Category Archives: Culture

Oil and Water

Culture

 

Image result for comedians in cars getting coffeeMuch is being written about “tribal America” and how politics has made people choose the circle in which the stand.  But tribalism has always been a feature of our culture, way before the Age of Trump.  I was reminded of this by a article in yesterday’s Washington Post about the premiere of the new season of Jerry Seinfeld’s “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee.”  It was not the critic’s take that caught my attention (he thought the show had run its course), but the reader comments.  Much like Seinfeld’s iconic sitcom, many argued you either got it or you did not.

The article took me back in time to an era when my commute from Annapolis to Washington, DC was made easier by listening to pre-SiriusXM Howard Stern.  One morning Stern went on a tirade about “lame Garrison Keillor” and his stupid radio show.  As a regular listener of A Prairie Home Companion I wondered why anyone would think you had to choose between Stern and Keillor.  (NOTE:  You have to appreciate the irony it is GARRISON KEILLOR who has been become a persona non grata as a result of the #metoo movement.)  And as Trevor Noah reminded us, support for Black Lives Matter and police is not a zero-sum game.  Why can’t you do both?

Madison Avenue preys on our natural desire to be absolutists.  You must either drink Coke OR Pepsi.  You listen to the Beatles OR the Rolling Stones.  You use an iPhone or an Android device.  Preference is one thing.  Exclusion is another.  Totally avoiding a restaurant because it does not serve your favored soft drinks seems a big extreme.  And yes, there are people who do that.

You can make a a very good living selling a product to a limited demographic.  By playing to your base, even if it is a minority, you can even swing enough electoral votes to secure 1000+ nights sleeping in the White House.  Guy Kawasaki, a member of the Apple team that created the iMac and now CEO of Garage.com, reminds us no one can please all of the people all of time.  He counsels clients to build something that garners passion among your customers even if others hate it.  Call it commercial tribalism.  Create passion, not mediocrity.

There is only one problem.  When you become so tethered to one brand you can miss offerings from competitors which are a better fit or are more responsive to your needs.  You may even act in ways that are against you own best interests.  (Ask any soybean farmer in Iowa.) Especially when the brands to which you are already loyal do everything in their power to convince you to stay put.  And their success lies in capturing more from an existing base than broadening their audience.

Maybe what we need is a better metaphor for our times.  It need not be “oil and water” but “oil and vinegar,” something that when combined is a better tasting and healthier topping for the mixed salad America has become.

FOOTNOTE: E PLURIBUS SCROTUS

Tonight we get a chance to see the extent to which Donald Trump is more interested in tribal politics than governing.  Among the four remaining candidates to replace Anthony Kennedy, the most contentious is Amy Coney Barrett.  Trump has been warned by several GOP senators that she might not be confirmed based on her previous rulings and writing related to abortion and legal precedence.  If that is the case, the only reason to pick this fight is to energize Trump’s base in the mid-term elections.   You can hear the campaign spiel now.

The Democrats say we are anti-female.  But who voted against the next woman justice on the Supreme Court?  Democrats believe a woman must be pro-abortion.  This proves it.  The Democrats say she does not feel bound by legal precedence.  But given the chance, they would jump up and down if a liberal Supreme Court overturned Citizens United. A Democrat House and Senate will obstruct everything you voted for in 2016 when you elected me. DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN.  (Hugs the flag.)

I am one of the many who believe a chief executive who may rely on the Supreme Court for decisions related to executive privilege, impeachment or indictment should not pick those who must eventually rule on these issues.  But if the confirmation process goes forward, Trump can either pick the least objectionable of the four finalist (probably Thomas Hardiman) or christen the latest poster child for the culture wars.

You have to admit, you need pretty big pelotas to publicly express the level of racism, xenophobia and sexism Trump spews on a daily basis.  The ballsy chose is Barrett.  That’s where my money is.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Relephants

Culture

 

In the Season Two finale of Westworld, Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins) tells Bernard Lowe(Jeffrey Wright), “You only live as long as the last person to remember you.”  Since the episode aired last Sunday night, the phrase has gone viral throughout the blogosphere with fans of the HBO program speculating what it means for the characters in Season Three.

