E Alvers's Open Salon Blog

Be thankful the new 'third party' is on the right

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:12:57 -0500

During an era of great economic and social strife, a loud, angry and rapidly growing segment of the U.S. electorate split from its traditional political leaders and rallied behind a young, charismatic and populist governor from a relatively obscure U.S. state. This new leader made headlines across the country for sharply criticizing career politicians, endorsing outsider candidates and championing the common man.

Those who agreed with this rising political star viewed the governor as a presidential candidate who would do nothing short of save our great nation. Those who detested the populist leader's ideas were equally as loud and went out of their way to discredit and brush aside the new movement's adherents.

The scenario I describe above is not a unique one in American history. It accurately characterizes both Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement of today and former Louisiana governor Huey Long's rise in an off-shoot of the Democratic Party in the 1930's. Substitute the word 'congressman' for 'governor' and it applies to William Jennings Bryan in the late 1800's as well.

While the political climate leading to the rise of ‘The Kingfish’ and ‘Mama Grizzly’ seem to share common roots, the political ideas driving the two movements -- both billed as the means by which everyday working folks could “take back” their country -- could not be more different.

To Long, “taking back” America meant attacking New Deal policies from the left, redistributing wealth, reigning in corporations and consolidating power in the public sector.

To Palin and the Tea Party, “taking back” America means attacking Bush-era policies from the right, slashing government spending, cutting taxes and consolidating power in the private sector.

The fact that two such vastly different political waves could emerge under supposedly similar circumstances tells me that below the surface, the circumstances aren’t really all that similar.

The recession continues to cause suffering in countless households across the country, but it bears little resemblance to the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

When Long rose to prominence in Louisiana, his state contained just 300 miles of paved roads. About 60-percent of the state’s residents lived in dire poverty with no government assistance. One in four of his state’s adults could not read and a poll tax kept 170,000 of Louisiana’s 2 million residents from registering to vote. Similar conditions plagued many states throughout the country. Long became a folk hero and presidential candidate by bullying his way toward solutions to many of those grave and widespread socio-economic ills (you could call him the pitbull sans lipstick).

Palin’s rise has occurred amid the so-called ‘Great Recession,’ during which the vast majority of Americans continue to live in relative wealth and comfort. Government assistance provides safety nets for the elderly, unemployed and hungry. Unlike the 1930’s, very few, if any, Americans face real threats of starvation. In 1932, just 11-percent of rural homes were wired with electricity. Today, one would be hard pressed to find a home anywhere in the U.S. lacking a television and other modern appliances -- no matter how underwater its mortgage might be.

Unlike Long, Palin owes her national status more to celebrity, not actual policy nor power. The Tea Party movement does not promise to fix any grave social and economic ills, mostly because few still exist -- at least not nearly to the degree that they once did.

The populist masses of the Tea Party are mostly firmly entrenched in the middle class, unlike Long’s poor adherents from eight decades ago. The Tea Partiers are angry because they fear the waning of American exceptionalism. Seventy years after the Great Depression eased and the era of American prosperity dawned, they see other countries catching up. They sense the shining American dream stuttering in idle.

While Long’s scapegoats were corporate greed, corrupt officials and the wealthy establishment media, Palin’s are the government, illegal immigrants and the liberal media.

The rise of the Tea Party and its Alaskan leader is not a new phenomenom.

That such a movement has now emerged from the political right shows how far we’ve come socially and economically over the past century.

While I don’t agree with much I hear coming from the Tea Party crowd, I’m certainly thankful to be living in an era when the popular outcry demands less -- not more -- from our government.

Things could always be better, but we’ve come a long, long way since ‘The Kingfish’s’ day.

Don't ask don't tell needs to go now

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:12:04 -0500

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only holdover in the Obama cabinet from the Bush Administration, believes that homosexuals no longer need to lie to serve in our military. He shares his opinion with Adm. Mike Mullen, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who also happens to be a Bush appointee. And the Commander in Chief himself, Barack Obama, sides with his two highest ranking military and civilian Defense Department leaders on this subject. The president supports the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."

Well, so do I. Of course, I'm not an expert like Gates, Mullen or Obama, but I am a newspaper columnist. Over the past few weeks, three regular columnists for this paper and dozens of columnists for other papers across the country have weighed in on this controversial issue. More than a few of us think we know what we're writing about.

Again, I'm not an expert, but unlike most of said columnists, I did spend the better part of the past decade as an active duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces and I've even met Adm. Mullen a few times (I was in the same Naval Academy class as his daughter).

My personal experiences at the U.S. Naval Academy and as a Naval Officer on a ship deployed to combat zones taught me that "Don't ask, don't tell" currently exists as little more than a muffled joke. Attitudes may be different in other units, but the supposed threat of homosexuality was never much of a concern in my berthing spaces, divisions or departments.

Every man and woman I served alongside shared a devout belief in our country and our cause. Our biggest personnel concerns centered on Marines and Sailors who failed to meet job and training requirements. We did not lose sleep thinking about what our peers in arms might be doing in their bedrooms while on leave.

I served alongside a number of fellow junior officers who were fairly openly homosexual. Some of them remain on active duty and continue to be friends with my wife and me. I led a division with known homosexuals in its ranks. None of these men or women spoke to our commanding officer about their sexual preferences, but even if they had, I doubt it would have mattered.

A popular story -- or perhaps a base myth -- circulated throughout the waterfront during my time at Pearl Harbor. A skilled Boatswain's mate was unhappy with his chief and wanted out of the Navy a few years before his most recent enlistment was complete. The Boatswain asked for and was granted a meeting with the captain of his ship. Once inside the captain's stateroom, he revealed the lurid details of his ongoing romance with another man. As the story goes, the captain listened patiently before finally responding, "If you were a dirtbag like seaman so-and-so, I would believe you, but you're too well-trained and too good at your job. I'll dismiss this little lie without punishment. Now, get back to work."

Regardless of what happens to "Don't ask, don't tell," homosexuals will continue to serve in our military. While outsiders insist that homosexuals currently serve only in secret, I know from experience that some don't. I also know from experience that sexual orientation is not a problem in many units.

Racial intolerance is a rare problem, and it is handled with a strict zero-tolerance policy. So is sexual harassment. Gates, Mullen and Obama recognize that their military effectively protects our freedoms, even if the "n-word" or "c-word" leads to the occasional court martial of a bigot.

They realize that adding a gay slur to that court martial list will only make our military stronger.

Surveys show that the majority of us who have served in the War on Terror are ready to go to bat for all of our brothers and sisters in arms, no matter who happens to welcome them home from deployment with a kiss.

Don't Click on the silly Ad below

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:06:31 -0400

Trust me, it has nothing to do with me. DON'T CLICK ON IT. I don't endorse it, I don't enjoy its presence and I don't like it that the open salon folks feel like they need to put it on my page. Keep the ads on the "cover." Nobody makes money off internet advertising anyway... I'm off to buy a newspaper...

The Plight of the Atlanta Sports Fan

Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:06:12 -0400

(AP Photo/Paul Abell)

Atlanta’s never earned a reputation as a ‘sports town.’ Sure, we’ve got teams in every major pro league (at least until the Thrashers bolt for Canada), but the stadiums rarely fill to capacity. When they do, half of the crowd wears Spurs/Cubs/Maple Leafs/Patriots gear.

My beloved Hawks shocked the nation by forcing a game seven in their first round playoff series against the eventual NBA Champion Celtics a year ago. Afterward, ESPN.com’s Bill Simmons described our Atlanta fanbase thusly:

“[Atlanta] Fans just show up because it's something to do, then they get caught up in it even though they can't name more than 3 guys on the team and they think Bubbles from the Wire is playing small forward.”

The “Sports Guy” ain’t alone in his critique. The talking heads of sports media constantly blast Atlanta fans for their seeming lack of support for the local teams. The size of the media market keeps baseball, hoops and football in town, but you just don’t see many diehards around here. Anyone who’s been to Phillips or Turner Field or the Dome knows that the Atlanta fans are a different breed than those one might encounter at Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Arco, The Rose Garden or Soldier Field.

Well, here’s at least part of the reason why: Report: Glavine May File Grievance

As a rare Atlanta diehard, I readily admit that we don't have the world's most dedicated fans. And, I’m not going to defend the bandwagon mentality... But I do sympathize with the typical Atlanta fan’s mindset.

Since pro sports came to the Capital of the South in the mid to late 60’s, Peach State fans have been served heaping helping after heaping helping of betrayal and loss. As a city we share one solitary championship memory: the Braves in ’95 – and even that glorious moment remains tainted with a side of betrayal. The early part of the ’95 season was cancelled due to the player’s strike.

Tom Glavine represented the Player’s Union during that strike and many Braves fans resented him for that, but he redeemed himself by winning the city’s only championship series MVP. Management eventually let Glavine walk in 2003 (betrayal), but he came back home in ’08. We fans embraced him. When management cast off Braves legend John Smoltz this past offseason (major betrayal), the folks at the front office quickly signed a recovering Glavine for one final year. As it turns out, that little maneuver was nothing more than a publicity stunt.

The Braves cut Glavine last week -- before he so much as pitched a single inning for the 2009 big league club. And if you listen to the future Hall of Famer’s side of the story, his signing and rehab assignments were nothing more than short term damage control in the wake of Smoltz’s reluctant move to Boston. Braves General Manager Frank Wren never intended to bring back Glavine in ’09. Team president John Schuerholz even issued a public apology... what a disgrace.

A glory-free past:

Before we get to more betrayal, here’s a quick primer on Atlanta’s pro sports history. In “Sports Towns” like Boston, New York, Toronto and Chicago, there is a long history of great teams (Celtics, Yankees, Maple Leafs, Bulls, etc…). We’ve never had that in the ATL. Since pro sports arrived (the Braves and Falcons in '66; Hawks in '68; Thrashers in '99) not one team has an overall winning record.

As I mentioned, the Braves won one championship. Other than that we’ve had a few World Series showings in the nineties (’91,’92, ’95, ’96, ’99) and one Falcons Super Bowl appearance (’98). In over 40 years, the Atlanta Hawks have never played for an NBA championship. The Falcons have never had back-to-back winning seasons. The Thrashers made the playoffs one time and were swept in the opening round.

Now, the most egregious betrayals:

Of course there’s this Glavine ordeal, but it stands as just the latest chapter in a long book of poor management decisions seemingly aimed at ruining a fan base. The Braves’ worst moment actually came in 1990, when local hero Dale Murphy was shipped to Philadelphia for pitcher Jeff Parrett and shortstop Victor Rosario. In Parrot’s initial Brave appearance against San Diego on August 7 that year, the crowd chanted, "We want Murph! We want Murph!"

For an earlier generation of fans, the Braves’ nastiest black eye came when the team traded Hank Aaron to Milwaukee in ’74 for outfielder Dave May. Letting Maddox, Gant, Horner, Neikro and Justice go were also tough pills to swallow.

The Falcons' recent betrayals came at the hands of both management and players. When Arthur Blank took over ownership from the longtime loathed Smith Brothers, fans had new reason to hope. But Blank stupidly cleaned house. He got rid of the franchise’s only Super Bowl coach (Dan Reeves) and quarterback (Chris Chandler) to make room for supposed football messiah Michael Vick. After a couple of breathtaking seasons, we all know how that turned out.

But the Hawks stand alone as the worst of the worst (though the Braves are trying to take back that title). Atlanta fans still mourn the ‘Nique trade. After 11 1⁄2 years with the Atlanta Hawks, during which Dominique Wilkins became the city's most beloved athlete, the team traded "The Human Highlight Reel" to the Los Angeles Clippers on February 24, 1994 in exchange for NBA dud Danny Manning. Unlike Dale Murphy, ‘Nique showed no signs of fading into old age prior to the ill-conceived deal. During the 93-94 season leading up to the trade, Wilkins averaged 24.4 points, 6.2 rebounds, and 2.3 assists for Atlanta, carrying the club to a 36-16 record. At midseason he appeared in his eighth NBA All-Star Game.

The Hawks didn’t stop there. After rebuilding the franchise in the mid to late 90’s around fan favorite Steve Smith, the team shipped Smith to Portland for problem child Isaiah Rider (a disaster). Then, after last season’s triumphant return to the post-season (after almost a decade of futility spurned by atrocious management and ownership), the team low-balled budding star Josh Smith (eventually signing him after Memphis provided an offer sheet) and let the dynamic sixth man Josh Childress walk. Childress signed with a Greek team, becoming the first young NBA star to bolt the league for a European squad.

So, this awful Glavine ordeal comes as no surprise. We "fairweather" Atlanta fans are used to this kind of crap.

And not all of the story is tragic: there are, after all, benefits to deliberately throwing away a fan base. The tickets remain much cheaper around here. You can always find great half price seats on craigslist as long as the Yankees or Lakers or Redskins aren’t in town.

PIXAR's bad, but adult comedies are way worse

Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:06:57 -0400

My Open Salon pal Mad Typist penned an excellent blog today concerning the lack of positive female characters in Pixar’s otherwise uplifting films. If you haven’t read it, check it out.

Mad Typist is right: even the vaunted Pixar colossally fails when it comes to portraying women and minorities in a positive and progressive light. But others are worse. Way worse.

Lately its the comedies that have been bothering me. Where are the African-Americans in “white” comedies?

Take for example the recent lousy Paul Rudd vehicle "I Love You, Man." I trekked to the late-run $1 movie house to watch this--mainly to see the beautiful Rashida Jones. In the movie, Jones (the biracial daughter of Quincy Jones) looks white/Mediterranean, as she always does. That part didn't bother me. What did was the fact that all her friends in the movie were white and her parents were written out of the script without any explanation whatsoever--even though there was a wedding climax scene in the film (no father walked her down the aisle). Her parents weren't mentioned or ever shown on screen. I was disappointed... It was almost like the movie execs wanted Jones “to pass” on screen.

Another egregious example is the 2009 dramedy, "Adventureland." That (also bad) movie deals with an overeducated jewish boy's coming of age in a 1980's theme park. Many of the scenes were filmed at Kennywood, a real life Pittsburgh amusement park. The film's one black character had zero speaking lines. She appeared several times and in each of her scenes, she silently hung out and danced with one of the film's main white female characters. I recognized Kennywood on screen because I've been there. When I went, most of the people working the park were black. At least half of the park's visitors were minorities. It's situated in a blue-collar minority section of town. To film this movie about fictional Adventureland employees the filmmakers had to get rid of all the real (black) Kennywood workers and set the film 20 years in the past. This and the Rashida Jones no parents thing make it seem like Hollywood writers and producers are going out of their way to avoid black characters and actors in mainstream (i.e. not Tyler Perry) comedies.

The last comedy I saw in the theater was “Hangover.” The fiancé and I went yesterday. It was disgusting, but funny. I felt like I needed to go to church afterward. It did contain some hip-hop in the soundtrack and the film featured one (very funny) black actor (Mike Epps), but his role was a tiny one... Epps wasn’t cast as one of the four partying buddies, but as the drug dealer who sold the four partying (white) buddies some bad dope. Go figure.

Can somebody point me to some 2000’s era comedy that features funny, major parts for both black and white actors? I honestly can’t think of many.