Pop Goes Our Culture

Hilarious, Harrowing Geico Commercial

2012-02-05T16:49:00.000-05:00

The Super Bowl commercials will generate a great deal of commentary this week, but while watching the golf tournament today, I saw the Geico "Ew, Seriously, So Gross" commercial, featuring the middle school "popular girls."

On the surface, the commercial is utterly hilarious. It juxtaposes the stereotypical "doofus" Dad, who begins an innovative weight loss program. To prevent himself from eating, he has the popular/mean girls follow him around. They comment (well, more of a sneer really) whenever he attempts to eat, whether it is a late night sandwich or waffles slathered in strawberries and whipped cream. In rapid succession, the girls drip with sarcasm: "Ew, Seriously, So Gross"

The commercial works so well, because the young female actors playing the middle schoolers nail it. The looks, the tone, and even snapping a photo when the man is at his most vulnerable (all alone in his car outside a burger joint, taking in a giant mouthful, and ending with mustard on his face) all work the comedic angle wonderfully.

Looking below the surface, however, a different set of messages emerge that are much more disturbing (isn't this so often the case with popular culture?). Two jump out quickly:

The "popular/mean girls" stereotype is alive and well in America's schools and anything that glorifies that image is game for criticism. While the older man asks for this, his facial expressions and reactions to their barbs obviously open past wounds.

The "typical" man presented is frumpy, lacks self-esteem, and unwilling to take wiser steps toward weight loss. In addition, the simple fact that he employs this scheme proves that he must not be that intelligent.

The commercial as a whole promotes both the self-flagellation and status-consciousness that serve as pillars of contemporary culture. On one hand, the man beats himself up for not looking the way culture demands. Second, he elevates the "popular" middle school girls over his "average" status.

The man also presents his case via a pseudo-documentary setting, much like the ones modern audiences have grown accustomed to by television shows such as The Office. Although the man's story is one centered on self-disgust and embarrassment, he holds higher status than the (real life) viewer because he is on television.

Author Chris Hedges discusses the broader consequences of this thinking in Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, saying:

Celebrity culture plunges us into a moral voice. No one has any worth beyond his or her appearance, usefulness, or ability to 'succeed.' The highest achievements in a celebrity culture are wealth, sexual conquest, and fame. (32)

What corporations like Geico do not seem to understand is that there are signs and signals being sent via advertising and other mass communication channels that have unintended consequences. The simple response is "it is just a commercial." I would argue, however, harmlessness flies out the window when stereotypes are at the heart of the message.

Steve Jobs Hagiography is Not Good History

2011-11-11T11:35:00.001-05:00

Kaila Colbin wrote an interesting blog at MediaPost's Online Spin: The Productive Narcissism Of Steve Jobs. At the heart of the article is a plea for bosses to not attempt to emulate Steve Jobs or Henry Ford -- both notorious "asshole" bosses -- but rather to understand that good people can also be great managers.

She explains:

"Jobs and Ford were tyrants because they were visionary, because of their internal dissonance between reality and possibility. If you do not suffer from this dissonance, no amount of bad behavior towards your colleagues will turn you into a visionary. And I believe it’s entirely possible to be a visionary and to be kind."

This is the kind of message I think bosses and potential bosses need to read...maybe two or three times. Too often, those in charge assume that with enough bluster and bullying they will seem like leaders. Want proof, ask everyone you know if they have ever had an asshole boss. Depending on your mindset, you will be amazed at the response.

While I agree with the post in regards to managing people, I think there's a challenge in equating Jobs and Ford.

In response to Kaila's post, I commented:

"A challenge, historically, though is in using Jobs and Ford as the models here. Ford, despite his shortcomings as a person/boss, built a system that revolutionized business. For all the hagiography about Jobs, the iPod, iPad, etc., can hardly be thought about the same way. Perhaps Jobs would have done something more important with his power and creativity had he lived a longer life, but I don't see how we hail him for making consumer goods that exist merely to get people to purchase them. The root of evil in Jobs' case is narcissism and money. He felt entitled to act the way he did b/c he was too big for anyone to stand up to him. Perhaps history will some day view him as the world's worst boss than some kind of creative genius for creating consumer goods that have no societal value."

Yes, people love their Macs, iPhones, iPods, iPads, etc., but can we get past turning Jobs into a saint for creating basically worthless consumer goods? As such, there is no feasible way to compare Ford and Jobs on historical importance.

The eminent historian Gordon Wood recently commented about the value of having a historical mindset, saying, "To get our bearings, to get our directions, we need to know where we've been." He added, "Without knowing history, one is living in a two-dimensional world, not experiencing reality as it ought to be experienced."

Jobs hagiography is not good history.

Featured Speakers Examine Cult Pop Culture; the Idea in Pop Culture Analysis

2011-10-11T10:07:00.002-04:00

FEATURED SPEAKERS EXAMINE CULT POP CULTURE; THE IDEA IN POP CULTURE ANALYSIS

MidwestPopular Culture/American Culture Association Brings Hundreds of Scholars and Enthusiasts to Milwaukee

(Milwaukee) October 14, 2011 – Popular culture enthusiasts from across the Midwest and the nation will gather in Milwaukee October 14-16, 2011, at the 2011 joint Midwest Popular Culture/Midwest American Culture Association Annual Conference at the Milwaukee Hilton City Center. Some 120 panels will examine topics across the popular culture universe, from Mad Men and Harry Potter to Twilight and Facebook.

Two featured speakers address the conference on Friday, October 14, from 5:15 to 6:45 p.m.

-- Bob Batchelor, an assistant professor in the School ofJournalism and Mass Communication at Kent State University, talks about “Cult Pop Culture: How the Fringe Became Mainstream” in Wright Ballroom A.

-- John Jordan, associate professor in the Department ofCommunication at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, discusses “The Idea, and Its Importance in Analyzing Popular Culture” in Wright Ballroom C.

Batchelor’s presentation focuses on the 3-volume edited anthology Cult Pop Culture: How theFringe Became Mainstream (Preager), published later this year. The anthology is the first dedicated to the quirky, offbeat aspects of American popular culture that people have loved, enjoyed, (and in some cases) worshiped over the last 50 years. By examining the (often seedy) people and subjects we hold most dear, this collection offers deep insights into what Americans think, feel, and cherish.

Jordan’s talk reveals his interest in those moments when ideas and material circumstances come together in a way that requires communities to make sense of the situation. These are the moments when someone has to interpret, or declare, or reach out – moments of meaningful and material communication. Jordan’s work seeks an understanding of how such situations are arrived at, how their meaning is contested and understood, and what implications arise for how we see ourselves in modern society.

About the Midwest Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association

The Midwest Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association (MPCA/ACA) is a regional branch of the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association. The organization held its first conference in Duluth, Minnesota, in 1973. After a hiatus during the 1990s, the organization held a comeback conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 2002. MPCA/ACA usually holds its annual conference in a large Midwestern city. Anyone is welcome to join and submit proposals for consideration at the MPCA/ACA conference. Membership in MPCA/ACA is by no means limited to those working or living in the Midwest or even the United States. In fact, presenters have come from as far away as Florida and California, and Norway and Australia. Visit http://www.mpcaaca.org for more information about the organization and how to join. Also, follow #MidwestPCA for updates and conversation streaming live from the conference.

About Bob Batchelor

Bob Batchelor (Ph.D., University of South Florida) is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Kent State University and academic coordinator of its online M.A. program in public relations. Batchelor is the author or editor of 10 books, including: The 1900s; The 1980s; The 2000s; and American Pop: Popular Culture Decade by Decade. He has published in Radical History Review, The Journal of American Culture, The Mailer Review, The American Prospect Online, and Public Relations Review. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of The Journal of Popular Culture and Pop Culture Universe: Icons, Idols, Ideas (ABC-CLIO). Batchelor’s current research includes books on John Updike, Bob Dylan, and the rubber industry in World War II. He is also editing two anthologies with KSU colleague Danielle Coombs: We Are What We Sell: How Advertising Shapes American Life…And Always Has and American History through American Sports. He can be reached at rpbatche@kent.edu.

About John Jordan

John W. Jordan (Ph.D., University of Georgia) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee. He studies pressing issues in contemporary society using critical rhetorical analysis. Jordan’s research program centers typically on how technology interacts with public sensibilities, and how subaltern groups use rhetoric to engage authoritative control. His scholarly goal is to help others appreciate the wider possibilities of their involvement in society. Jordan’s recent scholarship has appeared in Quarterly Journal of Speech, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, and Flow. He can be contacted at jjdordan@uwm.edu.

###

Pop Culture Musings: From College Football to Keith Richards

2011-09-03T17:39:00.001-04:00

The start of the new academic school year and launch of college football season provides an interesting confluence of popular culture events.

