Playground Politics, David Brooks, and the Al Qaeda Seven

JIM LEHRER: Let's go to another dispute, the so-called Al Qaeda Seven. Liz Cheney and her group criticized some justice department lawyers, because they once represented some Guantanamo detainees. Where do you come down on that?

DAVID BROOKS: Ah, well, I think the ad, which sort of accused whose values do they have - do they have Al Qaeda or Taliban values, I thought it was tremendously unfortunate. I mean, it's just part of a long range of corrosive language. And to be fair to Liz Cheney, if you Google "Taliban" and "Liz Cheney", millions of people have called her a member of the Taliban and made similar charges.

PBS Newshour, 3/12/10

You know what mentality I have always hated? Since elementary school hated? The idea that just because someone once picked on you, once kicked your lunch box, once pushed you down, once cut you in line, once made your life hell, it somehow gave you license to do the same. In elementary school through high school, the idea was as soon as you got to the exalted grade of the kids who were picking on you, you could then pick on the kids who occupied the grade you were in now. It was, and is, a stupid idea. Picking on the freshman as a senior does nothing to the senior who picked on you. It just continues a cycle of meaningless and ridiculous abuse, for no other reason than because you had to deal with it and you refused to be the last one.

It is a simple-minded, mean mentality. It depends on making someone else a victim in order for the former victim to be the victor, to feel powerful.

It is an immature philosophy and displays a distinct lack of empathy. It is also what David Brooks suggests we use in order to "be fair" to Liz Cheney.

Brooks is probably right; any other week, if you were to Google "Liz Cheney" and "Taliban", you would probably garner a lot of hits comparing the two. Right now, though, most of the hits are about the ad itself and Brooks' defense of Cheney. In a normal week, a lot of those would be malicious. Most would be blatantly false. I'm saying "a lot" and "most", because I'm sure there are also pages ripping apart those other pages and defending Cheney.

You know what else? I'd bet my teeth that none of those people calling Liz Cheney a member of the Taliban are from the Department of Justice. You know, the people Liz Cheney is now directly comparing to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Funny thing, that. Funny how the school mentality can still be defended by those well into their forties when employed by people getting toward the middling of their own fortieth decade.

There is no "being fair" to Liz Cheney when she blatantly uses her non profit to disseminate the exact same tactic being so egregiously used against herself and her own father.

There should only be condemnation for so spectacularly failing to progress past the idea that passing along this sort of mean-spirited and completely baseless accusation to a whole new wave of victims. David Brooks thinks there is some sort of balance that has been reached here: Liz Cheney was attacked by someone, so she gets to attack someone else with that as part of her excuse. Sorry, but no. And that sort of rationalization calls Brooks' own assessing skills into question as well.

The other thing that gets me is how neither Jim Lehrer nor Mark Shields makes this argument; Shields should have mentioned that the DoJ lawyers probably weren't the ones slandering Liz Cheney all over the interwebs. And then he should have mentioned that even if they were, that still does not excuse Cheney's sinking to their level.

Because that is the other very real issue here. When has it become appropriate in the public discourse to pull what is essentially a "I know you are, but what am I?" smack down? This is beyond concerning. This says that somehow, no one progresses past elementary school (a thought I've often had and feared, and now discover may be the abject truth of the matter). And that? Is unacceptable.

Making excuses for Liz Cheney, calling an ad tremendously unfortunate instead of calling it out for what it is - a baseless, fear-mongering attack ad - does not make one a member of polite society. Couching one's statements and one's bets doesn't make one the better person.

And, no, the ad in question doesn't sort of accuse. It does accuse, full stop. The fact that Brooks can't even make that statement without waffling, and the fact that no one corrects him, makes me worry.

Review: Street Gang

Michael Davis' Street Gang: The Complete History of Sesame Street, is well constructed and thoroughly researched. Although we don't actually get to Sesame Street's premiere until page 199, more than halfway through the book, Davis' focus on how we got such a television show in the first place was entertaining, involved, and understandable. It is impossible for me to now think about how the book could have - or should have - been constructed. It seems obvious that the different key players' journeys to Sesame Street had to be highlighted and examined, how working on Howdy Doody and Captain Kangaroo helped form several of the key players responsible for Sesame Street's ultimate vision and aesthetics.

The book doesn't make any particular person out to be a saint or a sinner; each has strengths and weaknesses. Jon Stone didn't get along with David Connell, and he didn't like Carroll Spinney. But that doesn't say anything horrible about Stone, or Connell, or Spinney. Street Gang even examines how Sesame Street itself failed in some areas, how it at first ignored the Latino community, focusing instead on the African-American community and only recognizing its error and rectifying it by adding Maria and Luis after the Latino community protested. It (briefly) touches upon NOW's issues with Sesame Street's portrayal of women, though it does not really grant any of the feminists' basic concerns. It explores the demons present in some of the cast most affected by racism, like Matt Robinson, the original Gordon, whose sister died because several hospitals in the area would not treat her due to her skin color. And Northern Calloway, who abused cocaine, was bipolar, and who deeply resented his lack of success as being a product of his race.

What the book depicts is how a group of singularly talented people but radically diverse people came together for a common cause, that being to produce an entertaining and educational show. It details how these people, some of extraordinary ego, worked in tandem for years in order to achieve that goal, how they went about forming that goal, and how they developed and tested that goal. It examines the other child education programs of the time, and how Sesame Street deviated from the norm by not being set on a ship or in an idyllic place; how Sesame Street sought to help bridge the gap in education between the most disenfranchised populations of the inner cities and their middle-class, white suburban compatriots, and how it chose as its set a more realistic city setting. How it was integrated, how it had more than one primary host, and how the program was free from in show advertising of its tie-in products. And along the way, Davis closely examines the different important people who made Sesame Street what it was. Joan Ganz Cooney's familial history is assessed, her penchant for getting jobs she wasn't necessarily qualified for, how she was able to succeed in those jobs, her interest in public television, and her marriage to Tim Cooney and dissolution of that marriage, and her ability to be both the laissez-faire boss and the intrepid ring-leader of the Sesame Street project. The book starts with her walking up to Jim Henson's funeral, and appropriately so. Henson's Muppets were an integral part of the show's success, but the show itself was borne from a question asked at a dinner party of Ganz Cooney's, and it was her work - along with several of the other dinner guests - that both established the potentiality of a show like Sesame Street and Jim Henson's own involvement in Sesame Street (which adequately explains Count von Count's "Hi Mom" as Ganz Cooney's name scrolls by in "Follow That Bird").

Certain cast members are also described more fully than others; we are given quite a lot about Bob McGrath, who played "Bob", and his success as a singer in Japan - along with the fan clubs that sprung up there in his honor. Also highlighted were performers such as Carroll Spinney (Big Bird and Oscar), Sonia Manzano (Maria), and Loretta Long. And while quite a lot was written about the first true Gordon, the second and third Gordons got nada. Over all though, the book is an interesting read for anyone who is at all interested in Sesame Street, public television, children's programming, or even just the combined story of a few passionate individuals who succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations. For that alone, the success story and the genius and inquiry of those involved is worth the pages the book is printed on.

Read: √

Skim:

Toss:

PBS Convention Coverage

I want to take some time out to say how much I've been enjoying PBS' coverage of the DNC. Unlike CBS and Katie Couric (whom I love), or MSNBC and Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews (and seriously, why are these two sitting outside? Was MSNBC too cheap to set up a real studio for them?), PBS' correspondents are calm, collected, and dissect the speeches given from a historical perspective -due to their team of historians- and a more modern perspective of what this means now. Because they are not a commercial news station, I get to see more of the actual speeches. I'm not missing anything due to the talking heads having to comment on it and quickly get back. There is a languid pace to PBS' coverage that seems both more stimulating and less excitable. They aren't screaming (though to be fair to Chris Matthews, that may be a wind factor), and they generally aren't making blanket statements either. They're just cool, in an extremely factual, moderately tempered, and kind of nerdy way.

There is one thing I wish hadn't been said though. After Hillary's speech, there was some discussion going down about its content; and the correspondents were pretty evenly split about if it was excellent or just good, and if it did enough for Obama or if she fell short. Both sides made great points, and I truly enjoyed the discussion (though I fell on the side of "She did great"). But then one of the historians said that she should have put something in there about "finding religion" as a way of dismissing her earlier criticisms of Obama's readiness to lead or to answer that 3 A.M. phone call.

No. Just no. Let's not, PBS and other organizations, play to the idea that Barack Obama is the messiah. I say this not because I don't like him. I love Obama, and that is why I am concerned. Barack Obama isn't the messiah. He is an incredibly intelligent, supremely talented, wonderful visionary who is also profoundly human. We can't lose sight of that. We cannot continually believe that Barack Obama is flawless, blameless, or without "original sin" of some kind. Because that will make it all the more difficult for him when he does screw up. And I'm not talking just about this election season. If we want Barack Obama to be as successful a president as possible, we need to acknowledge that the man cannot move mountains. We must understand that he will fail, that failure is a part of life and a part of politics. We have to accept that he will do his very best and hopefully achieve much of what he has set out to do; but due to the nature of the political system, his plans will not be enacted unchanged or unchallenged and at times he may have to acquiesce and compromise and give up on items in his agenda that both he and we his supporters wish he didn't have to.

I want Barack Obama to succeed. I want him to be the best president he can be, and I want the American public to recognize his profound accomplishments. But they won't be able to if they see him as being more than human. He may not be elected if he is seen as more than human, because as petty as it is people enjoy looking at someone roundly praised -and justly praised- and thinking, "He's not so great". We cannot allow this to happen. Hillary Clinton should not state she has found religion in Barack Obama. First, she should not because she already has a religion; as does Obama. And secondly, it only further highlights and extends this idea that Obama is worthy of being a figure of religious devoutness. He is not; even George Washington was not above being torn down and reminded of his humanity during his presidency. If Obama is to ascend to that highest level of American politics, we must wait to deify him until after his two terms are served. Otherwise, we run a far greater risk than if we allowed him to be fallible but still bound for greatness.