Related imageFor me, Ford’s maxim went beyond the futuristic universe of Westworld.  It was one more synchronistic moment which helped clarify a blog post I started on June 14, but never finished for lack of a central theme.  The never completed draft was titled, “Can You Hear Me Now” and was triggered by Kate Spade’s suicide nine days earlier.  In an intersection of events which I can only assume were more coincidental than causal, “Who is Kate Spade?” was the question to a Jeopardy! answer the night before her death.  None of the three contestants responded correctly.

Now I am not going to suggest Spade killed herself because of a game show incident, but I did wonder if by chance she had watched the episode.  From her suicide note and interviews with friends, it is clear the fashion designer was dealing with depression brought on by both personal and professional issues.  At worst, the Jeopardy! matter was a last straw.  But why?

A second moment of synchronicity last Thursday provided additional clues.  While attending a retreat of trustees of a major public university, the vice-president for advancement was asked how he planned to pitch a billion dollar endowment campaign to potential major donors.  He talked about what the gifts would mean for the future of the institution.  Yet, while he spoke, my thoughts turned to Kate Spade, Hall of Fame wide receiver Jerry Rice, Roseanne Barr and even Rudy Giuliani. Rice, at age 55, following an appearance in the Sports Illustrated body issue, is convinced he could still play professional football.  Barr left her macadamia farm in Hawaii to revive her comedy series about blue collar America.  And after 18 months of obscurity GiulianI surfaced as the media face of Donald Trump’s legal team.

Which brings me back to Westworld and the title of this post.  The theme which bridges these disparate acts seems to be a desire to stay RELEVANT.  A major charitable gift is not about the recipient, it is about the immortality of the donors, having their name forever associated with a cause, program or building.  A 55 year old athlete who stays fit and poses nude for Sports Illustrated wants to remind the sporting world, “I’m still here.”  Giuliani, who openly campaigned for attorney general in the Trump administration, wanted the same exposure to the limelight enjoyed by Jeff Sessions.

We all seek to be “Relephants.”  In life, we continuously seek new ways to do things which are meaningful and remind ourselves and others we have purpose.  And in Hamlet’s words, even when we “shuffle off this mortal coil,” that need not be the end of our existence.  Educators heed the words of Henry Adams, “A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.”  For athletes, it is the records they continue to hold or a plaque in the Hall of Fame of their respective sports.  For performers and artists, it is the immortality which comes with an Oscar-winning role or a painting hung in the Louvre.

While elephants are said to never forget, “Relephants” strive to ensure it is others who retain memories of them and their accomplishments. Or as Ford so consummately stated, “You only live as long as the last person to remember you.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Godfather Part IV

Culture, Politics

 

Expect to see a sequel to Solo: A Star Wars Story despite the disappointing box office receipts for this latest addition to the cinema event which began in 1977.  If there is anything Hollywood abhors, it is a once popular franchise going out on a sour note.  Remember Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or anything about the plot or Harrison Ford’s co-stars?  George Lucas made sure you did not, teaming Ford with Sean Connery and the ancient city of Petra in the more critically praised and enduring Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.  (Cinematic Footnote:  If only it had been the last crusade for this franchise.  It does not take a directorial genius to know a crystal skull is no match for the ark of the covenant or the holy grail.  To make up for this, Ford has agreed to a fifth and final appearance as the archaeologist in a projected 2020 release with Steven Spielberg at the helm. Good luck. )

In Tinseltown, one the most talked about failures of a successful franchise to satisfy its audience remains The Godfather Part III, in which (spoiler alert if that is possible 27 years after a film’s release) Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) dies alone, a broken man.  After all, the first two installments won Oscars for best picture.  Attempts at a fourth incarnation based on the rise of Sonny Corleone’s (James Caan) illegitimate son Vincent (Andy Garcia) as the family head dissolved upon the death of the book’s author and screenwriter Mario Puzzo in 1999.

