Category Archives: Popular culture

Which of these best exemplifies the uninhibited nature of the genre?

Really, really, REALLY have to get a bunch of nonblog stuff done today, and don’t know when I’ll get back to you. So while I’m doing it, ponder the question I just posed on Twitter:

What’s the best full-momentum, unleashed rock ‘n’ roll song: Seger’s “Katmandu,” CCR’s “Travelin’ Band,” or Elvis’ “Hard-Headed Woman”?

Why those three? Well, I was coming back from an errand with a cup of Starbucks, and “Katmandu” came on the radio. And I thought, what’s better — at what it does — than that? And the answer quickly came — “Travelin’ Band” and the best of all, “Hard-Headed Woman.”

Oops. I just gave away the answer. Well, my answer. This is one of these things where opinions are just that, without anyone being right (and despite what some people think, not everything is like that). So I’m really interested in what you think, as your opinions on the matter are just as valid as mine (he said with an air of self-congratulatory generosity and a tone of condescension).

Bonus question: To follow the Hornby orthodoxy, what other two songs sharing those characteristics would fill out the Top Five?

Finally, rap that a chap like me is culturally prepared to get into

Really enjoyed this item in The Wall Street Journal this morning:

In ‘Chap-Hop,’ Gentlemen Rappers Bust Rhymes About Tea, Cricket

Just Like in Hip-Hop, British MCs Feud Over Styles: Waistcoat vs. Pith Helmet

BRIGHTON, England—For some British rappers, nothing goes better with laying down rhymes than a gin and tonic and a Sunday afternoon stroll…

Professor Elemental, a self-styled “Steampunk Mad Professor” and leading chap-hop MC, is one of its top exponents. He is easy to spot in the Marwood Café here, even amid its décor of spectacle-wearing stuffed owls and dismembered mannequins. Clad in Victorian-explorer garb, complete with pith helmet, he is eager to talk about his planned trip across the Atlantic.

“I’m going to break America, and ride it like a pony,” Elemental—real name Paul Alborough—explains while sipping English Breakfast. “Global domination, then a nice sit down and a cup of tea.”

First though, Mr. Alborough, 35 years old, has a score to settle. In doing so, he is subverting another hip-hop staple: the feud, or beef. Biggie and Tupac, Lil’ Kim and Nicki Minaj—rivalries are as important to the genre as rapping is.

Elemental’s rival is an hour’s train ride away in London: Mr. B, The Gentleman Rhymer—real name Jim Burke—is backstage at the Wam Bam Club, a burlesque nightclub in the Café de Paris…

In the video above, you can see Professor Elemental throwing down some trash talk aimed directly at Mr. B, below.

Finally, hip-hop that I can get into! As comfortable and satisfying as a proper English breakfast!

Unfortunately, after listening to it, I don’t feel any less whitebread than I did before… Oh, well. Stiff upper lip and all that…

By the way, I’m available for that Aflac gig

Don’t think it would have occurred to me to wonder about this at any point in my newspaper life, but now that I’m into the whole marketing/PR/Mad Man thing now, I find myself wondering about stuff like this…

So I hear that Aflac has fired Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of their duck. You know, the one that says “Aflac!” Here’s something about it, although you’ve probably already heard:

He’ll quack for Aflac no more.

Insurance giant Aflac axed comic Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of its iconic duck yesterday after he posted jokes on Twitter about the quake and tsunami in Japan.

“I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, ‘They’ll be another one floating by any minute now,’ ” was among the dozen tweets Gottfried fired off over the weekend….

I first heard about it at breakfast this morning, and didn’t think anything of it (no skin off my beak), then heard it again at ADCO later, and at that point thought, “Wait a minute…”

Why, I wonder, did they turn to Gilbert Gottfried to do the Aflac duck to begin with? I mean, he’s moderately famous, although irritating, and you pay a premium for that. Agents to feed and all. What was the value they got from that?

Because, while I was well aware of the ad campaign — it’s memorable, and sort of clever in an absurd way — I never knew that that was Gilbert Gottfried doing it. Sure, when you hear it, it sounds like Gilbert Gottfried… but it sounds like Gilbert Gottfried when I say “Aflac!” in a nasal quack, too. (Brian from ADCO agreed when he heard me do it at lunch today. I don’t just say these things, people; I check to confirm first. Back off; I’m a professional.)

It really doesn’t take any special talent. And unless they were getting a bounce from people knowing it was Gottfried, why pay him to do it?

So… here’s what I’m thinking. If Aflac is hard up, I’ll do the duck voice for them from now on. I might even do it at a discount from what they were paying Gottfried. And I won’t make horrible jokes about the poor Japanese, or any other suffering people.

I can use the phone to get that new iPhone or HTC Thunderbolt (which I think is coming out Thursday!) or whatever I get to replace my moribund Blackberry, which is definitely on its last legs. So this couldn’t have happened at a better time.

I hope I’m making this offer in time, before they line up someone else… You gotta move fast these days…

Never fear, our gov is on the job

Not sure what to make of our governor appearing on Season 5, Episode 2 of “Army Wives” last night, except to say that she certainly stays busy, writing memoirs, pestering the president about health care, appearing on TV shows, and… probably other highly relevant governing-South Carolina stuff, too, but I just can’t keep up.

No word yet (unless I just missed it) on what this appearance means in terms of the governor’s position on this actual state issue:

The show’s producers say it contributed more than $120 million to the local economy when they threatened last year to move production elsewhere if economic incentives for filmmakers were not renewed by state lawmakers.

