Category Archives: Media

Birth of a Nation II

We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue–the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the written word–the art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare.

Introduction, Birth of a Nation (1915)

WGriffithith the above words, D. W. Griffith justifies production of his silent epic which portrayed black men (portrayed by white actors) in post-Civil War America as unintelligent and sexually aggressive toward white women.  The film glorifies the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as indicated by the following “title card,” the filmed printed text used for dialogue or to highlight the action.

The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation… until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.

Special attention is paid to Reconstruction, the emphasis placed on a perception Northern abolitionists were determined to replace native Southern leaders with black men who were beholden to the North for having ended slavery as explained in this title card from the movie.

The policy of the congressional leaders wrought… a veritable overthrow of civilization in the South… in their determination to ‘put the white South under the heel of the black South.’ 

One might call it the origins of the replacement conspiracy movement.

Image result for Birth of a nationTo  further convince the audience this is a rigged scam, one scene depicts black voters stuffing ballot boxes to ensure the election of the protégé of a Northern carpetbagger, a mulatto named Silas (are you ready?) LYNCH.

Despite it’s controversial content and efforts by the NAACP to ban future showings, the Library of Congress, in 1992, declared the film to be “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant” and announced it would be preserved as part of the National Film Registry. In addition to the content, there were other factors leading up to the designation.

  • Birth of a Nation was the first 12-reel film, with a running time of over three hours.
  • It was the first movie to be shown in two parts separated by an intermission.
  • It was the first film accompanied by an orchestrated musical score.
  • It introduced cinematic techniques such as close-ups and fade outs.

As one might expect, the designation was greeted with protests by the NAACP and others.  In response, the Registry Board affirmed its decision in a January 4, 1993 article in the Los Angeles Times.

As we see it, the selection and preservation of “The Birth of a Nation” is no insult to anyone. Nor is it an accolade to racism. As (board member and African American director John) Singleton noted, the film is a vivid reminder of the dark side of American history.

[NOTE:  A month earlier, Singleton told the Hollywood Reporter he had personally nominated the film for the Registry, despite its racist themes, to serve as a “history lesson.”]

It is therefore, with great trepidation, I announce that I have begun drafting a screenplay for a sequel, Birth of a Nation II.  Unlike the original in which Part I ends with the assassination of President Lincoln, the first half of my version concludes with the pending end of the Obama administration and the beginning of the 2016 campaign.  The second half continues with the emergence of a new force led by Donald Trump which, this time, portrays Hispanics as the ne’er do wells who threaten true Americans’ hope to return to an imagined golden era.  Now it is not black men who are coming for your women, murdering your children and flooding the streets with drugs.  The others are now brown-skinned.  Instead of title cards, we hear the protagonist articulate this threat.

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

These words become the clarion call which re-energizes the white supremacist movement.  And like their 19th century ancestors, these faux patriots adopt the replacement directive.  At first the attacks are verbal, marching to the chants of “They will not replace us!” But that is not satisfying enough.  Enabled and emboldened by their leaders, sympathetic media outlets and social media, the chants morph into lethal violence.  First, a single death at a Unite the Right rally in a college community.  Two years later, inspired by the rhetoric warning of invasions and replacement, a gunman targets Hispanics in a city along the Southern boarder.

To further demonstrate the lengths to which his enemies will go to stop Trump’s vision of what will make America great again, he echoes the 1915 rendition of illegal voting.  The scene takes place at a 2019 conference of young Caucasians.

Illegals get out and vote.  Those numbers in California and numerous other states, they’re rigged. They’ve got people voting that shouldn’t be voting. They vote many times, not just twice, not just three times. It’s like a circle. They come back, they put a new hat on. They come back, they put a new shirt on. And in many cases, they don’t even do that. You know what’s going on. It’s a rigged deal.

The ending of this cinematic portrait of our times is yet to be penned.  Will it result in a parade of white supremacists and neo-Nazis being cheered as frightened Hispanics retreat to their homes, reminiscent of the final scenes in the 1915 narrative?  Or will this period of division reach a tipping point when the vast majority of Americans declare enough is enough?  This is not who we are.  In the latter case, the closing credits are flanked by two flags.  To the left, the stars and stripes.  To the right, one with the words, “E pluribus unum!”

