[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
In civil tort law, it's not enough for a defendant to have done something wrong. The wrongful act has to be the "proximate cause" of a plaintiff's injuries. So, for example, if you leave an open bear trap in front of your house (happens all the time, I know), you clearly have done something negligent. But that doesn't mean that someone who trips and falls across the street can sue you for negligence, since you were not the proximate cause of the person's injuries.
I flashed back to my first year of law school and the concept of proximate cause when I read Adam McKay's great Huffingtonpost.com article yesterday. In a nutshell, Adam makes the argument that in the same way that the casinos always win at blackjack because the odds are stacked in their favor at 51 percent to 49 percent, the Republicans win presidential elections because they, too, have a 51-49 advantage, thanks to the lack of meaningful mainstream media to vet the lies told by the GOP.
While I agree with virtually everything Adam wrote regarding the sorry state of the U.S. press, I disagree with his conclusion that it is the media that gives the Republicans an odds advantage. Put another way, I'd argue that the media is the homeowner with the bear trap, in that they are clearly not doing their jobs, but they are not the proximate cause of this particular injury (GOP presidential wins with seemingly less qualified candidates).
So if it's not the media that are to blame, who do I point the finger at as being the proximate cause? Easy. The voters themselves.
I agree with the premise that the media, which is controlled by a handful of major corporations, is far more interested in making money and consolidating power than fulfilling its responsibility to inform the electorate. Where I break from the liberal orthodoxy on this issue is on the effect of the media's failings. The argument often goes that, "If only the people had the information to make an informed choice, they would choose the Democrat, but because those bastards in the mainstream media won't do their jobs, the voters don't have the tools to make the correct choice, and thus vote differently than they would if they had the benefit of a functioning media to vet the GOP lies."
You could make a strong argument that this was true in 1988 (the shameful Willie Horton ad and Michael Dukakis's ill-fated ride in a tank), and maybe -- maybe -- you can make that argument for 2000 and 2004. But in 2008? I think the argument no longer holds water. Voters have (or could have) all the information they need to make a choice this year. They're just making a choice that we on the left would consider a bad one.
Let me take a step back. Republicans have won the presidency since 2000 by combining three constituencies:
- Economic conservatives,
- Religious conservatives, and
- Voters who describe themselves as "moderate," "independent" and/or "undecided."
Even with a perfect media system in place with every piece of information available, you have to believe that the first two categories of voters are going to vote overwhelmingly Republican anyway. Those who narrow-mindedly vote based solely on macroeconomics under the belief that the free market will cure all lean naturally to the GOP (no matter how many studies show that Barack Obama's economic plan means less taxes for most Americans than John McCain's proposal). And religious wackadoodles have been trained to believe that the Republicans are the party of the Lord (even though there are numerous references in the bible to poverty but only one to homosexuality, but that's a completely different article topic for a different day). So Democrats will always have trouble with the religious right.
Really, when we talk about the importance of the media, we're talking about the ability to reach the third category of moderates, independents and undecided voters. Those are the citizens, the argument goes, who would vote for Obama (or would have voted for John Kerry or Al Gore) if they knew all the facts.
Specifically, in 2008, the argument goes: If the media would point out McCain's strictly GOP voting record of the last eight years in the Senate, and how he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, plus how McCain has claimed not to no much about economics and how his economic policy was crafted by the former senator behind both the subprime mortgage crash and the increase in gas prices, and how he favors the same tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush; and how he was an early advocate of the war in Iraq and was disastrously wrong about all of his predictions, and how the surge has failed when measured against President Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the American people announcing the reason for the plan (since the Iraqi government has not taken the painful but necessary steps toward self-governance), then these undecided voters would flock to Obama.
The argument follows that if only the media would report that Sarah Palin and other GOP convention speakers lied over and over again, that Palin lobbied hard for the so-called "bridge to nowhere," that she wanted to fire the librarian of Wasilla for not banning a huge list of classic literature from the shelves, that she is in favor of teaching creationism in schools, that she is against abortion even in the case of rape, that she has had no foreign policy experience as the titular head of the Alaska National Guard, that she had connections to Ted Stevens and his activities that led to his indictment, that her husband belongs to a party that advocates for secession and whose leader professed hatred of the U.S. government, and that she is patently unqualified to be president by any objective standard and represents a cynical grab for votes by McCain, then independent and moderate voters would wake up and vote for Obama.
I don't buy it.
The U.S. electorate has already demonstrated that it does understand that there are problems, and it is ready to take action. Even as measured by the right-wing Fox News, Bush currently enjoys an approval rating of only 28 percent. An August 3 CBS News/New York Times poll revealed that 81 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, and only 14 percent believe we are headed in the right direction. And in November 2006, Americans were angry enough about the war in Iraq to boot the Republicans out of control of both houses of Congress, and that anger continued into 2007 and 2008 as they replaced Republicans with Democrats in three special House elections in traditionally GOP districts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Illinois. And according to RealClearPolitics, a generic Democrat still enjoys a lead over a generic Republican in Congressional elections.
