Author: tomwamser

There was a brief instance when I thought that I might like to teach history. Within that moment of insanity, I imagined beginning a history class by putting on the board two competing quotes. George Santayana’s “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it” (often misquoted as “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”), and Sting’s “History will teach us nothing”.  

The realization that I would undoubtedly, as I turned around after writing this, receive blank stares rather than engaged discussion, led me to quickly abandon this fantasy. Still, within my own mind I continue to ponder these differing views of days gone by. This has only intensified as I have followed the debate over the Ukrainian crisis, and the inevitable cry of “Remember Munich” that it has elicited from pundits. It is a cry we hear again and again anytime there is an international crisis.  

To briefly, and probably unnecessarily, recap, in 1938 Adolph Hitler, as the leader of Germany, threatened to invade Czechoslovakia so as to annex an area called the Sudetenland, which had a majority of ethnic Germans. In response, a meeting of state leaders was convened in Munich in an attempt to defuse the crisis. In the end, the French and British leaders forced the President of Czechoslovakia to accept a “compromise” that ceded the Sudetenland to Germany. The Czech army withdrew from the territory shortly thereafter, and the Germans marched in. While Hitler had proclaimed that this was the extent of his territorial ambitions in the area, he invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia less than a year later. 

Ever since WWII began, the Munich Accord has been held up as emblematic of the dangers of appeasement. Even now, it is cited as a reason that we must confront Putin as he begins his attempted annexation of the Ukraine. It is also a prime example of why both Santayana and Sting may be correct. Munich is a warning about the dangers of caving to dictators, but it was also a unique situation that is not being replicated in the Ukraine, despite the fact that Putin seems to be borrowing from the Hitler playbook. 

In 1938 there were serious questions as to whether Hitler could have taken back the Sudetenland had there been a unified resistance. The Czech army was formidable and well positioned. The German army was not yet the weapon it became within the next year and a half. Germany might well have prevailed against the Czechs alone, but not without significant losses. It is much more questionable whether they would have prevailed had the Brits and the French supported Czechoslovakia.  

The current situation is different. The army of the Russian Federation is fully developed and prepared. The Ukraine will put up stiff resistance, but it is likely to be swiftly overrun. More importantly, that is unlikely to change even if we provide military support.  

Plus, the stakes have changed. The weaponry today is totally different than it was in 1938. The potential for mass destruction is very real. Yes, Hitler could bomb cities, but he could not obliterate them. And that potential is not limited to the Ukraine, but includes virtually anywhere in the world. While I find it unlikely that Putin would go that far, I also did not think that he would brazenly claim the Ukraine. 

So, Sting is correct. History teaches nothing. Well, maybe, maybe not. The Czech situation does provide insight into dictators with delusions of grandeur, like Putin (and Hitler). When dictators make claims for territory it is often gradual. First the Sudetenland. Then the rest of Czechoslovakia. Then on to Poland. First the Crimea. Then on to the separatist provinces. Then the rest of the Ukraine. From there, who knows (the Baltic states?). 

The world’s reaction to Putin’s seizure of the Crimea in 2014 was tepid and short-lived. There were sanctions, but they were ineffective. Plus, Putin was soon welcomed back into the club of the world’s leaders as if nothing had happened. Is it any wonder that he assumed future annexations would meet a similarly purposeless response? 

We are not in a position to intervene militarily to stop the invasion of the Ukraine. That is not because of a lack of preparedness, or a lack of will. It is just the reality that such an escalation would have such profound effects that it cannot be countenanced. Unfortunately, from a military perspective, the Ukraine must stand or, more likely, fall on its own. 

Still the response must be swift, unified and unequivocal. This is where the importance of alliances becomes crucial. The United States and the rest of the world must speak with one voice in condemning this invasion, and ensuring that it has very real, long-lasting, economic consequences. Putin, and Russia, must become a pariah. 

The fly in that ointment is China. It was not coincidental that a major Russia/China summit was held weeks before Russia attacked the Ukraine. Putin knows that he cannot avoid European condemnation, so he wanted to make sure that response did not include China. Considering Chinese territorial ambitions, Putin probably had little trouble in convincing Xi Jinping to remain neutral, if not supportive.  

The Russian/Chinese pre-invasion détente sounds eerily similar to the Nazi/Soviet pact of 1939 that preceded the invasion of Poland (history repeating itself). The difference is that Chinese interests are not in the territory Putin seeks, as were Stalin’s with Hitler, but in a free hand, and reciprocal support from Russia, should China move aggressively against Taiwan or in the South China Sea (history teaches nothing). 

Regardless of whether you want to view this conflict through the eyes of Santayana or Sting, one other truism stands firm. Violence will breed violence. There will be repercussions and they will not be pretty, nor will they be predictable. It will be a major miracle if this is confined to the Ukraine. Press on the balloon in the middle, and it will likely bulge out elsewhere.       

*I understand that this may be outdated by the time I publish it, but that’s the way history crumbles. 

I despise going to the dentist. It is one of the few trials in life that gets my palms sweaty and heart beating uncontrollably. I know. I know. This is no big revelation. However, my current dentist has subjected me to mental torturers’ I cannot abide, and I feel that I must get it off my chest.

My abhorrence of the dental chair has led me to some bad choices. I have allowed long gaps between appointments, and that has only resulted in additional anguish. All of these gaps occurred when, for one reason or another, I didn’t have a regular dentist, and was loathe to sign up again to open wide. 

My first gap occurred when I moved to Philadelphia. It took me a number of years before I sucked it up and got back in the big chair. The dentist I found was also a professor at Penn Dental School. He took one look at me and said, son, you need the Cavitron. 

