Media Rants Interview: Dan Shafer of the Recombobulation Area

 

Recent Media Rants Videos

Some recent Media Rants videos. 

The New York Times appears to be torn between its noble mission of seeking truth and helping people understand the world and the business model of the paper which has Jerry Springer features: 

In his new book, Jake Tapper claims that Democratic Party insiders enabled the declining Joe Biden. Tapper was involved in his own scandalous behavior in 2024:

If you're wondering what you would be doing during the slavery era or other times of great injustice, you're probably doing it now: 

Challenging A Generation Z Stereotype

Generation Z includes people born between the years 1997 - 2012. We all know the stereotypes: "They're addicted to social media, hate emails, can't be bothered to read, misuse AI tools for homework, and only think about themselves." 

As a college professor teaching students primarily in the Gen Z age range, I've got first-hand experience with all those stereotypes. But with 40+ years of teaching experience, I can't say the challenges Gen Z presents in educational settings are any worse than what I saw from their parents' generations. Different, yes. But not necessarily worse. Since the invention of classrooms (and now online spaces too), distraction and disengagement (D & D) have plagued large numbers of students. Perhaps it is more obvious with Gen Z because, in showing up with phones, laptops, and/or other technologies, their D & D has an "in your face" quality more off-putting than the blank stares of older cohorts. 

As a media critic, one thing I'm told frequently about Gen Z is that they have ZERO regard for so-called "legacy" news media; i.e. the traditional guardians of public knowledge like the New York Times, ABC News, or cable TV outlets like CNN and Fox. Gen Z, we are told, will always prefer to be informed via TikTok videos, Reddit threads, or trendy podcasts.  Even though all of the legacy media have now dedicated significant resources toward adapting to the requirements of grabbing and maintaining attention in the digital age, they are not the first choice for news for most young people.  

Is it true that Gen Z will not engage legacy media, even when presented in a digital format? Recently I decided to test that hypothesis. From March-May of this year, I taught a 7-week, fully online course called "Rhetoric in Action." There were 29 students enrolled, including 25 Gen Zers and 4 millennials (I learned the generational status by asking everyone to share with the class the name of the #1 song on the day of their 10th birthday). The class population included 19 seniors set to graduate in May or December, 8 juniors, and 2 sophomores. There where 19 women and 10 men, and most were Communication Studies majors. 

The Home Page of the Online Syllabus for COMM 388: Rhetoric in Action.

                                                    

A week or two before the official start of the class, all students were contacted and told that they had to subscribe to the online New York Times, as we would be doing a "deep dive" into the paper. 

Approximately two-thirds of the course material required students to do rhetorical analysis of the New York Times. Assignments included: 

• Critical analysis of a piece of reporting from any of the following sections of the NYT: Arts, Business, Climate and Environment, Education, Food, Health, New York Times Magazine, Parenting, Politics, Science, Style, Technology, Wellness, World. 
• Critical Analysis of an assigned NYT Opinion Page writer: Students analyzed columns by Jamelle Bouie, David Brooks, Gail Collins, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, David French, Thomas Friedman, M. Gessen, Michelle Goldberg, Nicholas Kristof, Carlos Lozada, Tressie McMillan Cottom, Lydia Polgreen, Bret Stephens, and Zeynep Tufekci.
• An evaluation of as assigned episode of the New York Times The Daily podcast.
• An evaluation of the New York Times as a form of visual rhetoric.
• Two exams covering the course textbook (The Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking and Writing Critically by Karlyn Kohrs-Campbell, Susan Schultz-Husman, and Thomas Burkholder. Cengage Learning, 2015.). 

Approximately one-third of the course required students to "do" rhetoric; to write and speak in ways that would be suitable for publication in the New York Times. Assignments in this section of the course included: 

• Engaging in an in-depth, written conversation with a classmate about current events. In essence, the students were asked to mimic The Conversation by NYT writers Gail Collins and Bret Stephens. 
• Writing a 1000-1500 word opinion piece that would be suitable for publication on the New York Times opinion page.
• Preparing and Recording a 4-6 minute message, designed for the New York Times Editorial Board, with the purpose of persuading the Board to publish the student's 1000-1500 word opinion piece.

Going into the course, the two Gen Z stereotypes I was most concerned about were: "can't be bothered to read" and "misuse AI tools for homework." These ended up really not being major problems. Only 4 of the 29 students were not subscribed to the NYT by the first day of class, and only 1 probably never subscribed.  Scores on the exams were not great, but the exams involved reading the course textbook. Students have been doing poorly on textbook exams since way before Gen Z. 

As far as reading the New York Times, the results were very encouraging. In the assignments that required analysis of NYT articles and writers, I could tell that the clear majority of students had engaged the material as evidenced by their ability to summarize and pull relevant quotes from specific articles. Every student seemed appreciative to have the opportunity to think and write about public issues that do not frequently come up in college classes. 

Emme Hornung was a student in the Rhetoric in Action course. Her insights about what it was like to study the New York Times in an academic setting are fascinating. 

Artificial intelligence abuse did not appear to be a problem. I only detected two blatant attempts to pass off an a AI generated paper as original work, and both students immediately admitted it. Each individual told me that they simply got busy with other classes, work, etc. and used AI just to get done by the deadline. (I allow students the opportunity to redo the assignment with no penalty IF they admit that they used AI without proper citation and/or letting me know in advance why they are using it.). 

For me the most inspiring part of the course was the 1000-1500 word opinion pieces. Before the students wrote them, I did have them each send me a thesis statement and short justification for their choice of topic, which allowed me to provide feedback and ensure that the proposed piece would be appropriate for the NYT. Students wrote on a range of topics dealing with education, media, politics, culture, and other areas. One thing that became obvious, just from the topic choices and style of writing, was that the students had in fact been engaging the New York Times for six weeks.   

I enjoyed all the student opinion pieces, but I will quote from just one. Student Ava Heeringa wrote a piece she titled "Reclaiming Peace In a Digital World." I'm quoting Ava's because her piece powerfully, and in an authentic student voice, contests the idea that Gen Z is not reflective about the digital culture they find themselves mired in. She writes: 

I’m 21 years old, just months away from earning my degree in Communication Studies at a university I’m proud to attend. While I’m optimistic about the future, there’s a quiet anxiety that follows me. One that is fueled by the pressure to be constantly reachable and online at all times. 

This morning, I woke up and immediately checked my phone for any notifications. The day before, I responded to emails while brushing my teeth. Constant digital access is real and I am living proof of it. 

The consequences of this constant connectivity have crept into nearly every corner of my life. Mentally, I experience waves of anxiety throughout the day. It's as though my mind is always on alert, constantly cycling through notifications and tasks that need attention. This has left me feeling mentally exhausted, even when I'm supposed to be relaxed.

Academically, I feel drained and constantly on edge. A single email about homework or a new grade notification can ruin my focus and control my mood. My ability to multitask, once something I was proud of, now leaves me scattered, like I’m doing everything halfway. Professionally, it’s just as overwhelming. Every time my phone buzzes at work, I glance at the screen out of habit. It’s as if I’m on-call all the time. The mental energy I give to my devices each day is exhausting. Yet stepping away feels like I’m breaking an unspoken rule. I know this isn’t a unique experience. It’s part of a cultural shift and a redefinition of what it means to be “available.” 

Students are expected to respond to professors and classmates around the clock, as if class never really ends. The same applies to remote work, where being “reachable” at all times has invaded traditional boundaries. We've normalized a culture where being off the clock almost feels irresponsible. Even our friendships have adapted to this normality where texting, reacting to stories, and leaving comments have replaced deeper conversations, and yet we still call it connection. 

She then described a number of ways she has tried to manage digital overload in her own life. She concludes: 

Each of us has the power to redefine our relationship with technology. It starts with recognizing the need for balance and then taking even the smallest steps to disconnect. As I continue down this journey, I encourage others to do the same. To reflect on their own relationship with technology and consider how they, too, can reclaim peace.

Obviously, this course did not provide me with enough data from which to make generalizations about everyone in Generation Z. Still, I can confidently say that my experience does--to my satisfaction at least--debunk the idea that young people will not engage legacy media. In private interactions, students told me that have never been hostile to established sources of information like the NYT. Rather, those sources do not show up in social media algorithms, and if they do they too often have information restricted behind a paywall.  

Media Rants Video May 7, 2025: Papal Bull?

 

An Open Letter to President Obama

An audio version of this Media Rant can be found here.

Note: From 2009-2017, Barack Obama served as the 44th President of the United States. Though I voted for him twice, his presidency disappointed and frustrated me. I don't usually seek out insights from the actor Matt Damon, but I thought he was spot-on when in 2011 he said that Obama had "misinterpreted his mandate" and failed to follow through on the significant changes voters were looking for. It is true of course that the Republicans openly obstructed everything Obama tried to do, but even that I thought could have been overcome if he had used his exceptional political skills to rally the masses in support of fundamental change.   

Now I know that the latest Democratic Party rhetoric is all about "the future," and I get the school of thought that says it is time to make a break from all of yesterday's Dems, including Obama. The counter to that view is that Barack Obama is one of the few national level Democrats capable of dominating more than one news cycle. In 2007 and 2008 his ability to inspire was needed to help Americans find hope during the disastrous second term of President George W. Bush. In 2025 the disaster of the second Trump term makes George Dubya's failures look like innocent mistakes. Maybe it's time for Obama to work the magic again? 

Here's how he can do it: 

Illinois Senator Richard Durbin recently announced he would not seek another term in 2026. That  provides an opening for President Obama to get off the sidelines and back in the game. I think he should once again run for the United States Senate from Illinois (he represented Illinois in the US Senate from 2005-2008), and after he gets elected the Democrats should immediately choose him to replace Chuck Schumer as leader.  Even the act of campaigning for the seat would provide Obama with a legitimate platform from which to educate the population about the true-threat of Trumpism, and once again provide hope. I'll lay out more of my reasons for thinking Obama should run in the open letter below. 

Dear President Obama: 

I hope this letter finds you well. As you know, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois announced recently that he will not be seeking reelection in 2026. I'm writing to ask you to run for that seat. When you win, the Democrats should immediately move to make you their leader in the US Senate.  I understand that former presidents running for Congress after they leave office is rare, and that throwing your hat in the Illinois ring would be considered extraordinary. But we are living in extraordinary times; a civic emergency the likes of which we have not seen since the 1860s. The Trump Administration's extraordinary disregard for, and dismantling of, the US Constitution requires an extraordinary response from the opposition. 

Before dismissing my plea out of hand, please consider my three reasons why you should run: We need hope, we need unity, and we need congressional leadership. 

First, We Need Hope:  Your 2004 DNC Keynote Speech, along with your presidential campaign rhetoric of 2008 and 2012, inspired hope in a way that was and is unprecedented in modern American history. When you visited the college campus where I teach (the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh), your appearance was the first and ONLY time the majority of my students asked if they could skip class to see a political speaker--without me having to offer any extra credit. They came back "fired up and ready to go."  

Of course you are not the only contemporary political actor able to inspire hope. But you are the only one who would be able to spread the message of hope daily, and get nonstop coverage in broadcast and social media while doing so. Just as important, you would inspire hope candidates to run for local, state, and national offices all over the country.   

Second, We Need Unity: Even as the Trump Administration demolishes everything that made America great--from the guarantee of due process to trusting the judgement of The People over a King--the Democrats remain hopelessly divided. Too many Democrats with national stature seem more interested in occupying the "progressive lane" or the "moderate lane" or the "rural lane" than in doing the hard work of uniting the factions against a common and dangerous foe. In your first inaugural address you quoted the immortal words of George Washington, which are even more relevant now: "Let it be told to the future world . . . that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive . . . that the city and country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]." 