In other words, Americans know they are pissed off, and they have demonstrated the ability to effectuate "change" with their voting power. So if they wanted to do it for the presidency, they could.
With all the media coverage of this campaign (even if it's been lousy), and all of the information available for people on the Internet, there not only is no excuse for not knowing the facts the mainstream media isn't reporting about McCain, Palin and the Republicans, I would argue that most voters do, in fact, get the gist of what's going on. In an August 29 USA Today/Gallup poll, only 39 percent of respondents thought Palin was qualified to be president. Most independent voters know that she was involved in some less-than-nice stuff in Alaska and holds extreme right-wing positions. I even think the electorate has a strong sense that McCain has sided with Bush most of the time and would operate as president much like the current administration does. A USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday showed that while McCain got a bounce from the GOP convention, 63 percent of respondents were concerned that he would continue Bush's policies if elected (virtually unchanged from 64 percent and 66 percent in earlier polls).
What I'm getting is, voters essentially know what's going on. They just don't care. I believe that "undecided" voters that go to McCain aren't doing so because of any lack of information, they are doing it despite that information. I think there are two explanations for this phenomenon.
The first one is easier and more obvious: race. I do believe that there are people in this country who, for whatever reason, can't bring themselves to pull the lever for an African-American presidential contender. I often go back to Steve Kroft's 60 Minutes interview before the Ohio primary with an undecided voter who was leaning towards Obama, but had concerns because he "heard" Obama was a Muslim who wouldn't salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance. Some voters are open about it, a lot more aren't (maybe even trying to convince themselves that it's not about race). These folks are just looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama, something to justify their "discomfort," claiming it has nothing to do with race.
Nothing the media could do would make Obama a more palatable option for the group of ignorant Americans who won't vote for a black presidential candidate.
The second reason some voters seem not to care about the facts in selecting a candidate is more subtle, but may be more powerful: They don't want to be asked to sacrifice. As a nation, we have become a what's-in-it-for-me, sacrifice-free culture. During World War II, Americans were asked to make all kinds of sacrifices, including rationing, and they did so to support the war effort. Sixty years later, it would be hard to imagine any leader having the guts to make the same requests of the American people, since they would correctly fear being turned out of office in the next election. Any politician who advocated raising taxes, instituting the draft or rationing the use of oil to support the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan would be roundly smacked down by the voters. The culture has changed.
So it's not surprising that Obama's message is not resonating as well as McCain's with a certain group of undecided voters. Obama is telling Americans, in essence, "Things are bad. We're in a bad war. We're in a bad economy. And our energy policy is killing us. We can fix it, but you will have to make some changes. You have to accept that there may not be a traditional victory in Iraq. And you have to change the way you use energy, or else the country and the planet will be in bad shape." That puts a lot of pressure on Americans to actually have to take responsibility for their actions and their country, something they are no longer ever asked to do. Obama is saying Americans have to sacrifice. That's brave. And it's the right course of action. But it's dangerous when you're looking for votes.
Meanwhile, what is McCain saying? His message is: "We're going to win in Iraq. The economy is basically fine. And if we drill offshore, we can produce our own oil, and you can keep using as much energy as you want ... and it will be cheaper. You don't have to change a thing." Clearly, if you stick to the facts, McCain is lying to Americans. We can't drill ourselves out of our much larger energy crisis, and the offshore drilling won't produce any oil for ten years and will have virtually no effect on gas prices, even in the estimation of Bush's own Energy Information Administration. McCain knows that under Bush's economic policies, the gap between rich and poor has widened to a historically high level, that Americans are in debt like never before, and that the subprime mortgage crisis has weakened the economy. And McCain has been front and center as a supporter of the war in Iraq, one of the costliest and most ill-conceived foreign policy blunders in modern U.S. history.
But it doesn't matter. When faced with a choice between the guy that's telling them that nothing has to change and everything is okay, and the guy who is telling them that everything has to change and nothing is all right, many self-interested voters are opting for the guy telling them that they can keep living their lives as they have been. No facts are going to disrupt this line of thinking. Fixing the incompetence and abdication of the mainstream media would have no effect on these people.
It's important to remember that democracy works, but not always the way you might think. The government reflects the will of the people. If the electorate wants to check out and vote for a fantasy rather than addressing the real problems facing the country, then that country's citizens will get exactly what they deserve. If they know that the last eight years have not gone well, and then they return to office the people who got us into this mess in the first place, they deserve to live in four more years of the same mess. If Americans want to delude themselves to believe the lies and distortions pumped out by the GOP attack machine, then they deserve to be governed by the Republicans. It's really that simple.
