Friday, March 01, 2024

Yes We Have No Menckens

Exactly 10 years ago (March 1, 2014), I released a Media Rant alerting readers to what was at that time the early stages of climate scientist Michael Mann's defamation lawsuit against climate change denialist  trolls whose "critique" of him consisted of character assassination and allegations of research fraud. Thanks to our ridiculously slow legal system, it took literally more than a decade for Mann's suit to go before a judge and jury. In the end, after a contentious four-week trial, the six-member jury unanimously sided with Dr. Mann, awarding him over $1 million in damages. To prevail, Mann had to meet the actual malice standard for public figures charging others with defamation, a high bar that required showing the defendants knew they were making false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. 

H.L. Mencken was an intrepid reporter and pundit for the Baltimore Sun and other sources. Though some of his writings can legitimately be accused of elitism and intolerance, his aggressive confrontations with the demagogic trolls of his time inspired a generation of journalists. 

Climate change activists hoped Mann's lawsuit would put climate science itself on trial. After the verdict, Dr. Mann did argue that the trial results were a "victory for scientists and science." Maybe that is true in a technical sense, but the fact that the mainstream media ignored and/or minimized the courtroom proceedings while they were going on meant that few people knew that the courtroom struggle between climate change science and climate change denialism was even going on. Think of it this way: imagine that the date of the Super Bowl wasn't  announced in advance, and when the game finally got played it wasn't televised. Kansas City might still have "won," but who would care? 

The United States is a global outlier in terms of the number of people who deny climate change is occurring or--even if they do accept the science--do not see it as urgent. The Mann trial featured defendants who typify the trolling style of discourse against climate science that, especially for large segments of the population caught in right-wing echo chambers and algorithms, is typically unquestioned and taken as fact. During the trial, the defendants did not hold back from launching attacks on climate science. Thanks to the limited media coverage, so far there's little evidence that the trial did anything to deter denialism from continuing; perhaps in the future the trolls might not be dumb enough to compare people they disagree with to pedophiles, or accuse scientists of fraud with scant evidence to back it up. Denialism does not require character assassination or accusations of research fraud to be effective; all it requires is unchallenged repetition of falsehoods. 

The tragedy of the Mann trial is that, because of media negligence,  it ultimately was not an event that allowed the public to hear and see  a thorough debunking of climate denialist nonsense. For the trial to be THAT kind of event would have required major news outfits to report from the courtroom every day, like they did with Depp v. Heard, the Alex Murdaugh murder trial, or numerous other celeb and/or sensationalist courtroom clashes. 

What the Mann trial needed was an H.L. Mencken, an intrepid reporter with an ear for bullshit and the kind of acerbic style needed to go toe-to-toe with modern internet trolls. 

I mention Mencken purposely in reference to the Michael Mann trial. In the 1920s science was under attack by Christian fundamentalists who pressed state legislatures and school districts to make it illegal to teach the theory of evolution. Very much like the modern online trolls, the critics of evolutionary theory resorted to absurd arguments to make their case, often preying on the fears and prejudices of religious folk convinced that science and spirituality could not coexist. (Very much like modern critics of climate science prey on the fears of working class people worried about potential job losses that could accompany the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.). 

The conflict between fundamentalist Christian creationist dogma vs. evolutionary theory came to a head in the famous 1925 State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes trial, called the "Scopes Monkey Trial" by Mencken. Covering the trial for the Baltimore Sun, Mencken in his trademark style employed bitter sarcasm, ridicule, and mockery to call out the attempt to discredit secular knowledge not with reasoned evidence, but with superstition. He was especially bitter toward William Jennings Bryan, the four-time presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and fundamentalist preacher who led the prosecution's argument against John Scopes. Mr. Scopes' "crime" was teaching the theory of evolution in violation of Tennessee's Butler Act which prohibited such teaching. 

Scopes, represented by the legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow, actually lost the trial. But Darrow masterfully turned the proceedings into a public referendum on what a democratic society should expect from its public schools. Should schools be spaces for expanding minds through rational exploration and discovery? Or should they be indoctrination centers for fundamentalist dogma?  The fact that the trial was covered nationally, and passionately by people like Mencken, allowed the mass media audience of that time (primarily print newspapers and radio) to gain access to a vital debate that still plays out in public school districts across the land--today more typically targeting LGBTQA+ tolerance or Critical Race Theory instead of evolution. 

Michael Mann's lawyers took on the climate denialist trolls in a manner very similar to the way Darrow handled the fundamentalists in 1925. Darrow was condemned at the time by "liberal" media outlets like the New York World for being too mean to the fundamentalists. Mencken's response reads like a blueprint for how to handle modern trolls: 

"What the World's contention amounts to, at bottom, is simply the doctrine that a man engaged in combat with superstition should be very polite to superstition. This, I fear, is nonsense. The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame."

In short, Michael Mann and his attorneys did their part. They clashed with the trolls, defended climate science with real evidence, and put denialists on notice that there could be consequences for continuing to choose reckless disregard for the truth and character assassination as debate strategies. 

Mann did his part, but the establishment mass media did not do theirs. A recent study exploring the consequences of climate denialism concluded that, "As a form of knowledge vulnerability, climate denialism renders communities unprepared to take steps to increase resilience." The Mann trial gave mass media the opportunity to broadcast the facts of climate science to a national audience, expose the nonsensical attacks against it, and thus make us all a little less vulnerable against the "knowledge" spewed by bad faith actors who place fossil fuel and other corporate interests above human needs. 

Thursday, February 01, 2024

Herb Kohl's Mixed Legacy

When former Wisconsin Democratic Senator Herb Kohl passed away in late December, the majority of politicians praised him for his philanthropy, work ethic, and support for good causes. Quotes from leading Democrats (current Senator Tammy Baldwin called him "my role model") made it sound as if Kohl was part of Wisconsin's progressive tradition. Spoiler alert: he wasn't. 

No one should minimize the impact of Herb Kohl's philanthropic work. The millions of dollars he dedicated to education and other initiatives made--and continue to make--lasting impacts on the citizenry. The US Senate is dominated by millionaires, but few of them invest it in positive public initiatives as well as Kohl did. 

Former Senator Herb Kohl
Unfortunately, the Wisconsin media seems unwilling to assess Herb Kohl's US Senate legacy in a rigorous manner, and tend to conflate his philanthropy and senate work. The Madison Cap Times editorial tribute to Kohl is the best example, in which the writers include as part of his legacy that "marks him as one of the most significant elected leaders in Wisconsin history" the fact that he kept the Bucks in Milwaukee, funded the Kohl Center, funded the Kohl foundation, and gave out generous scholarships. None of the philanthropic work Herb Kohl engaged in required him to be a United States Senator. None. 

