distance does make the heart grow fonder. Not so in governance or politics.

Two states, one and other solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - One state, two states, whatever - Haaretz.com

Returning to the Guttmacher Institute map, there is a resemblance to one only a political scientist familiar with the history of voting behavior in the U.S. could appreciate. Following passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Democratic strategists recognized they could no longer rely on support in Southern states. To accumulate the required 270 electoral votes needed to win presidential elections they came up with the “Quad-Cali” strategy. It required piecing together a center-left coalition consisting of a quadrangle of Northeast and Midwest states plus California.

With the vantage point of hindsight from previous partitions, Quad-Cali seems not the best descriptor of this geographic configuration. Maybe we should take a cue from Pakistan. Try East America and West America on for size. Or better, the East Banks (with the capital located on Wall Street) and the Java Strip (Capital? Seattle, of course.)

The only remaining question? When Middle America realizes that residents of the states outside their jurisdiction will no longer subsidize their lifestyle through redistribution of federal taxes, will Middle America president Ron DeSantis authorize the construction of cross border settlements a la Benjamin Netanyahu?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

War and Peace (and Golf)

Culture, Sports

 

The America of 2021 is a constant game of tug of war between high and low expectations.  At one extreme, “Team High” is all about striving.  Which billionaire will almost make it to outer space first?  Which athlete will push the envelope to perform better?  Which company has the highest market cap regardless of fundamentals? Which students will have a longer list of extracurricular activities on their resumes?

At the other extreme, “Team Low” suggests all this striving leads to unhappiness and anxiety.  Dr. Jeremy Sherman made this point in a 2014 article in Psychology Today, presenting a counter-intuitive take on an oft-told story about optimism.

The joke goes that a child was so optimistic that, to test the extent of his optimism, his parents gave him a pile of horse manure. The kid’s eyes open wide with delight. He dives into the pile and starts digging.

“What are you doing?” his parents ask.
The kid replies, “With this much manure, I’m betting there’s a pony in here!”

Imagine his disappointment when there wasn’t.

For “Team Low,” being in the game is enough.  That participation trophy is a monument to trying, even when it does not lead to success.  Taking on a challenge is its own reward.  The journey, not the destination, is the source of the highest dividends.

As in most debates, the answer is probably somewhere between these extremes.  However, there is a bigger problem which I will call “situation expectations.”  It is not uncommon that one’s definition of success or failure will depend on the specifics of a given situation.  However, in this case, individuals occasionally adjust their position in the middle of an on-going scenario.  This is sometimes referred to as “moving the goalposts,” though it is more akin to donning an opponents’ uniform in the middle of a game.

SIK Golf&#39;s Bryson DeChambeau finishes 2nd in MexicoConsider the recent exploits of the golfer we love to hate Bryson DeChambeau as an example of how expectations can change in a matter of hours.  During the second round of the BMW Championship, after an eagle on the 16th hole, DeChambeau was in reach of a 59 with one birdie on either of the last two holes.  Missed putts of 17 feet on the 17th and six feet on the 18th resulted in “only” a course and tournament record 60, 12 strokes under par.  In the post-round interview, DeChambeau did not hesitate to voice his disappointment about misreading the putt on 18.  “I wanted to make it so bad.”

Rewind the video (I know, an anachronism) to DeChambeau standing on the first tee at the start of his second round.  Imagine if someone had asked, “Would you be satisfied if you could shoot 60 today and be tied for the lead going into Saturday’s third round?”  There is only one response.  “HELL YEAH!”  Of course, the irony is that missed six foot putt on Friday was the difference between taking home the BMW trophy and losing in a six-hole playoff on to Patrick Cantlay on Sunday.

Which brings me to the question of expectations when it comes to war and peace.  Twenty years ago, in the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush rallied the international community to avenge the attack on the United States.  The goal: punish those directly responsible and disrupt potential future attacks.  Operation Enduring Freedom was initiated on September 26 when a CIA team arrived in Afghanistan to analyze the situation and identify potential anti-Taliban allies.  Soon thereafter, American and British special forces with U.S. air support pursued al-Qaeda militants in the Tora Bora region, forcing the survivors to retreat into Pakistan.  One could argue “First Tee” expectations, with the exception of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, were met when U.S. and Afghan forces decimated the 800 remaining al-Qaeda fighters in Paktia province in March 2002.

Perhaps initial success in Afghanistan came too easy (just as it again did in Iraq).  Why stop here?  Especially when anti-Taliban Afghans from the Northern provinces, led by Hamid Karzai, were eager to take complete control of the country even though U.S. military leadership on the ground advised against supporting the broader offensive.  President Bush then moved the goal posts with the April 2002 announcement of a “Marshall Plan” for Afghanistan, financial aid accompanied by an International Security Assistance Force as a counter-insurgency measure.  A lot transpired over the next 20 years, but I will leave that to historians to parse.

Which brings us to August 2021 during which expectations rose and fell faster and more frequently than the wave at a college football game.

  • Expectation #1: An equipped and trained security force of 300,000 Afghans could hold off Taliban advances long enough for an orderly evacuation of U.S. citizens and Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders.
  • Expectation #2: Once Kabul fell to the Taliban, the possibility of a mass evacuation was slim and none.  On August 19, CNN foreign correspondent Clarissa Ward estimated American forces would be lucky if they got 50,000 evacuees to safety.
  • Expectation #3: Deploying 5,000 U.S. troops to secure a small geographic footprint surrounded by hostile forces (Taliban and ISIS-K) was extremely risky.
  • Expectation #4:  Sending troops to secure the evacuation would require an extension of Biden’s August 31 departure deadline.
  • Expectation #5:  Following the tragic loss of 13 service men and women, additional suicide bombings or worse, i.e. rocket attacks on departing aircraft, were likely.
  • Expectation #6: As U.S. forces began to leave, the last remaining contingent would be “sitting ducks.”

Imagine a meeting of the National Security Council in the White House situation room immediately following the fall of Kabul.  President Joe Biden asks for an honest assessment of the next 17 days.  National security advisor Jake Sullivan and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin paint the following scenario.

For a couple of days there will be complete chaos until we can secure the perimeter of the airport with approximately 5,000 troops.  By the third day we should be able to begin a round-the-clock airlift evacuating as many as 18,000 people per day.  By the departure date August 31, we estimate we can evacuate a total of 125,000 U.S. citizens and SIV recipients.

U.S. troops will need to be within close contact of Taliban forces and potential terrorists.  We cannot guarantee there will be no casualties.  We should expect 25-50.  However, we will be able to protect the airfield and planes from incoming rockets and secure the area until the last plane takes off.

Biden suggests they have painted a far too rosy picture and asks for the worse case scenario.   It is not pretty.    Decimated runways shutting down the airlift.  A filled mess hall or barracks becomes the target of an ISIS rocket.  A downed C-17 with 600 evacuees and troops killed.  Every critic and many pundits raised these possibilities, yet said nothing when they did not happen.

Out of Bounds: How to make F-word part of golfing vernacular?Which brings me to my last point about expectations.  Americans should heed the axiom, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”  [NOTE:  The origin of this phrase is attributed to Voltaire who wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary, “The best is the enemy of the good.”]  Every PGA and LPGA tour player would love to shoot an ideal score, 16 birdies and a couple of eagles for good measure.  But they have not given up the game because it is, for all practical purposes, out of reach.  Instead, they yell, “FORE,” to acknowledge the errant shot, look for opportunities to recover and know the final tally never rests on a single stroke.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP