Journalism 101: False Equivalence

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Republicans Are Bullies With Very Thin Skins

Back in the 2004 Presidential Election, various Republicans delighted in ridiculing the Democratic candidate John Kerry.  The vicious Swift Boat campaign converted John Kerry's combat experience in Viet Nam into allegations of cowardice and lying. Starting with the 2008 Presidential election, various Republicans (now called TeaPublicans), have spent countless minutes and column inches calling Barack Obama a list of names too long to list, but including fascist, communist, socialist, Islamist, traitor, and, let's not forget, un-American and not even AN American. 

In the face of these clearly false and defamatory claims, the so-called Liberal Media has dutifully reported (and still report)  these claims and accusations as "news" with little fact-checking.  Later this week I will be detailing this journalistic technique called "equivalence," lazy and dishonest reportage that gives equal weight to "both sides" of a story when, in fact, only one side is credible and/or honest.

Now, however, we have another example of the Bully who can't take it.  Sean Duffy, the WI representative who complained that he couldn't feed his family on a Congressperson's salary, was hoist on his own petard by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)  that ran an ad highlighting Duffy's  complaint that he has to have his sushi flown in.  Poor Sean.

Duffy has his defenders, in particular the National Republican Campaign Committee that has accused the DCCC of being "childish." What gall that the same folks who have spent many years using every rhetorical device to diminish and denigrate their opponents are shocked that Democrats are allowed to play the same game.  I suggest there is one major difference between the concerted and coordinated attacks on Dems and the Dem's attempt at the same tactic:  The charges by the TeaPublicans are lies while the Dem's at least have truth on their side (they even used Duffy's own words in context).

This first lesson in "false equivalence" is simple.  When TeaPublicans accuse falsely and the Dems accuse truthfully, the so-called Liberal Media will report both cases the same way:  just the facts ma'am.  Except those facts are not equal:  one is a pack of lies and innuendo while the other is the truth.  To TeaPublicans and the media, it doesn't seem to make a difference, as long as the names are spelled correctly,

Free-Form Friday

*  Haven't been diligent this week in producing daily posts.  I am not sure if it is because, for all of the events in the news, nothing much has changed over the week.  I am glad that the Occupy [fill in the blank] story has finally moved into the so-called Liberal Media.  I am also not surprised that the media reports still seem to echo the false notion that the Occupy movement is leaderless with no specific aims made up of dope-smoking smelly hippies (or slackers).  The corollary to that frame is that the Tea Party idiots were in fact patriotic Americans driven to protest (and violent rhetoric and behaviors) by the mean Democrats in Congress and the White House). That the Occupy protests target the actual perpetrators (the Wall Street banks and pseudo-banks and their collaborators in DC) while the Tea Party agenda just coincidentally matches up with the most conservative wing of the Republican Party (aka TeaPublicans) seems inconsequential to the reporters and pundits who have jobs and other cool stuff.  One cartoon says it better than I can.

*  I have been watching some of the new television season (dramas only, I gave up on sitcoms long ago).  Two shows in particular are interesting to me: Person of Interest (CBS) and Homeland (Showtime).  Both shows are products of our post 9/11 security apparatus, but unlike  24,  the most (in)famous show to emerge in the 2000s, these shows focus on the personal impact of our increasing lack of privacy.  What I find fascinating is that both shows accept this security state as the status quo.  In one show, the "good guys" use the now ubiquitous technology of surveillance to save a single person.  In the other, a CIA analyst believes a returning POW is actually a sleeper/mole for Islamic terrorists and uses illegal  (at least unwarranted) surveillance technology to find evidence for her suspicions.  While the shows have the look and feel of  "quality television," I find both shows disturbing in their blanket acceptance of the "end justifying the means."  I wonder of George W or Darth Cheney are paid consultants.

* Tonight is the beginning of college basketball season with various schools staging opening night extravagances.  To me, these Midnight events are of marginal interest (they are for the students), but what it really means is we are on the road to March Madness and the NCAA Final Four to be played here in New Orleans.  As a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill, I have only one things to say: "Go Heels!"

When Will TeaPublicans Be Satisfied?

I just don't get it. (Actually I do get it, but this is a rhetorical gambit).  It was just a few years ago that the real frustration and anger at the Washington/Wall Street alliance for sinking our economy became palpable. Bailouts of banks and investment firms stood in stark contrast to the foreclosures and layoffs that bedeviled the average American.  A few random protests by angry voters were covered by the so-called Liberal Media.  Some of the protests referenced the Boston Tea Party and so the Tea Party "movement" became fodder for the evening news and the Faux News/CannedNN anchors and hosts.  (We will leave out of this story their unfortunate initial moniker of Teabaggers). These sounds and images looked like a true grassroots revolt against the powers elite in NY/DC. 

There were some tell-tale signs , however, that all was not what is seemed. Right-wing media personalities and politicians stepped to forefront, officially organizing rallies.  Tea Partiers were funded and transported to these rallies even though there was no real fundraising practices.  How did these folks coalesce when there was no visible leadership.  Then it slowly leaked out that various right-wing lobbying groups, Freedom Works in particular, were picking up the tab and offering logistical support.  Folks like Dick Armey and Koch Brothers were pulling the strings behind the scene, much like Wizards of Oz.  They, and their Faux News/CAnnedNN brethren, maintained the fiction of the Tea Party as a grassroots movement even long after it was clear that the Tea Partiers, although genuinely angry, were an astroturf operation:  real folks in real pain being manipulated to support the agenda of those same people who screwed them in the first place.

To this day, the people who most benefited from the Tea Party activities try to maintain the fiction that their agenda is mainstream anger, when in fact their agenda is consolidating more political and economic power in the Wall Street/DC axis, if such a thing is possible.

Here's what I don't get. The same politicians and pundits who valorized the astroturfed Tea Party protests now see great public danger from the Occupy Wall Street protests that have spread across the country. A peaceful grassroots effort to make the average citizen aware of the true perpetrators of our economic mess is being compared to violent mobs. Just a few years ago,  Tea Partiers invaded and took over town hall meetings.  Tea Partiers called for violence against their perceived "enemies."  Tea Partiers used extra-legal means to influence elections.  And the Occupy Wall Street protesters are a menace to country?  Today, law enforcement agencies have been pepper spraying and beating non-violent OWS protesters sitting in public places. Give me a break.  When will TeaPublicans be satisfied?  When the economic elites can walk to their offices safely while the rest of us keep our mouths shut and accept the crumbs from that fall from their plates.Then the average American who has been gulled by these bastards will discover who their true friends are. And they are not on Wall Street or K Street, that's for sure.

The First Amendment, Hank Williams Jr., and the World's Smallest Violin

One of the things I find both frustrating and humorous about TeaPublicans and other Dominion-obsessed wingnuts is their selective use of the U.S. Constitution.  They seem to have this very idiosyncratic view that seems to boil down to "I am a strict Constitutionalist -- except the parts I don't like or agree with."  I would add that there is also much misunderstanding and ignorance of the actual words and phrases in the document in their historical contexts.  Much of this right-wing blather about the Constitution is focused on the First and Second Amendments, but there are plenty of other examples, such as the Tenthers, who maintain that the Tenth Amendment allows states to opt out unilaterally of federal laws and regulations.

This week we had a public example of the confusion that underlies the faulty Constitutional arguments that continually flow from the mouths of these self-righteous pseudo-patriots.  Hank Williams Jr., son of the sainted Hank Williams (the famed singer and songwriter) appeared on Fox and Friends on  Fox News and made the mistake of talking. His remarks included an analogy that certainly can be understood as linking President Obama with Adolf Hitler.  Even the Fox host had to distance the show from his remarks.   As a result, ESPN has dropped his iconic theme for Monday Night Football after twenty years of service to the cause of NFL football and television profits.

So what does this have to do with my comments about Constitutional ignorance? Well, in the inevitable aftermath of Bocephus apologizing and claiming he was misunderstood, he added,

"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision," he wrote on his website. "By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech [his emphasis], so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It's been a great run." His claim of victimhood is a constant refrain from these so-called Constitutionalists who base their whining on a fundamental ignorance of, in this case, the First Amendment.

So, for Hank II and his rowdy friends, here is why you are wrong.  The First Amendment was designed to protect an individual's right to self expression in the public sphere. The Framers included freedom to worship, speak, publish, and meet in public to discuss public issues without GOVERNMENT censorship and interference. Last I heard, ESPN/Disney is a for-profit company that can schedule whatever they please (within some limited exceptions such as pornography or state secrets). The executives at ESPN decided, without government coercion, that Hank II's inane comments were damaging to the network's reputation and therefore the network's profits.
In fact, Disney was simply responding to the "free market" philosophy that the bozo wingnuts claim to revere.

Most importantly, he was given the opportunity to speak on Fox and Friends. No one stopped him from expressing his opinion.  When his words evoked a negative response from others, his employer decided to terminate their relationship. Not the FCC. Not Obama. Not Karl Marx. Not Groucho Marx. Poor old Bocephus was afforded his Constitutional right to speak and he paid the free market price.  I hear the world's smallest violin playing that age-old tune:  be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Everything You See And Hear In The Media is FAKE!

For many years, I was a professor of communication who taught, among other things, a course in media aesthetics and analysis. As an introduction to that course, I gave students a few handy phrases that summarized the points I was trying to make during the semester.  For this course, I had a few, but the most direct, and I feel most pithy, was "Everything you see and hear in the media is Fake!"  This disturb some students, those who were actually listening, and often someone would respond, "But what about the news?"  My response was simply that the news was the most fake of all.

Last week I wrote a piece called "Reality Television Is Anything But Real" that touched on this subject, but I want to delve a little deeper.  The most obvious issue is the use of the term "news." Often, news is described as information that is timely (happening now), topical (subject of contemporaneous public interest), proximate (some local connection or location).  These attributes are appropriate in order for the medium (newspaper, radio station, etc.) to serve its audience (and it's advertisers).  At least one other attribute identified in the journalism textbooks is conflict.  This is where the problems arise.

The reason that I maintain that news is fake is highlighted by the word we use to describe these individual news items: stories. By it very definition, a story has a predefined narrative structure.  Aristotle identified this structure 3,000 years ago and dramatic structure still dominates our communication environment.  The structure is simple:
Exposition (the starting point, the status quo)
Complication (something that disrupts the status quo)
Climax (the point where the disruption/crisis can not longer continue
Resolution (the complication is resolved and  a new status quo is established),

This simple structure is evident throughout our fictions, but it also is evident in our non-fiction "stories."  We expect these elements and are often disappointed when they are not fulfilled.  That is why the news "story" is, by definition, fake.  We (the reporters, editors, audiences) impose or demand what we expect is the natural progression of our stories.  But life is not like that for most of us, its messy, unpredictable, and often downright boring.  But news in the 21st century is the the bait on the advertisers' hooks, not an end onto itself.  Just look at Faux News and CNN some night and pay attention to the structure, not the content.

So, media practitioners force all information into the Aristotelian structure to satisfy our Western sense of order and to keep our eyes on the screen or the page.  That makes these stories understandable and inviting, but does not make them real.  Even when there is much truth in a story, it is still first and foremost a story.  Add to this the ways in which we mediate the reality that is being reported (we use words, pictures, sequences, order) and it is clear, at least to me, that everything you see and hear in the media is fake, especially the news.  If you don't believe me, apply the Aristotelian structure frame to a news story (or an advertisement for that matter) and then tell me I am wrong.  I am waiting to hear from you.

TeaPublicans' False Patriotism

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Samuel Johnson

Last week, the candidates for the TeaPublican Party's nomination for President took questions by video. The most noticeable question came from Stephen Hill, a soldier who asked them what their respective positions were on reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Hill, who referred to himself as a gay soldier, was booed by a handful of audience members.  At the time, none of the so-called Presidential candidates defended this active member of the military, while later, a handful (Rick the Santorum, Gary Johnson, and John Huntsman) belatedly acknowledged the hateful behavior of their followers. Given the conventional wisdom that Republicans, as opposed to Democrats, support for our men and women in uniform, this incident is just one more example of the myth of GOP patriotism.

The claim of Republican support for the US military stems in part from the Vietnam War.   The media of the time, the so-called Liberal Media, ran stories of service personnel returning from Southeast Asia only to face verbal and sometimes physical abuse from those protesting the war. These reports were overstated and only minimally true.  However, the public impression of liberal/leftist/Democrat disdain for war veterans took hold and remains with us to this day.  Over the past forty years, Republican politicians and pundits have consistently repeated this charge with vigor supported by their allies in the so-called Liberal Media. Now what began as the usual lazy reportage/create conflict to engage the audience tactics of daily journalism has morphed into a "truism" that is never challenged.

For those who follow this blog, the perpetration of the myth of GOP support for the military is another example of Rule #3, Project your negatives onto your enemy.  Richard Nixon faced George McGovern in the 1972 election as the strong supporter of the military, despite McGovern's sterling combat record.  McGovern campaigned to end the war, while Nixon was going to "win" the war.  McGovern was held up to ridicule because he was willing to negotiate an end without victory.  Nixon won and, as we found out, was negotiating all along to end the war.  But McGovern was the "peacenik" and Nixon, the patriotic warrior. Those who vilified McGovern and the peace movement were, in fact , wrong on the issues and the process.

Over the past forty years, this meme has played out often.  Who can forget  the millions of dollars spent by Republicans to neutralize John Kerry's war record when compared to George "The Deserter" Bush.  Or the Saxby "Did Not Serve" Chambliss campaign in Georgia that compared wounded combat veteran Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the wake of 9-11.  So, it's not the response of the bozos in the debate audience that is surprising, although disheartening. They have been fed the mythology of Republican support for military personnel for years so, when confronted with a active soldier who demonstrated the falsity one of their other cherished beliefs (gays will destroy the military), they booed him.  They might claim that they booed the "gay" and not the "soldier" as a flimsy rationale.  What is more troubling is that the bozos on the podium, who aspire to the Presidency, could not, or would not, set aside their need to court the TeaPublicans long enough to defend a soldier on active duty in a war zone.  Just imagine if a Democrat or Keith Olbermann had done the same thing:  Remember our new standard for the so-called Liberal Media: IOKIYAR (It's OK If You Are A Republican).

Reality Television Is Anything But Real

In 2000, the US version of Survivor debuted and, as the conventional wisdom goes, the "reality" television explosion on US television began. At that time, I was still teaching college students about media aesthetics and analysis and it was not difficult to see the onrushing tidal wave. These programs, including game shows such as Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? were cheaper and easier to produce than narrative dramas and comedies. The audiences flocked to these programs and then producers began to pump them out, both original concepts and concepts borrowed such as Survivor. I had no personal interest in these shows, but one thing bothered me that continues to this day. That is the practice of labeling these shows "reality television." Since then, the label has become ubiquitous. Networks (both broadcast, cable and satellite) and syndicators continue to offer these types of programs.

The problem for a grouchy old guy like me is that while these programs are certainly "television", they are hardly "reality." At the same time, the question raised by the use of the term reality television is as old as the technologies that allow humans to fix an image from reality. A prime example would be the photographic work of Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner in the mid 19th century. We have come to see their images of the Civil War as real, although we know that at least some of the images were rearranged and partially staged. The soldiers were indeed dead, but not as they were in the images rendered.

The early days of cinema demonstrated clearly the seeming division of real from fiction. Again, conventional wisdom maintains that the Lumiere Brothers (France) first films were taken from the real world while Edison (actually Dickson's) films hinted at narrative structure. Porter's Life Of An American Fireman (1903) is often credited with breakthroughs that are the mainstays of narrative visual fictions to this day.[Note: French magician and filmmaker George Melies was producing sophisticated narrative fictions by 1896.]

John Grierson is often credited with popularizing the term "documentary." He defined the genre as "the creative treatment of actuality." The director Alfred Hitchcock is quoted as saying "In feature films the director is God; in documentary films God is the director." They are making the same point: while the images in so-called documentary are from the real world, they are subject to the same manipulation as the images created to be manipulated in fictional narratives.

So, to my point, the so-called "reality" programs are themselves fictions. They are subject to the vagaries of image capture (angles, frames, etc). They are subject to the editing process, where the images are made to conform to the Aristotelian narrative construction we have come to expect from fictions. Even when attempts are made to circumvent those constraints by filming the real world in real time (see Warhol's Empire for example), the pull of the narrative and the limitations of the frame make it a work of fiction. Reality is that which you experience in with your own senses in real time: everything else is fake. Just think of the footage never shown on Survivor and you will understand that reality television is anything but real. There may be sounds and images of reality, but they are always constructed as fictions.

Unserious Friday: A Stroll Down Coliseum Street

Given the seriousness of my recent post, I thought today should be a change of pace. So, come with me as I walk down the actual Coliseum Street on my way to work.


View Larger Map

I live on Coliseum Square in the Lower Garden District and I walk to my job on Camp Street each morning. When I step outside my door, I see the park across the street, usually with a few folks walking their dogs while some are sitting on the benches. I do walk "down" the street, because in New Orleans, the direction I am walking is "downtown," going toward the Central Business District (CBD) and the world-renowned French Quarter (Some other Friday, I will get into New Orleans' unique directionality caused by living in a crescent of the Mississippi River).

For a couple of blocks, it's mostly residential houses built over the last century or so. The neighborhood used to be kinda sketchy, but since the Crescent City Connection (aka the Mississippi River Bridge) was completed and bridge ramps were removed, the neighborhood has revitalized (and is somewhat gentrified). Since it is an Historic District, the houses retain their older charm, smaller versions of the houses further Uptown in the Garden District proper.

Walking down Camp Street, I pass St. Theresa of Avila parish church. As you might imagine, you can't walk too many blocks in New Orleans without passing a Catholic Church.

Next is Bridge House, a complex of residential buildings and a thrift store/used car lot that is home and workplace for recovering addicts rebuilding their lives. Across from the Bridge House store, and right on my walking route, is a little pocket park dedicated to Margaret Haughery, the Bread Woman of New Orleans, who fed the poor in the late 1800s. It is ironic to me that as I cross Calliope Street there are homeless men "living" under the bridge overpass, stark evidence that our poor and homeless are still here.

Once I cross Calliope, pronounce "CAL-lee-ope," I am in the CBD. Just one block in, there is a cluster of three museums and the Contemporary Arts Center (CAC). Two museums are dedicated to war: the Confederate Museum (which has a sign on front that says Civil War Museum) and the National WWII Museum, Tom Hanks' gift to New Orleans. Next to the "Confederate Memorial Hall" is the Ogden Museum of Southern Art, part of the University of New Orleans, and across the street is the CAC. Quite a combination of ideologies in small space, if I don't say.

I am now three blocks from my building. Beyond the CAC, the street is mostly small buildings that house residences, small shops, galleries and parking lots/garages. One place that sticks out is Ozanam Inn, a homeless shelter for men run by the Society of St. Vincent DePaul. Two blocks further and I am my place of business.

So, that is my walk every morning (and afternoon in reverse). I experience the socioeconomic diversity and disparity of New Orleans every day and I am a better person for that walk.

