YouTube Goes Political

Last week, the Cable News Network tried to forcefully create an historic event … or at least newsworthy moment by teaming up with Youtube in sponsoring and producing a televised conversation between the dirty dozen Democratic Presidential candidates, and the nation.

Me being the political junkie that I am, I obviously loved it loved it loved it loved it.

But why … and where did it fall short, go long, hit on all cylinders, and just plain miss the boat?

Well, the staples are finally out of my leg, my cast is off—and even though I can’t walk on my own power quite yet, I’ve got time to ask and answer some of those questions, AND get YOUR replies.

Here goes.

First—the good:

1. As we have all known for ages now, the American people ask MUCH better questions than pundits. Turns out, if you let them self-edit on webcams in their living rooms, rather than standing them up at a town hall meeting, that wit/intellect/savvy shines through. Also turns out that if you bring them in the studio live to ask a follow-up, they’re bumbling idiots again.

Even if nothing else survives this little experiment, I really hope the idea of pre-producing questions blazes into the future. I’m a political JUNKIE, I watch and listen to C-Span’s Washington Journal EVERY morning, BUT … the “does that hurt ya’ll’s feelings guys, heavy metallic distortion vaguely shouting out a concern with “no child left behind,” and two dykes that I’m glad found each other were MUCH more entertaining and prescient questioners than any of the modern day news anchor/centerfolds would’ve been. They were less obtuse, less likely to ass kiss, and much more precise and specific than the usual suspects/journalists who typically get to ask the questions would’ve been. This is the first time I can honestly say I noticed it, but one of the reasons Politicians always parrot the same answers every time they open their mouths, is because the journalists always ask them the same questions, posed the exact same way. It’s an incestuous little play, and it was good to see the public stripping and grinding for a change.

2. Another high point in this particular debate was the press—represented in the moment by pretty boy and Vanderbilt heir Anderson Cooper. This debate actually reminded me of WHY the press is important and what we should be doing. That role isn’t to ASK the question, its to make sure it gets ANSWERED. Off camera, they also did a good job, I thought, of selecting and organizing the questions. I don’t mind that part of their involvement.

I don’t want to see the press completely shut out of the debate. I think it’s wise to have some sort of buffer between the potential next Leader of the Free World and the unwashed masses. I’m only somewhat joking. Can you imagine Mr. “Are you gonna protect my baby” actually standing on stage? I thought not.

3. This format actually made all of the candidates look human.

No, really. The world is made up of the superhuman, the normal, and the peculiar. Every group has all three, so it stands to reason that if you stand 10 or 11 millionaire President wannabes on a stage somewhere, all three categories are going to be represented. One thing the more traditional “debate” formats don’t do well, is help us figure out which is which. This one did a MUCH better job. Its not that we don’t already sorta know the answers, BUT … knowing is only half the battle. Seeing how a candidate responds to both the bright lights, AND the unadulterated American people simultaneously gets to be pretty close to the whole enchilada.

THE BAD:

1. Is there some REASON all the candidates can’t answer all the questions?

This one started to bug me as I was watching the debate live, now that I’ve had a week or so to think it over, it REALLY bugs me. OK, it would take a long time. There were forty or so questions, and a bunch of candidates. SO WHAT??? CNN is a 24-hour news network. The ONLY thing coming on after the debate … was a 14 hour stretch of analysis and recap about … THE DEBATE. Does this strike anyone else as weird? CNN, as a rule, doesn’t get very high ratings. Of course, very FEW cable channels get great ratings. Do you believe that Nancy Grace or another episode of Larry King live would actually generate MORE interest than an extra hour or two of the candidates answering questions from the American people? I’d rather see them

2. If they’re not ALL going to answer every question, one thing the press SHOULDN’T do is decide which ONE is going to answer the inquiry on the table.

If I had a complaint about Anderson as the host … actually, let me take a moment to say I think Mr. Cooper did a VERY good job. I realize I haven’t said that yet, and it deserves to be said. He’s not my favorite journalist, but I respect the path he’s followed to get to where he is. He’s a rich kid I actually admire. And in THIS event, he was the right mix of hip and serious to make it a worthwhile venture. But getting back to my complaint … he did what I think journalists should stop doing—following the political script. When a question came up that wasn’t directed at a specific candidate, he always seemed to default to the obvious answer. Hell, I KNOW Kucinich is the one who’s going to say he’s going to raise revenues by canceling President Bush’s tax cuts … I’d rather know if HE would meet with Castro et al. I know Hillary’s position on health care, I’d rather hear about her thoughts on whether a cheater should get to stay in office. You get the idea…

The last thing is just a suggestion, actually. It was neither good nor bad … but it could’ve been better—the actual set.

