By John Y. Brown III, on Thu May 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
It’s time.
Right now.
Right here.
The world, real and virtual, cannot abide another moment without it.
It’s time to retire the acronym LOL…and any emoticon …to signify “I’m joking.”
And replace it with an asterisk followed by a parenthetical:
(Hey now! Don’t jump to the wrong conclusion. I’m not serious. Really. This was intended as a light-hearted joke. If you read it literally and didn’t catch the humor you aren’t alone. It was admittedly an inartful and flawed attempt at either understatement, overstatement or irony. And I apologize for any confusion. Please try reading through once more knowing it is an attempt at humor and see if it seems funnier. If you got it the first time, please disregard.)
True, it’s not as brief as an ideal “humor warning” could be. But it’s not as lame as the outdated acronym LOL or creepy as the overly cute sideways smiley face coming from a middle-aged man.*
* (Hey now! Don’t jump to the wrong conclusion. I’m not serious. Really. This was intended as a light-hearted joke. If you read it literally and didn’t catch the humor you aren’t alone. It was admittedly an inartful and flawed attempt at either understatement, overstatement or irony. And I apologize for any confusion. Please try reading through once more knowing it is an attempt at humor and see if it seems funnier. If you got it the first time, please disregard.)
By Artur Davis, on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET
It may be a middle aged man’s perspective, but I recall the 80s as much more vivid and alluring than Joe Weisberg, the creator of FX’s “The Americans” suggests. In this drama about a pair of Russian KGB operatives who masquerade as married American travel agents in the early Reagan years, (Keri Russell as Elizabeth Jennings, Matthew Rhys as Phillip Jennings) the decade is not so much MTV slick as gray in the stolid pattern of, say, the late fifties. And it is not just the deliberate pace, or the square personas of the FBI agents, or the fact that the show’s obligatory generational gap between parents and children is so sanitized that it seems to predate the furies of the seventies and sixties: the real source of drabness here is deeper, and rests on Weisberg’s characterization of the penultimate years of the Cold War as a sluggish collision between two exhausted warriors, who are stumbling around each other in a fog of confusion and blunder.
This imagining of the early 80s as one long slog without purpose works its way through every layer of the “Americans”. The Jennings are laboring through a marriage that was conceived as a cover, has run hot and cold over the years, and is complicated by the fact that ensnaring espionage targets in sex traps is part of their modus operandi. Noah Emmerich’s Stan Beeman, an FBI agent who strains a metaphor by living next door to the Jennings, is fumbling his way through mid-life angst: his own marriage is collapsing from too many years spent chasing criminals during irregular hours, and the affair he falls into with his Soviet informant (Annet Mahendru) seems born out of opportunism and the fatigue from keeping ambiguous moral lines straight. Both the Jennings and Beeman are true believers but they also resemble thrill-seekers, who chose daredevil careers to supply the vibrancy that would have been missing in their lives.
And if the characters are drifting through a moral haze, so are their respective superpowers. In Weisberg’s account, the Cold War is less ideological zeal than bureaucratized routine. The shadow boxing between the FBI and the KGB’s domestic American operations is driven by miscalculations and measured retributions for offenses that themselves were often accidental or hastily improvised. It is noticeable that almost all of the killing is either retaliatory or unplanned, and in its own way, brutal but strategically incompetent. The show is hardly clueless about Soviet cruelty, but in this narrative, it is less the dark soul of totalitarianism, more the emptiness of an amoral enterprise that runs on autopilot.
In other words, the 80s of the “Americans” is far from the idealized political landscape that most conservatives remember. Is Weisberg’s revisionism a sub rosa commentary that the dying throes of the Cold War were just histrionics between adversaries who needed the polarity of the east-west struggle to sustain their fix? To be sure, at moments, the series dabbles with a liberal-leaning perspective: when Elizabeth tries steering their adolescent, and blissfully apolitical, kids toward a leftist view of current events, Phillip later rebuffs her with a tart “This country doesn’t create socialists”, a hard to miss jab at the far right’s insinuations about a certain early 21st century president. The depiction of a black KGB operative named Gregory (Derek Luke) is provocative: he is a disillusioned American, a former 60s civil rights activist who dons a cover as a drug dealer, and in his tortured relationship with his country, there is a hint of a meme that regularly surfaces on the left—the insinuation that the 80s drug war was just the establishment’s counter-insurgency at misunderstood young black men.