Don't Have Much To Say

Sometimes it is really hard to be proud of the U.S. judicial system. We have today a case where there is compelling evidence that the State of Georgia, with Supreme Court approval, executed an innocent man. The essential facts of the case are not very complicated. Interpretations of the facts in the Troy Davis case are disputable and that is the problem. As the screen shot from Think Progress above states, the question is "too much doubt." While we have a judicial standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," that standard is not be any means an objective standard. The decision on the part of the state to execute one of its citizens is bound up in the political, social, economic, racial, religious currents of the time, place and culture. One person's "reasonable doubt" can easily be another person's "firm conviction." Some believe that the initial verdict is sacrosanct, while others maintain that all evidence is relevant up to the very end of the life of the convicted. However, to argue that death penalty cases are argued on the basis of complete knowledge of the act is ludicrous. And the Troy Davis case, even for those who believe that the execution is a justifiable state action, demonstrates that fallacy.

Here's more versions of the story to contemplate. The first is from Troy Davis' sister. The second is from The Christian Post. The third is from a conservative blogger who has a few words for his fellow so-called conservatives.

When you have the capacity to take someone's life by executive action, when is doubt "reasonable?" When there is doubt. Beyond that, I don't have much to say.

Some Modest Proposals Emenating From The "Buffett Rule"

In the past few days, we have seen the articulation of a public policy guideline that has been labeled "The Buffett Rule." While it would have been nice if it had been the Jimmy Buffett Rule (as in One More Ticket To Margaritaville), this rule comes from the mouth of billionaire Warren Buffett (Omaha is quite a far way from Key West). As we attempt to fix our economy in the face of TeaPublican vows of "No tax increases no matter how idiotically we define tax increases," Buffett was quoted as saying he should be paying his taxes at the same rate as his secretary at a minimum.

This attempt at creating some fairness in a tax code corrupted by the failed premise of supply-side economics demanded by TeaPublicans and acquiesced to by fearful Democrats got me thinking about other areas of public policy that could be improved by Buffett's definition of fairness.

1. Constituents must have the same health insurance and health care options as their elected representatives. This is a no-brainer. Every federal legislator who deliberates and votes on health care has a range of options for health insurance coverage. They cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. So what's good for the Congress critters should be the standard for everyone else. A corollary to this rule, is that if you vote against government regulated equity in health coverage, you must get your own health insurance in the so-called free market.

2. All available safety devices should be standard on all automobiles. For years I have noticed more luxury car advertizements that point to safety features as their chief selling point. My question is, "Are rich folks more deserving of safe cars than the rest of us?" If a safety feature is demonstrated to save lives and prevent injury, shouldn't they standard on all cars. Yes, I know, this is an example of the free market in action, but that is my point: safety only for those who can afford it or safety for all (with the concomitant reduction in the costs incurred by cars that are less safe).

3. If someone holding elective office wants to change party affiliation, they must resign and run under their new party banner. When you are the object of a "bait-and-switch" scam, you have civil and possibly criminal means to rectify the situation and punish the miscreant. When you vote for a D who turns into an R after the election (or the other way around), that should be considered fraud. This is not like reneging on a campaign promise. The candidate who uses the resources of a political party and its supporters to gain election who then switches parties is guilty, at a minimum, of theft of services, if not alienation of affection. So, if you change parties, go back to the voters.

So, here are some things to talk. Maybe we can start a true grassroots movement around one of them, as opposed to the AstroTurf techniques of the folks behind the Tea Party Express. Maybe I'll send these off to Jimmy for consideration.

[Note: My use of the terms Congress critters and D & R is an homage to the late, great Molly Ivins]

I Told You So: TeaPublican Talking Points Revisited

Last week I wrote a long (at least for me) blog post about Three Rules to guide you in understanding how TeaPublicans deflect attention from their own unpopular agenda by obfuscation and lying. Over the past few days, we have been treated to three prime examples of this process in action.

Here in my adopted home state of Louisiana, we have a true class act in Senator "Diaper" Dave Vitter. This weekend, Vitter has taken up the charge that President Obama has been engaged in "crony capitalism" in the thoroughly bogus Solyndra scandal. The charge is that the Obama administration gave undue, if not illegal, preference to campaign contributors whose government-backed company failed. The problem is, Diaper Dave has been urging the Department of Energy to provide loans to companies owned by his campaign contributors. To make him even more of hypocrite, the companies he was shilling for offer old technologies in competition with the green solutions that Solyndra was unsuccessfully working toward. Remember rule #3: Project your weakness unto your enemy.

Two more examples from the national stage. Mitt "The Flipper" Romney has blathered on about his business savvy as opposed to the career politician and community organizer in the White House. Romney opined that the jobs plan announced today by Obama would not create jobs, but actually lose jobs. Well, The Flipper has a slight problem since his most successful private sector job as head of Bain Capital had the Mittster responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs as his venture capital firm oversaw the demise of numerous business to benefit his shareholders. Combination of rule #3 and rule #2: Obfuscate the simple.

Finally, we have Paul Ryan, aka Ayn Rand's love child, crying that Obama's jobs plan is "class warfare." What gall. Here is the guy who has proposed gutting most of the major government programs to help the poor and the middle class whining that millionaires being asked to pay more taxes (which are at an all-time low in that tax bracket) is an attack. On whom? Even billionaire Warren Buffett has called for more fairness in the tax code. We are even calling it the Buffett rule: CEOs should be taxed at least at the same tax rate as their employees. Name calling certainly comes under rule #1: Vilify your enemy, with rules #2 and #3 thrown in for good measure.

There you have it, playing out right before your eyes. At the same time, just remember the real TeaPublican slogan: Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

Three Simple Rules To Predict TeaPublican Talking Points

One paradox of our contemporary national political situation is that polls continuously demonstrate wide-spread support for policy choices favored by Democrats and liberals, while at the same time seeing their political choices defined by their opponents and most Main Stream Media as "out of touch." A good example would be the recent Debt Ceiling so-called crisis, when House GOP leadership held a routine vote as hostage for more concessions from the President and the Democrats, while polls indicated the public supported a clean raising of the debt limit.

How can this be? The explanation is actually simple. A good starting place are the techniques used by Lee Atwater in the Bush-Dukakis campaign. Atwater viewed our national politics as a zero-sum game: I win by making you lose and policy consequences be damned. That brought us Dukakis sitting in the tank and the infamous Willie Horton ad. The major glitch in those years was when Bush I caved to economic reality and went back on his phony pledge of "no new taxes." Bush lost to Bill Clinton and ever since then, the GOP (whom I refer to today at the TeaPublicans) have stuck to a very simple game plan.

Here it is: The guiding principle is that you play to feelings not reason, since feelings cannot be subject to facts. You accomplish this with three simple steps:
1) Vilify Your Enemy;
2) Obfuscate the Simple; and
3) Project Your Negatives on Your Enemy.

A quick example is our current incoherent public debate about raising the debt ceiling.
1) Vilify Your Enemy: Labeling those who advocate government intervention to create jobs as Socialists, Communists, and Fascists (all at the same time).
2) Obfuscate The Simple: Conflate raising the debt ceiling with a massive increase in Government Spending so the average person thinks we can solve our problems by having the U.S. Government default on its fiduciary obligations.
3. Project Your Negatives on Your Enemy: Blame Obama and the Dems for the current problems when they in fact stem primarily from eight years of Bush II mismanagement, abetted by Congressional Republicans, culminating in the burst housing bubble and the Bush Bank Bailout.

When you try to explain to folks that that the Teapublicans are lying hypocrites, then you are accused of being mean and nasty and the whole process starts all over. Even the President and the Democratic leadership have fallen for this ruse, while the GOP, who got us in this mess in the first place, gain political victories at the expense of sane, rationale public policy. And it doesn't help that most media engage in false equivalence (for example, both parties do it), when it is clear that the GOP have a singular goal: take control of all branches of government while their policies are opposed by a majority of the public.

These tactics are not new. In the U.S. they have been used mostly in elections in the past; now they are used legislatively. They are being used in a disciplined manner by one major political party and their allies at Faux News and the Tea Party Express.

If you think I am wrong, I have a suggestion: In future, when you hear the President or a major Dem leader offer a policy recommendation, apply the three principles outlined above and I guarantee they are an infallible predictor of the GOP talking points that you will hear a few hours later. Go ahead. Try it!

It also important to note that these tactics are not new by any means. For better or worse, Martin Luther, Samuel Adams, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Goebbels wrote this playbook. Now it's John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity marching at the forefront of our willing descent into madness.

Jindal To Return University Degrees

NEWS FLASH: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has reportedly endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry's bid for the GOP nomination for U.S. president. There is speculation that Jindal's endorsement is a bid to position himself as viable Vice-Presidential candidate.

Over the past few years, Jindal's shifting positions on issues of importance to social conservatives, including statements that doubt evolution, man-made global warming and participatory democracy have become concerning to the various educational institutions that have awarded degrees to Jindal. Brown University, where Jindal majored in public policy and biology and University of Oxford, where he received a degree in public policy with an emphasis on health care issues have both gone on record as disapproving the use of their degrees to enhance Jindal's political career given his transformation into a lunatic TeaPublican and Perry disciple.

In order to stem this growing controversy, Governor Jindal has announced he is returning his degrees to Brown and Oxford. "These are just scraps of paper issued by secular heathen institutions that want to bring down these great United States," Jindal said. "Now that I am hooked up with Rick Perry, who needs intelligence and education. We just make things up. That's a lot easier than actually studying and thinking. If I had known this before, I wouldn't have wasted my time at those elitist degree mills."

Baton Rouge Magnet High School has yet to comment.

A Giant Leaves the Building

Today in New Orleans we bid farewell to Wardell Quezerque, a seminal figure in the musical history of New Orleans. He worked as an arranger, writer, and producer for uncountable recording sessions across decades of popular music. "Barefootin'" and "Mr Big Stuff" are two particularly memorable recordings. His influence, however, is unmeasurable, as he worked in the seams of the music industry, both here in New Orleans and nationwide. He wasn't a performer or a big name producer as some of his proteges became, such as Allen Toussaint and Mac Rebennack (aka Dr. John), but many musicians in this city consider him their "teacher."

I have a friend who became very close to Wardell over the years, acting as a sort of caretaker whenever she was in town. That's how I came to meet Wardell just last year. They were totally social occasions, usually over dinner. He was a man of many moods, as I have been told, but in my few brief interactions, he was gentle man with stories to tell. I did get to witness him at work at one of his sessions for his final piece, an orchestral setting of the Passion. Seeing him in the studio, listening so intently to the performers and advising and guiding them to the sound he wanted, was a humbling experience for me.

I hardly knew him as a person, but the sound of New Orleans music in the 1960s and 1970s will always resonate with the heart, soul, and genius of Wardell. Indeed, today a true giant has left the building.

The Saints and The Sinner

For those of you following this blog (if there is anybody following this blog), the title of this post is reminiscent of an earlier post about my conflict between the last Saints preseason game and a gig I was playing. This is not a repeat, since this time there is a real, on-the-record sinner at hand with a schedule conflict with the Saints' opening game tonight.

Louisiana's own "Diaper" David Vitter (R-Hypocrite) has proudly announced he will attend a Saints' party instead of being present for President Obama's speech on jobs. At least one other LA House rep isn't showing either, but at least he was brutally honest: he didn't want to listen to Obama explain why TeaPublican rhetoric and policies on the issue of jobs is totally wrong. If those policies are such a good idea, why did job creation falter during the Bush administration's exercise in tax cuts/no new taxes/little government stimulus?

But back to my point. Given his public record as a client of the Washington madam, Diaper Dave is an embarrassment. His seeming glee at announcing his absence for the Saints' game is breath taking. Is his sports jones more important than a discussion of creating jobs in a faltering economy? Is his arrogance insulting to those who expect our legislators to attend to the people's business? At least others such as Rep. Landry (R-Idiot) state policy differences for their headline-seeking absences. At least they admit, although they don't know it, that they are petty, vindictive men who act like children who don't want to take their medicine.

Vitter has set a new standard for incivility and I, for one, am ashamed to be his constituent. As Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in the article linked above, "I simply cannot recall a time in the past when lawmakers openly gave the finger to the president of the United States on a huge issue like jobs...It is frankly depressing." Yeah, tell me about it.

Mother Nature's Response to Rick Perry's Prayers

For those of us on the Gulf Coast, this was a scary weekend. For some in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, Tropical Storm Lee brought devastating rains and some powerful winds, though not the potential hurricane force weather that was predicted. The remnants of Lee are now crawling through the South and towards the Northeast, where they don't need anymore rain. So, in the face of the damage, it's hard to see anything comical, yet recently announced GOP Presidential candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry has some explaining to do, in the words of Ricky Ricardo.

Back in April, Governor Perry came forward with a plan to end the drought in Texas. He asked everyone to pray for rain in an official state proclamation. Given that we are now in September, it seems as if Pastor Rick's solution is not working. This weekend, Tropical Storm Lee seemed to be the answer to those prayers, just as the con man Starbuck in The Rainmaker is saved by fortuitous rainfall.

But not so fast, my friends. After this weekend, Reverend Rick might be looking for a new solution. You see, the one place in Lee's path that escaped the worst of the storm was New Orleans. Yes, that party town, that home of jazz, that bead-laden city of excess. And that's not all. The reason that New Orleans was spared the worst of Lee was because of the hot, dry air over Texas. Somehow, that air was sucked into the middle of Lee and landed on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain. So, while Slidell (slightly east of NO) was on the national news, New Orleans just got wet. My street, that floods in a heavy thunderstorm, was always passable.

Even more "miraculous," this was the weekend for Southern Decadence, which some call the Gay Mardi Gras. While the weekend was wet, folks were still here having fun and spending money. At the same time, the acceleration of the winds not only kept Texas dry, it enhanced the chances for wildfires.

So, Father Rick's self-serving, self righteous, hypocritical, and possibly illegal call for prayers seemed to have backfired, as well as his entire televangelist schtick. While his state remains in a climate similar to Hell, bohemian, avant-garde, multi-cultural, and Democratic New Orleans was just fine.

Now, Ricky, you have some explaining to do.

Saints v. A Sinner

Tonight is the last preseason football game for the New Orleans Saints. The Superdome, where the so-called game will be played, is just about walking distance from my house. Tens of thousands of Saints fans will be streaming in to watch guys play, most of whom are not going to be on the team next week when the season really begins for the Saints in Green Bay, WI. I will not be one of the many who will watch the game tonight primarily because of the reasons I wrote about in a previous blog post.

But that is not the only reason. I am playing a gig tonight at a local coffee house. Imagine my effrontery to think that anyone would want to come hear me play my music when the Saints are playing football, even if those players will no longer be Saints in a few days. I guess that qualifies me as a "sinner" in the eyes of Who Dat? Nation. Don't get me wrong. I am a football fan (though, I hope, not a fanatic). It's just my life is not ruled by the NFL schedule, except when playoff time comes around. Then I will be proud to be Saint, although I will always be a sinner.

TeaPublicans Vs. The First Amendment

During the public discussion that resulted in the Constitution replacing the failed Articles of Confederation, there arose two contradictory views of the role of that Constitution. Simply put, the question was "Should the document detail what the federal government can do or detail what it can't. The body of the Constitution conforms to the first principle: it delineates what the powers of government are. The first ten Amendments (aka The Bill of Rights) conforms to the second principle by detailing the limits on government power.

The first of those amendments reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Last week, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) banned citizens from recording his remarks at a constituent meeting. Now, mind you, local media were allowed to record his remarks while actual constituents were not allowed. This type of action exemplifies the arrogance and ignorance that seems to typify our new TeaPublican Party. These are the same folks who whine about being "silenced and intimidated" by the so called "Librul" media when they are being promoted by the 24/7 right-wing propaganda outlet know as Faux News, where contrary opinions are routinely silenced when not being ridiculed. Or, as in the case of Chabot, having a local talk radio host keeping the "Libruls" in their place.

Why are religion, press, speech and the right to assemble peacefully all in the same amendment? Because they all have something to do with the an individual's right to free expression in the face of government power. An example of First Amendment in action might be recording the words of a Congressperson spoken at a public meeting on public property. So, while it may be a bit of stretch, Chabot, patriotic American that he claims to be, does not feel obligated recognize the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment defines. Our Faux News Teapublicans deny the spirit (if not the letter) of the First Amendment with impunity. Lenin, Trotsky, and Goebbels would feel right at home with the Chabots of this world: Free speech for me but not for thee.

I Like Burnt Edges

The other night is saw a television advertizement for microwavable frozen lasagne that used the tag line "And no burnt edges." Why no burnt edges? And anyway,
I like the burnt edges. That's the crispy part that has texture to contrast with the soft noodles and cheese. Now I don't mean something totally burnt beyond recognition, but a burnt edge is the evidence of real heat, not simply molecules moving very fast.

This is what lasagne is supposed to look like. Not mine, unfortunately.

The advertizement I saw was in Food Network"s Restaurant Impossible, that included a scene in which Chef Robert Irvine was shouting "Presentation, presentation, presentation as the revamped restaurant was about to reopen. Given the look of the previously served food, there is not doubt the new dishes looked better, but the presentation was the last criteria, not the first.

Now I understand that there is a relationship between the look of dish and all it's other components. It is the totality of the dish that is important to the experience of dining. At the same time, for some of us, and for some times all of us, we just want to eat something regardless of how it looks. That's called hunger. Many people world-wide would settle for the sustenance, burnt edges and all. I don't need for food to look perfect. Food just needs to satisfy our basic nutritional needs. Everything after that, if you excuse me, is gravy.

For those interested, you can check out my recipe page. And don't worry about burning the edges.

Hiding in Plain Sight

Last week and this weekend have been strange for us in New Orleans. We live anxiously through hurricane season (and the upcoming anniversary of "the Storm" known elsewhere as Katrina). Over the past week, we have been innocent bystanders as the East Coast experienced first an discernible earthquake and then Irene's rain and wind. We are are thankful that the the loss of lives was minimal although property damage may reach into the billions.

What was not unexpected has been the reaction of various TeaPublican politicians who have managed to take two diametrically opposed positions on paying for disaster relief. One one hand, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Another Planet) maintains that any disaster relief must be offset by spending cuts elsewhere. I am sure his constituents are pleased that their representative is willing to maintain his ideological purity at the expense of helping to pay for the damage to their homes and communities. As Cedric Richmond (D-New Orleans and my congress critter) maintained, if NOLA had to wait for spending offsets in the wake of Katrina, we would still be waiting for federal relief. He called Cantor's comment, "Sinful."

On the other hand, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) has called for passage of a bill that has $1 billion in additional disaster funding for FEMA. Rogers blames the shortfall on, who else, President Obama, "who has ignored the obvious funding needs of the Disaster Relief Fund, purposefully and irresponsibly underfunding the account and putting families and communities who have suffered from terrible disasters on the back burner." Chair Rogers seems to have forgotten (or chose to ignore) that these cuts were proposed and approved by his committee.

So our TeaPublican brethren have suggested that, at the same time, (1) we shouldn't fund disaster relief without cutting other unnamed programs in the federal budget and (2) it's Obama's fault that the House-passed Continuing Resolution cut funds for disaster relief, so we should just appropriate more money. If you can reconcile these two positions, be my guest. My take is that these people are so fueled by hatred of the liberal traditions of U.S. governance, that they will do and say anything to destroy our Social Compact. These people are true enemies of "We the People," and they are right there in front of us everyday, hiding in plain sight.