No, wait — there’s this from Politico:

Though Biden’s “Army Wives” cameo came and went last August without controversy, Haley’s appearance is causing some buzz. As a South Carolina state rep, Haley voted against taxpayer-funded incentives for the film industry. Incentives were put into place in 2005, and since “Army Wives” began filming in the Palmetto State, the show has contributed more than $120 million to the local economy, according to producers.

Despite then-Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto, which Haley supported, South Carolina lawmakers voted in June to keep the film incentives program intact.

Still, according to Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey, the governor was happy to appear on the show. He told the AP, “The governor absolutely enjoyed the opportunity—any chance to showcase our great state and highlight military families is a reason to get excited.”

OK, so I still don’t know where she stands on the incentives — now. Perhaps that will be forthcoming…

No, hold on… it looks like The Post and Courier approached this as an actual news story, and had the following:

Haley’s Press Secretary Rob Godfrey said the governor was happy to make the appearance. She was not paid for the cameo, which was filmed in Charleston on Jan. 7 before she was sworn in as governor.

“The governor absolutely enjoyed the opportunity to appear on Army Wives — as she would any chance to showcase our great state and highlight our military families on national television,” Godfrey said in an e-mail. “The governor has said she will do whatever she can to showcase the great things going on in our state, especially those things that aren’t and shouldn’t be on the public dime.

“As is the case in any economic development situation, the governor will always look at film incentives from a cost-benefit perspective. If incentives going forward cost the state more than they bring in — as they have in the past — then she won’t support them.”

Phil Bailey, spokesman for the Senate Democratic Caucus, said Haley’s appearance on the show is an example of her “hypocrisy.”

“She votes against the economic incentive package to keep this show here in South Carolina — which is a vote against the show — but then she makes an appearance on the show,” Bailey said. “It’s obviously only an attempt to increase her own celebrity.”

Yep, that’s the Phil Bailey from Pub Politics. I mean, that’s what’s important, right — our media profiles? Oh, I saw her on TV; I think I’ll vote for her…

No word as yet on whether Phil Bailey will appear on “Army Wives,” but I’ll let you know if I hear anything.

But really, what DO you say?

Trav Robertson, as we saw him during the 2010 campaign.

Still sort of reeling from this discombobulation called Daylight Savings, and having had three glasses of sweet tea with my lunch at Seawell’s — to no noticeably helpful effect — I decided to do a wide swing through Five Points to get some REAL caffeine at Starbucks on my way back to the office.

So I got my tall Pike, and once again impressed the baristas with my fancy gift card from across the sea (thanks, Mr. Darcy!), and on my way out ran into Trav Robertson, whom I hadn’t seen since the election. Trav, if you’ll recall, managed Vincent Sheheen’s almost, but not quite, campaign for governor last year.

We chatted for a moment, mainly about the state of news media today and how it relates to politics (he said one of the toughest things he found to adjust to in the campaign was this newfangled notion that the story changes at least four times in the course of what we once so quaintly called a “news cycle”), and we parted, and as I walked back toward my truck, who was coming up the steps from Saluda but Larry Marchant. He smiled and we shook hands, and turning back to see Trav standing at the coffee shop door, I said, “Well, here’s you, and here’s Trav Robertson — we’ve just got everybody here, Democrats and Republicans…” as I moved on toward my vehicle.

Which is a pretty stupid and meaningless thing to say, but what DOES one say in such a social situation? I mean, I’m not gonna say, “Well, lookee here, we’ve got Trav, whose candidate lost a close election to a woman you claimed to the world to have slept with, and I last saw you being made fun of by Jon Stewart….”

No, I don’t think so.

And really, I suppose it’s not all that cool to say it here on the blog, either, but… it seems to me there’s a social commentary in here somewhere, having to do with Moynihan’s concept of Defining Deviance Down or whatever. And when I say “deviance,” I’m not picking on Larry or anybody else, but talking about us, the people who are the consumers of such “news.”

I mean, how does one conduct himself in polite society — or any society — in which such things are discussed, disclosed, dissected and displayed publicly? Actually, “publicly” isn’t quite the word, is it? Doesn’t quite state the case. Way more intense than that.

If you’re Jon Stewart, life is simple. You make a tasteless joke or two, get your audience to laugh, and move on to the next gag. But what do you say if you’re just a regular person out here in the real world, and you run into the real people about whom these jokes are made?

Whatever the right thing is, I haven’t figured it out, so today I just fell back on the time-honored stratagem of ignoring any weirdness inherent in the situation, and saying something insipid. Which, in this polite state of ours, still works.

As for Trav and Larry — did they speak after I left? Do they even know each other? If they spoke, what did they speak about? I have no idea. I retreated to the office with my coffee.

Larry Marchant, as we saw him during the 2010 campaign.

Check out hunterherring.com

Hey, folks, go check out the latest addition to my “links” rail at right, hunterherring.com. It’s not only your portal for engaging the DJ services of Hunter Herring Mobile Music, but it’s a great site to listen to while you’re blogging, or doing whatever else you do sitting in front of this screen. (You might have to download RealPlayer, as I did, to hear it, although it might work for you on another application. The sound is great.)

Boomers will find it particularly gratifying. At the moment, he’s playing LaVern Baker’s Tweedle Dee from 1955. Younger folks might tend to dismiss it as “Dance Music for Old People” — but you know, when Nick Hornby coined that phrase, he meant it in a good way. Just turn it on and pay attention, kids; you might learn something.