Or, Weisberg may only be doing what the best television drama has been honing into a style since, well, the 80s: protagonists who struggle to resolve their ethical dilemmas, good deeds for the wrong reasons and vice versa, and the disconcerting appeal of corrupt figures who are simultaneously charming. Perhaps this familiar enough take only seems jarring when it is exported to the context of the epic global fight of the post WWII era. (and it is fair to conclude that Weisberg’s Russians are more nuanced than “Homeland’s” jihadists or the shadowy right wing conspirators lurking in “24″ or “Scandal”, or any given “NCIS” episode.)
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: “The Americans” — Bad History, Great TV?
By Krystal Ball, on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET
President Obama recently celebrated 100 days of being office for his second term. In recent months his approval rating has been wobbling, but according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Wednesday it has gone up to 51%. While it still lags behind his 55% approval rating a month after being re-elected, his rating is higher than the 47% he received in March.
However, even with his rebounding approval rating, the president faces persistent criticism about how much he has or has not been able to accomplish. With the budget talks at square one, the gun control legislation not passing the Senate (due to a GOP blockade), and both sides failing to rid the country of the sequester, President Obama’s 100 day mark didn’t seem to be filled with many accomplishments.
In this week’s episode of Political Playground Krystal asked her 5-year-old daughter, Ella, what she would ask President Obama if she was a member of the press like her mom.
“Why can’t both sides work together” Ella responded.
Americans agree with Ella. Pew Research Center also found that 80% believe that the president and Republican leaders are not working together. Forty-two percent blame Republican congressional leaders for the gridlock in Washington, while only 22% blame the president.
Ella does have some advice to help President Obama in his next 100 days: “Make your team work harder!”
By Michael Steele, on Wed May 15, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET
One of the hardest things to do in politics, believe it or not, is to standout. Sure you can go off and say something crazy; or even do something inherently stupid that will generate attention.
But most politicians and political parties don’t want that kind of attention. I’m talking about truly standing out: to be recognized for pushing against the conventional wisdom or fighting the status quo; or even better, standing against the prevailing winds of one’s party. That is a lot harder than you may imagine.
In a life spent advancing conservative principles, I have had the privilege of serving as a county chairman, a state chairman, a candidate and an elected official. When I assumed the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee in 2009 on the heels of humiliating defeats in 2006 and 2008, this would be my opportunity to advance those conservative principles in a new way; to go a bit against the grain, to push back on the “establishment” mindset that had led to these back to back devastating losses.
In short, for the party to survive it was time to turn the elephant to face its future. But have you ever tried to turn an elephant? Invariably, whichever end you start with will test your resolve.
GOP ‘lost its voice’
Republicans lost their voice on the things that mattered not long after the 2004 elections; and by 2008 that gap between our rhetoric and our actions had grown to the point that our credibility had completely snapped. From the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the implosion of the nation’s economy, more and more Americans began to view the party as out of step with the direction they believed the country should be heading. To make matters worse, what many inside and outside the arty failed to understand was it wasn’t the fault of our ideals or the principles we espoused, but rather the failure of our leadership to honor those principles.
Over time, our principles had morphed into baser motives. We became more interested in red vs. blue state politics, egged on by political know-it-alls and high-priced consultants. The net effect of their “leadership” diminished the noble vision of the Party of Lincoln—the party I had joined at the tender age of 17—as the GOP became the party of big government Republicanism.
It should be no secret to Republicans by now that the country has changed and continues to do so. You don’t need to spend a million bucks to figure that out. Nor do Republicans have to keep repeating “we need to reach out to [fill in the blank].” Shut up and do it already!
And that doesn’t mean sticking your finger in the air to check the prevailing political winds before “reaching out”; that’s blatantly disingenuous and the equivalent of the party giving voters the finger. Consequently, most Americans today see a Republican Party that defines itself by what it is against rather than what it is for.
Republicans will scream at President Obama for his spendthrift ways, but then fail to reconcile to voters their own spending habits. Republicans can tell you why public schools aren’t working, but not articulate a compelling vision for how they’ll make them successful. We’re well equipped to rail against tax increases; but can’t begin to explain how our policy prescriptions will help the poor and the middle class.
We’re great at talking about inclusion but not at actually including anyone.
2006, 2008 and now 2012 are painful reminders of the importance of owning our mistakes listening to the American people, and taking action on issues of importance to them — not us. If we are to regain the trust of the American people and restore the credibility of our ideas, a 21st Century GOP must reconnect with its radical past and focus importance on economic opportunity, civil rights, the environment, and individual liberties.
Party failed to heed warnings
During my last months as RNC Chairman, I warned the party that we stood on the precipice of Republicanism, ready to throw each other off, because some want a litmus test party. But that party of exclusion will not and must not succeed. For me, the Party of Lincoln was, and should be again, a party of opportunity and inclusion; assimilation and self-determination.
I still hold out hope that new voices consistent with the radical nature of Republicanism will give rise to a fresh approach to meet the challenges we face.
I will continue to be one of those voices. Let’s start that conversation on the healthcare, economic and political disparities that continue to cripple communities of color; let’s reframe the role of government not because we want to eliminate it; but because its purpose should be limited to serving the people and not itself; and let’s once again be the champion of the poor and middle class. Yes, a rising tide lifts all boats, but we can’t lose sight of those who don’t have a boat.
Republicans stand at the crossroads to their future and the voters are standing there with them wanting to know what we believe, how we will lead, and which way we intend go. They seek assurances that we are Republicans who see opportunity for every American not just those who donate to us or vote for us.
The Party of Lincoln was built on the uniting principles of hard work, personal responsibility, and self-determination. Republicans must once again call upon these principles to chart where the Party goes from here.
By Artur Davis, on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET
It is not news that affluent families extend their advantage of wealth and connections to the next generation in ways more tangible than trust funds: their kids invariably compile better grades and test scores, accomplish more in extracurricular and leadership activities, and win admission to better ranked colleges with the best rates of placing their alumni in well paying jobs.
A recent essay in the New York Times by a Stanford academic, Sean Reardon, (“No Rich Child Left Behind”) has won a lot of praise for its dissection of those trends and its collection of data showing that the gap between children born in affluent homes and their middle and lower income peers is growing. But Reardon’s analysis is also worth examining for a blind spot it reveals in the left’s critique of educational inequality: despite a laundry list of mostly proposals to grow government services, Reardon never mentions two words, vouchers and parental choice. Not even in passing, not even for the purpose of debunking them. It’s as if Reardon is wholly oblivious to the idea that what plagues many parents is not so much an absence of more social welfare, but a lack of capital to buy mobility into better educational options for their children.
And while Reardon captures the extent to which affluent parents are gaining an edge for their kids by pouring cash into extracurricular programs and by devoting more of their own time and knowledge to their child’s life after school hours, he oddly gives no consideration to the most vital thumb these parents place on the scale: they cut the check necessary to enroll their child in the most elite private school they can find, or they buy a home in a neighborhood with a track record of sustaining top flight schools.
Reardon is perceptive in his suggestion that fixating on school quality can shortchange other decisive factors like parental involvement. But that insight does not challenge the obvious: parental support can still be undermined by weak or poorly run schools, and what the most engaged parents bring to the table can be augmented by schools that are exemplary. For those reasons, liberals and conservatives have spent a lot of energy attacking the problem of failing schools, with the right tending to focus on more accountability from teachers and principals, and the left embracing challenges to state funding formulas that disadvantage low income districts in various ways, typically by leaving them too dependent on inadequate local property tax bases.
To be sure, conservatives have sometimes been guilty of seeming more enthusiastic about reining in teachers unions than they are about the plight of under-served minority and low income youngsters. But most left-leaning critics are guilty of a blatant contradiction: they spend enormous energy worrying about the deficit between richer and poorer school districts while seeming unengaged in the even more prevalent reality that richer parents have a considerable edge in maneuvering the menu of school options.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Education and the Power of Choice
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon May 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM ET
Click here to BUY MY BOOK!
A shameless and unconventional promo of my eBook.
Look…my eBook is ranked, ahem, 391,200 on Amazon.com.
Is that bad? It is only if you focus on the link underneath it offering to take you to the top 100 ranked books on Amazon.com. In other words, there are 391,101 that separate me from being in that group.
To some people who read a lot of books, that may not sound like a lot. But to me, well, even though I read a good deal….391,101 books …..is a lot. Quite a bit. A whole lot, in fact!
So I’m pitching this eBook one last time. And if I don’t break into the top, say, 281,200 on Amazaon.com, guess what? I’ll write another book! That’s right. If enough people don’t buy this one because they don’t want it…. there will be a sequel! Mark my word.
That’s right.
Next time I’ll try hawking two books in a Facebook post that other people don’t want to read, not just one!
Game on!! I’m serious. I’ll write it. I will. I’ll write a second eBook. I already have a title for it.
Title: “More….a lot more….Musings from the Middle: The sequel. II. And these aren’t very good at all –and seem to just go on forever. Just awful.”
Do you really want me to go there? Do you really want me to hawk a second and much worse eBook in a Facebook post? I don’t want to…and you don’t want me to either…but I just may. You’ve been warned.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
My “Unfilled” Bucket List of things to do before turning 50 (in 3 weeks)
1) See the Grand Canyon
2) Be an author (I kind of did that but with an eBook, which is only partial credit)
3) See some other national historic site in the West but can’t recall which one.
4) Get down to “HSW +15” (high school weight plus 15 lbs).
5) Learn to paint
6) Learn to dance
7) Learn to play an instrument
8) Become a millionaire (or at least stop asking my mom for loans)
9) Make a second contribution to IRA. (After I start one and contribute once.)
10) Run the mile in under 4 minutes. (Oops! I meant, run for 4 minutes nonstop)
11) Watch the entire Godfather trilogy in sequence
12) Clean out my closet
13) Change the light bulb in the basement storage closet
14) Read a Gentleman’s Guide to Etiquette to my son. (Or have my daughter read it to me. This was an either/or bucket list item)
15) Fix something in the house without using duct tape or super glue
16) Learn to sing
17) Take a foreign language (Ok. This was on and I took it off and then put back on and took off again for good.)
18) Don’t qualify for any new 12 step programs
19) Don’t shrink in height because you are close to not being able to round up to 5 ‘9 as it is.
20) Turn 49 ( I did that! Yay me!!)
I still have 17 to go after dropping foreign language and only partial credit for eBook and stopping asking my mother for loans.
It’s going to be a very busy next 3 weeks trying to complete my “Bucket List before 50” right?
Nah!
My new Bucket List for the second half of life is going to include not having a Bucket List and just live each day relatively well and not worry about stuff I won’t get to do before I die. I’ve done a few. Like turning 49. And it was overrated anyway.
By John Y. Brown III, on Sun May 12, 2013 at 9:46 AM ET
Setting aside one day a year to say “Thank You” to moms—seems like the least we can do. And on balance a pretty good deal.
Without moms, there wouldn’t be the other 364 days a year.
And that’s just for starters.
We would have a lot of bad habits that would hold us back in life and probably eventually lead to homelessness. And we’d have bad table manners and not bathe as frequently as we do. And we’d never gotten beyond 3rd grade in school. And with the foolish things we would try to do in the back yard playing as kids, we’d surely have put out one or both of our eyes. And refrigerators would stay open longer and waste energy. And we would have been cold more often because we forgot to wear warm enough clothes and shoes. And wet more often, too.
Umbrellas may never have been invented if not for moms. Or chicken soup. Or coupons. Or the voice inside our head that says to us, “What would your mother say?” that keeps us from acting on ideas we have that are viewed negatively by society—except in Quintin Tarrentino films.
But even Quintin Tarrentino is better off for having had a good mother. He would have merely been a spastic truant had he not had a good mom instead of one of the greatest film makers of our generation. So Quintin Tarrentino should be especially grateful for his mom.
And we wouldn’t know how to say things like, “Happy Mother’s Day” and mean it. Or “I love you” and mean that.
So, for all those reasons and many more, Happy Mother’s Day!
* (Hey now! Don’t jump to the wrong conclusion. I’m not serious. Really. This was intended as a light-hearted joke. If you read it literally and didn’t catch the humor you aren’t alone. It was admittedly an inartful and flawed attempt at either understatement, overstatement or irony. And I apologize for any confusion. Please try reading through once more knowing it is an attempt at humor and see if it seems funnier. If you got it the first time, please disregard.)