If you’re going to watch youtube … you should be sitting on a couch, or in this case couches. A living room set with a giant plasma tv that all the candidates could watch would’ve seemed a lot more natural. It also would’ve allowed room for another sponsor, since Apple could’ve finally shown off its TV application … since NOBODY seems to have any idea what you’re actually supposed to use it for, except stuff like this. It also would’ve sparked more give and take, although that might’ve been against what CNN was shooting for, in retrospect.

My favorite question was when the minister tied Mr. Edwards in knots about religion and same-sex marriage. Being a guy who appreciates a bit of nuance with my answers and my coffee, his response makes a LOT of sense to me, although I’m pretty sure that all by itself it could knock him out of contention in at least two or three states.

The questioner who asked the question about meeting the wacko foreign leaders is a genius. As a professional journalist and questioner, his question all by itself was positioned perfectly enough to kick off the first real war between Hill and Barack. Priceless.

Anyhow, there ya go, Sneaky. My thoughts on the debate. I’ve been kinda laid up with this stupid Achilles surgery, so my blogging has been a bit … erratic at best. I’m still alive, still appreciate the notes and e-mails.

Can’t wait until the Republicans do the Youtube thing. THAT should be even better.

Peace,

--Stew.

Strange Fruit

Some months ago, I blogged about the Michael Richards "nigger" incident. And then a couple of days ago, I read a fascinating blog by one of my Yahoo 360 friends (well, sorta. she dumped me but I still adore her and her writing...) Nita.

You can click on the link to THIS blog to read her insightful thoughts and provoking question.

The topic was the appropriateness of offensive humor, and what the rules are and should be for a performer on stage.

I contended in comments to her blog that funny is the most important thing for a comic.

Those comments and this topic have stayed with me for a few days now, and they deserve more context.

I'd like to try to talk a bit about it here.

First, a moment of historical relevance. I invite you to watch the following youtube clip in its entirety.




The singer is Billie Holiday. The song is her (in)famous Strange Fruit.

Here are the lyrics, as written by Abel Meeropol (a.k.a. Lewis Allan)

"

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

"

The question on my buddy Nita's table at the time was:

Should we support racist comments from a comedian, JUST because they are doing comedy? Isn't racism racism, no matter where it shows up?

Being the radical, race-conscious man that I am, it could easily surprise you to hear me say that in some cases ... Yes, we should.

I didn't see the particular clip she was referring to at the time, but I've watched enough comedy to know that it absolutely DRIPS with content that would be considered inappropriate at any other time or place.

I won't defend the comedian SHE was watching, because I don't know if, among other things, the bit was even funny or thought-provoking.

But there's an important distinction between a conversation involving two random people on the street, and a person performing on a stage.

Namely, audience.

In society, art is always the vanguard of social change. Artists use their various crafts to say things that society isn't ready to say or hear yet. It's true of comedians, painters, playwrights, comics, dancers, filmmakers, authors, cartoonists, preachers ... and singers.

And it is their access to an audience that makes the difference.

Which brings us back to Billie Holiday, 1939.

She was 24 when she stood on stage at New York's Cafe Society; the Big Apple's only integrated club outside Harlem. She was afraid, and rightly so, because America was still in the part of our shared history where lynching was as American as football is today.

Afraid, she sang the song anyway.

And over time, the song changed the conversation years before the Congress was ready to put legislative pen to paper.

And it WAS a real problem.

Between 1882 and 1968, there were 4,742 reports of lynchings in the United States. More were undocumented.

Billie wasn't just "whistling Dixie."

It is literally impossible today to tell an honest history of the practice without mentioning the impact of the song "Strange Fruit."

The song was both protest, and ART ... at its very finest.

Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Billie Holiday, Alvin Hailey ... there is an IMPRESSIVE list of artists whose controversial works changed the game.

Which ISN'T to say that every political piece of art is worth the time you spend experiencing it. Some, perhaps even most ... is absolute garbage.

But the first amendment is unique not for the obviously useful and agreeable "speech" it protects. It is special for the tightrope walking, offensive, questionable, maddening, over-the-line, pornographic, religion-bashing, homophobic, racist, sexist, outright STUPID ideas it allows the moron to SLAM down on the table to be confronted by the group as a whole.

America at its best, ridicules these ideas off the front page and banishes their Creators to the corner of obscurity.

This is the beauty of free-market capitalism. If there's no market for your ideas, or our higher passions win the day, you AND your dumb-assed idea will disappear from thought, view, and consciousness.

We need to hear Richard Pryor say "nigger," and put it in a place where the power of the word can be challenged, and debated, and properly addressed.

And if we have to put up with dumbass Michael Richards saying it too, so be it.

We need the Boondocks, and South Park, and if having comedians who don't "get" it" is the price ... we should pay it.

We need The March on Washington, and if protecting the Klan's rally to keep it gives us indigestion, we should swallow our Pepto, turn our backs, and do our very best to protect those idiots, too.

In my humble opinion, OUR obligation when confronted with material we find useless or not worth discussion ... is to BOO!! HISS!!! HECKLE!!! RIDICULE!!! DEMAND OUR MONEY BACK!!!

Artists don't like that.

But it allows them to space WE need to protect the occasional genius who has a message and a megaphone we need to hear.

I am grateful that the first person applauded "Strange Fruit."

Peace,

--Stew.

References used for this blog:

http://obama.senate.gov/news/050614-us_senate_apologizes_for_not_e/
http://www.ladyday.net/stuf/vfsept98.html


Photo:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aap/photo06.jpg

Little Black Boys

Having been a little black boy, I somehow always thought it'd be second nature to understand one entrusted to my care.

I was wrong.

The little black boy in the picture is Mercer, my son.

Until now, I've made a point of keeping him out of the spotlight. Welcome to life as the son of a journalist/blogger, son.

Let's start with a few obvious truths that need to be on the table.

I am absolutely in love with my little boy. I adore many things about him; the way he thinks and forces me to join him, the way he learns new things and tries immediately to apply them, the way he reminds me of myself in his actions and idiosyncrasies, and the way I can comprehend some of what's happening in his mind without him having to say a word--a byproduct of his having my DNA swimming through his every molecule.

But there is a part of him that hearkens Mr. Gibran's words to my frontal lobe:

"Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts.

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you."


There are aspects of this particular little black boy that completely and utterly confound me. Primarily they are related to his startling ability and willingness to sniff out uncertainty, fear, or indecisiveness.

He views these as flaws to be ruthlessly and mercilessly punished with an explosive rage that catches most people completely off guard, and causes him to be endlessly punished in return. At five years old, he's been suspended, expelled, grounded, time-outed to to futility, and even spanked.

The trouble is that I've never witnessed the bad behavior.

With Dad, he's a polite, curious, energetic, completely likable four-year old.

Which isn't to say that I disbelieve the growing cadre of teachers, counselors, and relatives who've found themselves on his bad side.

It's hard to doubt the 19 year old day camp counselor who lasted less than a morning before making the frantic call to have my little black boy picked up. Harder still when confronted with her armful of scratches and bruises that my four-year old admits causing.

Its hard to question the veteran Kindergarten teacher who insists that his disruptive behavior makes it impossible to teach the rest of a class, and wants to make notes on his "permanent record." As if anything that a four-year old does should be considered eternal.

And it would be hardest to question his mother--who is at wits end with coming up on the short stick of his blowups.

In keeping with my tradition of not pretending to be the good guy, I admit to a host of mistakes and imperfections with respect to how I've handled the situation.

I've been far from perfect.

I'm part of that 75% crowd in my generation. We who have children out of wedlock to varying degrees of disaster.

While I'm not as convinced as some that marriage is the ideal solution to every (or even most) problems ... I don't have a better idea ready to put on the table.

I'm also not willing to get married just for its own (or HIS) sake.

I AM willing to apply my best fatherhood efforts to the problem. I'm not absent, I pay my ridiculous child support payments on time, and throw as much money at the ever-present unexpecteds as I can afford.

But that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

It shows up when I start to wonder about the outcome of my little black boy's rage.

While Merc is no statistic, there are enough of those to make me concerned.

I am aware that by the numbers, the odds are significant that my little black boy is VERY likely to be arrested, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated at some point during the course of his life.

His numbers go UP when I throw other kids in the mix.

If the numbers can be believed, he is likely to be surrounded by poverty, a share of illiteracy, crime, drug abuse, and more likely to die at the hands of violence than natural causes.

And that's WITH my guidance and help.

My career, interests, and experiences have sent me to many of the places where little black boys statistically end up. When I find myself talking to these men, I'm usually left with more questions than answers.

As little black boys, did their daddies ever answer their questions about car engines?

Were there any daddies around to even hear the questions?

Did they have library cards? Make trips to the local fire station to pepper the volunteers with questions about the job? Have a conversation with a police officer where THEY got to ask the questions?

Inevitably, I'm left with more questions than answers. In a newspaper column, or sitcom, I'd have my answer in half an hour.

But this is my life.

And if I can't find the source of the rage, or a solution that allows me some modicum of comfort when I leave my little black boy in a room without me, my answer may take a bit longer to find.

Peace,

--Stew.