By way of full disclosure, Hunter is family. His daughter is married to my elder son, and we share a granddaughter. (He is her favorite grandfather — he’s her caretaker during part of the week, splitting the duty with my wife, and she just thinks he’s way cooler.) And his wife, Ginny, works with me at ADCO.

If you’ve ever listened to radio in Columbia, of course, you don’t need me to tell you who Hunter Herring is. From his site:

Hunter is a longtime Columbia/Charlotte radio personality who has spent his 40 year career at great radio stations like WCOS, WNOK, WZLD, WEZC, WMIX, WWMG, and WOMG.

His career in broadcasting has given him experience in music formats ranging from beach to boogie, rock to disco, and top 40 to country, all of which are available for your party.

Let Hunter help you plan the music for your party to ensure a perfect mix for your event.

So give it a listen. (Right now, it’s Chuck Jackson, with “Beg Me.”… No, wait, now it’s Wilson Pickett with “I’m in Love”…) And if you want to listen the old-fashioned way, he’ll be on Magic 98.5 this afternoon at 3, after Shakin’ Dave Aiken.

Oh, wait — now it’s Mary Wells with “The One Who Really Loves You”…

40 Years of Living Dangerously: 1st impressions of Qaddafi

There’s a really neat account of Western media’s first encounters with Moammar Qaddafi back in 1969, after the colonel deposed the king of Libya, in The Wall Street Journal today.

It reads a lot like “The Year of Living Dangerously” (an awesome movie, by the way, which you must see if you haven’t, and must watch again if you have), with similar scenes of Western journalists going into a wild, woolly, unsteady Third World dictatorship and trying to get access to the megalomaniac at the top. Fascinating stuff, a great adventure yarn. Educational, too.

But being who I am, I was personally struck by the account of the lengths that the then-WSJ reporter went to to get the story. A real blast from the past for me. Sure, the WSJ always had, and still has, more resources at its disposal, by far, than any news organization I ever worked with. But… back when I was a reporter working for the dinky little Jackson Sun in Tennessee (about the size of the Florence paper, I guess), we would do relatively extravagant things (compared to what bigger, metropolitan dailies do today) if that’s what it took to get the story. Only we were hopping about Tennessee and the nation, rather than the world.

Here’s what I mean:

When news came that King Idris of Libya had been overthrown by a young colonel, my editors dispatched me from London to Tripoli. Libya was a big oil producer and home to Wheelus Air Force Base, an important U.S. military presence in North Africa. So the U.S. had significant interests in this lightly populated kingdom of desert tribes.

But I couldn’t get to Tripoli. An agent at British Overseas Airway Corp. told me that the new regime had shut down all travel. So I flew to next-door Tunis, hoping to find a land route. Other American and British reporters had the same idea. But in Tunis we learned from refugees that the border had been closed. An enterprising AP reporter, Mike Goldsmith, hired a small plane. But when he arrived at Tripoli airport he was surrounded by Gadhafi’s men and forced to return to Tunis.

I flew to Malta, hoping to persuade a pilot serving the Libyan oil fields to give me a ride. But nobody wanted to risk losing his franchise. So I gave up and returned to London. My first lesson had been learned. A would-be dictator could control the news simply by barring foreign reporters.

Finally we got a summons saying that Libya was receiving visitors again. In Tripoli, all was confusion…

Sure, the WSJ is probably being just as enterprising today getting people into Libya, Tunis, Egpyt, Bahrain, Yemen, etc., today. But today, those are the lead stories in the paper. When they go to those places today, they’re doing what it takes to “ride the hot horse.” Back then, Libya was a bit of a Cold War sideshow, so this impresses me. And back then a reporter was much more on his own out in the field, relying on his own ingenuity and making his own arrangements and decisions, which adds to the drama.

Anyway, you should read the whole thing.

And just for fun, here’s a clip from “The Year of Living Dangerously.”

Just FYI: “Watson” can’t “think”

Last week, I saw this interesting piece in the WSJ that I meant to pass on, and I will now, in case there are some of you feeling terribly inadequate (as a species) because “Watson” won on “Jeopardy.”

The headline and subhed state the case well:

Watson Doesn’t Know It Won on ‘Jeopardy!’

IBM invented an ingenious program—not a computer that can think.

But if you read on, you get a better explanation of why one would not say that “Watson” thinks:

Imagine that a person—me, for example—knows no Chinese and is locked in a room with boxes full of Chinese symbols and an instruction book written in English for manipulating the symbols. Unknown to me, the boxes are called “the database” and the instruction book is called “the program.” I am called “the computer.”

People outside the room pass in bunches of Chinese symbols that, unknown to me, are questions. I look up in the instruction book what I am supposed to do and I give back answers in Chinese symbols.

Suppose I get so good at shuffling the symbols and passing out the answers that my answers are indistinguishable from a native Chinese speaker’s. I give every indication of understanding the language despite the fact that I actually don’t understand a word of Chinese.

And if I do not, neither does any digital computer, because no computer, qua computer, has anything I do not have. It has stocks of symbols, rules for manipulating symbols, a system that allows it to rapidly transition from zeros to ones, and the ability to process inputs and outputs. That is it. There is nothing else….

All the same, as in the original Chinese room, the symbols are meaningless to Watson, which understands nothing. The reason it lacks understanding is that, like me in the Chinese room, it has no way to get from symbols to meanings (or from syntax to semantics, in linguistic jargon). The bottom line can be put in the form of a four-word sentence: Symbols are not meanings.

Feel better? Whether you do or not, it’s useful from time to time to stop and think about what computers actually are.

God Save “the King,” and congrats to Firth et al.

I could go on a tirade here about why I don’t follow the Oscars, and revisit the fiasco of 1998… Actually, I will revisit it, just to this extent:

Why I don’t watch the Oscars.

There was a time when I did, avidly. I love movies, to a degree indicative of really messed-up priorities. As in, a man with priorities so far out of whack doesn’t deserve such a fine automobile. For instance, you’ll hear me quoting movies irrelevantly, seemingly at random. I love to read, have loved reading good fiction all of my life. But I think maybe movies are my very favorite art form. And yes, I know that’s kind of lowbrow, but it’s true. So be it.

Once, I used to go out of my way to at least see all of the movies nominated for Best Picture, and take an inordinate interest in which one won.

No more. My interest came to a crashing end in 1998, when “Shakespeare in Love” won Best Picture. That was the last straw.

I didn’t care that it beat out “Elizabeth” or “The Thin Red Line,” because they were both lame (especially that wretched adaptation of James Jones’ classic novel).

No, what got me was that “Shakespeare” was chosen over “Saving Private Ryan” (which sometimes makes my Top Five best pictures ever, depending on how I feel that day) and the wonderful “Life is Beautiful.”

Not that “Shakespeare” wasn’t fun. It was. As much fun as fluff can be. And that’s what it was. Worse, it was self-referential fluff. That was a movie for and about movie stars, transported to the 16th century. It made actors look cool, and fun, and clever, and way historical, meaning we should take them seriously. They adored it, because it made them feel great about themselves.

Which, come to think of it, is what the Oscars are about. Which is why I don’t watch anymore.

But all of that said, I’d still like to wish Colin Firth, et alia, joy of their triumph last night. Because, even though Mr. Firth was implicated in the fiasco, he certainly deserves this latest award.

And “The King’s Speech,” to my own admittedly limited knowledge, clearly deserved “Best Picture.”

I say “admittedly limited,” because, well, I had only seen four of the nominees. (Of which there appear to have been 10 — didn’t it used to be just 5? This is what happens when you stop following these things…)

Also, one more disclaimer. “The King’s Speech” is probably elevated a bit in my estimation because, well, I saw it in England. On my last night in the country, which happened to be the opening night in that country (oddly, this quintessentially British flick had opened in the States first). We saw it at the Odeon on Magdalen Street in Oxford. J and my granddaughter had had high tea at the Ashmolean, while I ducked over for another quick glimpse of the Pitt Rivers and then grabbed a quick bite at the McDonald’s on Cornmarket (just to prove that not everything I did was all touristy). Odd thing about ketchup in Britain, by the way — it’s much sweeter and less tangy; I don’t know why.

Bottom line, it was the best film I’d seen in the past year, and I suspect better than the nominees I haven’t seen, from what I’ve heard (and frankly, you’d have to pay me to get me to see, for instance, “127 Hours”). Perhaps I should provide a quick comparison to the few I have seen:

  • Inception — Biggest movie disappointment of the year for me. The trailers had done a good job of selling it to me, and it was one of the few that I meant to actually see in the theater, but didn’t make it in time. So I waited anxiously for its appearance on Netflix (and what is it with Netflix’ inability to get movies as soon as they’re available at WalMart, huh?), and then was disappointed. I mean, it was basically a play on the bad plot device of “and then the little boy woke up,” only taken to an exponentially greater point. I’m at the point of really wanting it to be over, and then… what? yet another dream level? gimme a break? It was like watching Twain’s “The Great Dark” translated to film — the years at the end that he skims over in the story.
  • The Kids are All Right — This was pretty good, and it has Julianne Moore naked (I say that not so much because it was significant to me, you understand, but in case lesbians are thinking about seeing it, which they may be), but in the end, I was disappointed. Actually, more specifically, I found the ending disappointing. I hated to see Mark Ruffalo’s character shut out at the end. My wife explained that I wasn’t supposed to feel that way, that he was a ne’er-do-well, etc. (in fact he was, technically and literally, a wanker — that was his importance to the plot), but I was still disappointed for him. Perhaps because he was the only character in the film with whom I could remotely identify. In any case, not the best of the year.
  • The Social Network — Ballyhooed by many as the best film of the year, my own estimation was only slightly higher than that of my younger son, who said “I’d heard it was a movie about inventing Facebook. And that’s what it was.” Yes, I appreciated it as social commentary on the way technology is changing our world and even our brains, but most of that had to be inferred. It was a good flick, just not as awesome as I had been led to expect.

And yes, it’s presumptuous to say I wouldn’t have liked the ones I didn’t see (and I still DO look forward to “True Grit” coming out on DVD — not because I liked the John Wayne one, which I didn’t, but because I continue to hold out hope for the Coen Brothers, in spite of “Burn Before Reading”). But hey, all I can do is go with what I have.

Oh, one last political observation on “The King’s Speech.” On the morning of the day I saw it, I read this review in The Guardian over my traditional English breakfast at the B&B, and uttered a Toryesque “harrumph” over this line: “Not everyone’s going to like this film: some may find it excessively royalist…” (There was also this online “poll” asking, “Is The King’s Speech royalist propaganda?” A slight majority said no.)

One thing I disliked when I ran across it during my brief sojourn in that country was when Brits apologized for anything touching upon their essential British identity. Fortunately, I didn’t run across it nearly as much as I expected. There was a museum exhibit about the  brouhaha over “Britannia” as a symbol on the coinage, and that line. But I still harrumphed.

I mean, if you’re the sort who gets offended by such, don’t see the bleedin’ film. The rest of you, if you haven’t already, see it as soon as you can.

UK deals properly with Assange — which reminds me of something funny

Have you seen the latest? A UK court has decided to send Julian Assange where he belongs:

A U.K. court ordered that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be extradited to Sweden to face questioning about sexual-assault allegations, dealing a serious blow to the document-leaking site and its founder.

The decision means that Mr. Assange’s efforts to build and promote WikiLeaks will be detoured to some degree in coming months by the possibility that he will face criminal sex charges. WikiLeaks has gained notoriety with governments around the world through its release of thousands of classified documents and diplomatic cables.

Sweden hasn’t formally charged Mr. Assange with a crime, but wants to question him over allegations that he raped one woman and molested another during a visit to Stockholm last August. He denies any wrongdoing and said he will appeal the U.K. decision.

Good. Whatever the outcome of that case, if he is charged, Assange should be there to face the court’s decision.

But while he may be a super-creepy guy (and, say some, a rapist), he can still inspire some decent comedy. I loved this Bill Hader skit from back before Christmas, and today’s news reminded me of it.

In the skit, Assange hacks into a broadcast Mastercard commercial — from his jail cell in Britain (how did he do that? “Maybe you weren’t listening — I’m Julian Assange!” — and issues threats to the world if he is not released, with his “punishments” escalating each day he is held. Such as:

  • Day three. Facebook: You know that one profile picture that makes you look thin? It’s gone. Boo-hoo….
  • Day five, Netflix. Have you seen the fourth season of “Hanging with Mr. Cooper?” You’re ABOUT to. It’s first on your queue…
  • And if I’m incarcerated for one whole week, we start messing with porn sites — the FREE ones. Ooooh — got your attention NOW, do I?

Of course, it’s funnier the way Hader does it. There’s also a good Osama bin Laden joke — but I won’t spoil that. Enjoy.

Who are your Top Five Presidents?

Salon is SO predictable. For President’s Day, they post a piece posing the question, “Who’s the worst president of them all?” And of course, since that site is totally in the grip of Bush Derangement Syndrome (still), it boils down to a choice between George W. Bush and someone else. In this case, Buchanan.

Of course, being Salon, that’s why they ran it. But you know where they would go before you clicked on the link, right? So partisan. So parochial. So lacking in historical perspective.

Yawn.

Me, I’m not interested in a worst, or a worst list, because that just doesn’t seem in the spirit of Presidents’ Day, which is about celebrating rather than tearing down. So, who are your Top Five, All Time, Desert-Island presidents?

Oh, and if you include Barack Obama, which to me would be the flip side of picking W. as the worst, as if you can’t think outside your own 21st century chauvinism, I’ll just quote Barry at you:

Couldn’t you make it any more obvious than that? What about the Beatles? What about the Rolling Stones? What about…Beethoven? Track one side one of the Fifth Symphony?…

(You sort of have to know Barry to get that. And if you don’t, I definitely recommend that you read High Fidelity, which is where I got this mania for Top Five Lists. The movie’s fine, but read the book.)

My own list is a little shaky, but I’ll just throw some out there to get this started:

  1. Abraham Lincoln — The guy who held us together at the fulcrum of our history, and did it with heroic force of will and epic strength of character while at the same time maintaining his own instinctive humility. He seemed at times to stand alone, politically, in his insistence on holding the nation together (and thank God he did). No one outdoes him in rising above finger-in-the-wind politics to embody leadership; only Washington and FDR come close. That brooding statue at the memorial is the visual evocation of what I’m talking about, which is what makes it so iconic. Of course, if you’re of pacifist tendencies, you have to note that no one person in our history was more singlehandedly responsible for the shedding of more American blood — without his force of will, the nation likely wouldn’t have stayed the course that long. But then, you have to ask yourself, was it worth it? Unfortunately, we’re still fighting over that in SC.
  2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt — Again, almost superhuman leadership through crises of such scope and sweep that they stagger the mind. Argue all you want about the effectiveness of the New Deal, I think it was this cripple’s ebullient refusal to be a cripple, or let his country wallow in its troubles, that pulled us through the Depression more than anything. As for the Second World War — the nation was right to feel panicky when he died just before we’d finished winning it; his leadership was that critical on an abstract, spiritual level. The fact that we went ahead and won it quickly is a testament to what he’d already done, but also, it should be said, proof that the nation’s greatness and strength exceeds that of one man, however great the man. You could say that anybody who was president through those crises would be deemed great after they ended successfully. But I would say the nation was very fortunate to have this particular man at that time. And the people of this country knew it, which is why they elected him four times.
  3. John Adams — OK, he’s not necessarily the greatest AS president (in fact, that was one of the low points of his career), and sure, there’s that business where he let the more partisan Federalists maneuver him into the Alien and Sedition Acts. It’s just that, if you take his whole life — and his whole adult life pretty much was devoted to getting this country started, being the most eloquent advocate for independence, getting backing from abroad (the French, the Dutch) for the revolution, suggesting Washington to head the Continental Army, (and suggesting Jefferson do the final writing on the Declaration), and on and on — it’s hard to imagine one guy contributing so much to a new country. But he did. I guess I’m putting him on here as a sort of Lifetime Achievement Award.
  4. George Washington — Back when I was in college, it wasn’t fashionable to emphasize Washington as much as some of the other Founders. You know, because he was so obvious, it was uncool. (We were like Barry, in other words.) I tended to focus on the idea guys — Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton. But over time, I’ve come to understand better the importance of his leadership — both in terms of being an inspirational leader that the country could rally around (something he cultivated consciously, which would make some dismiss him, but I think he saw what the country needed and provided it), and in terms of his self-effacing refusal to become a king or a facsimile of one. In other words, my understanding and appreciation has progressed beyond the cherry-tree myth.
  5. Theodore Roosevelt — I used to think that Teddy was on Mount Rushmore for the same reason that people tend to put W. and Obama on their best and worst lists (depending on their inclinations): He was the president at the time, so they put him up there. But having read the first book in Edmund Morris’ trilogy (I need to get to the second; it’s sitting on my bookshelf waiting), I’m far more convinced of the role he played in transitioning the nation from what had been since 1776 and taking it to what it would be in the 20th century. His building up of the Navy would have been enough to get him on a Top Ten list. But then you look at his Progressive initiatives, his passion for reform, and that takes you much further. A lot of detractors would dismiss his imperialism, but I think that’s another sort of temporal chauvinism — applying today’s standards to a man of another time. I would look at the positive side of that — he saw the importance of the United States taking its place alongside the “Great Nations of Europe,” and saw aggressive posture as essential to that. In other words, you can take his “Bully!” a couple of ways. But in my book, as you know, I think the world is better off with the United States in the leading role, rather than some of those “Great Nations,” as they were then. And I worry about a future time when a nation that would never, ever produce a TR is in that role. Roosevelt personified American vigor, optimism, innovation and industry, making him a sort of archetype, an embodiment of the nation at that point in history — much the way JFK did later.

Wow. Barry would really be dismissive of MY list. It’s like, Mount Rushmore minus Jefferson, plus two. But I can’t help it; the “name” presidents do tend to be among the best, if you’re honest about it. (And I was going to put Jefferson on there, crediting him for the Louisiana Purchase and dealing with the Barbary Pirates — both flying in the face of his own ideology, and I love it when politicians rise above their party lines — but I wanted the other five on there more.

Go ahead, argue with me.

My exchange with “Jayne Cobb”

Today, we descend into the dubious ground of celebrity name-dropping…

One of my favorite things that’s ever been on television was “Firefly,” the space western (you have to watch it to grok that description) that lasted less than a season several years ago — which says about everything that needs to be said about commercial television.

My favorite character on the show was Jayne Cobb. Actually, he’s my public, admitted favorite character. My actual, secret favorite is Kaylee, but being a happily married guy, I don’t want to admit that, so my official favorite is Jayne.

Jayne is, that is, was played by Adam Baldwin, who has a Twitter feed that differs from other Hollywood actors’ in that you won’t read Tweets like, “Yoga class was awesome today! Off to a lunch, then rehearsal.”

Mr. Baldwin tweets about politics, and from a decidedly, shall we say, muscular conservative perspective (even though he apparently once Tweeted this).

Last night, I saw this post:

Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

“Repressive Tolerance”: http://bit.ly/efIXeq ->http://bit.ly/fVwiF -> http://bit.ly/18ScHT ->http://bit.ly/fivqAt = #RepressiveCivility

This really impressed me. I hadn’t heard that phrase since I had studied the absurd theories of Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual father of the New Left, who game up with the Orwellian-sounding concept of “repressive tolerance.” Which, in my paraphrase, means that liberal societies are repressive because they manipulate people by being… tolerant. In other words, they absorb, co-opt and redirect revolutionary fervor by not particularly caring about it. This makes people who really, really want to be angry revolutionaries even angrier, of course, because it makes it impossible for them to keep others angry. You’re a revolutionary — red rag on your head and everything — and you’re like, “We demand reform!” and the maddening liberal society goes, “OK, here’s your reform,” and next thing you know, nobody cares enough to show up at your revolutionary cell meetings, and you’re like all ticked. OK, go read another definition if you don’t like that one.

We UnPartisans are often amused by the silly things that theorists come up with on the right AND the left, and Marcuse was one of the leading unintentional jesters of the left.

Anyway, I was impressed enough to reTweet this:

Brad Warthen

@BradWarthenBrad Warthen

Wow! A TV actor citing Marcuse! RT @adamsbaldwin: “Repressive Tolerance”:http://bit.ly/efIXeq -> http://bit.ly/fVwiF->…

And to my amazement, I quickly got this reply:

Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

@BradWarthen Herbert Marcuse, an #IntellectualMoron –> http://bit.ly/5NyBMx

So I’m like:

Brad Warthen

@BradWarthenBrad Warthen
@adamsbaldwin Oh, I agree, Adam. I just thought it was cool that you mentioned him. Haven’t run across his silly concept since college…

Because I’m thinking, “I don’t want to tick off Jayne Cobb. You know how he is.” And then he’s like:

Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

@BradWarthen Seen this one:http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20(2).pdf

Of course, the Obama/Alinsky connection wasn’t new to me, although I don’t fret about it the way people on the right do. But I then answered with these two Tweets:

@adamsbaldwin Nope, but that reminds me. I’ve been meaning to read the recent biography of Alinksy, “Radical” http://j.mp/dIka9R

@adamsbaldwin Of course, since it’s written by Nicholas Von Hoffman, it’s an “homage.” But if you know that, it still can be informative…

I figured I’d better add that last bit, since he was likely to dismiss it from such a source, and I wanted to head that off.

Then, I went home for the day, and didn’t get any more Tweets from Mr. Baldwin. Nor did I send any. But I enjoyed it while it lasted. And now, I’ll be interested to see whether an exchange like that with someone with almost 50,000 followers will boost my own followership (and ultimately, blog readership, which for me is the point of social media).

Can’t tell yet…

Mary Worth jumps the shark

Just look who is desperately trying to be relevant and up-to-date… Mary Worth, the lamest, least-excusable “comic strip” in newspaper history.

Did you see her jumping the shark Sunday? I’ve meant to mention it ever since…

Mary Worth, fretting about Twitter. What next?

By the way, I don’t mean to mock ACTUAL older folks who are befuddled by new media. And indeed, younger folks getting lost in a virtual world, at a time when their brains are still forming (teens, early 20s) at the expense of their ability to function in the analog one is a legitimate concern.

But I’ve got a long-standing beef with Mary. As a newspaper editor, I have wanted so many times to replace that nothing-happens strip with something decent, perhaps something actually amusing — only to get turned back by Mary’s loyal fans, drat them.

Oh, but just to show I’m not entirely snide, and can show some human concern for a fictitious character, even one who has occupied space that I have wished for decades was better used…

Is Mary about to fall off that stool and break something? Or is the panel just badly drawn, with distorted perspective?

Look out, Mary!

Here’s where that path leads, Lindsey

Just to elaborate a bit on that last post, in which I wrote about how once-sensible Republicans are dancing with madness these days…

I’d just like to point out to Sen. Graham where all this “hate Obamacare to the point that we’ll hurt actual South Carolinians by blowing it up” stuff leads.

Continue down that path, and you cease to be that voice of reason you’ve always been in Washington, that Gang of 14 guy, the guy who took a bullet for comprehensive immigration reform, the guy who at least for a time fought for the Energy Party platform at great personal political risk, the guy who could get President Obama to listen to reason on national security. You cease being all that (which is a national tragedy, because the nation NEEDS you to play that role), and you end up being state Sen. Lee Bright. I mean this guy:

Sen. Lee Bright: SC should coin its own money

Continuing a pattern of attempts to assert South Carolina’s independence from the federal government, State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has introduced legislation that backs the creation of a new state currency that could protect the financial stability of the Palmetto State in the event of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

Bright’s joint resolution calls for the creation of an eight-member joint subcommittee to study the proposal and submit a report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1.

The Federal Reserve System has come under ever-increasing strain during the last several years and will be exposed to ever-increasing and predictably debilitating strain in the years to come, according to the legislation.

“If there is an attempt to monetize the Fed we ought to at least have a study on record that could protect South Carolinians,” Bright said in an interview Friday.

“If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup.”

The legislation cites the rights reserved to states in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in making the case that South Carolina is within its rights to create its own currency…

Thank Bud for bringing that to my attention. I hadn’t seen coverage of it. But the Boston Globe has noted it. And these guys are applauding it. (This really embarrassing stuff tends to come to my attention this way. While SC media is trying to look the other way — or rather spending its time covering legislation that might actually pass, which sounds better — the rest of the country is chortling. When Mike Pitts proposed doing away with the Yankee dollar and replacing it with gold and silver, I first learned about it from Burl Burlingame and The Onion.)

Sen. Bright, by the way, was last seen pushing broader legislation to protect South Carolina’s “rights” (which rights were under siege was unclear, but then it usual is) from encroaching federal power in general. You may or may not recall that I wrote about it in a post headlined “These guys cannot POSSIBLY be serious.” I led with a reference to that scene from “Gettysburg” with the Confederate prisoners speaking nonsensically about fighting for their nonspecific “rats.” You know how I like movie allusions.

Anyway, that’s where you could end up.

You don’t want to go there, do you, Lindsey? I didn’t think so. But that’s where this “seceding from Obamacare” stuff leads…

Weird as it gets: “Toking” with Lawrence Welk

This is way out of left field, but I just had to share it. I was being tritely facetious back here, answering bud’s assertion that someone who favored legalizing marijuana would probably have trouble going far with elements of the GOP (except, of course, for the William F. Buckley Memorial Wing), by saying, “Yeah… that’d be one toke over the line…”

Hey, I told you it was trite.

But being one who can’t leave a stupid (and painfully obvious) pun alone, I went looking for a link to the song — you know, for the youngsters who wouldn’t remember the song.

And I found something freaky, which you can view above. Something that, of course, only boomers will fully grok as being as weird as it is. Here, by the way, is what Wikipedia said about it.

Who am I? Butch Bowers? You might think so…

Following up on this bit of silliness last night…

I never did see either of my appearances on WACH last night, but Lora was kind enough to shoot video with her iPhone, which she shared with me. Unfortunately, when I converted it, the sound was gone, so I’m just giving you a screenshot above. You’re seeing that as the announcer says, “His attorney, Butch Bowers, says the letters are routine inquiry, and nothing more than routine paperwork and filing matters.”

Viewers were hearing that, while seeing the above footage from the lieutenant governor debate I moderated back during the fall — leaving them to assume, not without reasons, that I am Butch Bowers.

That’s a hoot. I need to tell Butch about it.

Promise to Egypt: All your dreams will come true

Since it’s way historic and all, I thought I’d put something here about the news that’s been breaking in recent minutes (you’d have seen it earlier if you followed me on Twitter), so y’all can talk about it even though I don’t have time to say much right now:

Military says Mubarak will meet protesters demands

By MAGGIE MICHAEL
Associated Press

CAIRO (AP) — President Hosni Mubarak will meet the demands of protesters, military and ruling party officials said Thursday in the strongest indication yet that Egypt’s longtime president may be about to give up power and that the armed forces were seizing control.

Gen. Hassan al-Roueini, military commander for the Cairo area, told thousands of protesters in central Tahrir Square, “All your demands will be met today.” Some in the crowd held up their hands in V-for-victory signs, shouting “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” a victory cry used by secular and religious people alike.

The military’s supreme council was meeting Thursday, without the commander in chief Mubarak, and announced on state TV its “support of the legitimate demands of the people.” A spokesman read a statement that the council was in permanent session “to explore “what measures and arrangements could be made to safeguard the nation, its achievements and the ambitions of its great people.”

The statement was labelled “communique number 1,” a phrasing that suggests a military coup…

OK, the military coup part may give us pause — more about that later when we know more — but what a heady moment for all those folks who’ve taken to the streets.

How about that quote?

“All your demands will be met today.”

Reminds me of Pedro’s extreme, over-the-top, meant-to-be-seen-as-ridiculously-hyperbolic campaign pledge (which was recommended to him by campaign consultant Napoleon Dynamite): “Vote for me, and all your wildest dreams will come true.”

Perhaps the general is overselling as well — and again, it remains to be seen how the people would feel about a junta (you might say that, like Pedro, the military is offering Egypt its “protection” — but if Mubarak is stepping down, that’s something Egyptians had hardly dared dream a month ago.

So, wow. This is quite a moment.

Which Super Bowl ads are worth watching on Monday morning?

Since I’m now a Mad Man, some of the conversation at the start of this morning’s traffic meeting was about the Super Bowl ads. I missed part of the exchange on account of going down the hall to get more coffee, but I also felt a bit left out since, well, I didn’t see watch the whole game. In fact, all I did was record part of it (I didn’t think to activate the DVR until long after it started), and occasionally flip back to it in hopes of catching a commercial.

Despite the fact that I have been watching some football since I got HDTV, there was no hope of my having any emotional involvement in this one. The Steelers mean nothing to me, and Green Bay — well, they were my team’s (Johnny Unitas’ Baltimore Colts) nemesis back when I cared about such things, but with Bart Starr gone, well, what’s the point? I couldn’t even get interested in cheering for their opponents.

But the ads — well, I found Super Bowl ads interesting even before I became a Mad Man.

Not having seen them all, though, I felt unqualified to say anything about which was the best, or anything like that. I was able to chime in when someone mentioned the beaver one (below). That was awesome. I called my wife into the room and replayed it for her.

So, since I don’t have time to sit here this morning and watch all of these… which did you think was the best, and why? What should I go find and watch? What would be worth my time? Or rather, ADCO’s time, since that’s what I’d be using…

You’re failing to excite me, Arianna

Just got this from HuffPost:

We are writing with some very exciting news.  As you will see if you click on the HuffPost home page, The Huffington Post has been acquired by AOL, instantly creating one of the biggest media companies in the world, with global, national, and local reach — combining original reporting, opinion, video, social engagement and community, and leveraged across every platform, including the web, mobile, and tablets.

Central to all of this will be the kind of fresh, insightful, and influential takes on the issues of the day that you and the rest of our bloggers regularly deliver.  Our bloggers have always been a very big part of HuffPost’s identity – and will continue to be a very big part of who we are.

When the Huffington Post launched in May 2005, we had high hopes.  But we would have been hard pressed to predict that less than six years later we would be able to announce a deal that now makes it possible for us to execute our vision at light speed.

The HuffPost blog team will continue to operate as it always has. Arianna will become editor-in-chief not only of HuffPost but of the newly formed Huffington Post Media Group, which will include all of AOL’s content sites, including Patch, Engadget, TechCrunch, Moviefone, PopEater, MapQuest, Black Voices, and Moviefone.

Together, our companies will have a combined base of 117 million unique U.S. visitors a month — and 250 million around the world — so your posts will have an even bigger impact on the national and global conversation.  That’s the only real change you’ll notice — more people reading what you wrote.

Far from changing the Huffington Post’s editorial approach, our culture, or our mission, it will be like stepping off a fast-moving train and onto a supersonic jet.  We’re still traveling toward the same destination, with the same people at the wheel, and with the same goals, but we’re now going to get there much, much faster.

Thank you for being such a vital part of the HuffPost family – which has suddenly gotten a whole lot bigger.

All the best,

Arianna, Roy, David, and the HuffPost Blog Team

Forgive me, Arianna, but I’m failing to get excited. That’s like saying your site is being sponsored by Geritol (that’s a Boomer reference, youngsters), or you’ve formed a strategic alliance with “The Lawrence Welk Show” (ditto, kiddies — this was the very essence of grandparents’ entertainment in the ’60s).

AOL? The Aztecs had AOL. Any edgy cred the HuffPost once had, if it had any, has now evaporated.

Folks, help me remember this memo to self: When I sell out, it will be to somebody cool… unless, of course, the money is just offensively ridiculous.

Free-associating on "AOL"...