Welcome To Tony Palmeri's Media Rants! I am a professor of Communication Studies at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. I use this blog to try to promote critical thinking about mainstream media, establishment politics, and popular culture.
Welcome to another edition of Ten Bold Cover Tunes. (See the links below for access to previous editions.).
One of the most important songs in the history of rock-and-roll is bandleader Henry Mancini's "Theme From Peter Gunn." Peter Gunn was a private-eye television series that ran from 1958-1961. Mancini won an Emmy and a few Grammy awards for the soundtrack, and the music became more memorable than the actual show.
The great Henry Mancini, known mostly for jazzy soundtracks, composed and recorded a rock classic with "Theme From Peter Gunn" in 1959
Because he was thought of mostly as a jazz composer, few in 1959 considered "Theme From Peter Gunn" to be a rock-and-roll song. Thirty years later in his 1989 autobiography, Mancini revealed the rock roots of the song:
The Peter Gunn title theme actually derives more from rock and roll than from jazz. I used guitar and piano in unison, playing what is known in music as an ostinato, which means obstinate. It was sustained throughout the piece, giving it a sinister effect, with some frightened saxophone sounds and some shouting brass. The piece has one chord throughout and a super-simple top line.
I believe the Theme From Peter Gunn is important in the history of rock-and-roll for three main reasons. First, it helped to establish that purely instrumental music could be included in the rock genre; the instrument only style would later proliferate in the surf era (early 1960s) and then the progressive rock era of the 1970s. Second, the song was a breath of fresh air for AM radio. By 1959, mostly because of racist pressures, radio programmers banished the early rock stars like Chuck Berry and Little Richard and replaced them with sappy "teen idol" music (think Frankie Avalon and Fabian) that did not offend bigots or parents (the bigot and the parent were often the same person). Third, Theme From Peter Gunn has some nasty horn playing that helped keep brass in the rock genre at a time when it was gradually being phased out in favor of the basic garage band guitar/bass/drum framework. To this very day rock has a kind of love/hate relationship with horns--songs like Theme From Peter Gunn helped to guarantee that brass would never completely disappear from the genre.
Covering any song, as the Ten Bold Cover Tunes series has pointed out repeatedly, is no easy task. Covering an instrumental is doubly difficult, as the "personality" of rock songs is typically thought of in terms of vocal stylings. In order to cover an instrumental successfully, the cover artist has to find a way to stay true to the melody, but bring something fresh to the effort so that listeners don't experience the aural equivalent of watching someone paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa. In other words, when covering an instrumental the danger of dishonoring the original is quite high.
Below are ten cover versions of Theme From Peter Gunn that, in my humble view, honor the original tune while bringing something fresh to it. In no particular order:
#10 Guitar Hero Version: Roy Buchanan. The late Roy Buchanan, one of the most underrated guitar players in history (his name should be mentioned along with Hendrix, Clapton, Beck, Page, and Van Halen) was known for his gritty riffs and wailing solos. Theme From Peter Gunn was the perfect vehicle for his style.
#9 Progressive Rock Version: Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Keith Emerson's legendary keyboard chops were on full display when progressive rock icons ELP incorporated Theme From Peter Gunn into their set list in the late 1970s. They introduced an entirely new generation of listeners to the tune--many thought it was an ELP original.
#8 Soul Version: The Blues Brothers. The soundtrack to the iconic 1980 Dan Aykroyd/John Belushi Blues Brothers movie featured some of the best musicians from the Memphis Stax records label. The band recorded a version of Theme From Peter Gunn that stayed true to Mancini's original while simultaneously sounding like a Booker T & the MGs revival.
#7 Vocal Version: Joe Jackson. Lyrics to Theme From Peter Gunn were actually added in 1965 by composers Jay Livingston and Ray Evans. The great Sarah Vaughn then did a vocal version of it in that year. I personally prefer British New Wave artist Joe Jackson's 2019 version. Not only is Joe Jackson still in great voice (he has been performing and recording since the late 1970s), but his band absolutely kicks ass in this number.
#6 Disco Version: Deodato. Eumir Deodato, the Brazilian multi-instrumentalist arranger and producer, rode the disco wave with this 1976 version of Theme From Peter Gunn. It's actually one of the most fun versions of the tune ever recorded, and of course the most danceable.
#5 Surf Version: Dick Dale. Jimi Hendrix listed Dick Dale as among his biggest influences. Listen to Dale's version of Theme From Peter Gunn and you will know why. "The father of surf guitar" brings Peter Gunn to the beach in a raucous, raunchy, memorable version of the tune.
#4 Jazz Version: Dave Grusin. In terms of sheer innovation and originality, pianist/arranger Dave Grusin's version of the tune might be the best on the list. If Henry Mancini had decided to stick to his jazz roots in 1959 instead of producing a rock number, the end result might have been what Grusin came up with many years later. Truly amazing.
#3 Synth Pop Version: The Art of Noise Featuring Duane Eddy. In 1986 British synth pop group The Art of Noise brought Peter Gunn into the MTV era. They invited guitar icon Duane Eddy (who had recorded his own version of the tune in 1959) to jam it with them, and the band won a Grammy Award for their efforts.
