Intolerance for Intolerance or Thought Police Taking over the University?

Higher education is supposed to be a space for free and independent thought, where your arguments are held up to the scrutiny of reason, logic and evidence, rather than the whims of public opinion. Tenure is supposed to protect professors from being punished or fired for their opinions alone. Classrooms are set up to be spaces for open discussion and debate. College newspapers and student groups have relatively free reign and controversial thinkers are often given the space to speak their minds. Yet serious attacks have occurred in recent years trying to undermine the most radical space for democratic deliberation left today.

In just the past week, a Nobel Laureate was forced to resign from his job at University College for a rather tepid sexist joke (WP), the University of Illinois was censured for firing a professor who criticized Israel in a tweet last summer (WP), tenure is in serious jeopardy in Wisconsin (WUWM) and the University of California at SF is eliminating all sugary drinks from campus (Inside Higher Ed). This comes as battles continue about whether warning labels should be included in syllabi for any material that could be considered a trigger to prior trauma for students (Guardian), whether campuses “liberal” bias is manipulating students (Inside Higher Ed) and whether “affirmative consent” should be the national standard (WP) in addressing the plague of sexual assault on college campuses. On top of this, we have students and professors pushing their campuses to disinvite any speakers whose views they find offensive.

The question that must be asked is whether this is a positive trend seeking to address the excesses of the university and intolerance among those protected by the university structure or overreach by thought police that are trying to colonize post-secondary education with the same absurd call for “objectivity” that has defiled the mainstream media. While few would question the idea behind “affirmative consent” or criticizing a professor for sexist comments in a public venue, should we really accept the policing of opinion that has become so pervasive today? In a world where political insularity is more ubiquitous than ever before, should heterodoxy really be held under such tight scrutiny, ensuring that no one is ever offended by what someone else said? Should we allow the thought police to stamp out all opinion not comporting with the university’s political leanings? And what would that mean for future generations, never taught to critically engage with ideas or have their own ideas and beliefs challenged?

What did Tim Hunt, the aforementioned Nobel Laureate, actually say that led to his forced resignation? “Three things happen when they are in the lab. … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.” Tasteless? Sure. Not terribly funny? Okay. But worthy of immediate dismissal without even a hearing? Couldn’t he just make a public apology and take the heat? And what of the elimination of tenure, a popular conservative idea that far too many moderate liberals have rallied behind, under the faulty assumption that teachers, and now professors, have too much power? What of students and faculty forcing universities to eschew controversial thinkers that disagree with their well cultivated and rarely challenged ideas? What of conservative students who, I now think rightfully, charge that they have no freedom to voice their opinions? Gilles Deleuze once argued that all learning begins with provocation. It is a lesson that we should heed, as provocation itself comes under almost constant attack!

To Those Who Claim We Live in a Post-Racial Society ...

Simple question, would we expect a teacher like this to treat black students the same as whites? Would we expect her to teach her students to be sensitive to racial difference? While probably not a bad person, this is the sort of "not so soft" bigotry that unfortunately is rampant in schools today, though rarely expressed in public. 

Greatest Upset in NBA Final History Brewing?

Cleveland stand two games away from the crowning achievement of LeBron’s career and an end to the city’s 51-year title drought. And they can take inspiration from the fact that the winner of Game 3 in an NBA Finals series tied at 1-1 has gone on to win that series 84% of the time (according to Elias Sports Bureau). They might also consider some of the heartbreak the city has felt over the past half century, including the move (to Baltimore), the fumble (by Byner), the catch (by Mays), the drive (by Denver), the decision (by Lebron), the shot (by Jordan in 89 and 93), the blown save (by Jose Mesa in the 9th inning of Game 7 of the 1997 WS up 2-1) and a whole cavalcade of others. Looking specifically at LeBron, he couldn’t even win a game the first time he took Cleveland to the Finals way back in 2007 and only went two for four in Finals with the Miami Heat “tepid” dynasty. This year, with three Cavs starters done for the year, playing a team that had the best offense AND best defense most of the season along with the league MVP (and arguably one of the best shooters in NBA history, if he keeps this pace up), are somehow 2-1 up, and a floating jumper away from a chance at the sweep. If Cleveland are able to win two of the final four games of this series, which is a big if, is it the greatest upset in the history of the sport?

This is, of course, a purely subjective debate. We can look at statistics, which tend to show underdogs rarely winning in the NBA Finals (see an interesting analysis here by Nate Silver: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lebrons-greatest-challenge-the-nba-finals-arent-kind-to-underdogs/). In fact, while even the favorite skewed NFL can look at things like the Giants beating the undefeated Patriots, the Namath-led Jets beating the Colts or Denver beating Green Bay as 11-point underdogs (among a host of others), it is not that easy to think of many startling upsets in the entire history of the NBA.

Among the greatest upsets we need only look to five years ago when the Dallas Mavericks somehow beat the stacked Miami Heat, even after falling behind 2-1. That victory was ironically redemptive to many who turned against LeBron after he decided to announce his dreaded departure from Cleveland on live television; to join a dynasty-in-the-making. But there are others to consider. The Detroit team that took out the Lakers in 2004, The St. Louis Hawks being the only team to beat Russell’s Celtic in the Finals (out of 12 trips in total). The Heat returning the favor in advance against the multitalented Mavericks in 2006. A few others include an aging Houston team sweeping the Orlando Magic in 1995, an upstart Portland beating the venerated Sixers (with Dr. J.) in 1977 and an aging Celtics beating the Lakers 4-3 in 1969, among some smaller ones back in the early history of the sport.

So assuming that fourth quarter explosion from the Warriors on Tuesday night is not to become the “new normal” of this season, restoring order and leading them to victory, where would this win rank among the all-time upsets in the league? I think it might deserve to be Number 1!

The Surveillance State Meets the Police

"Lynching Obama" Tweet Justification

Fundamentalism is one of the greatest threats to democracy, undermining one of the most important aspects of popular sovereignty – the ability to dialogue and debate the key issues of our time. Today we find far too many on the right and, to a lesser extent, left who have completely insolated themselves from anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. There have always been ideologues tone deaf to any idea that challenges their central tenets but it appears the proportion of the populace currently suffering from this ailment has dramatically increased in recent years.

One recent example exemplifies the problem quite well. A man posted a photoshopped image of President Obama with a noose around his neck, his eyes shut and his neck apparently broken. This elicited a visit from the Secret Service, him being fired from his job and a huge negative backlash from the twittersphere. His reaction? He told MPR News, in a recent email response, “My only regret is being called racist when my opinion of the president has more to do with [Obama] being a communist as opposed to being black.” (NPR) Few want to be labeled racist these days, even when they clearly are, but he indirectly seems to be arguing that it is okay to lynch Communists. And what, exactly, about Obama can even be labeled Communist?

Plato wrote of the Big Lie, as a way to control the unruly masses (in their interest, it should be noted), and many on the Left referenced Leo Strauss as an advocate of the strategy when the Bush administration was in power. It was most obviously used by the Nazis in their rise to power, but has been employed by governments throughout history. Yet the new “Big Lies” are coming from right wing blogs and Fox News and far too many uncritically accept these claims and then boil into a frenzy to destroy these perceived demons of the left. Similar trends exist on the left, though in a more muted form and without the racist undertones. In either cases, the new political insularity is a threat as great as the rampant cynicism of the young and one that we must struggle to eradicate if we are to save ourselves from becoming a true Plutocracy in the near future. We don’t need to lynch the metaphoric lynchers as much as remove the noose from a public sphere that stirs up such absurdly retrograde ideas.

