Feels like home: why you should be watching “Justified”

Now that “Mad Men” is off duty until 2012, “Justified” is officially my favorite TV show currently airing. Three-quarters of the way through the second season, I find myself thinking about why. There are the obvious reasons. Good writing. Timothy Olyphant. But an exchange I read today in the comments of a recent episode recap may have distilled things for me:

I didn't know that harlan was a real place. [Note: this would be like me saying I didn’t know Westchester County is a real place.]

I think the phrase "gun thug" comes from this doc. [“Harlan County, USA”]

I just recently saw Harlan County USA, and I was enormously amused by the colloquial use of "Gun thugs." Anybody else really heard of a gun thug before they started talking about Tommy Bucks in the pilot? Not me. But consistently throughout the series, they've been able to fold gun thugs into the narrative, without really saying exactly what the fuck a gun thug is. I'm consistently amused by this, I guess like shitbird in Ellroy novels & The Wire. I guess it's just a thing in Harlan. [You were "enormously amused" to learn a new word, potty-mouth? I'll bet I have a few I could teach you.]

I've read a lot of Elmore Leonard novels, but I can't specifically remember reading that phrase in any of them. I first heard it in a Woody Guthrie song, "1913 Massacre" - "The gun-thugs they laughed at their murderous joke/While the children were smothered on the stair by the door."

Head-shaking hilarity. Because just a few minutes into “The Spoil,” I said to myself – direct quote – “Boyd Crowder is a gun thug for the Company?” only to hear a variant of that exact statement said twice in this episode. This is what I mean by great writing. It’s not just that the plots and characters are well drawn, it’s that they ring true to an Appalachian-American like myself. And the befuddlement of some non-Appalachian-Americans over terms like “gun thug” (Elmore Leonard invented it! No, it was Woody Guthrie!) is proof that the “Justified” show-runners know what they’re doing.

I was wary of “Justified” because I’m wary of any Hollywood-produced product that takes place in the South or deals with Southerners, just because they tend to screw us up. We’re not unique in that – any population that falls outside of the L.A./Northeast media sphere might as well be in Siberia given how well it’s understood. But “Justified” pretty much nails it. For instance:

- Accents. No one who’s supposed to be from Kentucky sounds like he or she is from Savannah. And not everybody sounds the same, reflecting their different education levels and experiences.

- Black people. Yes, we have them.

- Yankees. We have a few of them, too.

- Yes, there are people living in shacks and single-wides. But there are also retired pro athletes living in McMansions.

- In one episode in the first season, Raylan said something about going to Hardee’s. Not Carl’s Jr. This might’ve won my heart forever.

(Also, coal, which is turning out to be a major issue in Season 2. When was the last time you saw a mainstream TV show acknowledge the impact of our country’s energy industry on workers and the environment, especially in Appalachia? Hell, it took the New York Times two weeks to report on the 2008 coal ash spill outside of Knoxville.)

In short, “Justified” is a fun, well-acted show that wins major points from me for evoking an insular, complex area of the U.S. without ever mocking it. If you aren’t watching, you’re missing out.

"Soldiers die for each other"

This was an incredibly moving tribute to a fallen soldier who happened to be gay. What struck me the most was hearing these parents talk about how respectful the Army has been to them and to their son's memory since his death.

I hope Haley Barbour sees it.

By the way: "Haley Barbour has never served in the military."

Happy (almost) Birthday, NATO!

You'll be 62 years old on April 4, and Mike Huckabee still doesn't know how you work. Not to single out Huckabee, though - Sarah Palin doesn't know either. Poor Haley Barbour seems to think you're interchangable with the Arab League. Is it really possible that three of the people flirting with applying for the job whose requirements include understanding and coordinating with NATO really not know what it is or how it works? I think it's more likely that they think YOU don't understand what NATO is and how it works, and they're trying to scare you with the image of President Obama callously throwing American troops at the mercy of some Canadian or Brit. But I think that you have a brain, and can read.

What you missed on the last two seasons of “Jersey Shore”

Ron and Sammi broke up between Seasons One and Two, so their reunion in Miami was awkward. “Single Ronnie” went out clubbing every night, usually hooking up with one or more girls, then went home to drunkenly curl up with Sam (which she let him do). This really happened. Jenni and Snooki were concerned that Sammi would get syphilis, so they wrote her an anonymous note telling her that Ron was sleeping with half of Miami before coming home to sleep with her. Who’d Sammi get mad at? Why, Jenni and Snooki, of course. Ron and the three other guys in the house agreed that this was low. The note. Not Ron being a whore.

