Contending Stupidity Harms, Absurdism Delights...

 I would contend, stupidity harms, but absurdism delights...and indeed, I DO contend that!

Stupidity Harms, Absurdism Delights: A Reflection on Human Experience

In the tapestry of human behavior, two forces often stand out for their profound impact: stupidity and absurdism. Though they may seem like distant cousins in the realm of irrationality, their consequences could not be more different. Stupidity, often rooted in ignorance or the rejection of reason, leaves a trail of harm in its wake. Absurdism, on the other hand, revels in defying logic, bringing joy and wonder to the world.

Stupidity: A Dangerous Indifference

Stupidity is not merely the lack of intelligence. It is a state of willful disengagement—a refusal to question, learn, or think critically. It clings to simplicity in a complex world and often becomes the catalyst for harm. Consider the spread of misinformation, fueled by individuals too complacent to verify facts. Or think of the societal divisions exacerbated by an unwillingness to empathize or understand another’s perspective.

History offers ample evidence of stupidity’s destructive power. Wars have been waged on faulty premises, environmental crises ignored due to short-sighted greed, and innovations stifled by those who feared change. Stupidity, in essence, thrives on neglect—neglect of responsibility, curiosity, and collective well-being.

Absurdism: A Celebration of the Unexpected

Absurdism stands in stark contrast to the harm of stupidity. While stupidity stems from a refusal to engage, absurdism is deeply engaged with the peculiarities of existence. It invites us to laugh at the chaos and embrace the nonsensical aspects of life. Rooted in philosophy and art, absurdism challenges the rigidity of logical structures and finds beauty in paradox.

Think of the works of Albert Camus, who suggested that life’s inherent lack of meaning does not lead to despair but to freedom. Or recall the surreal humor of Monty Python, whose sketches remind us that the world’s oddities can be a source of joy rather than frustration. Absurdism encourages us to see the unexpected not as a threat but as an opportunity for delight.

The Key Difference: Intent and Impact

What separates stupidity from absurdism is both intent and outcome. Stupidity harms because it ignores the consequences of inaction or poor decisions. Absurdism delights because it acknowledges those same consequences and responds with creativity and humor. Stupidity closes doors; absurdism opens windows to new perspectives.

Why This Matters

In an increasingly polarized world, understanding this dichotomy is more important than ever. Stupidity often thrives in echo chambers, where ignorance is reinforced and critical thought discouraged. Absurdism, however, can act as a bridge, using humor and unexpected insights to challenge assumptions and bring people together.

To combat stupidity, we must foster a culture of curiosity and learning. To embrace absurdism, we must allow ourselves the freedom to play with ideas and revel in the unexpected. Together, these approaches can transform how we navigate the complexities of modern life.

Conclusion: A Call to Delight in the Absurd

If stupidity is the shadow that darkens progress, absurdism is the light that illuminates new paths. By rejecting ignorance and celebrating the whimsical, we can create a world where harm is minimized, and delight abounds. In this, the choice is ours: to let stupidity harm or let absurdism inspire.

So, let us laugh at life’s absurdities, challenge its injustices, and find joy in the unexpected. After all, as the saying goes, “Stupidity harms, absurdism delights.”

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Tell me about when things are arbitrary and people think their choice isn't...

As an adjunct to my last blog post: United We Stand: Bridging America's Divides...

A talk my son had this week with an AI:

Tell me about when things are arbitrary and people think their choice isn't.

AI:

Ah, the fascinating world of human decision-making! There are many instances where people believe their choices are based on solid reasoning, but in reality, they might be more arbitrary than they think. Here are a few examples:

1. Brand Loyalty

People often stick to certain brands, believing they offer superior quality or value. However, studies have shown that brand loyalty can be influenced by arbitrary factors like advertising, packaging, or even the order in which they encountered the brands.

2. Voting Behavior

Voters might think their political choices are based on careful consideration of policies and candidates. Yet, research suggests that many voters are influenced by factors like a candidate's appearance, name recognition, or even the weather on election day.

3. Consumer Choices

When shopping, people might believe they are making rational decisions based on price and quality. However, factors like product placement, store layout, and even background music can subtly influence their choices.

4. Personal Preferences

People often have strong preferences for things like food, music, or hobbies. While they might think these preferences are deeply personal, they can be shaped by arbitrary factors like cultural exposure, peer influence, or even random experiences.

5. Risk Perception

Individuals often believe they are making rational decisions about risk, such as in financial investments or health behaviors. However, cognitive biases like the availability heuristic (relying on immediate examples that come to mind) can lead to arbitrary risk assessments.

6. Social Conformity

People might think they are making independent choices, but social conformity can play a significant role. The desire to fit in or be accepted by a group can lead to decisions that are more about social dynamics than personal preference.

In many cases, our brains are wired to seek patterns and make quick decisions, which can lead to arbitrary influences creeping in. It's a reminder of the complexity and sometimes unpredictability of human behavior.

Ever noticed any of these in your own life?

What's the name for a political viewpoint that includes both liberalism and conservativism situationally instead of just one or the other.

The political viewpoint you're describing is often referred to as "centrism" or "moderate". Centrists or moderates tend to adopt positions from both liberal and conservative ideologies, depending on the issue at hand. They aim to find a balance between the two extremes, advocating for pragmatic and practical solutions rather than strictly adhering to one ideology.

Centrism can vary widely, as it depends on the specific context and the individual's personal beliefs. Some centrists might lean more towards liberal policies on social issues while favoring conservative approaches to economic matters, or vice versa.

It's a flexible and situational approach to politics, focusing on what works best for a given situation rather than sticking to a rigid ideological framework. Does this align with what you had in mind?

How do you compare progressive and moderate in relation to these political points?

Progressives and moderates often differ in their approach to political issues, even if they might share some common goals. Here's a comparison:

Progressives

• Social Issues: Progressives typically advocate for rapid and significant changes to address social inequalities. They support policies like universal healthcare, free college education, and strong environmental regulations.

• Economic Policies: They often favor higher taxes on the wealthy and large corporations to fund social programs and reduce income inequality.

• Government Role: Progressives believe in a more active government role in regulating the economy and providing social services.

• Change: They push for transformative changes and are often seen as more radical in their approach.

Moderates

• Social Issues: Moderates tend to support incremental changes and seek a balance between progressive and conservative views. They might support some social programs but prefer more gradual implementation.

• Economic Policies: They often advocate for a balanced approach, supporting both market-driven solutions and some level of government intervention.

• Government Role: Moderates believe in a limited but effective government role, focusing on practical and achievable solutions.

• Change: They prefer pragmatic and incremental changes, aiming to find common ground between different political ideologies.

In essence, progressives are more likely to push for bold and sweeping reforms, while moderates seek a middle path, balancing progressive and conservative ideas to achieve practical solutions. This situational approach allows moderates to adapt their views based on the specific issue at hand, rather than adhering strictly to one ideology.

 Compiled with the aid of AI

United We Stand: Bridging America's Divides

Just an observation about the rhetoric and branding strategies of political parties in the U.S. today...The Destructive Politicization of American Liberalism vs Conservatism Today:

Democrats and the Avoidance of "Liberal"

The Democratic Party has often distanced itself from the term "liberal" due to decades of conservative framing that cast it in a negative light. Starting in the 1980s, figures like Ronald Reagan and media personalities worked to equate "liberal" with ideas of excess government spending, moral permissiveness, and elitism. Consequently, Democrats have leaned on terms like "progressive" or "moderate" to avoid the baggage attached to "liberal," even when advocating for traditionally liberal policies such as expanding healthcare, environmental regulation, or civil rights.

This rhetorical shift allows Democrats to sidestep cultural stigma while still appealing to broad coalitions. However, it also risks obscuring the ideological core of liberalism—emphasizing individual rights, equality, and the role of government in mitigating societal inequities. Some critics argue this avoidance dilutes the party's identity, leaving it open to accusations of inconsistency or opportunism.

Republicans and the Embrace of "Conservative"

In contrast, the Republican Party has embraced "conservative" as a badge of honor. Historically, conservatism in the U.S. meant preserving traditional values, maintaining a limited government, and adhering to fiscal responsibility. Over time, however, the term has been adapted to align with a broader populist and nationalist agenda, often emphasizing cultural issues, deregulation, and opposition to perceived liberal overreach.

This evolution has led to contradictions within the label. For example:

• Fiscal conservatism is often sidelined by massive federal spending under Republican administrations.
• Traditionalist values coexist with an embrace of disruptive populist rhetoric and policies.

Despite these shifts, the term "conservative" retains a powerful unifying effect for the Republican base. It invokes a sense of continuity and resistance to change, even as its practical application has strayed from its historical roots.

Why the Contrast?

1. Cultural Framing: Conservatives have successfully framed "liberal" as a pejorative, while keeping "conservative" as synonymous with patriotism and stability. This asymmetry in framing gives Republicans a rhetorical advantage.

2. Ideological Cohesion vs. Coalition Building: The Republican Party tends to emphasize ideological purity, reinforcing the conservative label even when its policies shift. The Democratic Party, by contrast, is a broader coalition, requiring flexibility in rhetoric to appeal to diverse constituencies.

3. Media Influence: Right-leaning media has kept "conservative" central to its identity, reinforcing its appeal to Republican voters, while left-leaning media often avoids "liberal" in favor of issue-specific language or "progressive."

Implications

• For Democrats, avoiding "liberal" might help short-term political branding but risks eroding a clear ideological identity.
• For Republicans, clinging to "conservative" despite ideological shifts may foster internal contradictions but strengthens external unity.

In sum, these linguistic strategies reflect broader dynamics of how the parties define themselves and appeal to voters in a polarized political landscape.

Modern conservatism in the U.S. has evolved significantly from its historical roots, becoming a more complex and, in some ways, contradictory movement. Similarly, the way conservatives often frame and critique "liberalism" today reveals deeper anxieties and frustrations that go beyond the term itself.

Why Conservatism Today Is Different

1. Shift Toward Populism: Modern conservatism has incorporated populist rhetoric, focusing on the grievances of "ordinary people" against elites. This shift often emphasizes cultural identity, nationalism, and opposition to perceived threats, diverging from the classical conservative focus on order, tradition, and restraint.

2. Emphasis on Culture Wars: Many contemporary conservatives focus heavily on cultural issues—abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and education—rather than traditional economic conservatism or small government. This marks a departure from the classical conservatism that prioritized stability and economic restraint.

3. Expansion of Government for Preferred Goals: While conservatism historically advocated for limited government, modern conservatives often embrace strong government intervention when it aligns with their cultural or political priorities, such as border security, law enforcement, and restrictions on social issues.

4. Anti-Globalization: Current conservatism reflects resistance to globalist policies and institutions, favoring protectionism and nationalism over the free-market principles of classical conservatism.

5. Alignment with Authoritarian Tendencies: In some factions, there’s a willingness to accept or even embrace authoritarian approaches if they serve conservative goals, which stands in stark contrast to the original conservative skepticism of concentrated power.

---

Why "Liberalism" Is a Target

Conservatives often criticize "liberalism" not as a coherent ideology but as a catch-all term for the things they oppose. The criticisms are often directed at modern progressivism or leftist movements that advocate for social change, environmental protections, and diversity. The anger is not necessarily at "liberalism" in its philosophical sense but at what it represents to them:

1. Fear of Social Change: Many conservatives view liberalism as a force driving cultural and moral changes that threaten traditional values. This includes issues like gender roles, racial equality, and family structures.

2. Perceived Elitism: Liberals are often framed as out-of-touch intellectuals or urban elites imposing their values on "ordinary" people in rural or conservative areas. This perception fuels resentment and resistance.

3. Economic Anxiety: Policies often associated with liberalism—like higher taxes, regulation of industries, or climate change initiatives—are perceived as threats to economic stability, especially in regions reliant on traditional industries like fossil fuels.

4. Globalization and Multiculturalism: Many conservatives see liberalism as promoting globalism and multiculturalism at the expense of national identity and sovereignty, exacerbating feelings of displacement.

5. Weaponized Language: Conservative leaders and media have weaponized "liberalism" as a term to galvanize their base. It’s less about the actual philosophy of liberalism and more about rallying against a caricature of left-wing excess and progressive overreach.

---

Who Are Conservatives Really Angry At?

1. Cultural Elites: Conservatives often feel alienated by cultural shifts driven by academia, Hollywood, and progressive activism. These groups are seen as dismissive of traditional values and lifestyles.

2. The Federal Government: There’s longstanding mistrust of federal overreach, which conservatives often associate with liberal policies. Ironically, this mistrust persists even as some factions of conservatism embrace strong federal action for conservative goals.

3. Social Justice Advocates: Movements advocating for racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ equality are often perceived as threats to traditional societal structures.

4. Global Institutions and Corporations: Conservatives may resent multinational corporations, international agreements, and global organizations for their perceived prioritization of global agendas over national interests.

5. Themselves (to a degree): Some anger comes from internal contradictions. Many conservatives advocate for traditional values while facing a rapidly changing world where these values are increasingly challenged. The tension between wanting stability and resisting inevitable change fuels frustration.

---

Conclusion

The anger conservatives direct at "liberalism" is less about liberalism as an ideology and more about a symbolic opposition to change, diversity, and a sense of cultural displacement. The evolution of conservatism into a movement centered on cultural and identity politics, rather than its original focus on restraint and tradition, reflects deeper insecurities about the future and a struggle to reconcile these changes with their vision of America.

Bringing America together despite vastly different worldviews requires intentional efforts to foster mutual understanding, rebuild trust, and find shared purpose. Here are some strategies to help bridge divides and rekindle a sense of shared national identity:

---

1. Encourage Respectful Dialogue

• Promote Active Listening: Create forums, both online and offline, where people can share their perspectives without fear of judgment. Encourage listening not just to respond but to understand.
• Model Civility: Public figures, educators, and community leaders should emphasize respectful debate and discourage inflammatory rhetoric.
• Seek Common Ground: Focus on shared values such as family, freedom, and the desire for safety and opportunity, even when the means to achieve them differ.

---

2. Build Local Connections

• Community Projects: Encourage collaboration on local initiatives, such as rebuilding parks, addressing homelessness, or improving schools, where people with different views can work together.
• Civic Education: Reinforce knowledge of American history, civics, and democratic principles in schools and communities to foster a sense of shared heritage.
• Cultural Exchange: Organize events that celebrate diverse cultures, helping people appreciate differences while recognizing shared humanity.

---

3. Address Economic and Social Inequalities

• Invest in Communities: Strengthen struggling communities with access to quality education, healthcare, and job opportunities. Economic insecurity often exacerbates divisions.
• Encourage Shared Prosperity: Advocate for policies that ensure fair economic opportunities, bridging gaps between urban, rural, and suburban areas.
• Focus on Inclusive Policies: Craft policies that are solutions-focused rather than ideologically polarizing, demonstrating that government can work for all citizens.

---

4. Combat Polarization in Media

• Support Responsible Journalism: Encourage news outlets to prioritize fact-based reporting and offer diverse viewpoints without sensationalism.
• Media Literacy Education: Teach people how to critically evaluate information, distinguish fact from opinion, and avoid echo chambers.
• Hold Social Media Accountable: Push for transparency and responsibility from platforms that amplify divisive content and misinformation.

---

5. Reform Political Processes

• Electoral Reforms: Promote ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting commissions, and campaign finance reform to reduce hyper-partisanship.
• Encourage Bipartisanship: Recognize and reward leaders who prioritize cross-party collaboration.
• Increase Voter Engagement: Make voting more accessible and emphasize the importance of civic participation in bridging divides.

---

6. Rekindle a Sense of Shared Identity

• National Service Programs: Introduce voluntary programs that bring people from different backgrounds together to work on national or community projects.
• Celebrate Shared Achievements: Highlight moments in history where Americans united to achieve great things, such as the moon landing, civil rights advancements, or public health victories.
• Reaffirm American Ideals: Focus on the foundational ideals of liberty, justice, and equality while acknowledging and addressing past and present challenges.

---

7. Focus on Generational Change

• Educate Future Generations: Teach children and young adults about empathy, compromise, and constructive conflict resolution.
• Encourage Civic Participation: Inspire younger generations to engage in community service and leadership, fostering a culture of contribution rather than division.

---

8. Acknowledge Differences Without Demonizing

• Normalize Disagreement: Remind people that differing opinions are natural and healthy in a democracy. Conflict doesn’t mean disloyalty or enmity.
• Focus on Humanity: Encourage people to see each other as neighbors and fellow citizens first, not as political adversaries.

---

Final Conclusion

Reuniting America requires patience, humility, and a shared commitment to building trust. It’s not about erasing differences but about embracing the idea that diverse perspectives can coexist under a common banner. By focusing on shared values, addressing inequities, and fostering empathy, Americans can rebuild a sense of national unity while respecting the diversity that makes the country strong.

As an adjunct to this blog, the one I published next, same day... 

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Happy New Year 2025!!

 Wishing all and everyone a very...

Happy New Year in 2025!

When my two kids would leave the house, I would tell them:

"Be Happy. Be Well. Be Productive. Be Brilliant!"

Wishing even for those wishing us ill, to find peace and love themselves, and to leave us the Hell alone!

Happy New Year from the absurdist philosophy and Satirical "Religion", Purpleism.org!

On that note, Quantum Bacon anyone?

"From Terry Kim @projectkim
This was the most brutal insult Steve Jobs ever received:
In 1997, a man publicly insulted Steve Jobs at the Worldwide Developer Conference in front of thousands.
Jobs' response changed Silicon Valley forever..
Here's what happened (and how this defined his legacy forever):" MORE...

Cheers! Sláinte!

The Avant-Garde play, "Ubu Roi", by Alfred Jarry

Ubu Roi (1896), by Alfred Jarry, the first modern play in a theatricalist avant-garde tradition.

I was first introduced to Ubu Roi ("King Ubu") on MTV in pieces shown on Liquid Television, a groundbreaking experimental animation and variety show that aired on MTV in the early 1990s, known for its eclectic and avant-garde programming, often featuring animated shorts and strange, disjointed sequences. 

My niece, an actress, who has been on various TV shows and in plays, once performed in Manhattan in a play by Jean Genet, "The Balcony" (Le Balcon), written in 1956. Genet’s "The Balcony", influenced by the Theatre of Cruelty, is often associated with absurdist and surrealist theater, much like Jarry’s work, and explores themes of power, authority, and performance.

First off...today’s blog is brought to you by Purpleism—the one-and-only absurdist philosophy and satirical religion that asks the big questions like, ‘Why not purple?’ and ‘Is this life real, or just a poorly budgeted sitcom?'

Dive into the Purpleverse on Facebook and X (formerly known as a bird thing)! Because let’s face it: life’s better when it’s absurdly purple.

Alfred Jarry Ubu Roi 1965 Experimental Theatre

Ubu Roi ([yby ʁwa]; "Ubu the King" or "King Ubu") is a play by French writer Alfred Jarry, then 23 years old. It was first performed in Paris in 1896, by Aurélien Lugné-Poe's Théâtre de l'Œuvre at the Nouveau-Théâtre (today, the Théâtre de Paris). The production's single public performance baffled and offended audiences with its unruliness and obscenity. 

Considered to be a wild, bizarre, and comic play, significant for the way it overturns cultural rules, norms, and conventions, it is seen by 20th- and 21st-century scholars to have opened the door for what became known as modernism in the 20th century, and as a precursor to Dadaism, Surrealism and the Theatre of the Absurd.

In English

A shocking political satire about a pompous, megalomaniacal tyrant who uses deceitful means to seize the reins of power in the country of… Poland?

iDiOM Theater joins the Bad Hombres and Nasty Women’s Theater Resistance Movement producing a number of performances and readings of this controversial absurdist satire across the country on February 20, 2017: Presidents’ Day. 

UBU ROI originally debuted in Paris on December 9, 1896 and closed the next day amid riots, walkouts, and threats of violence (some of which may have been staged by the plays producers). 

The show tells the story of a power-hungry buffoon of a ruler who lays waste to his newly-conquered kingdom thanks to his greed and self-indulgence, and is considered influential on the Dadaist, Surrealist, and Theatre of the Absurd movements.

On King Ubu

by Pericles Lewis

Alfred Jarry’s King Ubu was the first modern play in a theatricalist avant-garde tradition that deliberately called attention to the artificiality of theatrical conventions, in order to celebrate them. At its first performance, in Paris, on December 10, 1896, the audience broke into factions after the main character, Father Ubu, uttered the first word of the play: “Shite” (“Merdre”). In a grotesque parody of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Ubu, a dimwitted bourgeois based loosely on Jarry’s high school physics teacher, is convinced by his wife (a “hag”) to declare himself king of Poland. Father Ubu repeats the word “shite” over and over (along with a range of other obscenities), and slaughters 300 nobles and 500 magistrates by shoving them down a trap door. The play’s obscenity and violence may have been enough on their own to cause a riot. What made the play particularly bizarre, however, was its rejection of most of the nineteenth-century methods for creating the illusion of reality on the stage. Jarry described his ideal staging of the play as follows:

A mask for the chief character, Ubu… A cardboard horse’s head, which he would hang around his neck, as in the old English theatre, for the only two equestrian scenes, both these suggestions being in the spirit of the play, since I intended to write a “guignol” [Punch and Judy puppet show]… A suitably costumed person would enter, as in puppet shows, to put up signs indicating the locations of the various scenes… Costumes with as little specific local color reference or historical accuracy as possible.[1]

In addition, Jarry wanted to do away with realistic sets, have crowds of soldiers represented by a single soldier on each side, and have Ubu speak with an unusual accent or voice. All of these innovations, drawn from the early modern stage or from puppet shows, were intended to break with theatrical realism, to call attention to the artificiality of the play. Yeats, who attended the first performance (though he did not speak French well), later wrote: “The players are supposed to be dolls, toys, marionettes, and now they are all hopping like wooden frogs, and I can see for myself that the chief personage, who is some kind of King, carries for Sceptre a brush of the kind that we use to clean a closet [toilet].” Although Yeats supported the play, preferring to stay on the side of the avant-garde, he wondered later that night what experiments would come after his own symbolist generation. His answer: “After us the Savage God.”[2] The avant-garde tradition established by Jarry was developed during and after the war by futurists, dadaists, and surrealists.[3]

↑ Michael Benedikt and George E. Wellwarth, ed. and trans., Modern French Theatre (New York: Dutton, 1966), pp. x-xi.

↑ Quoted in Benedikt and Wellwarth, eds., Modern French Theatre, p. xiii. See also Oscar G. Brockett and Robert R. Findlay, Century of Innovation: A History of European and American Theatre and Drama Since 1870 (Prentice-Hall, 1973), pp. 136-39.

↑ This page has been adapted from Pericles Lewis’s Cambridge Introduction to Modernism (Cambridge UP, 2007), p. 197.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Monkees (Absurdist) TV show (1965–1968) and Band

The Monkees' show came out when I was ten. My favorite was "Mike", Mike Nesmith. There was some bad blood with fan friends of mine when he left the group, but I always stuck with him and appreciated his reasons for leaving.

Nesmith left the Monkees in 1970 after buying out the remaining years of his contract. He announced his departure in a commercial for Kool-Aid and Nerf balls, signing off with "Enerf's enerf!" While apparently, Tork bought out his contract in 1969, I remember seeing episodes of the show with only three of them, minus "Nez".

Why is that? It's hard to understand. But there are some possibilities as to why.

First off...today’s blog is brought to you by Purpleism—the one-and-only absurdist philosophy and satirical religion that asks the big questions like, ‘Why not purple?’ and ‘Is this life real, or just a poorly budgeted sitcom?'

Dive into the Purpleverse on Facebook and X (formerly known as a bird thing)! Because let’s face it: life’s better when it’s absurdly purple.

The apparent absence of Michael Nesmith in the final season of The Monkees TV show (1966–1968) might stem from some nuances in production and your memory of the series. Here's how it aligns with the timeline:

1. End of The Monkees TV Show (1968):

   • The show's final season aired from September 1967 to March 1968, with all four members (Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith, Peter Tork, and Davy Jones) still participating. Michael Nesmith was present in the series until the end.

2. Peter Tork's Departure (1968-69):

   • After the TV series ended, the Monkees transitioned to a film project (Head, released in November 1968) and continued releasing music. Peter Tork officially left the group in December 1968 after completing Head. He bought out his contract in early 1969, following frustrations with the band's direction and the heavy workload.

3. Michael Nesmith's Departure (1970):

   • Nesmith remained with the Monkees through their albums Instant Replay (1969) and The Monkees Present (1969), but his involvement became more sporadic. He left officially in early 1970 after completing his contractual obligations, including some promotional appearances.

Why I Might Remember Nesmith Missing

• Perception of Diminished Presence:

  • In the show's final season, the format changed significantly, shifting to more surreal and experimental content. The group often filmed separately due to creative and scheduling conflicts, which may have made it seem like individual members (like Nesmith) were less present in certain episodes.

• Association with Later Events:

  • My memory might be influenced by the timeline of events after the TV show ended. As Tork and Nesmith were the first to leave the group, fans often associate their departures with earlier phases of the Monkees' career, blending the timeline of the TV show and their post-show activities.

While Nesmith was present for the entire series, the changes in production and later group dynamics might explain my recollection of him seeming to be "missing" in the final season.

Nesmith was frustrated with the group and had higher musical aspirations. He had written most of the Monkees' original compositions. After leaving the Monkees, he formed the First National Band and recorded three albums, including Magnetic South (1970) and Nevada Fighter (1971). He also had a successful solo career, with an international hit in 1977 with the song "Rio".

Nesmith didn't participate in many Monkees reunion tours, but eventually joined in after the death of Davey Jones.

I got rid of crates of my vinyl records back in the 1980s (heavy sigh...), mistakenly believing they'd disappear like 8-track tapes which I had gotten stuck with when cassette tapes replaced them, fearing CDs would replace vinyl. But I still have all my Michael Nesmith albums. 

Mike also produced films with his Pacific Arts Corporation, like the ever-popular, "Repo Man" (1984) and Timerider: The Adventure of Lyle Swann (1982 and yes, I have both films). 

Koyaanisqatsi (1983) was among the titles they distributed (by Godfrey Reggio, featuring music composed by Philip Glass). I have also had all three of The Qatsi Trilogy since they first came out, including Powaqqatsi (1988) and Naqoyqatsi (2002).

As for the show, I loved it, we all did. It was famous for it's quick "MTV" style cuts before cable or MTV were ever even thought of. Mike was later asked to help develop a new cable show with only "music TV" videos called..."MTV". 

" The Monkees" (1965–1968)

The Monkees music - YouTube channel

Monkees Screen Tests

The Monkees TV show intro YouTube

Episode 14 -  "Dance Monkee Dance"

Mickey and Mike interview Studio 10 (2019)

What No One Ever Told You About The Monkees (2019)

I'd also like to mention Marc Maron's recent WTF! podcast

with Dwight Yoakam, a music encyclopedia

and friend of the late Mike Nesmith, where they

talk about Nez' in the last half of the podcast.

The Monkees was a TV sitcom that aired from 1966 to 1968, created by Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider. The show followed the adventures of a fictional rock band, also called The Monkees, consisting of four young men—Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith, and Peter Tork—who were hired to star in the series. The premise revolved around the band's often zany and slapstick misadventures, which parodied the real-life experiences of rock bands, especially the Beatles, who were at the height of their fame at the time.

The show featured musical performances by the band, with the group often breaking into song during various antics. The Monkees was unique because, though the actors portrayed a band, they initially didn't play the instruments on their recordings. Instead, session musicians provided the music for their albums, though by later seasons, the band began playing on their own records.

The series gained popularity for its comedic tone, surreal elements, and catchy pop songs. The Monkees became a cultural sensation, and their music, including hits like "I'm a Believer," "Last Train to Clarksville," and "Daydream Believer," contributed to the success of the show and helped solidify their place in 1960s pop culture.

Although the show was originally intended to be a satire and never taken too seriously, it became a beloved part of 1960s television and music history. The Monkees were also a key part of the broader "TV pop" trend of the era, with their popularity rivaling that of many contemporary bands.

Several well-known songwriters were involved in creating songs for The Monkees during their early years, many of whom had already achieved some success in the music industry before working with the band:

Neil Diamond: Neil Diamond was one of the prominent songwriters who contributed to The Monkees' catalog. His most famous song for the band was "I'm a Believer", which became a massive hit in 1966. At the time, Diamond was still in the early stages of his solo career, but this song helped cement his status as a successful songwriter. "I'm a Believer" was one of The Monkees' biggest hits, and Diamond's involvement with the band was a key part of their early success.

Carole King and Gerry Goffin: Carole King and her husband Gerry Goffin were already well-known songwriters before they wrote for The Monkees. They had penned numerous hits for other artists, including the famous "Will You Love Me Tomorrow?" for The Shirelles. For The Monkees, they wrote "Pleasant Valley Sunday", a song that became a top-3 hit for the band in 1967. Their association with The Monkees further solidified their reputation as one of the most successful songwriting duos of the 1960s.

Boyce and Hart (Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart): Boyce and Hart were a songwriting duo who played a major role in shaping The Monkees' sound. Before writing for The Monkees, they had written hits for other artists, but they became even more famous for their work with the band. They wrote several of The Monkees' biggest hits, including "Last Train to Clarksville", "Valleri", and "I'm Not Your Steppin' Stone". Their catchy and infectious tunes were central to the band's early success.

John Stewart: John Stewart, a member of the Kingston Trio before his solo career, wrote "Daydream Believer" for The Monkees. The song became one of their signature hits and is one of their most beloved tracks. While Stewart was not yet a household name, "Daydream Believer" became one of the defining songs of the 1960s and a classic in pop music.

These songwriters, alongside the work of The Monkees' producers and the band's own contributions, helped propel The Monkees to stardom, making their music one of the most recognizable sounds of the 1960s.

Before starring in The Monkees, the four members had varied professional backgrounds:

Micky Dolenz: Micky was primarily an actor before joining The Monkees. He had appeared in TV series like Circus Boy (1956-1958), where he played the title role of a circus performer. Dolenz had some experience with music, but he was more focused on acting at the time. As of now, Micky Dolenz, the last surviving member of The Monkees, is still alive. There have been no reports of his death. Micky Dolenz continues to be active in music and entertainment, often performing as part of The Monkees' legacy and occasionally touring. He remains an iconic figure in pop culture for his role in the band and his contributions to its music.

Davy Jones: Davy was a trained singer and actor. He had appeared in the original London production of Oliver! (1960) as the Artful Dodger, which gave him a solid foundation in musical theater. He also had small roles in TV shows and even made guest appearances in American TV shows before joining the band. Davy Jones, a teen idol and beloved member of The Monkees, passed away on February 29, 2012, at the age of 66. He died of a heart attack at his home in Indiantown, Florida. Jones had been experiencing health issues prior to his death, including a history of heart problems. His passing was a shock to fans and fellow band members, as he was still actively performing and touring at the time.

Jones was remembered for his charm, talent, and contributions to The Monkees, particularly for his role as the group's lead vocalist on hits like "Daydream Believer" and "I’m a Believer." His death marked a significant moment for fans of the band, as he was the first member to pass away.

Michael Nesmith: Michael was a songwriter and had been involved in the Los Angeles music scene before the show. He had written songs and played in some local bands but had not yet achieved mainstream success. He was more serious about his music career than acting when he was cast. Michael Nesmith, a key member of The Monkees, passed away on December 10, 2021, at the age of 78. 

He died of heart failure at his home in Carmel Valley, California. Nesmith had a long and varied career, not only as a member of The Monkees but also as a successful solo artist and music producer, known for pioneering the music video concept and contributing to the development of MTV. Nesmith was remembered for his dry wit, musicianship, and significant contributions to both the band and the broader music industry. His legacy remains influential, especially in the realm of pop, rock, and music video innovation.

[I still have his "video magazines": Elephant Parts (1981, first Grammy Award for a music video) and Television Parts - Home Companion (1985), with perhaps the first music video, which didn't take off until it was released in...Australia.]

Mike Nesmith's mother, Bette Nesmith Graham, was a successful entrepreneur and inventor. She is best known for inventing Liquid Paper, a correction fluid that allowed people to cover up mistakes on paper without needing to start over. In 1956, she created the product in her kitchen, and it became widely popular, eventually leading her to build a thriving business. Bette sold the company in 1979 for $47 million, providing a substantial financial foundation for her family.

Her success played a key role in Michael Nesmith's later achievements, as he was able to pursue his creative ambitions with some financial security.

As for Mike Nesmith's own career, after his time with The Monkees, he became highly successful as a solo artist and a pioneer in the music industry. In the early 1970s, he formed The First National Band, which was a country-rock group that blended country music with rock influences. The band was known for its innovative sound, and Nesmith's songwriting and distinctive voice were integral to its success. Their albums, such as Magnetic South (1970) and Loose Salute (1970), were well-received, though the band disbanded after a short time. A favorite was, From the Radio Engine to the Photon Wing, and Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma.

In addition to his musical success, Nesmith became a key figure in the early days of music videos. He founded Pacific Arts, a production company that created content related to music and entertainment. One of his most notable contributions to the entertainment industry was his involvement in creating the music video magazine format. He was instrumental in producing PopClips, a television show that featured music videos of popular songs. This format was one of the precursors to the creation of MTV, which revolutionized the music video industry.

Nesmith's contributions to both music and television were groundbreaking, and he continued to be an influential figure in the entertainment world for many years. His creative work in the 1970s and his early involvement with music videos helped shape the future of the industry.

Peter Tork: Peter was a musician and folk artist. He had been playing in local bands and was well-versed in folk and blues music before joining The Monkees. He had also briefly worked as a session musician and was involved in the Greenwich Village music scene. Tork had some acting experience as well but was primarily focused on music. Peter Tork, a member of The Monkees, passed away on February 21, 2019, at the age of 77. 

He died from complications related to a rare form of cancer known as adenocarcinoma, which affects the salivary glands. Tork had been diagnosed with the illness in 2009, but it had gone into remission before resurfacing in the years leading up to his death. His passing was mourned by fans and fellow band members, as Tork was remembered for his musicianship, warm personality, and contributions to The Monkees both as a band member and as an actor. His legacy in pop culture and music continues to be celebrated by fans of the show and the band's music.

While each member had some experience in entertainment or music, none were majorly famous until the show's success.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Demise of America: Commercialization of News From Public Service to Toxically Profit-Driven Nightmare

Who allowed news to transition from being a network loss leader to a for-profit, 24-hour operation, paving the way for the decline of accurate reporting? A shift that turned news into opinion-driven shows, prioritizing what the public wants to hear over the essential truths they need to know.

The shift of news from a public service or network loss leader to a for-profit, 24-hour model is often attributed to a combination of changes in legislation, technology, and market dynamics:

1. The Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (1987)
   The Fairness Doctrine, established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949, required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced manner. Its repeal in 1987 removed this obligation, leading to the rise of opinion-driven news programming.

2. Cable News and the Rise of 24-Hour News Networks
   The launch of CNN in 1980 marked the beginning of 24-hour news. Cable television's business model relied on subscription fees and advertising revenue, incentivizing networks to focus on stories that drew viewership, often favoring sensationalism or polarizing topics over in-depth reporting.

3. Telecommunications Act of 1996
   Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, this act deregulated the telecommunications industry, allowing for greater media consolidation. Large corporations bought up multiple news outlets, further prioritizing profitability over journalistic integrity.

4. The "Profit Center" Model
   Historically, network news divisions were treated as loss leaders—a public service provided by networks to meet FCC licensing requirements. This changed in the 1980s when networks began viewing news divisions as potential profit centers. This shift was driven by executives seeking to maximize shareholder value.

The Results:

• Entertainment Over Information: News began to compete directly with entertainment for ratings, leading to more sensationalism and opinion-driven content.
• Echo Chambers: The focus on profitability encouraged targeting specific demographics, reinforcing viewers’ existing biases and creating polarized audiences.
• Erosion of Public Trust: As news became a commodity, trust in media declined, with many viewing outlets as prioritizing profits over public service.

These changes fundamentally altered the landscape of journalism, prioritizing market demands over the dissemination of unbiased, accurate information.

Rupert Murdoch's establishment of Fox News in 1996 marked a significant shift in American media, particularly in its approach to serving a conservative audience. Murdoch, alongside founding CEO Roger Ailes, aimed to create a network that would dominate the conservative media landscape. Fox News quickly rose to prominence by presenting sensationalized, emotionally charged stories that often prioritized audience engagement over factual accuracy. Its strategy included crafting narratives that aligned with conservative ideologies, creating a loyal viewer base while heavily influencing public opinion and political discourse.

Fox News employed a business model focused on high ratings, choosing topics and framing them in ways that appealed to its target demographic, often amplifying polarizing issues. This approach extended to opinion programming, with prominent hosts using their platforms to push conservative talking points, sometimes at the expense of journalistic objectivity. The network's success in blending news and entertainment reshaped the industry, encouraging other outlets to adopt similar strategies to compete​

TheWrap

​

The Independent

Murdoch’s control over Fox News has been instrumental in shaping its editorial direction, focusing on stories that resonate emotionally with its audience regardless of broader societal consequences. This model has drawn criticism for spreading misinformation and contributing to political polarization in the United States​

The Independent

The ongoing struggle over succession within the Murdoch family also highlights concerns about the future of Fox News. Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert's eldest son and his preferred successor, is seen as committed to the conservative vision of the network. However, internal family disputes may challenge this trajectory, potentially reshaping Fox News' role in American media​

It's speculative to determine exactly how America would have fared without Fox News, but the network's influence has undeniably shaped the political, cultural, and media landscape. Without Fox News:

1. Media Landscape:

   • The dominance of conservative-leaning news could have been less centralized, potentially giving rise to multiple smaller outlets instead of a singular dominant voice.
   • Cable news might have evolved differently, with less focus on partisan opinion-driven programming. The "infotainment" approach, heavily popularized by Fox, may have developed more slowly or taken a different form.

2. Political Polarization:

   • Fox News has played a major role in amplifying partisan divides by framing issues through a conservative lens and creating an "us versus them" narrative. Without this, political polarization might not have reached the same levels, though other factors (e.g., social media) also contribute significantly.

3. Elections and Policy:

   • The network's influence on elections, particularly in mobilizing conservative voters, has been profound. Its absence could have impacted outcomes like the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, where Fox News coverage and narratives were pivotal in shaping public opinion.
   • Policy debates might have been less influenced by sensationalism and more centered on consensus-building.

4. Public Trust in Media:

   • Fox News has been accused of spreading misinformation and eroding trust in mainstream journalism. Without it, public trust in traditional news outlets might have been higher, reducing skepticism toward verified information and fact-based reporting.

5. Social Issues:

   • Cultural and social debates—such as those surrounding immigration, gun rights, and healthcare—may have unfolded with less sensational framing, potentially leading to different public perceptions and policy outcomes.

However, it's important to note that Fox News filled a preexisting demand for conservative perspectives in media. In its absence, other outlets might have emerged to fill this void, and the broader trends of commercialization and sensationalism in news were already underway. Fox News capitalized on these dynamics, but it did not create them entirely. The rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter would also have played a major role in reshaping discourse, even without Fox News.

Ultimately, while Fox News has been a significant driver of the current media and political climate, other factors and outlets might have filled the gap, leading to different but perhaps equally complex challenges.

It's important to point out however, none did. Though OAN, Newsmax, and RT (Russia Today) have tried, and failed.

Now this, as Rupert ages out of humanity (or had decades ago...), trying to maintain the disreputable and illiberal, lying format of Fox News by putting his child puppet in his place. However, his other children are not so topically corruptly capitalistic and democracy-hating. Just sayin'...

Rupert Murdoch's attempts to solidify control of his media empire through his eldest son, Lachlan, have faced significant setbacks. Recently, a Nevada court commissioner blocked Murdoch's effort to amend the family trust in a way that would strip voting power from his other three children—James, Elisabeth, and Prudence—and ensure Lachlan's dominance. 

The court found this move to be a "carefully crafted charade" designed to cement Lachlan's position and preserve the conservative editorial stance of Fox News and other Murdoch-controlled outlets. The ruling maintains the current trust structure, giving all four children an equal voice in decisions following Rupert's eventual passing​.

This decision reflects internal family disputes over the future of the Murdoch empire. While Lachlan aligns closely with his father’s conservative ideology, James and Elisabeth are known for holding more moderate political views, which could influence the direction of Fox News and other properties if they gain more control​.

These developments have raised questions about the long-term stability and editorial direction of the Murdoch media empire, particularly as Lachlan faces challenges from within his own family. This internal strife underscores the broader implications for Fox News and its influence on American and global politics.

Hopefully, Fox News, under the control of more sane, reasonable, decent Murdoch offspring, will die the toxic conservative death of Reality and Actual Real NEWS America deserves...and Rupert so despises.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT