Rule #185: All we want is white beyond the Thunderdome
If you lead a push to put a more positive spin on slavery in your state’s textbooks, you lose all right to insist you’re not racist. Tea party activists in Tennessee are calling for textbook criteria that calls for “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred [to] obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens.” In other words, as Fayette County attorney and group spokesman Hal Rounds put it, the measure would combat “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the Founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.” But is it really made up? I guess that’s one less debate Tennessee students will be having. That’ll give them more time to not debate other issues.
I wonder what their music textbooks would say about Ike Turner? “He was one of the most innovative pioneers in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. He hit his biggest fame with then-wife Tina Turner in 1960. They parted ways in 1976. To explain why would be to obscure this amazing man’s monumental contributions to history.” Or, given his race, they might say instead, “Ike Turner was not a slave because we’re past that now.” Either way, it’s no wonder Tina got the hell out of Nutbush.
History isn’t supposed to be a Glamour Shot; sometimes it’s a faded daguerreotype that shows our most unflattering side. And that’s the depiction we need to see the most. Anything less is, well, whitewashing.
Rule #186-A: Time to make the POTUS
Don’t complain that President Obama’s State of the Union speech was too long. It was barely over an hour — some of the dumbest reality shows on TV last longer and have 1 percent of the substance, if that. When it comes to a president’s vision for the entire year, I think one hour is the least it deserves. Anyway, it’s Obama forcefully pushing for populist stances — I could listen to that all night long. George W. Bush’s speeches still ring in my head all these years later, so I can always use a new tune.
Rule #186-B: PR pabulum
If I can ascertain exactly what an analyst will say about the State of the Union address as soon as I see their name, then your network needs a better booking agent. Paul Begala vs. Ari Fleischer? I respect both men (to a degree), but be still my heart? I want to hear what a speech expert or a respected public figure says, not a partisan pundit. There should at least be a potential for suspense. That’s what makes it news.
Rule #186-C: Response ability
The response to the speech can no longer be written in advance. It’s bad enough that such a speech tends to be cornier than its often-corny counterpart; it’s even worse to have an up-and-coming politician recite it so painfully that you feel for him even as you roll your eyes at what he’s saying. Granted, it’s hard to follow President Obama, but at least a spontaneous speech might make the closing bit worth sitting through.
Rule #186-D: Construct the criticism
Everybody who disses this year’s speech should be able to say who exactly would be better as president and what would have been better to say. I didn’t agree with everything Obama said, but I thought his overall tone and direction were superb. Not that you’d know it from the usual contrarians, many of whom are saying Obama is any combination of terrible, embarrassing and/or a moron. Really? Because that sounds like a random reaction. When Bush was president, I mocked his speeches mercilessly - but that’s because he was a terrible public speaker with a seeming fetish for saber-rattling and torture methods. He deserved criticism for that. This year’s speech, on the other hand, is too good for the criticism it’s getting from all of the usual suspects. And that makes me wonder how genuine such sentiments are. If you can back them up, fine. If you can’t, I’ll just assume you were ready to say what you did before the president took to the lectern, and dismiss it accordingly.
Rule #186-E: Bye, partisanship
Bipartisanship needs a better definition than a Republican helping Gabrielle Giffords stand up during key moments in the speech. That’s not political cooperation; that’s being a decent human being, which should have nothing to do with affiliation. If bipartisanship is what we want, then why doesn’t Congress agree to move on some of the most embarrassingly universal issues ever to be stalled in the name of partisan turf wars? Now that would be impressive.
Rule #187: Superior oratory
Don’t tell me I can’t understand something. It makes me not want to.
Rule #188: Sorry, Charlie
Products should not be endorsed by the thing they kill. No more commercials about fish (or peanuts, or whiskers) wanting to be eaten or cut. On the other hand, if you want to invest in the best blogger-slashing knife out there, you can’t do better than the DullButterBlade 5000! Tastes great on a biscuit, too!
0 comments:
Post a Comment