Third, We Need Congressional Leadership: With all due respect to Senator Schumer, he is not the Senate leader the Democrats need at this point in history, when the risk of losing our democracy is no longer just hypothetical. You are one of the most popular politicians in America. Given your stature not just as a former president, but also as a former United States Senator from Illinois, you would be able to fight to restore the rule of checks and balances to our federal government in a way that no other politician can. With you as an elected leader in the United States Senate, we will get the Obama v. Trump debates that the presidential term limits did not allow. I am confident that not only will you win those debates, but will role model for the citizenry how to stand up to Trumpism effectively.  

As you know, President John Quincy Adams got elected to the House of Representatives after he left the White House. From 1831 until his death in 1848, Adams was the most principled, articulate foe of slavery in the Congress. He once said that " . . a Constitution of government once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." As we see our liberty slipping away in real time, we need a new JQ Adams to be the principled, articulate voice of freedom in the Congress. That new JQ is you. 

Allow me to close by asserting that I realize the Democrats' general aversion to anything labeled "crazy" makes it difficult for them to entertain even the possibility of what I am suggesting in this letter. But I know that you admired the late civil rights movement icon, the Reverend Joseph Lowery, who taught us that in the struggle for justice there is "good crazy" and "bad crazy."  You've also many times sparked citizen activism by citing Dr. King's assertion of "the fierce urgency of now." The fierce urgency of now requires Barack Obama to get off the sidelines and back on the political field. 

Would President Obama entering the race for US Senate from Illinois provoke a media feeding frenzy? Yes. Would your return to formal electoral politics generate a Hollywood level of drama and theatricality? Yes. But would your entry into the race demonstrate your commitment--and the commitment of your Party-- to "walking the walk" on saving our democracy in a way that no other action can? Also yes. Your announcement of a campaign to run for the US Senate is the "good crazy" we need right now. 

Please take this plea seriously. Your country needs you.  

Sincerely, 

Tony Palmeri 

Media Rants Video: The Real Ink Crisis?

Media Rants Video Podcast

I'm playing around with making a video version of Media Rants to complement the blog.  As time permits, I'm planning to interview some guests to talk about media, as well as offer up my own solo rants. The first episode is on the Wisconsin Media's pretty dreadful coverage of the NFL Draft in Green Bay: 

Celebrating The Music Of 1975, Part 1

It's now become an annual ritual here at Media Rants to celebrate some of the great music released fifty years ago. I do this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that wading through the classics helps me prepare for "The Rhetoric of Rock" class I teach every few years. In addition, almost all the music celebrated represents artists and albums that I actually listened to back then, and so writing these posts helps me relive my youth in a not-at-all dysfunctional or senior-life crisis kind of way.  

Maybe the major reason for celebrating fifty-year-old music is I sincerely believe the recognized albums deserve to be heard by younger generations. I'm not one of those old guys who trash modern music and pine for the old days. If you are willing to take the time to search, you'll find music today every bit as good as what I celebrate in this post. The problem is that in our algorithmic culture, the great stuff is generally hidden while you're fed a steady diet of what you've indicated preferences for.  

It turns out that 1975 was a pivotal year for popular music. Some of the older, established stars from the 1960s were still recording terrific tunes and still getting radio play. Their days were numbered though; by the late 1970s disco, punk, British new wave, and early hip-hop would dramatically change the musical landscape. In 1975 FM radio still saw itself as a space for youth counterculture, and except for disco (which offended the hard-core rock audience), FM DJs would pretty much play anything. My students today find it hard to believe there once was a time when commercial FM radio was so great that a young person could listen to it for hours at a time without getting bored or feeling overwhelmed by obnoxious commercials.  

I'm going to highlight twenty-five albums of 1975 in this post, and then twenty-five more in another later in the year. So much amazing music was released that year that some classics will be left off. My bias is towards albums that I listened to extensively back then, and/or those I grew to respect over time. I'm going to break the initial twenty-five into five categories: 

• Rock and Roll Theater 
• Empowered Women 
• Progressive Pop 
• Breakthrough Albums 
• Guitar Heroes 

A number of the albums cut across several categories, but I think I am mostly accurate in what I identify as the dominant groove of each. 

Without any further ado . . . . 

Rock and Roll Theater 

Rock music of the late 1960s and early 1970s tended to be connected deeply to social movements. Artists wrote and performed songs that had some kind of civil rights, anti-war, youth rebellion, or other movement message. As the movements waned, the rock genre became a space for vivid theatricality. Artists like T-Rex and David Bowie pioneered rock-and-roll theater in the early 1970s. Here are five iconic 1975 representatives of the genre: 

Queen: A Night At the Opera. Queen's perfect album, and perhaps one of the most consequential of all time; up there with The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" and The Beatles "Sgt. Pepper" in terms of the enormous impact it had on so many future artists. The classic track "Bohemian Rhapsody" remains one of the most extraordinary accomplishments in the history of recorded popular music. 

Queen: Bohemian Rhapsody

 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show Soundtrack.  Susan Sarandon, Oscar winner for "Dead Man Walking" (1996)  and star of a number of prominent films, claims that the only movie she is consistently asked about is "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." RHPS is not only the ultimate cult classic, but is now the longest running theatrical release in movie history. Audiences for it are known to show up in costumes, and usually have the lyrics to the songs memorized. Musically, the tunes are a glorious mishmash of 1960's rock styles, performed with humor and high energy. As Paul Simon might say, it's still crazy after all these years. 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Time Warp

Kiss: Kiss Alive. If you want a yardstick with which to measure Kiss' popularity, try looking at the names of bands that have OPENED for them over the years. That list includes rock gods Sammy Hagar, Anthrax, Guns N' Roses, Rush, Judas Priest, Ted Nugent, Bob Seger, Tom Petty, and many others. The original Kiss (Paul, Gene, Ace, and Peter), which I was fortunate to see at Madison Square Garden in the 1970s,  was truly something to behold; perhaps the essence of rock and roll theater. 

Kiss: Rock and Roll All Nite

Alice Cooper: Welcome to My Nightmare. Born Vincent Furnier in 1948, Alice Cooper found a way to pair metal music with props and stage illusions, ultimately becoming The Godfather of "Shock Rock." His stage antics, which had "pro-family" groups up in arms, were tame by today's standards.  "Welcome to My Nightmare" became one of his most popular albums, with songs that stayed in his concert set list for decades. Below is the title track performed in 1989. 

Alice Cooper: Welcome to My Nightmare

Parliament: Mothership Connection. Legendary funk/dance band. Mothership Connection was added by the Library of Congress to the National Recording Registry in 2011. LOC declared that the album "has had an enormous influence on jazz, rock, and dance music." For our purposes, Parliament's stage show at the time was one of the most over-the-top happenings in the history of music, with a literal spaceship prop lowered to the stage as the band performed. 

Parliament: Give Up The Funk 

Empowered Women

In the 1960s the notable exceptions like Janis Joplin and Grace Slick only seemed to prove the rule that the rock genre was primarily a male dominated affair. In fact it really wasn't until the 1990s that women artists fronting bands and/or getting top billing was generally perceived as the new normal. Some powerful women of 1975 did the hard work necessary to lay the groundwork for that. They included: 

Heart: Dreamboat Annie. The Wilson sisters, vocalist Ann and guitarist Nancy, in 1975 released one of the most memorable debut albums ever. "Dreamboat Annie" featured songs that persist on classic rock FM radio to this very day. 

Heart: Crazy on You

Linda Ronstadt: Prisoner in Disguise. It takes guts to perform cover versions of iconic songs. On this album Ronstadt tackled, among others, classics like "Tracks of My Tears" by Smokey Robinson, "Heat Wave" by Martha and the Vandellas, and "I Will Always Love You" by Dolly Parton. She somehow found a way to bring new life to all of them. Remarkable vocalist. 

Linda Ronstadt: Heatwave

Fleetwood Mac: Fleetwood Mac.  Fleetwood Mac had been around as a moderately successful blues-rock band since the 1960s. In 1975 guitarist/vocalist Lindsey Buckingham and vocalist Stevie Nicks joined, giving the band a new rock/pop sound that was a breath of fresh air on top-40 radio while at the same time edgy enough for the FM dial. Keyboardist/vocalist Christine McVie had already been in the band, but the arrival of Buckingham and Nicks helped her find her voice and write some amazing songs. Nicks and McVie inspired generations of female rock and pop stars. 

Fleetwood Mac: Landslide (featuring Stevie Nicks) 

Fleetwood Mac: Over My Head (featuring Christine McVie)

Betty Davis: Nasty Gal. This album by jazz icon Miles Davis' ex-wife (he said he had to break up with her because she was "too wild") flew under the radar in 1975 and is still mostly unknown.  And yet it's difficult to listen to this album without seeing later connections to Madonna, Lady Gaga, Cardi B and literally all sexually assertive artists of the last 40 years. The entire album rocks. 

Betty Davis: Talkin' Trash

Dolly Parton: The Bargain Store. I was not the biggest Dolly Parton fan in my teens, but  became an admirer in the years since. The Bargain Store is noteworthy in part because some country stations would not play the title track. The song uses a discount retail store as a metaphor for a woman hurt in a bad relationship. Some country stations thought the line "you can easily afford the price" was a subtle reference to prostitution. 

Dolly Parton: The Bargain Store

Progressive Pop

The late sixties and early 1970s were the high point of so-called "progressive" rock. The legends of the genre, like Pink Floyd and Yes, produced lengthy songs that found a home on FM stations. The 1975 bands mentioned here were also part of that progressive rock movement, but they found a way to make pop songs out of it that could be played on top-40 radio too. 

10 CC: The Original Soundtrack. Great album by one of the most underrated bands in pop music history. "I'm Not In Love," with its Beatles-esque harmonies and tearful tone, is a progressive rock classic. 

10 CC: I'm Not In Love

Electric Light Orchestra: Face The Music. If progressive rock started with the Beatles 1967 Sgt. Pepper album (a debatable claim), no band stayed more true to that form than ELO. Guitar player/composer Jeff Lynne was admired by every member of the Fab Four, and after listening to "Face The Music" it becomes clear why. 

ELO: Strange Magic 

Chicago: Greatest Hits. I'm generally not a fan of greatest hits packages, but this 1975 compilation by jazz-rock icons Chicago was actually my introduction to the band. I loved every song on it, especially the opening guitar chords of "Beginnings." 

Chicago: Beginnings

Paul McCartney and Wings: Venus and Mars. McCartney's 1970s output was closer in style to the mid-1960s Beatles than anything recorded by John, George, and Ringo. In a religion class at my Catholic High School, a teacher asked us all to come to class with the name of a song that had something to do with God. I can't recall what my suggestion was, but I distinctly remember some kid saying "Listen to What the Man Said" by Wings. 

Paul McCartney and Wings: Listen To What The Man Said

David Bowie: Young Americans. A remarkable thing about David Bowie was the way he constantly reinvented himself as a representative of whatever were the dominant trends of a period. "Young Americans" had flashes of pop, soul, funk, and disco, all of which were big (or in the process of becoming big) at the time. But he even recognized his roots by bringing John Lennon out of semi-retirement to sing backing vocals and play guitar on "Fame."

David Bowie: Fame

Breakthrough Albums

With one exception (The Outlaws), this category features albums by artists/bands that had been around for a few years, but their 1975 recording either greatly expanded their audience (Springsteen, Nazareth, Aerosmith), established themselves in a fresh genre (Beck), or set a standard for a particular genre (The Outlaws).  

Bruce Springsteen: Born to Run. Bruce's first two albums went nowhere commercially, but "Born to Run," with its epic stories and working class persona, established him as the new Bob Dylan. The song "Jungleland," a kind of Shakespearean tragedy featuring a heart stopping Clarence Clemons sax solo, is his all-time greatest song in my opinion. 

Bruce Springsteen: Jungleland

Nazareth: Hair of the Dog. Arguably the greatest hard rock band of all time from Scotland, Nazareth had been touring and recording extensively for years before finally hitting pay dirt with "Hair of the Dog." The cover of the Everly Brothers' "Love Hurts" became the band's signature tune, but I think a song like "Changin' Times " better represents where the band was at in 1975: Dan McCafferty's howling vocals and Manny Charlton's roaring guitar help you look past the misogynist lyrics. The entire second half of the song is a glorious jam session, the likes of which almost no band attempts today (hard to get downloads and shares for long jams, apparently.). These guys are not in the rock and roll hall of fame, but really should be. 

Nazareth: Changin' Times 

Aerosmith: Toys in the Attic. The band's third album, and still their most commercially successful. "Sweet Emotion" is an FM radio staple all these years later, while "Walk This Way" ended up as the tune that broke down the walls between rock and hip hop. 

Aerosmith: Walk This Way 

Jeff Beck: Blow By Blow. Rock guitar icon Jeff Beck hinted toward jazz for a number of years, but did not finally make the plunge until "Blow By Blow." What an incredible piece of music; sounds every bit as vital and fresh today as it did in 1975. The real brilliance of the record is how it does not sacrifice Beck's blues roots, but weds them with modern jazz. 

Jeff Beck: Freeway Jam

Outlaws: Outlaws. Back in the day most bands did not break through with their first album. Not so with The Outlaws. Largely on the strength of the classic "Green Grass & High Tides," this album became an immediate hit.  "Green Grass & High Tides" is yet another example of a song that was only possible because of the excellence of FM radio at the time. It would be hard to imagine an almost 10-minute jam getting much of a listen today. That's our loss. The song and album set a pretty high bar for southern rock, a bar the Outlaws themselves had difficulty meeting in their follow-up albums. 

Outlaws: Green Grass & High Tides 

Guitar Heroes

In 1975 the influence of the late Jimi Hendrix could still be heard in a wealth of rock albums. Great guitar players abound today (think Jack White, Seasick Steve, John Mayer, St. Vincent, and Orianthi to name just a few off the top of my head) though their inspired riffs have difficulty competing with electronic dance beats in the logic of the streaming algorithms. The albums in this category feature rip-roaring guitars played at a time when the guitar riff was the essence of the rock brand. 

Led Zeppelin: Physical Graffiti. Maybe Zep's greatest achievement. Four vinyl sides of Jimmy Page taking the guitar to electric and acoustic spaces that are mysterious (as in "how the fuck does he get that sound?") and consistently mesmerizing. The song "Ten Years Gone," in my view, is the one that brings together all of Page's guitar wizardry in one track. 

Led Zeppelin: Ten Years Gone

Lynyrd Skynyrd: Nuthin' Fancy. In 1975 you could not find a more intense guitar duo than Skynyrd's Gary Rossington and Allen Collins. "Saturday Night Special" might be my all-time favorite Southern rock song. 

Lynyrd Skynyrd: Saturday Night Special 

Deep Purple: Come Taste The Band. When guitar god Ritchie Blackmore announced in late 1974 that he was leaving Deep Purple, most critics assumed the band would not survive. Refusing to throw in the towel, the remaining members recruited Tommy Bolin to replace Ritchie. Bolin had hard rock roots with the James Gang, and played on Billy Cobham's jazz fusion classic "Spectrum." "Come Taste The Band" ended up being one of Purple's better albums, with Bolin's guitar perfectly complementing the soulful vocals of David Coverdale and Glenn Hughes. Bolin started a solo band around the same time, and after opening for guitar icon Jeff Beck in Miami on December 3,1976 he tragically overdosed on heroin. 

Deep Purple: You Keep On Moving

Rush, Caress of Steel. The legendary Canadian power trio released two great albums in 1975 ("Fly By Night" and "Caress of Steel").  "Caress" was not commercially successful at the time, but has grown in stature as fans found within it the roots of the hard rock/progressive style that would feature heavily in their big hits of the 1980s. Guitar player Alex Lifeson really deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Page, Clapton, and Beck when the discussion of all time great axe men comes up. 

Rush: Bastille Day 

Neil Young and Crazy Horse, Zuma. Why is Neil Young called "The Godfather of Grunge?" In part it's because of the guitar style he introduced with his band Crazy Horse, especially in the 1975 Zuma album and 1979's Rust Never Sleeps.  Zuma includes "Cortez The Killer," one of the greatest rock jams ever. 

Neil Young: Cortez The Killer

Related: 

• Celebration of the Music of 1972, Part 1
• Celebration of the Music of 1972, Part 2
• Celebration of the Music of 1973, Part 1
• Celebration of the Music of 1973, Part 2
• Celebration of the Music of 1974, Part 1
• Celebration of the Music of 1974, Part 2

On Federalism: Two Narratives

In the 1780s the so-called Founding Fathers created a Constitution rooted in the principles of federalism. In theory, a federalist system features (1) a unified national government with limited powers, (2) a strong system of checks and balances to reign in abuses of executive, legislative, and judicial power, and (3) autonomous states with a great deal of freedom to run their affairs as they see fit. Looks great on paper, right? 

The authors of the Federalist Papers (James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton) insisted that a strong national government was needed to protect democracy and individual freedoms. The Anti-Federalists (most notably Patrick Henry and George Mason) argued that a national government would inevitably suppress states' rights and individual freedoms. They also worried that presidents would over time become tyrannical monarchs as bad as King George III.  Madison, Jay, Hamilton and others successfully persuaded enough states to accept the Constitution and its vision of federalism, but the Anti-Federalists succeeded in getting the Bill of Rights attached to it. 

You would have to be willfully obtuse to argue that the powers of the federal government have ever been "limited" in a meaningful sense. In 1787, when Revolutionary War Veteran Daniel Shays led a western Massachusetts rebellion sparked by high rates of poverty, farm foreclosures, and unfair taxes, Madison and other former rebels concluded that a strong national government was needed to put down such unrest. The debate over federal power has never been about whether or not the feds should wield power, but about how that power should be wielded and on whose behalf. 

As a Rhetorician, one of my main academic interests is the language used to justify the exertion of federal power. A major principle of modern Rhetoric as a field of study is that the behavior of individuals and institutions is correlated with the narratives (i.e. stories) that they construct, accept as true, and preach.  

So if it is true that the federal government exerts extraordinary powers reaching into every part of our lives, it behooves us to understand what stories the representatives of that institution are governed (no pun intended) by.  My argument is that at its best, the federal government is guided by a "for the people" narrative that challenges and often forces states to make the privileges of American citizenship available to everyone. When the federal government is at its worst--which is unfortunately a period we are living through right now--it is guided by an authoritarian narrative that widens divisions between people while privileging the desires of the few over the needs of the many. This latter narrative of federal power is essentially what is meant by "oligarchy."  

Allow me to provide two examples from our history when the federal government, as represented by leaders empowered to make transformative policy changes, was guided by the for the people narrative. They are the Civil War period and the New Deal era of the 1930s.    

The Federal Narrative In the Civil War Period:  From March 4, 1789 (when the Constitution went into effect) until 1860, federal power in relation to slavery was exerted in a mostly shameful manner. Powerful members of Congress, federal judges, and most presidents of the period--even those who thought slavery would and should eventually come to an end--could not accept the abolitionist movement's narrative of the slave as a human being whose oppression required a second American revolution to right a monstrous wrong. The majority of feds in Washington spent decades appeasing, enabling, and compromising with slavery interests. 

Even Abraham Lincoln, who campaigned in 1860 on a platform of keeping the union together--and who justified the Civil War strictly on those grounds for most of 1861and1862--only slowly came around to articulating federal power as a force for emancipation. The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 represented a transformative moment for American federalism, and contributed to empowering the "Radical Republican" Congress to successfully pass the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th) that were rooted in a narrative of granting American citizenship--and the rights and privileges that come with it--to African Americans. 

The Emancipation Proclamation transformed the idea of federal power in America upon its official release in January of 1863. For the first time, the federal government would take the side of an oppressed group. President Lincoln released a preliminary version in September of 1862. 

Sadly, the radical Republican reforms faced a wicked backlash, and the United States entered a long period of Jim Crow laws and Robber Baron takeover of government that put federal power once again at the service of racists and plutocrats. The most noble leaders of the post-Civil War progressive movement, such as Wisconsin's Fighting Bob LaFollette, spent most of their careers expressing dissent against a federal government aggressively enabling segregation, child labor, oppression of women, and imperialist adventures abroad. It was not until the 1930s, in reaction to a brutal economic depression, that the federal government acted according to the precepts of a more humane narrative. 

The Federal Narrative in the New Deal Era: 

Most Americans believe the United States has experienced one "Great Depression," the one that started in 1929 and lasted officially until the United States entered World War II in 1941. But there were actually two great depressions that preceded it: The Panic of 1837 (which lasted well into the 1840s), and the Panic of 1893 (which lasted for most of the remainder of the decade.). In those earlier depressions, the federal government response was limited and ineffective, largely because the feds were controlled by a narrative that conceived of direct assistance to the unemployed and poor as anti-American. 

The situation became so desperate in the 1890s that Ohio businessman Jacob Coxey led the first ever march on Washington, demanding federal intervention in the economy including direct assistance to the unemployed. "Coxey's Army" was the best known of many popular uprisings designed to push the federal government to DO SOMETHING to alleviate the suffering across the land. In 1894 after Coxey's Army had marched 400 miles and reached Washington, Jacob Coxey was arrested for walking on Capitol grass and thus could not deliver his speech.  Fifty years later Coxey delivered that speech on the steps of the US Congress. It challenged the federal government to help the oppressed: 

In 1894 Coxey's Army marched 400 miles to Washington, D.C. to petition the government for unemployment relief. Such a demand was radical at the time, in part because the dominant narrative of the federal government was that it could not be "limited" if it actually intervened in the economy to help suffering people. Coxey's activism was vital in challenging the dominant narrative around government action, and helped create an environment that would make the New Deal possible decades later. 

We are here to petition for legislation which will furnish employment for every man willing and able to work; for legislation which will bring universal prosperity and emancipate our beloved country from from financial bondage to the descendants of King George . . . We have come here through toil and weary marches, through storms and tempests, over mountains, and amid the trials of poverty and distress, to lay our grievances at the doors of our National legislature and ask them in the name of Him whose banners we bear, in the name of Him who plead for the poor and the oppressed, that they should heed the voice of despair and distress that is now coming up from every section of our country, that they should consider the conditions of the starving unemployed of our land, and enact such laws as will given them employment, bring happier conditions to the people, and the smile of contentment to our citizens. 

The narrative of a federal government "for the people" favored by Coxey, labor activists, and other social justice advocates finally took partial hold of the federal government in the 1930s. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal not only ushered in new social welfare policies (Social Security, unemployment insurance, the right to unionize, child labor restrictions, etc.), but just as important, a new story about government.  On October 13, 1932 in a campaign address delivered less than a month before his election to the presidency, FDR laid out a vision of federal government responsibility that represented a break from the past: 

In broad terms, I assert that modern society, acting through its government, owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation or the dire want of any of its fellowmen and women who try to maintain themselves but cannot. To these unfortunate citizens aid must be extended by the government, not as a matter of charity but as a matter of social duty . . . In the words of our Democratic national platform, the federal government has 'a continuous responsibility for human welfare, especially for the protection of children.' That duty and responsibility the federal government should carry out promptly, fearlessly, and generously." 

Democrats wondering how to counter the reactionary policies of Presidents Musk and Trump would do well to remember FDR's warning: "We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests."

It's hard to exaggerate how radical it was for a mainstream politician to express that vision of a federal government. When FDR took office, he acted on his campaign platform with mixed success as the federal courts--still wedded to a narrative that saw direct participation of the federal government in the economy as unconstitutional--struck down a number of initiatives. Ultimately the courts relented, and we entered a sixty-year period which featured many policy disagreements about the federal role in our lives (especially during the Reagan years of the 1980s), but general acceptance of the narrative that says the federal government does have some responsibility to help meet the needs of all citizens. That narrative begins to break down, in my view, when President Bill Clinton in his January of 1996 State of the Union speech--clearly concerned about his reelection chances later that year--declared "the era of big government is over." 

Clinton won reelection, but since the mid-1990s we have seen the narrative of a federal government that exists to protect and uplift all citizens reduced to a talking point in Democratic Party fundraising pitches. The Republican Party, never enamored with the expansive federal government narrative to begin with, now openly embraces a return to a pre-New Deal vision of federal power. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are in many ways the inevitable result of years of anti-government propaganda that naturally appeals to the millions of people who struggle to make ends meet, and Trump/Musk also benefit from the failure of social justice advocates to make an effective case FOR government.  In the New York Times, M. Gessen expresses the situation clearly: 

It is not enough to say that Trump and his crony Elon Musk are staging a coup, though they are. Many of the people who voted for Trump want to see him smash what he has successfully framed as a useless, wasteful government. It is not enough to say that Trump is destroying American democracy. Many of the people who voted for him did so because they have long felt that the system as it is constituted doesn’t represent their interests — and both Trump and Musk have argued that they are wresting democracy back from unelected bureaucrats. It is not enough to say that Trump’s actions have caused a constitutional crisis or that his executive orders may violate laws passed by Congress. Many of the people who voted for Trump longed to see their frustrations addressed by decisive, spectacular action, which he is delivering.

Not that defending institutions, norms and laws is wrong. It is essential. Contrary to popular opinion, it is institutions, norms and laws — not elections — that constitute a functioning democracy. The mechanisms Trump is destroying are certainly imperfect, but they are also inspired, sometimes brilliantly devised and almost always beautiful in concept, for they are the mechanisms of self-government, the products of deliberation and collective action, the embodiment of our obligations to one another.

It is hard to imagine an American politician saying something like that today. If one did, he would sound like a lunatic, or a pious academic whom Trump would Marx-bait. The idea that government is fundamentally suspect has been around for so long, has become so widely held — and has had such a dumbing-down effect on public conversation — that a full-throated defense of the ideals and institutions of American government seems cringe-worthy.

In short, Presidents Trump and Musk have won the narrative war--at least for now. Our federal government has been taken over, quite literally, by forces that have contempt for the idea that government exists to empower the people at-large while reigning in the oligarchs. It's not surprising that Trump expresses admiration for the William McKinley era, an era that saw Robber Barons plunder the federal treasury while preaching "self-reliance" to the unruly masses. An era in which government mocked and marginalized Jacob Coxey instead of meeting its duty to respond to the cries of the masses that he represented. The opponents of Trump and Musk can hope that the courts find a way to constrain them, or that public pressure on the Congress might push the Republicans to restore some checks and balances to our federal system. Those and other measures to counter Trumpism and Muskism are surely necessary. 

But what's equally necessary is a revival of a People First narrative that makes the rhetoric of building up democratic institutions more attractive than the rhetoric of tearing them down. What Franklin Roosevelt said on January 6, 1941 still holds today: "We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests."  

The good news is that we do have some evidence that the Trump/Musk narrative is beginning to crack. Note these recent poll results from Reuters/Ipsos: 

Americans, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters, are nervous about the influence wealthy Americans are having on the White House after Trump stocked his cabinet and circle of advisers with corporate executives and billionaires.

Among poll respondents, 71% agreed with a statement that the very wealthy have too much influence on the White House, and 69% said they think the wealthy are making money off their White House connections.

Even among Americans who said they strongly identify with the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement - the president's most ardent supporters who make up about a third of his party - some 44% thought the richest Americans were profiting from White House connections.

Those poll results are encouraging because they suggest that we MIGHT be able to take back our government from the oligarchs who've coopted if for their own benefit. Taking it back will require that we reject stories that justify oligarchic takeover, and accept stories that articulate government as being of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

On Bishop Budde, Carole Feraci, and Standing Up To Cult Leaders

Of the sixty-plus inaugural addresses delivered by forty USA presidents, almost all refrained from demonizing domestic political opponents. Even Abe Lincoln in March of 1861, after receiving literally zero votes in ten southern states and with the nation on the brink of civil war, made one last attempt to unite the divided masses: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies." 

The two major exceptions to the tradition of trying to bring the nation together on inauguration day were Donald Trump in 2017 and Donald Trump in 2025. In the more recent one, Trump called himself a "peacemaker and unifier" while at the same time not hesitating to alienate half the country, accusing the Biden Administration of a "horrible betrayal." Not much hope for unity there. 

In January of 1972 at a White House event, singer Carole Feraci unveiled a "Stop The Killing" banner and directly pleaded with President Nixon to stop the Vietnam war. In January of 2025 Bishop Mariann BuddeI similarly challenged President Trump to act with mercy in relation to those who fear his return to power. 

With the new president not willing or not able even to pretend to care about political friendship, it was left to the Bishop of Washington, the Reverend Mariann Budde, on the next day to offer up a homily on "A Service of Prayer for the Nation." I'll get to the part that made national headlines shortly, but my hope is that Bishop Budde's speech gets remembered for more than pissing off a bitter, vengeful, thin-skinned, curmudgeonly president. The speech was an eloquent statement, rooted in the gospel wisdom of Matthew 7:24-29, of the need for people of goodwill to recapture "unity" from the grasp of partisans: 

Joined by many across the country, we have gathered this morning to pray for unity as a nation—not for agreement, political or otherwise, but for the kind of unity that fosters community across diversity and division, a unity that serves the common good.

Unity, in this sense, is the threshold requirement for people to live together in a free society, it is the solid rock, as Jesus said, in this case upon which to build a nation. It is not conformity. It is not a victory of one over another. It is not weary politeness nor passivity born of exhaustion. Unity is not partisan.

Rather, unity is a way of being with one another that encompasses and respects differences, that teaches us to hold multiple perspectives and life experiences as valid and worthy of respect; that enables us, in our communities and in the halls of power, to genuinely care for one another even when we disagree. Those across our country who dedicate their lives, or who volunteer, to help others in times of natural disaster, often at great risk to themselves, never ask those they are helping for whom they voted in the past election or what positions they hold on a particular issue. We are at our best when we follow their example.

Unity, at times, is sacrificial, in the way that love is sacrificial, a giving of ourselves for the sake of another. Jesus of Nazareth, in his Sermon on the Mount, exhorts us to love not only our neighbors, but to love our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us; to be merciful, as our God is merciful, and to forgive others, as God forgives us. Jesus went out of his way to welcome those whom his society deemed as outcasts.

What a powerful contrast to the pettiness of the president's inaugural message. With a Martin Luther King, Jr. style of moral conviction, she said: 

Unity is relatively easy to pray for on occasions of solemnity. It’s a lot harder to realize when we’re dealing with real differences in the public arena. But without unity, we are building our nation’s house on sand . . . With a commitment to unity that incorporates diversity and transcends disagreement, and the solid foundations of dignity, honesty, and humility that such unity requires, we can do our part, in our time, to help realize the ideals and the dream of America.

And then the conclusion, which sent President Trump and his toadies in Congress into a tizzy: 

Let me make one final plea, Mr. President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are transgender children in both Republican and Democrat families who fear for their lives.

President Trump demanded that Bishop Budde apologize for her remarks, which were delivered gently and without malice. She has said, "I am not going to apologize for asking for mercy for others."  

And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals—they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples.

Have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. Help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land.

May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.

When I first saw the news coverage of Bishop Budde's appeal to Trump, it brought back one of my earliest childhood memories from over fifty years ago. At an event celebrating the anniversary of Reader's Digest magazine in January of 1972, a young female member of the Ray Conniff singers named Carole Feraci interrupted the festivities by holding up a "Stop The Killing" banner and saying this directly to Nixon: 

"President Nixon, stop bombing human beings, animals and vegetation. You go to church on Sundays and pray to Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ were here tonight, you would not dare drop another bomb. Bless the Berrigans and bless Daniel Ellsberg."

Nixon sat there stunned, with his trademark forced smile on display. Feraci was allowed to stay on stage to join the group in the first number, but then Conniff asked her to leave. From the Nixon tapes we learned that the next day the president whined about Feraci to Treasury Secretary John Connolly. 

In 1968 Nixon came to power in a very close election. Even though by early 1972 he had not made good on his promise to end the war, millions of Americans (whom he cleverly labeled the "silent majority") saw him as a moderate force standing up against the alleged excesses of LBJ's Great Society and the militant youth movement. In November of 1972 Nixon would win reelection in one of the biggest landslides in the history of the nation. Less than two years later, he would resign in disgrace as a result of the Watergate scandal.  

Trump does not share many policy positions with Nixon, but what he does share with the late president is a powerful personality cult following. We know from the Watergate hearings that Nixon's closest associates were willing to lie and break laws for him, with the same emotional fervor that we saw Trump's MAGA minions exert on January 6, 2021. Individuals lost in the maze of a personality cult will place allegiance to the head honcho above any other value, and will defend dear leader unconditionally even if it means harm to their own safety or reputation. 

Standing up to cult leaders is not easy. Feraci's singing career virtually came to an end after her run-in with Nixon, and Bishop Budde finds herself on the receiving end of vile threats of violence. As horrifying as the response to them was/is, we do need average citizens, faith leaders, and others with the courage to stand up to cult leaders. In 1972 Nixon's cult following no doubt hated Feraci and wanted her banished from the public sphere. But after Watergate put the president's true character on display, my guess is that many of them came to see Nixon as not worthy of adulation, and maybe even began to see people like Carole Feraci as more authentic role models of the (small d) democratic spirit that is supposed to live in all of us who call ourselves Americans. 

David Cohen's wonderful cartoon, "Bishop Takes King," 

is a perfect visual metaphor for how Bishop Budde represented what ought to be the approach of people of faith to wannabe kings. 

Similarly, the Donald Trump cult will not be here forever. It is true that modern social media places cult followers in echo chambers that were not as controlling in the early 1970s, but still I  am confident that the MAGA multitudes--so many of whom find in the movement the connection to something bigger than self--will someday find kinship with Bishop Budde's message. Why? Because barely a month into the new administration, it is becoming harder and harder to escape the stark reality that President Trump's main concern is satisfying the needs of self-interested oligarchs. At some point, the MAGA faithful will come to the realization that their interests are not at all aligned with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, but ARE aligned with the groups for whom Bishop Budde is pleading for mercy from our leaders. 

If you have family and/or friends trapped in a cult mindset--political, religious, or anything else--check out Dr. Steven Hassan's helpful suggestions for connection. When your family and/or friends seem trapped in a cult in an extreme way that makes you feel helpless, remember Dr. Hassan's advice: "Be patient. This is a journey and will not happen overnight. Do not get discouraged. People do leave." In the political realm, don't forget to thank people like Carole Feraci and Mariann Budde for having the courage to stand up to cult leaders. Be like them.