Judging Herb Kohl's legacy as an elected official means taking an honest look at his impact on politics and policy. Journalists, historians, and pundits should not allow Kohl's affable personality and generous gift giving to prevent them from offering candid assessments of his Senate record. Kohl did many good things in his four terms, which have been duly noted in press coverage, but he was also on the wrong side of some of the most critical issues of his time--issues that had enormous impact on the lives of Americans.

Let's starts with Kohl's political legacy. In the early 2000s I attended a speech at UW Oshkosh delivered by then Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette. During the question and answer period, a student asked Secretary LaFollette to talk about the role of money in politics. He answered by sharing an anecdote about his run for the United States Senate in the 1988 Democratic Party primaries. Running a grassroots campaign, LaFollette traveled thousands of miles across the state in a used car, knocking on doors and meeting voters in cities, towns, and villages. When he got way up to the northernmost county, he knocked on a door and an elderly woman answered. As I recall from LaFollette's remarks, here is how his conversation with that woman went: 

LaFollette: "Hi I'm Secretary of State Doug LaFollette and I'm running to be your United States Senator." 

Woman"That's what Herb Kohl is running for, right?"  

The woman knew about Kohl not because he had visited her home, but because he had saturated the state with millions of dollars of TV ads telling Wisconsinites he would be "Nobody's senator but your own." Kohl won the primary that year with a plurality of 47 percent of the vote, prevailing over former governor Tony Earl, progressive activist Ed Garvey, and LaFollette. Kohl defeated 36-year-old Republican Susan Engeleiter in the general election, and when all was said and done had spent around $7 million of his own money. 

Kohl won three more terms (in 1994, 2000, 2006), each time defeating his Republican challenger by wider margins. He was certainly not the first multimillionaire to win a United States Senate seat, but he was one of the first to establish that flooding media markets with millions of dollars of television and other ad spots immediately transforms the flooder into a candidate the press will take seriously. That leads to the perverse situation--we saw it in 2016 with the Trump presidential campaign--where the richest candidate in the race also ends up getting the most FREE advertising from media corporations. 

Throughout Senator Kohl's long tenure in office I was always frustrated by how the corporate media and the establishment Democratic party enabled the "nobody's senator but yours" schtick, as if we would somehow be better off as a state and a nation if every candidate for every office was self-funded. Obviously the dysfunction of contemporary politics cannot be blamed on Herb Kohl, but his success at using his personal fortune to insulate himself from serious electoral competition became the norm across the country. For higher office on both the Democratic and Republican sides, candidate recruitment involves the search for the "benevolent millionaire" who is somehow in touch with the grassroots. 

Herb Kohl became one of the best examples of what campaign finance reform advocates feared would happen after the Supreme Court's horrendous 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which held as unconstitutional the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal resources, as well as limitations on total campaign expenditures. The Buckley decision gave us the nefarious "money = speech" principle, which campaign reform advocate Derek Cressman aptly referred to as "court ordered corruption." Justice Thurgood Marshall offered up a powerful dissent: 

One of the points on which all Members of the Court agree is that money is essential for effective communication in a political campaign. It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant "headstart." Of course, the less wealthy candidate can potentially overcome the disparity in resources through contributions from others. But ability to generate contributions may itself depend upon a showing of a financial base for the campaign or some demonstration of preexisting support, which, in turn, is facilitated by expenditures of substantial personal sums. Thus, the wealthy candidate's immediate access to a substantial personal fortune may give him an initial advantage that his less wealthy opponent can never overcome. And even if the advantage can be overcome, the perception that personal wealth wins elections may not only discourage potential candidates without significant personal wealth from entering the political arena, but also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

When the Supreme Court opened up the floodgates for big money in Buckley v. Valeo, Justice Thurgood Marshall in his dissent anticipated the corruption that would follow. 

The argument that millionaire self-financed candidates make is that, in not having to rely on Political Action Committee donations or contributions from individuals, they are truly independent. All these rich candidates campaign on some variation of Kohl's "nobody's senator but yours" theme.  A truly independent politician in Washington, I think we would all agree, is one able to resist all the beltway lobbying, put principle over politics, stand with marginalized groups, refuse to support ill-conceived military operations, and take unpopular positions. I'm not sure Herb Kohl's record reflects that kind of independence. "Nobody's senator but yours" supported

  • The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. A truly independent senator would have stood up for the LGBTQ community. 
  • The 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act." This bill was a cornerstone of the 1994 Republican "Contract With America," and was a result of years scapegoating of "welfare queens" and other attacks on the poor. With the Republicans taking over Congress in the 1994 midterms and fearing his own reelection chances, President Clinton signed the legislation and declared "the era of big government is over." A truly independent senator would have called out how the war on poverty was being transformed into a war on the poor. 
  • The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts.  George W. Bush entered office with a budget surplus. His tax cuts of 2001, which Kohl supported, disproportionately benefited the wealthy and set the stage for the massive deficits we see today. A truly independent senator would only support truly progressive tax policies. 
  • The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Passed only six weeks after the September 11 attacks with virtually no deliberation and with senators openly admitting not having read its provisions, the PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold was the only member of the body to vote against it. "Nobody's senator but ours" voted for it. 
  • The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. This resolution passed the Senate 77-23, with 29 Democrats including Kohl voting Yes. If ever there was a time when the nation needed truly independent senators, it was for this vote. 
  • The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This was the infamous Wall St. bailout. Legislation that, as Matt Taibbi correctly pointed out,  committed American taxpayers to "permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyperconcentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it."  Before the vote, polls showed that citizens were opposed to the bailout. A truly independent senator would have stood with them and demanded that the legislation do much more to hold elite financiers accountable and protect taxpayers before voting yes. 
Each one of these pieces of legislation had enormous impact on society, with mostly negative and in some cases tragic consequences. The Cap Times swept all this under the rug in three sentences: "That did not mean that Kohl got every issue right. We disagreed with his support for the war in Iraq and for the USA Patriot Act. He voted for tax cuts that didn’t sit well with us." 

The purpose of this rant was not to trash the late Senator Kohl. He was a decent man with good intentions. It is no disrespect to Kohl to point out that he benefited from an extremely corrupt campaign finance system, and that his votes did not always reflect the independence he claimed his wealth gave him. As with all millionaire candidates, his wealth became a firewall which protected his incumbency from serious challenges within the Democratic party and from the Republicans. It ought to be possible for Wisconsin journalists to praise Kohl's philanthropy while taking a more rigorous look at his overall record in the Senate. 

Sunday, December 31, 2023

The 2023 Tony Awards

It's time once again for what Media Rants' readers spend months anticipating: the annual Tony Awards for Excellence in Media. From the first awards column in 2002 to last year's 20th anniversary edition, I've always been drawn to: 

  • Insightful works that shed light on some important public issue. 
  • Creative works that deserve a wider audience. 
  • Informative works that provide eye-opening education on a difficult topic. 
  • Courageous works that speak truth to power OR that speak truth to the powerless. 
  • Humorous works that skillfully provoke laughter and thought at the same time. 
  • Local works that promote community and civic engagement. 