Sports as Narrative: The NeverEnding Story

The crack of a bat smacking at a hanging curve, the swoosh of a three dropping out of the air like a diving pelican, the thump of a passing shot nipping the outside of the line, the wonder of a running backs cutting back against the grain, the aerial wonderment of an acrobatic backflip – these are but a few of the sublime moment sports so often offer us. The trials and tribulations, the vanquisher and vanquished, the struggle again the heartless passing of time, mind crushing the limitations of the body, the underdog overcoming the long odds, the favorite crushing the hope of the upstart – all of these define the spiritual journey of the sportsman and woman. For every elated fan there is another jumping up and down in fury at a missed call, a missed shot or a punch that failed to land its target. For every winner there is, of course, a loser. For every deep smile a deeper frown, tears of joy washed aside by tears of sorrow only to prepare for the next chance at glory or vexation. And within it all lies the true glory of sport, the ability to elevate the mundane to the triumphant, to win and lose alongside strangers we call our own and to become so immersed in the narrative we forget our own troubles, if only for an hour or three.

Sports at its heart is really a story without end that passes from one chapter to the next without clear lines of demarcation or plot structure. Just looking at the past weekend, we see so many narratives merge into one of the best sports weekends in history. Juve drew even with the clearly superior Barcelona in the second half of the Champions League final against the run of play, only to lose 3-1 and give one of the all time greats, Xavi, a rare treble to complete his illustrious career. Serena Williams is cruising to her 20th grand slam title in Paris, only four behind the all-time leader Margaret Court, when Lucie Safarova (who?) goes on a run and builds a two-nil lead in the third set. But Williams won’t be denied and wins her 20th final in 24 attempts. A little later on Saturday the long wait for a Triple Crown winner that stretched back to 1978 finally comes to an end in anti-climactic fashion as American Pharoah (sic) wins the Belmont Stakes by five and a half lengths. Tampa Bay faced a 2-0 deficit in the NHL Finals, blowing leads of 2-1 and 3-2, but score on a third period power play and hold on to win with a substitute goalkeeping rookie, leveling the Stanley Cup Finals at one apiece. On Sunday morning, Djokovic goes into the French Open final as a huge favorite to become only the eighth man ever to win the “career slam,” having already beaten the red clay master Nadal and Big Four compatriot Andy Murray in the last two rounds. He wins the first set and the coronation is set, except Stan Wawrinka, that other guy from Switzerland who has won only one Slam (and only as the result of an injury to Nadal in the final) and who has lost 17 of his previous 20 to Djokovic, forgot to read the script and suddenly starts hitting winner after winner on the road to upsetting the world’s #1 in four sets. After the match, the Paris crowd gives the loser, now 0 for 11 in his quest to win a French Open, an seemingly endless standing ovation that leaves him in tears. And then Cleveland, minus two of their three stars, tries to hold off a Golden State team that led the league in both offense and defense throughout the season, three days after LeBron almost single-handedly beat them but for a missed last second shot and a poor Cavs OT. They hold MVP Steph Curry to 3 for 10 and 10 points with less than six to play and build an 11-point lead, see that lead cut to five in about 30 seconds, then miss a last second shot from the best player in the league for a second time in two games (this time missing a contested layup). They are ahead in OT, fall behind and watch the MVP throw up an air ball for a chance at the lead before LeBron misses a free throw and then win 95-93 anyway. Only two days in 365, with three grand slams, three majors in golf, the World Series, the rest of the NBA Finals, the NFL regular season, the College Football regular season, the women’s World Cup, the Tour de France and a host of other events to come.

Statistics have become one of the biggest narrative tools leading the world of sports today, with advanced metrics defining players in ways the average fan struggles to even understand and statistical geniuses like Nate Silver using their abilities to quantify the world of sports and entertainment the way great writers of the past from Nabokov, Wallace, Irving and Delillo to Mailer and Plimpton qualified it. But as Cleveland and Wawrinka demonstrated Sunday, all the statistics in the world cannot decide a game or match before it is played. Sometimes the greats flounder, sometimes a player or team rises above expectations, sometimes a ball curls around the cylinder before falling woefully out and sometimes the MVP throws up an air ball like a kid on the back lot dreaming of that chance. Statistics have long been at the epicenter of baseball, a sport so obsessed with numbers that hours can be cast away debating their significance in a bar with the same furor of a politician pounding against the tides of change. Yet statistics can only tell us about the past; they do not perfectly predict or define the future. They allow us to compare players and teams from one era to the next and to predict the likely winner of a match or series or at bat. What they can’t do is take into account the will to win and the ways sports so often test not only the limits of our bodies but the composition of our souls.

At the deeper level, the narratives revolve around the indomitable human spirit, rising above the quotidian world and finding a sublime moment in the surrounding sea of mediocrity. The inchoate star looking for their breakthrough, the perennial choker finally overcoming their demons, the aging star looking to rediscover past glory. So many stories build around a narrative from Phil Mickelson surprising the world with a breathtaking final round to win the British Open less than a year after yet another U.S. Open heartbreak, Andre Agassi going from an enfant terrible to a beloved veteran, the Patriots needing a last second interception to finally give Tom Brady his fourth NFL ring, Jack Nicklaus giving us an unforgettable final Masters in 1986 while Tiger Woods struggles through an 85 on the shrinking road to the goal that seemed firmly in his grasp a few short years ago. There are those rare moments of perfection as with Arsenal in 2003-04, the Dolphins in 1976, Nadia Comaneci at the 1972 Olympics or Torvill and Dean in 1984. There are the dynasties of an era like the Yankees, Celtics or Lakers, teams that go from title winners to playoff bystanders like the LA Kings, players recovering from cancer to again reach the acme of their sports (in some cases to become disgraced years later like Lance Armstrong), legacies at stake (ala LeBron) and the stories so compelling an entire country, or even globe, follows along with bated breath. America love the Cinderella story, Brazil and Spain playing with style, Italians winning at any cost, the English mettle and physicality, Russia and Germany the precision of near perfection. The quintessential American moment was the upset of the greatest hockey team in history at the 1980 Olympics, for Brazil, Italy, Spain and Germany arguably their World Cup victories, for England the 66 win may be their greatest moment but Bradley Wiggins finally winning a Tour de France stands close alongside their impressive Summer Olympics of 2012 and Russia that same hockey team going on to again dominate world hockey for eight years, or so many other moments of Olympic glory against their Cold War rivals. Within a single playoffs, a single series, a single game or even a single pitch, so much can be written in, so many subplots coalescing into a story that can be told with infinite variation.

Stories have always defined civilization, providing an account of what a culture sees as right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, just and unjust, true and false, sublime and sacrosanct. It gives us an indicator of our value, beliefs and deeply held shibboleths and a vision of the past that can guide us toward a better future. With sports the stakes might be lower, but they feel just as powerful to not only the players on the field but those of us cheering on from the stands, the pub or our living rooms. Let the next story begin …

The "American" Diet

Cleveland’s DOA Title Bid: LeBron Comes Up a Shot Short but What of His Legacy?

The pressure is off LeBron James. He will not win the NBA Finals now that Kyrie Irving pulled up limp with a cracked knee cap and is out for the remaining games of this Final. Add this comes on top of the loss of Kevin Love, on what I believe was rightfully called a bush league play by Celtic Kelly Olynyk in Game 4 of a sweap, and you have a team missing two of its three stars. The supporting cast just isn’t up to beating by far the best team in the league all year. But a lot of “what ifs” will be left on the table when the obituary is written on this Cleveland season:

What if Kevin Love was still available …
What if J.R. Smith made a few more shots in Game 1 (he went 3-13) …
What if LeBron made his jumper at the buzzer (or the shot before) …
What if Irving then avoided the OT injury (because there wouldn’t have been an OT) …
What if a faithful Cleveland denizen kidnapped Steph Curry before the game (or Klay Thompson for that matter)?

Barring a miracle that would catapult James to the pantheon of greatest individual performances in NBA Finals history, LeBron will soon be 2 and 4 in NBA Finals and, while two of those will comprise the bruised Cavs of this year and the undermanned 2007 team, it is hard to ignore those four losses. Jordan went 6 for 6, Magic 5 for 9, Kobe 5 for 7, Duncan 5 for 6, Shaq 4 for 6, the often underrated Kareem 6 for 10 and Russell an incredible 11 for 12 (in a different era with less teams and less talent overall). LeBron will soon be tied with Wilt at 2 for 6 in the Finals and plenty of the 32 players who have competed in 6 or more Finals have better records. Poor Jerry West comes out worse, of course, with only one title in nine attempts (he once won a Finals MVP in a losing effort), but serious questions should be asked of LeBron and any attempt to label him the greatest ever. He will still have a few more chances over the coming years, but it seems – at least on paper – that Jordan might now be out of reach to all but the most diehard of fans. It’s too bad, really, as it was a great all-around performance. But at the key moment, he failed.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that LeBron is the most clutch playoff player of his era, and one of the best in history. He has three game-winning shots at the buzzer in the postseason, which ties Jordan for his entire career (and four go-ahead shots in the final seconds of a playoff game; more than any player over the past 15 years). After missing the shot last night, he is now 6 of 11 on possible go-ahead shots in the last five seconds of the fourth quarter (Jordan was 5-11). Going back out to the final 24 seconds: LeBron is now 8-20 on potential game-tying or game winning shots in the last 24 seconds of the fourth quarter or OT in the playoffs. I don’t have the stats for Jordan, but Kobe was 7-28 under the same circumstances. If we expand out to the final minute of the 4Q/OT, LeBron is 13 of 28 vs. Kobe’s 10 of 37. Though I couldn’t find data since 2012, he was also the most “clutch” shooter overall in the NBA, tied with Duncan shooting .460 in those situations across the regular and post season since entering the league. Comparing overall playoff stats, we find the following comparison between LeBron, Jordan and Kobe:

Games Played: Jordan 179; LeBron 173; Kobe 220
PPG: J – 33.4, L – 28.0, K – 25.6
RPG: J – 6.4, L – 8.6, K - 4.1
APG: J – 4.7, L – 6.6, K – 4.7
Shooting Pct: J – 49%, L – 48%, K - 45%
Postseason Efficiency Rating: J – 28.6, L – 27.5, K – 22.4

So the question that might still be worth asking is whether LeBron has had the supporting cast to do better than he has done so far. I believe a healthy team with Irving and Love could have given the Warriors a real fight, particularly given the fact they really should have won Game 1 without Love. The 2007 team was LeBron and a bunch of other guys few have heard from before or since. The loss in the Finals to Dallas was a fluke that seemed to pivot around losing concentration in Game 2 (they blew a 15-point lead and Wade missed a potential game-winning three at the buzzer where he appeared to be more interested in drawing a foul than in making the shot), blowing a close Game 4 (Wade missed 1 of 2 free throws with a chance to tie it at 82 with 20 seconds left), blowing a four-point lead with 5 minutes left in Game 5 and then losing an early lead in Game 6 (when Dallas switched to zone defense and went on a 21-4 run). Last year, James and the Heat seemed in good shape until the Spurs played some of the best basketball I have ever seen and crushed an aging Heat team that had no answers. This is not to excuse LeBron of his presumed fourth finals loss, but to acknowledge that both Cavs teams wouldn’t even have been there but for James and the same might be said of last season and the Heat. Jordan had Scottie Pippin, one of the greatest defenders and rebounders in NBA history and a cast of great outside shooters over his six finals and Kobe was always surrounded by an incredible array of winners and playoff masters (Horry and Derek Fisher come immediately to mind, along with that fella Shaq now making a jackass of himself on TNT for the first few).

LeBron will have to win a couple more titles to get back into the “greatest ever” conversation, given the weight winning titles has in that assessment here in the U.S., but on numbers alone (including “clutch” performances) he is already arguably at the top of the list.

Barcelona vs. Juve: The UCL Final By the Numbers

Barcelona, as heavy favorites, face the “Old Lady” Juventus tomorrow night in the Champions League final. One of the two teams will complete the rare “triple” with the triumph, which includes their domestic league, the major league cup and the European Cup (now called the Champions League). Only seven teams have achieved this rarity previously: Celtic (1967), Ajax (1972), PSV (1988), Manchester United (1999), Barcelona (2009), Inter Milan (2010) and Bayern Munich (2013). Even what many consider the greatest club team in the history of the sport, the Barcelona team led by Pep Guardiola, were only able to accomplish it once. Two Dutch teams are on the list and obviously, it has suddenly become more common with four of the last UCL Champions completing the task. An eighth team will gain the honor Saturday night and Barcelona could become the first team to accomplish the feat twice.

Some other figures to consider …

Total Goals by Messi, Neymar & Suarez this Season: 120
     Lionel Messi: 56 Games, 58 Goals, 27 Assists
     Luis Suarez: 42 Games, 24 Goals, 21 Assists
     Neymar: 50 Games, 38 Goals, 7 Assists
TEAMS that have Scored More across Europe’s Top 5 Leagues: 3
     Real Madrid (162), Bayern Munich (123), PSG (122)
Total Goals Scored by Juve this Season: 106
Number of Games Where None of the Three Scored: 6
     Celta Vigo (2x), Valencia, Real Sociedad, Malaga, Man City

Percent of UCL Goals Scored by Barcelona Front 3: 89.2%
Percent of League Goals Scored by Barcelona Front 3: 90%
Percent of Total Goals Scored by Barcelona Forwards in 2008-09: 71%
Percent in 2009-10: 72%
Percent in 2010-11: 67%
Percent in 2011-12: 69%
Percent in 2012-13: 70%
Percent last Season: 75%

Number of League Assists by Iniesta in La Liga this Season: 1
Number of UCL Assists by Iniesta this Season: 4

Number of Goals Conceded by Juve This Season in Series A: 24 in 38 games
Number of Seasons Juve Has Won Series A in a Row: 4
Total Number of Series A Titles: 31
Number of European Cup Wins: 2 (1985, 1996)
Number of times they were Runner-up: 5 (73, 83, 97, 98, 03)

Number of Goals Conceded by Barca this Season in La Liga: 21 in 38 games
Number of Seasons Barca Has Won La Liga in a Row: 1
Total Number of La Liga Titles: 23
Number of European Cup Wins: 4 (1992, 2006, 2009, 2011)
Number of times they were Runner-up: 3 (61, 86, 94)

Number of Years Since Juve Was Last in Final: 12
Number of Games Since Juve Lost in UCL: 9
Number of Wins in a Final in a Row for Barcelona: 3
Number of Players Left From 2011 Barca Win: 8

Juve Record in this Year’s UCL: 7-3-2 (6 Clean Sheets)
Barca Record in this Year’s UCL: 10-0-2 (6 Clean Sheets)
Possession per Game in this Year’s UCL: J – 55%, B – 59%
Shots per Game in this Year’s UCL: J – 11.3, B – 9.6
Goals Scored per Game in this Year’s UCL: J – 1.33, B – 2.33
Goals Conceded per Game in this Year’s UCL: J – 0.58, B – 0.83

Number of Players Who Have Scored in Three European Cup Finals: 0
Number who can accomplish this tomorrow: 1 (Messi)

Number of People Worldwide Expected to Watch Game: ~380 Million

The numbers seem to largely predict what most people believe will happen – a win for Barcelona. However, if the score remains tied at nil-nil into the second half, the chances of Juve stealing the game 1-0 increase dramatically. And the injury to Chiellini could be a blessing in disguise, as Andrea Barzagli is arguably a better reader of the game at this point and has slightly more pace than the aging Italian international star. My prediction: 2-1 Barcelona.

Hollywood's China Censors

Interesting short piece on the ways Hollywood is altering their blockbuster films to ensure they can get past the Chinese censors, as they continue to infiltrate the mainstream China market: NPR. It was bad enough when the CIA was redacting Zero Dark Thirty, but this is taking things to a whole new level. After years of portraying our political enemies in a negative light, it appears globalization has turned Hollywood from its traditional Americanized ideological commitments to commerce full stop. 

What Mad Men Can Tell Us About Contemporary Culture

Mad Men recently ended its seven-year run as one of the most rewarded and respected shows in cable television history, even as it has its many detractors (see here, here and here). There is no question that the show captured something deep in the American psyche and was a second coup for creator, director and writer Matthew Weiner (of Sopranos, for those not paying attention). The final episode certainly elicited a wave of reactions, with many disappointed by the too tight wrap-up of the many interconnected stories, while others were disappointed by the ambiguity of Don’s denouement. Rather than add yet another analysis of that episode, I thought I would consider some of the broader implications of the show’s critical and popular success:

1. Misogyny is still alive and kicking across the dial: for all the claims that more female voices are being heard and seen on television and in film, the industry is still dominated by male writers, producers and directors (to the tune of over 80 percent). And Mad Men is a show that seems particularly disturbing on the question of female empowerment. Sure it shows the struggles of working women in the 60s and 70s trying to garner success and respect, but are any of the female characters truly redeemed in the end? Trudy takes back Peter after years of betrayal and a relatively long abandonment, Joan is still a single mother who literally sold her body for success (and chose a career over a man, and probably happiness), Megan has a million dollars but at the expense of the loss of her youthful exuberance and Sally Draper is dying. Peggy does finally find love in the end, to be fair, but it felt somewhat anti-climactic and overridden by the endless procession of women used as objects by the male characters throughout the show’s run. Maybe more troubling than the way they used and abused women throughout the show is the way the women seemed to adapt to this abuse and to pile more abuse on themselves. We see this with the last love interest of Don Draper, who can’t accept his love because she continues to punish herself for abandoning her own family – with sexual shaming her preferred form of self-flagellation. And really, one could make a compelling argument that all of Don’s crimes relate back to his childhood in a whorehouse and a mother who just didn’t love him enough (or at all, to be fair). Women are the enemy and their destruction the collateral damage of men trying to find themselves and an elusive contentment with the American Dream.

2. That transitions smoothly to my second point. Like The Sopranos, it does provide an image of a troubled man who seems to have it all – money, power, sex on the offing and a loving family off in the background – but who is rarely happy and constantly questioning all that he has accomplished. That was the central premise of The Sopranos from the start and thus offered, as did The Godfather, a metaphor for the problem of American capitalism itself. Francis Ford Coppola was overt in his attempt to draw parallels between the destruction of the Corleone family and America, based on their shared lust for power and money against the backdrop of loyalty and tradition, along with the violence that accompanies that search. With Sopranos, it is unclear if this was Weiner’s intention, but it is still clear to see, and it is even more apparent in Mad Men, where characters both living and essentially creatively selling the American dream have trouble finding real pleasure in the former (nor real satisfaction in the latter). By capturing the advertising industry in the 60s, the first few seasons of the show accentuate the battle for the soul of America and the ways the spectacle of consumer culture overtook the fading idealism of the post-War period. The problem with this critique is that it was arguably encased within a narrative that too many men, and maybe women, found so compelling the underlying critique was lost in the desire to live these shallow and unfulfilling lives themselves. One could argue, instead, that it is actually schadenfreude (pleasure in the pain of others) that really drove its loyal viewers, but a combination of the two seems more accurate.

3. While substantially more complex and lyrical than Entourage, hip hop videos or Iron Man, I thus think Mad Men ultimately fits smugly within the genre I like to call “male lifestyle porn.” It is a genre that tends to focus on overgrown boys with money, power and sex drives that would put Hugh Hefner to shame; generally combined with the ultimate importance of male friendship bonds over healthy relationships with the opposite sex. The overgrown boys tend to sleep around, use women for sex, hurt them in their search for self-actualization and never seem to truly overcome their desire to exist in a state of perpetual adolescence. Sure Don Draper has suffered in his quest to break the half century mark of conquests on the road to being loved, but isn’t the sex really his only escape from a life of misery and loneliness, only amplified when he actually grabs that love he so desires? We can also see this with Roger’s endless sexcapades, Peter’s discontent with whomever he happens to be with and the general disregard the majority of the male characters on the show have for women in general.

4. Quality, contemplative television is possible: among the spectacle-addled world of reality television, endless series, remakes, reboots and sequels, sports extravaganza and news as entertainment, Mad Men stood out as a more artistic, tempered experience, unafraid to let the camera linger, to eschew conversation and to draw out storylines across seasons. While it did sometimes play with the tricks of the post-MTV generation, which cut the average movie shot from 10 to 6 seconds, it tends to have longer takes, quiet cameras and more or less follows the Classic Hollywood rules of continuity editing. Some have criticized this aspect of the show, calling it little more than a pretty costume drama, and the mis-en-scene has been stunning throughout, with great color, sets, costumes and the like, but it appears an essential part of the world Weiner is recreating before our eyes. Sure it sometimes used history as a largely pointless backdrop to the narrative, but there was a sense that the show followed Christopher Nolan’s desire to again marry narrative and form into one cohesive whole, rather than two related parts. To a large extent, I believe it succeeded in this daunting task, creating a reality within its fictitious world that felt genuine and authentic.

5. Finally, it is worth noting all of the lines of print and online pixels spent deconstructing the show as I am doing here. Fred Jameson argued a little over 20 years ago that contemporary popular culture WAS culture in America and that history was little more than stylized visions of an idealized past unrelated to the political, economic or social tumult they entailed. Both observations seem particularly relevant to the show, which has become not only a part of our popular culture canon but part of American culture itself, an embodiment of a country that seems more enticed by the fictitious world of others than their own lives. Our obsession with celebrity, with popular culture marginalia with the psychology of characters within fictional worlds all seem to indicate a general malaise outside the world of the spectacle we have so fully embraced. Television changed America from its birth, abetting the Civil Rights Movement, feminist advances, the mobilization against the Vietnam War and, in a broader sense, helped define the normative in American life itself. It changed the nature of neighborhoods, the nature of leisure and, of course, the nature of politics. But the first few decades of television still saw a public that was both politically and socially active. Today, I sense it has gone further, coming to define our political and social lives in ways wholly new and arguably equally troubling. Mad Men was a great television show that challenged audiences to contemplate what the show meant and why we cared. In the process, did it challenge us to ask why we watched it at all? That would be the most worthy legacy of a show that did demonstrate how advertising and TV were overshadowing our past and redefining our future.

Mad Men fascinated me from the beginning as a show that captured a lost America, ultimately the result of the very characters the narrative follows as that slow death occurs. I thought it faltered in the middle before a strong final two seasons where it began to reconcile with its own problematic politics, even if in an unsatisfactory manner. In the end, it was a springboard for other slow moving dramatic television series, like True Detectives, and a show that will probably be written about for years. The real question we should ask ourselves, however, is if the America it showed us is really the one we want to live in and whether, if the answer is no, we can do something to change our collective future.

FA Cup Final: Arsenal 4 Aston Villa 0

The 144th version of the oldest club sports competition in the world saw Arsenal, the visitors by virtue of a lost coin toss, lineup for a chance at a second FA Cup title in a row against a hungry Aston Villa, who haven’t won a trophy since the league cup in 1996 (and an FA Cup since 1957, their 7th). There were a few surprises in the starting lineups with Walcott started through the middle for Arsenal ahead of the slumping Olivier Giroud and Szczesny kept his place as the starting goalkeeper (even as Ospina has supplanted him in the league) and Shay Given also retained his place in the starting 11 ahead of American Brad Guzan, to start another FA Cup Final 17 years after a losing effort with Newcastle against these same Gunners. The Villains set up defensively from the start, not surprisingly given their being outscored 8-0 in the two league matchups against the Gunners this season, and Arsenal took advantage, dominating possession, earning early free kicks and corners and creating a number of half chances, though nothing definitive in the first 10 minutes. Aston Villa did get forward on the counter on a few occasions, eliciting a shaky catch by Szczesny of a weak Delph shot before he settled in.

On 15 minutes, a cross from Sanchez found the head of Koscielny, who looked poised to open the scoring until a fine hand save from veteran goalkeeper Given going the other way denied him. 90 seconds later, Mertesacker just missed the far post with a quick shot after a fine move from the surprise Arsenal player of the year, Hector Bellerin. Ramsey shot over after a nice touch right on the strike of 20 minutes and on 24 minutes, Ozil sent a perfect cross from the left to Walcott a few yards out, though a block by Kieran Richardson denied what should have been the opening goal. Walcott did look lively from kickoff, continuing the strong performance that saw him net three last weekend against West Brom and leaving fans wondering if he would score in what could be his final appearance for the Gunners (his contract runs out next year). He was almost in on goal again in the 26th minute, though marginally offsides after a clever Ozil through ball. Arsenal were dominating, but the opening goal was not coming as the first half reached its halfway mark with an ultimately weak deflected shot from Ramsey almost in on goal after Walcott switched from received to provider.

Szczesny found himself in no man’s land on 32 minutes and could have cost the Gunners an early deficit but for a miscued header by the Villains, reminding of his and Koscielny’s Laurel and Hardy bit from the Carling Cup four years ago (when they lost on a late botch to Birmingham City 2-1 before the latter were relegated). Delph earned the third booking of the first half for Aston Villa on 37 minutes, after the latest in a series of hard tackles – joining Alan Hutton (33’) and Cleverly (14’), with two of the three for fouls on a lively Sanchez. On 40 minutes, Arsene Wenger saw his selection pay off as Walcott charged down the left to meet an excellent long across field pass from Coquelin pushed it forward to Monreal, who crossed it high to Sanchez. Sanchez headed it back across the goal to a charging Walcott who finished powerfully to the near post past Given with his weaker left foot. Arsenal were deservedly up 1-0 and must have wondered how it wasn’t a bigger lead. Walcott almost scored a second three minutes later on a nice one-two with Ramsey, before a late intervention forced a corner. Ozil was rampant as the first 45 minutes elapsed, earning a 6th corner for the Gunners (against none for the Villains) in extra time.

As the halftime whistle blew, two records stood 45 minutes away from being realized – a sixth FA Cup for Wenger tying George Ramsey (who did it from 1887 to 1920 with, ironically, Aston Villa) for the most by a manager, and a 12th Cup for Arsenal, breaking their tie with Manchester United for most by a club. Arsenal led with 62 percent of the first half possession, eight shots to one (with 4 to 0 on target), and five fouls to Aston Villa’s 11. They were also playing excellent defensively, denying any space or chances to the home team. Yet as any fan knows, the Gunners can suffer both losses of concentration and defensive lapses and a second goal seemed necessary to calm any wavering nerves.

The second half began as the first half ended, with the Gunners in the ascendancy. On 50 minutes, Alexis Sanchez continued his hot streak at Wembley cutting back across two defenders before hitting a thumping shot from 30 yards out, blasting it with late swerve past Givens and into the roof of the net for that second goal. N’Zogbia came off for Agbonlahor three minutes later right before Arsenal earned a seventh corner. The Villains got forward, but a blooping shot was easily caught by Szczesny after he missed out on a ball in the box a moment earlier. Arsenal put it back in the net on 56 minutes, but Walcott was offsides before the rebound from an excellent save by Given was headed in. Another excellent save from Given at the near post stopped a sure Cazorla goal a minute later as Arsenal ramped up the pressure on the Villa goal. Walcott was again denied on 61 minutes, after an Arsenal counter saw him almost free on goal and earned their eighth corner a minute later. And that corner would see Aston Villa’s chances of a comeback all but collapse, as Mertesacker met the Cazorla corner with a free header that went off his shoulder and into the far corner to make it 3-0.

Aston Villa did earn a free kick in a dangerous position on 64 minutes, but Szczesny collected the header right in front of Benteke, guilty on the third goal as he left Mertesacker free behind him. The Villa fans, including Prince William, seemed shattered as the camera panned across them, even as the players still pushed forward for a first goal against the Gunners in three games this season. Ozil could have earned a penalty on 67 minutes, as he was pushed inside the box, but it would have been a soft call. On 71 minutes, Columbian Carlos Sanchez came on for Ashley Westwood and four minutes later Ramsey sent a spectacular lofted through pass to Walcott, who should have scored one-on-one with Given, but hit it high and wide. That was his last contribution as Giroud came on for him and Wilshere for Ozil (77’). Villa’s race seemed run and they had trouble disrupting the metronomic passing of the Gunners or doing anything on the few occasions they did get ahold of the ball.

On 80 minutes, Gabe Agbonlahor did get past the Gunner’s defense and was clearly fouled from behind by Coquelin right on the edge of the box with only Szczesny between him and a goal. The referee, John Moss, didn’t call a penalty, or even a foul, though it appeared even a successful conversion of the former would have done little to change the outcome. Agbonlahor was in the book within two minutes, clearly aggrieved to be denied his penalty claim. Arsenal were comfortable with their three goal lead, passing around and taking free kicks short instead of pushing for a fourth, but continuing to play with real vigor and purpose. A second penalty claim came on 85 minutes, as Grealish appeared to be pulled down by Bellerin trying to recover to the ball in the box. The first claim was questionable, but the second really should have been a penalty. On 89 minutes, Sanchez came off for Oxlade-Chamberlain, making his first appearance after another lengthy injury layoff. And in a final display of their dominance, it would be the “Ox” whose low cross toward the near corner would be flicked in by Giroud just as the three minutes of extra time elapsed.

Arsenal thus won the game 4-0 and, forgoing the two penalty appeals, it could have been much worse. They dominated both ends of the pitch with slick passing, fine pressing and quality finishing. Aston Villa should be proud of even being here and having stayed up after looking marginal favorites to be relegated when Tim Sherwood took over for Paul Lambert, but were thoroughly beaten today, against an opponent that has now outscored then 12-0 in the last three matches. One assumes Gerrard and Liverpool could have given the holders a stiffer test, but that might itself be a stretch given their end of season collapse. With the win, the nine-year trophy drought becomes an even more distant memory and dreams of finally adding a fourth league title to Wenger’s CV a more realistic aspiration.

It was Wenger’s ninth major piece of silverware (three league titles and the six FA Cups), along with five Community Shields. Surprisingly, he has never won a League Cup (losing two finals 2-1) and, of course, has failed to win a European title, losing the only final his team has contested to Barcelona 2-1 in 2006. Winning can be addictive though and the Gunners showed a poise they have lacked the past decade in seeing off Aston Villa today, earning their third piece of silverware in the last 12 months. With the right signings, could this be the culmination of a third act for Le Professuer? We will have to wait and see …

FIFA Today

Debate: Is LeBron the Best Playoff Player Ever?

When Kevin Love went down injured in Game 7 of the first round series against Boston, many thought the Cavaliers season was DOA, with several slotting the Chicago Bulls in to finally reach a final again post-Jordan. But something funny happened on the way to more disappointment for the city of Cleveland, LeBron’s took his game to another level, the supporting cast played their part, Chicago found a way to blow it yet again and then Atlanta’s starless team continued the trend of starless teams ultimately failing in the playoffs. In the process, LeBron continued to build on a legacy that is growing every year.

LeBron is now 102-43 (.703) in the Eastern Conference playoffs and into his fifth NBA Final in a row. He is only the ninth player ever to accomplish this feat, and all the others were part of the dominant Celtics teams of the 60s. On the other hand, LeBron is only 2 and 3 in the Finals and could make it 2 for 6 if they lose to the clearly more talented Warriors. His playoff stats are pretty impressive nonetheless, with 27.9 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 6.6 apg and 1.7 steals. He is shooting .477 from the field, .319 from behind the arc and .755 from the free throw line. After being considered a choker earlier in his career he has become quite the opposite, a player that can change the outcome of a game, a series and the championship itself. If he does lead Cleveland over Golden State, will he have moved above Jordan, having pulled off an epic upset? It is one of those unanswerably subjective sports debates that will never be settled, but why not continue the debate?

Other contenders obviously include the greatest player in the history of the sport (Michael Jordan, who went 6 for 6 in Finals), one of our most versatile (Magic Johnson, who went 5 for 9), Kobe Bryant (5 of 7) and Tim Duncan (5 of 6). One could go further back and consider some of the greats of the earlier epoch, but most will agree the increase in talent and parity since then undermines their claim to the title. It is hard to argue against Michael Jordan’s record and his individual contribution to each of those six finals. The argument for Bryant and Duncan is made more difficult by the talent that surrounded them. And Johnson, who won one as a center, lost four of nine and was also surrounded by an impressive array of talent. Moving beyond the finals is the impressive way LeBron almost single-handedly got two Cleveland teams to the Finals, while leading an aging Miami Heat to their second crown two years ago. On the other hand, he was lucky to win that year, only the beneficiary of some terrible time management by the Spurs at the end of Game 6, and was absolutely crushed, along with the rest of the Heat, last year. 

In considering the crown of best playoff player ever, how much weight should the Finals have on the title? Should we gauge the talent that surrounded each of the contenders? Should stats or wins have more weight and what about advanced stats? For now, I think Michael Jordan holds the crown and it will be difficult to dethrone him. But LeBron is clearly the player with the most potential to accomplish that daunting and unlikely task. 

EPL Season Comes to a Close with Chelsea on Top; QPR bottom

A few weeks ago, it looked like the final day of the EPL season would have a lot on the line. Instead there were only two games with any real significance – Hull City vs. Manchester United and Newcastle vs. West Ham. Hull City could stave off elimination if and only if they beat Manchester United at home AND Newcastle lost to West Ham. There was the miniscule chance that United could vault above Arsenal, if the Gunners lost at home to West Brom and United won by eight goals (or more), while the Gunners had already blown their chance to snatch second with the late season fade. And it was also, of course, the last game for Steven Gerrard with Liverpool and, on the off chance that Aston Villa upset Arsenal in the FA Cup next weekend, a chance for Southampton to move above Tottenham and potentially replace the North Londoners with the last Europa League place (though some might argue they should thus lose on purpose, to avoid the Thursday night schedule that often leads teams to fall down the table).

Early on, Hull City looked likely to do their part, putting major pressure on the United goal (marshaled by Victor Valdez), but failing to open the scoring after having not one but two goals disallowed in the first 30 minutes, though in both cases correctly. Unfortunately, recent history did not support the Cinderella story Hull were dreaming of, as only Wigan (twice) and West Brom (14 years ago) have moved out of the bottom three on the final weekend in recent years. Across England, Arsenal, after three straight home games without a goal, exploded for four within the first 37 minutes against West Brom, with Walcott scoring a first half hat trick and Wilshere scoring a blistering volley from 20 yards out and adding an assist. It was an impressive conclusion to their league season, though West Brom appeared to already have their heads on the beaches of some exotic island, thanking Tony Pulis for another successful effort in keeping a side up.

Stoke City were also rampant in the first half of Steven Gerrard’s last game with Liverpool, putting the Reds in a stunning 5-0 deficit – potentially fueling the fire of Sterling’s push for a transfer. Sunderland jumped ahead of Chelsea four days after staving off elimination, but the Blues equalized in what will be Didier Drogba’s last game for Chelsea in his one-year second spell. In a nod to his pivotal role in the rise of Chelsea and their cabinet-full of silverware over the past decade, the players carried him off the field after an early substitution. Tottenham were one up on the road against Everton at the half, as were Burnley against Aston Villa. In a game most thought would have huge relegation implications, now safe Leicester City were 2-0 against already relegated QPR. And Man City’s strong late finish to the season continued with a 1-0 lead over Southampton at the Etihad.

It had to be a disappointing afternoon for Gerrard and Brendan Rodgers, watching their beloved Liverpool season fizzle out in rather fantastical fashion, while Mark Hughes sat smugly on the other bench knowing he had reestablished his dented credentials as a quality EPL manager. Some will be raising the volume on their critique of Rodgers, whose own credentials have taken a serious hit this year, though one could make the salient and compelling argument that it is Liverpool’s financial position that most contributed to them dropping three positions (and 50 goals scored) from last season’s heartbreaking title challenge falter. Gerrard looked dejected and can add the sour taste of a loss in his final game to “the slip,” the “38-second red” and the FA Cup semifinal loss to Aston Villa – all in the last 13 months of his stellar Liverpool career. Phil Neville wondered this week in The Daily Mail if the Reds were headed toward “small” club status, and on the rather uninspiring evidence of this contest, the answer might be a resounding yes.

Hull almost scored within four minutes of the second half restart, when Daley sent it over from eight yards out. Then, on 52 minutes, Newcastle’s Sissoko scored the most important goal of a goal-happy Sunday, giving Newcastle a 1-0 lead over West Ham – who might themselves already be thinking of the beach, particularly as some of them spent part of the past week there, after Big Sam gave them 5 days off. Leicester exploded for two more goals themselves, leading hapless QPR 4-0 before 60 minutes had passed, while West Brom pulled one back against the Gunners, as McCauley scored a header from a corner that should have been beaten out by Ospina (who will probably be following the transfer news for the Gunners this summer, with Cech rumours rampant at the moment). Meanwhile, Crystal Palace took a 1-0 lead over Swansea in the 57th minute, from a goal by Arsenal reject Marouane Chamakh, continuing their impressive second half record under ex-star Pardew. On 72 minutes, Hull almost scored again, though Valdez dove to his right to save well from Jelavic close in, after a fine cross.

At the same time, Steven Gerrard scored a goal in his final English game, though only to make it 5-1, a few minutes before Fellaini earned a straight red card on 77 minutes for a brutal tackle on Paul McShane. Chelsea pulled ahead in their final game of the season, as Lois Remy continued his impressive record of scoring in the limited time he has been on the pitch this year. Wilshere just missed out on a brace in the final ten minutes, hitting the post on a deflected shot inside the box, before Ramsey lost out on a goal himself the same way (though from a more acute angle) before missing a good chance to finish a lovely pass from Sanchez. West Ham started challenging the Newcastle goal with increased pressure as a mere 10 minutes remained in their season, before Jonas Guttierez ended any hope for Hull City by scoring a second on 85 minutes, his first goal in two years. In Northern England, Stoke added insult to injury, scoring a sixth in what was an abject performance from a Liverpool team that were the hottest in the league heading into their showdown with United back in March. Another player completing his Premier League career went out with a goal, as Frank Lampard scored the opener of what became a 2-0 City win over Southampton (with Aguero adding his league-leading 26th goal of the season in the 88th minute). Hull City were unable to claw out a goal in a valiant performance, though a win would have ultimately left them with the same fate after Newcastle completed their 2-0 victory.

At the end of the day, Arsenal beat West Brom 4-1, Chelsea finished off Sunderland 3-1 (with Petr Cech concluding his Chelsea career with a win and another league title celebration), Burnley completing their stay in the EPL with a consolation 1-0 victory over Aston Villa, Crystal Palace beat Swansea 1-0, Tottenham won 1-0 at a disappointed Everton, Leicester completed an impressive end to their season with a 5-1 victory over the QPR flops, Man City won 2-0 over the Saints, Stoke finished off Liverpool 6-1 and Hull City and United, of course, finished in the only draw of the day. Soon after Newcastle’s victory, Sam Allardyce’s fate was made official, as he will not be back at West Ham.

And so another Premier League season came to a close, with Chelsea as champions, and League Cup winners, Man City in second, Arsenal in third and United completing the top four. Liverpool are back in the Europa league, most likely alongside both Tottenham and Southampton (arguably the surprise of the season). QPR, Burley and Hull City are all going down to the Championship, while Sunderland, Newcastle, Leicester City and Aston Villa have at least one more year of the financial windfall that playing in the EPL offers. The only thing left to decide is the FA Cup next weekend, with Aston Villa and ex-Tottenham manager Tim Sherwood dreaming of a Gunner scalp, while Arsenal attempt to finish a second season running with silverware. Until next season, adieu, adieu, adieu, to Mou, and Hull and you …

Europe Militarize Against Immigration (More Sanguine on Gay Marriage)

In an escalation over the continued influx of immigrants into European countries, the European Union decided Monday to militarize their efforts in the Mediterranean Sea (WP). This year, over 1,800 immigrants have already been killed in the burgeoning crisis surrounding smuggler vessels crossing the sea with immigrants from Africa and the Middle East (along with those coming in from Eastern Europe, the Balkans and other poorer countries across the three continents). It is the latest parry in the attempt to stem the tide of foreigners entering the countries; clearly the result of both globalization and the failure of neoliberal policies over the past 25 years to “lift all boats” (metaphor intended).

The dramatic acceleration in global commerce and exchange has had many positive impacts across the globe, in the arts, in science, in medicine and, in a more limited way, in democracy. One of the biggest promises of neoliberal ideology, however, that global trade and free markets would improve the economic situation of more and more people across the globe has failed to materialize. After years of promises, going back as far as the 70s (or even 50s, if we look at Modernisation Theory and its promise that investment in education would create a thriving middle class across the globe), many countries have started to reject these calls to open their markets completely to foreign trade and commerce. Argentina is just one example, but we can also find similar trends in four countries that have grown rapidly over the past 30 years – South Korea, India, Brazil and China. In fact we can add Russia to the list (rounding out the BRIC countries), showing how maintaining some barriers to imports, strategic investment by the government and the cultivation of local comparative advantages can help a country to go more rapidly and move from underdeveloped to developing or even developed (as in the case of South Korea).

There are still people leaving those countries for opportunities abroad, but not on the scale of the countries who have suffered the most from the policies of market liberation and government retrenchment. We have experienced the result in the United States since the 1800s, with immigrants coming to America for a chance at a better life, but it is a more recent trend across much of Europe (England has dealt with huge immigrant populations from its Pax Brittania days). More and more of the people in the Global South have simply decided to pack their bags and move to the richer countries, knowing they can have a better life there.

This has put a huge strain on Europe for at least four related reasons: 1. In countries like Germany, immigrants are eligible for social services from the moment they arrive, 2. Economic strains in increased competition for jobs, 3. The cultural challenges it provides to the more homogenous populations of European countries, and 4. The challenges to education that emerge as a result of that increased cultural diversity. The responses have varied from country to country, but it is clear that the problem is only growing more dire as time goes on. We have seen conservative and ultra-nationalist political parties gain seats in parliaments across Europe, a push toward a more conservative leadership (neoliberal or even neoconservative), efforts to curb the expression of culture in schools and in public, violence against ethnic and religious minorities and now the push to militarize the efforts to stop immigrants from arriving at their borders. It is the uglier face of globalization and a problem that will only amplify until inequality within and across countries is truly addressed.

On the more positive side, Ireland looks set to become the first country in Europe to democratically ratify gay marriage. Citizens of the once religiously conservative country, where homosexuality was illegal until 1993 and divorce until 1997, could provide further proof that one form of diversity is becoming more widely accepted across the Western world. Ireland would not be the only country in Europe with marriage equality, of course. It came to the Netherlands, in 2001, Belgium, in 2003, Spain and Portugal, in 2005; Norway, Sweden, and Iceland, in 2010; Denmark, in 2012; France, in 2013; and it goes into effect in Finland in 2017. Since 2013, it has been legal in most of the United Kingdom, though not in Northern Ireland. And so one of the greatest challenges across the globe today continues – how people with different cultural values and beliefs can find ways to exist in the same place without resorting to violence and hatred.

The Thin Redline: Truth in Retreat

The line between truth and fiction has been blurring into a murkier and murkier swamp for many years now. It is one of the central tenets of a postmodern world – once the foundations of truth claims are laid bare and we recognize the inherent flaws in language, reality becomes but an illusion, a construct that is in constant flux. Floating signifiers fill our lives, changing form and meaning from one news cycle to the next as the world begins looking more and more like the one represented in The Matrix. And caught in the middle is the majority of the population, unsure what to believe. Rather than living in a state of constant confusion, however, many than turn to “faith” that their position is right. While the words of Ludwig Feuerbach were aimed at religion, they seem particularly pertinent here:

“But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence . . . truth is considered profane, and only illusion is sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.” (Preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity (1841))

As I have mentioned on this blog before, recent research has shown that conservatives only strengthen their resolve (and political positions) when provided with evidence that undermines those positions and arguments. And I would be apt to believe that many liberals think exactly the same these days. To conservatives, nothing Obama says or does can possibly have any virtue, and the same can be said of the last several years of the Bush Administration (though I think the liberals have a point in this regard). In a broader sense, the advent of new technologies that were supposed to open the world up to people are often used as a filter, to ensure that no opinions, arguments or scientific facts that disagree with you reach your eyes or ears. Many, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, actually think this is a good thing, allowing us to sift through the news and find only that which interests us. But that same convenience also undermines the central tenets of democracy, which demand a public that critically engages with issues, that remains informed and that is willing to debate their own opinions with those that disagree with them (Bill Maher). Is it really surprising that political insularity is at its highest point in decades…or maybe ever…given our inability to listen and talk to one another today?

To get back to Feuerbach, how is his argument about religion and a society “which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence,” relevant to contemporary American society, 174 years after the book was published? I think it actually perfectly captures the collective conscious of our nation in the contemporary, confused epoch we inhabit. Going through the arguments one by one: 1. The Sign to the Thing Signified: we live in a world of signs, constructed and reproduced for maximum effect (usually to sell something, whether it be a product or a lifestyle), creating the spectacle society that Debord so aptly described (You Tube Video). It no longer matters if the deeper significance matters, all that matters is that we have said that it matters. 2. The Copy to the Original: we don’t actually experience the news as raw sensory data, but always through some mediation (e.g., a news outlet, a tell all book, made for TV movie, news documentary or fictional adaptation). Just looking at the Super Bowl as an example – we first have two weeks of hype where the game is broken down from every possible angle, every player given a profile in multiple sources, short documentaries compiled and the place of this game in the larger history of the sport debated. The day of the game there is the pre-pre show, the pre-show, the halftime show and the endless postscripts on the game, all surrounded by the color commentary throughout the game. All of this tells us what to think before we ever have the chance to decide for ourselves, before the entire event is repackaged and presented to us as a more accurate copy than even the original itself. Beyond this, we have the endless recycling of our favorite stories, in sequels, prequels, reboots and adaptations (notice how many of the top films this year fit one of those four categories: Box Office Mojo, and then go back over the past several years). 

3. Representation to Reality: in the contemporary epoch, representation has replaced reality as the key conceptual framework from which our subjectivity sprouts and flourishes (or flounders, depending on your perspective). Everything is a representation of something else, a signifier to attach meaning to and then debate endlessly, before moving on to the next topic a day later. Mad Men is not a TV show, it is the very embodiment of what a TV show can and cannot do, a statement on our collective discontent, a historical recapturing of the moment advertising became the lingua franca of America and an “event” in the Badiou sense of the world. Elections are not attempts by the people to enact democracy, they are horse races between candidates whose images often trump their platforms and whose victory or loss symbolizes a dramatic shift in the political landscape (until the next election when that dramatic shift happens all over again in a different direction). And reality itself is merely the representation of some ideological position, untied to that which it represented to begin with (reinforcing Manet’s three paradoxes of art – the mutual exclusivity of reality and representation, design and representation and abstraction and reality). 4. Appearance to Essence: has anything more apt ever been written about American culture in the 21st century? It is true that Feuerbach knew nothing of our world, but this phrase seems to capture everything that is arguably wrong with our consumer driven world today. It doesn’t matter if Kim Kardasian is a greedy fool with little to offer the world, her appearance apparently captured some deep longing in the American public and we should thus follow every idiotic thing she says or does, along with all the other venal and untalented celebrities who bought or slept their way (on video) into our hearts. It doesn’t matter if Hollywood, Disney, McDonald’s or a host of other huge corporations are destroying the lives of our children, they make really cool looking stuff. The Super Bowl may be the biggest game in the world, but it is really just an excuse for us to watch “good commercials” with a few annoying athletes in tights occasionally interrupting the fun. The Oscars might be a chance to celebrate the film industry and its “best,” but somewhere along the line just became the most watched fashion show in the world each year. Every holiday moved from a time for loved ones to spend together and reaffirm their connection to an excuse to buy, buy, buy and hope you don’t get killed in the stampede to get that 10 percent off Chia Pet at the local Wal*Mart.

The end of the quote arguably offers the most important point: “truth is considered profane, and only illusion is sacred.” Isn’t this the essence of the world we live in today? Truth is simply a lie told by someone else to confuse us and challenge our own long held, monolithic beliefs. A few examples from just the past few days should demonstrate the point. The first is yet another Republican Presidential candidate ignoring science to feed their constituents hunger for illusion, in this case Jeb Bush. The third Bush to run did admit that global warming is happening, but then claimed that scientific research does not clearly show how much of the change is due to humans and how much is from natural causes. The second comes from the world of entertainment, where it was recently divulged that actress Rebel Wilson, of Pitch Perfect fame, is actually 35 not 29. This apparently caused an uproar across cyberspace, where critics pretended that most of our celebrity culture is not based on constructed personalities and narratives. God forbid a woman lie about her age! Third is the continued rankling that goes on around sexual assault on college campuses, most recently the result of some lazy reporting by a Rolling Stone writer but an ongoing issue among our male-dominated mainstream media for as long as it has existed. The statistical evidence is relatively clear, reinforced by a study by Brown, that more than one in five women face sexual assault while attending college (almost 1 in 5 if we use their rather limited definition). Debate continues as if the issue is overblown, when we probably don’t even know its scale, given the reluctance of many to report incidents lest they suffer the wrath or indifference of their administration. Rather than look for solutions, we thus continue to debate the validity of a mountain of data – which, or course, is also true of climate change. Finally, Rand Paul ended a marathon filibuster purportedly trying to block the Patriot Act reauthorization of spying that actually appeared to be little more than political grandstanding. After 10-hours at the pulpit, he conveniently left the floor just in time to ensure that the vote and Senate business would go on undeterred by his delay the following day. This is just the latest political act in an election season that should see an endless array of them, reminding us that politics is more about image and illusion than substantive attempts to represent the will of the people, or their interests.

The old line “ignorance is bliss” might seem appropriate in explaining this phenomenon, but I think it runs deeper than that. It is not ignorance per se, just ignorance to ideas that inconveniently contest your own. It is willful ignorance to the advances in truth seeking that have been made over the past three centuries or so; a return to the preliterate age, where faith and mythology reigned supreme as the only way to make sense of a wondrous universe. Now we have the tools to make more sense of that universe, but are largely unwilling to use them unless they confirm what we already believe. Truth lies quivering in the corner waiting for the next confederacy of dunces to come along and beat it to a pulp. And even if it doesn’t exist in absolute, universal terms, the struggle to let it out of that corner appears like a worthy endeavor.