Back in Seaside, Ron and Sam (still a couple!) proceeded to have the same fight roughly 67 times: something stupid pisses one of them off, Ron calls Sam names, she asks if they’re breaking up, really really truly this time, she talking-heads that she loves Ron and he’s her best friend, and somehow they both decide that they want to make it work. During one of these mini-breakups, Sam commits the cardinal sin of dancing with another guy while Ron can see her. This is SO much worse than Ron sleeping with all those random Miami girls and then coming home to sleep with Sam. Somehow.

Ron throws all of Sam’s belongings out the window and even breaks her glasses. (By the way, destroying personal belongings is a major domestic violence red flag. It’s not too big a leap from destroying something a person values and hurting that person.) Sam leaves the house and goes home to her family for about two days, during which time Ron does pretty much nothing but cry and send Sammi flowers. Sammi comes back, and for some reason she and Ron think about getting back together. But no! Situation, the keeper of morality, discovers that Sammi texted a male friend wanting to hang out, and further digs up that Sammi and this friend kissed two years ago. The house’s men agree that Sammi is a lying sneak and Ron a cuckold, and that Sam is “trash.” For texting a guy while she was single, and for kissing said guy before she even met Ron.

Victoria Jackson? This is the show you should be worried about.

The war on NPR

This column by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship is a must-read. As Republicans in Congress push to eliminate public funding for NPR and PBS, they look at (as the title says) what the right means when it calls NPR "liberal."

So what do conservatives really mean when they accuse NPR of being "liberal"? They mean it's not accountable to their worldview as conservatives and partisans. They mean it reflects too great a regard for evidence and is too open to reporting different points of views of the same event or idea or issue. Reporting that by its very fact-driven nature often fails to confirm their ideological underpinnings, their way of seeing things (which is why some liberals and Democrats also become irate with NPR).

That's the truth - about Democrats, I mean. I remember hearing a professor at the college where I work practically foam at the mouth over NPR's use of the nickname "Chemical Ali" when referring to late unlamented Iraqi Defense Minister Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti. Going on the theory that, if both sides are unhappy with you, then you must be doing something right... NPR isn't partisan.

Moyers and Winship write that this is the problem, as conservatives see it. If you watch the news and don't agree with what you hear, then the news must be wrong. The problem with that thinking is that none of us is totally objective - I know I'm not. But the news is supposed to be. Maybe if we talked with one another instead of retreating to acquaintances and media that never challenge our points of view, we'd be more fair.

While we're on the subject, let me say that I understand the argument that NPR and PBS should be self-supporting. I just don't agree with it. For starters, it takes a ridiculous amount of money to operate a news organization, which is why all of them besides NPR and PBS are owned by giant corporations. As a society, we need news outlets that don't have to answer to shareholders and that don't have corporate conflicts of interest. NPR actually does get most of its funding from private donors, and indirectly from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

How much does Congress give the CBP each year? About $90 million. In a federal budget of over $3 trillion. To put that in perspective, last year's federal budget gave the Social Security Administration a 10 percent increase - about $100 million - just to process its claims faster.

So de-funding the CBP isn't really about savings. It's about censorship. And when the people in power - in any political party - so detest a news organization that they actively try to drive it out of existence, you have to figure that the news organization is doing something right.

Also, I want to be an agnotologist when I grow up.

Victoria Jackson and angels unawares

Victoria Jackson is not happy with "Glee," because on last week's show two boys kissed. No word on whether the show's past plotlines about a lesbian couple, a teen pregnancy and a teen character straight up going to jail bugged her, too.

Ok, let's get a few things out front. I don't watch "Glee." But I appreciate its popularity, and if even one kid out there takes away that performing is cool, then all the over-emotive singing and non sequitur writing will be worth it. And, something I've always taken for granted as a cis-gendered hetero - it is significant for LGBTQ teens to have a pop-culture model of a teen crush just like my girlfriends and I always did back when we were pulling together our all-Keanu Reeves slumber party.

I'm also going to resist the temptation to call Jackson names. While it would be satisfying to just dismiss her as a bigoted whack-job, that a) isn't fair, and b) keeps us from talking about more important things.

For one thing, she has every right to her religious beliefs, and to express them, and to keep her kid from watching a show that she thinks isn't compatible with her values. That's her right as a parent. That's her job as a parent. That's why my parents policed the TV and movies my sisters and I watched. For instance, the Keanu Reeves slumber party? Did not include "My Own Private Idaho." And when there was a movie or TV show that they felt we could handle, but that maybe had some violence or language they weren't sure about, we talked about it.

I know this is radical, but parents *are* allowed to talk to their kids. Maybe we were the last family on Earth that had "family meetings," but I hope not. Your children have values, and they have opinions, and part of their growing up has to involve how they balance those values with the situations they're going to encounter in the wider world. Talking with their parents helps them do that.

This is what bugs me about Jackson, in the above clip, repeatedly implying that broadcast TV is responsible for instilling her personal interpretation of Christian morality in Our Nation's Youth (tm). We're talking about programming on wide-open public airwaves. You are allowed to turn it off. You are allowed to explain to your children why you don't approve of what's on it. Be a parent.

I have a larger problem with how Jackson seems to be interpreting Christian teaching, though. She throws out a lot of Bible verses up there. But, as Jesus himself told us, the single most important commandment, above every single thing that appears anywhere else in the Bible, is this: Love the Lord, and treat others as you would want to be treated.

The Bible covers the same ground in Hebrews 13:2 - "Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it." - and more extensively in Matthew 25: 35-46. As a Christian, I consider this passage to be one of the foundations of the practice of our belief system, so I'm going to post the whole thing:

35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

How does anyone calling himself or herself a Christian pray over this passage and conclude that it's ever okay to be deliberately cruel to anyone? Because Jesus doesn't mean he's literally going to pop in for spot checks like this is an episode of "Undercover Boss" or anything. He wants us to treat one another not just as we'd treat ourselves, but how we'd treat him.

And, in my opinion, going on national television to say that two boys sharing a fully clothed kiss is gross and icky and God hates it just doesn't strike me as the act of a loving Christian. I don't care how much of the Bible you've got memorized.

My parents taught me that. When the TV was off.

Own that beer. Even if it's not green.

On this St. Patrick's Day, I find myself thinking of Michelangelo Antonioni.

The Italian writer director of films like "L'Eclisse," "Blow Up" and - my personal favorite of his films - "The Passenger" said that "Eros is sick." We do not have a healthy relationship with eroticism, generally speaking. We're puritanical. "Eros is sick" means that we're ashamed of our desires and instincts, and so we sublimate them into, say, Slutty Fill-in-the-Blank Halloween costumes. We can't admit that we like to be wanted, so we conform and blame whatever happens on the very convention to which we're conforming. This is why beer pong exists. ("I would NEVER have had that much to drink, but I just kept missing the cup, so... shrug.")

I don't really observe St. Patrick's Day. I'm not Irish, I'm not Catholic, and so I don't really feel obligated. As I've written before, I would feel like a poser if I claimed this holiday since it's not part of my heritage. I would also feel disrespectful to Irish culture if I claimed this identity for myself. Actual Irish people would be perfectly justified in kicking my bandwagon ass.

Which brings me to beer. And back to Antonioni.

I'm not Irish; my family is Scottish and German. My ancestors in this country were brewers, distillers and tavern keepers. We're a family where everyone typically has a glass of wine or beer with dinner, and maybe a couple if we're celebrating and no one has to drive for awhile. Drinking has never been something that one had to "get away with" in my family. Drinking isn't an act of subversion. So I don't understand why anything is an "excuse to drink." Why do you need an excuse to do something that no one cares if you do anyhow?

So, it's bizarre to me that this one day - at least in the U.S. - has turned into an excuse to raise hell. It hasn't happened organically, for one thing. St. Patty's is just as commercialized as Valentine's Day, and I don't appreciate cultural cues from anyone with a profit motive. I also find the "Irish=let's get hammered" mentality a little insulting. I mean, this is the patron saint of the country we're talking about here. (The guy who rid Ireland of pagan rituals... wonder what he would think about the celebration of his saint day?)

If you need a corporate-approved ok to have a beer, then in my opinion you don't have a healthy relationship with alcohol. (And frankly, alcohol deserves better.) You probably also have some serious issues with your self-image, not unlike the slutty Halloween-costumed girls. You're one alcohol-poisoned little lemming.

Do want to get drunk tomorrow? Would you drink a green beer on April 27? Okay. It's a free country. But own it. Don't blame the day.