Regardless of the final scenes, there will be one major difference between the original and a sequel?  Woodrow Wilson only screened the 1915 movie in the White House.  The current occupant is the producer, director, writer and star of the contemporary version.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

QED

Today is another one of those days when the challenge of writing this blog depends on finding a back story or angle that has been overlooked by professional journalists and pundits who make their living trying to decipher events and the vagaries of society.  The key is often to forego one’s first instincts.

Image result for malcolm mcdowell clockwork orangeThat was the case when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went on the Sunday talk shows and pointed the finger at video games as the culprit behind the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.  I and everyone else, except Trumpist purveyors of pseudo-science, immediately thought, if only we had a control group to test McCarthy’s hypothesis.  What if we selected a random sample of young people, exposed them to violent video games a la Malcolm McDowell’s violent behavior therapy in A Clockwork Orange, but restricted their access to semi-automatic weapons?  How would that affect their propensity to commit mass shootings?

Oh, wait!  We already have such a control group.  In fact, we have several.  Every other civilized country on earth. They have impressionable young people who play violent video games.  Some are even predominantly white and speak English as their primary language.  No need to call Mr. Obvious to determine the differential factor between the United States and these multiple control groups. Cable news and late-night talk show hosts have already made this case.  Last night Seth Meyers used the following Vox.com graphic which represents the relationship between gun deaths and gun ownership by nation. He then pointed out, “We’re farther away from the UK on this chart than we are in real life.”

But that’s not what I came here to talk about.  I would prefer to set up a new controlled experiment.  One with a dual hypothesis.  Hypothesis #1: Donald Trump will admit he is responsible for the hate-fueled massacre in El Paso.  No, he is not going to say it out loud.  But empirical evidence will make the case.

We start with the null hypothesis.  Donald Trump’s tweets and rallies are not a factor in the increase of white supremacy inspired violence.  If that is true, there is NO reason for Trump to stop vilifying people of color or using immigration as a scapegoat and distraction from his own failings.  So Donald, if you honestly believe it’s not you, don’t change a damn thing.  Keep mentioning the invasion and infestation.  Keep inviting alt-right commentators and white nationalists to the White House (is that redundant?)

But what if he does tone down the rhetoric?  What if he actually asks rally attendees to cut back on the racist chants?  What if future tweets are devoid of verbal attacks against people of color or references to invasions at our Southern border?   Why would he possibly do that unless he knew he was complicit in the increase in white supremacy domestic terrorism as reported by his own FBI director.  One can argue he already implicitly admitted guilt with yesterday’s scripted condemnation of racism and white supremacy.

My question.  Will the press recognize this concession for what it is.  Unfortunately, if the banner headline in this morning’s New York Times is any indication, the answer is no.  “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM” (Their all-caps, not mine.)  Within an hour of hitting the streets, the Times announced the same story would have a different headline in the second edition, “Trump Assails Hate But Not Guns.”  Another example which proves the above argument.  If there was nothing wrong with the original headline, why did you change it?

Which brings me to Hypothesis #2: Hillary Clinton was largely correct; a majority of  Trump supporters are deplorables.  To test this theory, we need to look at three data points.  First, is there a drop-off in attendance at Trump rallies if he no longer uses these venues to promote racist animus?  Will they still come to hear their glorious leader ramble about health care, universal background checks, mental health or record stock prices?  Or will they stay home when their political rock star refuses to play his greatest hits?  A Trump rally without racial dog whistles is like a Stones concert without “Satisfaction.”

Second, how will yesterday’s “pivot” affect Trump’s approval ratings?  Many were stunned when there was a slight uptick when he suggested four members of Congress, American citizens of color, should go back to where they came from.  As several comedians joked, “It’s as though some folks on the fence previously wondered if Trump was racist enough for them.  Now they’re sure he is.”  The obvious corollary?  If his disapproval rating climbs, is it because these Trump late adopters jumped ship when they realized he is sometimes “racist enough” but they want someone who is “racist enough all the time?”