Karl Marx Was Right

Karl Marx was a philosopher with interests, among others, in the relationship between money (Capital) and the workers that produce that capital (Labor), not the guy responsible for the all those governments that US media refers to as "Marxist regimes." One of his concerns involved how those whose work creates capital rationalize their relationship with the owners of the means of production.

For Karl Marx, this is the beginning of the revolutionary process: simply put, when workers understand how they are being screwed by the bosses, they will do something about it. Before Labor reaches this point of self-awareness, they exhibit what Marx termed "false consciousness." In this state, workers accept their oppression because they believe the Capitalist system itself is the natural order of things: Rich folks running things and workers working for them. The few who successfully negotiate the transition from laborer to capitalist are proof of the correctness of that natural order. In the 20th century, European philosophers modified Marx's original thesis under the rubric "hegemony," but it still works basically the same way.

The Tea Party is not spontaneous eruption of middle and working class desires, but rather a co-optation of legitimate concerns (such as, the economic disaster of Bush II) and illegitimate concerns (such as the racist objections to "one of them" in the White House) by well-funded elites in DC and Wall Street. Freedom Works and other such organizations offer to the disaffected simple solutions that avoid confrontation with the true nature of their oppression. It's the Wizard of Oz come to life, where Tea Party anger deflects attention away from the men behind the curtains. The greatest obstacle to a solution to our current economic mess is that those affected have confused who are their advocates. Tea Partiers direct their anger at those who really do have an interest in fair and equitable solutions to our problems (Democrats, unions, liberals) rather than at those who use false enemies (such as the debt and deficit spending in a recession) to deflect attention from those who want to continue the skewed transfer of wealth from the workers to the capitalists. It's enough to make me believe that, in this instance, Marx was right. And so was PT Barnum.

Respectful Disagreements Are Possible

This morning I learned that John Keshishoglou had passed away. John taught forever at Ithaca College and was the founding dean of the School of Communications. He was a noted scholar and consultant in the field of international communication. He was also an outspoken conservative among the relatively liberal faculty across the School.

I met him when I was hired at Ithaca College in 1985. By then he was the senior media faculty member and saw himself as mentor to us all. I arrived at IC from the University of Maine and I dressed the part, complete with flannel shirts and jeans before Grunge made them fashionable. He took me aside for a quite chat in order to tell me that I did not dress as college professor should. He even offered me some of his old three-piece suits to upgrade my wardrobe. I politely declined and that became the basis of our relationship over the ten years I was at IC.

As for the title of this post, John was not shy about his political priorities. His office was filled with pictures of various conservative icons, often with John in the photo shaking hands or whatever. John was, however, old school when it came to politic discussion. Respectful disagreement was the rule. He was more interested in whether you were a good teacher and supported the mission of the School. He expected you to be articulate in defending your politics. His closest colleague on faculty was the most progressive.

This was the marketplace of ideas writ large. It is possible to have respectful disagreements in political matters, a notion seemingly lost in the Foxification of our political discourse. I disagreed with John often, but I respected his willingness to engage in the discussion as a reasonable, rational adult. Our current politics would clearly benefit from more folks like Kesh and fewer like Rush and O'Reilly.

Rest in Peace, John, and may your name be a blessing.

Walk A Mile In Their Shoes

I recently started a new job now that I am retired (welcome to the new definition of retirement according conniving financial managers and the TeaPublican Party). I can walk to work from my house even though the morning temperatures in New Orleans this time of year make that a very sweaty proposition. As I am walking and perspiring, I pass by a home for homeless men. They are already sitting outside off the parking lot in the heat, looking somewhat like a refugee camp. I am also not that far from the New Orleans Mission, that serves meals for many homeless, some of whom "live" under the 190 BR overpass that goes to the Mississippi River Bridge.

Picking up on yesterday's theme, I wonder what would John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell or any of the other TeaPublican leadership would do or say if they landed at the homeless shelter in some Twilight Zone/Scrooge reversal. Can you imagine the screams of anguish that would erupt from their lips, the claims of how unfair this was, and how they did not deserve their fate? And why doesn't someone do something to help them? Much of the current DC leadership (and the leadership in many states) are insulated from the consequences of their actions, so they never see the damage to individuals caused by their irrational belief in a social philosophy based on greed and self-interest. Our Constitution begins with the words "We the People" with no exclusions. Maybe our political leaders and their advisers need to walk a mile in the shoes of the homeless and destitute, the hungry and the weary, and start doing their job for "We the People," and not just for their Randian overlords. And then pigs will fly.

Living in Alternate Realities

The late science fiction writer Roger Zelazny created a series of novels about Amber, which is true reality. Our earthly human reality is simply a parallel reality. The author posited that when we lose something in our reality, it is simply that someone in Amber needed it and took to the true reality. Sometimes they even returned it, that's when you find what you thought you lost.

When I see Congressional Republicans pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment while denying an extension of payroll tax relief, as they did yesterday, I have to assume that I do not live in the same reality as these folks. They campaigned in 2010 on working to fix the economy and to create jobs. Since taking control of the House (and through their intransigence, the entire legislative process), they have done nothing but make things worse. The GOP has one mode of operation now: give us what we want or we will through sand in the gears of government. They are not legislators, they are terrorists.

I can only conclude that we live in alternate realities. Where I live, real people suffer as a consequence of the GOP's actions. Where the GOP live is in Ayn Rand's fantasy world where the individual matters more than the community. Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans oppose most of the Republican agenda, yet GOP leaders claim a mandate for their "help the rich so they might help the rest of us" policies. Real people don't mean much when you bask in the light of ideological purity. Sounds kinda Soviet to me.

Why Does Anyone Pay To See Preseason Football?

When I was a youngster, the professional football (US) preseason began with something called, I think, the College All-Star Game. It took place at Soldier Field in Chicago usually toward the end of August (NFL seasons were shorter then and began later in September than today). The game matched a team of College All-Stars (most of whom were signed to play with an NFL team once this exercise was over) against the previous year's NFL champion (very pre-Super Bowl). The games were usually mediocre and served simply to introduce the new class of NFL players to the fans. That is, until 1976, when a ferocious thunderstorm cut the game short. Although the game was never played again, it still personifies all that is wrong about preseason football: NFL regulars just getting into playing shape, rookies playing essentially as a pick-up team, and not much more. But one big difference: the College All-Star Game was played for The Chicago Charities. So, however the game played out, there was a good cause to support. Today, preseason NFL football is a profit-center for the owners. Fans are subjected to high-priced games played, for the most part, by low priced players trying to make the team. A few series of downs with the first team and then clear the bench. These guys may be playing football, but not NFL caliber and you pay NFL caliber prices, often blackmailed by the owners who force season ticket holders to buy tickets to these meaningless, boring, mistake-filled games. I guess P.T. Barnum was right about suckers being born every minute.