Here are some random thoughts:

I am watching the University of South Florida stick it to Notre Dame (16-0 at the half). As usual, ND is overrated and USF is playing well in the early season. It is a hot day in South Bend, Indiana, but what is with all the USF players' helmets coming off? Given the risk of concussions among these young athletes, is is surprising that it is happening so frequently.

[Coincidently, I taught many of the USF starters while still at the school, since one of my primary assignments was to teach the large lecture course "Mass Comm and Society," which ranged from around 225 to 450 students per class, depending on the semester. B.J. Daniels, for example, now a heralded quarterback, was a thoughtful and smiling Freshman when he took the class one summer. I am glad to see him doing so well.]

One of the first NBC commercials during the telecast -- besides the annoying ever-present NBC logo in either the upper right hand or lower left of the screen -- attempts to entice viewers to watch the new show Whitney, starring comedian Whitney Cummings. I do not make my living analyzing television shows, but I would bet the meager savings I have in the bank that the show is going to tank.

The NBC website, already declares Cummings "TV's hottest new star," which is interesting, since the first show hasn't aired yet. Rather than just go with my gut on this one, I put my faith in Tim Goodman of The Hollywood Reporter, who has seen the pilot and says, "all that forced laughter on Whitney -- canned or 'live' it makes no difference -- seems jarringly out of place." Sure, running after The Office will guarantee a sizable audience, but a show built around a smart-ass, overly sarcastic twenty-something really does not have a built in audience.

Although I have little time for "pleasure" reading, I could not pass up diving into Keith Richards' Life when I saw it on the New Book shelf at our phenomenal public library Stow-Munroe Falls Public Library. Since I read it, the book has surpassed the 1 million sales mark, establishing it as one of the best-selling rock memoirs of all time, according to Rolling Stone magazine.

Although Life is an interesting look at how a poor British kid becomes the lead guitarist of one of the greatest bands of all-time, what struck me is the amount of brazen violence Richards discusses. Throughout the memoir, he discusses flashing a knife or pulling out a gun, usually to get someone's attention. The amazing thing is not that Keith is still alive, but rather that he never accidently killed someone.

I thought that the violence, particularly for no good reason at all, might just be braggadocio, but then in Peter Wolf's essay in According to the Rolling Stones, he tells a story about Keith pulling a "bowie knife" on a DJ at a Stones party for their road crew. After the DJ played one too many disco tunes, the guitarist "walked slowly up to the DJ booth, smiled at the disc jockey, grabbed him by the neck...put it [the knife] right up to the DJ's throat and gave him his final warning" (239).

Also, in both Life and According to, Charlie Watts is depicted as settling arguments by throwing sucker punches, one at Mick Jagger and the other at Wolf. The question is why all this random violence? One line of thinking may be that once a person achieves a certain level of fame, they no longer believe that rules apply to them. If one is willing to give Richards and Watts the benefit of the doubt, then maybe these are just isolated incidents in otherwise well-lived lives.

Finally, as I sit here and obsess about popular culture, what really turns my stomach is the upbeat commercials for financial institutions that were so instrumental in sparking and promulgating the financial crisis of the past several years. Chase, for example, is pushing banking that it deems, "smarter, faster, and easier."

Try selling that message to the countless people whose credit has been destroyed when Chase cut the limit on their credit cards for no other reason than to make it seem as if they were maxed out. This financial duplicity automatically hurts a person's score, because they have less available credit overall. One person I know paid his card on time and paid down the balance, but when the balance hit a lower number, Chase dropped the maximum to that lower figure.

Is Lady Gaga a Joke, Or, Will Every Generation Need a Madonna Clone?

2011-08-02T10:30:00.000-04:00

Although this post might offend all the "little monsters" out there, the more of Lady Gaga's schtick I see, the more it seems like nothing more than rehashed Madonna, slightly updated for the 2010s.

This comparison became really evident in watching the HBO Lady Gaga concert special the other night after not catching it when it debuted last May.

Aspects of LG directly appropriated from Madonna:

A multitude of androgynous dancers, primarily decked out in leather with props accentuating their genitals/nether regions/etc. See below:

via Flickr/TJ Sengel

via Flickr/Crazy-Heart

Emphasis on costume changes, rather than musical quality.

Dramatic, onstage appeals to disenfranchised audience members, including homosexuals, outsiders, loners, and others. In fact, by labeling these audiences as "little monsters," Gaga is actually out-Madonna-ing Madonna, creating a tighter bond between herself and her fans.

From a historical perspective, Gaga is just another in a long line of performers who continually change persona, looks, and actions to appeal to fans. The difference between these earlier artists, however, is that Gaga operates in a culture that demands this change faster -- as if each costume change provides her with an additional opportunity to reinvent herself.

In the current environment, year-to-year or album-to-album change is too slow. For Gaga and the next iteration of her, and the next iteration of her, transformation before a fickle audience occupies the blink of an eye.

Sitting on the couch watching the HBO concert, my wife asked, "Don't they realize that Madonna already did all this stuff decades ago?" Unfortunately, the answer is that they don't. Historical context is in short supply in today's culture, a sad fact that most popular culture enthusiasts must face.

Without historical insight, therefore, "Mother Monster" seems new and fresh, even though it seems little more than a direct ripoff of "The Material Girl," simply delivered to a new generation of fans.

Four Years Later...A Virtual Lifetime...And, Revamping a Blog

2011-07-27T13:29:00.000-04:00

Pop Goes Our Culture sat dormant, though somewhere in the back of my mind, for the last four years. It is hard to believe the amazing changes the world has gone through in that time. Same for me and my family.

Some things, however, do not seem all that different. Even seemingly earth-shattering events are swallowed into the relentless churn. This idea seems at the heart of American popular culture. Almost everyone has a shot at glory and on the rise and fall charts, if one crashes down, they too get more opportunities to regain their status. Many of our most cherished icons have made careers of riding this roller-coaster (even after death), such as Elvis, Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, and Bob Dylan.

Let's jump on the way-back train and revisit some popular culture highlights of 2007 when I last posted to Pop Goes Our Culture:

On July 21, 2007, the final book in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, came out, selling some 8.3 million copies in its first 24 hours in the United States. Potter-mania swept the nation with countless children and adults dressing like Harry, standing in line to get the book, and then staying up all night in an effort to reach the end.

Just a few days before that last post, on August 7, 2007, Barry Bonds passed Hammerin’ Hank Aaron as baseball’s all-time home run king.

Perhaps one of the oddest bits of news to emerge from the summer of 2007 was when Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick drew indefinite suspension after he admitted to several atrocities related to dogfighting. After facing an incredible fall from grace, Vick ended up in jail.

Here we are four years later, and many of these distant blips on the pop culture radar are still with us in one form or another.

For example, Vick has transformed from dog-killer and criminal to starting quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles. The more wins Vick chalks up, the faster he regains his former status among pro football's elite and as a celebrity pitchman. The film Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 2 -- as everyone with a pulse knows -- is poised to become one of the rare blockbusters to reach the $1 billion revenue mark worldwide. All these years later, the Bonds saga continues with some end in sight, but after millions of dollars were wasted in pursuing perjury charges against the San Francisco Giants.

Teachers often lament that their lives speed by via the school calendar. I am no different with each piece bitten off in semester chunks and four-year spans. It has been a traditional college degree time frame since I last posted here, but now I'm back. Hopefully, better (and wiser) than ever.

Scott Baio is 45...and an Idiot!

2007-08-13T12:34:00.000-04:00

I admit that I am a reality television junkie. If you want proof, read my 2002 essay written about the sleazy Alex Michel of early "The Bachelor" fame, which was anthologized in the new reader: Pop Perspective: Readings to Critique Contemporary Culture, edited by the wonderful Laura Gray-Rosendale (McGraw-Hill, 2008). I love the Gene Simmons and Kathy Griffin reality shows and my wife can't get enough of "So You Think You Can Dance."

What I do not like is the third generation ludicrous reality shows that now dominate much of the genre, such as the Flavor Flav show and its spin-offs and others that focus on getting b-list celebrities to do stupid things on camera. Therefore, you will never catch me watching an iteration of "The Surreal Life" or anything starring Poison front man Bret Michaels.

As lame and unwatchable as many of these lame show are -- let's call them "celeb faux-tainment" -- none of them seem as offensive to me as "Scott Baio is 45...and Single." After watching a handful of episodes, I can't help but get angry -- at myself for tuning in. [Has anyone figured out a way to get those wasted hours of life back?]

This isn't the place for a recap, but the premise is that Scott Baio wants to settle down, marry, and have a family after a life of celebrity singledom and he can't figure out why he has never been married. In an attempt to figure himself out, Baio hires a life coach (Doc Ali) to help him get to the bottom of the conundrum.

What unfolds is the portrait of a sitcom star as perpetual actor. Baio half-asses it through the assignments the life coach gives him and wonders why all the ex-girlfriends he's had basically hate him. [A clue: dude, you cheated on every one of them with some other high-profile celebrity] Baio is so caught up being "Scott Baio, celebrity bachelor" that he does not possess the basic humanity that exists somewhere deep in the hearts of most people. He has no idea what makes him tick because he is playing a role, rather than living a life.

Adding to Baio's "challenges" is a handful of hangers-on who perpetuate the worst parts of his personality for their own gain/amusement. What nebish 40-something nobody in Hollywood wouldn't want Baio as a friend and at least have the chance to catch some of his castoffs? From the episodes that have aired, it seems that he and his friend/groupies do little more each day than smoke cigars, play golf, and travel to Vegas for good times.

The most entertaining part of each show is watching Baio's look of shock as a different aspect of his personality is picked apart by an ex-girlfriend or Doc Ali. As a viewer, one sits there wondering, "this guy can't really be this obtuse, can he?" The second funniest clip is when he declares that he isn't a mean guy and didn't do anything "malicious" to any of the women from his past, that him cheating, being noncommittal, etc. was "just me being me." Maybe "train wreck television" is a better name for shows like the ones featuring Baio, Michaels, or any of Flavor Flav's "ladies."

The irony is that millions of people watch reality television each week to escape the real reality of day to day life in modern America. It is much easier to watch Scott Baio or "American Idol" than worry about American kids getting blown up in Iraq or starving people living under a freeway overpass.

When it comes to thinking about popular culture, the best bet is to look to the words of Ray B. Browne, professor emeritus of popular culture studies at Bowling Green State University, who has spent a lifetime examining the field. He says, "United States popular culture is ourselves and our country, and we, for better or worse, are our popular culture."

Perhaps this quote raises more questions than it answers, but it is a great jumping off point for deeper thinking about why we turn to pop culture in times of national crisis.

Rumsfeld a Fascist?

2006-09-01T08:15:00.000-04:00

Finally! A mainstream journalist (Keith Olbermann) had the guts to call out Rumsfeld for his fear-mongering rhetoric and historical ineptitude.

For years I've been disgusted by the way the secretary of defense so arrogantly dismisses reporters or others who question him or disagree with his views. Olbermann (possibly the greatest sports anchor ever from his ESPN days) proves his chops as a journalist of high caliber by putting both Rumsfeld and the Bush administration in its place.

Perhaps Olbermann's remarks will set off a wave of thoughtful criticism of the Bush administration. Or, was Olbermann's critique the natural outcome after several weeks of depressing news from New Orleans and consistently bad news from Iraq?

Either way, see Olbermann's remarks...

Unspeakable Tragedy: Race and Katrina

2006-08-29T13:44:00.000-04:00

I wrote this article, published today on PopMatters.com.

Under the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Superdome -- the "crown jewel of the New Orleans skyline" -- quickly became a cesspool of waste, sewage, and most lurid of all, death. The city's poor who flocked there for relief had no food, running water or air conditioning. The ill-equipped emergency shelter, like the nearby Convention Center, became a symbol of the storm's devastation -- and the Bush administration's failure to aid the people suffering in the drowned city.

News programs scurried to broadcast the lurid tales of mayhem amid the flooded ruins. The plight of disadvantaged African Americans left behind to virtually fend for themselves in the wake elicited a national outcry. Millions of viewers sat spellbound as the news filtered out of the city. Rapper Kanye West summed up the private thoughts many dared not speak publicly, proclaiming that "George Bush doesn't care about black people" on a nationally televised hurricane-relief program. Clearly Katrina put race back on the national agenda.

Unfortunately, under ordinary circumstances, many Americans are quick to dismiss racism as simply a defective character trait or a sign of overt stupidity. But it runs deeper, straight to the heart of the country's national fabric. As historian John Hope Franklin recently told the Associated Press, "The New Orleans tragedy speaks in a loud but eloquent voice that racial inequities in the United States persist. As far as race in America is concerned, Katrina was just another example of the failure of the people of the United States to come to terms with a centuries-old problem…and make a forthright effort to solve it." Huffington Post columnist Rev. Byron Williams notes that "the Katrina response, or lack thereof, was in part society's inability to see the humanity of those stuck in the quagmire of the social underside." Simply being born an American, a person is infused with race and the legacy of slavery, and America's continued inability to solve the race issue is its most crippling defect and exacerbates most, if not all, societal ills.

The chaos in New Orleans revealed the depths of racism that exists in the United States, but many hoped the catastrophe would touch off a renewed national dialogue on racism and possibly eliminate it once and for all in the post-Katrina America. However, after the disaster triage and governmental finger-pointing devolved into a post-storm bureaucratic nightmare of red tape, and the sensationalist images and stories disappeared, so did the discussions of racism. It may be that Americans are so ashamed of the heritage of slavery and the current state of those living in poverty that they can only examine race if it comes from the mouths of cartoon characters (think of Token Black, the African American on South Park), standup comics like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, or rap musicians. But though West's audacious claim touched off an initial media frenzy, the frank dialogue never materialized, and today, America is no closer to solving its race problem.

Looking back, the failure of this dialogue to materialize seems to prove West's point yet again. Race slipped from the national agenda in part because George W. Bush did not keep the issue at the forefront. Of course, politicians going back to the Founding Fathers have failed to adequately address the race issue. Still, rather than initiate a national dialogue on race, Bush instead chose to make a feeble play for black voters, choosing, finally, to speak before the NAACP in late July, after declining its invitation the last five years. Bush gave a masterful performance in front of an unfriendly audience, taking the anger out of the room with witty self-deprecation, a nod to black history, and just enough owning up to past Republican errors to appease his auditors.

In this speech Bush summed up his thoughts on race in America: "In the century since the NAACP was founded, our nation has grown more prosperous and more powerful. It's also grown more equal and just. Yet this work is not finished. The history of America is one of constant renewal. And each generation has a responsibility to write a new chapter in the unfinished story of freedom." But has his presidency has taken up the challenge of assuming this responsibility? The answer is a resounding no.

Although the president is criticized for routinely flubbing multisyllabic words, he is a master of modern American corporate speak, in which a CEO is applauded for focusing on looking to the future without ever acknowledging current or past errors. For example, the president played up his post-Katrina discussions with NAACP CEO Bruce Gordon without conceding any slip-ups on the part of his administration: "We talked about the challenges facing the African American community after that storm. We talked about the response of the federal government. And most importantly, we talked about the way forward. We talked about what we can do working together to move forward."

At another point in the speech, he revealed the real reasons he finally addressed the organization: "You must understand I understand that racism still lingers in America. It's a lot easier to change a law than to change a human heart. And I understand that many African Americans distrust my political party. I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African American community. For too long my party wrote off the African American vote, and many African Americans wrote off the Republican Party."
As striking as the language is, especially coming from Bush, the key word in his statement is vote. The Republican Party probably sees little difference between its success at winning over former Democratic voters in strongholds like Western Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio and capturing the black vote. Republicans see an opportunity to win back black voters, which political strategists assert could be critical in the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 presidential race. So the speech wasn't about healing wounds deep within the national fabric, the appearance was to win the African American vote.

Despite his lip service and political pandering in this speech, Bush has done little to help African Americans. According to NAACP statistics, blacks are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to whites, significantly less likely to own homes (75 percent for whites compared to 48 percent for blacks), and have an average median net worth of $10,000 versus $81,700 for whites. This didn't stop Bush from using his NAACP address to call for the repeal of the estate tax. The president invoked the name of his "friend" Bob Johnson, the billionaire founder of BET and owner of the NBA Charlotte Bobcats franchise, saying "He believes strongly, for example, that the death tax will prevent future African-American entrepreneurs from being able to pass their assets from one generation to the next. He and I also understand that the investor class shouldn't be just confined to the old definition of the investor class." Curiously, progressive economists have shown that only 59 African Americans (of approximately 38 million) will pay the estate tax this year.

A president who cares about African-Americans would look out on the nation and be disgusted by what is happening in black communities. He would place race on the national agenda. If the weight of the office can push terrorism and security to the top of the agenda, then it can do the same for racism. Though the Bush administration has czars for everything from cyberterrorism to AIDS, there's no czar for racism, no money behind completing the "unfinished story of freedom." The National Priorities Project estimates that the war in Iraq has cost more than $300 billion, yet poverty-stricken Americans at home slip further into despair.

But as easy as it is to blame the president for the current state of racism in America, the lack of leadership within the African American community must be cited as well. The fact that West -- a musician -- was the most significant black political figure to emerge from the devastation in New Orleans reveals the paucity of leadership among blacks. No black leader today wields enough influence to rise above the political fray and put racism on the national agenda. Leaders who immediately come to mind, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, have put too much faith in the political process. Like the American labor movement, African Americans since the 1960s have been co-opted by the Democrats, virtually handing over power to an organization that is more concerned with winning office than standing up for ideals. There is merit in sustained voter registration drives and raising money for candidates, but these tactics have not brought the urgent need to confront racism to the forefront.

Because politicians are predominantly concerned with getting elected rather than defending principles, it seems unlikely that the leadership needed in today's conditions will come from an African American senator or congressperson, even the wildly popular Barack Obama. Is it pollyannaish to wonder when the next Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X will appear? Neither held political office or aligned too closely with a political party. They drew from religious backgrounds and followings but were able to bring their causes to the national stage. Ultimately, racism is more than a political issue that can be fixed through party affiliation.

For the good of the nation, racism must be quashed. The most important lesson lost after Katrina -- and repeatedly brought to light in Spike Lee's recent When the Levees Broke documentary -- is that building a better world means retaining our humanity. In today's polarized society, this may seem out of reach, but it is an attainable aspiration.

* * *

Bob Batchelor is an award-winning business writer and historian. He teaches Public Relations in the School of Mass Communications at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Visit him on the Web at www.bobbatchelor.com.

United States of Racism

2006-08-12T14:44:00.000-04:00

America is racist.

Whether measured by important national crises such as the federal government’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the riots in Toledo, or by less dangerous subjects like the new NBA dress code and William Bennett’s ramblings about aborting black babies to reduce crime rates, no other plausible conclusion exists.

When stripped down to its core, every major societal issue has a racial component. The challenge is that most people are unwilling to face the specter of racism (particularly their own racism) on an individual level.

The same person who opens his wallet to the Red Cross for Katrina relief laughs loudest when Chris Rock says the N-word in a standup comedy routine. Many intelligent people rationalize their feelings about race, by simply reassuring themselves: “I’m not racist. I have Black/Hispanic/Asian friends.”

People see racism as a defective character trait or overt stupidity. A more philosophical and historical view, however, reveals that the notion runs deeper, straight to the heart of the country’s national fabric. Racism is not a political issue, one that can be “fixed” through party affiliation. Racism is not even necessarily a moral concern. Simply being born an American, a person is infused with race and the legacy of slavery.

Criticism of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other American heroes continues to mount based on the fraud that slave owning white aristocrats could talk so boldly about freedom, liberty, and equality, but tiptoe around the slavery question. The Founding Fathers cemented racism into the country’s value system by not addressing the issue with the same resolve and willpower that they tackled the formation of a new republic.

From their perspective, race equaled slavery. That perception endures more than two centuries later. One doesn’t have to dig deep to find examples of racism’s hold on America. The news is filled with hate crime incidents everyday.

I live in a Florida county that is quickly growing into a commuter suburb of Tampa. One would imagine, based on a flourishing economy and emergent suburban population, that such an area would be filled with the kind of upper middle-class, progressive, individuals taking root in suburbs all across the nation. Right?

Wrong. A statue of a Confederate soldier looms over the front lawn of the courthouse. The county seal features a more menacing Confederate flag, which adorns every county work vehicle. The offensive logo is not a carryover from the Civil War era. The city adopted it in 1986.

In this part of Florida, the Confederate Flag is constantly on display. Seeing just one a day would be a challenge. Whether the rebel flag hangs from a pole, is on a tee shirt, or serves as a license plate holder on a jacked-up four wheel drive truck, the message is more than symbolic.

What astounds me is that in modern America, long after politically correct language has become the norm, people so proudly parade the ultimate representation of racism. If a person is willing to flaunt the Confederate Flag, then they might as well complete the uniform and get a white hooded robe out too.

The fiftieth anniversary of Rosa Parks’ valiant act of civil disobedience in Montgomery, Alabama, and her death provided an opportunity to reexamine America’s failure to solve the race problem. However the challenge is addressed, the real examination must begin on an intimate personal level, like Parks’ lone response to an illogical request to give up her seat after a tiring workday.

No public opinion poll is ever going to reveal the depths of racism in the United States. Respondents tell pollsters what they believe is socially acceptable.

Clues to the depths of racism in the United States are littered in mainstream popular culture. Adult-themed cartoons are insightful, because their creators skirt societal norms by putting dialogue in animated characters. For example, “The Simpson’s” features Arab convenience store clerk Apu, while the African-American student (ironically from the town’s wealthiest family) on “South Park” is named Token Black.

In a society that has confronted its racist past and dealt with it accordingly, we wouldn’t need satires like these to remind us of the dirty thoughts we harbor beneath the shine of education, social acceptability, and humanity. Like Rosa Parks, each person should confront racism individually. It is the only way to live up to the principles that guide this nation.

New Johnny Cash Book

2006-05-04T12:01:00.000-04:00

My book, Literary Cash: Writings Inspired by the Legendary Johnny Cash, is scheduled for release in January 2007.

I view the book as a kind of tribute album on paper by a group of writers who love JC.

Here's the blurb from Amazon:
"The legendary lyrics of Johnny Cash are the inspiration for this collection of extraordinarily creative works that provides a new spin on this musical legend. For nearly five decades, Cash captivated audiences with his unique voice and candid portrayal of the gritty life of a working man, and his songs continue to strike a chord with listeners today. But it is the stories behind the music that remain with audiences and provide the inspiration for the work in this thoughtful compilation of fiction [and nonfiction] from contributors such as Lauren Baratz-Logsted, Don Cusic, Gretchen Moran Laskas, Amanda Nowlin, and Russell Rowland."

Love is in the Air, but not Online

2006-02-13T08:05:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Miranda Levy
386.479.4629
mmlevy3@mail.usf.edu

LOVE IS IN THE AIR, BUT NOT ONLINE
In a fast-paced society, traditional letters are still at the heart of Valentine’s Day

Tampa, (Feb. 13) – While pursuing a career that took him to 88 different countries, reporter Robert St. John found time to write a hand-written love poem to his wife every day of a marriage that lasted more than 40 years, according to an NPR report.

On Valentine’s Day, 192 million cards will be exchanged, which shows how priceless love letters and poems from the heart really are as opposed to impersonal e-cards. Hand-written letters are an intimate way to show your significant other how much they mean to you.

“The best way to show affection on Valentine’s Day is by sitting down and composing a simple love letter that is heartfelt and comes from the soul,” said Bob Batchelor, author and teacher at the University of South Florida. “People get caught up in thinking that they have to buy expensive things, when actually, the greatest gift is free.”

Not many people know how to write a great love letter. And, a person doesn’t need to be an eminent writer to compose a great love letter. Here are a few guidelines to follow when writing the perfect love letter:

-- Nobody’s perfect; plan before you write
-- Express the two emotions that are most heartfelt. You are writing a note, not a novel
-- Write about specific loving moments in the relationship
-- Describe your hopes and dreams for the future

So remember, this Valentine’s Day over $424 million will be spent on flowers, $418 million will be spent on chocolate, $2.1 billion will be spent on jewelry. Yet, to many what really matters is what comes from the heart, not the wallet.

Bob Batchelor is an award-winning business writer and historian. He is Public Relations Instructor in the School of Mass Communications at the University of South Florida. Bob is the author of: The 1900s (Greenwood Press, 2002), editor of Basketball in America: From the Playgrounds to Jordan’s Game and Beyond (Haworth Press, 2005); and co-author of Kleenex, Kotex, and Huggies: Kimberly-Clark and the Consumer Revolution in American Business (The Ohio State University Press, 2004). Bob’s forthcoming books include The 1980s (Greenwood Press, 2006) and Literary Cash: Writing Inspired by the Songs of the Legendary Johnny Cash (BenBella Books, 2007). Bob graduated from the University of Pittsburgh and received an M.A. from Kent State University. As a historical consultant, Batchelor has worked with numerous Fortune 500 companies, including BellSouth, International Paper, Kimberly-Clark, and Accenture. He has interviewed 250 CEOs and senior level executives across every industry in corporate America

END

"I Walk the Line" Special on CBS

2005-11-16T20:34:00.000-05:00

Well, we're halfway through the CBS tribute to Johnny Cash and I don't think it could be much worse. For starters, let's not forget that the country music business completely turned its back on JC for the last 20 years of his life. That alone probably has him spinning in his grave.

First up was Brad Paisley with the most vanilla version of "Folsom Prison Blues" ever performed. Paisley's aw-shucks performance kind of sums up everything that is wrong with music today (country or not).

The duet between Jerry Lee Lewis and Kid Rock (Kid Rock...are you kidding me?!) sounded awful. As an aside, is there a reason that Kid Rock performs at every tribute/award show special? He's like the kid in the high school choir that cannot sing, but the teacher let's him in anyway because no one wants to hurt his feelings. Wasn't he a rapper at one point? When did he begin to believe that he could sing?

I'm not even going to say how bad U2 and Montgomer Jentry were. If there is anything beneficial out of this special, the poor performances show just how powerful JC was and remains. He had pipes and used them so well. And, he never gave a cardboard, stiff performance like the ones we're witnessing tonight.

The one saving grace so far has been Martina McBride. Her rendition of "I Still Miss Someone" blew away the other groups/singers.

Wow...let's hope it gets better.

Larry Brown: Enough Already!

2005-07-29T14:31:00.000-04:00

Now that the Larry Brown saga is finally over, can I be the first to say: "Enough Already!" Although Isiah Thomas and the New York Knicks may think that Brown is the savior they need to get back to NBA prominence, the whole mess smells rotten.

Can anyone honestly say that there wasn't tampering going on? Under contract with the Pistons (a healthy multi-million dollar one at that), Brown mysteriously materializes as Thomas' main target to take over the pitiful New York franchise. Then, in short order, Brown gets the Pistons to fire him, thus ensuring that he collects on his contract AND enable him to take the Knicks job.

The NBA should carefully investigate the timing and money behind the Brown/Pistons/Knicks shenanigans. Even the timing of the whole Cleveland front office proposal seems off -- merely to get the Knicks to act and anger Piston executives enough to consider dumping Brown.

I say: Follow the money...Brown changed his reputation over the last couple years in Detroit and is now considered a basketball "savior" -- a much more respected moniker than his former reputation as a hoops "vagabond." However, the shady dealings of late cause me to wonder if this isn't all based on the $10-12 million a year Brown is getting from the Knicks.

Reality Show Hall of Fame Blooper

2005-07-21T10:30:00.000-04:00

Reality TV provides some hilarious (unscripted) moments. One took place last night on the new show "So You Think You Can Dance."

[Editorial note: My wife wanted to watch the show, so I joined in precisely because I'm not a reality TV snob. However, for the record, it wouldn't have been my first choice to spend two hours]

Near the end of the show, one of the young, Britany Spears-looking dancers found out that she performed well enough to go to Hollywood for the next round.

Lauren Sanchez, reality TV's latest perky host, stood by as the contestant celebrated with a much older, balding, and thick around the middle guy. They jumped up and down, hugged, and acted as if they'd just won the lottery.

Sanchez blathered on for a bit and asked several irrelevant questions as the young woman stood there arm-in-arm with the man. As a new father myself, I sat there thinking, "Isn't it nice that this dad is showing so much pride in his daughter and supporting her dream?"

Sanchez must have been thinking along similar lines. As the interview ended and the two started jumping up and down again, she said something like, "It sure is nice to see your dad so happy for you."

Suddenly, aghast, the Spears-wannabee tells Sanchez, "This is my fiancee." Stunned -- along with the rest of America and certainly my wife and I -- Sanchez blurts, "Ohh, my bad" and cuts out of the picture.

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time.

2005-05-25T07:54:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Paul M. Deamer
Assistant Manager, Sales & Publicity
607.722.5857, ext 313
PDeamer@haworthpress.com

Marie Spencer
Book Review Coordinator
607.722.5857, ext. 365
MSpencer@haworthpress.com

HAWORTH SHOOTS AND SCORES WITH NEW RELEASE: "BASKETBALL IN AMERICA"

TAMPA, May 25, 2005 - Basketball in America: From the Playgrounds to Jordan's Game and Beyond is much more than a book about the game of basketball. It is a pioneering analysis of its cultural impact from the 1970s to today. It will entertain and inform anyone who treasures basketball and the role the game plays in the American consciousness.

The popularity of basketball is undeniable, and the subject allows for such a broad range of interpretations in popular culture, cutting across economic, racial, and social boundaries, and its major stars cross over into other forms of popular entertainment more than any other professional sport. This book examines the entire scope of modern basketball history, from the playgrounds, where people first learn the fundamentals, to the college and professional levels.

Bob Batchelor, editor of the collection, and noted contributors study the influence of basketball on American culture from the 1970s to the present day. This analysis of the game is the first of its kind to delve into the importance of the impact of basketball on the American way of life.

"Fascinating...must reading for anyone interested in the interconnection between basketball and popular culture," said David K. Wiggins, Professor and Director, School of Recreation, Health, and Tourism at George Mason University. The book, "describes how basketball has been woven into American society and establishes a connection with hip-hop, black style, and celebrity culture."

Robert Bradley, President of the Association for Professional Basketball Research said, "This book not only contains fine writing by some of America's best basketball writers and historians, but it also takes a poignant look at basketball's effect on America's youth."

Basketball has come a long way since the days of peach baskets at the YMCA. The game impacts just about every American, whether or not an avid sports fan. NBA stars have become cultural icons, appearing everywhere from lunchboxes to major motion pictures. Basketball players have become heroes, trendsetters, and national figures. Many people across the globe, who may have never even seen a single minute of professional basketball, still know the names and faces of stars like Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal.

The contributors to Basketball in America are a diverse mix of writers, former players, journalists, coaches, scholars, and sports enthusiasts who all share an affinity for the game of basketball.

The book is available in hardbound at $44.95 (ISBN: 0-7890-1612-5) and softbound at $29.95 (ISBN: 0-7890-1613-3).

About Haworth

Haworth Press has been a publisher of scholarly and professional journals since 1975. Haworth publishes over 200 journals and over 80 original books per year. Haworth Press has received six prestigious "Outstanding Academic Title" designations from Choice Magazine!

About Bob Batchelor

An award-winning business writer and historian, Bob Batchelor is a Public Relations Instructor in the School of Mass Communications at the University of South Florida. He is the author of The 1900s and co-author (with Thomas Heinrich, Baruch College/CUNY) of Kleenex, Kotex, and Huggies: Kimberly-Clark and the Consumer Revolution in American Business. Batchelor has published more than 350 articles and essays in magazines, Web sites, and reference works, including The American Prospect Online, Dictionary of American History, and History News Network. Trained at the University of Pittsburgh and Kent State University, he has taught history and writing at Cleveland State University and Neumann College. As a historical consultant, Batchelor has worked with numerous Fortune 500 companies, including BellSouth, International Paper, Kimberly-Clark, and Accenture. For more information about the editor, see www.bobbatchelor.com.

2004-10-11T12:27:00.000-04:00

The Vioxx Wake-Up Call

By Bob Batchelor
Mr. Batchelor is the author of THE 1900s (2002) and editor of the forthcoming book, BASKETBALL IN AMERICA: FROM THE PLAYGROUNDS TO JORDAN'S GAME AND BEYOND (Haworth, 2004).

A turning point in medical history occurred on September 30, when Merck voluntarily withdrew pain reliever Vioxx from the marketplace due to further research that revealed potential long-term dangers. The Vioxx debacle delivers a crushing financial and reputational blow to Merck, and also calls into question the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its regulatory procedures for allowing new drugs to be released.

Already, the mother of a woman in Missouri who died of a heart attack sued Merck the day after the news broke. She claims that the company knew of the risks long before they pulled the product, a key argument for subsequent litigation.

From a popular culture perspective, the Vioxx recall marks the first time in today’s pharmaceutical-laden society that an FDA-approved popular name brand medication has been pulled from the shelves. Merck’s decision will have lasting consequences, particularly in the current era of relentless direct-to-consumer marketing via television, radio, and other forms of advertising. Much of Merck’s success with Vioxx has been attributed to its marketing efforts. In the first half of this year, the company spent about $45 million to get the product in front of consumers.

Launched in the United States in 1999, Vioxx was sold in more than 80 countries worldwide and was a major financial windfall for struggling drug manufacturer Merck. Sales of Vioxx in 2003 reached $2.5 billion and in the fourth quarter of this year were expected to be approximately $750 million.

Since Merck’s announcement, information has surfaced that reveals both Merck and the FDA may have had evidence of risks faced by those taking 25 milligrams or more daily, including increased danger for heart attacks and strokes. The logical question is why the FDA would allow Vioxx into the marketplace if the drug were harmful. The FDA’s role in accepting Vioxx should face close scrutiny by Congress and others.

The modern history of the FDA begins with the Federal Food and Drug Act of 1906. The Theodore Roosevelt administration pushed the bill based on the national outcry over tainted meat and processing facilities as described in Upton Sinclair’s powerful novel, The Jungle. The fight for safe foods and sanitary conditions in the nation’s meatpacking and food processing plants served as a main thrust of the Progressive Movement in early twentieth century America.

As the U.S. grew, the FDA transformed to meet its needs. In 1962, after use of the sedative Thalidomide caused severe deformity in newborns in Europe, Senator Estes Kefauver introduced legislation (the Kefauver-Harris Amendments) that gave the FDA increased power over drug research, testing, and introduction.

As the pharmaceutical industry has grown into a multi-trillion dollar business, the FDA faces increased pressure to approve new drugs, in part due to AIDS and cancer research that could improve the lives of those suffering from those illnesses. As a result of Merck’s Vioxx recall, the FDA could force drug companies to increase testing, ultimately causing an even larger backlog of new products.

This effort may, in fact, be too large for an agency with as many responsibilities as the FDA. The agency’s Web site points to the impossible size of these tasks, stating, “The FDA monitors the manufacture, import, transport, storage, and sale of about $1 trillion worth of products annually at a cost to taxpayers of about $3 per person.”

Rather than task the FDA with such comprehensive duties to monitor all food and drugs, Congress should establish a single regulatory agency with governance over nothing but pharmaceutical issues.

Will Vioxx sink Merck?
Merck is in a battle for its financial life and should prepare for warfare on at least two fronts, legally and financially. Unfortunately, the battles ahead do not have quick fixes and will be a drain on company resources for years to come.

Merck can expect a glut of lawsuits from families of customers who contend that Vioxx played a role in the needless deaths of their loved ones. Already, experts have estimated that legal battles will cost Merck at least $10 billion. In addition, the costs associated with future legal wrangling will be a drain the company’s executive team, pulling it from the work necessary to get it back on path.

The early financial consequences are still open to interpretation, but stockholders voted with their dollars last week by dumping the company in mass quantities. The day the news hit, Merck’s stock dropped 27 percent or $12.07 a share to close at $33, an eight-year low. Shares did gain 1 percent the following day to close at $33.31, but it could take years for Merck to get back to pre-announcement levels.

A Merck announcement also provided some insight into the financial disruption Vioxx will cause, stating, “The company currently expects earnings per share to be negatively affected by $0.50 to $0.60 as a result of today’s announcement. This estimate includes foregone sales, writeoffs of inventory held by Merck, customer returns of product previously sold and costs to undertake the pullback of the product. Included in this cost estimate is the expectation of foregone fourth quarter sales of Vioxx of $700 million to $750 million.”

The FDA, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, and the public should all learn from the Vioxx recall. Quick fixes are not always safe and even when preliminary research has been undertaken to prove safety, it may not be comprehensive enough. What begins with Vioxx could soon spread to other name brand designer drugs or even the controversial diet plans that make many promises, but haven’t been tested enough to uncover hidden dangers.

2004-06-28T13:10:00.000-04:00

From History News Network, www.hnn.us:

The Downside of Downsizing
By Bob Batchelor

Have pity on "Ol' Lonely," he just got a whole lot lonelier. The star of countless television commercials -- known better as the Maytag repairman -- stands watch over a company that just announced that it is slashing 1,100 jobs, or about 20 percent of its workforce. According to company reports, Maytag hopes to speed decision-making and save costs by restructuring, typical corporate-speak under such circumstances.

Maytag isn't alone in using mass layoffs as an excuse to spur operations, joining the thousands around the nation that have taken similar steps. The continuous wave of corporate layoffs is not only undercutting any real economic recovery, but it is also exacting a heavy emotional toll on people forcibly put out of work.

In an election year, with all signs pointing to a close presidential race, the state of the economy will play a critical role in determining the next president. Both President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry are using the economy to rally voters in the so-called swing states, which makes downsizing and the psychological burden that accompanies it even more important.

Currently, the general perception is that the economy is improving, as evidenced by factors ranging from the upcoming red-hot Google IPO to rising business productivity and increased corporate spending.

In defining the state of the economy, the Bush administration places great emphasis on the national unemployment rate, which has dropped to a miniscule 5.6 percent. Some critics question the figure, derived from a monthly survey, called the Current Population Survey (CPS). The survey began as a Work Projects Administration project and has been conducted monthly since 1940.

The calculation has drawn fire because only those people "actively looked for work in the prior four weeks, and are currently available for work" are considered "unemployed." Last month, there were almost 5.4 million people in the "Persons Not in the Labor Force," but "currently want a job" category. This is a significant factor considering that the government based its percentage on 8.2 million it deemed "unemployed." Simply adding the two numbers reveals that there are actually 13.6 million people unemployed.

While the Bush administration and business pundits would like the public to believe better economic days are already upon us, the seemingly constant barrage of corporate layoff announcements undercuts this rosy outlook. According to Chicago-based outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, companies cut more than 145,000 jobs in April and May alone and a total of 408,392 in the first five months of 2004.

Even more daunting, the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released figures revealing that from January through April 2004, the total number of "layoff events" (the catchy BLS euphemism for number of downsizing occurrences) numbered 5,747, leading to 573,523 initial unemployment insurance claims.

These figures are actually lower than in the January to April 2003 quarter (6,466 and 624,833), but hardly the earth-shattering gains that Bush alluded to recently on his visit to Rome, when he declared that the latest job figures showed the economy, "vital and growing."

The numbers speak for themselves, but obviously, the American economy is still reeling when anywhere from 80,000 to 160,000 people a month are being downsized. Yes, the economy is generating 250,000 to 350,000 jobs a month, but these figures pale in comparison to the 13.6 million people searching for work. According to economist Jared Bernstein, with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, there are also 1.3 million fewer Americans collecting paychecks now than in March 2001, when the recession began.

Numbers alone, however, have never been the most important factor when it comes to mass layoffs. On a deeper level, forced unemployment demoralizes individuals, families, and entire communities. In a small town, like North Canton, Ohio, that will take the brunt of Maytag's cuts, the effects can be devastating. We cannot begin to calculate the emotional toll these people endure. At the current rate, it is like wiping an entire city off the national employment sheet each month.

In a country built on rags-to-riches tales of success and filled with people constantly striving to achieve the mythical "American Dream," the cumulative effect of mass downsizing not only threatens the nation economically, but eats at the soul of those who are deemed unworthy. We are taught to consider ourselves a nation of equals, so few life events are more troubling than wearing the unemployed label.

Although the exact origins of downsizing are open to interpretation, it has been part of the American business lexicon for several decades. The practice has even become part of popular culture, showing up as a topic on the syndicated hit television show Roseanne and the ever-popular Dilbert cartoon strip, which frequently mocks the downsizing in the more than 2,000 newspapers that carry it.

When future historians look back on the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, they may determine that the period earns the title "the downsizing era." In 1996, when the New York Times ran a series of articles looking at the phenomenon, the paper used BLS reports to conclude that 43 million people lost their jobs through layoffs between 1979 and 1995. In comparison, from 2000 to 2003, after the dot-com bust, another 5 million workers were downsized.

As these historians reassess our era's business world from a distance, one of today's most admired corporate leaders -- former General Electric CEO Jack Welch -- is going to be exposed. Welch’s early tenure at GE in the early 1980s institutionalized downsizing. Under his direction, the company eliminated more than 100,000 jobs, thus earning Welch the nickname "Neutron Jack" -- like the bomb, turning people into dust, but leaving buildings still standing.

Single-handedly, Welch overturned GE's corporate culture and turned the business world on its ear. Wall Street rewarded Welch by pushing GE stock up, which in the elephant herd mentality of Corporate America, caused other leaders to follow his lead. Soon, the world viewed Welch as a brilliant business strategist. No one much cared about the bodies left in his wake.

Obviously, taking on Welch and his esteemed place among twentieth century business leaders will be difficult. The GE chief's supporters would argue that Welch’s moves kept the company competitive and enabled it to streamline operations to take on foreign competitors and others competing for its market share.

Welch's brand of corporate capitalism, in which shareholder return is the only measure of success, also set in motion a cruel system of constant dread -- fear about job loss and the economic and psychological destruction it causes. Such large-scale cuts always involve personalities and office politics, far from the high-minded "talent" considerations that leaders use to justify the layoffs.

Welch's sole focus on shareholder return and hitting or surpassing analyst expectations each quarter won him rave reviews as a tough-minded leader. However, when examined in the future, these pursuits may be seen as a magician's bag of tricks. An obsession with quarterly earnings ahead of long-term planning, led GE to cut corners and not think about the environmental consequences of dumping PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) into the Hudson River.

Welch's personal aggressiveness replicated throughout GE, implementing a winner-take-all attitude that rewarded profit and nothing else. Following the Welch lead, other corporate execs began using mass layoffs as a way to cut costs, take restructuring charges against earnings, and meet quarterly earning estimates. The tick upward in stock price benefited those with the largest number of shares...almost always the current leadership team.

Welch's downsizing initiatives made GE, its stockholders, and its executives wealthy. Welch became Fortune magazine's "Manager of the Century" and a celebrity in his own right. The 100,000 downsized GE workers and the millions more that followed at other companies based on Welch's moves...let's hope they were able to pick up the pieces of their shattered dreams.

Welch opened the door for other corporate executives to follow. Mass layoffs are now routine events designed to impress Wall Street analysts and cause short-term gains in stock price. Few people ask how 1,000 or 10,000 employees suddenly become expendable. Who hired, trained, and brought these (now-worthless) employees into the company in the first place?

Perhaps the very people now responsible for the terminations?

Mr. Batchelor is the author of THE 1900s (2002) and editor of the forthcoming book, BASKETBALL IN AMERICA: FROM THE PLAYGROUNDS TO JORDAN'S GAME AND BEYOND (Haworth, 2004).

2004-03-08T09:16:00.000-05:00

This article originally appeared at the History News Network: http://hnn.us/articles/3792.html

This Election Shouldn't Be About Vietnam
By Bob Batchelor

The 2004 election is proof that Vietnam is the war that won't go away. But it should as an issue in choosing the next president.

The spotlight on Vietnam and the actions taken during the period by President George W. Bush and challenger John F. Kerry is distracting the electorate from the real problems facing the nation.

Of course Vietnam does have a place in public discourse and this is likely the reason why we are mistakenly concentrating on it this election season. In the nearly 30 years since the conflict ended, the war and frenzied era it inspired has been used as a guide by national policymakers, particularly in military strategy. As a result, concern about involvement in another Vietnam quagmire is common when the United States sends troops abroad.

Vietnam, unlike any other conflict since the Civil War, continues to haunt us. People in the United States have a powerful sense of guilt stemming from the horrors uncovered in the jungles of Southeast Asia, as well as the brutality used to squash dissent at home. These evils raised deeply troubling questions about us as Americans and human beings. Because the public has unresolved feelings about Vietnam, it stays with us and is then passed down to successive generations.

Visions of Vietnam also remain intense because the popular culture industry has built an industry based on glorifying the era. Quite frankly, Vietnam, like other watershed moments in history, sells. These mental images enable people to feel that they have a stake in the issue, especially in ensuring that the country never gets involved in another Vietnam-like war.

The dangerous aspect of voters using Vietnam to distinguish between the candidates in 2004 is that it gives them an easy way to fall back on popular culture imagery, rather than on a reasoned set of factors. For example, the box office smash "Forrest Gump" foreshadowed Kerry's actions. Voters may subconsciously equate the candidate with Forrest -- the heroic, decorated veteran who questions the war upon returning home.

Basing a vote on Vietnam gives voters yet another one-issue rationale lumped in with other polarizing issues, such as reproductive rights, gun ownership, or religion. The last thing the country needs is a voter pulling the lever in November based on fuzzy Hollywood notions of the war.

The current Vietnam firestorm leads naturally to a discussion of the consequences of pop culture's influence. Americans are increasingly defined by the plethora of pop culture, which determines who we are, how we think, and what we value.

We get our news from the Comedy Channel and personal blogs, form our political views from movies, and pay much more attention to Britney Spears or "American Idol" than reasoned political debate. Why focus on arcane economic policies when "Survivor" is on in half an hour?

Voters who don't remember (or were too young to see) the chilling footage of the war on nightly news broadcasts have clear, full color mental images of the conflict from numerous acclaimed movies, ranging from Apocalypse Now to Full Metal Jacket . Actor Sylvester Stallone may have become famous portraying boxer Rocky Balboa, but it was his Rambo character (a persecuted Vietnam veteran who fights back) that redefined the modern action hero at the box office.

It is not much of a stretch to move from these ubiquitous pop culture influences to nightly news clips of former Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis peering out from a tank turret or Bush hitching a ride with a fighter pilot to board an aircraft carrier. Movies wrap themselves in the flag, so presidential candidates follow suit.

Ninety-nine percent of the time, pop culture's dominance really doesn't matter. Obviously, people demand that their lives be filled with entertainment, sports, celebrity, and reality television. I feel we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

With millions of jobless workers unable to support their families and the gap between rich and poor growing at an alarming rate, how a presidential candidate spent his time during the Vietnam War doesn't really matter. It is a trivial concern compared with the real challenges that need to be solved by the country's next top executive.

2004-01-20T20:52:00.000-05:00

The Royal Tenenbaums as an IQ test

After watching TRT on cable the other night, my wife and I came to the conclusion that the movie is one that you can use to instantly judge a person's intelligence.

It's an easy test. At a party or upon meeting some people for the first time, movies are an inevitable topic of conversation. By bringing up TRT, you can instantly tell a great deal about the person you're speaking with. If they like or love TRT -- thumbs up. If not, then give them the old boot.

Come to think of it, this test would work great for people on dates, assessing co-workers and work colleagues, even finding out a little something about mom and dad.

This test is on par with asking a guy 30 or older if he likes architecture. Women, if the answer is "no" or he shows little interest, run (no sprint) the other way...The guy's either looking to score or is a cement head -- someone who would show up on a reality TV show or as The Bachelor or something.

Another movie that this test works for -- Unbreakable by M. Night Shyamalan, starring Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson.

Go out, test your friends and family. I'd love to share the results.

Have a great day!

Bob Batchelor
www.bobbatchelor.com

2003-12-08T11:00:00.000-05:00

This is an op-ed essay I wrote for the History News Service distribution service.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/~hns/articles/2003/120203a.html

Is Retailing's Death Star Vulnerable After All?
By Bob Batchelor
History News Service

You think that Americans' national pastime is baseball, football, or Nascar? You're wrong. It's shopping.

The United States is a country filled with passionate shoppers. Nothing is more American than finding a bargain. If you want to see an economic juggernaut in action during the holiday shopping sprint from Thanksgiving to Christmas, head over to the local Wal-Mart. The company's promise of "everyday low prices" is music to the ears of every shopper.

For better or worse, we're living in a Wal-Mart World. The company now produces an astonishing 2.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Last year, Wal-Mart sold a record $1.43 billion the day after Thanksgiving. This year the number jumped to $1.52 billion.

Yet, even with millions of people entering the doors of the world's largest company, things are not all rosy for its stores. Public outcry against the company is growing stronger.

This shopping season could be critical for Wal-Mart, given the criticisms leveled against it. The notion that Wal-Mart's aggressive expansion has destroyed small-town America is nearly universal. Recently the store has faced censure for paying its employees substandard wages and for hiring illegal aliens. Public outrage could reach a point where shoppers turn away from Wal-Mart and give their business to retailers viewed as more employee -- and consumer -- friendly.

Wal-Mart is in danger of becoming corporate America's Darth Vader, master of an all-but-impregnable Death Star to execute its strategies while ignoring the forces massing against it. Shoppers openly declare how much they hate Wal-Mart, but say they must shop there because it stretches their budgets. Notice how, in contrast, consumers rave about Target and Costco. This disparity in consumers' attitudes could be Wal-Mart's fatal defect.

Given its size and scope, Wal-Mart's ultimate demise may seem inconceivable, but the death of a bargain retailer is not unprecedented. >From the original giant retail empire founded by Frank Woolworth in Utica, N.Y., in 1879 to regional powers such as New York's E.J. Korvette and Pennsylvania's Fisher's Big Wheel, many discount retailers have been discarded into history's dustbin.

While many discounters failed because they didn't adopt technological innovation quickly enough or because they pursued ill-advised diversification projects, others disappeared as public perception shifted. Surely Woolworth executives didn't imagine that Kmart would upend the company, just as Kmart never really viewed Wal-Mart as a threat in the 1960s and 1970s. Will there be a retailer that can out-Wal-Mart Wal-Mart? History suggests that the answer is yes.

Woolworth wasn't the first merchandiser to offer cut-rate prices. Like many of the world's greatest businessmen -- think of Henry Ford's assembly line or Bill Gates's computer operating system -- Woolworth didn't invent what made him famous. He recognized the beauty of the discount concept and then built an empire.

Woolworth's work to establish bargain shopping apart from traditional retailing was revolutionary. Retailers were just beginning to understand the psychology of shopping in the late 19th century. Using dramatic displays and offering a broad selection of goods, his stores transformed simple marketplaces into edens where shoppers fulfilled their dreams. Woolworth's five-cent promise gave almost everyone buying power. By 1918, a billion people entered Woolworth's stores each year, and more than 820 million left with a purchase.

Looking back at the history of discount shopping in the United States, it's easy to visualize a line from Woolworth's to Wal-Mart. Today's discount retailers use the same methods Woolworth pioneered. They build stores in prime locations, squeeze distributors and offer low prices.

Wal-Mart has mastered its gargantuan supply chain and used its size to force vendors to cut their prices. Technological innovations have driven down overhead. Savings have then been passed on to shoppers. Wal-Mart's high-tech infrastructure is the real engine driving the company's revenues.

Public protest, however, has put Wal-Mart at a crossroads. On its present course, it can continue gobbling up the hundreds of billions of dollars shoppers spend there annually and keep expanding until a store sits on every corner. As it does so, the company will battle challengers and constantly look for threats to its throne. Traditionally, this is the way large corporations function.

But given the heavy criticism Wal-Mart faces, a better strategy would be for the company to use its power to become a corporate revolutionary, utilizing its influence to set new merchandising standards as the country continues its shift to a service economy. A simple first step would be to pay employees better, which would immediately improve the lives of 1.4 million people and their families. With such actions, Wal-Mart has the chance to change the way corporate America operates.

The economy goes as Wal-Mart goes. Will it do something visionary or risk eventual extinction as did Frank Woolworth's great innovative retail enterprise? This may be the company's only chance to offset its damaged reputation.

It's not unreasonable for the world's largest company to aspire to be its most compassionate. That might make Wal-Mart a place where people would want to work -- and love to visit again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Batchelor is the author of "The 1900s" (2002) and a writer for the History News Service.

[Bob Batchelor, 1100 Clayton Court, Novato, CA 94945. Telephone: (415) 892-4025; e-mail: bob@bobbatchelor.com]

2003-11-06T00:12:00.000-05:00

The Schooling of King James

Wow! Watching the Cleveland Cavs get beat up 93-89 by the lowly Denver Nuggets was tough. For young LeBron "King" James, however, the game could be instructive. All he needed to do was check out the whirling, blur that is Earl Boykins.

The Cavs clearly don't have an offensive plan. Either that or Coach Paul Silas can't get his players to understand that ball movement wins games in the NBA. Most of the game, James was the highest paid spectator in the house(outside of luminaries like Jay-Z, Ken Griffey Jr., and Phil Knight, all of whom showed up courtside). The hoops phenomenon was relegated to the weak side wing, watching from behind the three-point line as the action took place.

On the other bench, however, sat Earl Boykins, waiting his turn in his own homecoming (Boykins is a Cleveland native and starred at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Michigan). When he got his chance, Boykins put on a show, even though he stands only 5'5" and weighs in at about 120 lbs. soaking wet.

Boykins racheted up the offense by pushing the ball up the court and deftly pulling up for a variety of jumpers -- long threes and soft floaters off the run. While LeBron mentally checked out as his teammates threw up repeated junk, Boykins took control of the game. His secret: play smart and hit your jump shot.

There it is LeBron...the key to you fulfilling all your unlimited potential. Play smart and hit your jumper. Right now, and into the near future, you'll excel at the former and forget the latter.

Until you've had a summer or two to turn the jump shot into a lethal weapon, ala Jordan, Coach Silas needs to actively work you into the offense through posting up or giving you the space to take the ball to the hole.

Right now, everyone wants James to be the next Jordan, but it might never happen. He does not have the offensive skills to be Michael. However, there is nothing wrong with being the next Magic. Magic was a leader and won championships.

Time will tell if James can live up to the standards set by Magic or Michael. His freshman year in the NBA is going to be one long study hall and hopefully he learned something from little Professor Boykins.

2003-05-24T16:58:00.000-04:00

M. Night Shyamalan

My wife Katherine and I were eating breakfast this morning and just kind of cruising through the TV stations. One of the cable stations was replaying M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable, so we watched the last half hour or so. Watching this movie again, I was struck by how well it was filmed and the layers of storyline involved. Seeing it again (disclaimer: I've seen all or parts of it about 6 to 8 times), I realized that Shyamalan is probably never going to be fully recognized for his brilliance by today's shoot-um-up, blow-um-up audience.

On the cinematic side, the things Shyamalan did with the camera were amazing. For example, when David is choking out the home invader/murderer, he actually looks like he is flying around the room. Earlier in that scene, when David enters the room where the mother is dead, the director shoots the frame from outside the house, looking through the blowing curtains. It seems as if David appears out of thin air, like one would expect from a superhero. The camera work in the movie is superb. One look at the coloring, the angles, and the lighting reveals that Shyamalan is going places that most of his contemporaries can't touch.

There are so many great scenes of raw emotion in Unbreakable. Bruce Willis' David carries his angst on his sleeve and the emotion is palpable. Robin Wright Penn is so good as Audrey, the wife who is trying to understand why her family is disintegrating around her. She plays a physical therapist who spends her days piecing people back together, but her own family is broken -- seemingly beyond repair.

Take a look at the scene where Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark) loads the gun and threatens to shoot his father. David tries several psychological tricks on the boy before finding the one that works...the threat of permantly destroying the family unit, despite the fact that it is already crumbling around them.

It is inconceivable that the Academy Award voters could pass on the roles played by any of the main characters in this film. Willis, in particular, shows his skills as a dramatic actor. Notice the look of fear on his face when he realizes he must act when his superhero instincts kick in at the train station. Whenever he is untying the children from the radiator, his hands are shaking more than the victims. Like Tom Hanks' Forrest Gump character, I can't imagine another Hollywood star filling David's shoes in Unbreakable. It is a career-defining role for Bruce Willis.

Quite frankly, Shyamalan may simply be too intelligent a filmmaker to be fully recognized by the general public. There is an inherent war between philosophers and kings in American society. Philosophers are people, generally, who ponder emotions and the implications of events by placing them within some version of a worldview. These people are the creative types in society. On the other hand, kings are the people who make snap decisions, often based on gut feelings or instincts and see events as processes. The kings are CEOs, managers, and administrators. Kings are rewarded for making decisions.

In our society, the battle for control between the philosophers and the kings boils down to a fight over vastly different views of what it means to live justly and correctly. Not only do the two sides not understand each other, they can't even visualize how the other side lives.

I would hazard that most people who don't see the beauty of Unbreakable are in the King camp. The make a snap decision about whether or not they like the movie based solely on what they perceived they saw on the screen. Trained to conclude, then stick to it, they write off a multi-layered film like this one. Philosophers, however, sensing the nuances of the characters, the skill of the actors, and the stunning originality of Shyamalan's take on the superhero genre, revel in a move like Unbreakable.

Here's a Web site that has a lot of great Shyamalan info: http://www.shyamalan.cjb.net/

2003-05-23T15:47:00.000-04:00

Okay, you heard it here first...The Cavs should hire Michael Jordan to coach them next year. Who in the basketball world could do a better job of guiding young Mr. James, while rebuilding an ailing franchise? And, although Cleveland has a love/hate relationship with MJ (the shot -- twice), he would add instant respectability and cachet to the organization.

Dear Mr. Gund, please go out and get MJ.

2003-05-23T15:04:00.000-04:00

LeBron James

As a former Clevelander, I'm so psyched that the Cavs won the rights to LeBron James. It is a perfect scenario: James (from Akron) gets drafted by his hometown team, then leads the Cavs back to respectability. If I still lived in the Land of Cleves, I'd have already plunked down the money for a season ticket subscription.

For those hoops junkies out there, I've written an essay on LeBron James for the book I'm editing, Basketball in America: From the Playgrounds to Jordan's Game and Beyond, which will come out next year. The book examines the modern history of basketball from every angle, literally from the playgrounds to the professional circuits.

Annika

I'm so psyched that Annika Sorenstam played a great round at the Bank of America Colonial tournament on Thursday. It's a level playing field and she showed the world what she could do. Congratulations to the men's tour players who welcomed her into the tournament, particularly Tiger Woods, who made positive statements in a situation in which he didn't have to do so.

Why would anyone criticize Annika's entry into the tournament -- especially professional golfers. Pro golfers now earn about triple the amount of money they used to (pre-Tiger) because Woods has brought such a high level of excitement to the game. If Annika brings people out to the tournaments and gets butts in front of the tube, then it will benefit all the pro players.

Plus, why would a professional golfer ever complain. Unlike weekend duffers, they don't carry their bags, they have their yardage marked off for them, they don't pay for clubs, balls, etc., and they make a ton of money. Play your game and welcome all the publicity that you can get, particularly when Woods is not in the field. Every player in the field should shake Annika's hand and thank her for the added spotlights she's brought to the game.