Third, will previously pro-Trump social media turn on him even if his change of heart about white supremacy is temporary?  Will the people who have looked to Trump to validate their own bigotry realize they have been tossed aside when politically expedient like so many other Trump associates?  Can you say Alex Acosta or John Ratcliffe? Of course they may brush it off, knowing as in the case of Charlottesville, Trump will “repent” once off script.

Remember, his critics do not make the best argument Trump is a racist.  Self-identified racists do. They believe he is a racist, one of them.  Will they feel betrayed by any indication he is having second thoughts about his race-based strategy to energize his base, regardless of his sincerity?

Quod erat demonstrandum!

POSTSCRIPT

At dinner last night, my wife posed a most insightful question.  While everyone was talking about Trump’s comments, did any media outlet mention the detention center in Homestead, Florida has been closed?  And did anyone ask what happened to the children who were being held there?  Members of our community have been visiting detainees at Homestead and are now at a loss as to what happened to them.

Which raises a more important question.  Will journalist and pundits primarily focus on what Trump’s says but not what he does, ignoring the administration’s continued racist and anti-immigrant policies and actions?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Who’s At Vault?

You know, if one person, just one person, does it, they may think he’s really sick and they won’t take him.


And if two people do it, in harmony, they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them.

And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin’ in, singin’ a bar of “Alice’s Restaurant” and walkin’ out? They may think it’s an organization!

~Arlo Guthrie, Alice’s Restaurant

Related imageAt the height of the Vietnam conflict, music was a catalyst for the anti-war movement, including Guthrie’s shaggy dog tale of his effort to avoid the draft. Makes one wonder if he should have paid more attention to Ringo Starr on the Beatles’ White Album.  Are “blisters on my fingers” equivalent to “bone spurs?”  [Historical Footnote:  Many people believe John Lennon or George Harrison contributed this ad lib at the end of the “Helter Skelter” track.  Starr later acknowledged his exaggerated drumming during this particular recording resulted in the digital malady.]

The above excerpt from Guthrie’s 1967 performance came to mind as I read reports on the FBI raid on Jeffrey Epstein’s New York residence.  According to the Washington Examiner, “A detention memo filed by the prosecution further alleges ‘an extraordinary volume of photographs of nude and partially-nude young women or girls’ were seized in the raid on Epstein’s New York City home.” Of particular import was recovery of compact discs from a safe, one of which was labelled “Young [name redacted] + [name redacted].”  In other words, there are photos of at least one of the victims with someone other than Epstein.  You have to ask, “Why would a convicted sexual predator keep evidence of his guilt, especially if it included people who had also taken advantage of these girls?”  This question is easier to answer than, “Who is buried in Grant’s tomb?”

Something about the press reports seemed much too familiar.  Didn’t Donald Trump’s friend David Pecker, CEO of the National Enquirer parent company America Media, Inc., have a safe filled with files associated with “catch and kill” stories about Trump detractors and challengers?  And then there was Michael Cohen, who admits he kept hundreds of taped conversations under lock and key.  Anyone want to guess why he did that?  And finally, there is Russian President Vladimir Putin. If only Geraldo Rivera would put the same investigative effort into discovering what’s in that collection housed somewhere in the bowels of the Kremlin as he did with Al Capone’s Chicago vault.

I try not to promote conspiracy theories.  But it is fair to ask questions when circumstances warrant such inquiries.  For example, how many now known sexual deviants played some role in Trump’s capturing of the Republican nomination and eventual occupancy of the Oval Office?  Take NBC Today Show host, Matt Lauer, please.  During the campaign, Lauer emceed a “presidential forum on foreign policy” with the two major party candidates.  It was a Trump love-fest (Lauer did not interrupt or fact check any of Trump’s false statements) and a Clinton hit-job with the majority of his time with her devoted to the email server despite her efforts to share thoughts on the U.S role in the world.

As Bill Maher often says, “I don’t know it for a fact; I just know it’s true.” What are the odds Matt Lauer’s phone number is in one of Jeffrey Espstein’s black books or there is a a file labeled “ML” in David Pecker’s safe. And you have to ask, “Which of these ‘safe-keepers’–Epstein, Pecker, Cohen, Putin or ones yet to be identified–have something on Jerry Falwell, Jr?  Lindsay Graham?  Or even William Barr?”