The media might be derelict in their duties, but they are not the cause of the current tight race for the presidency. And for once, we can't blame the candidate, since Obama has done an immeasurably better job so far than Kerry did in 2004 or Gore did in 2000. No, this time, the blame has to go to the voters themselves. One consolation: No matter who wins in November, Americans will get exactly what we deserve.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
90210: Back to West Beverly High With the Next Generation
[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
Okay, if you're over the age of 35 and didn't catch the premiere of "90210" (CW, Tuesdays at 8:00 p.m. Eastern), let me answer the number one question I'm sure you have on your mind: Yes, the new show uses the same theme song, although it's rocked up a bit for the new century. (And I'm sure the duh-duh-duh, duh-duh-duh riff is now firmly implanted in your head.)
Is the show similarly updated for new audiences? Very much so.
Don't get me wrong: "90210" is fully a nighttime soap, invested in issues of who is sleeping with whom (or who slept with whom, or who is dating whom) and with dramatic plot shifts and coincidences and sometimes overwrought dialogue. (Sample: A girl asks as guy, "Are you breaking up with me?", to which the guy responds earnestly, "I'm breaking up with us.") But the current version of "90210" is smarter, better acted and ultimately more enjoyable than it's 1990s predecessor.
The newbies to West Beverly High in the new "90210" are the brother and sister team of Annie and Dixon Wilson (Shenae Grimes of "Degrassi: The Next Generation" and Tristan Wilds of "The Wire"), whose parents, Harry and Debbie ("Melrose Place" refugee Rob Estes and TV veteran Lori Laughlin, most recently of the sitcom "In Case of Emergency"), have taken them halfway across the country from Kansas to live with Harry's boozy ex-actress mother Tabitha (Jessica Walter, not far from her brilliant parent-from-hell turn on "Arrested Development"). Harry, who grew up in Beverly Hills and attended West Beverly High, is taking over as principal there, much to the chagrin of Annie and Dixon, who don't relish life as the principal's kids. The 21st century update to the central siblings is that rather than being twins like Brandon and Brenda Walsh, Dixon is African-American and adopted.
Annie and Dixon are immediately thrust into the middle of drama in their new school. Annie, who has a boyfriend back in Kansas, is looking forward to seeing Ethan Ward (Dustin Milligan of "Supernatural"), a boy with whom she had a summer fling a couple of years back. But when she first sees Ethan, he is in an SUV being orally serviced by a girl who turns out to be a drug-addicted friend of his girlfriend. If that's not bad enough, Annie soon stumbles into a friendship with queen bee, rich girl Naomi Clark (AnnaLynne McCord of "Nip/Tuck"), who, surprise, happens to be Ethan's girlfriend. Annie also finds herself the subject of a vicious blog attack by Erin Silver (Jessica Stroup of "Reaper"), who goes by Silver and, we soon learn, is the half-sister of Kelly Taylor, as the offspring of her mother and David Silver's father, Mel, all characters from the original series. Annie's crime was allowing Naomi, Silver's arch enemy, to drag her away from their conversation.
Meanwhile, Dixon tries out for the lacrosse team, and when he takes the spot in the starting lineup of pretty boy Steve (Chuck Hittinger), the guy slashes him with his stick, leading to a fight. Ethan, covering for his teammate, initially lies and says Dixon started the fight, leaving the too-cool-for-school English teacher/lacrosse coach Ryan Matthews (Ryan Eggold of "Dirt") with no choice but to boot Dixon off of the team.
The adults have their own issues, too. Tabitha isn't interested in giving up her "iced tea" (of the Long Island variety) or her desire to drive, which is a bad combination. She also makes no effort to hide her dislike of Debbie. But Debbie has bigger fish to fry once Harry's high school girlfriend Tracy (Christina Moore, the replacement Laurie on "That 70s Show") starts hanging around him (after she asks Harry to drive her home, Debbie offers to drive him instead, saying, "We can swap stories about Harry's penis," to which a defeated Tracy replies, "I have enough of them"). The reason, we find out, is that Harry fathered Tracy's child in high school, who she then put up for adoption. And since this is a soap, Tracy is Naomi's mother, so Harry and Tracy have to interact at school when Naomi fails to complete her English paper (she's too busy preparing for her party, an excuse her father can't believe the teacher won't accept).
If you think this is a lot of plot for a one-hour drama, it is. And yet executive producers Jeff Judah and Gabe Sachs (writers on Judd Apatow's classic "Freaks and Geeks") manage to cram a whole lot of the original "90210" into the new version. In addition to Erin Silver, there are passing references that fans of the 1990s incarnation are sure to catch (like a glimpse of Hannah Zuckerman-Vazquez, the offspring of Andrea Zuckerman and Jesse Vazquez, and how Annie and Dixon's rooms are connected by a Jack-and-Jill bathroom, just like Brenda and Brandon's rooms back in the day). But even more prominent is the presence of Kelly Taylor (Jennie Garth), now a single mother and guidance counselor at West Beverly High, who is being courted by fellow teacher Ryan, and Brenda Walsh (Shannen Doherty), visiting for a month to do a play in Los Angeles. Joe E. Tata also returns as Nat, owner of the hangout the Peach Pit, which is now a hip cappuccino place rather than the old-fashioned diner Kelly, Brenda, Brandon and the gang used to frequent.
It was a smart move to rope in the older generation with the characters from the original series, but their story lines, at least as of now, seem almost jammed in, separate and disconnected from the new generation's goings on. (Quick check-ins between Kelly and Silver aren't enough to bridge the gap.) And observing how time has been quite unkind to some of the original actors, especially Doherty, takes some of the fun out of the nostalgia factor.
But other than the collision of the two versions of the show, Judah and Sachs have made exceptional choices with their characters and stories, as well as infusing the scripts with enough smart lines to let you know that this is not the old "90210."
Annie is way more likable and relatable than Brenda ever was. (Some might call her the anti-Brenda, considering the strong dislike many fans held for Doherty's character.) Annie is smart and unassuming, but also not perfect, willing to jet to San Francisco for a first-date dinner even though she knows her mother would not approve (and does not, when her trip comes to light). Annie's will-they-won't-they relationship with Ethan is far more compelling than the Brenda-Dylan connection, mostly because Ethan isn't a cartoon like Dylan was. Dixon is an interesting character too, less of a goody-goody than Brandon, but also more fun and less pompous. There are some interesting elements to explore with the relationship with his family.
In fact, all of the actors in "90210" are infinitely more low-key and less angsty than their colleagues from the 1990s. From Luke Perry's James-Dean-on-Valium moves as Dylan, to the hysterics of Doherty, Garth and Tori Spelling, "subtlety" is not a term that would ever apply to the original cast. But even with over-the-top characters like Naomi, McCord, Grimes, Wilds and the others in the new "90210" don't try and do too much with the soapy material. They approach the scripts like they're real dramatic stories, a tribute to both their skill and the writing of Judah and Sachs.
Most of all, the new "90210" just feels less cartoony, and yet also more grand, than it's forerunner. The debut episode's central event was Naomi's "not so sweet 16" party, an event lavish enough to put the dog and pony shows of some of the girls featured on MTV's "My Super Sweet 16" to shame. (And, in the "90210" tradition, the band at the party was the hip Omaha indie pop outfit Tilly and the Wall, just as indie legends the Flaming Lips appeared at the Pit in the 1990s version of the show.)
I loved many of the casually tossed off lines, from a reference to Ethan that "he's the one with the spotlight shining out of his ass," to Naomi responding to Annie's declaration that she would love to attend her birthday party with, "Of course you would."
In my article two weeks ago listing the five new shows I was most looking forward to watching, I wrote that I hoped the choice of Judah and Sachs to run "90210" would mean that the network envisioned the show having more depth than the original series. It's clear that while nobody will confuse "90210" with "The Wire," it just may be a smart, fun escapist romp, closer to "Dirty Sexy Money" than, well, the original "90210."
I wrote in my top-five article that while I would watch the first episode of "90210," I couldn't promise that I'd watch the second one. Well, the CW aired the first and second installments back-to-back, and I did, in fact, watch both. I'll even watch the third one next week. Based on the ratings of the debut, which were the highest for a fiction show in the network's short history, I will be far from the only one.
Okay, if you're over the age of 35 and didn't catch the premiere of "90210" (CW, Tuesdays at 8:00 p.m. Eastern), let me answer the number one question I'm sure you have on your mind: Yes, the new show uses the same theme song, although it's rocked up a bit for the new century. (And I'm sure the duh-duh-duh, duh-duh-duh riff is now firmly implanted in your head.)
Is the show similarly updated for new audiences? Very much so.
Don't get me wrong: "90210" is fully a nighttime soap, invested in issues of who is sleeping with whom (or who slept with whom, or who is dating whom) and with dramatic plot shifts and coincidences and sometimes overwrought dialogue. (Sample: A girl asks as guy, "Are you breaking up with me?", to which the guy responds earnestly, "I'm breaking up with us.") But the current version of "90210" is smarter, better acted and ultimately more enjoyable than it's 1990s predecessor.
The newbies to West Beverly High in the new "90210" are the brother and sister team of Annie and Dixon Wilson (Shenae Grimes of "Degrassi: The Next Generation" and Tristan Wilds of "The Wire"), whose parents, Harry and Debbie ("Melrose Place" refugee Rob Estes and TV veteran Lori Laughlin, most recently of the sitcom "In Case of Emergency"), have taken them halfway across the country from Kansas to live with Harry's boozy ex-actress mother Tabitha (Jessica Walter, not far from her brilliant parent-from-hell turn on "Arrested Development"). Harry, who grew up in Beverly Hills and attended West Beverly High, is taking over as principal there, much to the chagrin of Annie and Dixon, who don't relish life as the principal's kids. The 21st century update to the central siblings is that rather than being twins like Brandon and Brenda Walsh, Dixon is African-American and adopted.
Annie and Dixon are immediately thrust into the middle of drama in their new school. Annie, who has a boyfriend back in Kansas, is looking forward to seeing Ethan Ward (Dustin Milligan of "Supernatural"), a boy with whom she had a summer fling a couple of years back. But when she first sees Ethan, he is in an SUV being orally serviced by a girl who turns out to be a drug-addicted friend of his girlfriend. If that's not bad enough, Annie soon stumbles into a friendship with queen bee, rich girl Naomi Clark (AnnaLynne McCord of "Nip/Tuck"), who, surprise, happens to be Ethan's girlfriend. Annie also finds herself the subject of a vicious blog attack by Erin Silver (Jessica Stroup of "Reaper"), who goes by Silver and, we soon learn, is the half-sister of Kelly Taylor, as the offspring of her mother and David Silver's father, Mel, all characters from the original series. Annie's crime was allowing Naomi, Silver's arch enemy, to drag her away from their conversation.
Meanwhile, Dixon tries out for the lacrosse team, and when he takes the spot in the starting lineup of pretty boy Steve (Chuck Hittinger), the guy slashes him with his stick, leading to a fight. Ethan, covering for his teammate, initially lies and says Dixon started the fight, leaving the too-cool-for-school English teacher/lacrosse coach Ryan Matthews (Ryan Eggold of "Dirt") with no choice but to boot Dixon off of the team.
The adults have their own issues, too. Tabitha isn't interested in giving up her "iced tea" (of the Long Island variety) or her desire to drive, which is a bad combination. She also makes no effort to hide her dislike of Debbie. But Debbie has bigger fish to fry once Harry's high school girlfriend Tracy (Christina Moore, the replacement Laurie on "That 70s Show") starts hanging around him (after she asks Harry to drive her home, Debbie offers to drive him instead, saying, "We can swap stories about Harry's penis," to which a defeated Tracy replies, "I have enough of them"). The reason, we find out, is that Harry fathered Tracy's child in high school, who she then put up for adoption. And since this is a soap, Tracy is Naomi's mother, so Harry and Tracy have to interact at school when Naomi fails to complete her English paper (she's too busy preparing for her party, an excuse her father can't believe the teacher won't accept).
If you think this is a lot of plot for a one-hour drama, it is. And yet executive producers Jeff Judah and Gabe Sachs (writers on Judd Apatow's classic "Freaks and Geeks") manage to cram a whole lot of the original "90210" into the new version. In addition to Erin Silver, there are passing references that fans of the 1990s incarnation are sure to catch (like a glimpse of Hannah Zuckerman-Vazquez, the offspring of Andrea Zuckerman and Jesse Vazquez, and how Annie and Dixon's rooms are connected by a Jack-and-Jill bathroom, just like Brenda and Brandon's rooms back in the day). But even more prominent is the presence of Kelly Taylor (Jennie Garth), now a single mother and guidance counselor at West Beverly High, who is being courted by fellow teacher Ryan, and Brenda Walsh (Shannen Doherty), visiting for a month to do a play in Los Angeles. Joe E. Tata also returns as Nat, owner of the hangout the Peach Pit, which is now a hip cappuccino place rather than the old-fashioned diner Kelly, Brenda, Brandon and the gang used to frequent.
It was a smart move to rope in the older generation with the characters from the original series, but their story lines, at least as of now, seem almost jammed in, separate and disconnected from the new generation's goings on. (Quick check-ins between Kelly and Silver aren't enough to bridge the gap.) And observing how time has been quite unkind to some of the original actors, especially Doherty, takes some of the fun out of the nostalgia factor.
But other than the collision of the two versions of the show, Judah and Sachs have made exceptional choices with their characters and stories, as well as infusing the scripts with enough smart lines to let you know that this is not the old "90210."
Annie is way more likable and relatable than Brenda ever was. (Some might call her the anti-Brenda, considering the strong dislike many fans held for Doherty's character.) Annie is smart and unassuming, but also not perfect, willing to jet to San Francisco for a first-date dinner even though she knows her mother would not approve (and does not, when her trip comes to light). Annie's will-they-won't-they relationship with Ethan is far more compelling than the Brenda-Dylan connection, mostly because Ethan isn't a cartoon like Dylan was. Dixon is an interesting character too, less of a goody-goody than Brandon, but also more fun and less pompous. There are some interesting elements to explore with the relationship with his family.
In fact, all of the actors in "90210" are infinitely more low-key and less angsty than their colleagues from the 1990s. From Luke Perry's James-Dean-on-Valium moves as Dylan, to the hysterics of Doherty, Garth and Tori Spelling, "subtlety" is not a term that would ever apply to the original cast. But even with over-the-top characters like Naomi, McCord, Grimes, Wilds and the others in the new "90210" don't try and do too much with the soapy material. They approach the scripts like they're real dramatic stories, a tribute to both their skill and the writing of Judah and Sachs.
Most of all, the new "90210" just feels less cartoony, and yet also more grand, than it's forerunner. The debut episode's central event was Naomi's "not so sweet 16" party, an event lavish enough to put the dog and pony shows of some of the girls featured on MTV's "My Super Sweet 16" to shame. (And, in the "90210" tradition, the band at the party was the hip Omaha indie pop outfit Tilly and the Wall, just as indie legends the Flaming Lips appeared at the Pit in the 1990s version of the show.)
I loved many of the casually tossed off lines, from a reference to Ethan that "he's the one with the spotlight shining out of his ass," to Naomi responding to Annie's declaration that she would love to attend her birthday party with, "Of course you would."
In my article two weeks ago listing the five new shows I was most looking forward to watching, I wrote that I hoped the choice of Judah and Sachs to run "90210" would mean that the network envisioned the show having more depth than the original series. It's clear that while nobody will confuse "90210" with "The Wire," it just may be a smart, fun escapist romp, closer to "Dirty Sexy Money" than, well, the original "90210."
I wrote in my top-five article that while I would watch the first episode of "90210," I couldn't promise that I'd watch the second one. Well, the CW aired the first and second installments back-to-back, and I did, in fact, watch both. I'll even watch the third one next week. Based on the ratings of the debut, which were the highest for a fiction show in the network's short history, I will be far from the only one.
McCain's Claims of "Change" in His Acceptance Speech Are New Standard for Chutzpah
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
"And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming."
"And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you."
"We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington."
- All quotes from John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican convention, September 4, 2008
There is an old story used to illustrate the meaning of the Yiddish word chutzpah (roughly translated as "nerve" or "gall"): A man kills his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
That story has had a nice reign, but I think from now on, it will be replaced by John McCain's speech last night accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency.
McCain argued that Americans should vote for him to bring change to Washington. It's a good position to take, since Americans certainly want change. But the policies and practices that Americans want to see changed are policies and practices that were supported -- and continue to be supported -- by none other than John McCain.
McCain is essentially arguing: Elect me to fix all the problems I caused. It is an argument that an engaged and educated electorate would reject out of hand as preposterous, which means that it has an excellent chance of working in a presidential election in the United States.
More than anything else, Americans want change in the economy. Unemployment is at 6.1 percent, its highest point in five years. Americans have accumulated an unprecedented amount of debt, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to a discouragingly large chasm. (Steven Hill pointed out in a Huffingtonpost.com article in 2007 that the Federal Reserve reported that the "top 10 percent of income earners in the United States now owns 70 percent of the wealth, and the wealthiest one percent owns more than the bottom 95 percent.") And the fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis has led to millions of foreclosures, among other hits to the American economy. But the real visible, hard-to-ignore symbol of the tough economy for many Americans has been the explosion of the price of gas.
While economic conditions are not completely and directly linked to the policies of the president, George W. Bush's philosophy of deregulation and giving unfettered power to corporations has not helped. One of the key factors that allowed the subprime mortgage crisis to occur was the gutting of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was passed in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929, with the primary purpose of keeping commercial banks (who concentrate on consumers) separate from investment banks (who can engage in more speculative activity). Who was responsible for knocking down this wall and ending the limitations of Glass-Steagall that had stood for more than 65 years? Former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who is the architect of McCain's economic policy (and the man who has now on two occasions called the economic setbacks "mental" and Americans "whiners" for complaining about the economy).
What about gas prices? As prices are set by a global market, there is no one cause for skyrocketing numbers, with factors ranging from increased consumption by India and China to a lack of increase in processing capacity in the U.S. partly to blame. But Republicans and Democrats alike agree that a major factor in increasing gas prices was the passage of the so-called Enron Loophole (officially known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act), which exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. In other words, speculation was brought to the gas markets. (Keith Olbermann did an in-depth, fact-heavy, flawlessly researched report on this issue, which you can watch here.)
Who was the person responsible for the Enron Loophole? Do I have to even say it: Gramm, who received major campaign contributions from Enron.
McCain's economic plan calls for maintaining the key elements of the policies of the Bush administration, namely tax cuts for the rich. (In a great clip, which you can watch here, McCain supporter Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina cannot come up with a single difference between the McCain and Bush economic plans.)
And, like Bush, McCain has thrown his lot in with the big oil companies, taking millions from them while advocating for their two pet projects: massive tax breaks for oil companies and offshore drilling.
Clearly, the big oil companies have a lot to gain in maintaining the status quo and everything to lose if energy policy changes to bring about reduced use of oil and the increased prominence of renewable sources of energy. Not surprisingly, McCain has opposed tax breaks for wind power and other renewable energies.
McCain is asking to be the agent of change to reverse our economic and energy policies, even though they are the very policies he supported, and even though his current plan calls for maintaining these very policies he says have to change. That request is the living embodiment of chutzpah.
The other issue on which voters want to see change is Iraq. In 2006, the electorate booted Republicans from control of the House and Senate, almost solely on the issue of Iraq. And both parties agree that Democrats are likely to make further gains in Congress in November. McCain was an early and avid supporter of invading Iraq, telling Americans that, "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time," and that "we will be welcomed as liberators" once Saddam Hussein is deposed. (You can see for yourself here.) McCain opposed any move to set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and he has maintained that position even though virtually everyone around him has arrived at the conclusion that such a date is necessary. The Iraqi government itself has insisted on a certain date of withdrawal, and even the Bush administration has agreed with the Iraqi government to set such a date.
McCain is at the forefront of a war that was unnecessary, made us less safe, was fought on fraudulent grounds, eroded our country's standing in the world, cost us more than 4,000 U.S. lives, adversely affected hundreds of thousands of other Americans (soldiers wounded, families burdened), and took $1 trillion from American coffers.
Again, McCain is asking to be the agent of change for a disastrous policy he virulently supported (and continues to support). Textbook chutzpah.
The bottom line is that on every key issue facing Americans, McCain is essentially arguing to continue the status quo of the Bush administration, with whom he voted 90 percent of the time. Claiming that to be change takes, say it with me, chutzpah.
So when McCain says, "And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have been part of that 'Washington crowd' for 26 years. You put oil companies (and other corporations) ahead of average Americans over and over again, voting for oil tax breaks, tax breaks for the rich and privatizing social security, but opposing the GI Bill, increased benefits for veterans, a ban on torture, health insurance for children, and a campaign finance reform law with your name on it."
And when McCain says, "And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have a record of supporting the very policies you now say you will change, including tax cuts for the rich and $1 trillion of spending in Iraq that is funded solely by borrowing, thus passing the burden to 'unluckier' generations. So you haven't shown any 'strength, experience, judgment and backbone' in addressing these issues so far."
And when McCain says, "We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, over the last eight years, we have protected our security in your way, competed in the world economy on your terms, responded to disasters with an incompetent government you backed and to which you did not stand up, fueled our transportation network via the oil companies that you unfailingly supported to the detriment of our country's future, failed to provide training to our workers under your watch, educated our children under a federal policy you were in favor of, and did business in Washington in a manner you were an integral part of. So how can you now put yourself forward as the person to make these changes?"
One answer: chutzpah.
Move over guy who killed his parents, there is a new embodiment of chutzpah, and his name is John McCain.
"And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming."
"And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you."
"We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington."
- All quotes from John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican convention, September 4, 2008
There is an old story used to illustrate the meaning of the Yiddish word chutzpah (roughly translated as "nerve" or "gall"): A man kills his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
That story has had a nice reign, but I think from now on, it will be replaced by John McCain's speech last night accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency.
McCain argued that Americans should vote for him to bring change to Washington. It's a good position to take, since Americans certainly want change. But the policies and practices that Americans want to see changed are policies and practices that were supported -- and continue to be supported -- by none other than John McCain.
McCain is essentially arguing: Elect me to fix all the problems I caused. It is an argument that an engaged and educated electorate would reject out of hand as preposterous, which means that it has an excellent chance of working in a presidential election in the United States.
More than anything else, Americans want change in the economy. Unemployment is at 6.1 percent, its highest point in five years. Americans have accumulated an unprecedented amount of debt, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to a discouragingly large chasm. (Steven Hill pointed out in a Huffingtonpost.com article in 2007 that the Federal Reserve reported that the "top 10 percent of income earners in the United States now owns 70 percent of the wealth, and the wealthiest one percent owns more than the bottom 95 percent.") And the fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis has led to millions of foreclosures, among other hits to the American economy. But the real visible, hard-to-ignore symbol of the tough economy for many Americans has been the explosion of the price of gas.
While economic conditions are not completely and directly linked to the policies of the president, George W. Bush's philosophy of deregulation and giving unfettered power to corporations has not helped. One of the key factors that allowed the subprime mortgage crisis to occur was the gutting of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was passed in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929, with the primary purpose of keeping commercial banks (who concentrate on consumers) separate from investment banks (who can engage in more speculative activity). Who was responsible for knocking down this wall and ending the limitations of Glass-Steagall that had stood for more than 65 years? Former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who is the architect of McCain's economic policy (and the man who has now on two occasions called the economic setbacks "mental" and Americans "whiners" for complaining about the economy).
What about gas prices? As prices are set by a global market, there is no one cause for skyrocketing numbers, with factors ranging from increased consumption by India and China to a lack of increase in processing capacity in the U.S. partly to blame. But Republicans and Democrats alike agree that a major factor in increasing gas prices was the passage of the so-called Enron Loophole (officially known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act), which exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. In other words, speculation was brought to the gas markets. (Keith Olbermann did an in-depth, fact-heavy, flawlessly researched report on this issue, which you can watch here.)
Who was the person responsible for the Enron Loophole? Do I have to even say it: Gramm, who received major campaign contributions from Enron.
McCain's economic plan calls for maintaining the key elements of the policies of the Bush administration, namely tax cuts for the rich. (In a great clip, which you can watch here, McCain supporter Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina cannot come up with a single difference between the McCain and Bush economic plans.)
And, like Bush, McCain has thrown his lot in with the big oil companies, taking millions from them while advocating for their two pet projects: massive tax breaks for oil companies and offshore drilling.
Clearly, the big oil companies have a lot to gain in maintaining the status quo and everything to lose if energy policy changes to bring about reduced use of oil and the increased prominence of renewable sources of energy. Not surprisingly, McCain has opposed tax breaks for wind power and other renewable energies.
McCain is asking to be the agent of change to reverse our economic and energy policies, even though they are the very policies he supported, and even though his current plan calls for maintaining these very policies he says have to change. That request is the living embodiment of chutzpah.
The other issue on which voters want to see change is Iraq. In 2006, the electorate booted Republicans from control of the House and Senate, almost solely on the issue of Iraq. And both parties agree that Democrats are likely to make further gains in Congress in November. McCain was an early and avid supporter of invading Iraq, telling Americans that, "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time," and that "we will be welcomed as liberators" once Saddam Hussein is deposed. (You can see for yourself here.) McCain opposed any move to set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and he has maintained that position even though virtually everyone around him has arrived at the conclusion that such a date is necessary. The Iraqi government itself has insisted on a certain date of withdrawal, and even the Bush administration has agreed with the Iraqi government to set such a date.
McCain is at the forefront of a war that was unnecessary, made us less safe, was fought on fraudulent grounds, eroded our country's standing in the world, cost us more than 4,000 U.S. lives, adversely affected hundreds of thousands of other Americans (soldiers wounded, families burdened), and took $1 trillion from American coffers.
Again, McCain is asking to be the agent of change for a disastrous policy he virulently supported (and continues to support). Textbook chutzpah.
The bottom line is that on every key issue facing Americans, McCain is essentially arguing to continue the status quo of the Bush administration, with whom he voted 90 percent of the time. Claiming that to be change takes, say it with me, chutzpah.
So when McCain says, "And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have been part of that 'Washington crowd' for 26 years. You put oil companies (and other corporations) ahead of average Americans over and over again, voting for oil tax breaks, tax breaks for the rich and privatizing social security, but opposing the GI Bill, increased benefits for veterans, a ban on torture, health insurance for children, and a campaign finance reform law with your name on it."
And when McCain says, "And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, you have a record of supporting the very policies you now say you will change, including tax cuts for the rich and $1 trillion of spending in Iraq that is funded solely by borrowing, thus passing the burden to 'unluckier' generations. So you haven't shown any 'strength, experience, judgment and backbone' in addressing these issues so far."
And when McCain says, "We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. ... We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington," I can only reply, "But Sen. McCain, over the last eight years, we have protected our security in your way, competed in the world economy on your terms, responded to disasters with an incompetent government you backed and to which you did not stand up, fueled our transportation network via the oil companies that you unfailingly supported to the detriment of our country's future, failed to provide training to our workers under your watch, educated our children under a federal policy you were in favor of, and did business in Washington in a manner you were an integral part of. So how can you now put yourself forward as the person to make these changes?"
One answer: chutzpah.
Move over guy who killed his parents, there is a new embodiment of chutzpah, and his name is John McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