On the morning following what can only be described as a five-day roller coaster ride in the annuls of United States foreign policy, my thoughts turned to one particular scene in the 1972 original.  Following Sonny’s fatal ambush at a toll plaza, Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) calls a meeting of the heads of the five mafia families at a bank in New York City.  After acknowledging many of the attendees have lost loved ones as a result of the rivalry for control of various black market enterprises from olive oil to prostitution, Vito Corleone calls for a truce.

I hoped that we would come here and reason together.  And as a reasonable man I’m willing to do whatever’s necessary to find a peaceful solution to these problems…

As was the case in all three chapters of the Corleone saga, offers of reconciliation with enemies is a ruse that leads to the death of those who betrayed the family.  In the original, the bloodbath takes place during the the baptism of Michael’s son Anthony.  In Part III, the assassinations are carried out while Michael, his ex-wife Kate (Diane Keaton) and daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola) attend an opera in which aspiring singer Anthony performs for the Pope.

Which brings us back to the past week of Trump-style diplomacy.  For three-quarters of a century, the American president has been the de facto godfather of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  Yet, in less than five days, Donald Trump traded his standing in NATO for leadership of the latest version of the five families.  Except in this sequel, Emilio Barzini, Philip Tattaglia, Ottilion Cuneo and Anthony Stracci are played by Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan, Rodrigo Duterte and newcomer Kim Jung-Un.

Vito Corleone dreamed of the day when the family business would be legitimate and his son Michael (Al Pacino) might be elected to the U.S. Senate.  Fred Trump never imagined his son could become not senator, but president and also remain head of the five families.

One final piece of advice to the other members of this new alliance.  In the unlikely event Trump ever attends an evening of opera at the Kennedy Center or the Met, watch your backs.  Those scenes never end well for anyone who thinks getting in bed with the godfather is good for their health.

POSTSCRIPT

One of the unforeseen sideshows of the G7 summit was Trump’s Twitter rants directed at Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau.  Again, The Godfather sheds some insight into what motivates the current occupant of the oval office.  When Michael Corleone offers to revenge his father’s attempted murder by taking out a corrupt police officer who participated in the plot, Michael’s older brother Sonny warns, “You’re taking this very personal.”  To which Michael mouths the phrase which becomes the second most quoted excerpt from Puzzo’s script, “It’s not personal.  It’s strictly business.”

Image result for trudeau and ivankaExcept in TrumpWorld, it is always personal.  Remember this picture from Trudeau’s visit to the White House in February 2017.  The Guardian carried the photograph under the headline, “Pictures of ‘swooning’ Ivanka Trump and Justin Trudeau go viral.”  One can only imagine how much daddy wishes his daughter would view him in the same light.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

It’s Good to Be the King

Culture, Politics

 

Related imageIf you’re a Mel Brooks fan, you know the title of today’s post comes from History of the World, Part I (1981) in which Brooks plays a series of historical figures from Moses to King Louis XVI of France.  In this last portrayal, Brooks is surrounded by a number of young, buxom courtiers who submit to the King’s advances.  Breaking the fourth wall, Brooks continuously turns to the camera and reminds us, “It’s good to be the King.”

The above title was actually my third choice.  This post was originally going to be called Citizen Trump with the message being any common citizen, having behaved as Donald Trump, would have become a social outcast, relieved of his professional responsibilities and possibly been awaiting trial.  Just imagine the CEO of any American electronics company offering to save a Chinese competitor (a la ZTE) which had been charged with previously stealing the firm’s intellectual property or engaged in espionage.  The response by the Board of Directors can be summed up in one word, “ADIOS.”  Or imagine that same CEO promised to reverse years of fiscal irresponsibility only to reduce revenues by billions of dollars and further leverage an already over-leveraged portfolio. A shareholder revolt would be the least violent response.  Or imagine the CEO using corporate legal counsel to  arrange payment to silence a porn star with whom he had a one-night stand.  I could go on, but you get the picture.