So, let me posit the Dr. ESP corollary to the Arlo Guthrie theory of how movements evolve.

When one person does it, it’s an anomaly.

When two people do it, it’s a coincidence.

And if three people do it.  Can you imagine three people doing the same nefarious thing for the same reason, it’s  a conspiracy.  And folks, that’s what it was.  The friends of Donald Trump entire massacre conspiracy!

Instead of worrying about Democrats energizing the “black vote” in 2020, the media should be more focused on the “blackmail generated vote.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Putting a Human Back on the Story

The common journalistic technique of focusing on one individual in order to bring attention and clarity to a global, complex issue is referred to as “putting a human face on the story.” There are numerous examples, many Pulitzer Prize winners, which remind us behind every statistic there are living, breathing human beings.  Perhaps the most iconic was Nick Ut’s photograph, taken during the Vietnam War of a young, naked girl suffering from napalm burns running down a road ahead of U.S. soldiers.  Some claim the image was a factor in their own shift of sentiment away from supporting the war effort.  Something the daily U.S. and Vietnamese casualty rates could not initially do.

Sometimes we need not even see the face.  Consider Jeff Widener’s 1989 picture of “tank man,” a solitary protester standing in front of four Chinese tanks the day following the massacre of students in Tiananmen Square.  Or Spider Martin’s snapshot of a woman’s blistered feet after a day of marching in Selma, Alabama on “Bloody Sunday.”

Many people prefer not to look.  Some find the pictures more obscene than the events they chronicle.  They are shocked the media would reproduce the images.*  But that is the point.  They are designed to shock us.  Shock us out of our apathy.  Our complicity.  And out of our lack of connection to the individuals, often innocent people, captured in horrific situations and unbearable conditions.

This morning we were again exposed to one of these personal moments behind the headlines.  The Associated Press “put a human back,” actually two backs, on the narrative of the continuing and unnecessary tragedy on our Southern border.   Julia Le Duc’s photograph depicts an El Salvadoran father Oscar Ramirez and his 23-month old daughter Valeria who drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande River, only because the family had been denied access at a border crossing to the LEGAL (yes LEGAL) procedure by which refugees can seek asylum under UNITED STATES and INTERNATIONAL LAW.

If their sacrifice in any way contributes to an easing of the suffering Donald Trump has inflicted on those who look to America with hope and promise, it makes me wonder, when Trump refers to “bad hombres” invading America, should we be more worried about the “bad hombres” in the White House?

POSTSCRIPT:  THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE EVEN UGLIER

In recent posts, I have been highly critical of both the media and the evangelical community, but coverage of the Trump administration’s actions and defense of those actions which require infants and children to live in sub-human conditions seems to have turned a few hearts, even among Donald Trump’s staunchest supports.  Yesterday, in response to the Associated Press stories about the detention center in Clint, Texas, Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted:

The reports of the conditions for migrant children at the border should shock all of our consciences. Those created in the image of God should be treated with dignity and compassion, especially those seeking refuge from violence back home. We can do better than this.

One could expect no louder clarion call from the religious right to remind Donald Trump and Mike Pence of Jesus’ teachings.  Sadly, some turned the other cheek (or should I say a deaf ear).  Among those was Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty College, who responded to Dr. Moore as follows:

Who are you @drmoore? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Maybe Falwell missed the Bible lesson when, in John 2:16, Jesus says of money changers, “Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Was I surprised?  No and yes.  No, this is the same faux Christian who gives more mulligans to Trump than revelers hand out strings of beads at a Mardi Gras parade. I am, however, bewildered he could not come up with a more clever retort.  Maybe, “I’ll say it with great respect, these children are not my type.”

*NOTE: USA Today, after warning readers of the graphic nature of Le Duc’s photograph, wrote, “We believe the photo is important in telling the story of what is happening at the border.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Tweet Baby Flames

Unable to sleep Thursday night, I began surfing late night talk shows.  There were all the usual suspects–Steven Colbert, the two Jimmy’s Kimmel and Fallon and Conan O’Brien followed by Seth Meyers and James Corden.  “Surfing” is not exactly what you would call it.  More like “speed dating” as no monologue, routine or guest captured my attention for more than a couple of minutes. Oh, did I ever miss Corden’s predecessor Craig Ferguson.