Sanity And Reason On The Outdoor Sports Page

I live in Louisiana where people take their hunting and fishing very seriously, more seriously than I do. I do read the sports pages and down here I ran into a fascinating dynamic. Without a doubt, the most reasoned and evidence-based criticism of Republican attacks on enlightened environmental policy (and global warming in specific) comes from the Outdoor Sports columnist for the Times-Picayune. Check out this column by Bob Marshall. My fears for this country are magnified when I realize that his audience is comprised of outdoor sports enthusiasts, not left-wing radicals. It's not a stretch to imagine a few subscribers to Tea Party mania among his readers. Will they listen to an expert with no Liberal/Satanist axe to grind? My take is that they will dismiss his arguments by repeating facile Fox News/Tea Party talking points. How can we all have a serious discussion about these issues when one party won't even listen to some one who speaks the language.

My fears grow daily.

Why I Changed My User Name For This Blog

When I started this blog all those many days ago (four, I think), I had the username "nolaguy." I was just playing with the idea of doing this and entered that username in the form for Blogger not realizing that that name would be the name on the blog. It's not a bad username. I was surprised actually that no one had already taken it in the Blogspot universe.

Then I thought, "I have lived here less than a year, so it is pretty arrogant to call myself be a name that implies long term residence." So I thought a bit and then chose "enolaguy." This was a multiple pun, most evidently referring to the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. And, of course, referring to "nolaguy."

After a day, this didn't sit right with me. Punning on the death of many people just wasn't funny. I also decided that this blog is about me (no kidding!) so I should be identified. The days of pseudonymous blogs is over. We are not writing the Federalist Papers or marxist/fascist radical tracts. So I am who I am, Jonathan David Tankel, and I take full responsibility for what is written here. It is important to understand the consequences of taking on a name. Just ask the Teabaggers, oops, Tea Party, if you know what I mean.

You Can Make The World's Best Ice Cream

Growing up in New Jersey, I never had "homemade" ice cream, except for a few disasters at picnics, with the old hand-cranked machines with the rock salt. For me, ice cream came from the truck that came down the street in the summer, the Carvel on River Road and my folk's freezer. Over the years, machines to make ice cream have become more convenient, especially with the canisters that freeze and the use of electricity to move the beater. Store-bought ice cream has also come a long way, with premium brands aplenty. Homemade, however, still seemed not worth the trouble, coming out too hard or too soft, filled with ice crystals, and other stuff that still made it not worth my time.

That has all changed with Jeni Britton Bauer's incredible technique to make homemade ice cream a heavenly treat. With some work (it takes three bowls and a little dexterity), you can wow your friends and family and make your tummy happy. Trust me, it works. Ingredients are supermarket friendly (at least the ice cream base is). Here is her recipe for the Darkest Chocolate Ice Cream In The World. And it's no lie. Can't wait to make the Roasted Pistachio.

The real American Idol

About ten years ago, a dear friend convinced me to get off my ass and get out and play my music. With him. So, as part of a duo (with our voices, guitars, harmonica, and a few other instruments over the years) I began playing. Mostly we did an Open Mike Night at Mad Anthony's Brewery in Fort Wayne, IN. That's where I learned where the real American Idol happens.  No Simon or Steve, no Paula or Jennifer.  No voting. Just folks playing for folks.  The audience usually doesn't even know that they will have music with their drinks and food and often talk louder to hear themselves.  Often, most of the audience consists of the other folks who came to play. What really sets this apart from American Idol is the sense of community.  Anyone who has the guts to get up and perform deserves the applause.  It really doesn't matter who "wins" and we all appreciate the efforts.  It's not perfect and sometime it can be downright painful.  It's the joy of performing we all share that creates a bond.  We may not end up on a big stage, but we are the real American Idol.  Here's a link to my web site where I have some Open Mike Night performances from the Rusty Nail here in New Orleans, complete with crowd noise galore.

Can A Yankee Make Gumbo?

Last night I made Chicken and Sausage Gumbo for dinner. Made the stock from chicken wing tips, chicken backbones (cut from whole chickens that were headed for the grill) and whatever was on the bottom of the vegetable drawer.  I stood and stirred the roux till it was a chestnut brown.  Added the stock and already-grill/smoked chicken, parsley from the garden and the ubiquitous bay leaf.  Cooked for a good two hours, thickened up just right.  Served over rice with some green onions.  That's it.  But did I make real gumbo? Do you have to be raised in the food culture of the dish you are preparing for it to be authentic? I make a chicken soup that would be considered European Jewish that is as different from Campbell's as it is different from Pho Ga. But they are all chicken soup, even last night's gumbo. The basic ingredients are the same: chicken, water, celery plus whatever. The cooking techniques themselves (roux or not, dill or parsley or both) and the resulting taste(s) are culturally bounded, but anyone can partake of the dish and enjoy. So, I don't know if someone from Lafayette would call what I made "gumbo," but it sure tasted good.

Living in Jindalland

When I moved from Indiana to New Orleans, I was prepared for the changes that would bring.  Heat and humidity all year round, jazz funerals, Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, the Saints, you know the drill. Politically, I was moving from the heart of a Red State (which voted for Obama in 2008) to one of the reddest states in the land.  What I didn't really get was how I exchanged one conservative governor who, as W's budget director, helped lead us to our financial nightmare to a more conservative governor (depending on who he is talking to) who wants to take us even further down that road.  And why?  So he can be reelected.  Our Bobby Jindal personifies the 21st Century GOP:  party over nation, personal advancement over public service and a total unwillingness to understand the consequences of his actions. Jindal focuses on creationism, abortion restrictions, voter fraud and anything that will appeal to the ignorant and the frightened, while Louisiana needs education, jobs and leadership.  The only job Jindal is interested in his own, and, god-forbid, national office.  Where are the voices of reason and light? Not in Baton Rouge, that's for sure.

Starting From Scratch

There are so many folks out there blogging away like mad that I must be mad myself to start one now.  I guess if I was intending to get rich and famous, that train left the station a long time ago.  This blog is place for me, an old retired college professor, to rant and rave and advice and moan and comment on all those things that run through my head.  Politics, sports, music, food, history and whatever else strikes my fancy. That's what this blog will be about and I hope you will join me on occasion to read what I have to say and to respond.  Just like in the old days when we actually conversed with one another.  I don't really have much expectation, but you folks can make a believer out of me. Come back soon and you will be surprised.