Videos Show Contrasting Views of the World

From a GOP lawmaker, Sen. Mike Lee, and from a Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we have recent viral videos that display sharply different views on the key challenge of our time—the looming ecological disaster that is climate change:

;

Is it real? Are you real? Details matter a lot, but yes, the answer has been clear for a long time.

I don’t know if the Green New Deal is the complete, correct answer to this problem, but the contrasting views seen here help clarify that at least Ocasio-Cortez is dealing with real problems in the real world. Whether her answers are politically feasible is a fair question, but whether there is a problem that requires New Deal-like focus is clearly a question that: “yes.”

As she says, we’ve known about climate change as a fact for her entire life. I recall as an undergraduate student (I earned my BA in 1982) that it was an issue already being kicked around in academia. Many on the right have spent years quibbling and raising objections, while the science has become clearer with each passing year.

I’m not a scientist, and thus I’m not the best person to judge this—but in a democracy, where a self-governing people are required to make reasoned judgments, it’s important to know who we should trust on which questions.

And looking at these two videos, the stark contrast is clear. One person  makes simplistic, mocking, often obviously untrue points. I don’t find babies to be a problem—I’m a fan of human reproduction—but to suggest “American babies” are the solution to climate change in the way Sen. Lee does is embarrassing. It’s an odd, nationalist argument.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, is entirely rational and on target in her rant. The looming environmental and climate change crisis that all humans face is not a partisan issue, it’s a global issue, and those babies Sen. Lee wants us to have? We need us to urgently act to ensure a decent future for them—as well as for all of the non-American babies that he so awfully traduces.

I don’t mean this an unqualified, ringing endorsement of the Green New Deal in all its particulars. But the idea of a Green New Deal is one that we—young and old, Democrat and Republican and Independent and Socialist and Capitalists and Catholics and Muslims and Buddhists, etc.—need to rally around and make central to the 2020 campaign.

And again, looking at the videos: Voters, who can you trust?

She may be young, but Alexandria is 29, not 15. And she’s right. We should examine her plan and adjust it as needed to make it practical—but simply rejecting the Green New Deal for trivial reasons  is not the way forward.

It’s not a partisan issue. Shame on the Mike Lees of the world for trivializing it.

And thank you, Rep. Asacio-Corez, for being such a breath of fresh air, even if that air is expelled in anger and frustration. Keep at it, young lady. This old white guy is cheering you on and ready to support the ideal of a Green New Deal.

You Should Go See Apollo 11

On Friday night last week, my wife and I attended a documentary film at the Collins Road Theatre in Marion—the film “Apollo 11.”

This year is the 50th anniversary of that mission, and it was exhilarating to watch the spectacular footage NASA had a movie company film at the time. There was no narration—just recordings from 1969, plus a few simple animations to explain the plot.

It’s a fantastic film. It’s a reminder of what we can accomplish when we believe in science and commit ourselves to a common goal.



I found the music at times heavy handed, but the film tells a powerful, true story in a simple, straightforward way. The tension it creates was all real.

Of course it took me back to my youth, laying on the carpet in the living room on Seventh Avenue South in Clinton, watching this marvel unfold in real time on a small black-and-white TV screen.

This movie is different—lush, real color. It helps us see that 50 years is not that long a time, that we are not that far removed from our first footprints on the moon.

Even if you don’t recall that “one small step for man,” I think you would enjoy this film. I don’t know how much longer it will be here, and it’s not in that many theaters, so come on down, as soon as you can.

This is one true film that you don’t want to miss.

Vox did a pretty good job of explaining the moon mission in this short video, but go see the longer documentary in the theater.

Music: How it Touches Our Lives

Students in my intro to media class are writing what, for me, is always my favorite reflection paper of the semester: They each will pick two songs and dissect what those songs mean to them. I like it, because I learn more about my students and more about music.

For example, several students have used country songs. I am not a country fan, but I appreciate that genre more, knowing how it can impact their lives. So I’m going to do the assignment first, although I’ll cover more than two songs.

First, some background—we know that Pop Music is, well, popular, but also rather simple. In class, we enjoyed (at least I enjoyed) this famous video by the Axis of Awesome that plays with that idea:

;

So, music does not have to be complex to be popular—and Pop Music is a commodity that is processed and sold. Still, music does have meaning, I think.

The music world suffered a loss when Top Petty died on Oct. 2, 2017. He was not my favorite musical act (my enduring favs are the fab four), but I enjoyed many of his songs. And many have been covered, which says something about a musician’s impact. And in the wake of this death, Miley Cyrus and her dad performed a very poignant cover of “Wildflowers,” a song that today will bring almost any Petty fan to tears:

;

Lemony Snickett wrote “that which is too stupid to be said is sung,” which I suppose has some truth—but music touches us with “large” emotions that aren’t easily reduced just to words, which is what I think Miley manages on that cover.

In Class, I played the Distrubed cover of “The Sounds of Silence,” showing that a song from my youth can be remade for today’s generations:

;

That is a song by Paul Simon most popularly performed by Simon & Garfunkel. They weren’t every person’s cup of tea—some rock fans of that era almost made a point of hating S&G in the way that Celine Dion is today both loved and not loved—but I had an older sister who loved that duo, and I inherited an appreciation of them from her. Two of my favorites are “America” and “Only Living Boy in New York”:

;
;

The songs are very much of that early 1970s time and place, a longing for a better world as the idealism of the hippie movement fell away. I can’t explain the mix of nostalgia and emotion I feel listening to those two songs, expect to say they are key parts of the soundtrack of my youth.

We also talked about how music is controversial and things that people should and would not say end up being sung. I played them a nice, catchy song by The Regrettes, which drops the F bomb repeatedly, and asked if they could summarize the message, and if they were offended by the lyrics. They weren’t offended, and several students dropped the F bomb in discussing the message—which goes, I suppose, to show that media does have an impact on behavior and norms that we don’t always understand. Student typically don’t drop F bombs in my classes, for the record.

;

We also touched on music’s role as providing the anthems of political movements. And I played them a current song, which, as Iowa lawmakers are contemplating a bill clearly aimed at depressing the vote of young adults, I hope that they will take to heart:

;

Speaking of politics, we didn’t even get to “Zombie” by The Cranberries—a song I’ve always enjoyed, and that I like the message of. It’s an anti-violence song set in the background of the troubles in Ireland, but certainly can apply to today, and I particularly am touched by the second version, a cover by a Canadian community choir:

;
;

I have not explored any two of these songs in depth, students, which you will do—but I think you can see it’s easy to connect your music to larger themes, which would be easy to expand upon, which is what I hope you do in your papers. There is so much more I could do on this post—I didn’t use any Lake Street Dive songs, for example, nor any by Tessa Violet. Nor did I touch on parody, satire or Randy Rainbow. Maybe I’ll have to do more posts.

Anyway, in parting, most couples have “that song,” and for my wife and I, it was Bette Midler singing “The Rose.” I also like this version, a more contemporary performance by the woman who wrote the song:

;

The Enduring Power of Books

List made in class of books I and students thought had an impact on our lives. I think all date from when we were young--I read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" when I was maybe 12 or so.

This week in my Understanding Media class at Mount Mercy University, we’re discussing the enduring influence of books.

The class will look at the cultural impact of different mass media, and we start with oldest fixed medium. It’s arguably not the oldest of all media—cave paintings certainly have a few years on tomes, and what became written literature open existed as epic oral tales or poems. But books are an ancient medium, and one that is at the root of culture.

Empty shelves in Busse Library. Books are being moved around.

Many of our stories in other media are derived from novels or nonfiction books, and even comic books.

I argue to students that the reality is every communication career involves serious, professional writing—and all writers first have to be readers. Of course, you don’t have to regularly consume books to be a “reader,” but I think it makes a huge difference. A student who voluntarily wades through the longer form narrative that a book represents has to exert themselves in logical, linear thought. They stretch their minds, acquire more words and learn so see the world through the mind of another human.

Other media offers some of those experiences. A video series or movie can be a transformative narrative—but books articulate longer, more nuanced narratives and thought. They, books, exercise more of the imagination of the reader.

I've touched on books before on this blog--writing a post about books that meant something special  to me as I was growing up, and one a bit later on the death of Harper Lee. On my more general blog, in 2018, I wrote posts about books by John Green and Hank Green.

And here are more recent highlights of Joe’s bookish life—some of my reactions to books I’ve recently consumed:

“Dead Wake” by Erik Larson. I’m already a big Larson fan, his “Devil in the White City” may be about my favorite nonfiction book, and this book, which tells some of the stories behind the people who traveled on the Lusitania during its doomed final voyage, does not disappoint. Besides the passengers and crew of that ocean liner, the book also follows the crew of the German U-Boat whose single torpedo strike doomed so many to a watery death. I’m a sucker for well-told history, and Larson is one of our best story tellers. His world is the real one compellingly recreated—there are not many heroes or villains here, just people caught in the great web of history and chance.

“The Reckoning” by John Grisham. I’ve read a lot of Grisham books—and do recommend them—but to be honest, they sometimes leave me with mixed feelings. The sucker punch at the end of this book left me feeling a bit down, and I found, as I often do in Grisham novels, that I don’t seem to feel enough empathy for these characters. Still, it’s an interesting story that moves a bit slowly at first, but it does maneuver its characters into a Shakespearean tragedy. It’s not my favorite of the recent books I’ve read, but still one I recommend.

“The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure” by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff. I am halfway through this book, and both interested and put off by it, in almost equal measure. It’s a provocative book, and while it makes many valid points, it also oversells some poor ideas. The authors insist, for example, that the “intention” of the senders is a key point when some verbal attack on a protected group is alleged—but, no. On the other hand, whether an expression is offensive is supposed to be given a “reasonable person” test, not a “sensitive person” test, and here is where many of the examples the authors cite go astray. I’m halfway through this book, and interested to read what the second half brings. I feel compelled to keep going despite qualms about these authors’ ideas—partly because I think reading an interesting nonfiction book that you disagree with is a healthy mental exercise. I think I would agree with the authors on one of their key ideas—a university should be a place where diverse ideas can be aired, and diversity of ideas is not always encouraged on American campuses. It remains to be seen what I’m thinking of this book after the second half.

As is often the case during a semester, my “to read” cue is a bit stacked up right now. Here are books I have on hand and plan to read—the "Toxin" one is another faculty reading selection, so it’s not a book I personally chose, but the others are. And the Storm Lake text was a Valentine’s Day gift from my sweetie, so it’s extra special. My current reading cue:

The Clashes of Cultures: Joni and the Smirk Boy

It’s not easy being a man in 2019. Then again, it’s certainly not easy being a woman in 2019. Heck, as a species, we all have our struggles.

And yet, when we imagine the hobgoblins and dangers in the woods that face us, it’s abundantly clear that the Big Bad Wolf isn’t our nemesis. Watch out for Red Riding Hood. As Pogo would put it, we have met the enemy and they are us. And if it’s hard to be a woman or man, it’s much harder to be a teen.

I was thinking this week about media and our knee-jerk reactions to the news based on two touchy recent stories:

• Kentucky high school students wearing MAGA hats face off with Native American Indian elder.
• Iowa junior Sen. Joni Ernst alleges she was abused by her former husband.

The second story took me back to my graduate school days. I earned my master’s degree in 1990 from the University of Missouri-Columbia (go Tigers!). It took several years—I was employed while working on the degree, had an employed spouse who was also in graduate school, and we were parents of five young children.

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst talks with the Des Moines Register editorial board in 2018--about 4 years late. She didn't speak wit the board in 2014 when running for Senate, which was a terrible thing to do. Des Moines Register image by Rodney White. Downloaded from Desmoinesregister.com.

Anyway, I recall one copy editing class I was in during the late 1980s. We met for classroom discussion about once a week, and the rest of the class consisted of copy editing at the Columbia Missourian. While I was in that class, the mayor of Columbia filed for a divorce—and the local media’s reaction caused a bit of a dust up.

The Columbia Tribune had not given the story much play. The Columbia Missourian, published by the journalism school, in contrast had reported it as front-page news.

And in the copy-editing class, the good liberal future journalists were all on the Tribune’s side. It was easy, at the time, to say that the liberal perspective was that personal sexual and marital behavior was a private matter, not fit for public consumption. I was the lone dissenter among students—and luckily, as it turned out, the professor was partly on my side. I pointed out that seeking a divorce means filing a lawsuit with a court asking for a change in your legal status—it’s not an inherently private act, in fact, it is inherently a public act. To not report the divorce was to ignore a public act by arguably the most prominent local person.

The professor agreed with my point but still thought the morning paper had over-played the story. And, frankly, I would not disagree with that, either—my point was the story deserved to be covered. Whether it should have been on page 1 is another issue.

Anyway, City View, an alternative newspaper in Des Moines, reported earlier this week on new information from court papers filed by Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa. Her husband had filed for divorce months before, and the settlement was finalized earlier this month. The paper got hold of court documents in which Sen. Ernst alleges her husband was physically abusive to her.

And after that became public, Sen. Ernst further disclosed that she was raped while in college.

Well—what are news outlets to do? The court papers that the newspaper uncovered were quickly sealed, and Sen. Ernst said she thought they were private in the first place.

I can’t fault the paper, nor other outlets, for reporting the story. But I also want it to fade quickly. Not because abuse in marriages or rape are issues that should fade quickly—but because I don’t want Joni Ernst to unduly suffer. While a divorce is a public act, I would rather that the light of public attention be shed elsewhere than on details of what went on in a sexual assault victim’s life or in the life of an allegedly abused spouse.

Sen. Ernst could do some good in the future by talking about these issues publicly—but I think that should be entirely her choice. And yes, I know there is a husband involved in the divorce, but the allegations he has made against her are not at the same level.

Gail Ernst and Joni Ernst during her successful campaign for U.S. Senate in 2014. Image for The Gazette by Stephen Maily, downloaded from thegazette.com 

I’m not a political fan of Joni Ernst. She is allied with a president I loathe and is a leader in a party that has long lost its way as the voice that seeks to conserve what is best in our culture and democratic republic (that, to me, is what a “conservative” ought to be). But on her divorce and rape, I’ll give her a pass. What happened to her in college, what she experienced in her marriage—I’m willing to turn the other way. Parts may leak into the news—a divorce is not a private act and she herself disclosed the rape—but I hope we as an audience can give her some space.

As to the second story, no, I am not going to take time to view all the recordings and come to a conclusion about who the heroes and villains are. What is clear is that the story is not clear—the MAGA-hat wearing Catholic students behaved badly, as did a crazy group of black “Isrealites.” Beating a drum and chanting and walking into the student crowd may be viewed as peaceful prayer, but it would give me pause if I were there.

But I will weigh in on some aspects of the story. Most of all, it illustrates our unfortunate tendency now to make instant snap judgements based on initial social media posts. A few years ago, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show correctly criticized the Obama administration for firing Shirley Sherrod, an African-American USDA official falsely accused of racism via a doctored video released by a right-wing web site. As Stewart noted in 2010, the then secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack—former governor of Iowa—jumped to a conclusion before the facts were in.

National Park Service image. Near Abe, some bad behavior.

Also, I am curious about the thinking of the chaperones. Why allow a high school group to don politically provocative garb on the National Mall and react with “school chants” when provoked? I think part of the dynamic was the Covington Catholic High School students were in town for a political protest—the March for Life had taken place the day before. But they weren’t at the mall for a protest, and they did not react well when provoked.

But there are so many “on the other hands” here. On the other hand, the National Mall is an appropriate venue for political expression.

On another other hand, MAGA hats are provocative symbols. The wearing of those hats may have initiated the unfortunate chain of events—the students were heckled by an odd African American splinter group, and I’m sure the red MAGA garb was a bit like, well, a red flashing light.

On the other hand, the Native American elder who approached was trying to pray and chant and interject himself to tone down the situation. On the other hand, what are teens supposed to think when a drum beating, chanting man walk up to and through their group? On the other hand, standing in his way and smirking at him does mean you owe him an apology, and your parents ought to be adult enough to clearly give you that message.

On the other hand—so many other hands. There is a lot that bothers me about this whole thing, including that it too uncomfortably fits into a long-term pattern of white people so easily dismissing and disrespecting brown indigenous people. But mostly that we’ve so quickly joined sides.

Are you on team MAGA or team Native American? I have more respect for the Native American elder and little patience with smirking MAGA boy, but bottom line: Team neither.

There was noise and fuss on the National Mall. Several people behaved badly. But I would like to let it go. Attacking the school or Catholic education or whatever—we are keeping the knee jerk reaction alive. I don’t want Smirk Boy to be on national TV or to be held up by a dysfunction and delusional president as some short of MAGA hero.

But please, let’s hesitate, at least a little, before we trash a teen. Those of us on the left grow extremely angry when the right wing attacks the Parkland survivors as “crisis actors.” I know that this isn’t an analogous situation—the Convington kids were behaving badly and the Parkland kids were not—but there is at least this: Let’s hesitate. There are kids involved.

I teach young adults at a university. Now and then, one of them does something awful or says something hateful or whatever.

If it’s a crime, there must be consequences. But if it’s a young jerk being a young jerk—well, I have learned over the years that today’s freshman becomes tomorrow’s senior, and the few years that pass in the blink of an eye to me are enormously filled with change and growth in their lives. If a student flunks your class in fall and takes another of your classes in spring, you have to let them have a clean slate. You have to allow for the possibility that something good may have happened in their life over Christmas break—maybe their heart, like the Grinch’s, grew three sizes. It’s doesn’t usually or always happen, but I’ve seen it often enough to know that it can happen.

At their age, for better or worse, they can be a different person tomorrow. I suppose that’s true of us all, but it’s truer of teens and young adults.

So let’s let it go and try to let them grow. They may become MAGA monsters, but they may not. I hope that they get better guidance from adults than it appears they have been getting lately—but I doubt my blog or any social media or resulting media attention will contribute much to that.

Trump Gives Low-Energy Stump Speech

Screen shot of Trump during speech, from CNN video on YouTube.

Democrats respond, blew all their budget on flags rather than podiums.

If I were an executive of an American broadcast network, I probably would have made the same decision. When the president of the United States asks for air time to address the country, it’s difficult to say no.

But, given President Trump's odd and lackluster performance Tuesday night, I’m not sure I would be so quick the next time. In his first presidential address from the Oval Office, President Trump proved that he was fibbing on the campaign trail when he claimed it was easy to act presidential. As a speaker, he was gratingly bad—dull and unengaged. As a professor who teaches a speech class, he violated the basic rule that I tell my students about every speech.

If you’re not excited by what you’re trying to share with the audience, if your demeanor and behavior doesn’t show that you care about your own material, nobody else will care either.



I’m not even going to rehash the dismal and depressing content of what Trump had to state, because he wasted our time. He said nothing new—simply engaged in the same fear mongering he started when he ran for president. Sadly, fear mongering can be pretty effective, as Trump on the campaign trail used to rile his rallies up with and get them to chant “build the wall.”

As a performer, however, Trump appears to require an adoring crowd. In his office using a script, he speaks without energy and passion. He is the Trump robot, stating the lines in a static, dull way, sniffing excessively between them.

I suppose the advantage of having this president read a speech is that when he is unscripted, he is also ungrammatical and difficult to follow.

Then again, the Democratic response was not exactly great oratory, either. The Chuck and Nancy show is the best that the opposition can muster? Try harder, Dems.



But in the history of times Presidents have seen the need to preempt programming in order to share an important message, Trump's performance matches much of the rest of his presidency.

It sets a new low.

And the government remains closed over a manufactured crisis. I am tired of all the winning. So, it seems, is the old grumpy man in the White House.

The TV Don Who Stole Christmas

Starting with the SNL cold open Dec. 15: “It’s a Wonderful Trump,” there have been several examples this week of how tied to TV our president is.

I don’t know exactly which dig touched Donald’s not-funny bone: Maybe it was imaging Melania divorced and speaking perfect English because Trump had been holding back her language skills. Or the repeated “Everyone is better off without me being president.”

Whatever it was, the president was pissed. And he threatened legal action in a post-SNL tweet:

It was a ridiculous tweet, but let’s not so easily let go of the fact that Trump thinks he should have some legal recourse for this SNL segment, and also sees some vast conspiracy, tying an NBC comedy show to news coverage.

Was the SNL bit harsh? Sure. Was it illegal? Hell, no. Not even close. The whole bit was so over the top nobody would this in was asserting actual facts. And even if the criticism of the president was over-the-top, it was totally fair. Americans get to be critical of their leaders—as Donald was of President Obama not that long ago.

And, honestly, I didn’t find any of the criticism to be all that extreme. Ever since his party lost control of the House, President Trump’s administration seems to be lurching, leaderless and falling apart. We seem to be entering a new a sinister time.

And the president’s relationship with TV is a huge part of the problem. Not one week after his odd, inappropriate and, frankly, un-American reaction to the SNL skit, Trump was at it again in a more serious way.

At the end of the week, the House and Senate passed temporary funding bills. The President spent the week sending mixed messages about whether he might sign the bill, based on whether money for his favorite bad idea—the Trump Tolerance Monument known as The Wall—was included.

It looked on Thursday like he would accept it. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that Mexico was going to fund the TTM, was it? But then, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh intervened.

And Trump blinked, decided to go ahead with a shutdown. Colbert sums up the flip flop:



What is the end game? I don’t know, but I am not filled with confidence. The adult rats are all busily scurrying from the Trump Titanic presidency—and, meanwhile, President Trump is taking his cues and advice from “Fox and Friends.”

Republicans in the Senate, especially from Iowa—do you not see this? Ernst, Grassley, is this presidential leadership?

We’ve hit a wall here. And it’s a wall partly built on an odd, inconsistent president who is easily manipulated by the boob tube: President TV Trump.