My second choice for the title was, “Hey, What About Me?”  The ME in this headline refers to the Declaration of Independence.  Much has been made over the past week about Trump’s lack of understanding of our Constitution, a theme which first emerged when Gold Star parent Khizr Khan, during a speech at the 2016 Democratic Convention, asked Trump if he had ever read the document.  Since then, many have been quick to point out the Constitution lays out the ideals on which our Nation was found.   Checks and balances.  The Bill of Rights.  I disagree.  It is a manual or playbook which describes the parameters by which we are supposed to operate.  Remember, the Constitution was adopted in 1789, a full 13 years after the colonists rebelled against the Crown.

The controlling document is the one signed on July 4, 1776.  All one has to do is read the grievances against George III contained in the Declaration to fully understand how much the current White House occupant is the antithesis of what the founding fathers expected of the leaders of this new nation.  The colonists’ revolt was not against George III as a person (despicable as he may have been), it was against a fallacy, the divine right of kings, the doctrine that kings derive their authority from God, not from their subjects.  From the Declaration, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Even if everyone has rights “endowed by their Creator,” the power to govern is not one of those divine rights.

Consider the following specific grievances (in italics) against “the present King of Great Britain” based on actual experience. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”  And as you read each outrage, simply substitute Trump for George III

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.  Take your choice.  Nepotism.  Violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.  Eroding guarantees embraced in the First Amendment.  Using public position for personal gain.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.  Despite the call by John McCain and others to return to the “regular order of business,”  Trump with the consent of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan obfuscate long-held procedures for the consideration of legislation.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. I see no need to pile on.  Jefferson said it all.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws.  Russia, Russia, Russia.
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.  Breaking trade agreements and imposing tariffs by executive caveat.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.  Welcome to the culture wars.
  • AND FINALLY.  In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.  Those who disagree with our current King are labeled unpatriotic or falsely accused of dishonoring our military.  Ask any Philadelphia Eagle.

This is the soul and heartbeat of America.  And the colonists who signed the Declaration were as divided on many issues as much or more than the divisions within today’s American populace.  Yet, they put their differences aside to send a clear message to the Crown. It is time we do the same.  It is imperative we remind any of our leaders who think they are royalty that perhaps it may not be so good to be the King or Queen.

POSTSCRIPT

If you buy into the above, then perhaps you understand why I have always shared New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s opinion Bill Clinton should have resigned as president after disclosure of the Monica Lewinsky affair.  Substitute the term “intern” for “courtier” and Clinton becomes the 20th century reincarnation of Mel Brooks’ Louis XVI.  And just as I chose to suggest the consequences of Trump’s behavior should be no different than that of a private citizen running a public corporation, Clinton deserves the same comparison.  How long would the CEO of any major company survive if it was known he was partaking of oral sex from an intern, especially while talking on a phone about a issue which could determine the company’s future?  (Historical Footnote: Lewinsky told Special Counsel Kenneth Starr that on November 15, 1995, Clinton was on the phone conducting business with a congressman or senator while she pleasured him.)

Yes, that was almost 23 years ago.  But we should not need a #metoo movement to know it was as wrong then as it is now. As our founding fathers so articulated in 1776, “It is good to be the King” only to the extent the governed let him.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

It’s Complicated

Culture, Media

 

Alternate Title:  “To Bee or Not To Bee”

Two days ago, Samantha Bee and TBS f***** up!  All of the apologies and lost sponsors cannot undo the damage.  And Bee’s supporters have spent the last 48 hours trying to parse the difference between Bee’s vulgarity and Roseanne Barr’s racist comments.  Get ready for a different perspective.  It is not about the unprecedented use of the c-word on basic cable.   (Even though the audio was bleeped out, there was no question what Bee said.)  Programs have been pushing that envelope continuously.  In fact, the same night, FX Channel censors approved the use of the f-word on the finale of “The Americans.”  And Comedy Central has given Trevor Noah free rein to call bulls*** by its full name instead of BS.