#2 R & B Version: King Curtis. The late King Curtis was a saxophone wrecking machine, and played on a number of classic records including Aretha Franklin's version of "Respect." His sax playing does not disappoint on Theme From Peter Gunn.
#1 Horniest Version: The Qatar Philharmonic Orchestra. I became aware of this version about 3 or 4 years ago, when I was searching online for Mancini's original version and came across Qatar's in the search results. It's really remarkable: ten horn players held together by a brilliant drummer. Great version.
I would like to dedicate this year's edition of the Tony Awards For Excellence in Media to all of the journalists around the world who were killed, imprisoned, and harassed in 2021 for committing the "crime" of journalism. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in 2021 the number of journalists behind bars reached a global record of 293, up from 280 a year ago. Reporters Without Borders provides evidence that 488 journalists were detained in 2021, while 46 were killed, 65 held hostage, and two remain missing. The situation is dire.
Who are the main offenders? China is the most oppressive country for journalists, leading an infamous top five that includes Myanmar, Egypt, Vietnam, and Belarus.
Zhang Zhan is a Chinese citizen journalist. Arrested for her independent reporting on COVID in Wuhan, she was tried and convicted of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble." After her imprisonment, Zhang Zhan went on hunger strike and has apparently been force fed. There is a realistic chance that she might die in prison unless more international pressure can be directed at the Chinese government.
In the United States in 2021, over 50 journalists were arrested or detained while doing their jobs according to the US Press Freedom Tracker. Meanwhile the United States government continues to make it impossible for whistleblower Edward Snowden to return from exile in Russia, while Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange (now in his tenth year of detention for revealing that the global emperors have no clothes) wastes away in a London cell. As noted by Chris Hedges:
Assange committed empire’s greatest sin. He exposed it as a criminal enterprise. He documented its lies, callous disregard for human life, rampant corruption and innumerable war crimes. Republican or Democrat. Conservative or Labour. Trump or Biden. It does not matter. The goons who oversee the empire sing from the same Satanic songbook. Empires always kill those who inflict deep and serious wounds.
Against that backdrop, let's reveal the Tony recipients! I operate from no automatic set of criteria when deciding what to honor, but I am generally 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.
humorous works that skillfully provoke laughter and thought at the same time.
local works that promote community and civic engagement.
Like all end of year lists, mine is purely subjective and I do not pretend to come even close to recognizing all the great media produced during the year. If you don't like my list, or have some other works in mind worth recognizing, the solution is simple: invent your own award and write up a list of recipients!
And now, without any further ado, here are the 2021 Tony Award recipients:
*Best Local Journalist: Miles Maguire of the Oshkosh Examiner. This is Miles' fifth consecutive Tony. Though he operates on a budget that is a fraction of what the local corporate chain media has at its disposal, Miles produces trustworthy journalism of depth. If every city in America had at least one Miles Maguire producing independent journalism, I dare say that leaders would be held accountable in ways they currently are not. If you have not already done so, consider subscribing to the Oshkosh Examiner. (For some added motivation to subscribe, read Miles' New Years Day letter to readers.).
In 2021 Miles appeared on the Running on MT podcast with Matt King and I. You can listen to that here.
*Best State of Wisconsin Journalism: The Wisconsin Examiner. The Wisconsin Examiner is the unmatched leader in producing daily, rigorous, progressive, Wisconsin based journalism. In their mission statement they say, We take our inspiration from the motto emblazoned on a ceiling in our state Capitol: “The Will of the People Is the Law of the Land.” The Wisconsin Examiner's outstanding staff (Editor-in-Chief Ruth Conniff, Deputy Editor Melanie Conklin, reporters Erik Gunn, Isiah Holmes, Henry Redman) reveal that inspiration in all of their stories and opinion pieces. To find out what is really going on in Wisconsin's politics & government, work & the economy, education, environment, criminal justice, and civil rights & immigration, do yourself a favor and follow the Wisconsin Examiner. The site is available for free, but you can donate whatever you can afford here.
In 2021 Wisconsin Examiner journalist Erik Gunn appeared on the Running on MT podcast with Matt King and I. You can find that interview here.
*Most Surprising Story of the Year: National Public Radio's "The Clear and Present Danger of Trump's Enduring 'Big Lie.'" There was a time many years ago when NPR could be looked to for hard hitting, independent reporting. Over the years NPR management allowed itself to be bullied by partisan attacks, and so for at least the last decade NPR reporting has featured the worst of kind of "both sides do it" reporting, or what NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen calls the "view from nowhere." The result? Mediocre reporting that achieves the purpose of shielding NPR from partisan attacks, but in the process diminishes any meaningful watchdog impact in the public sphere.