For those of you who have never been introduced to the Cavitron, consider yourself lucky. It is a primitive implement of torment designed to blast plaque away. Was the name Cavitron meant to be ironic, or maybe kid us into thinking that this will be fun? Either way, I curse the mad scientist who invented the Cavitron and the 6^th grader who named it.   

After multiple sessions with the Cavitron, the prof dentist pronounced himself satisfied. He then told me that he regretted not taking me to his students before the whole ordeal started, so they could get a clear before and after picture. You know, like the people in the diet commercials. Thanks a lot, doc!! 

This dentist stopped practicing to go into teaching full time, and I was once again set adrift. Years passed before I got up the courage and subjected myself to that sickening smell of formaldehyde and old socks that permeate every dentist’s office. The sentence for my neglect was, once again, the Cavitron. Let’s just say that it was not a touching reunion.  

I went to that dentist for many years until they made the fatal mistake of letting me walk out of their office without scheduling my next appointment. Seems like a little thing, but another multi-year gap ensued. Eventually, I bowed to the inevitable and, about six months ago, gave in to my destiny (kind of like Luke Skywalker). It meant, you guessed it, the Cavitron. 

I must have voiced my dismay at being subjected to the Cavitron, because at my next appointment, after multiple Cavitron sessions, the dental assistant started by saying, “I see by your chart that you don’t like the Cavitron”. I laughed so hard at the thought that this was now part of my permanent record, she must have considered calling security. Once I got control, I told her that what they really need to document is anyone who says they like the Cavitron. Those were the ones to look out for. I don’t think she was amused. 

Still, the Cavitron is not the sole torture I endured. As you all are aware, the décor in a dentist’s office is generally as sterile as the piped in muzak. My last dentist had a cartoonish picture with Philadelphia landmarks all crammed in, as if the city was only a square mile wide, but at least it was something to look at. (There’s the Acadamy of Music. What’s it doing next to Veterans Stadium?). 

My current dentist, however, has decided that the most appropriate item for patients to gaze upon while she does her dirty work is a motivational poster (pictured below). There must have been a sale on this eyesore because it adorns a number of the cells in her office. Maybe buy one, get two free, is the only way they could get rid of this visual carbuncle. 

There is, of course, nothing wrong with these cliched words of advice, but it strikes me that the dentist’s office is the last place where they should be imparted. “Believe in Magic”? If I believed in magic, I would be trying to conjure clean teeth and healthy gums rather than be sitting in the chair with cotton balls stuffed in my cheeks. “Do What you Love”? Well, that leaves this out. “Don’t Count the Minutes Count the Laughs”? No. When I am there, I am counting the minutes until I am done, hence my constant whine, “Aren’t you done drilling yet?”.  

But the worst bon mot of all is the last, “Make Every Moment Count”. Putting aside the impossibility of this questionable afflatus, a dentist is the last person who should be pushing this as a way of life. I know how important dental health is, but if I am going to make every moment count, the last place I am going to start is at the dentist’s office. In fact, seeing this makes me want to get up and start making a moment count far away from there, hardly the reaction she was hoping for, I’m sure. 

Anyway, thank you for indulging me in the somewhat Seinfeldian rant. It’s just that what I want out of my dentist is efficiency, and a certain concern for my low threshold of pain. I know that it is childish and immature, but I can’t help it. After all, I’m just following my dentist’s advice to “Be True to Who you Are”.    

By the time you read this another European war may have started. On the one hand, I cannot believe I just wrote that. On the other hand, there is an inevitability about this turn of events that is sobering. What is not, or should not, be surprising, is that this is happening in the Ukraine.

The Ukraine has long been known as the breadbasket of Europe. One estimate had the Ukraine producing up to 25% of the wheat for the Soviet Union. This has made the Ukraine a target for domination. It was an integral part of the pre-WWI Russian empire, a Soviet state between the wars, a key goal of Hitler when he invaded the USSR, one of the first countries to break from Soviet control, and, apparently, a prominent thorn in the side of the new Tsars of the Russian Federation. 

This impending war is just another depressing chapter in Ukrainian history. That area has been a warzone for hundreds of years. It may well have been the bloodiest place on earth in the 20^th Century, not exactly an honor you covet.  

In WWI the Ukraine was central to the fighting between Russia, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire. Many major battles were fought on this land, with significant losses on all sides, and, of course, among the local population. It was designated a self-determining area, presumably under German hegemony, under the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended the war between the German Empire and the newly formed Bolshevik government but that didn’t last long.  

After the defeat of Germany, the incorporation of the Ukraine into the USSR was not a given. Soviet jurisdiction was violently contested by many Ukrainians and Poles. The Soviets eventually controlled the area, incorporating the Ukraine into the USSR, though the resistance was never forgotten. 

The period between the wars brought a different kind of nightmare. Stalin, intent to collectivize the farms of the USSR, imposed mass starvation and dislocation on the Ukraine in and around 1932. It is estimated that 3.9 million people died in what the Ukraine people call the Holodomor. In addition, hundreds of thousands were forcibly removed from the area and sent to other parts of the USSR. 

WWII was a hell on many fronts. The German invasion of the USSR went right through the Ukraine. Many Ukrainians, presumably out of hatred for the Soviets, sided with the Nazis. Others fought for the USSR and undertook guerilla warfare. Many fighters and civilians died as part of, or in response to, guerilla activity. More died when the Soviets drove the Nazi’s back through the Ukraine. After the USSR reestablished control, some of the guerilla units switched to fighting the Soviets, and were, again, ruthlessly suppressed. 

Even more horrific, the Ukraine was a major killing field in the Holocaust. It is estimated that as many as 1.6 million Jews were murdered in the Ukraine during WWII. Many of the worst Nazi death camps were on Ukrainian soil. Some Ukrainians were willing participants in this slaughter, acting as concentration camp guards, joining police units and providing other support.  

Now this blood-soaked ground is being threatened again. It is hard to attribute any cause to this war other than pure, unadulterated avarice. The Ukraine poses no military threat to Russia. There is no credible scenario where it becomes a staging ground for a western invasion. Ukrainians are Slavic, like Russians, so there is no is no ethnic predicate, flimsy as that would be. This is nothing but a naked, “I want it, so I am going to take it”, land grab. 

It is extremely disheartening that we are seeing this kind of raw bellicosity as we approach the 70^th anniversary of the end of WWII. Putin is even borrowing from the Hitler playbook, blaming others for goading him into war. His justifications are just as pathetic. It is hard to believe that he can voice them with a straight face, though that seems to be a skill most dictators possess. 

It is unclear what Putin plans to do with the Ukraine once he conquers it. Does he really think that this country can be folded back into the Russian Federation? Is he already designing a massive crackdown that will eliminate potential dissidents? Is he yearning for his old KGB days, and thinking that he will reimpose Soviet style controls?   

Three things are for sure. First, whatever Putin is thinking, it will not go as planned. There will be resistance he did not anticipate. There will be destruction he hopes to avoid. There will be consequences that he cannot account for. 

Secondly, no matter how the initial surge proceeds, violence will breed violence. It may take the form of guerilla warfare. It may be terrorism aimed at military and non-military targets. It may be initially confined to the Ukraine, but it will spill over into other parts of Russia and the surrounding countries. It’s like a half-inflated balloon. Push on it in one spot, and it will bulge out in another.  

Finally, we will all be forced witnesses to this horror. Maybe the US can impose sanctions, but we cannot stop the bloodshed, just like we could not stop it in Syria or Afghanistan. We will be confronted with our impotence to effectively respond to this kind of abomination, and with the seeming never ending ability of mankind to inflict savagery. It is so dispiriting and yet so predictable.  

*First line of Ukranian National Anthem, according to Lyricsondemand 

After dissing The Little Mermaid for subverting the legal system, Malcolm Gladwell moves on to weightier, and more substantial, issues in his three-part Revisionist History podcast. He is not the first to point out the lost potential of this movie. While Disney relied on the Hans Christian Anderson story for its inspiration, it did not seem to understand the story’s relevance in today’s world. 

The phenomenon of girls “losing their voice” has been well-documented. Researchers have noted that even the most audacious girls often become more cautious about speaking out and less likely to assert themselves as they grow older. Many reasons for this tendency have been noted, such as societal pressure to conform. I would like to think that we, as a society, recognizing this inclination, have started to address it, but I’m not sure. 

Ariel is the epitome of this problem. She goes from being a curious, independent and bold girl, to a muted supplicant for the attention of Prince Eric. Even worse, she is reduced to an observer’s role in fighting through this condition. It is ultimately her animal friends and Eric who rescue her from Ursula, and give her back her voice.                 

While Gladwell addresses these issues, he does so in an odd way. He interviews Angus Fletcher, a professor of “Story Science” at Ohio State. Fletcher says that there are two kinds of fairy tales. Those where good luck happens to those that are fools, usually resulting in a twist ending, and those where good things happen to good people and bad people are ultimately punished.  

Fletcher claims that he measured the emotional reactions of children to fairy tales through a secret methodology (I kid you not), and, lo and behold, children prefer those tales where life can go from good to bad, or vice versa, on a whim, and ultimate results are unrelated to the worth of the protagonist. He concludes that children struggle with poetic justice, because they realize that is not the way life works. 

Gladwell buys this hook, line and sinker. He ignores the underlying cynicism of Fletcher’s conclusions, and, without asking any further questions about the top-secret experiments, concludes that kids prefer fairy tales with random luck to those that offer poetic justice. This is one of Gladwell’s weaknesses. He tends to find experts who agree with his views, and then embraces them without much critical analysis. Then again, don’t we all.   

Contrary to Fletcher’s conclusions, I think that Disney films are so successful because they give kids what they want. I am just a parent and not a researcher with a top-secret formula, but it seems to me that children want a hero they can root for. They want that hero to battle long odds. And they want that hero to overcome those odds, and vanquish evil. They want poetic justice. 

We lose a lot if we don’t cater to kids’ desire for poetic justice. The world will come at them quickly enough. They will realize that good does not always triumph and that evil sometimes prevails. But a grounding in the notion that good can win is essential for both children and adults. Reality is harsh, but acceptance of a fatalism as the only reality leads to cynicism and indifference, and we have enough of that as it is. 

Gladwell then moves on to rewrite the ending to The Little Mermaid. He engages Brit Marling, a screenwriter, to reimagine how Ariel could be given more purchase in her fate. Not surprisingly, despite giving lip service to Fletcher’s theory, Gladwell is smart enough to know that you don’t mess with success, and so he and Marling retain Ariel’s essential goodness. Where they go from there is questionable.  

As is to be expected, in Marling’s reworking of the movie’s ending it is Ariel herself who stops the wedding of Eric and Ursula. However, she does not do so by biting Ursula in the bottom, or ramming her with a ship, but by embracing her and refusing to let go. Basically, she acknowledges Ursula’s pain, standing with her as Triton threatens to attack, until Triton stands down and Ursula is transformed into a paragon of virtuousness.   

In a postscript ending, Ursula marries Triton, who, it turns out, was ultimately responsible for her badness in the first place. Eric, who has become a superfluous surfer dude, marries another man, and introduces vegetarianism into his kingdom. Ariel, no longer interested in settling down, goes back to her wandering, curious ways. And all live happily ever after.  

While all this is very nice, it has much more to do with what these particular adults would like than what kids want. I think it is telling that Gladwell recruits 58-year-old Jodi Foster, someone his own age, to voice Ariel. It reflects his seeming belief that the film should be geared to him, and his contemporaries, rather than the children who are the true target audience.  

The final battle with Ursula in the Disney movie is both scary and exciting. It packed quite a wallop on the big screen. Kids crave that rush of adrenaline as the heroine confronts her nemesis, as well as the release when she prevails. While stripping the movie of that collision may be satisfying to some adults, most children will feel robbed. 

It is difficult for us adults to get into the minds of children. However, if we are going to talk about kids’ entertainment we need to at least try. Molding movies and books to our own desires without a thought as to whether the kids will find it compelling is a fool’s errand and does not solve issues that might exist in what kids consume. They would just turn away. 

There is no doubt that Ariel should have been more proactive in her own redemption. Disney recognized this as well, and its female protagonists in later movies have become more self-reliant. But we should not strip the films of their essential conflicts in reaching that goal. Kids just won’t have it.  

The sixth season of Revisionist History has landed, and Malcolm Gladwell is back, striving to reveal the overlooked and the misunderstood. Some of you may recall my embrace of Gladwell when I first started this blog, with me going so far as saying that I wanted to be Gladwell (just a bit of hyperbole). But I must say, the gloss is wearing thin.      

Season six starts with a bizarre episode on self-driven cars. Rather than address the massive logistical and technological issues outstanding, Gladwell “waves a magic wand” to get us to the point where there are only self-driven cars on the road, as if that is all it will take for this transition. He then suggests that if all cars were self-driven there would be gridlock, because people would feel free to step in front of these cars, knowing that sensors would force them to stop.  It strikes me that if we can get to a world of only self-driven cars, we can solve the pedestrian issue, but what do I know?  

Then there were a couple of decent, though hardly groundbreaking, episodes on the ridiculous U.S News and World Report college rankings (Springfield College, voted number one among yellow skinned cartoon characters). Followed by a somewhat interesting profile of an unrepentant American Communist subject to the blacklist in the 50’s. So far, so blah. 

At that point, Gladwell heads off the rails, taking three episodes to attack Disney’s The Little Mermaid. Yes, The Little Mermaid. He is not satisfied to simply point out problematic aspects of the film, and they do exist, but labels the film as a bloated pinata (whatever that means) that’s not fit for children. Really? The Little Mermaid? 

Oddly, the first attack on the film is a legal one. Gladwell spoke with Laura Beth Nielson, a law professor and sociologist, who wrote a piece called “Law and Morality in Disney Films”. I must admit that this sounds more interesting than most of the law review articles I have slogged through. However, she seems to have trouble distinguishing between what adults may grasp, and what kids absorb. 

Nielson’s big complaint with The Little Mermaid is that Ariel signs a contract with the sea witch Ursula which dictates that Ariel must give Ursula her voice (which is the part of Ariel a human fell in love with) and, in exchange, Ursula will make Ariel human for three days. Ariel stays human forever if she can get the human to kiss her by the end of the third day. If not, she becomes Ursula’s slave.  

According to Neilson, it is outrageous for a children’s movie to depict the law in this way. This contract is immoral, she rants. It would be totally unenforceable. It teaches kids that the law is all powerful, and can be manipulated by evil people to do whatever they want. How dare we allow young ones to see this? (She doesn’t actually say that, but it’s the implication). 

Neilson said that after the movie ended, she explained the problem to her two pre-teen sons, and while she was careful to claim that the conversation was age appropriate, I have my doubts. I imagine that conversation otherwise. 

Mom: Now, boys. You know that the contract Ariel signed was Malum in Se, contrary to public policy, and would be annulled in any court of law, above or below the sea. 

Son 1: Right, mom. But wasn’t it cool when all the animals attacked Ursula and stopped her wedding to Eric? Especially when Max bites her in the butt.  

Mom: Don’t say butt dear. It’s bottom. But you’re missing the point. Ariel, or her guardian ad litem, should have sued Ursula to have the contract declared Void Ab Initio, and then all would have been well. 

Son 2: I like it best when Eric rams Ursula with the ship. That was dope!!!! 

Mom: Both of you to your rooms. And while you’re there, read what Corbin has to say on this. 

Son 1 and Son 2: Aw, Mom. That’s injustus.  

The children emerge two hours later, having emersed themselves in the difference between mutuality and competency, only to find that their mother has channeled Be Kind Rewind to create a new ending to the Little Mermaid. Gone is the climactic battle between Ursula, Ariel and Eric in the roiling sea. Instead, Ariel has hired Perry Mackerel to get her out of the contract. Ursula is defended by F. Lee Barracuda. The Honorable Judge Judy Jackfish presides. 

At trial, Mackerel ruthlessly pummels Flotsam and Jetsam on cross-examination (in an understated and professional manner) until King Triton can take it no more. He leaps to his feet and admits that he was in cahoots with Ursula all along to rid his kingdom of undesirables, including his annoying youngest daughter. Judge Jackfish dissolves the contract (literally) as King Triton slinks away in shame. The full cast then breaks into a rousing reprisal of Poor Unfortunate Souls (Who Can’t Afford a Good Lawyer) as the credits roll. Mom is in tears, as the boys look at each other in bewilderment. 

As much as we are aware of anthropomorphism, the attribution of human characteristics to animals, we often ignore adultomorphism, the attribution of adult concerns to children. As we will explore in Part 2 of this diatribe, children do absorb amazing concepts as they interact with the world, both real and imaginary. However, to suggest that pre-teens will draw conclusions about something like the vagaries of law from a cartoon is, at best, questionable.   

While I am not a child psychiatrist, my own sense is that the vast majority of kids quickly understand the nature of stories, and plot devices, especially in movies. They don’t over-analyze, but enjoy. It is real life that provides the lessons, especially what they hear and see from their parents and other adults. I think that is what we should be more worried about that than aquatic agreements by animated krakens.       

Mel Brooks is back in the news. At age 95 he recently released a memoir entitled “All About Me!”, which chronicles his long and illustrious career. The book has gotten good reviews, and is on my list of books to eventually read (along with hundreds of others). You can count on Brooks to be irreverent, funny and shamelessly self-promoting. While he has had hits and misses, Mel has never done anything that was dull. 

The publication of this book has also brought a regurgitation of Brooks’ comments regarding political correctness. Mel is not a fan, to put it mildly. He has gone so far as to say that political correctness is the death of comedy. As Brooks put it, “Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks. Comedy is the lecherous little elf whispering in the king’s ear, always telling the truth about human behavior”. Other comedic legends, such as Jerry Seinfeld and Dave Chappelle, have echoed those sentiments. 

It is hard to argue with Brooks generalizations about comedy. Much of the best comedy is subversive of pretentions and biases. Where would we be without Monty Python’s Upper Class Twit of the Year, or Richard Pryor’s Black and White Lifestyles standup routine. Or, for that matter, Brooks’ Blazing Saddles. We need comedians to burst the balloons we inflate justifying our, often absurd, behavior. 

• 

• 

But are there limits? Brooks himself has said “I personally would never touch gas chambers or the death of children or Jews at the hands of the Nazis”. Is he suggesting that he would be OK if others did, or that this topic should be verboten for all? Does it matter who is doing the bit, or their intent? Are we, the audience, prohibited from crying foul if we think a comedian has gone too far towards promoting stereotypes, rather than deflating them? 

Political correctness has become a catchall defense for anyone who wants to deflect criticism from nasty, derogatory generalizations. Rather than justify controversial pronouncements, it is easier to blanket naysayers with this meaningless cliché and act as if the critics are the ones being offensive. It is a shallow, but all too often effective, defense.   

That being said, I don’t think that is what Brooks was talking about. Mel was not trying to justify anyone’s misogynistic or ethnic slurs. From everything we know about him, he is probably just as appalled as anyone else by statements from those in power, or seeking power, that denigrate people based on race, gender or sexual preferences. He just wants to carve out a niche for comedy to use those stereotypes to deflate those that embrace them.  

It is not as easy as Brooks suggests to put comedy into its own category, as evidenced by the fact that most of those who lauded his comments were political pundits who could care less about comedy. Whether he likes it or not, some people are going to use comedic bon mots to justify their own prejudices. And those justifications have real life consequences.  

For instance, hiring decisions have all too often been made not on personal qualifications, but on broad ethnic and gender generalizations. The jokes that are told around the proverbial watercooler turn into the bases for decisions regarding suitability for employment. Biases are reinforced and become part of the covert decision-making process. 

Political correctness, for all of the baggage that it has acquired, is nothing more than an effort to make us stop to realize those consequences. It is not an endeavor to protect people’s feelings, but to bury the societal assumptions that have kept certain groups from gaining equal access to opportunities. Isn’t that what this country is supposed to be about? 

By the way, comedy is doing just fine. For example, the movie Don’t Look Up was a biting satire, that managed to “tell the truth about human behavior” without stereotyping any specific group. In fact, the movie was probably stronger because it played off our universal inclination to take almost any issue, generalize it without full understanding, and then proclaim our beliefs. 

Stand-up comedians like Amy Schumer and Tim Heidecker have no problem mining our daily foibles without crossing political correctness lines, whatever they may be. They, and many comedians like them, have found a wide array of outlets, whether it’s through traditional mediums like movies and TV, or through alternative platforms like podcasts, Instagram or YouTube, to practice their craft. We probably have more opportunity to laugh now than we ever have.  

• 

• 

That doesn’t mean that these comedians do not have to walk the thin line that Brooks has drawn in the sand. Yes, today’s comedians have to be more adept at avoiding casual insult than Brooks generation had to be. But they do not seem to be unduly hampered by having to take that stroll.  

At the end of the day, it is up to us, the audience, to determine what we will tolerate and what we will not. There will be those we turn away from either because their “humor” does nothing more than denigrate those that are not like them (the Andrew Dice Clay’s of the world), or because their personal behavior makes laughter impossible (hello, Louis C.K.). But hasn’t that always been the way? 

Maybe Brooks is right and some of his movies could not be made today, though I am not so sure. We still long to laugh at ourselves and the silly things we do. But if people want to use the guise of comedy to disparage, diminish and deprecate, we have every right to call them on it. That’s not political correctness. It’s the power of the peanut gallery, and long may it reign.     

Our emergence into 2022 struck me more than most flipping’s of the calendar. Maybe it’s all of those 2’s. Maybe it’s that we are almost quarter of the way through the 21^st Century. It probably has a lot to do with the sci-fi novels and movies that I’ve consumed over the years, many of which prognosticated a much different world by the time we got this far. Whatever the reason, it is taking me some time to absorb where we are on the cosmic timeline.  

Many of the predications, both fictional and otherwise, posited that technology would significantly change the way we live. The Lords of Technology promised that their innovations would do more than enhance our lives, they would transform them. The sense was that would have happened by 2022. Much of the futurist fiction agreed with that premise, but assumed that the transformation would be catastrophic, not beneficial.    

The innovations have been significant. The personal computer, the internet, e-mail, the cell phone, social media. All have altered how we operate on a day-to-day basis (and all were 20th Century inventions). But I am not sure that they have changed how we view the world, or how we relate to each other. They may have brought certain traits to the fore, like social media’s platform for tribalism, but those traits have always been there. 

• 

• 

A good argument can be made that the real shift was with the industrial revolution, which started in the mid-1700’s, and that the societal changes since then have flowed from there. It was with the industrial revolution, and the enlightenment which promoted it, that science, for better or worse, became central to our world view, replacing a predominantly theistic outlook. That trend may have accelerated through the 20^th and 21^st Centuries, but there has been no significant break in perspective. 

Humans are basically conservative. Not politically, but personally. Most of us take comfort in continuity. We may adapt to technical change, but we still want it to fit within the framework of the familiar. We generally bend the technology to the lifestyle we know, using it as an augmentation rather than a disrupter.  

It will take something more radical than electronic gadgets, no matter how sophisticated, to break us out of the habits and mindsets that currently predominate. Climate change has that potential. If trends play out as some scientists predict, parts of the globe could become uninhabitable, and scarcity more prevalent. That could well result in deep seeded alterations in how we connect to the earth and each other.  

The current chip shortages prefigure another possible radical shift. Perhaps at this juncture our world is not as threatened by new technology as it is by a loss of the technology we have come to depend on. So much of what we use in daily life requires those chips to operate. A more permanent disruption of that supply chain would entail a step backwards, which would be much more difficult than steps forward.  

Of course, none of that will happen in 2022, if it ever does (the climate change scenario is obviously much more likely). Even if any of these catastrophes do occur, they will play out in ways that we cannot imagine. They will demand flexibility and innovations that are beyond my ability to conjure. 

It is that personal inability to envision the future that will keep me going back to dystopias. The ability of books like Blindness by Jose Saramago or The Children of Men by PD James to awaken a future when humans are forced to rethink life’s basic assumptions are fascinating. The power of movies like Mad Max: Fury Road, Blade Runner 2049, or even Wall-E in creating a broken-down world is striking.      

• 

• 

That is the fun of dystopias. They let you explore worst case scenarios without actually experiencing them. At the same time, they reinforce that the future is not set in stone, and that we need to carefully consider the impact of what we are doing today on future generations. Not a bad message to receive. 

I would be remiss if I did not give a shoutout to depictions of the future that are not so grim. The various Star Trek series are at the top of that list, providing a possible societal evolution that is positive. I think that goes a long way towards accounting for its continuing popularity. As gripping as the dystopias can be, it is heartening to imagine a world where we are not careening through deserts in search of remnants of water and food, while fighting off drug addled automatons. 

2022 will undoubtedly be a year with surprises. They all are. But it is unlikely to be a watershed that will change the basic structure of our society. We will continue to muddle along as we have with incremental steps to who knows where. In the meantime, the futurists will continue to give us plenty to think about, and look forward to, or not.           

It is inevitable that the end of a year will bring reflection. The turning of the calendar all but requires that we look back on the year that’s past to remember the key events, the best music, TV shows and movies, and the famous who have passed away. The internet is awash with such lists, so it is somewhat presumptive to make my own. Yet, I feel called to do so, with a focus on positive stories, putting my own inimitable spin on events we know well, and highlighting a few that might have fallen through the cracks.  

1. Workers got a taste of working at home and there is no going back.  This started as an emergency measure in 2020, but it became clear this year that at home work is here to stay, whether companies like it or not. Employees are going to demand this flexibility. It will be a factor in recruiting that companies cannot ignore if they want to attract top talent.  

2. Europe generated more energy from renewable resources than from fossil fuels in 2021. Even if you ignore questions of climate change, this translates to a better use of global resources, less reliance on imported energy and better air to breathe and water to drink, making this a healthier planet to live on. Hopefully the rest of the world follows suit. 

3. Medical science came through with a COVID vaccine. We have to remember that initial estimates for a vaccine were a minimum of 1 to 2 years, yet this was basically done in 8 months. Put aside the political debates. This confirms that when we focus our resources, whether for financial gain or otherwise, we can achieve great things. Dwarfed by this accomplishment, yet maybe in the long term even more significant, is the fact that researchers also developed a vaccine for malaria, a devastating disease for much of the world. Both are reminders of human potential properly directed. 

4. On-line social networking has come in for harsh criticism, much of it deserved, so it is worth noting that in less than a week the WallStreetBets subreddit raised $350,000 to “adopt” 3,500 endangered mountain gorillas through the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. It started when a user posted that he had adopted a gorilla, and exploded from there. Obviously, this is not earth-shaking news, but it is nice to get a reminder that media can be used positively. 

5. Our democracy held. When protestors stormed the Capital on January 6 there was a real question about what would follow. Would there be similar uprisings throughout the country? Would the military intervene, one way or the other? Would there be a unilateral rejection of certified election results? These things did not happen. Instead, the rule of law prevailed.  Questions on election validity played themselves out in courtrooms, where they belonged. We had a peaceful, if tense, transfer of power three weeks later. 

6. Derek Chauvin is convicted in the death of George Floyd. There is no doubt that police have a difficult job, or that they can make honest mistakes in times of stress. But there must be a limit. Killing a prone suspect by kneeling on their neck for nine minutes has to be unacceptable. If it is not, the police have no accountability, no matter what they do. The conviction of Chauvin recognized that limits exist, and they can be enforced. 

7. Juneteenth is declared a federal holiday. Like many government actions, this is purely symbolic. It doesn’t erase the history of slavery, or its vestiges. However, the end of slavery is a milestone. A turning point in our quest to live up to a cornerstone of this country’s founding premises, which is that all people are created equal. We know that we have not always lived up to that standard, but recognizing the removal of its major antithesis is a step in the right direction. 
8. The African Continental Free Trade Agreement went into effect. It is  incredibly easy to forget Africa. News from this huge continent tends to be the last  reported on, unless it is something awful. We too often come away with a  sense that Africa is lost, with a bleak past and a  bleaker future.  This Free Trade Agreement won’t change that impression overnight, but  should enhance the competitiveness of member states within Africa and in  the global market. That should lead to a more balanced world in which the  exploitation of poorer countries is more difficult. I think that’s good for all  of us. 
9. The withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. It seems odd to list this as a  positive development, since our withdrawal resulted in the return of the  Taliban. However, as I have argued previously, the withdrawal was  inevitable, as was the aftermath. We were never able to instill democratic  ideals into the Afghan people, and probably could have stayed another 50  years without doing so. At some point we had to pull the plug.   
10. 2021 was not 2020. I know, this may be faint praise, but it is worth noting.  For much of 2021 it seemed that we were turning the corner on the COVID  pandemic. This meant a return to travel, at least domestically, the  reopening of arts venues, and a sense that the world could be explored  beyond the four walls of our homes. It also helped that we were not going  through a Presidential election. Even with the current surge, it is much  easier to look forward with some sense of optimism than it was a year ago.  Hopefully, next year’s list will end with an entry saying that 2022 was not  2021!!!               

I have been on an odd movie kick over the last few months. It started with a random decision to watch the three Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Westerns, A Fistful of Dollars, A Few Dollars More and the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I enjoyed the development of Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name across these films, and the increasing assurance of the director as the plots and characterizations got more complex. It made me want to watch other movie series to see if they could match the consistency and creativity. 

Some of the series I chose were predictable, like The Lord of the Rings – Extended Version (except for one glaring plot hole filled in the last movie, probably not necessary) and the Daniel Craig Bond movies (stick with Casino Royale and Skyfall). Other series are less well known, such as the Koker Trilogy, by Iranian Director Abbas Kiarostami. (Where is the Friends’ House is one of the most unexpectedly tense movies I have ever experienced. Who would have thought that watching a 9-year-old boy search for his schoolmate’s house to return his homework book could be so suspenseful?).  

As we approached years’ end, I realized that most Christmas series were of little interest (no, I do not want to watch The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause), so I decided to create my own. Like many people, I have certain Christmas movies I watch every year. One of those is the 1951 A Christmas Carol, starring Alister Sim. I decided to make it a Dickens Christmas and pair it with The Man Who Invented Christmas, recently recommended to me (thanks P.S.), and A Muppet Christmas Carol, which I remembered fondly, but had not seen in years. 

Even before the Hallmark channel decided to churn Christmas movies out like bad sausage, such films were a mixed bag. Unless part of the sub-sub-genre of Christmas horror films (Krampus, Treevenge, Silent Night, Deadly Night), Christmas movies have to ultimately be uplifting and cheery. Even those that buck the usual tropes, like Bad Santa and Scrooged, must give in at the end to reflect the “true meaning of Christmas”. 

In fact, I would go so far to say that if a movie involving Christmas does not end on a positive, edifying note, it is not a Christmas movie. Fanny and Alexander has one of the greatest Christmas segments ever, but those scenes are there to contrast the children’s subsequent life with their stepfather, not evoke Christmas. Yes, Die Hard takes place on Christmas day, but that is superfluous to the plot. Not a Christmas movie!!!  

• 

• 

Knowing what you are going to get with a Christmas movie is not necessarily a bad thing. There is something nice in being assured that you can pluck any Christmas film off the shelf (a dated Blockbuster reference) and come away smiling. Still, it is a fine line between a film that is comfortably elevating and one that is sickly sweet. No other genre crosses that line again and again like Christmas movies.  

A Christmas Carol provides the ultimate Christmas arc. A character who rejects everything that Christmas stands for – hearty fellowship, charity, goodwill to all. Then, through a string of unlikely events, comes to realize the enchantment of Xmas and fully embrace its magic (bring out the hankies).  

According to Wikipedia, there have been 30 live action filmed versions of the Dickens story, 17 animated Scrooge films and a dozen TV renderings, though I have no doubt the list is incomplete. There are no surprises in any of them. You know the characters. You know what is going to happen to them. And yet the story stands up, whether Scrooge is Captain Jean-Luc Picard (alias Patrick Stewart), an American like George C. Scott (amazing similarity between his Patton and his Scrooge), or Mr. Magoo.   

And yet, for me the Alister Sim version is the one I come back to time and time again. I am not sure why. Part of it is undoubtedly that I know it so well, but I think there is more to it. Not only is this Scrooge spot on, but so are Fezziwig, Marley, Mrs. Dilber and the other secondary characters. The film perfectly captures the spirit of the story, its otherworldliness, its humor, its intensity.  

The Man Who Invented Christmas, about the writing of A Christmas Carol, attempts the difficult task of mixing the tortured artist and Christmas genres. Surprisingly, the film pulls it off. It does not hurt that Jonathan Pryce plays Dickens’ father, and Christopher Plummer the avatar of Scrooge. It is a pleasure to watch this classic story emerge, while at the same time Dickens is learning the lessons imparted by his own characters. I am not sure if it is historically accurate, but I really do not care. 

The Muppets Christmas Carol deftly manages to blend the wonderful zaniness of the Muppets with this, at times, dark tale. The songs by the under-appreciated Paul Williams, who also wrote The Rainbow Connection and Rainy Days and Mondays, are terrific. (We’re Marley and Marley is my favorite). But what really surprised me was that it was mainly filmed with natural lighting, maintaining the gloom of old London so central to the story. A more than worthy addition to the Christmas Carol inventory. 

• 

• 

Another season passes. Time to park these movies on the to watch list for another 11 months. However, it’s nice to know that come next year, and the year thereafter, there will be films to revisit that are guaranteed to raise a smile and put a clutch in the throat. Until then, as Scrooge would say, “A merry Christmas to everybody! A happy New Year to all the world!”.       

It is that time of year again. Time for the WXPN greatest countdown. Some of you may remember that last year they did the 2020 best songs of all time, with Thunder Road by Bruce Springsteen the ultimate winner. This year it’s the 2021 greatest albums. Let the debates begin. 

I came of age in the heyday of the album. In the 1970’s you couldn’t make a playlist across artists, or shuffle through multiple discs. Skipping a song meant getting up, lifting the needle, and the putting it back down again on the next track, usually with an accompanying screech that told you another scratch was coming. Needless to say, it didn’t happen very often. You just accepted that there were going to be tracks on most albums you had to put up with. (i.e., Maxwell’s Silver Hammer). 

It is why finding an album that was outstanding first song to last was a revelation. There is something satisfying about a side 2 deep cut that you like better than the “hits” (like “Chest Fever” of The Band’s “Music From the Big Pink” album). It is even better if the album had no hits and you feel like you are in on something that the radio listening world was missing. (Radio was just awful in the 70’s, unless you liked to listen to the same song over and over again). 

An album is also a better measure of an artist’s worth. Many musicians can come up with a good song now and then. “Come on Eileen” is a great rocker, but do you really want to listen to a full Dexys Midnight Runners’ album? It takes real talent to put together 10 to 14 songs worth listening to, let alone sustain that across multiple albums. Pink Floyd, with the four albums from “Dark Side of the Moon” through “The Wall”, pulled it off, but few have been able to do so. 

• 

• 

The trouble is that appreciating an album takes commitment. You have to listen to it over and over. Many tracks sound good first time through, but wear quickly. I am sad to say that I haven’t taken the plunge all that often for many years, so my list is dated. I know that there are outstanding albums coming out annually (St. Vincent’s, “Masseduction” (No. 711), and Father John Misty’s “I Love You Honeybear” (No. 824) are some of the more recent that come to mind), but I hear few of them all the way through. 

• 

• 

It is almost surprising that artists today bother with albums the way music is consumed now. Streaming that allows playlists, and shuffling begs for most of an artist’s output to be ignored. And yet, musicians keep putting out quality material (My son would point you to Phoebe Bridgers last two albums, Nos. 536 and 551). My guess is that much of it does not get the listens it deserves.    

• 

• 

Looking at the WXPN responses, I am not the only one to be stuck in the 70’s. The list, especially at its higher reaches, is scattered with albums from the 2000’s, but earlier years predominate, with the 1970’s having 150 albums more than the next nearest decade (the 1990’s). Just as telling, almost half of the top 100 come from the 1970’s, with only 3 issued in 2000’s, as well as 8 of the top 10 (the only two holdouts being Beatles albums). 

I know that a lot of that has to do with demographics. There are way too many old people like me voting and not enough younger listeners. Plus, the WXPN audience is mainly white, which definitely skews the list (nice to see To Pimp a Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar in there at 137). Yet, I do think the list reflects the change in how music is being consumed, for better or worse.  

I submitted my top ten list some time, ago and am not fully sure I remember what I sent in. However, to the best of my recollection it was as follows (in no particular order). 

1. George Harrison – All Things Must Pass (No. 62) 

2. The Beatles – The White Album (No. 35, down from No. 6 when they last did this in 2005)  

3. John Coltrane – Giant Steps (No. 274. A Love Supreme came in at No. 68) 

4. Miles Davis – Kind of Blue (No. 22. Top Jazz album) 

5. Steely Dan – Aja (No. 19) 

6. Pat Metheny Group – Still Life (Talking) (No. 804) 

7. Bob Dylan – Blood on the Tracks (No.7) 

8. Pink Floyd – Wish You were Here (No. 40) 

9. Bob Marley and the Wailers – Exodus (No. 107) (Thanks Dan W.) 

10.  David Bowie – Blackstar (No. 1562) 

The WXPN Top 10 were: 

1. The Beatles – Abbey Road (also No. 1 in 2005) 

2. Pink Floyd – Dark Side of the Moon 

3. Bruce Springsteen – Born to Run 

4. The Beatles – Sargeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band 

5. Stevie Wonder – Songs in the Key of Life (up from No. 54) 

6. The Clash – London Calling 

7. Bob Dylan – Blood on the Tracks 

8. Fleetwood Mac – Rumours (up from No. 36) 

9. Joni Mitchell – Blue 

10. Carole King – Tapestry 

Again, all of this has no meaning, but it is still fun. I wonder what XPN will do next year?