Time After Time ...

... Cyndi Lauper finds ways to impress me. The latest can be found here.

Lauper's breakthrough album was She's So Unusual. On the one hand, I think the album title is perfect. I think Lauper's music is one of the closest things to original (and, thus, unusual) to be found in popular music. On the other hand, I think the album title is unfortunate in at least one way. I think it's unfortunate that Lauper's kind of approach to art, music, life, and humanity is not more common.

Simple Men and the Simple Pleasure of a Simple Alum

I may be the mayor of simpleton,
But I know one thing,
And that’s I love you.

-- XTC

Apparently, I’m lying when I say that I don’t watch presidential and vice presidential debates, because, after watching the Palin-Biden debate the other day, I watched the last 15-20 minutes or so of the McCain-Obama debate Tuesday night. I only, though, tuned in to this portion of the debate for one reason: my alma mater (and current place of employment) was featured on ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson Tuesday night, as he broadcast World News from the campus of Bowling Green State University and then discussed the debate with a group of students from BGSU. It was kind of fascinating to see the stage for World News being set up on campus on Tuesday and I was tempted to stick around to be in the audience, but decided that I was better off going home and getting work done. Besides, I had my “Hey, Mom, I’m on TV” presidential debate moment four years ago, while I was at Arizona State University. One of the Kerry-Bush debates took place at ASU and I stood in the crowd while Judy Woodruff, then on CNN, broadcast from the library lawn. I managed to get to the front of the crowd during the program and, of course, used my cell phone to call my mom, who turned on CNN and saw me on television. I figured one time was enough for that; I’d leave this one to other folks. Anyway, that aside, the more important point here is that this was a nice little piece of national attention for BGSU that I’m hoping helps the university. I’m finding myself to be a rather loyal alum who thinks quite highly of the institution, particularly given its outstanding programs despite being relegated, along with other state universities in Ohio, to underclass status to that pompous institution in Columbus that has the gall to refer to itself as “The” Ohio State University.

So, I enjoyed seeing my alma mater featured on ABC and I’m grateful to Charles Gibson, ABC, and World News for coming here. On the other hand, I did not enjoy the candidates’ answers to the last question of the night, which asked what they did not know and how they would go about finding out what they don’t know. Both seemed to give essentially the same answer: I don’t know everything I would face as president and here’s what I do know ….blah blah blah … I’m this, I’m that, etc. Unfortunately, given the cultural milieu of not only contemporary politics but much of contemporary American culture (and I suppose the same could be said for many other cultures as well), there is more emphasis on stating assertions as knowledge rather than building policies from a position of recognizing what one does not know. Time and again candidates are asked to say what they will do and they happily oblige. In that regard, I do appreciate the statement by both McCain and Obama that no one knows what a president will face, since that statement reflects at least some recognition that they don’t know everything they’d do as president. However, when that then turns to more of the same indication of what they do “know” and what they will supposedly do, the candidates (along with the system that forces them to engage in this practice) drop the ball, particularly since many of us recognize that the president alone doesn’t get to determine everything that will be done and that, since we can’t know all that will develop, we can’t know what we’re going to do. This becomes even more problematic, I think, when applied to truth claims like one “knowing” when life begins or when it doesn’t begin, like one “knowing” what marriage is and what constitute “natural” sexual relations, like one “knowing” what needs to be done for the economy (especially when the most experienced and studied experts claim not to know and those experts disagree on what to do), like one “knowing” what “evil” is enough to apply the term to a country like Iran or Russia (despite the fact that many of the choices made by leaders of those countries are as much a product of contemporary politics as the choices of leaders of the United States), and so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby … I suppose that the thing that I appreciate most about Barack Obama is that he seems to do less of this kind of ideologically-charged know-it-all talk than other candidates and that strikes me as a mark of forthrightness and intelligence. I’d even argue that John McCain does less of this than other candidates … or, at least, that he did so before becoming a presidential nominee and changing his style (though even his answer tonight of “maybe” in response to the “yes or no” question of whether Russia is an “evil empire,” along with his explanation of the limitations of a “yes” answer and a “no” answer, seems to show elements of the kind of nuance I’m looking for). Indeed, that I see both of these candidates this way plays a large part in determining why I have tended to feel like I actually have two decent choices this year (as opposed to 2004). Joe Biden seems to fit right in with this. I have seen interviews with him—one in particular a couple of years ago on The Daily Show—in which he impressed me with a kind of candor that I’m not used to seeing from national politicians. Unfortunately, it does not seem to me that Sarah Palin can be characterized like these other three. That is why, while McCain as president doesn’t scare me, Palin on the ticket with him does. And, again, that is one more reason why I dislike debates, political campaigns, campaign ads, and the whole nine yards.

It is from a similar state of mind that I often tell classes that I teach that I don’t know anything. At least in part, this is meant to be tongue in cheek. Of course, I believe that I know that something—that I have specialized knowledge of theories and methods involving the study of culture and communication. However, my comment is also meant to acknowledge that I think truth claims are very suspect. Meanwhile, I hope that the comment helps foster critical thought, particularly on how knowledge is constructed within systems of power that reinforce the idea that some people are better or more important than others. I may have specialized knowledge, but that doesn’t make me any more or less important than my students and it should not be used to attempt to dismiss the forms of specialized knowledge that various students have that I do not. As Jango Fett says in Star Wars Episode II, “I’m just a simple man trying to make his way in the universe.” I think the same of myself and so, too, do I think this applies to the presidential candidates. It is that ideological sentiment that informs many of my own positions and I’m sure that that sentiment also informs my distaste for the truth claims that I see so often advanced in these debates.

One Shining Moment

I don’t usually watch presidential and vice presidential debates. I usually can’t stand them. I’m generally frustrated at all participants throughout most of the debate whenever I watch one. I become frustrated with the know-it-all responses, lack of answering questions, lack of asking more challenging questions, rehashing of tired clichés and uninteresting, overly generalized assertions and declarations. I’m someone who has a deeply developed postmodern sensitivity to the idea that none of us has truth. So, questions like “What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?” do little for me, as do responses that claim to articulate truth. Additionally, as someone who celebrates nuance, a statement like “Let's try to avoid nuance” positively sends me into fits. (Though, ironically enough, that statement was said tonight in conjunction with the issue that I probably see in the most black-and-white terms: gay marriage. Unfortunately, I find neither position articulated tonight fulfilling. As far as I’m concerned this crap about “traditional definitions of marriage,” etc. is exactly that—a large, heavy, smelly pile of crap that is perpetuating oppression on the basis of sexual orientation. … Like I said, that’s one position that I have that tends to lack nuance.)

I also find that these things confirm many of my worst concerns about the voting public of the United States. Throughout the vice presidential debate tonight, CNN ran a positive/negative meter that recorded the sentiments of undecided Ohio voters who indicated as they felt positively or negatively about what was being said. After the debate, one commentator on CNN noted that the positives went up significantly when Sarah Palin used “folksy” talk, like “darn right,” “god bless,” and phrases of similar ilk, particularly in a down-homey kind of tone of voice, while the reactions of the respondents became more negative when Joe Biden discussed specific amendments and policies. Is that really something to be proud of, though? Perhaps I’m misinterpreting it (and I suppose I really hope I am), but it really sounds like these voters saying they’re quite happy being uninformed—that they want happy-go-lucky-sounding niceties and they are uninterested in knowing or caring about the details of legislation or the complexities of issues. That strikes me as a sad indictment of many U.S. citizens as stubbornly proud of ignorance.

So, I have these huge reservations about these debates, yet I watched the vice presidential debate tonight and had the very kinds of reactions that I thought I would … with the exception of one moment. CNN titles it “Biden gets emotional” and it can be seen here. Perhaps this was really good acting on Biden’s part, but it seemed pretty spontaneous to me, particularly with the way that Biden seems to steel himself quickly, almost as if he flipped a switch in his head so that he could continue his sentence. This hit me as an instance that, if only for a fleeting moment, existed outside the competition and performance of the debate. Its very characterization by CNN as “getting emotional” reflects the ways in which U.S. culture defines “emotion,” as if a stolid lack of emotional display is not itself a type of emotional response. Yet, this instance also offers the potential to deconstruct the entire form of the debate and the election process in general. In particular, it suggests the possibility of a different way of engaging in public discourse. And while my postmodern sensibility cautions me against this, I have this overwhelming tendency to want to say that that seems like a much more humane possibility than the schlock that we now have … the same schlock that generally keeps me from enjoying and usually keeps me from watching these debates … the same schlock that I think tends to keep this country from addressing significant issues more effectively.

Responses to Responses

Sorry ... little action on the blog lately. That's what having eighty-some papers to grade will do to a person. ... And still not out of the woods ...

I did, though, take a few moments last Wednesday to send comments to two individuals whose work I have engaged recently on this blog. First, I sent a comment to Le Anne Schreiber, the ESPN Ombudsman, expressing my gratitude for her continuing excellent work in critiquing ESPN. I also referred her to my blog entry in which I both express that gratitude and suggest the need to add further consideration to her treatment of "East Coast Bias." Then, I sent a comment to Lou Dobbs, the CNN program host, referring him to my blog entry in which I critiqued his treatment of the subject of English-only policies in schools.

I heard back from Schreiber on Friday in an email message expressing her gratitude to me for my message and the sentiment that comments like mine help in her efforts at ESPN. Thank you to Ms. Schreiber for her response. Her sentiments help me in my efforts as well, as it's nice to know that I may be contributing to the bettering of that which I am so often critiquing.

I have not heard back from Mr. Dobbs, though, which is not to say that I expect a response or wish to demand one. Rather, it is to say that I would welcome the response and I would note it here. I'll let you know if I hear anything ...

Jules Tygiel

Upon receiving my September/October newsletter from SABR (The Society for American Baseball Research) this weekend, I was incredibly saddened to find out that Jules Tygiel passed away at the age of 59 this past July.

Tygiel is most known for his book Baseball’s Great Experiment: Jackie Robinson and his Legacy, which was first published in 1983. I feel confident in saying that this is the most definitive historical account of the racial integration of Major League Baseball that has been published. I also think that this book should be required reading for anyone who is interested in the study of the history and social significance of baseball. On page 9 of the book, Tygiel argues that “the integration of baseball represented both a symbol of imminent racial challenge and a direct agent of social change. Jackie Robinson’s campaign against the color line in 1946-7 captured the imagination of millions of Americans who had previously ignored the nation’s racial dilemma. For civil rights advocates the baseball experience offered a model of peaceful transition through militant confrontation, economic pressure, and moral suasion.” In some of my own work I have suggested that the agency that Tygiel ascribes to integration in this work needs to be tempered with a fuller recognition of the politics of integration—i.e. that the way it occurred served to reinforce white privilege by consolidating control of professional baseball in the United States under white ownership. However, even as I have offered this suggestion, I have always claimed that we should not entirely discount Tygiel’s argument here. Integration as it proceeded had both its progressive and its conservative aspects. Based on other things I’ve read from him and from the one time that I spoke personally with him, I think that Tygiel would not disagree.

I met Tygiel once—at the NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture conference in Tucson, Arizona, in the spring of 2004. He attended the panel on which I presented a paper based on interviews that I had done with folks who had been Dodger fans when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn. He participated in the discussion afterward and spoke with me personally after the panel had concluded. I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation, though I later regretted that I didn’t politely ask him one question for which I had wanted an answer for awhile: how to pronounce his last name. I had never met anyone else who, upon my asking, knew for sure how to pronounce his last name. Meanwhile, I had always felt a little embarrassed every time I had to say his last name while citing him in a presentation—which was often, since I’ve been studying the Brooklyn Dodgers, including their role in integration, for years—since I was unsure whether or not I was saying it correctly. That conversation in 2004 had been my chance to ask him directly and hours later I realized I had blown it. Unfortunately, it was his obituary in the New York Times that finally gave me my answer when I read it today.

Politics as Usual?

Count me among those who see the reasoning behind John McCain choosing Sarah Palin for his running mate in the 2008 presidential election. I’m not going to rehash all of the reasons for choosing her, since all of that can be found in the many accounts that have discussed the choice over the past week. Suffice to say that I see the logic of it and, while I’m not going to try to act like I know enough to say if she was the “correct” choice, I’ll say that I think Palin as McCain’s choice makes sense and, while I don't want to say I "like" the choice, since I tend to disagree with a lot of Palin's positions, I certainly see good reasons for choosing her. (Of course, what do I know? When George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, while I was an ardent supporter of Al Gore, I said that at least Bush wouldn’t screw up the country …)

Since McCain’s announcement of Palin as his running mate, members of the Republican Party have utilized the choice of Palin to attempt to align their party and their nominees with rights and opportunities for women. Indeed, it appears that that was one of the reasons why Palin was chosen and, in line with that, many attempts have been made, by Republicans and by others, to portray Palin as a kind of legacy of the women’s rights movement. We have even seen in the past week that, as a woman, Palin faces rather explicit sexism in the United States, as her ability to perform on the job when she has a number of children at home has been called into question in a way that is seldom asked of a man.

Yet, if we want to identify Palin with the women’s rights movement, we might examine the depth of her understanding of that movement and the way in which it proceeded. In particular, I would ask that we look more fully at the way in which her speech in accepting the Republican nomination for vice president characterized the role of community organizers. At a couple of points, Palin’s speech suggested that community organizers do little real work. This was obviously meant as a direct reference to Barack Obama’s experiences as a community organizer. Yet, to disparage the work of a community organizer is to deny what has been a very important role in many movements for equality throughout the history of the United States. Community organizers have been key figures in the development of many social movements, including the Civil Rights Movement, the gay rights movement, and the women’s rights movement. Indeed, if it wasn’t for many community organizers throughout the history of the women’s rights movement, Palin herself might not have had the opportunity that she accepted tonight. By calling into question the work that community organizers do, Palin has failed to recognize the contributions of many women and men who have helped her occupy the position she is in today. Additionally, by extension, Palin has called into question the women’s rights movement that has depended on these community organizers’ work.

I tend to think that Palin did not mean to disparage the good work of these people. Her reference seemed to be meant as one of the several sarcastic one-liners that were included in the speech in an attempt to create a usable sound byte that challenged the qualifications of her political adversary—in this case questioning Obama’s experience. These kinds of remarks are a convention of the genre of a campaign speech. They are, basically, a part of politics as it is played in America. We should though, make note of the hidden politics that are reinforced in the process of playing such politics. While sexism takes its more explicit forms in the kinds of remarks that Palin has had to face, it also takes its more implicit forms in the many other ways in which the contributions of women and the struggle for equality for women go unnoticed. With that in mind, I would ask Palin to reconsider her use of this particular one-liner.

I Apologize in Advance for This One

While reading Jayson Stark's column from August 28, I discovered what Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn from Major League did after his playing career ended: public relations for the Tampa Bay major league baseball club. Check out Number 2 here to see. From the California Penal League to public relations ... Wow!

Okay, I'm sure that guy gets this kind of joke all the time, but I couldn't help myself.