Posts
On pages 110-111 of The Ends of Power, H.R. Haldeman (with
Joseph DiMona) offers an opinion as to why President Richard Nixon did
not have personal friends, such as Herb Klein and Bob Finch, close to
him in his Administration, whereas Haldeman actually did serve close to
Nixon:
“Nixon viewed Klein and Finch in human terms, as people, which meant
he would have had trouble dealing with them on an official basis.
“He didn’t see me as a person or even, I believe, as a human being. I
was a machine. A robot. Shortly after it came out I saw the movie Star Wars:
there is a robot, a metal machine clanking along doing what it’s told
by a computer-like mind. From Nixon’s viewpoint, that’s what I was.
And I was a good machine. I was efficient, I didn’t require a lot of
‘oiling’—-and he wasn’t good at ‘oiling’; or what LBJ called
‘schmoozing.’”
I wouldn’t exactly treat what Haldeman says here as absolutely true,
though there may be some truth in it. Granted, Nixon may have treated
Haldeman in an impersonal manner, but I read in The Final Days
that Nixon regarded Pat Buchanan almost as a son, and Buchanan was a
fairly influential adviser within the Nixon Administration.
But this passage from The Ends of Power got me thinking: would I like to work with friends in an official capacity? I was watching The Wonder Years
recently, and there was an episode in which Paul got Kevin a job at a
Chinese restaurant. Paul was the assistant manager, and Kevin was
chopping onions! I was thinking to myself that this would not be a bad
set-up. You have a friend getting you a job, which means that you’re
more of a shoe-in: you’re not submitting an application, only to be
forgotten, or to be given the brush-off. And, because your boss is your
friend, your boss may be more understanding. I’m not saying that
therefore you can be a bad worker, but rather that you’re not walking on
eggshells as much as you may be if you were going into a new,
unfamiliar setting where you knew nobody, and you were afraid of making
mistakes. (I say “you” here, but that may not be appropriate, since
some people reading this are not as timid as others.)
But there are downsides to working with friends in an official
capacity. It can destroy the friendship. For example, if I were to
write a book, I would prefer for it to be edited and critiqued by
someone I did not know. I would take criticism harder and more
personally were it to come from a friend. But, from someone I did not
really know, I wouldn’t care as much. On the other hand, though,
perhaps there are situations in which criticism can come from a friend
much more smoothly: the friend may know how to be diplomatic with you,
or how to offer constructive criticism that is tailored towards your
unique personality. (Again, I can’t really say “you” here, since some
people are stronger and more receptive to criticism than others.)
Showing posts with label Wonder Years. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wonder Years. Show all posts
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
The Final Days 10
On page 303 of The Final Days, by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, we read the following:
“[Ben] Stein never knew what to tell [Julie Nixon Eisenhower]. Throughout the spring and summer their frequent conversations had followed a pattern. Stein always tried to think of something positive to say. Partly to have something else to talk about, he had given Julie a copy of Joan Didion’s collection of essays, Slouching Toward Bethlehem. She had liked it immensely. Tonight Stein counted himself lucky: he could tell her about Sandman’s and Wiggins’ arguments.”
Ben Stein was a speech writer in the Nixon White House. It’s interesting to me that his name comes up more than once in The Final Days, more than it comes up in later books about Nixon that I have read. The Final Days came out in 1976, and that was before Stein’s acting in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Wonder Years, the “Moisture Eyes” commercials he was in, and the movie Expelled.
The passage on page 303 stood out to me because I could identify with Stein in that situation. I’m often not sure what I should talk to people about in social situations. Often, this is simply me not knowing what to say. At other times, I don’t want to talk about a specific topic (i.e., politics, religion) with someone, due to bad experiences in the past, so I look for alternative topics of conversation.
Something that I’ve done in the past to form connections with people is to watch a TV show that they like, or to follow their blog. This can work. But conversations are much better when the person I am conversing with likes the same shows I do, rather than me watching a show just to have something to discuss with someone else. Moreover, I have tried to research sports to have something to talk about with people, and that usually doesn’t end up well, since I appear ignorant of sports, even after reading scores. The reason is that sports just do not interest me.
I’m happy when I come across something that I can share with someone else. Otherwise, socializing can be a mundane, uphill-battle experience for me. “How are you? How was your week?”
“[Ben] Stein never knew what to tell [Julie Nixon Eisenhower]. Throughout the spring and summer their frequent conversations had followed a pattern. Stein always tried to think of something positive to say. Partly to have something else to talk about, he had given Julie a copy of Joan Didion’s collection of essays, Slouching Toward Bethlehem. She had liked it immensely. Tonight Stein counted himself lucky: he could tell her about Sandman’s and Wiggins’ arguments.”
Ben Stein was a speech writer in the Nixon White House. It’s interesting to me that his name comes up more than once in The Final Days, more than it comes up in later books about Nixon that I have read. The Final Days came out in 1976, and that was before Stein’s acting in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Wonder Years, the “Moisture Eyes” commercials he was in, and the movie Expelled.
The passage on page 303 stood out to me because I could identify with Stein in that situation. I’m often not sure what I should talk to people about in social situations. Often, this is simply me not knowing what to say. At other times, I don’t want to talk about a specific topic (i.e., politics, religion) with someone, due to bad experiences in the past, so I look for alternative topics of conversation.
Something that I’ve done in the past to form connections with people is to watch a TV show that they like, or to follow their blog. This can work. But conversations are much better when the person I am conversing with likes the same shows I do, rather than me watching a show just to have something to discuss with someone else. Moreover, I have tried to research sports to have something to talk about with people, and that usually doesn’t end up well, since I appear ignorant of sports, even after reading scores. The reason is that sports just do not interest me.
I’m happy when I come across something that I can share with someone else. Otherwise, socializing can be a mundane, uphill-battle experience for me. “How are you? How was your week?”
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 3
I'm reading Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician, 1962-1972.
What especially stood out to me in my latest reading was Ambrose's
discussion of the 1960's anti-war movement, an issue that Richard Nixon
exploited in appealing to middle-class Republicans.
Here are some passages from pages 70-71. Something to keep in mind as you read them is Ambrose's portrayal earlier in the book of the common conceptualization of the United States soon after World War II: that the U.S. was a force for good in the world.
"No generation was ever worse prepared to accept the attitudes of the succeeding generation than the World War II parents of the Baby Boom generation. To those parents, it was my country right or wrong, unconditional surrender, crew cuts, bobby sox, coats and ties, responsibility, hard work." Ambrose then mentions the challenges to this post-World War II culture in the 1960's, such as co-ed dorms, rock-and-roll, the undermining of dress codes, and long hair.
"To the parents of the students of 1965, it was inconceivable that any American could fail to do his or her full duty in a war. That being so, they were quite unable to deal with their own children, many of whom not only said they would not do their duty but denounced the war and insisted that America was fighting on the wrong side. Their children questioned patriotism, even laughed at it."
"By 1965, just as the World War II parents started turning over their kids to the colleges for an education, the New Left began doing much of the college teaching in the areas of politics and history...The New Left taught that America was imperialist, that America had caused the Cold War, that even in World War II American motives had been selfish and centered on improving capitalist exploitation of the masses around the world, that in Vietnam the Vietcong were freedom fighters while the GIs were suppressing the legitimate desire for national independence."
A question that I have is why the unrest even took place in the 1960's. Ambrose says that "the draft for Vietnam was beginning to reach into the colleges, provoking antiwar demonstrations" (page 70). Could that be one contributing factor to the unrest: young people feared that they would be drafted, and thus they became open to New Left rhetoric condemning the Vietnam War? But Americans were drafted during World War II, and there wasn't much unrest back then. What exactly made the Baby Boom generation different?
On the World War II parents, broadly speaking, I accept Ambrose's narrative. Yet, I question it, somewhat. It reminds me of the narrative that I've heard about American attitudes towards the President of the United States throughout history: that Americans used to hold the President in awe and reverence, but Watergate changed all that, making the President a target of criticism. I myself don't think that the World War II parents had an uncritical view of American government. Joe McCarthy won support by saying that the State Department was infiltrated by Communists, and that was why our foreign policy was so wrongheaded! That's quite a criticism of the government, and many among the World War II parents bought it! Republicans (including Nixon) attacked the Truman Administration as corrupt, and they also criticized the New Deal and Truman's strategy for the Korean War. There were people from among the World War II parents who disagreed with their government, or at least aspects of it. They weren't gullible.
And yet, there probably was a degree of patriotism and trust in the government among the World War II parents that was challenged by the Baby Boomers. The conservative elements of the World War II parents most likely felt that, notwithstanding the pesky government controls, the United States was still the freest nation on earth and offered a significant number of economic opportunities. Even if they thought that America was not as consistently tough on Communism as it should be, they also may have still believed that America did a lot of good in the world.
Here's a powerful scene from the TV series The Wonder Years. This episode is set in the late 1960's. Jack Arnold (a Korea War veteran) is debating his daughter and her boyfriend about the American government and the Vietnam War. I have my doubts that Jack Arnold agreed with everything that the U.S. government did. (In a later episode, he expresses a realistic cynicism about the military when his son Wayne enlists, after the military told Wayne that it wouldn't send him to Vietnam. Jack said it would ship Wayne to Vietnam right off the bat!) But Jack had a faith in America and its institutions, which his daughter and her boyfriend were challenging.
Here are some passages from pages 70-71. Something to keep in mind as you read them is Ambrose's portrayal earlier in the book of the common conceptualization of the United States soon after World War II: that the U.S. was a force for good in the world.
"No generation was ever worse prepared to accept the attitudes of the succeeding generation than the World War II parents of the Baby Boom generation. To those parents, it was my country right or wrong, unconditional surrender, crew cuts, bobby sox, coats and ties, responsibility, hard work." Ambrose then mentions the challenges to this post-World War II culture in the 1960's, such as co-ed dorms, rock-and-roll, the undermining of dress codes, and long hair.
"To the parents of the students of 1965, it was inconceivable that any American could fail to do his or her full duty in a war. That being so, they were quite unable to deal with their own children, many of whom not only said they would not do their duty but denounced the war and insisted that America was fighting on the wrong side. Their children questioned patriotism, even laughed at it."
"By 1965, just as the World War II parents started turning over their kids to the colleges for an education, the New Left began doing much of the college teaching in the areas of politics and history...The New Left taught that America was imperialist, that America had caused the Cold War, that even in World War II American motives had been selfish and centered on improving capitalist exploitation of the masses around the world, that in Vietnam the Vietcong were freedom fighters while the GIs were suppressing the legitimate desire for national independence."
A question that I have is why the unrest even took place in the 1960's. Ambrose says that "the draft for Vietnam was beginning to reach into the colleges, provoking antiwar demonstrations" (page 70). Could that be one contributing factor to the unrest: young people feared that they would be drafted, and thus they became open to New Left rhetoric condemning the Vietnam War? But Americans were drafted during World War II, and there wasn't much unrest back then. What exactly made the Baby Boom generation different?
On the World War II parents, broadly speaking, I accept Ambrose's narrative. Yet, I question it, somewhat. It reminds me of the narrative that I've heard about American attitudes towards the President of the United States throughout history: that Americans used to hold the President in awe and reverence, but Watergate changed all that, making the President a target of criticism. I myself don't think that the World War II parents had an uncritical view of American government. Joe McCarthy won support by saying that the State Department was infiltrated by Communists, and that was why our foreign policy was so wrongheaded! That's quite a criticism of the government, and many among the World War II parents bought it! Republicans (including Nixon) attacked the Truman Administration as corrupt, and they also criticized the New Deal and Truman's strategy for the Korean War. There were people from among the World War II parents who disagreed with their government, or at least aspects of it. They weren't gullible.
And yet, there probably was a degree of patriotism and trust in the government among the World War II parents that was challenged by the Baby Boomers. The conservative elements of the World War II parents most likely felt that, notwithstanding the pesky government controls, the United States was still the freest nation on earth and offered a significant number of economic opportunities. Even if they thought that America was not as consistently tough on Communism as it should be, they also may have still believed that America did a lot of good in the world.
Here's a powerful scene from the TV series The Wonder Years. This episode is set in the late 1960's. Jack Arnold (a Korea War veteran) is debating his daughter and her boyfriend about the American government and the Vietnam War. I have my doubts that Jack Arnold agreed with everything that the U.S. government did. (In a later episode, he expresses a realistic cynicism about the military when his son Wayne enlists, after the military told Wayne that it wouldn't send him to Vietnam. Jack said it would ship Wayne to Vietnam right off the bat!) But Jack had a faith in America and its institutions, which his daughter and her boyfriend were challenging.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
George McGovern
I just learned that George McGovern has passed on. George McGovern ran for President against Richard Nixon in 1972.
As I've said on this blog before, I used to be more of a right-wing Republican. On account of that, I tended to associate McGovern with the smug, condescending, obnoxious, socialistic, soft-on communism, draft-dodging, unpatriotic, activist Left that emerged in the 1960's-1970's. (Or so I characterized it.)
But there were a variety of things that changed my mind about McGovern, even when I was a conservative. First, I was listening to McGovern on Sean Hannity's show, and McGovern came across to me as a nice and decent guy. Second, McGovern came to Cincinnati (where I was living at the time) to speak about his service as a soldier in World War II, and it surprised me to learn that he was a veteran. Third, I was watching a 1972 McGovern campaign ad, in which a working class guy was challenging McGovern on welfare and asking why the poor can't be put to work----like cleaning the streets. McGovern responded that he agrees, and that his goal is for people to have jobs. See here for the commercial----it's the fifth from the left in the "Democrat" column. This commercial helped to shift my conception of the Left, for I had long regarded the Right as the ideology that wants for people to work, when, actually, the Left is for work, too! And, fourth, I read Bill Kauffman's excellent book on anti-war conservatism, Ain't My America, which presented George McGovern as a person of faith and as one who sought to understand George Wallace supporters rather than looking down on them. I read in another book, Grand New Party, that McGovern disdained bureaucracies, which resonated with me back when I was a conservative. See here for my post on Ain't My America, and here for my post on Grand New Party.
Recently, I watched the Wonder Years episode about George McGovern. It was called "Politics as Usual." On this episode, McGovern is a big stir. Kevin's Mom notes that people at the college she attends are voting for McGovern, and she likes McGovern's stance on women. Kevin's Dad, a conservative, actually seems to like McGovern at first, even though at the end of the day he probably voted for Nixon. And Kevin's girlfriend, Winnie, has joined the McGovern campaign and signed Kevin up for it because she opposes the Vietnam War, for her brother was killed in it. Kevin is jealous of the head McGovern campaign official in his area, for he feels that the guy has sights on Winnie. When Winnie goes to a late-night campaign meeting, Kevin breaks into the Democratic headquarters, and there he meets Senator McGovern (or, actually, someone playing him)! After McGovern loses badly, the campaign official tells Winnie that he didn't expect for McGovern to win anyway, and he speculates to another campaign worker that Kennedy may run in the next election. Winnie is disappointed. But Kevin can see where he's coming from----that the campaign official will come back and fight another day. Kevin also reflects that the McGovern campaign was a time when young people got involved in the political process and tried to make a difference. I think it's cool when people who ordinarily aren't involved in the political process become involved. I think this when I consider the McGovern campaign, and also when I consider how a number of fundamentalist Christians first entered politics with the Goldwater campaign, the Moral Majority, and local educational controversies. They learned that (to echo C.J. Cregg on The West Wing) the people who have a say are the ones who show up, and that, if they're discontent about society, they should get involved and try to make a difference.
I actually bought a book by McGovern not long ago. It was called The Essential America, and it's about liberalism in the American tradition. When looking for a McGovern book to read, I learned that McGovern had an alcoholic daughter who died, and he wrote a book entitled Terry: My Daughter's Life-and-Death Struggle with Alcoholism. It was sad to learn that he had experienced that kind of pain. More recently, I read Cal Thomas' interview with McGovern in the 1999 book, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, in which McGovern thoughtfully reflects on the errors of the religious right and the religious left, the role of religion in politics, his own errors in the 1972 election (i.e., he let Nixon define him), and his personal faith. My post on this will appear next month. Stay tuned!
R.I.P., George McGovern.
As I've said on this blog before, I used to be more of a right-wing Republican. On account of that, I tended to associate McGovern with the smug, condescending, obnoxious, socialistic, soft-on communism, draft-dodging, unpatriotic, activist Left that emerged in the 1960's-1970's. (Or so I characterized it.)
But there were a variety of things that changed my mind about McGovern, even when I was a conservative. First, I was listening to McGovern on Sean Hannity's show, and McGovern came across to me as a nice and decent guy. Second, McGovern came to Cincinnati (where I was living at the time) to speak about his service as a soldier in World War II, and it surprised me to learn that he was a veteran. Third, I was watching a 1972 McGovern campaign ad, in which a working class guy was challenging McGovern on welfare and asking why the poor can't be put to work----like cleaning the streets. McGovern responded that he agrees, and that his goal is for people to have jobs. See here for the commercial----it's the fifth from the left in the "Democrat" column. This commercial helped to shift my conception of the Left, for I had long regarded the Right as the ideology that wants for people to work, when, actually, the Left is for work, too! And, fourth, I read Bill Kauffman's excellent book on anti-war conservatism, Ain't My America, which presented George McGovern as a person of faith and as one who sought to understand George Wallace supporters rather than looking down on them. I read in another book, Grand New Party, that McGovern disdained bureaucracies, which resonated with me back when I was a conservative. See here for my post on Ain't My America, and here for my post on Grand New Party.
Recently, I watched the Wonder Years episode about George McGovern. It was called "Politics as Usual." On this episode, McGovern is a big stir. Kevin's Mom notes that people at the college she attends are voting for McGovern, and she likes McGovern's stance on women. Kevin's Dad, a conservative, actually seems to like McGovern at first, even though at the end of the day he probably voted for Nixon. And Kevin's girlfriend, Winnie, has joined the McGovern campaign and signed Kevin up for it because she opposes the Vietnam War, for her brother was killed in it. Kevin is jealous of the head McGovern campaign official in his area, for he feels that the guy has sights on Winnie. When Winnie goes to a late-night campaign meeting, Kevin breaks into the Democratic headquarters, and there he meets Senator McGovern (or, actually, someone playing him)! After McGovern loses badly, the campaign official tells Winnie that he didn't expect for McGovern to win anyway, and he speculates to another campaign worker that Kennedy may run in the next election. Winnie is disappointed. But Kevin can see where he's coming from----that the campaign official will come back and fight another day. Kevin also reflects that the McGovern campaign was a time when young people got involved in the political process and tried to make a difference. I think it's cool when people who ordinarily aren't involved in the political process become involved. I think this when I consider the McGovern campaign, and also when I consider how a number of fundamentalist Christians first entered politics with the Goldwater campaign, the Moral Majority, and local educational controversies. They learned that (to echo C.J. Cregg on The West Wing) the people who have a say are the ones who show up, and that, if they're discontent about society, they should get involved and try to make a difference.
I actually bought a book by McGovern not long ago. It was called The Essential America, and it's about liberalism in the American tradition. When looking for a McGovern book to read, I learned that McGovern had an alcoholic daughter who died, and he wrote a book entitled Terry: My Daughter's Life-and-Death Struggle with Alcoholism. It was sad to learn that he had experienced that kind of pain. More recently, I read Cal Thomas' interview with McGovern in the 1999 book, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America, in which McGovern thoughtfully reflects on the errors of the religious right and the religious left, the role of religion in politics, his own errors in the 1972 election (i.e., he let Nixon define him), and his personal faith. My post on this will appear next month. Stay tuned!
R.I.P., George McGovern.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Caught Up on Brothers and Sisters (Sort Of)
I technically got caught up on Brothers and Sisters today, not in the sense that I watched every single episode of Season 3, but rather in the sense that I saw enough of Season 3 to watch the first episode of Season 4 this coming Sunday night and not feel lost.
I've been waiting for Season 3 to arrive at my public library for a long time, but I can't seem to get my hands on it. People have it on hold or are checking it out! But I had four episodes on my DVR, and I decided to watch those (while reading and translating, of course) to see where I was lost, how much I could understand, etc.
Fortunately, the first episode I taped was half-brother Ryan's introduction to the Walker family, as well as Nora first learning that her son Tommy had embezzled money. This was helpful to me, since I myself was meeting Ryan for the very first time, plus I was first learning about Tommy's embezzlement from his late father's fruit company. So, although I'm fuzzy about many of the details, I feel somewhat caught up. I also enjoyed hanging out with the characters, even though I hadn't seen all of their Season 3 experiences. I got grossed out, though, when Kevin kissed his husband, which tells me that I haven't seen the show for a long time.
I was thinking about the character of Tommy. I didn't know all of the details, but I was fairly certain that Tommy didn't embezzle the money out of greed. He's weak, not deliberately evil, as when he cheated on his wife when his marriage was on the rocks (Season 2). It turns out that he was embezzling to force his late father's mistress, Holly, out of the family business. Tommy never struck me as deliberately evil, but he often appeared to me to be self-centered. That changed a little in the Season finale, when he was in Mexico helping a village get water. I loved his warm, peaceful expression when he saw his family in Mexico, when they came looking for him. I was expecting him to tell them to buzz off, but he had apparently found peace in his time there.
I'm looking forward to Season 4 of Brothers and Sisters, as well as a new season of Desperate Housewives! I heard that Kathryn Joosten (Mrs. Landingham on the West Wing, Old Lady God on Joan of Arcadia, and Ms. McKloskey on Desperate Housewives) has cancer from her years of smoking, but I hope she'll still be able to be on the show. Rumor has it that Orson Bean (Beevis on the Twilight Zone, Loren on Dr. Quinn, married to the mom on the Wonder Years, good Republican, even though he was supposedly blacklisted in the 1950's) will be her love interest on Desperate Housewives, and I don't want that to get written out!
I've been waiting for Season 3 to arrive at my public library for a long time, but I can't seem to get my hands on it. People have it on hold or are checking it out! But I had four episodes on my DVR, and I decided to watch those (while reading and translating, of course) to see where I was lost, how much I could understand, etc.
Fortunately, the first episode I taped was half-brother Ryan's introduction to the Walker family, as well as Nora first learning that her son Tommy had embezzled money. This was helpful to me, since I myself was meeting Ryan for the very first time, plus I was first learning about Tommy's embezzlement from his late father's fruit company. So, although I'm fuzzy about many of the details, I feel somewhat caught up. I also enjoyed hanging out with the characters, even though I hadn't seen all of their Season 3 experiences. I got grossed out, though, when Kevin kissed his husband, which tells me that I haven't seen the show for a long time.
I was thinking about the character of Tommy. I didn't know all of the details, but I was fairly certain that Tommy didn't embezzle the money out of greed. He's weak, not deliberately evil, as when he cheated on his wife when his marriage was on the rocks (Season 2). It turns out that he was embezzling to force his late father's mistress, Holly, out of the family business. Tommy never struck me as deliberately evil, but he often appeared to me to be self-centered. That changed a little in the Season finale, when he was in Mexico helping a village get water. I loved his warm, peaceful expression when he saw his family in Mexico, when they came looking for him. I was expecting him to tell them to buzz off, but he had apparently found peace in his time there.
I'm looking forward to Season 4 of Brothers and Sisters, as well as a new season of Desperate Housewives! I heard that Kathryn Joosten (Mrs. Landingham on the West Wing, Old Lady God on Joan of Arcadia, and Ms. McKloskey on Desperate Housewives) has cancer from her years of smoking, but I hope she'll still be able to be on the show. Rumor has it that Orson Bean (Beevis on the Twilight Zone, Loren on Dr. Quinn, married to the mom on the Wonder Years, good Republican, even though he was supposedly blacklisted in the 1950's) will be her love interest on Desperate Housewives, and I don't want that to get written out!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Father's Day 2009
Tomorrow is Father's Day, but I'll be doing my "Top 10 TV Dads" today. (Actually, it's 11, but I combined two of them, since I admire them for the same reason).
1. Ed Conner (Roseanne) and Martin Crane (Frasier): Both lied to their kids to protect their mother's reputation, thereby placing their own reputation on the line. Ed did not tell his son Dan about his mom's long mental illness, taking Dan's put-downs when Dan blamed him. And Martin told his sons he had an affair, when actually their mom Hester was the one who cheated on him! Martin knew they were closer to their late mother than to him, so he wanted to protect her memory.
2. Jack Arnold (Wonder Years): I once read in TV Guide that Jack Arnold was probably the most realistic dad on television. He was moody. He hated his job. He wasn't always the most communicative person in the world. But we learn in the course of the series that Jack had his own hopes and dreams, which he fulfilled when he started a hardware store. And there was an especially tender moment between him and his son Kevin. After Winnie had dumped Kevin, Jack gave him a big hug and told him that thing's wouldn't get easier, but he'd make it. But Jack could also be tough. After Kevin falsely told his friends that he'd slept with Winnie, he informed his dad about it, expecting Jack's sympathy as a fellow male. Instead, Jack replied, "Get on your bike and apologize to her right now." "But what if she doesn't forgive me?," Kevin asked. "I wouldn't," Jack said.
3. President Jed Bartlett (West Wing): Jed was always closer to his daughters Zoe and Liz than to his other daughter, Eleanor, a medical student who took more after her mother. Eleanor usually avoided the limelight as the President's daughter, until she told a newspaper that her father would never fire the Surgeon General, her godmother, who had recently promoted the legalization of marijuana. Jed was upset with his daughter, and he reflected on their tense relationship. "Why does she hate me so much?," he asked the Surgeon General. Later in the conversation, he remarked, "She said I'd never fire the Surgeon General. That's probably the nicest thing she's ever said about me."
When he came face-to-face with his own favoritism to his other daughters, he made an effort to reconcile with Eleanor. He joked with her about her medical studies, and he said, "You know, I don't want you to be something you're not. I just wish you visited every once in a while." He let her know that he loved her and that she was welcome.
4. Maude's father (Maude): There was an episode in which Maude talks to a therapist, and she tells him about her life growing up. She has bad memories about her father, claiming that he never did anything for her. Suddenly, she remembers that he once waited in the rain so he could give his daughter her prom dress (or something like that). "How could I forget that?," Maude lamented.
5. Andy Taylor (Andy Griffith Show): One episode that comes to mind is the one in which Opie's date to a party dumps him for someone else. Opie had a crush on this girl for a long time, and he's reluctant to go to the party. But Andy tells Opie (in his usual folksy manner) what he did when he was younger and a girl did the same thing to him: he went to the party and had a good time. Andy was helping his son with his own life experience.
6. Cliff Huxtable (Cosby Show): I always liked the way he used humor when he lectured his kids. Even his kids got a kick out of his lectures, although he was joking at their expense! And they got new ways of looking at their situation.
7. Ward Cleaver (Leave It to Beaver): he was loving, wise, fair, and he dressed like a million bucks! There are two daddy moments that come to my mind. In one episode, little Beaver is kissed by an attractive neighbor lady, and Eddie Haskell tells Beaver that the lady's husband will want to kill him for that. When the lady and her husband visit the Cleaver's, Beaver defiantly says that he won't go down to say "hi" to them. Ward at first commands Beaver to go, but, once he sees the intensity of Beaver's defiance, he says, "Beaver, I'm not going to make you do something you don't want to do!" He tries to get to the bottom of why Beaver won't go down.
In another episode, Beaver tells his dad that he didn't think parents made mistakes. Ward assures his son that parents are learning just like everyone else.
8. John Camden (7th Heaven): John wasn't the best father to his kids Eric and Julie, but he thought he was doing the right thing. A colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps, he ran his household like it was the armed services. He was tough and gruff, and he didn't help Eric get through college, thinking Eric would build character by paying his own way. When Julie drank heavily, John remarked that her alcoholism was a result of her "poor character."
But he and his wife become close to an orphan boy, George, and they adopt him. John resolves not to make the same mistakes with him that he made with Eric and Julie.
9. Tom Baldwin (The 4400): I can't really pin-point why I like Joel Gretsch as a father, especially when he was so terrible at it in Stephen Spielberg's Taken! In the 4400, he and his son are not particularly close, but he still cares about his son's well-being and is always willing to listen when his son has something to tell him.
10. Noah Bennett (Heroes): Noah is a cold employee of the Company, which searches for mutants in order to keep track of them, sometimes killing them. But he has a soft spot for his adopted daughter, Claire, who is herself a mutant. He was reluctant to adopt her at first, since he wasn't sure that he'd make a good father. But he turned out to be an excellent dad: one who cared for his daughter's safety above all else, listened to his daughter's concerns, etc. Although Claire was mad at her dad on a number of occasions, she always respected his authority, at least to his face. This, even though he wasn't her biological father!
Have a happy Father's Day tomorrow!
1. Ed Conner (Roseanne) and Martin Crane (Frasier): Both lied to their kids to protect their mother's reputation, thereby placing their own reputation on the line. Ed did not tell his son Dan about his mom's long mental illness, taking Dan's put-downs when Dan blamed him. And Martin told his sons he had an affair, when actually their mom Hester was the one who cheated on him! Martin knew they were closer to their late mother than to him, so he wanted to protect her memory.
2. Jack Arnold (Wonder Years): I once read in TV Guide that Jack Arnold was probably the most realistic dad on television. He was moody. He hated his job. He wasn't always the most communicative person in the world. But we learn in the course of the series that Jack had his own hopes and dreams, which he fulfilled when he started a hardware store. And there was an especially tender moment between him and his son Kevin. After Winnie had dumped Kevin, Jack gave him a big hug and told him that thing's wouldn't get easier, but he'd make it. But Jack could also be tough. After Kevin falsely told his friends that he'd slept with Winnie, he informed his dad about it, expecting Jack's sympathy as a fellow male. Instead, Jack replied, "Get on your bike and apologize to her right now." "But what if she doesn't forgive me?," Kevin asked. "I wouldn't," Jack said.
3. President Jed Bartlett (West Wing): Jed was always closer to his daughters Zoe and Liz than to his other daughter, Eleanor, a medical student who took more after her mother. Eleanor usually avoided the limelight as the President's daughter, until she told a newspaper that her father would never fire the Surgeon General, her godmother, who had recently promoted the legalization of marijuana. Jed was upset with his daughter, and he reflected on their tense relationship. "Why does she hate me so much?," he asked the Surgeon General. Later in the conversation, he remarked, "She said I'd never fire the Surgeon General. That's probably the nicest thing she's ever said about me."
When he came face-to-face with his own favoritism to his other daughters, he made an effort to reconcile with Eleanor. He joked with her about her medical studies, and he said, "You know, I don't want you to be something you're not. I just wish you visited every once in a while." He let her know that he loved her and that she was welcome.
4. Maude's father (Maude): There was an episode in which Maude talks to a therapist, and she tells him about her life growing up. She has bad memories about her father, claiming that he never did anything for her. Suddenly, she remembers that he once waited in the rain so he could give his daughter her prom dress (or something like that). "How could I forget that?," Maude lamented.
5. Andy Taylor (Andy Griffith Show): One episode that comes to mind is the one in which Opie's date to a party dumps him for someone else. Opie had a crush on this girl for a long time, and he's reluctant to go to the party. But Andy tells Opie (in his usual folksy manner) what he did when he was younger and a girl did the same thing to him: he went to the party and had a good time. Andy was helping his son with his own life experience.
6. Cliff Huxtable (Cosby Show): I always liked the way he used humor when he lectured his kids. Even his kids got a kick out of his lectures, although he was joking at their expense! And they got new ways of looking at their situation.
7. Ward Cleaver (Leave It to Beaver): he was loving, wise, fair, and he dressed like a million bucks! There are two daddy moments that come to my mind. In one episode, little Beaver is kissed by an attractive neighbor lady, and Eddie Haskell tells Beaver that the lady's husband will want to kill him for that. When the lady and her husband visit the Cleaver's, Beaver defiantly says that he won't go down to say "hi" to them. Ward at first commands Beaver to go, but, once he sees the intensity of Beaver's defiance, he says, "Beaver, I'm not going to make you do something you don't want to do!" He tries to get to the bottom of why Beaver won't go down.
In another episode, Beaver tells his dad that he didn't think parents made mistakes. Ward assures his son that parents are learning just like everyone else.
8. John Camden (7th Heaven): John wasn't the best father to his kids Eric and Julie, but he thought he was doing the right thing. A colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps, he ran his household like it was the armed services. He was tough and gruff, and he didn't help Eric get through college, thinking Eric would build character by paying his own way. When Julie drank heavily, John remarked that her alcoholism was a result of her "poor character."
But he and his wife become close to an orphan boy, George, and they adopt him. John resolves not to make the same mistakes with him that he made with Eric and Julie.
9. Tom Baldwin (The 4400): I can't really pin-point why I like Joel Gretsch as a father, especially when he was so terrible at it in Stephen Spielberg's Taken! In the 4400, he and his son are not particularly close, but he still cares about his son's well-being and is always willing to listen when his son has something to tell him.
10. Noah Bennett (Heroes): Noah is a cold employee of the Company, which searches for mutants in order to keep track of them, sometimes killing them. But he has a soft spot for his adopted daughter, Claire, who is herself a mutant. He was reluctant to adopt her at first, since he wasn't sure that he'd make a good father. But he turned out to be an excellent dad: one who cared for his daughter's safety above all else, listened to his daughter's concerns, etc. Although Claire was mad at her dad on a number of occasions, she always respected his authority, at least to his face. This, even though he wasn't her biological father!
Have a happy Father's Day tomorrow!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Musings on Ben Stein's Expelled
I know this post is a little late, but last night I watched Ben Stein's Expelled for the very first time. I really enjoyed it for a variety of reasons. I love Ben Stein because he's a good Republican and was on The Wonder Years (BTW, congratulations, Danica!) and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I learned from the movie that Intelligent Design is not a specifically evangelical movement, for it contains Jews, Muslims, and even agnostics. And I thought that the movie's depiction of the inside of the cell was riveting in its music, color, and graphical demonstration of complexity.
I also read critiques of the movie, some of which I liked, and some of which I did not care for. Wikipedia, for instance, said that the movie received overwhelmingly poor reviews, in part because it was boring and poorly made. Were these critics watching the same movie? I hope they're not the types who gush at Michael Moore's "documentaries."
One critique is that the pro-ID professors on the movie who lost their jobs or failed to get tenure were not being punished for teaching Intelligent Design. After all, a lot of people didn't get tenure! I'm skeptical about the "official" explanations, though. These professors feel that Intelligent Design had something to do with their fall from academia, and even some of the critical sites point out "problems" in what they were teaching. So I don't believe that them teaching Intelligent Design and them suffering academically are pure coincidence.
As far as Stein's connection of evolution with eugenics and Nazism is concerned, sure, it's not entirely fair. Even if the Nazis used "natural selection" to buttress their agenda, that wasn't Darwin's fault, plus the Nazis didn't necessarily apply evolutionary concepts correctly. Hitler tried to put into place artificial selection, whereas evolution is about natural selection. But religion often is blamed for the acts of bad religious people, so forgive me if I don't shed a tear when Darwinism gets the same treatment!
I agree with critics who point out that Stein quoted Darwin out of context. Stein quotes Darwin as saying that helping the poor and the weak is injurious to the race of man, when Darwin actually states in the next paragraph that we should do those things anyway (see here). Darwin may have been a complex figure. I have heard people try to tie him with racism, but I saw a book in the library not long ago that said he was anti-slavery.
Although the movie presents evolutionist Eugenie Scott claiming that a lot of religious people believe in evolution, I think its overall message is that evolution=atheism, which is bad (in the movie). I agree with critics who say that Ben should have interviewed Kenneth Miller, a staunch evolutionist who is also a devout Catholic. And, while the movie shows a blurb of John Polkinghorne saying that science can't disprove God, it should have also pointed out that Polkinghorne believes in God and evolution.
What's interesting is that both ID supporters and evolutionists act like they're the underdog in the cultural war. Stein presented atheist Richard Dawkins as someone who helped build the "wall" that keeps ID proponents out of science, as if he has a significant amount of power. When I listen to Dawkins' God Delusion, however, I can tell that's not how he feels. In his eyes, he's a voice of reason amidst a sea of numerous people who embrace religious superstition and are eager to persecute those who disagree. Both sides view themselves as victims and outsiders.
Is there a way for dialogue to exist between the two camps? Stein talks as if the persecution of ID-proponents is an attack on academic freedom, which allows people to ask anything they want, even about evolution. ID-proponents apparently want their beliefs to get a fair hearing. But it's not as if evolutionists are unwilling to engage the concept, for they have made arguments about why ID is problematic and how evolution can account for the "gaps" ID claims to identify. Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God contains a lengthy critique of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, and Dawkins engages the argument from design in The God Delusion. Can the two sides find some way to engage one another, without crying to the courts (as evolutionists do) or the local school boards (as conservative Christians do)?
I'm not in the mood right now to get into the arguments of Intelligent Design. Overall, I believe there is design, but I'm open to scientists looking for other explanations. At the same time, I was a little disappointed that Dawkins didn't point out the "flaws" of nature, as many critics of the design argument have done. Instead, he said that aliens are responsible for the design in nature. Go figure!
Whether you agree or disagree, Expelled is a movie worth seeing!
I also read critiques of the movie, some of which I liked, and some of which I did not care for. Wikipedia, for instance, said that the movie received overwhelmingly poor reviews, in part because it was boring and poorly made. Were these critics watching the same movie? I hope they're not the types who gush at Michael Moore's "documentaries."
One critique is that the pro-ID professors on the movie who lost their jobs or failed to get tenure were not being punished for teaching Intelligent Design. After all, a lot of people didn't get tenure! I'm skeptical about the "official" explanations, though. These professors feel that Intelligent Design had something to do with their fall from academia, and even some of the critical sites point out "problems" in what they were teaching. So I don't believe that them teaching Intelligent Design and them suffering academically are pure coincidence.
As far as Stein's connection of evolution with eugenics and Nazism is concerned, sure, it's not entirely fair. Even if the Nazis used "natural selection" to buttress their agenda, that wasn't Darwin's fault, plus the Nazis didn't necessarily apply evolutionary concepts correctly. Hitler tried to put into place artificial selection, whereas evolution is about natural selection. But religion often is blamed for the acts of bad religious people, so forgive me if I don't shed a tear when Darwinism gets the same treatment!
I agree with critics who point out that Stein quoted Darwin out of context. Stein quotes Darwin as saying that helping the poor and the weak is injurious to the race of man, when Darwin actually states in the next paragraph that we should do those things anyway (see here). Darwin may have been a complex figure. I have heard people try to tie him with racism, but I saw a book in the library not long ago that said he was anti-slavery.
Although the movie presents evolutionist Eugenie Scott claiming that a lot of religious people believe in evolution, I think its overall message is that evolution=atheism, which is bad (in the movie). I agree with critics who say that Ben should have interviewed Kenneth Miller, a staunch evolutionist who is also a devout Catholic. And, while the movie shows a blurb of John Polkinghorne saying that science can't disprove God, it should have also pointed out that Polkinghorne believes in God and evolution.
What's interesting is that both ID supporters and evolutionists act like they're the underdog in the cultural war. Stein presented atheist Richard Dawkins as someone who helped build the "wall" that keeps ID proponents out of science, as if he has a significant amount of power. When I listen to Dawkins' God Delusion, however, I can tell that's not how he feels. In his eyes, he's a voice of reason amidst a sea of numerous people who embrace religious superstition and are eager to persecute those who disagree. Both sides view themselves as victims and outsiders.
Is there a way for dialogue to exist between the two camps? Stein talks as if the persecution of ID-proponents is an attack on academic freedom, which allows people to ask anything they want, even about evolution. ID-proponents apparently want their beliefs to get a fair hearing. But it's not as if evolutionists are unwilling to engage the concept, for they have made arguments about why ID is problematic and how evolution can account for the "gaps" ID claims to identify. Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God contains a lengthy critique of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, and Dawkins engages the argument from design in The God Delusion. Can the two sides find some way to engage one another, without crying to the courts (as evolutionists do) or the local school boards (as conservative Christians do)?
I'm not in the mood right now to get into the arguments of Intelligent Design. Overall, I believe there is design, but I'm open to scientists looking for other explanations. At the same time, I was a little disappointed that Dawkins didn't point out the "flaws" of nature, as many critics of the design argument have done. Instead, he said that aliens are responsible for the design in nature. Go figure!
Whether you agree or disagree, Expelled is a movie worth seeing!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Gabrielle pulls a Wayne Arnold
The season premier for Desperate Housewives was on this evening. Remember that Wonder Years episode where Wayne Arnold told his brother Kevin to get into his car, then drove off a few feet when Kevin tried to do so? This embarrassed Kevin in front of a really pretty girl! Well, Gabrielle on Desperate Housewives tried the same trick with with her chubby 4-year-old daughter to make her get some exercise. It's amazing how shows borrow off each other!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)