In any given year, literally thousands of media texts meet one or more of these criteria. Being a Committee-Of-One, I recognize only those I have actually engaged repeatedly and/or received some inspiration from. If you do not like my list, create your own! I always enjoy hearing about what other media ranters think is worth recognizing. 

One final preliminary proclamation before we get to the Awards: I'm dedicating this year's post to all the courageous journalists and other media workers in Gaza who have been murdered for the "crime" of doing their jobs. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, as of December 23, 2023 the war in Gaza has claimed the lives of 69 journalists and media workers (62 Palestinian, 4 Israeli, 3 Lebanese). I join the CPJ in calling on the international community to do more to protect the lives of journalists, provide access and the ability to report, and investigate attacks against all media workers while demanding that belligerents end the impunity against them.

And now the Tony Awards! Drum roll please: 

*Song of the Year: The Beatles, "Now and Then." Thanks to Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the great director and ultimate Beatles' fan Peter Jackson--who used modern technology to revivify John Lennon's voice from a muffled 1970's cassette tape and incorporate the late George Harrison's guitar--the world was treated to a "new" Fab Four tune. Though I share New York Times' columnist Peter Baker's concerns about how Jackson's use of artificial intelligence might set the precedent for monetary exploitation of fans via nonstop recycling of old material, the emotional tug of the song--especially for John Lennon devotees like yours truly--is too strong to resist even while recognizing the real possibility of bad motives of the wizards behind the curtain.

   

*Best Coverage of the Gutting of UW Oshkosh: The Staff of the Advance-Titan. I have taught at UW Oshkosh for parts of five decades, and dedicated more than half of my chronological life to the institution. Many love the place as much as I do, but no one loves it MORE. Over many generations UW Oshkosh provided the children of working class families--people just like me--the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the complexities of life and become productive members of communities. The gerrymandered Republican legislature's devaluing of the entire UW has been short sighted and distressing for more than a decade, but not until relatively recently have campus administrators across the system stopped resisting the GOP's wanton demands for austerity budgets. In 2023 UW Oshkosh lost scores of outstanding employees in what appeared to be an outside-consultant driven process that gutted entire programs without sufficient regard to the impact on the campus' mission. 

The UW Oshkosh Advance-Titan has produced compelling and humane journalism throughout the crisis at UW Oshkosh. In the photo is the great Debbie Gray Patton, an amazing contributor to the campus for 27 years. If a campus is serious about thriving in the 21st century, it does not let someone like Debbie Gray Patton go. 

If an honest history of this most shameful year in the campus' history is ever written, the student-led Advance Titan newspaper should be praised for its outstanding coverage of the gutting. Rather than follow the lead of the establishment press and waste space on dubious administrative talking points, the AT focused consistently on the impacts of the downsizing on REAL HUMAN BEINGS. The AT editors and reporters refused to be spun by press releases and other forms of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Instead, the paper actually did journalism as evidenced by stories like "Staff Layoffs Stun Campus" and  "What Will Those Leaving Do Next?" Special shout outs to Editor-In-Chief Katie Pulvermacher, Managing Editor Kelly Hueckman, News Editor Anya Kelley, and Opinion Editor Aubrie Selsmeyer for recognizing the gravity of the moment and not shying away from their responsibility to tell the truth about the magnitude of the travesty visited upon UW Oshkosh. 

*Podcasters of the Year: Michael Barbaro and Sabrina Tavernise of the New York Times' "The Daily." I've long been a fan of this magnificent podcast; five days a week, Barbaro and Tavernise take twenty minutes to shed light on issues in a way that is free of mindless partisan talking points and other standard digital world nonsense. They are at their best when they take a serious issue and elucidate it by focusing on a representative narrative. My favorite episode of the year was posted recently (December 19) and was called "Football's Young Victims." The episode focuses on the tragic case of Hunter Foraker, a high school and college football player who committed suicide at age 25 and was then found to have been suffering from the degenerative brain disease CTE. It is almost impossible to listen to this episode without coming to the conclusion that--at the very least--a national conversation about the wisdom of allowing youth to participate in contact sports where the risk of getting hundreds or even thousands of "subconcussive hits" is very high. 

*The "This Ain't No Papal Bull Award": Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation "Laudate Deum" (Praise God). This exhortation is Francis' latest attempt to sound a clarion call on the issue of climate change. So-called "conservative" Catholics long for a return to the "good old days" when Popes spent most of their time condemning LGBTQ people, abortion rights, and Communism. Francis actually seems to think that God commands us to protect Mother Earth and take climate science seriously. He does not hold back in blaming powerful nations for the lack of sufficient progress: "Regrettably, the climate crisis is not exactly a matter that interests the great economic powers, whose concern is with the greatest profit possible at minimal cost and in the shortest amount of time." Amen Brother. 

I also appreciate Francis' media ranting: 

The ethical decadence of real power is disguised thanks to marketing and false information, useful tools in the hands of those with greater resources to employ them to shape public opinion. With the help of these means, whenever plans are made to undertake a project involving significant changes in the environment or high levels of contamination, one raises the hopes of the people of that area by speaking of the local progress that it will be able to generate or of the potential for economic growth, employment and human promotion that it would mean for their children. Yet in reality there does not seem to be any true interest in the future of these people, since they are not clearly told that the project will result in the clearing of their lands, a decline in the quality of their lives, a desolate and less habitable landscape lacking in life, the joy of community and hope for the future; in addition to the global damage that eventually compromises many other people as well . . . 

Pope Francis met climate activist Greta Thunberg in 2019. "Laudate Deum" is the most explicit call for climate justice ever issued from the Vatican. 

This situation has to do not only with physics or biology, but also with the economy and the way we conceive it. The mentality of maximum gain at minimal cost, disguised in terms of reasonableness, progress and illusory promises, makes impossible any sincere concern for our common home and any real preoccupation about assisting the poor and the needy discarded by our society. In recent years, we can note that, astounded and excited by the promises of any number of false prophets, the poor themselves at times fall prey to the illusion of a world that is not being built for them.

*Best Gen Z TikTok Pundit: Kat Abu. Born into an upper-middle-class, conservative family in Dallas, Katherine Abughazaleh (AKA "Kat Abu") produces some of the most hysterical political humor on the web. Her mix of Gen Z irreverence and biting satire is as if George Carlin got reincarnated as a 24-year-old female. My favorite segment is her weekly take-down of Fox News, featuring "totally real and definitely not made up stories you might have missed."

*Wisconsin-Based Investigative Reporting of the Year: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "Behind the Gun" Series. Driven by suicide, the Wisconsin's rate of gun deaths has doubled since 2004. The Journal Sentinel's Behind the Gun (behind a paywall unfortunately) series is a remarkable piece of reporting that mixes data from every county, testimony from officials whose jobs require them to deal with gun issues, and narratives from gun owners to create a picture that upsets the preconceptions of "pro" and "anti" gun lobbies in the state. Kudos to lead reporter John Diedrich and contributors Natalie Eilbert, Alex Rivera Grant, and Ben Schultz for producing a series that should provoke us us to start thinking about guns in a way that allows all sides to come together to support practical reforms that might reduce the carnage. 

In 2023 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel released an eye opening series on guns in Wisconsin. 

*The Liberal Icon-Buster Award: "The Secret History of Gun Rights--How Lawmakers Armed the N.R.A" by Mike McIntire in the New York Times. Speaking of guns, I'll bet you thought that the biggest N.R.A enablers over the years were Republicans, right? That's certainly what I thought--until I read McIntire's well researched article. Turns out that liberal icon John Dingell (D-Michigan), the longest serving member of Congress in history, was also the most pro-N.R.A. Mr. Dingell's files were donated to the University of Michigan but kept under wraps for eight years. It took the New York Times fives months to get access to them. McIntire's thorough review of the files reveals a lawmaker who over many decades did everything possible to frustrate the passage of gun safety legislation. Even after supporting the assault weapons ban in the 1990s, Dingell behind the scenes was working to get it repealed. 

More than any other public official, Rep. Dingell was responsible for transforming the N.R.A. into a partisan lobbying organization. He literally wrote up a manual for the organization on how to effectively lobby Congress. For my liberal Democratic friends who might read McIntire's article and be tempted to rationalize or explain away Dingell's behavior, just ask yourselves how you would feel if it had been ANY Republican who did what Dingell did to the extent that he did it. Pardon the pun, but when it comes to exposing the officials who make even mild gun reforms impossible (as Dingell did), we need to be "straight shooters" and call out all sides. 

The late Michigan Congressman John Dingell, a liberal icon with a soft spot for guns, used the power of his office to "arm the NRA." 

*Most Impactful Scholarship of the Year: William Baude's and Michael Stokes Paulsen's "The Sweep and Force of Section Three." Baude and Paulsen are conservative law professors and active members of the Federalist Society. Their preferred method of legal analysis is "originalism," the theory that Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch use as a justification to overturn laws they do not like. "The Sweep and Force of Section Three," which is written in a legalistic style but is fully accessible for anyone willing to put in the effort to read it with an open mind, makes what to me is an extremely convincing argument as to why Donald Trump should be disqualified from ballots in 2024. 

Conservative law professors Baude and Paulsen make a compelling case for excluding Donald Trump from election ballots based on the clear language of the 1th amendment. 

After a lengthy explanation of the history of and rationale for Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to ban former confederate officials from holding office after the Civil War, the authors apply the section to Donald Trump's actions before and on January 6, 2021 to overturn the election of 2020. They argue that Trump did in fact engage in insurrection: 

The bottom line is that Donald Trump “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close.[emphasis added]. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so. 

They also have little sympathy for the argument, which is gaining currency in the establishment media, that keeping Trump and other insurrectionists off of ballots is somehow anti-democracy: 

Importantly, it is also wrong to shrink from applying Section Three on grounds of “democracy,” whether on the premise that Section Three should be ignored or narrowly construed because it limits who voters may choose, or on the premise that only the voters should enforce Section Three. It is true, as we have said, that limiting democratic choice is not something to be done lightly, but it is something the Constitution does, and for serious reasons. The Constitution cannot be overruled or disregarded by ordinary election results. (And we note that there is particular irony in invoking democracy to shrink from applying Section Three to the insurrectionists of 2020-2021, who refused to abide by election results and instead sought to overthrow them.)

As of this writing, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Secretary of State of Maine have used Baude/Paulsen-like arguments to keep Trump off the primary ballot in their states. Undoubtedly the matter will end up in the United States Supreme Court. Given that it is clear the framers of Section Three clearly meant it to apply not just to Civil War insurrectionists, will the so-called "originalists" on the Court be guided by that philosophy as they decide on how to rule? Don't count on it. 

*Most Powerful Iraq War Retrospective: "Iraq War Veterans, 20 Years Later--'I don't Know How To Explain the War to Myself." (New York Times Op-Doc Video). A description of the video from creator Michael Tucker: 

Months after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, I began filming the U.S. Army's 2nd Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment (known as the Gunners) in Baghdad. The unit was housed in a bombed-out palace on the banks of the Tigris that they named Gunner Palace. 

Rather than just making a movie about the men, I suggested that we make a film together -- an offer that the soldiers quickly embraced. They told the story of the war as only they could: They played guitar, spat out rhymes and played to the camera. But behind all their bravado and posturing, they were just kids who desperately wanted the world the understand the war through their eyes. 

In the last two months of 2003, the Gunners lost three men to I.E.D attacks. They scrambled to create makeshift armor for their soft-skinned vehicles using scrap metal. When asked by a soldier about the lack of armor in 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said, "You got to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

They were the army we had. They fought an enemy they couldn't always see in a land they didn't understand for reasons that were never entirely clear. In the midst of the pandemic, I visited the men an spoke with them about how they make sense of their role in a war that has yet to be fully reckoned with. In "The Army We Had," the veterans grapple with a past that still reverberates powerfully through their lives.

As you watch this video, keep in mind that the Iraq War was brought to us by the same people who are now advocating for an expanded US military presence in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and other places. 

*Wisconsin Journalist of the Year: Dan Shafer of the Recombobulation Area. This is Dan's second Tony Award. I continue to be in awe at how ONE PERSON can produce as much well researched, insightful, pointed political content as Mr. Shafer does across a number of platforms. He is especially good at untangling the key features of legislation coming out of Madison and calling out those engaged in obstructing bills that have majority public support. I also greatly admire and appreciate how he refuses to engage in the lazy bothsidesing that is now a standard, unfortunate feature of the mainstream press. Check out Dan's summary of 2023 and then consider becoming a paid subscriber

Dan Shafer produces consistently high quality journalism for the Recombobulation Area.

*National Investigative Journalism of The Year: ProPublica's "Friends of the Court" Series. ProPublica's scathing expose' of Supreme Court Justices' cozy relationships with billionaires was so rigorously researched and sourced that--before the first installment even appeared online--the Wall Street Journal published a "pre-rebuttal" from Justice Samuel Alito. Probably the most explosive finding was Justice Thomas receiving more than 20-years of luxury vacations paid for by Texas billionaire and GOP mega-donor Harlan Crow. Only a partisan hack could possibly read the entire series and conclude that major ethical reforms are not necessary. Kudos to ProPublica reporters Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, Alex Mierjeski, Sergio Hernandez, Al Shaw, Mollie Simon, Brett Murphy, Kirsten Berg, Andrea Bernstein, Andy Kroll, Illya Maritz, Paul Kiel, Jesse Eisinger, and ProPublica Editor-In-Chief Stephen Engelberg for brilliantly upholding their mission "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust."  

Many thanks to everyone who reads Media Rants. Happy New Year! 