Samantha Bee’s “crime” was hypocrisy in the first degree.  If you believe Roseanne’s comparing Valerie Jarrett to an ape is racist, you also have to believe referring to a woman as a c*** is misogynist, even when the speaker is female.  The comment was triggered by a Twitter photo of Ivanka Trump holding up her child while her father was tearing families apart along the the U.S./Mexico border.  What would Bee have said if the picture was of Jared rather than Ivanka?  Certainly, not the c-word.

Imagine yourself in the writers’ room.  I have no doubt someone might have said, “Can you believe the nerve of that c***?”  But that’s where it should have ended.  The task was not to share “writer  room chatter” but to make the point in a way consistent with the program’s entertainment as well as social mission.  Consider what the reaction would have been if Bee had shown the Twitter photograph on the screen and asked.

Now what would YOU call a woman who would post this on the same day Daddy is making sure immigrants and refugees will not have the same opportunity?  [Pauses and puts her finger to her temple. Gets ready to say something then pulls back. Finally, faces the camera head-on.] Callous!  Heartless!  Inhumane! Sadistic! Vicious.  Hard-hearted.  Cold-blooded! Malevolent. Unfeeling. Unkind.  Feel free to add your own.

A writer’s best friend is NOT SpellCheck.  It’s thesaurus.com.

Let’s be clear.  Bee’s remark was never intended to be funny.  The studio audience did not laugh, they gasped as I’m sure most home viewers did also.  My first reaction as I watched in real time Wednesday night, “Another holiday (oops Christmas) present to the alt-right cultural warriors.”  And once again, I thought of my favorite Ben Bradlee line to Woodward and Bernstein in All the President’s Men.  “You did something I didn’t think was possible.  You made people feel sorry for the President.”

In truth, the best adjective to characterize  Bee and her writers is LAZY.  Why?  Because ever since Jeff Sessions announced the administration would separate children from their parents as an anti-immigration tactic, I wanted to write a clever, yet insightful commentary to expose the policy for what it is, cruel and inconsistent with American values.  Below is the best I have come up with to date, a news story a la The Onion.

Dateline:  Washington, D.C., May 31, 2018

Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the administration had expanded its efforts to deter immigrants and refugees from entering the United States.  In addition to ripping children from their parents arms, in limited cases, the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is separating  husbands and wives while being processed for deportation.  In some instances, the wives have been be sent to relocation centers.  Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, admitted under media questioning the policy shares some of the same problems with the parent/child protocol.  A number of spouses are currently unaccounted for.

One high profile case involves a 46 year old Slovenian immigrant who has been reported missing since May 12th.  She was last seen among the crowd welcoming home three Korean-Americans who had been released by North Korean leader Kim Jung-un.  Unconfirmed sighting have been reported in New York City and Palm Beach, Florida.

No knee-slapper, but neither is it a personal attack on any of the misguided individuals who think what they are doing will make America great again.  Writing this blog has given me a greater appreciation for the writers associated with programs like Saturday Night Live or Last Week Tonight.  I marvel at the teams that assemble the opening monologues for late night hosts Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers who are under the gun to present current events as entertainment 200 times each year.

Until Wednesday night, I felt the same way about Samantha Bee and her staff.  This morning, however, I join the chorus of those who believe TBS should take her show off the air.  And please don’t suggest I am violating her First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.  This is about the disservice she and her staff have done to the other professionals in the field of satirical humor.  There are enough people outside the profession taking pot shots at an American tradition dating back to Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain and Will Rogers.  The last thing any of us, especially supposed allies in the resistance, should do is give fodder to support the efforts of those who want to divide the nation along cultural lines.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP