I had a Twitter exchange a few nights ago which had me weary for a while. On the one hand, it was just a simple, personal exchange and of no importance to reference it. But more than that, I realized that it oddly sums-up a problem with political discourse today, what I'll called "blind listening. It happens on both sides, to be clear, though I feel comfortable saying that I think it occurs far more on the conservative end. Yes, I know I'm biased about that, but I have reasons to support thinking that's the case. After all, the Far RIght are the people who are able to listen to Donald Trump talk and completely disregard all the utterly-hellish things he says about Gold Star families, ridiculing disabled people, grabbing women against their will, dismissing military heroes who were tortured in captivity and so much more which would sink any other candidate into oblivion. Furthermore, this is the man who specifically said he could shoot someone in the middle of the streets of New York and his supporters would still follow him. And these are the disciples who chided Democrats by saying, "You people listen to what he says, rather than what he means. We listen to what he means, rather than what he says."
So, I stand by my position that this phenomenon I dealt with last night is far more common among conservatives. It began when I received a reply from a Trump supporter who disagreed with something I'd written. Shocking, I know. (Oddly, I'd written it quite a few weeks ago, but apparently it just came into her field of vision.) For a specific reason which will become clear soon, I'll leave out for the moment what I had initially written. But it concerned Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio. As readers here might imagine, what I wrote was not positive. And to that, the dear woman replied -- "No Sheriff Joe is great such a good man and law officer and the President did a good thing. I am glad" My initial reaction was to explain why Joe Arpaio is as far from a great and good man as a breaded fish stick is from my car repairman. But before diving into to what would surely be a head-numbing endeavor, I checked back to see what, in fact, I'd written weeks earlier. When I saw it, all I could do was sigh deeply, since it turned out to just be a simple lead-in for people to click on a link I had provided to an article I wrote. (Something on these pages, in fact.) So, rather than debate her on the merits, what I instead tweeted back was -- "Clearly you didn't read my article, since it had ZERO to do with if Arapaio deserved a pardon. It was on problems Trump caused himself." And so it was. You may recall it. I presented five reasons why the Trump pardon was seriously problematic for Trump himself, regardless of whether or not Arpaio was a great and good man who deserved it. (For instance, I noted that the public tends to not like pardons in general, and this particular pardon was foolish for Trum because it not only saved Arpaio merely about two weeks in jail, but Arpaio accepting the pardon was an admission of guilt.) That was what the article was about. And the tweet. That it was on problems Trump caused for himself. To which she quickly replied -- which is the point of all this: "That is not what was written i just answered what I saw." And that, in a nutshell -- pun intended -- is when I realized we had in a single sentence a microcosm of TrumpLove acolyte fandom, whose fingers-in-the-ear deafness not only explained the breakdown in rational discourse, but also explained a significant reason why so many people could vote for such a sociopathic, racist, egomaniacal, lying, misogynistic, incompetent con man, ignoring all that and blindly hearing what they wanted to hear. As a result, I realized all I could reply was -- "That is not only PRECISELY what was written, almost 'word for word,' but I also provided a link to my article which explained it in detail." And, in fact, I was being spot-on honest and accurate, without hyperble. It was PRECISELY what was written, almost "word for word." And that then brings us to what the initial tweet was that I written. What I had written was, and I quote -- "I believe Trump caused FAR more problems for himself with Arpaio's pardon than is generally perceived. Here's why - " (And I then included a link to the article.) Boy howdy, as far as I can tell, "It was on problems Trump caused himself" is indeed pretty darn word-for-word close to "I believe Trump caused FAR more problems for himself." But in Trump-sighted fantasy eyes, she just -- well, as she herself said, she just answered what she saw. Never mind the words that were actually written. And written in really simple, clear English. (And never mind that she stopped there, after only 18 words, and didn't even bother to read the actual article it linked to which I specifically said ("Here's why -- ") was the total point of the comment.) Perhaps 18 words is the limit of her stamina, and anything more hurts. I don't know. Actually, in phrasing that previous sentence, I had initially written, "...is the limit of her comprehension," but realized that "comprehension" wasn't a standard that was appropriate. Yes, it was just a personal exchange. But "I just answered what I saw" was simply to vast a concept in today's conservative universe that I couldn't pass it up. Some people merely see what they want. Some people don't listen to "What he said" and only interpret for themselves, what they more comfortably believe he means. Some people would indeed still support a person even if he shot someone in the middle of New York. Some people choose to ignore reality because it's too inconvenient for them, and instead accept a sociopathic misogynistic racist con man because the con is easier for them to swallow. A fool and their country is soon parted.