Much to my pleasant surprise, in late December NPR's Melissa Block reported on Donald Trump's Big Lie in a hard hitting way that was the complete opposite of the mealy-mouthed babble flooding the network for far too long. As noted by professor Rosen:
I don't know what led @NPR to do this, but I am sure glad they did. A stark look at the Big Lie and the dangers ahead. https://t.co/bvldvLmBkv
*Best Photo Feature: The Wisconsin State Journal's Picturing a Pandemic. Across the Internet one can find thousands of photo features documenting the pandemic. I like the Wisconsin State Journal's March 7, 2021 compilation because it avoids the temptation to become the "misery porn" that is so much of the visual representation of the impact of COVID-19 on our lives. Instead, the State Journal feature is striking in how it captures the struggle of ordinary people to remain . . . well, ordinary during the outbreak.
This picture of a masked grandpa and his grandchildren enjoying a day at Vilas Zoo shortly after its reopening is the kind of human moment captured in the Wisconsin State Journal photo feature.
*Letter of the Year: Raleigh Mayer's Letter to the Editor of the New York Times on the Oxford, MI school shooting. Raleigh Mayer needed only seventy words to capture, with blunt truth and poignancy, how we are now in "banality of evil" territory when it comes to gun violence and the mainstream coverage of it:
The reference to the massacre at Oxford High School as "the year's deadliest school shooting" is, through no fault of the reporter, shocking in its banality.
The fact that we now compare the numbers of schoolchildren murdered the way we might measure the stock market ("this year's most volatile trading day") or sports teams ("their biggest loss this season") is disgusting.
If school shootings are banal, then we are evil.
*Best Video Documentary of the January 6th Insurrection: The New York Times' "Day of Rage--How Trump Supporters Took the US Capitol." According to Haley Willis, one of the producers of the NYT video:
Our Visual Investigations team synchronized and mapped thousands of videos of the U.S. Capital riot to provide the most complete picture to date of what happened on Jan. 6 -- and why. This was a massive team effort over six months, involving resources from across the Times newsroom. We went to court to unseal police body camera footage, scoured law enforcement radio communications and interviewed witnesses.
The 40-minute documentary is a remarkable and troubling spectacle. It is a powerful indictment--not just of Donald Trump--but of his congressional enablers who continue to minimize the violence, shift blame, and frustrate attempts to hold the perpetrators accountable.
*Best Journalistic Warning Shot: Barton Gellman's "Trump's Next Coup Has Already Begun" (The Atlantic). In meticulous detail, Gellman exposes the political treachery at work that is slowly eroding what is left of representative democracy in the United States. Much of Gellman's report centers on retired New York City firefighter Richard C. Patterson, whose story is a kind of representative anecdote of millions of patriotic Americans who have been conned by the lies and conspiracy theories emanating from Donald Trump and his core enablers. Writes Gellman of Patterson: "His convictions are worth examining because he and millions of Americans who think as he does are the primary source of Trump's power to corrupt the next election."
To explain the passions and potential of the "lumpen Trumpers," Gellman turns to Robert Pape, Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST). Pape has spent most of his adult life studying the roots of political violence globally. He argues that the Biden Administration is wrong to conceive of the most extreme elements of January 6th as "lone wolves." Rather, CPOST's survey data leads him to believe that in the United States right now there are as many as 21 million "committed insurrectionists" representing a "new, politically violent mass movement." Many of them are White Americans motivated by fear of the "Great Replacement" Theory (propagated by Tucker Carlson and others on the Right) that Americans of European ancestry see their numbers dwindling as a result of an elite conspiracy to replace them with more compliant, non-European people of color.
Gellman concludes: "Donald Trump came closer than anyone thought he could to toppling a free elections a year ago. He is preparing in plain view to do it again, and his position is growing stronger. Republican acolytes have identified the weak points in our electoral apparatus and are methodically exploiting them. They have set loose and and now are driven by the animus of tens of millions of aggrieved Trump supporters who are prone to conspiracy thinking, embrace violence, and reject democratic defeat. Those supporters, Robert Pape's 'committed insurrectionists,' are armed and single-minded and will know what to do the next time Trump calls upon them to act."
We ignore Gellman's journalistic warning shot at our own peril.
*Best Vote Fraud Debunker: The Associated Press. In 2022, expect the most Trump-debased elements of the GOP to continue to spread disinformation about 2020 voter fraud. When you hear that horseshit, refer to the Associated Press's thorough investigation of all battleground state fraud claims from 2020. Kudos to the AP for providing a well documented, independent, and legitimate examination of what actually happened in 2020.
*Best Climate Change Reporting: The New York Times' "Postcards From a World on Fire." This truly outstanding New York Times feature provides 193 stories highlighting the intensity of global climate change across the globe. How tragic that world "leaders" continue to lack the will to do what is necessary to address the crisis.
*Best Talk Show Episode: Marc Lamont Hill's Interview of Chris Rufo (Black News Channel). In 2021 the political right, with much success, held up the specter of "Critical Race Theory" as the latest in a long line of efforts to scare white people in general, but especially white voters. Republican legislators in almost all states have attempted to ban "anti-racist" teaching in schools. Some pundits argue that anti-CRT sentiment contributed to the Republicans retaking the governor's office in Virginia in 2021, and that CRT is "on the ballot" in 2022.
