Posts Tagged ‘television’

Challenge to Morning Joe crew from lefty in Oklahoma

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

Willie Geist Campaigns For McCain On The Upper West Side, Rejected By New Yorkers (VIDEO).

One of the snotty a-holes on the Morning Joe show went into Manhattan in McCain gear and got the business from the residents, thus proving, of course, that liberals are intolerant elitists who just don’t appreciate real Americans.

Have you ever seen that show? I don’t think any of them would have to be wearing or promoting anything in particular to get rejected by decent people anywhere.

I just sent them an email:

I DARE Willie (and the rest of you) to come to rural Oklahoma where I live and wear an Obama t-shirt. C’mon, Willie, Joe, Mika, hop on a plane this weekend and really prove your point. After all, it’s only Eastern liberals who are “closed-minded” and “hostile”. Right?

Black Blizzard

Saturday, October 25th, 2008

Feeling under the weather (pun intended, see below), I took a nap today, and happened to turn the TV to the History Channel. My lucky day; they slipped up and broadcast a show that was NOT about war or truck drivers! In fact it was about the Dust Bowl, a subject I’ve become fascinated with lately, partly as a way to learn more about Oklahoma history, and try to understand the state’s unusual habit of electing politicians who work against the best interests of the state’s citizens: Jim Inhofe being a current and particularly egregious example, especially as concerned climate issues.

The show was Black Blizzard.

Take a front row seat on a period of U.S. history from 1930-1940 when America’s heartland was ravaged by a weather phenomenon that became known as a “black blizzard.” Watch as scientists and special effects experts recreate the black blizzards in amazing detail and reveal that this was a man-made disaster. Discover how these phenomena form, what they’re made of, and how they affect people’s health and the environment. Learn how a black blizzard emerged so ferociously that it seemed like a moving mountain range creating enough static electricity to power New York City. Hear the story of the people who refused to leave their land and learn the history of the Great Plains and how it came to be settled.

Rating: TVPG

Running Time: 120 minutes

Since I started in the middle, and fell asleep before the end, I will be catching one of the upcoming repeats of the show.

  • Thursday, November 13 08:00 AM
  • Thursday, November 13 02:00 PM

Note: times shown may be Eastern, the site doesn’t say this far in advance.

In fact, the vast majority of Oklahomans impacted by the storms did not leave the state — the show explains that those who made it to California wrote back that they didn’t encourage anyone to follow their example, so bad were the conditions and the treatment in migrant camps.

Which reinforces my friend Rachel’s insistance that real Okies “don’t quit.”

In his own words: Anti-McCain ad going viral

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Transcript in this Daily Kos diary, along with the day-long discussion about getting it on the air in swing states. Truthandhope.org has been helping such grassroots video work get the production assistance and funding to be seen nationally, and they are hoping to do the same for this one (per comments in the links diary).

Naturally, tv advertising takes money, so, if you can, give them a few bucks.

Pete Seeger: The Power of Song

Thursday, February 28th, 2008


I was blown away by the American Masters documentary on PBS tonight, a profile of folk music legend Pete Seeger.

I knew quite a bit about him already, but learned just how much he influenced the great social and environmental justice movements of the past 70 years. The Power of Song is a perfect name for the film, because Seeger’s belief in song as a participatory medium for social action led his life and transformed history and consciousness across the planet.

This is really required viewing by anyone interested in American history and/or social movements.

Here are the upcoming broadcasts on OETA out of Oklahoma City. As they say, check your local listings.

Friday, February 29, 2:00am

Monday, March 3, 12:59am

Monday, March 3, 2:00am

Tuesday, March 4, 2:00am

How do you have a war, especially The War, without politics?

Monday, October 1st, 2007

This morning, Booman noted the otherwise un-noted irony (thanks to that famous liberal media!) of having war profiteer/Nazi collaborator General Motors sponsor Kens Burns’ documentary on PBS, The War.

Whenever PBS airs a big program/mini-series there is an announcement at the end. “Corporate sponsorship of Name of Mini-Series was brought to you by Name of Corporation.” This had unfortunate and amusing results for General Motors’ sponsorship of Ken Burn’s The War.

But this is an idle bemusement relative to the core problem with Burn’s whitewashing of The War.

In every media interview he gives, Burns preempts the inevitable questions about the current war in Iraq by pointing out that he began his project before the 2003 invasion. And diplomatically refusing to make any comparisons, he insists that “there’s not a political bone in this film.”

One can understand Burns’s need to not alienate his sponsors. Yet one cannot help but wonder if his desire to avoid the politics of the present did not also severely shape his telling of the past, for, as much as he attends to America’s racial injustices, he drains America’s second world war generation of any real political commitments or aspirations.

Burns’s narrator appreciatively states that Roosevelt redirected the energy of the New Deal to the war effort, and Burns’s now-elderly storytellers recall how FDR’s voice inspired them. Yet we hear nothing about what the New Deal entailed and why it mattered. We also never hear FDR pronounce the “four freedoms” or call for a second bill of rights for all Americans.

We never hear about the hundreds of thousands of housewives who volunteered to police local businesses in support of wartime price controls. And we never hear about labor unions, whose membership during the Depression grew from three to nine million, and during the war to 15 million. Burns makes no reference to A. Philip Randolph’s AFL Pullman Porters and the March on Washington Movement that pushed FDR to integrate the war industries, or the CIO’s policy of biracial unionism.

We need to know about those things to better comprehend how, in the wake of a devastating and in critical ways persistent depression, Americans - of every colour and ethnicity - were both ready and eager to fight not only imperial Japan, the country that attacked them at Pearl Harbor, but equally and, all the more aggressively at the outset, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. We need to know those things to better understand the commitment to and confidence about America that we hear so beautifully expressed by Burns’s own storytellers. And we need to know those things to grasp more fully why we look back to our parents’ and grandparents’ generation as we do.

In The War, Burns has produced a masterpiece of oral history. But no more than Stephen Ambrose in Citizen Soldiers, Steven Spielberg in Saving Private Ryan or Tom Brokaw in the Greatest Generation does he ever really get at what prepared, encouraged and sustained young Americans in all their diversity to fight fascism and imperialism.

Failing to address the aspirations, struggles and developments that made the nation more democratic, gave Americans the confidence and hopes needed to pursue the war and left a legacy and a vision to challenge later generations, Burns fails to cultivate the kind of memory that might truly enable us to transcend the divisions that rend the nation’s social fabric today. He fails to speak to his fellow citizens of America’s historic purpose and promise and to remind us that we have been at our best when we have united and sacrificed, motivated not by fear, but by progressive solidarities and possibilities.

Piling on Friedman

Saturday, August 18th, 2007

Last week, Atrios watched the Charlie Rose interview with the “very serious” “foreign policy expert” Thomas Friedman, and isn’t over it yet — apparently may not be over it for a long, long time. He’s really laying into him, I mean much more than usual. And deservedly so.

I myself don’t have the stomach to watch Tom for an hour (or Rose either, for that matter), but the Atrios reaction posts are here and here, and pretty much tell you all you need to know: Thomas Friedman is a bad person, and really not very smart.

Our media, unfortunately is overrun with such evil, stupid people, who make a lot of money and get to spout their delusional, self-centered nonsense on TV every day, while the people who were actually spot on about foreign policy decisions like Iraq, and can cite actual facts to back up their opinions, and can talk about world problems without resorting to embarrassing displays of Freudian issues, are still considered unworthy for public discourse.

It appalls me when I hear smart people, well-educated liberals, talk about Tom Friedman as if he’s an unending font of wisdom and rationality, particularly on the Middle East. Do they actually read his work?