2 Comments
For all the folksinger groups that exploded on the music scene in the 1960s, the granddaddy of them all was The Weavers, which was massively successful the decade before, culminating in a famous concert at Carnegie Hall. Pete Seeger was the best-known and the only one to have a solo career later (and renowned at that), but the others were integral and kept working, as well -- Fred Hellerman on guitar, Ronnie Gilbert (who many women in folk music later credited with showing them it was okay to throw back their heads and belt) and bass Lee Hays. The problem for the group came as a result of its era, coming during the period of Joseph McCarthy and the HUAC hearings in Congress, as well as Blacklist. Being on the vanguard of protest music and labor union rights, the Weavers got hit hard and ultimately were Blacklisted. They broke up and went off to their own careers. Famous as Seeger was, he couldn't get on national television (though had a local show in New York) until the Smothers Brothers invited him on in 1967. And even there, he was surrounded by controversy, as his protest song, "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," was cut by CBS censor. A few months later, though, in February 25, 1968, the network relented and broadcast the song. Happily, The Weavers reunited briefly in 1980 and a joyous documentary was released the next year about it, Wasn't That a Time, an utterly uplifting tribute to survival. I found some clips from that and will post them in the coming days, but for now I thought it would be even better to show this video which presents the The Weavers in their prime. It's actually five videos, edited together. Back in 1951, the group was popular enough to film a series of movie featurettes. And this is all of them. It's pretty stilted, as far as filming goes -- I've love the hand-slapping during "Tzena, Tzena, Tzena" -- but the musicianship is a treat. How early is this? During this "Tzena" number, they refer to the "new country of Israel." Odd too is that, stilted as the whole group is on film (or perhaps "formal" might be the better description), they're comparatively lively in relation to Lee Hays who borders on wooden, looking almost as if he'd rather be anywhere but there, perhaps back at the office working on accounts. I don't mention this as a slight, but for a bizarre contrast with him. When you see those upcoming clips from the 1981 documentary, not only is Hays credited with writing the lively and thoroughly entertaining narrative of the film, but he's a total hoot, really the sardonic comic center of the group as he serves as basically the concert's very witty and informative emcee. (I should note that along with Seeger, Hayes was the prolific song-writer of group, most famously co-writing, "If I Had a Hammer" and many others.) I should not, too, in advance, that the documentary is far more than a recording of the reunion concert but that's only the culmination, as the film begins at a family picnic a year earlier with the old friends get together and perform a bit, which becomes the germ of an idea, that then builds through the rehearsals, the story of their lives, and finally the triumphant concert back in Carnegie Hall. But that's 30 years ahead. For now, here are The Weavers when they topped the music world. Before we hit the end of the month, I guess I should get around to posting the latest "The Writers Workbench" tech review column. It's titled, "Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Something" and we look at a couple of intriguing portable products -- an audio device, as well as a powerful, multi-purpose charger. The X-Mini Xoundbar is an elegant, very small, portable speaker from a company that tends to put out very nice products. But it's the myCharge AdventureUltra which intrigues me the most. It's the kind of portable charger I've been watching for a few years, and several companies are starting to get it right. At the moment, myCharge (another company I like) has the smallest and lightest of them. It's a high capacity charge, but what makes it special -- though there are others like it that hold more storage, but are heavier and bigger -- is that it has an AC outlet built-in, so (for instance) you can take this on a picnic or car-camping and bring along some home comforts, like a blender or toaster-oven. Or take it on a long airplane flight for your laptop. As always, because it's a pain to re-code the original article, which is written for the Writers Guild Online website, here's the link to it there, already posted.
Boy, howdy, this is an incredibly eloquent EIGHT MINUTE takedown by former NFL star Shannon Sharpe that covers the full landscape of Trump and the NFL -- not just critical of Trump, but even how the football league has responded to it, including his best friend. It's a "Take no prisoners" analysis, pointed and in-depth, pulling up facts and details of a range of issues from the past two years.
This comes on a show he co-hosts on Fox Sports 1, Undisputed with Skip Bayless (who I'm not a fan of) and Joy Taylor. It's not often you see a show let someone go on for eight full minutes. But I suspect that either everyone in the control booth was so mesmerized by the quiet, focused, growing passion of his words, or the director said, "If anyone touches the board and cuts him off, you're fired."
This is another of those baseball videos that even people who hate sports can love.
Last night in St. Louis, the Chicago Cubs were playing the St. Louis Cardinals. In the second inning, Jedd Gyorko of the Cardinals hit a pop foul that was drifting towards the stands. The Cubs shortstop Addison Russell raced all the way across the field to the short brick wall and gave up his body, diving into the stands to try and make the catch. (All the more notable to Cubs fans since he had just come off a six-week stint on the Disabled List with plantar fasciitis in his right foot.) The ball ended up out of his reach -- though he did come up with something: his arm covered in nachos. A fan, Andrew Gudermutch, had carefully pulled his tray out of the way when he saw the Cubs shortstop barreling towards him -- what he didn't count on, though, was Russell leg go flying, after which the nachos did, as well. At the time, I thought how fun it would be if Russell, after getting back to the dugout between innings, had word sent to the guy that he'd pay for a new order of nachos. Russell took that idea and ratcheted it up several notches. The second inning ended, and the Cubs went to the dugout for their turn at bat. They scored three runs in the top of the inning, and then took the field in the bottoming of the third. But when all the Cubs ran out on the field to their positions...Addison Russell headed over to the stands, like a waiter -- holding a tray of nachos and cheese sauce, which he delivered to Gudermutch! While the delivery has gotten all the attention, something else impressed me more. While you'd think it would be the fan who'd be so pleased that he'd thank the ballplayer first, it's actually Russell himself who took the initiative of reaching out and offering his hand to shake with the guy. Not shabby. And when Gudermutch asks to take a selfie with Russell, he happily agrees and poses and waits for the guy to set up the shot with the nachos and his girlfriend in frame -- now that may not seem much, and just a normal, polite thing to do...but remember: there's a baseball game going on, and Russell's team has long been on the field warming up. So, it struck me as exceedingly thoughtful of Russell to stick around for the shot. It turns out that the Cardinals management had bought Gudermutch a new order of nachos. He was, after all, trying to get out of the way. So, he ended up with a double serving. The Cardinals' came fully loaded, Russell's with cheese sauce only... As for the Cubs' delivery, that turns out to have been the team manager Joe Maddon's idea. Russell later explained why. "You don't get in front of a man and his nachos," he said. What's fun, too, is that announcers for both teams began referring to Andrew Gudermutch as "Nacho Man" through all this. At one point, the Cubs announcer noted how his girlfriend, "Nacho Woman doesn't seem all that pleased by this." And clearly, word of all that got back to the guy, because by the time the game was over, he'd already created a new Twitter account for "Nacho Man" and tweeted the photo.
Obviously, Nacho Woman got short shrift in the photo, but it wasn't like they had all that much time to set up the photo or take another one. Not to worry, she got plenty of face time on TV.
Russell told the Cubs website about the play. "Initially off the bat, I was thinking I could make the play. I really didn't get a sense of where the fence was. It looked like [outfielder Ben Zobrist] wasn't anywhere close. I didn't see the fence and collided with it and got all nacho'ed up." As for stopping to have the photo-op with Gudermutch, he added : "Normally, I don't do that but being the case of me being nacho'ed all over and my cleats even, so I was like, you know what, why not? Once in a lifetime experience." And now that you're up to speed about all that happened, this is a video of the entire sequence edited together. It begins with the aftermath of Addison Russell's dive, so you can see the messy result, and then goes into an instant replay that got things there. Eventually, they add in later the part with Russell making his food delivery appearance. And best of all, the Cubs won 10-2, clinching at least a tie for the National League Central Division title. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|