Much of the hysteria against CRT and anti-racism teaching in general has been sparked by Chris Rufo of the Manhattan Institute. His claims have been amplified and largely unchallenged by conservative media. Meanwhile, rather than debate the merits of CRT or anti-racism education, so-called "liberal" mainstream media promote the narrative that such educational practices do not even exist. The result is that news media consumers never get to witness a genuine debate about what anti-racism education is, is not, or should be.
If mainstream media were truly interested in educating the public about anti-racism education, then news directors should do whatever they can to make sure that Americans see the brief debate between Chris Rufo and Marc Lamont Hill on Hill's "Black News Tonight" program on the Black News Channel. Hill has invited numerous CRT critics on the program, and more often than not they reveal that they have not actually read any credible CRT sources. Mr. Rufo, on the other hand, is very well versed in CRT. His debate with Hill was one of the only times (perhaps THE only time) he actually was confronted by someone with expert knowledge on the topic. I urge everyone to watch their exchange. The last few minutes are especially fascinating, as Hill politely but firmly explains to Rufo why Black people in American cannot benefit from saying "I don't see race" in the same way that White people do. By the end of the interview, Hill had succeeded in showing why CRT or something like it is actually very necessary in our schools.
Best Reworking of the First Amendment: Professor Mary Anne Franks. The United States Constitution is an 18th century document written by people who could not have imagined the complexities of 21st century life. We SHOULD appreciate the fact that it is difficult to amend the Constitution; if it were too easy we would have powerful interests spending huge sums of money to rewrite it to align with their own interests. On the other hand, we SHOULD NOT treat Constitutional language like it is some kind of God ordained gospel that cannot be tinkered with lest we rot in hell.
Professor Mary Anne Franks is the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law and the author of "The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech." The book actually came out in 2019, but in 2021 Franks' push for reworking the first two amendments got more notice thanks to a Boston Globe op-ed and coverage in other sources. I'm not sure if I completely agree with Franks' suggested redo of the First Amendment, but I do believe that a debate about whether or not the current language is meeting our 21st century needs is a debate worth having. Here is Franks' suggested wording:
Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.
Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice.
See Professor Franks speak about her views on the Constitution here.
Song of the Year: John Fogerty's Weeping in the Promised Land. Fogerty's song came out early in 2021 and it was largely a response to his observation of 2020. Unfortunately a year later we are still weeping. In this song, which is probably Fogerty's best since his Creedence Clearwater Revival days, he laments the twin tragedies of our failed COVID response and continuing racism.
Shortly before Thanksgiving, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel released an important investigative report (behind a paywall) by reporters Katelyn Ferral and Natalie Brophy on the tragic increase in suicides among soldiers in the Wisconsin National Guard. The report tells the stories of four Wisconsin National Guardsmen who went to Afghanistan together and returned safely. Tragically, all of them took their own lives within months of each other. The four soldiers--James Swetlik, Eric Richley, Evan Olson, and Logan Collison--were victims not just of the inadequate support system available for guardsmen during and after their service commitment, but of the misguided and never ending war on terror policy that changed the National Guard "forever."
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's important and informative report on Wisconsin National Guard suicides included this photo of the mothers of Logan Collison, Eric Richley, and Evan Olson at a memorial for their sons.
As a university teacher I've had National Guardsmen in my classes as students. They are usually extraordinary young people striving to be "ordinary." That description certainly fits the fallen soldiers portrayed in Ferral and Brophy's reporting: "Specialist Evan Olson,a 24-year-old from Waunakee, had a penchant for trivia and wore red, white and blue every Fourth of July. Specialist Logan Collison, 21, was an exceptional artist and wanted to be a history teacher. He was from Oshkosh. Specialist James Swetlik, a 23-year-old from Appleton, enjoyed traveling, at one time working as a cross-country truck driver. Sergeant Eric Richley, at 32 was the oldest of the four. He lived in Nichols and was the father of two boys, ages 7 and 9." Collison was a student at UW Oshkosh. I did not know him, but several of my students did and they describe him as a fun loving, amazing young man who treated everyone with concern and kindness. More about each of the four soldiers can be found here.
The death of young soldiers by suicide has become all too common. According to Ferral and Brophy, four times as many veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war have died by suicide than in battle. Nationwide, 90 Guard members died from suicide in 2019. In 2020 the number jumped to 120. The victim is most commonly male and under the age of 30. The report suggests that a large part of the problem stems from mental health issues brought on and/or reinforced by the extreme workload: "Guard units across the country have been called up more in the last year than in any 18-month period since World War II, and there's no cap on the number of times a soldier can be activated. Some families who lost soldiers to suicide say they are frustrated that the Guard markets itself as a part-time commitment."
Even though 3 of the 4 victims profiled in the report expressed frustration with their Guard experience, Ferral and Brophy do not explore the connection between war policies hatched in Washington and the resulting impact on the military personnel putting those policies in place. Instead, the reporters frame the solution as essentially one of better mental health assistance for soldiers, more transparency from the Guard in terms of granting access to suicide investigations, developing more specific guidance on treatment with medications, and raising awareness of gun safety issues with veterans.
All of the proposed solutions are important and should be implemented immediately. Unfortunately, they side step the real problem, which is the failed war on terror policy. That policy, known euphemistically as the "Bush Doctrine," has for 20+ years allowed the Pentagon to wage continual war in a number of countries in the name of "protecting the homeland." In 2001 the only member of the United States House of Representatives to vote against the "Authorization for use of military force" was California's Barbara Lee, who warned that it would be a blank check to wage war anywhere in the world with little accountability. Sadly, Lee turned out to be 100 percent correct. The authorization has been used to allow military deployments in at least 10 countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia), usually with limited or no debate in the Congress or in the national media. National Guard troops can be sent anywhere at any time. For example, one-thousand troops from Virginia and Kentucky just found out that they are going to the horn of Africa.
The Department of Defense releases an "Annual Suicide Report." Journalists frequently use this document as a resource for discovering number of suicides by military unit, assistance available for veterans, and efforts the military is taking to confront the problem. The document is not surprisingly silent on how DOD's war on terror policies are at the root of the crisis.
Under "Operation Inherent Resolve" the United States established what appears to be a permanent presence in Middle East hot spots, dropping bombs continuously. If you thought that the Biden Administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan meant that we would be scaling back these "dirty wars," you would be wrong. Just recently the Pentagon announced the renaming of Operation Inherent Resolve to "Special Operations Joint Task Force-Levant," and that its authority in the region would be expanded. The expansion of the dirty wars lends itself to more provocation of anti-US and anti-Europe sentiment in the world, which then increases the likelihood of the eventual need for troop deployments, which then leads back to the National Guard. In fact, what the Guard have experienced since 2001 is a defining feature of what I recently referred to as the "third score of shame".(By which I meant the years 2001-2021 as being a twenty-year period as shameful in its political cowardice, fear appeals, and tribalism as 1837-1857 and 1877-1897).
Reporters Ferral and Brophy in the Journal Sentinel did not frame Guard suicides as an inevitable consequence connected to the failed war on terror. But the connection is there, and even suggested in the quoted remarks of suicide victims Eric Richley and Logan Collison. Sergeant Richley, the father of two, was stricken with guilt after participating in an attack that killed 25 Afghan civilians including women and children. According to the report, his mother recalled him asking, "What if it had been my kids that somebody did that to?" Logan Collison started to grasp the politics of it all. Ferral and Brophy write that "According to his family, Logan increasingly felt like a political pawn. He said the Guard had become an 'easy button' that politicians pushed anytime there was a problem they didn't know how to address." What Richley and Logan exposed in their remarks is nothing short of a national scandal, one that is bipartisan in nature and should--if democracy and the rule of law were anything more than applause lines at political fundraisers--lead to war crimes trials for the scoundrels who got us into this mess.
Journalism that raises awareness of the plight of the National Guard is valuable and should be more common. But its value is diminished when it accepts the Pentagon's and the hack politicians' framing of the problem as being one of essentially how to guarantee better mental health access. The problem is much greater than that. As noted recently by Mark Landler in the New York Times, "Twenty years after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the so-called war on terror shows no signs of winding down. It waxes and wanes, largely in the shadows and out of the headlines."
It's time to get the war on terror back in the headlines. It's time for journalists to resist pressures to parrot the Pentagon's line on all matters related to war and peace, including military suicides. It's time for the emergence of a new, reinvigorated peace movement that can honor the legacy of James, Eric, Evan, Logan and many others by demanding better from those who plan and profit from wars.
My "Running on MT" podcast co-host Matt King and I recently interviewed Wisconsin Senator Melissa Agard (D-Madison) about her Senate Bill 545 which would legalize cannabis in Wisconsin for medical and recreational purposes. Including her time in the Wisconsin State Assembly, Agard has sponsored cannabis legalization legislation for eight consecutive years. Not once has the Republican majority leadership scheduled the Bill for a hearing, even though it's now become common for Wisconsinites to travel to neighboring states for pot purchases and opinion polls show majority support for legalization.
We asked Senator Agard how she became passionate about something like cannabis legalization. Her answer was very "old school." She said that while marijuana is not part of her personal culture and she never campaigned on the issue, every time she knocks on citizens' doors or meets voters in other settings, she hears numerous stories of how pot prohibition is harming people. As she told us:
After I was elected and maybe even before I was elected, as I was knocking on doors and pounding the pavement so to speak . . . I had people coming up to me and sharing with me very personal, compelling stories about how the prohibition of cannabis was harming them and harming the people who they love. Whether it was the mom who was talking to me about her son who lost his scholarship and housing opportunities for college because he was pulled over for a missing tail light on his car and the police found a blunt in the ashtray. Or whether it was how egregious our racial disparities are when it comes to arrest for simple possession in Wisconsin--the fact that black and brown people are between four and seven times more likely to be "invited into" the criminal justice system than white folks. Or people who had left the state of Wisconsin to learn about and become part of the cannabis industry, and wanted to be able to come back and pollinate that knowledge and bring the industry into Wisconsin, but they weren't able to. Or parents with very ill children whose peers in other states were able to provide relief to their kids with access to cannabis . . . The stories could go on and on, but it was really clear to me through these stories that the most dangerous thing about pot in Wisconsin is that it's illegal, and prohibition is not working.
Every single member of the state legislature represents people with pot prohibition stories similar to those Senator Agard hears. No doubt every representative also hears from people with sincere, evidence based objections to legalization. (I personally support legalization based on the evidence I've seen and testimony I've heard, but am very open minded to opposing views.). In a functional, truly representative government, the way to work out the disagreements is to have public hearings on the Bill in the relevant committees. If the Bill makes it out of committee, then schedule debates in and votes of the full legislature. If it passes both Houses, send it to the governor for his signature. That's Civics 101.
Note that I said "functional" government. State government in Wisconsin stopped being functional a long time ago, to the point where the old school practice of legislation starting at the grassroots level has virtually disappeared. What's replaced it is government by partisan [don't] think tanks and Twitter trends.
A textbook example of what I'm talking about occurred recently in Wisconsin when the legislature along strictly partisan lines passed an education bill designed to ban Critical Race Theory from schools and mandate the GOP's vision of civics education. Let's compare what happened with Senator Agard's cannabis legislation with the GOP's education bill:
*The cannabis legislation emerged from grassroots level discussions with citizens hurt by the current policy. The education legislation is part of a national movement spurred on by Fox News and other right wing actors.
*The cannabis legislation has been filed for eight consecutive years and still has not had a committee hearing. The education legislation was introduced in June of this year and fast tracked through the legislature.
*The cannabis legislation appears to be a good faith effort to address the real, documented harms caused by the current policy of prohibition. The education bill appears to be the latest episode in the never ending attempt to make hot-button culture war issues the center of attention in election season. (In Virginia, the central claim of Republican Glenn Youngkin's gubernatorial campaign is that a vote for Democrat Terry McAuliffe is a vote for critical race theory. Youngkin might win.).
*The cannabis legislation has bipartisan support among the people (83 percent including a majority of declared Republicans support medical marijuana; 59 percent including a majority who "lean Republican" support legalization for recreational purposes). Passing such legislation--or at least giving it an opportunity to be debated in good faith--would be a rare unifying moment across party lines in Wisconsin. In contrast, the education bill is strictly partisan, and its fast tracking and passage appeared designed to enhance divisions across the state.
Put simply, the legislation to ban "Critical Race Theory" in Wisconsin education is just another example of our state legislature being coopted and exploited by national [Don't] Think Tanks and the Twitter trends they create. Because Don't Think Tanks and Twitter Trends are designed to build support for tribal interests as opposed to sound public policy, legislation that gets passed is often so poorly thought out that the consequences can range from absurd to unconstitutional to just frightening. For example, the education bill passed by the Wisconsin Assembly creates a literal censorship regime in the state's public schools, in which teachers are told that certain concepts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
Do you think I'm exaggerating? Last August, Wisconsin Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), one of the co-authors of the critical race theory ban, in testimony before a joint Assembly/Senate education committee meeting outlined a number of terms that would be prohibited subjects in the classroom:
Were it not for the fact that legislation like this is so destructive, the idea that the sponsors cannot see the irony of them rejecting discussions of "white fragility" or "critical self-reflection" would be funny.
In all seriousness, do the writers of this legislation even know what the majority of these "radical" concepts even mean? Do they have any idea how mindful, dedicated teachers use the concepts? Do they even care?
I understand that the Governor will probably veto the legislation. I also understand that it is aimed at K-12. But as a university professor, I know that such legislative overreach does have a chilling effect that makes instructors "think twice" before introducing certain concepts into the classroom. And yet how can any serious curriculum in the Humanities or Social Sciences avoid critical discussions of race?
To provide just one simple example: I teach a sophomore level class in "Rhetoric and Public Advocacy." The course covers dozens of concepts, including a brief mention of "intersectionality." That concept, which has become the new "communism" for bad-faith Republicans, simply refers to the obvious fact that our performance of all identity factors is impacted by other identity factors. For example, a person's performance of their age is impacted by the performance of social class and race. Middle-aged white men with white collar jobs have different life experiences than middle-aged black men with white collar jobs. Are white people in America really too fragile to consider the possibility that some of those differences in experience are the result of deeply rooted, systemic factors that are rarely talked about? If we don't talk about those factors in schools, then where? When?
When we get to the intersectionality concept in class, I usually show a provocative ad run by the Procter & Gamble corporation called "The Look." In the ad, we see an African-American man and his son entering spaces filled with predominantly white faces in places like a restaurant, public swimming pool, and an elevator. In all the spaces, the African-American man gets "the look" suggesting his presence in the space provokes fear and suspicion. It is not until the end of the ad that we find out that the African-American man is a Judge; when he is wearing his robe and reaching for his gavel he seems to get the respect denied him in other places.
That simple yet effective ad provokes some great discussion in the classroom. If white people are suspicious of the man before they know he is a judge, does the suspicion go away when he puts the robe on? Does the African-American judge have to be "twice as good just to be equal?" If that judge shows up in a predominantly white neighborhood seeking to purchase a home, would he be treated as any other potential home owner? There are no "right" answers to these questions. The point is that it is impossible to raise such questions seriously without at some point having to introduce concepts like "intersectionality" or "white privilege" or "systemic racism" or any number of concepts that the GOP majority--acting in response to [Don't] Think Tanks and Twitter Trends--seek to censor.
When it comes to governance in Wisconsin and in the United Stated generally, we are living in disturbing times. Legislation with bipartisan support, like that which would legalize cannabis for medical and/or recreational purposes, cannot get a formal legislative hearing even after eight consecutive years of being introduced. Meanwhile, legislation that is purely the concoction of partisan [Don't] Think tanks and Twitter trends gets fast tracked and passed without the consequences being addressed in any meaningful way.
What do we do about it? There are no easy answers, but in a Media Rants blog I would be remiss if I did not point out that major media need to do a much better job of calling out the bad faith actors willing to hijack state government for their own partisan political purposes. They also need to call out those members of the legislature who--probably because of intimidation or ignorance--are willing to allow themselves to BE hijacked.
I'm currently teaching a course called "History of American Public Address." The course examines speeches widely appreciated for their eloquence, provocative ideas, and impact on public policy. Examples include:
*Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "The Solitude of Self": "The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education, for the full development of her faculties, her forces of mind and body; for giving her the most enlarged freedom of thought and action; a complete emancipation from all forms of bondage, of custom, dependence, superstition; from all the crippling influences of fear—is the solitude and personal responsibility of her own individual life."
Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the "Solitude of Self" before the Congressional Judiciary Committee on January 18, 1892. The speech grounded its [at the time] radical argument for women's equality in the traditional American value of individual responsibility.
*George Washington's Farewell Address:"the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."
George Washington warned us about the evils of party politics. We did not listen.
*Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."
Lincoln's Second Inaugural was a courageous call for unity and compassion at a time when the Civil War was still ongoing.
*Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream": "We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."
An amazing speech that to this day is widely [and in some cases willfully] misunderstood, King's "I Have A Dream" was not merely calling for integration. The speech called for racial justice, an admonition that links King clearly with #blacklivesmatter
Students who take History of American Public Address frequently conclude, not without justification, that modern rhetoric in the public sphere cannot hold a candle to the public address of the past. Even the most appalling and awful rhetoric of years gone by, like President Andrew Jackson's message on "Indian Removal" or South Carolina Senator John Calhoun's case for slavery as a "positive good," does not seem--in contrast to much modern rhetoric--to be opinion poll driven and focus-group tested. For better or worse, speakers from less mass and social mediated times come off as more authentic and genuine in their convictions. Put bluntly, old time rhetors do not come off as bullshit artists seeking to exploit the worst tendencies of their "base" for political advantage or personal gain. Rather, they present themselves as "true believers" who--in hindsight--were not able to see past the dominant attitudes and values of their time.
So what really is a "great speech" in the public sphere? One way of defining it is as that which challenges the dominant beliefs, attitudes and/or values of the time while promoting alternatives that move us closer to the dream of equal justice for all. (The speeches by Washington, Lincoln, Stanton, and King all fit that definition.). In political discourse, the great speech does not parrot party or interest group talking points, but gives us truth as the speaker sees it. And in the great speech, that truth is communicated thoughtfully, so that audiences perceive the speaker as an intelligent person of character and goodwill.
Have there been any great speeches delivered in our current century? Perhaps it is too early to tell; sometimes multiple generations must pass before a public address can be fully appreciated. There certainly have been a number of noteworthy speeches--some or all of which MIGHT end up in "History of American Public Address" courses if such a course is still being taught a century from now. Here are ten noteworthy speeches from this century:
*Barack Obama's New Hampshire Primary Concession Speech (January 8, 2008). After winning an upset victory in the Iowa caucuses, many pundits expected Barack Obama to cruise to the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2008. Yet in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton won convincingly. Obama's concession speech succeeded in deflating any momentum Hillary might have gained from that victory. Though the content of Obama's speech was not markedly different from what he had been saying on the campaign trail for months previously, on this night he delivered it with an urgency that energized and mobilized his supporters. The "Yes We Can" section ended up becoming part of Will.i.am's famous pro-Obama video, one of the first ever viral videos sparked by a political campaign.
*Bill Gates' Ted Talk (March 8, 2015) on "The Next Outbreak? We're Not Ready." Thanks to Covid-19, Gates's speech was rediscovered and is now one of the most downloaded ever. Too bad world leaders, especially those consumed with the "War on Terror," did not listen. Gates understood that our hyper vigilance on seeking out enemies to destroy via military means was an oh so 20th century way of looking at the world. Future generations will recognize Gates' speech as a voice of reason and common sense in a world led by too many that stubbornly resisted recognizing the actual threats to humanity.
*Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address. Well we have to follow the Microsoft god with the Apple god, right? The late Mr. Jobs, a college dropout who "dropped in" just on courses he wanted to take, left us with one of the most outstanding college commencement addresses of all time. Before Jobs, commencement speeches typically were part pep talk, part platitudes, and part parental advice. Jobs' speech certainly had elements of all three, but his deeply personal narrative had a poignancy to it that most commencement speakers since have tried to mimic with more or less success. Jobs' plea to follow the advice of Stewart Brand's countercultural "Whole Earth Catalogue" to "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish" lives on as one of the most memorable endings in the long history of the commencement genre.
*New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu's Address on the Removal of Confederate Monuments (May 2017). Given the cartoonish way that politics and political rhetoric are covered in our national media, it's easy to think that local leaders in deep red states are all longing for a confederate resurgence. Mitch Landrieu's dissertation on the need for the south (and really all America) to "face our flaws" is a remarkable rejection of the southern leader stereotype. The speech is part history lesson, part sermon on right and wrong, and part plea for the entire nation to reject the lazy acceptance of white supremacist symbols and instead pledge to work together to create new, more inclusive ones.
*Bernie Sanders Speech at Liberty University (September 2015). Liberty University is a conservative evangelical Christian institution founded by Jerry Falwell in 1971. The Democratic Socialist, Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders spoke at the campus during his campaign for president. Listening sessions and debates between people of opposing views are now so rare that Sanders' speech would be noteworthy just for the fact that he accepted the invitation to speak. But more than that is the fact that Sanders used the opportunity to alter the conservative audience's perception of what it means to act morally as regards public policy. He said in part:
"Are you content? Do you think it's moral that 20 percent of the children in this country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world are living in poverty? Do you think it is acceptable that 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty? In my view, there is no justice, and morality suffers, when in our wealthy country, millions of children go to bed hungry. That is not morality . . . I think when we talk about morality, what we are talking about is all of God's children, the poor, the wretched, they have a right to go to a doctor when they are sick!"
We don't know how many people in that audience were persuaded by Sanders, but his effort to find common ground with those who disagree--and create a shared vision of what a just America could look like--is an effort that more of us should undertake. The survival of the country might depend on it.
*Nikki Giovanni, "We Are Virginia Tech" (April 2017). This poem brings tears to my eyes almost every time I listen to it. Delivered shortly after the awful massacre of innocents on the Virginia Tech campus, Giovanni lifted the spirits of the survivors while at the same time reminding them of the universality of tragedy:
"We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy."
The standing ovation in response to the poem was like a collective catharsis. Giovanni the poet prodded the nation to perceive that we are ALL Virginia Tech.
*Aly Raisman Confronts Larry Nassar in Court (January 2018). Former USA gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar assaulted perhaps hundreds of girls over the course of decades. He was enabled by academic, athletic, and government bureaucracies that did not take complaints against him seriously, looked the other way, or tried to make the girls feel delusional.
When Nassar was finally tried and convicted, a number of victim statements were made in court. Olympic champion Aly Raisman directly confronted Nassar, becoming a role model for finding one's voice:
"Larry, you do realize now that we, this group of women you so heartlessly abused over such a long period of time, are now a force and you are nothing. The tables have turned, Larry. We are here. We have our voices, and we are not going anywhere. And now, Larry, it’s your turn to listen to me . . . Imagine feeling like you have no power and no voice. Well you know what, Larry? I have both power and voice and I am only beginning to just use them."
*Oprah Winfrey's "A New Day Is On The Horizon" (January 2018). Delivered at the Golden Globes ceremony, Oprah's speech became a foundational #metoo moment, filled with righteous anger at the past but bubbling with hope for the future. After this speech, Oprah's name popped up regularly as a possible 2020 presidential candidate. Part of me wishes Oprah had entered the primaries. A Donald Trump v. Oprah Winfrey race would have been quite educational.
*Stephen Colbert's Roast of George W. Bush (April 2006). For years, comedians invited to speak at the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) Dinner had performed mostly inoffensive, bland jokes that--at best--reached a Saturday Night Live level of mainstream satire. In 2006 Stephen Colbert's cutting attacks on the Bush presidency (with the president himself sitting just a few feet away), set a new tone for WHCA gatherings that ultimately led to the cancelation of inviting humorists to the event. (Although now that Mr. Trump is out of office, I can see a scenario where the speech returns.).
What's become tragic about Colbert's speech is that his main criticism of the Bush Administration--that it "believed the same thing on Wednesday as it did on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday"--is now pretty much standard operating procedure for partisan hacks. What Colbert tried to express as absurd and outside of political norms is now THE norm.
*George W. Bush's Speech on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11/2021. I'll let former President Bush have the last word here. Mr. Bush, who presided over two failed and ill conceived wars, the worst economic crash in history, and assaults on our liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, is a very difficult man to rehabilitate. And yet in today's Republican party he sounds like a voice of sanity. It is difficult to listen to his speech of 9/11/2021 and interpret it as anything less than a total rejection of Trumpism:
"There's little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard of human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them."
If the Republican Party ever finds its way out of the cult of personality morass it is now painfully ensnared in, speeches like the one President Bush delivered at the 9/11 ceremony will be remembered as an attempt to rescue the party from itself. Bush was never the brightest national leader, but he does understand that a "disdain for pluralism" will ultimately destroy the Republican party--if it does not destroy the entire country first.
