And now for something completely different

Those of us, perhaps mainly guys, of a certain era will fondly remember the Hardy Boys mysteries and the Tom Swift sci-fi adventure series. And maybe we’ll remember the word game call Tom Swifty or Tom Swifties. The word game used the heavy use of adverbs modifying dialogue, incorporating puns and humor. In the Wikipedia entry on the Tom Swift books, an example is: ‘“I lost my crutches,’ said Tom lamely."

Today we have new Swifties, followers of arguably the most famous pop artist of our day, Taylor Swift. Now, as some of you know, I have lamented the cult of celebrity for emphasizing values and behavior of which I disapproved. But for Taylor Swift, I have made an exception. It’s not that I find her music great. I enjoy some of her songs and some snippets of her Eras tour. Whether it’s real or imagined (after all, perception is reality), Swift presents as kind, generous, down-to-earth, feminist and misogynist hater; she’s not only talented but she’s a hard worker. She is, truly, the girl next door. She lived life bathed in the spotlight beam of an A-plus-list celebrity.

Then, a little more than a year ago, the world learned she is dating an NFL star, Kansas City Chief’s tight end, Travis Kelce, who was really unknown outside of football circles. Then the scrutiny of both celebrities was not only in the hottest of spotlights but it was also under the public relations equivalent of an electron microscope. Everything and anything was fair game for the pop culture media; and, then the phenomenon crossed into the mainstream media. These two 30-somethings couldn’t twitch without some speculation about their love life, relationship and careers. Will they or won’t they (fill in the blank)? Are they or aren’t they (fill in the blank)?

If Kelce didn’t make a Eras tour concert event or event, speculation was rife that there was, as so many have phrased it, “trouble in paradise.” If Swift missed a Chief’s game or Kelce event, again, was there a relationship problem. Paparazzi and other media types followed them almost everywhere they could — on dates, to parties, on vacation and even professionally related events. The lack of privacy was, in my opinion, beyond the pale. And that evasiveness extended to the Swift and Kelce families. I frankly don’t know how they stand the pressure although I do know that their wealth forms somewhat of a bulwark for them.

I also remember my mid-thirties and being in love and lust and admit to nostalgia about it. And I think that’s why I find their situation so interesting. I can’t fathom how they hold onto the strong sense of self and character under the unrelenting pressure. I wonder how they don’t push back on some of the invasive speculation about their relationship. So far, it’s clear to me that they are independent people with professional obligations. They must have a healthy respect for one another and are grounded in understanding their commitments.

I admit I am pulling for them to stay together. I know why. I don’t feel this way about other celebrity couples. Maybe this is a good thing, a bright spot during stressful and perilous times.

Victoria Advocate sells out to the radical right

Jim Graff, the senior shaman at Faith Family Church in Victoria, penned a column that The Victoria Advocate published Sept. 29 in which he asserts the following: “Read history, and you’ll find all thirteen of our original colonies required political candidates to pass a religious test before holding public office. Visit our nation’s capitol, and you’ll see scriptures engraved on federal buildings. Read our Constitution, and you’ll notice God mentioned four times.”

And while that may have been true before the United States adopted its Constitution, the Joel Osteen-related “leader” did what many, if not most, of the right-wing evangelical fake-Christian churches do: Graff left out the rest of the story to lie to people. Because when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788, the founders disavowed religious requirements to hold public office in this nation. In fact, a religious test is expressly forbidden in the United States Constitution. Article VI - Clause 3 states, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

These kinds of lies are the exact propaganda Christian nationalists spew. Katherine Stewart laid this bare in her book, “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.” And it’s what Kristin Kobes Du Mez writes about in “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Why is this important?

Well, I’ve been in an email “discussion” with the Victoria Advocate’s new Managing Editor Shawn Akers, who has rejected this blog post as an op-ed column. He rejected the submission, first, because he wrote he would never call anyone a Nazi. Then he rejected my suggestion of changing “Nazi” to “fascist.” Finally, he rejected the content because he didn’t think it was factual.

That, I thought, was an interesting irony because his introductory column to The Victoria Advocate’s readers, states, “My faith in Jesus Christ is a huge part of my life, and again, I am grateful for the opportunities He has presented me. But don’t get (me) [sic] wrong. I am uncompromising in my dedication to journalistic integrity, something that is very rarely seen these days in the media. When it comes to the news, and for the good of the community, I refuse to compromise the impartiality to everyone that I was taught in my younger years to uphold.”

In his emails to me, Akers also touted his longer stint in journalism than my 22 years. He started as a sports writer, which is real journalism. I respect those folks but also note they have a little more flexibility with their opinions and style than straight news journalists. But then he moved into working for NASCAR and then a charismatic Christian media outlet. Still, his rejection — nay, his denial — of facts, given his introductory column, mystified me.

What further mystified me was when I reached out to him as a gesture of journalistic collegiality on the Advocate’s coverage of the controversy in Bloomington over the water utilities. I suggested that the Advocate could find a Texas Attorney General’s Office ruling that nonprofits carrying out a government function on behalf of a government were subject to Texas sunshine laws. As a result, the newspaper could file a public records request because the approach by the people in Bloomington would go nowhere. The newspaper would be doing its job to report what the Bloomington utilities folks trying to hide.

Then it dawned on me. I remembered this swipe at journalism in general in that introductory column, “I am uncompromising in my dedication to journalistic integrity, something that is very rarely seen these days in the media.” That reeks of Trumpism. His response echoed that of other Trumpers with whom I have jousted.

Which brings me back to Faith Family Church, where he worships. As does Michael Cloud, the right-wing “Sedition Caucus,” a.k.a. Freedom Caucus, member of Congress from Victoria. Akers asserted to me that he knew what an editor’s job is, so I’m confused why he failed to fact-check and catch Graff's lie.

I am aware this reeks of a personal attack on Akers. It isn’t. It’s a deconstruction of the influencers’ and leadership’s approach to the local news. This is an attack on the Advocate’s betrayal of the Crossroads. Staffing its newsroom with Trumper leadership and greenhorn writers who will be guided under that leadership. It leads me to predict that the editorials, opinion columns and letters to the editor will not only lean radical-right but will also lie or be allowed to lie to make their cases. Opposing opinions need not apply, thank you very much. Second, while one would think local coverage would be immune from this type of journalism, those with favored positions and views will receive favorable coverage. Others will be ignored. Accountability will apply only to the Advocate’s enemies. (Richard Nixon, anyone?) All this despite possible assertions to the contrary. I’ve seen this elsewhere.

It looks like the Trumpers have taken over to make the second oldest newspaper in Texas a right-wing rag. Victoria and the Crossroads will be the poorer for this. Worse is that institutional and governmental behaviors will fester in the dark instead of cleansed by First Amendment sunlight. And as we know from 1930s Germany, being silent is being complicit. Finally, lest I be pilloried for this blog, remember what the UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, wrote in 1957 in the book “Markings,” published in 1963, “The madman shouted in the marketplace and no-one stopped to answer him. Thus it was confirmed that his thesis was incontrovertible.”

Trumper editor

 What a nothingburger piece of cowardly and ill-informed clap-trap. Aside from the poor writing (“more harsh,” really? Not harsher?), this self-labeled fundamentalist must be blind, deaf and dumb — but not in the muted sense, but in the intelligence sense.

Of course, for him the debate outcomes are tougher to gauge. That’s because he admits they’re an enigma. Obviously a puzzle above his pay grade. Shawn Akers discounts expertise (“so-called” Really?) for picking the debate winner and wrote that there was no winner but the electorate was the loser. Maybe Mr. Akers can check out Karl Rove’s op-ed in the Sept. 11 Wall Street Journal (it’s behind a paywall, but The Independent covered it). Now, I am no fan of Rove. His work with the GOP in the 1990s hurt this country beyond words and Rove knows his stuff; he is an expert on politics. And he wrote, basically, that Vice President Kamala Harris beat him badly. Here is what The Independent wrote, reporting on the WSJ article:

“ ‘But there’s no putting lipstick on this pig,’ says Rove. ‘Mr Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as ‘dumb as a rock’. Which raises the question: What does that make him?’”

Akers goes on to blame the Biden-Harris administration by saying Harris dodged the issues around the military withdrawal from Afghanistan without mentioning that it was Trump’s deal with the Taliban that hamstrung the Biden administration. He also faulted Harris particularly about “the disastrous border situation.” Never mind that Trump sabotaged a bipartisan deal in Congress that would have helped the border problems — that is well spread out on the public record. And that was an example of compromise Akers called fo.

Then Akers, deep thinker that he is, suggests the country wants unity, that both sides should compromise, and in doing so, will “make America great again.” Haven’t we seen that on a red baseball cap? Isn’t that Donald Trump’s motto? You know, the convicted felon who’s run many of his businesses into the ground, stiffed his contractors and cities where he has held rallies, declared bankruptcy six times, is a serial philanderer, an adjudicated rapist, an indictee for trying to falsify voting records in Georgia and who mounted the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. Akers thinks the “Never Trumpers,” on one hand, and those who see him as a savior, on the other, represent extreme views.

If Akers has read “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America,” by award-winning Duke University historian Nancy MacLean, it’s not evident;

If Akers has read “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America,” by award-winning Duke University historian Nancy MacLean, it’s not evident;

If Akers has read “Dark Money” by Jane Mayer, it’s not evident;

If Akers has read Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right” by Anne Nelson; , it’s not evident;

If Akers has read “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism” by Katherine Stewart, it’s not evident;

I readily acknowledge Akers’ column is an opinion piece and maybe I should have let it lie. But I’ve said it many times: I can’t. You know why.

“The madman shouted in the marketplace and no-one stopped to answer him. Thus it was confirmed that his thesis was incontrovertible,” Dag Hammarskjöld in 1957, “Markings” 1963.

But given Akers’ introductory column and seeing the sins of omission in this one, I’m going to have to watch the Advocate more closely.