Image result for craig ferguson secretariat and geoff petersonIf wasn’t the two interns in the Secretariat horse costume.  Or his animatronic sidekick Geoff Peterson, operated and voiced by celebrity impersonator Josh Robert Thompson.  It was the fact Ferguson did not tell jokes, he told stories.  Whether during the opening monologue or sitting in the host’s chair with his feet up on his desk, this Scottish born naturalized U.S. citizen had your attention as he methodically wended his way from set-up to punchline.

This is never more evident than when he hits the road with his periodic one-man shows.  My wife and I experienced this in 2010 when Ferguson came to Cincinnati on his “Does This Need to Be Said” tour.  The set-up came in the first minute.

 I wanna try something I don’t normally do. Um, I’m gonna try and tell you a joke. I know what you’re thinkin’.
“Oh, Craig, come on.
“Not a joke!
“Not from you, Craig! There’s professional comedians for that kind of thing.
“Not a joke from you, Craig. From you, we want tales of the old country,
“Craig. Tell us about the time you lived in the swamp with Shrek. Tell us about that! What was that like, Craig?”

For the next 90 minutes, Ferguson promises he’s going to get to the joke but time after time self-diverts with, you guessed it, tales of the old country, what it’s like to choose a Yankee aristocrat to be his third wife or how he thinks Shrek voice-over Mike Meyers makes a living plagiarizing Ellen Degeneres’ material.  “New Craig” is pulled from the shelves and replaced with “Classic Craig.”

But if you’re patient, VERY, VERY patient the payoff is worth it.  The joke is about a simple lesson everyone needs to learn.  But even then you have one more set-up.

People are not meaner than they used to be. People have always been assholes, except you guys. But they… But they are, and people are not meaner. What happens is the technology is just faster. It’s just faster. What happens is, you have this crazy idea, And there’s a crazy, angry thought, and you’re like, “I’ve got a crazy, angry thought.” Tickety-Tick, tick, tick, boom! And it’s out. And you don’t have time.

And here it comes.  The joke.  The next two sentences as clear (and a bit as blue) as a cloudless sky.

You don’t have time to slow down and self-edit and ask yourself the three things you must always ask yourself before you say anything, which is, “does this need to be said? “Does this need to be said by me? Does this need to be said by me now?” Three fucking marriages it took me to learn that.

As Ferguson began that fall night in 2010, “I know what you’re thinkin’.” Damn it, Dr. ESP, get to the point.  You’re asking, “Why did you just spend so much time telling us about Craig Ferguson?  Where is this going?”  See, it works.

It was something Bill Maher said to George Will last night on HBO’s “Real Time.”  The conservative columnist has just released a new book titled The Conservative Sensibility, which chastises both parties for ignoring the basic tenets within the Constitution.  Not surprisingly, Maher admitted he disagreed with much of Will’s thesis, but praised the author for having presented his arguments in a way that forced him to rethink why he differed in opinion.  And then he asked, “Don’t you get frustrated when you spend so much time making a cogent argument and people don’t buy into it?”  Will’s response, “Books still matter.”

Later in the show, several of the panelists admitted they do not use Twitter.  The underlying reason being serious dialogue does not occur in 280 character segments.  Which is why more and more truly talented individuals–actors, writers, musicians–have abandoned the platform, leaving it to those with no talent other than promoting their own celebrity.

I have twice signed up for a Twitter account.  And twice I have abandoned it.  For the same reasons Craig Ferguson needs 90 minutes to tell a story or deliver a narrative disguised as a joke.  As I was preparing this post, I went back to a feature on WordPress called “drafts.”  These are blog entries which I started but never finished or published.  Sometimes it is the content, seemingly less important than when I began to flesh it out.  Often I am personally uncomfortable being the messenger.  Or maybe the timing just isn’t right.  In other words:

Does this need to be said!
Does it need to be said by me!
Does it need to be said by me NOW!

Thanks Craig, for having reminded us to think before we post and never to let writing become a lost art. It still matters.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP