sorry, been away a bit lately--helping tend to a sick baby (she's fine now, thanks) and caddying for two days for one of my former high school golfers (it's the only way I'll ever get on Firestone Country Club). So, as I was saying . . .
* * * * *
To those of you old enough to remember prime time TV of the late '70s, you probably know All in the Family. If you go back and watch one of those shows, you get a sense of how much our country has changed since then--and not just the dearth of leisure suits in contemporary fashion. Jokes about marijuana, for examples, were common (this wasn't cable, mind you)--the horror!
How about Soap? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZJvG4j3cN4&feature=relmfu> Billy Crystal played an openly gay character--again, not cable (and well before the cartoonish portrayals on Will and Grace).
It doesn't take much imagination to see the arc that the country was on around this time. Legalizing pot? Yeah, probably. Equal Rights for LGBT. Yep, could see that around the corner, too. But some felt that a malaise had fallen upon the country and change was needed if we were to make America strong again (cue flags and the Lee Greenwood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_GRKURoEY).
This is when Reagan is elected. One of his first acts was to remove the solar panels from the roof of the White House that had been installed under Carter, you know, to send a message that conservation was for wimps. The other stuff (breaking unions, Iran-Contra, S & L crisis, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," etc. you probably remember).
I bring this up b/c I've been watching the NFL draft and the Steelers just took Mike Adams, a lineman from The Ohio State University, in the 2nd round. It's been a story b/c he's tested positive several times while at OSU; he was also one of the players suspended for their role in the tattoo/car scandal that led to the firing of Coach Tressel. But Adams wrote a letter of contrition and asked that the Steelers re-consider--and they did by committing a high draft pick on the young man.
OK--so what? Well, back in 1983 the Steelers were looking for a replacement for Terry Bradshaw, whose career was winding down. A local kid at the University of Pittsburgh seemed like the perfect fit for the venerable franchise--an organization that had already won four Super Bowls by this time. But Dan Marino, the rumors go, had tested positive for marijuana while in college. And the venerable organization that has been run by the same family for nearly 80 years passed on Marino, who, of course, went on to play for the Miami Dolphins in a Hall of Fame career. The Tom Selleck look-alike, Mark Malone, and many others tried to replace Bradshaw, but it was a gap in the organization for two decades.
The fact that Pittsburgh has given this young man another chance a sign that we as a society have gotten more liberal, more accepting? (the owners of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Rooneys, sensing possibly a shift in the zeitgeist?) No way does this team at any point in its past take this chance--not just for business reasons but for ethical reasons as well. But it did now. Why? Like I said, the same family has owned the franchise since the '30s, and if they're known for anything it's consistency.
So, what's changed? The country sure doesn't feel more liberal (forced vaginal probes for prospective abortion seekers? de-funding Planned Parenthood?) Many studies have identified younger voters as being more tolerant and generally more progressive (this is often sited as the rationale for why gay marriage/equality is just matter of time--the older, more conservative voters who oppose gay marriage, e.g., will age out and be replaced by younger, more liberal voters). Sounds good. But I'm not so sure that is the arc our country is currently bending toward, do you? I mean, do you see us trending toward a great progressive future, say, 20 years out? Not when the Paul Ryans and their harsh budget solutions are actually debated as possible solutions, instead of being blown out of the water for what they are--the death of the New Deal. And yet, as I've often lamented, many middle and working class folks support specifically this legislation and others like it. Imagine it's 1988 or 2002--peak conservative years, at least politically; does a Paul Ryan budget even see the light of day? Nope, I think even the Republicans keep it stuffed in the closet. In the basement. But something has changed when policy that used to be settled or not spoken aloud in polite circles, as they say, not only gets out into the open but is given the credibility afforded possibility.
Birth control is back on the table but Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been scuttled. In Arizona a woman must tell her employer why she needs birth control, yet Dick Cheney (yeah, that one) recently helped to pass legislation in Maryland that will allow for marriage equality for his lesbian daughter and other gays and homosexuals. And the Pittsburgh Steelers draft a young man who has at least three failed drug tests.
What to make of this apparent inconsistency and contradiction? I don't want to fall into the common trap, like some, who extrapolate the characteristics of an entire group based on individual behavior or a singular event (19 terrorist who are Muslim fly planes into the Twin Towers--all Muslims bad; Nordic shooter kills 80+ in Norway and he is troubled individual--the word "terrorist" is not even applied when that's exactly what he was doing--and nobody tries to draw conclusions on all fair, white guys).
But it seems to be that the those w/ wealth and power have gotten more conservative as it relates to the lives of others (witness the legislation against women, voter suppression, austerity measures)--harsh, punitive, controlling, conservative. While, those w/ power are more liberal and lax w/ matters that benefit them personally (more money for elections via Citizens United? more tax cuts? repeal of the estate tax? drafting a talented but troubled individual?)--all tilt toward enriching only those at the top, and, often, at the expense and to the detriment to those who don't have access to power.
And this dual reality allows for a Mitt Romney (or Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan) to say just whatever the hell they want and not once ever correct the record for their mis-rememberings/mis-speakings--and a lapdog press allows them to get away w/ it.
I realize I'm slipping toward a "Two Americas" stump speech here, but accountability seems to have gone out of style along w/ polyester slacks, Air Supply, and the AMC Gremlin. Unless, of course, it involves sex. David Vitter pays for sex with prostitutes and still serves the great state of Louisiana as their senator, but John Edwards--despicable man that he is--is about to get hammered like Tom DeLay should have been (you tell me which is worse: blowing the campaign contributions of wealthy supporters, or fleecing Native American tribes out of what little money they have??).
In some ways, Edwards's biggest screw-up was doing his thing before Citizens United would have made the point moot. .
* * * * *
To those of you old enough to remember prime time TV of the late '70s, you probably know All in the Family. If you go back and watch one of those shows, you get a sense of how much our country has changed since then--and not just the dearth of leisure suits in contemporary fashion. Jokes about marijuana, for examples, were common (this wasn't cable, mind you)--the horror!
How about Soap? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZJvG4j3cN4&feature=relmfu> Billy Crystal played an openly gay character--again, not cable (and well before the cartoonish portrayals on Will and Grace).
It doesn't take much imagination to see the arc that the country was on around this time. Legalizing pot? Yeah, probably. Equal Rights for LGBT. Yep, could see that around the corner, too. But some felt that a malaise had fallen upon the country and change was needed if we were to make America strong again (cue flags and the Lee Greenwood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_GRKURoEY).
This is when Reagan is elected. One of his first acts was to remove the solar panels from the roof of the White House that had been installed under Carter, you know, to send a message that conservation was for wimps. The other stuff (breaking unions, Iran-Contra, S & L crisis, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," etc. you probably remember).
I bring this up b/c I've been watching the NFL draft and the Steelers just took Mike Adams, a lineman from The Ohio State University, in the 2nd round. It's been a story b/c he's tested positive several times while at OSU; he was also one of the players suspended for their role in the tattoo/car scandal that led to the firing of Coach Tressel. But Adams wrote a letter of contrition and asked that the Steelers re-consider--and they did by committing a high draft pick on the young man.
OK--so what? Well, back in 1983 the Steelers were looking for a replacement for Terry Bradshaw, whose career was winding down. A local kid at the University of Pittsburgh seemed like the perfect fit for the venerable franchise--an organization that had already won four Super Bowls by this time. But Dan Marino, the rumors go, had tested positive for marijuana while in college. And the venerable organization that has been run by the same family for nearly 80 years passed on Marino, who, of course, went on to play for the Miami Dolphins in a Hall of Fame career. The Tom Selleck look-alike, Mark Malone, and many others tried to replace Bradshaw, but it was a gap in the organization for two decades.
The fact that Pittsburgh has given this young man another chance a sign that we as a society have gotten more liberal, more accepting? (the owners of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Rooneys, sensing possibly a shift in the zeitgeist?) No way does this team at any point in its past take this chance--not just for business reasons but for ethical reasons as well. But it did now. Why? Like I said, the same family has owned the franchise since the '30s, and if they're known for anything it's consistency.
So, what's changed? The country sure doesn't feel more liberal (forced vaginal probes for prospective abortion seekers? de-funding Planned Parenthood?) Many studies have identified younger voters as being more tolerant and generally more progressive (this is often sited as the rationale for why gay marriage/equality is just matter of time--the older, more conservative voters who oppose gay marriage, e.g., will age out and be replaced by younger, more liberal voters). Sounds good. But I'm not so sure that is the arc our country is currently bending toward, do you? I mean, do you see us trending toward a great progressive future, say, 20 years out? Not when the Paul Ryans and their harsh budget solutions are actually debated as possible solutions, instead of being blown out of the water for what they are--the death of the New Deal. And yet, as I've often lamented, many middle and working class folks support specifically this legislation and others like it. Imagine it's 1988 or 2002--peak conservative years, at least politically; does a Paul Ryan budget even see the light of day? Nope, I think even the Republicans keep it stuffed in the closet. In the basement. But something has changed when policy that used to be settled or not spoken aloud in polite circles, as they say, not only gets out into the open but is given the credibility afforded possibility.
Birth control is back on the table but Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been scuttled. In Arizona a woman must tell her employer why she needs birth control, yet Dick Cheney (yeah, that one) recently helped to pass legislation in Maryland that will allow for marriage equality for his lesbian daughter and other gays and homosexuals. And the Pittsburgh Steelers draft a young man who has at least three failed drug tests.
What to make of this apparent inconsistency and contradiction? I don't want to fall into the common trap, like some, who extrapolate the characteristics of an entire group based on individual behavior or a singular event (19 terrorist who are Muslim fly planes into the Twin Towers--all Muslims bad; Nordic shooter kills 80+ in Norway and he is troubled individual--the word "terrorist" is not even applied when that's exactly what he was doing--and nobody tries to draw conclusions on all fair, white guys).
But it seems to be that the those w/ wealth and power have gotten more conservative as it relates to the lives of others (witness the legislation against women, voter suppression, austerity measures)--harsh, punitive, controlling, conservative. While, those w/ power are more liberal and lax w/ matters that benefit them personally (more money for elections via Citizens United? more tax cuts? repeal of the estate tax? drafting a talented but troubled individual?)--all tilt toward enriching only those at the top, and, often, at the expense and to the detriment to those who don't have access to power.
And this dual reality allows for a Mitt Romney (or Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan) to say just whatever the hell they want and not once ever correct the record for their mis-rememberings/mis-speakings--and a lapdog press allows them to get away w/ it.
I realize I'm slipping toward a "Two Americas" stump speech here, but accountability seems to have gone out of style along w/ polyester slacks, Air Supply, and the AMC Gremlin. Unless, of course, it involves sex. David Vitter pays for sex with prostitutes and still serves the great state of Louisiana as their senator, but John Edwards--despicable man that he is--is about to get hammered like Tom DeLay should have been (you tell me which is worse: blowing the campaign contributions of wealthy supporters, or fleecing Native American tribes out of what little money they have??).
In some ways, Edwards's biggest screw-up was doing his thing before Citizens United would have made the point moot. .
I love that show Soap. There were some really good actors on that show; the best may have been the dummy. Eunice was hot!
ReplyDeleteReagan, as it turns out, was a conservationist. He saw those solar panels for what they were: a symbolic gesture that lowered the dignity of the most important house in the country. Much like we saw the guy he replaced. He wasn’t into busting unions either, but that’s a myth advanced from both ends of the political spectrum.
For someone who doesn’t want to, “fall into the common trap, like some, who extrapolate the characteristics of an entire group based on individual behavior,” you seem to have a hair trigger on labeling the republicans or even our country as racists based on the bad deeds of just a few. Many of which are media contortions to fit a news narrative. I’m just sayin’.
If anyone can make something out of that pot-smoking tub of goo it’s Pittsburgh. GO BROWNS!
Interesting post as always, Eric. But the very popularity of polyester slacks suggests that a previous age was not terribly interested in accountability, either. ;)
ReplyDeleteYou do highlight, however, an infuriating paradox at the heart espoused by so many proponents of "small government" conservatism. Regulation of corporate excess? Gross overstepping of governmental bounds! Vaginal ultrasounds? Clearly within legislative purview. Sheesh.
thanks, guys, for dropping by--your perspectives are esp valued.
ReplyDelete