Friday, December 01, 2023

The Rational Revolution

I've recently had the honor to cohost "The Rational Revolution," a weekly public affairs radio program created by city of Appleton Alderperson Kristin Alfheim and community activist Emily Tseffos. Kris and Emily launched the program in August of 2023 for Civic Media, a new radio/podcasting effort with an expressed mission to "champion the practice of democracy through the power of honest and informative local voices." Rational Revolution airs live every Thursday from 7-8 p.m. CST on WGBW 97.9 FM, The Talk of Green Bay, and WISS 98.3 FM, Oshkosh Air Support. All shows are recorded and available as a podcast, both at civicmedia.us and on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts. 

Kris Alfheim 
I'll get into why Kris and Emily created the show in the first place and how I got involved, but first a little more about Civic Media. The brainchild of talk-show veteran Mike Crute and software engineer/entrepreneur Sage Weil (pronounced "while"), Civic Media is conceived of as an alternative to the glut of right-wing programming available across the radio spectrum and in digital spaces. But instead of just being a left-wing version of right-wing media, Civic Media brands itself as pro-democracy and pro-local communities. Crute and Weil see Civic Media as "Hometown Radio Refreshed." 

Can Civic Media succeed in the current radio marketplace and political climate? According to UW Madison Journalism professor Mike Wagner: “There is a lot of conservative talk available, and there is less middle-of-the-road and liberal talk available. So, there’s an opportunity for Civic Media to reach a potentially untapped market. I think Civic Media’s model of being less ideologically extreme and having hosts who are more center, center-left is a novel take on an untapped market.”

That leads us back to Kris, Emily, and the Rational Revolution. In addition to serving on the Appleton City Council, Kris grew up on a Wisconsin beef farm, works in the Financial Services industry, and ran for the District 19 State Senate seat in 2022. When launching Rational Revolution, she said, "The people of the Fox Valley are craving rational conversations about topics that affect their families. No yelling, no belittling, just discussion in order to build understanding and empathy on issues." 

Emily is a native of Slinger, WI who moved to Tennessee and while there became active in a number of causes. She came back to Wisconsin and lives in rural Outagamie County, where she is forceful advocate for children in need, women's rights, and much else. Upon the creation of Rational Revolution, she said, "Too often politics today is performative, distilled into clickbait headlines and sound bites. Wisconsinites deserve better." She added that the goal of the show is to "break down issues piece by piece, discussing the sometimes well-intentioned visions of legislation in Madison and Washington and the real life impacts of legislation in our communities." 

Emily Tseffos
In their first episode on August 4th, they talked about Wisconsin's gerrymandered legislative maps and role of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in that area: 


During the rest of the summer the two invited a number of enlightening guests to join the conversation, including: 

In late September Emily left the program to announce that she would be running for the 56th District State Assembly seat. That's when I was invited to cohost some programs. 

Why me? For one thing, I become acquainted with Kris Alfheim during her run for the state Senate in 2022. I was impressed by her eloquence and sincere belief that politics at its best is inclusive and works toward rational solutions to pressing problems. Even though Kris was running in a gerrymandered district favoring the Republican, she put an enormous amount of effort into the campaign, knocking on tons of doors while also finding time to inspire candidates and voters in surrounding districts. 

Secondly, I met Civic Media production specialist Todd Michaels at an open house at the WISS station on South Main Street in Oshkosh, and told him that I supported the Civic Media mission statement and core values (democracy, honesty, transparency, community, prosperity, people), and would be willing to help promote the station in whatever way I could. When Emily stepped down, Todd thought I might be a decent replacement, at least in the short term. 

I've cohosted about a half-dozen shows so far, and what's striking to me is how much the mission of Civic Media is very much in sync with what I used to do in the 1990s and 2000s while co-producing and/or co-hosting a number of cable access public access shows like "Commentary" with former Oshkosh Mayor James Mather, "Eye on Oshkosh" with Fox Valley journalist Cheryl Hentz, "Battleground" with former Winnebago County Board Supervisor Ron Montgomery, and "Radio Commentary" with Oshkosh activist Bob Knudsen. In those shows everyone knew that I was on the "left" (whatever that means), but I cultivated a reputation for being respectful of all viewpoints, and trying to have civil discussions even with guests whose views I found to be seriously wrong-headed. 
 
That kind of programming is much more difficult to do now, for a number of reasons. Mainstream cable tv, right wing talk radio, and clickbait social media shows have conditioned people to the idea of "argument as war." Consequently, discussions that do not have some kind of ugly clash that can go viral on the Internet tend to get ignored. The argument as war mentality has also conditioned people to think that all political discussants are bad faith actors, manipulators, or otherwise full-of-shit. That is, it is hard for people these days to accept that there really, really are people in the public sphere whose primary agenda is to raise the quality of discourse in the political arena. 

Take a listen to some of the Rational Revolution episodes. Go to the App Store or wherever you get your apps and download Civic Media. If you have the Civic Media app, you can text message Rational Revolution during the live show on Thursdays from 7-8 p.m.  

Thanks for listening! 

Here is our most recent episode: 

Wednesday, November 01, 2023

The Modern Manicheans and Media

October of 2023 will forever be remembered as the month in which Republicans in the United States House of Representatives dealt with global and domestic chaos by . . . . shutting down the institution for nineteen days. It was like a pathetic, hyperpartisan, debased version of Henry David Thoreau's dictum from Civil Disobedience: "That government is best which governs least."  

How did they get there? Eight Republican House members, upset with fellow Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy because he dared to negotiate with President Biden and House Democrats on a deal to keep the government open, put forth a motion to depose him. For their part, House Democrats refused to rally their voting bloc to rescue the Speaker unless he negotiated some kind of power sharing arrangement with them--which he of course refused to do. Thus McCarthy was removed from his post after only 269 days, the shortest reign in more than 140 years. 

After nineteen agonizing, embarrassing days, what McCarthy called the "Crazy Eights Led by Matt Gaetz" decided they could support Louisiana's hard right conservative Mike Johnson for Speaker. Johnson apparently met Rep. Ronny Jackson's (R-Texas) criteria for the position: You have to be "smart enough to get to 217 but stupid enough to want the job.”

The conflict between the "Crazy Eights" (aka "MAGA Republicans") v. moderate Republicans and Democrats is typically referred to as "populists" v. the establishment. Some Democrats and Leftish pundits would argue that MAGA is not populist, but fascist. Their reasoning goes something like this: Populism is a bottom-up movement driven by mostly working class people. In contrast, fascism is a top-down takeover of traditionally [small-d) democratic institutions, typically animated by allegiance to a cultish leader. Donald Trump, the Dems argue, is the crazy eight cult leader. 

For me, MAGA Republicans are neither populist nor fascist. To be truly populist or fascist requires a level of commitment to principles and public policy ideas that take hard work to formulate, advocate for, and organize movements around. MAGA Republicans don't really have much interest in policy. Their most defining trait is that they hate Democrats, and they hate anyone who works with Democrats. The moment Mr. McCarthy negotiated with Dems to keep the government open--which is another way of saying "the moment he did his job"--he was toast in MAGA world. 

One of the most ridiculous parts of modern electoral politics in the USA is that it is now possible to get elected on a platform of "if you let me serve you I promise never to work with the other side." Think about the absurdity of that position when put in a job interview context: 

Employer: So, Mikey, why should you prevail over all the other qualified candidates? 

Mikey the Job Candidate: Because if you hire me I pledge I WILL NOT DO THE JOB.

Politics as resentment, grievance, temper tantrum, trolling, score settling, rejecting any hope of compromise before negotiations even start, and shouting into cable tv and podcast echo chambers is not really politics, at least not in any meaningful sense. Rather, it's a kind of dogmatic mania more typically found in religious movements. In fact, the crazy eight have more in common with the Manichean religion of the 3rd-5th centuries than they do with any coherent American political tradition. 

The Manicheans believed in a strict duality between good and evil; everything on earth featured forces of light vs. forces of darkness. Journalist Glenn Greenwald, in his book A Tragic Legacy, argued that the George W. Bush administration was destroyed by the good v. evil mindset: 

[Manichaeism is] a very simplistic idea that even early Christianity rejected as not appreciating the complexities of how the world actually is and the ambiguities, the moral ambiguities that characterize who most of us are in most situations. George Bush views the world and his followers viewed the world through this lens of pure good versus pure evil. (emphasis added).
And it’s not me saying that. He said that in virtually all of his speeches. And when you see the world that way what it means is that if you’re on the side of pure good, as he asserted that he was and we are, it means that anything that you do, no matter how limitless, no matter how brutal and immoral, is inherently justifiable because it’s being enlisted for service of the good.

And by contrast, anything that you do to those on the other side is inherently justified as well because they’re pure evil. And from the war in Iraq to the torture camps and secret prisons that we set up all of the things that have done so much damage, I think that’s the mentality that lies at the heart of it.

Today's crazy eight, MAGA Republicans have little regard for George W. Bush. In fact, they consider him to be a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Yet all they have really done is taken Bush's Manichean mindset and moved it from foreign affairs to the domestic realm. We see it most clearly in efforts to shut the government down, erect barriers to make voting more difficult, and framing existential issues like climate and infectious disease prevention as partisan. 

Glenn Greenwald's 2007 character study of George W. Bush showed how a Manichean mindset of good v. evil animated the administration's foreign policy. Today's MAGA Republicans have taken that mindset and applied it to domestic politics. 


The state of Wisconsin has been reeling from malicious GOP Manicheanism since 2011, when then Governor Scott Walker didn't even pretend to consult with Democrats (or even moderate Republicans) before pushing the union-busting Act 10 on the state. Since then we've seen the Wisconsin GOP on a Manichean rampage: the most gerrymandered voting districts in the country, refusal to allow hearings for Democrat-sponsored bills, taking powers away from the governor's office the moment a Democrat got elected, dismantling a government accountability board that was recognized nationally for excellence, firing the Democratic governor's appointees at a record rate, holding University of Wisconsin System employees raises hostage over a disagreement over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies at the campuses, and many, many more. Indeed, Wisconsin might be the poster child for religious style persecution masquerading as serious politics

To be clear, Democrats are not innocent victims in all of this. They have their own Manichean moments, such as the obsession with Russia conspiracies, carrying out their own brand of gerrymandering where they have majorities, and keeping their progressive wing on the margins by discouraging competitive primaries. Still, the Dems having Manichean "moments" is not the same as being overrun by a philosophy that is hostile to democratic norms, which has happened in a tragic way to the modern Republican party. 

What role does the mainstream news media play in enabling a Manichean movement? I find myself agreeing with political scientist Lilliana Mason. In an essay in Politico she wrote

. . . our political news media privileges stories about conflict. This focus plays into deep-seated human inclinations to pay attention to bad things — and is rewarded with public attention. This incentivizes news media to tell Americans a story about politics that is largely about division, animosity and attention-seeking strategies — all laid over an “us vs. them” framework. Politicians know that all they need to do to gain attention is to start a fight. Very little news media focus on the hard work and compromise of governing a nation, partly because they know that very few Americans will pay attention.

Mason is the author of Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, which does an excellent job of showing the roots of the "us v. them" reality we are now mired in. In it she quotes political scientist Seth Masket, who in 2016 said, "The Republican Party is demonstrating every day that it hates Democrats more than it loves democracy." Seven years later, that brand of Manicheanism is stronger than ever. 

Professor Lilliana Mason's excellent book Uncivil Agreement explores the roots of the extreme us v. them politics of our time.

Matt Taibbi's Hate, Inc. takes things a step further and shows how promoting hate of other Americans is now the dominant business model of cable news. If he is correct, it would make sense for media to give attention to politicians who rate higher on the religious zealotry scale than on anything resembling political pragmatism. 

If it is true that our democracy is on the ropes, in part because of the Manicheans takeover of one of the major political parties, what do we do about it? Here are eight suggestions designed to prevent us from becoming crazy eight style people: 

*Organize at the local level with people who want to make a positive difference in the lives of others. 

*Have difficult conversations with friends, family, coworkers, and others. 

*Support independent media. 

*Resist the temptation to call people you disagree with "evil." Use the term "mistaken" instead. 

*Accept that you too are probably mistaken on a number of issues. 

*If a public policy idea makes sense to you, support it NO MATTER WHO ELSE does. 

*If a public policy idea strikes you as harmful, call it out even if your side supports it. 

*Get in the habit of willfully seeking out ideas that you disagree with. Make sure that your disagreement is grounded in something more solid than hostility to the people stating the idea(s). 

Sunday, October 01, 2023

Celebration of the Music of 1973, Part 2

Back in July,  I identified 25 of the best albums of 1973. As noted in that post, 1973 was the height of the so-called "classic rock" era, even though much of the best music of that time was/is not necessarily "rock" in the most strict sense. The majority of the artists were practicing a kind of musical gumbo, mixing and mashing together multiple genres from rhythm and blues to jazz to soul to heavy metal to folk and others. New recording technologies, FM radio, and social movements for freedom sparked an amazing burst of creativity that may never be matched. 

I've written about this before, and I'll say it again: the importance of FM radio in creating an audience for boundary-pushing music cannot be overstated. Fifty years ago, the most popular artists attained that status not just because of their musical talents, but because FM radio music directors were committed to an ethic of expanding the musical tastes of listeners. They hired DJs to play the music who actually loved it. By the late 1970s that ethic would be gone, replaced by market survey driven playlists, canned shows hosted by bland jocks, and a kind of soft-censorship of creative art. MTV was probably the final nail in the coffin of progressive, ear opening rock radio. Music that pushes boundaries never went away, but finding it requires the patience to navigate streaming sites and (mostly) online guides to new music. In the early 70s you could get exposed to the creativity just by turning on your radio. Former DJ Richard Neer, one of the pioneers of the early FM radio format at WNEW-FM in New York, told CNN"For a brief period, what we were doing was an art form. It didn't last . . . But it died a lot sooner than it had to."

The legendary Leland Sklar in his home studio, with the actual bass guitar that he played on the classic track "Stratus" from the 1973 Billy Cobham album "Spectrum" 

But enough lamenting the sad state of contemporary FM radio. Let's instead celebrate the music of 1973! Below are my personal top-25 from that year. The ranking is just for convenience and to make for easier reading; they are all relatively equal to me. 

#25: Billy Cobham, "Spectrum." When discussing art, words like "remarkable," "iconic," and "groundbreaking" are frequently overused. However, those accolades actually do fit when discussing drummer Billy Cobham's epic "Spectrum" album. With Cobham and keyboardist Jan Hammer bringing their jazz chops to the table, and with bassist Leland Sklar and guitarist Tommy Bolin adding a blues/rock sensibility, the result was something unprecedented and extraordinary. This album supposedly so inspired the late Jeff Beck that it solidified his drive to record jazz-rock records in the mid-1970s. 

Sklar's playing on "Stratus" is probably my all time favorite bass riff. Ever. 

Billy Cobham: Stratus

#24: Hall & Oates, "Abandoned Luncheonette." I've never been a great fan of Darryl Hall and John Oates, but as time has passed I've developed more appreciation for their unique pop sound--a sound that was much more musically ambitious and sophisticated than I was able to recognize at the time. These guys were thoroughly grounded in R & B and soul traditions, resulting in minor masterpieces like "She's Gone" from "Abandoned Luncheonette." Today, a moving ballad like that would probably have an electronic dance music beat and a "featured" rapper in the middle for no apparent reason. 

Hall & Oates: She's Gone

#23: ELO, "On the Third Day." Jeff Lynne of the Electric Light Orchestra is one of the true geniuses in rock history. There was no way the Beatles would reunite after the death of John Lennon, but if they had done so, it's entirely conceivable that Lynne would have been brought on board as John's stand-in. John Lennon himself was a huge fan of ELO, calling them "son of Beatles," and in 1974 he praised the song "Showdown" during an interview on WNEW-FM radio in New York. 

ELO: Showdown

#22: Paul Simon, "There Goes Rhymin' Simon." One of Simon's premier post Simon & Garfunkel records, featuring a number of songs that stayed in heavy FM radio rotation for much of the 1970s and 1980s. My favorite is probably "American Tune," Simon's Watergate scandal lament whose melancholy melody and lyrics I came back to frequently during the Covid crisis: 

And I don't know a soul who's not been battered

I don't have a friend who feels at ease

I don't know a dream that's not been shattered 

Or driven to its knees                                                                

Paul Simon: American Tune

#21: Renaissance, "Ashes are Burning." English progressive rock band Renaissance featured the lead vocals of Annie Haslam, one of the most underrated singer/songwriters in popular music history. "Ashes are Burning" received much FM airplay in the 1970s, with beautiful songs like "Carpet of the Sun" and "Can You Understand" becoming quite popular at the time. 

Renaissance: Carpet of the Sun

#20: Bob Marley and the Wailers, "Burnin'." The sixth album by reggae gods Bob Marley and the Wailers, but the first to achieve commercial success in the United States. The album starts with "Get Up, Stand Up," which might be the most powerful musical call to action ever recorded. 

Bob Marley: Get Up, Stand Up

#19: Genesis, "Genesis Live." Most people know the band Genesis as the Phil Collins led outfit with a string of pop hits in the 1980s and 1990s. The original Genesis featured Collins on drums, but the singing and most of the songwriting was done by the great Peter Gabriel. "Genesis Live" is an important album in the history of "progressive rock," with abstract lyrics, complex arrangements, and a theatrical live performance defining the genre about as well as any other recording of the time. 

Genesis: Watcher of the Skies

#18: Mike Oldfield, "Tubular Bells." There is only one movie that I've seen once and refuse to see a second time. That's William Friedkin's "The Exorcist," an amazing cinematic achievement that terrified me to the point of almost wanting to seek counseling. (People raised in a Catholic tradition will understand that.). Part of the soundtrack of that film was Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells," recorded when he was only 19 years old. Once attached to The Exorcist, the haunting melody became instantly iconic. Because I do not like being reminded of the terrifying scenes from that film, I do not often listen to Tubular Bells. 

Mike Oldfield: Tubular Bells

#17 Iggy and the Stooges, "Raw Power." Born James Osterberg in 1947 in Muskegon, MI, "Iggy Pop" became the "Godfather of Punk." "Raw Power" was a hard rockin' good time whose soaring guitars and playful zaniness represented a style that would ultimately be imitated by scores of punk bands in the USA and Europe throughout the 1970s and all the way up to today. 

Iggy Pop: Shake Appeal

#16: David Bowie, "Alladin Sane." One of the classics of Bowie's "glam rock" period, featuring a number of songs that stayed in his concert set for decades, most notably "The Jean Genie" and "Panic in Detroit." (Both tunes reveal Bowie's Chicago electric blues roots.). This was the first album that Bowie wrote and recorded after he had become an international star, a stressful period for him in which he was truly "A Lad Insane." 

David Bowie: The Jean Genie

#15: Nazareth, "Loud and Proud." How the fuck are Scottish hard rockers Nazareth NOT in the rock and roll hall of fame? Lead singer Dan McCafferty and guitar player Manny Charlton in the 1970s were right up there with Black Sabbath's Ozzy Osborne and Tony Iommi, Led Zeppelin's Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, and Deep Purple's Ian Gillan and Ritchie Blackmore for heavy metal histrionics. Loud and Proud has a number of original tunes on it, but Nazareth's cover of Bob Dylan's "Hollis Brown" and Joni Mitchell's "This Flight Tonight" were remarkable reworkings of those classic songs. In fact, Nancy Wilson of Heart claims that she stole the riff for the hit song "Barracuda" from Nazareth's cover of "This Flight Tonight." 

Nazareth: This Flight Tonight

#14: Marvin Gaye, "Let's Get It On.' Unlike 1971's "What's Goin' On," Gaye's 1973 effort was not a politically charged recording. However, it did solidify his reputation as probably the greatest soul singer in the world not named James Brown, Ray Charles, Nina Simone, or Aretha Franklin. The title track remains as a soul classic. 

Marvin Gaye: Let's Get It On

#13: Al Green, "Call Me." Speaking of legendary soul singers, how about Al Green? If you ever watch the music competition shows like "American Idol" or "The Voice," it always seems like the majority of the contestants strive to imitate Al Green's falsetto style. A number of critics consider "Call Me" to be Green's masterpiece, in part because its links to later artists are so clear and easy to hear. Believe it or not, there was a time when a great song like "Here I Am" would actually be played on FM rock radio. 

Al Green: Here I Am (Come and Take Me)

#12: James Brown, "The Payback." Hard to talk about soul masters without getting to the Godfather of Soul himself, Soul Brother #1 James Brown. In 1973 he released "The Payback," one of his many funk masterpieces of the era. The title song of the album has been sampled by hip hop and other artists over 400 (!) times. 

James Brown: The Payback

#11: Black Sabbath, "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath." The 5th album by the original Black Sabbath line-up, and the last truly spectacular one they recorded in my humble opinion. The album is the epitome of the Sabbath brand: head bashing guitar riffs, socially conscious lyrics, a rhythm section that wakes you up like Vincent Vega giving Mia Wallace the adrenaline shot in Pulp Fiction, and Ozzy Osborne's extreme vocals that send bats into hibernation. Sabbath at that time had great appeal to alienated, socially awkward kids like me, and the fact that they were for the most part banned from FM radio made their mystique even greater. 

Black Sabbath: Killing Yourself To Live

#10: Bachman Turner Overdrive, "BTO II." I think Canadian musician Randy Bachman, co-founder of 1960s iconic band The Guess Who and leader of BTO, is another one of those seriously under rated singers, songwriters, and guitar players. Unlike Black Sabbath, BTO did not play metal for the alienated kids as much as for the blue collar folks. There's a working class ethic to their early albums not only in the music, but in the band's image: "average" looking dudes with weight issues who rejected ANY pressure to conform to the more flashy "glam" images of the time. In that way they were actually quite refreshing. 

BTO: Takin' Care of Business

#9: Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, "Brain Salad Surgery." Anyone old enough to have purchased this album in vinyl in the 1970s will remember what seemed like an intricate jacket/sleeve that reinforced the band's avant garde image. I remember being impressed by the fact that the album included a quote from Argentine composer Alberto Ginastera (who wrote "Tocatta" that appears on the record): "Keith Emerson has beautifully caught the mood of my piece." To me that seemed to add some credibility to the album, as if ELP were saying, "see, even SERIOUS composers like our stuff."  Portions of "Karn Evil 9" dominated FM radio for much of the 1970s, a fact that actually motivated punk rockers because they were known to hold up ELP as an example of the kind of music they were reacting against. 

ELP: Karn Evil 9, First Impression Part 2

#8: The Who, "Quadrophenia." Pete Townshend's most ambitious project. "Quadrophenia" is an epic example of the "concept" album that Pete pioneered several years previously with "Tommy." Much more than Tommy, Quadrophenia had autobiographical elements; it calls forth the "mods v. rockers" battles in England that the band's members were literal participants in during the early 1960s. For me, Quadrophenia should be considered a central text in any discussion of the baby boomers: its themes of alienation, generational strife, striking out against authority, getting lost in sex/drugs/alcohol mirages, and desperately wanting to know LOVE are things that define that generation. I consider Pete Townshend's theme song on this record, "Love, Reign O'er Me," to be one of the most profound pieces of recorded music in global history. And I'm not exaggerating. 

The Who: Love, Reign O'er Me

#7: Queen, "Queen." Not the band's best album by any means, but it holds a special place in the hearts of all Queen fans for being the one that introduced remarkable Freddy Mercury to the world. "Keep Yourself Alive" got the most radio attention, though "Great King Rat" and "Liar," I would argue, have the lyrical imagination and Brian May guitar theatrics that would define the band as they moved forward. 

Queen: Keep Yourself Alive

#6: ZZ Top, "Tres Hombres." My all time favorite ZZ Top record, and considered by most critics to be the masterpiece of the band's early days. When ZZ Top inducted Cream (Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker) into the rock and roll hall of fame, it became clear how much TOP--like Cream--saw their music as an expression of love for American blues. "Tres Hombres" is the best example of that expression. 

ZZ Top: Waitin' For the Bus/Jesus Just Left Chicago

#5: Stevie Wonder, "Innervisions." In 1973 Stevie Wonder was only 23 years old, and yet Innervisions was his 16th studio album. "Innervisions" is one of a string of early 1970s albums from Stevie that showcases socially conscious lyrics backed up by funky beats and soul arrangements. "Living For The City" is one of the most extraordinary songs ever to come out of Motown, a recording that forever put Stevie in the same ballpark as Marvin Gaye in "What's Goin' On." 

Stevie Wonder: Living For The City

#4: Elton John, "Goodbye Yellowbrick Road." In vinyl terms, Goodbye Yellowbrick Road was a double album, and each of the four sides had a distinct personality. In that sense it was like the Beatles' White Album, and really the entire effort was extremely Beatles-esque. "Bennie and the Jets" remains a concert favorite to this very day, but Elton over the years has at various times included all the song on this album in shows at one time or another. 

Elton John: Bennie and the Jets

#3: Led Zeppelin, "Houses of the Holy." The album Zep released previously to this one ("Led Zeppelin IV) included global sensation "Stairway to Heaven" and so there was little chance of the band topping that. And yet for me, "The Rain Song" from "Houses of the Holy" is far superior to "Stairway." "The Rain Song" is one of the few times Zep found a way to mix Jimmy Page's acoustic and electric sounds, along with Robert Plant's vocal range, with a touching set of lyrics that cut deep into universal human experience. Unlike "Stairway," the meaning of which has been debated ad nauseum for 50+ years, "The Rain Song" is a simple but powerful expression of what it means to be a human being in love. 

Led Zeppelin: The Rain Song

#2:  Tom Waits, "Closing Time." If there was a contest to nominate the most unique singer/songwriter of all time, I am quite sure that Tom Waits would get a substantial amount of votes. "Closing Time" was his first album, and his voice is not as deep and gravely as it would be in all future recordings. "Closing Time" gained popularity over the years, in part because almost all the songs on it have been covered by other artists who made them more well known. The best example is "Ol' 55, which Waits released as a single but became a hit for the Eagles. Waits did not appreciate the Eagles cover, calling it "antiseptic," and in an interview he went further: "I don’t like the Eagles. They’re about as exciting as watching paint dry. Their albums are good for keeping the dust off your turntable and that’s about all.” Ouch! 

Tom Waits: Ol' 55

#1:  Pink Floyd, "Dark Side of the Moon." An album that in its day was the most commercially successful rock album of all time, which was ironic given it was essentially an extended critique of the human condition. Whenever I teach "the Rhetoric of Rock and Roll," we usually listen to a couple of songs off this album, and there are ALWAYS a handful of students who ended up digging into the entire Pink Floyd catalogue as a result. Like The Who's "Quadrophenia," Dark Side of the Moon is another record that defines the baby boom generation; I've always loved the fact that for decades people searched for hidden messages in it, and the insistence that the album synchronizes perfectly with The Wizard of Oz (which Roger Waters calls Bullshit) is just hilarious. In all seriousness, Dark Side of the Moon is a brilliant record, with a musical integrity and thematic intelligence that is extremely rare to find in any era. 

Pink Floyd: Time

There you have my top 25 of 1973! Hope you enjoyed it! 

See Also: