New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 7, 2004

Pat Tillman's final day, the last days of the Sauds, and kids these days, today in Reason Express.

Comments

|12.7.04 @ 8:02PM|#

I'm certainly not together with Eberstadt in concluding that modern pop music is a reflection of the transcendent importance of the intact nuclear family, but I think you go kind of overboard in rejecting the idea that the artists and songs she cites can be seen as an authentic product of cultural shifts.

When you really think about the lyrics, a lot of '50s rock and roll was about youth "dating" (that is to say, engaging in exclusive heterosexual courtship, usually in commercial venues), driving cars, and exercising strong consumer spending power. As cultural practices, these may seem old hat now, but at the time they were fairly new and without obvious precedent, playing a very important part in changing and shaping what it meant to be an adolescent, providing models and expectations through which to understand the culture for the rest of your life. It's not very surprising that music mined that territory heavily

Likewise, as changing natures of work and domesticity, combined with increased female economic power, have brought about an increase in divorce and a decrease in parental time spent with children, it's becoming an influential aspect of youthful life. I'm in college now, and to be honest, in high school I felt a little like I was missing out on something because my parents didn't break up. Going through a divorce, and then spending a period as part of two different (possibly reconstituted) families seemed like one of those formative youth experiences, like falling in love for the first time, falling out of love for the first time, losing your virginity, leaving home, that you were supposed to have, and because I didn't, I felt like my life was less richly textured, and I was less prepared for the experience of modern society.

In any case, enough about me, but likewise, the decline of the postwar nuclear family model and the rise of family dissolution as a normal aspect of life is a damn important cultural force, and I'm not at all surprised if kids are listening to and creating music that reflects that and tries to figure out what it means. Now, I'm not saying pop music is some kind of sacred, intimately revealing text here. A lot of it, as pop music has always been, is insipid crap. But, pace Sturgeon, some of it is good, well-made, thoughtful, and offers insight onto the context in which it was made.

Take indie/alt.country darlings Rilo Kiley, for example. Each of their vocalists have done songs about their parents' divorce ("Steve", about one of the singers' mother's boyfriends, manages to come off as not only a representation of authentic emotion, but a damn funny mockery of teen post-divorce angst and the songs it produces.) Beyond that, at least in my opinion a lot of their songs seem like attempts to answer (and not always the same way) a fairly important question of our day - now that we've largely abandoned the expectation of eternal, monogamous love, how do we conduct our romantic lives in its absence and what can we find to replace it? (Of course, it doesn't hurt that, White Stripes-style, the singers dated each other for a while before breaking up.)

|12.7.04 @ 8:23PM|#

50's rock about youth dating? Hah, some of those songs sound pretty risque to me, especially considering the time they came out. (If the quotes around dating was meant to convey this, I apologise.)

|12.7.04 @ 8:37PM|#

The quotes around dating were to distinguish it as a broad constellation of practices and forms (including, yes, "heavy petting" in movie theaters, sex in the back seat and whatnot), as distinguished from, say, earlier home-based "calling", with its own norms and practices.

|12.7.04 @ 8:48PM|#

The commentary on Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire was thoughtful and well done. Contrast that with the estimable Lew Rockwell's snickering piece on Tillman's death at http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006778.html.
______________________________
December 06, 2004
Poor Pat Tillman
Posted by Lew Rockwell at December 6, 2004 12:29 PM

It's always interesting when the media trumpet a government story, and then suddenly shut up. Thus it was with Pat Tillman, RIP, the pro football player who enlisted in the Army and was killed in Afghanistan. He was awarded a silver star for bravery, and we were told stories of his derring-do. Now it turns out that the Army PR ops were lying (yes, amazing surprise). Pat Tillman was not killed by Afghani guerrillas. He was machine gunned by his own platoon.
___________________________________
What a class act. You can just see the S.E.G. he had when writing it.

|12.7.04 @ 10:19PM|#

So Thad, can you point to one factual error or even a factual distortion in Lew's account? [Insert sound of chirping cricket here.]

|12.7.04 @ 11:31PM|#

Thad - I have to agree with SR here - I read Lew's post not as mocking Tillman, but rather the Army spin that painted a false portrait of his death for their own purposes, and the uncritical media that let them get away with it. That's a long tradition in American journalistic curmudgeonry, and a good one at that.

|12.8.04 @ 1:16AM|#

Thad,
I also agree. Lew said nothing to denigrate Tillman's bravery, honor or dignity. His targets were the media for buying the government story, then shutting up and the Army, for using Tillman for their own PR ends.

|12.8.04 @ 6:20AM|#

Actually, the Rockwell passage quoted above is so rhetorically inept it isn't quite clear to me whether the author is sneering only at the Pentagon and the timid mainstream media, or whether he's got a little contempt for Tillman, too.

|12.8.04 @ 9:21AM|#

Thad's post could be a parody of "You Don't Support The Troops" jingoism.

How dare you suggest the Pentagon acted sleazy? You Don't Support The Troops!

|12.8.04 @ 9:22AM|#

I don't know what's worse - the thought of terrorists in Saudi Arabia having access to explosives, or the thought of someone in an American consulate opening a side door for them.

David C.|12.8.04 @ 10:57AM|#

Giving out misleading or outright false information is a time-honored military tradition. But unless the media had a reporter in place that saw Tillman killed by friendly fire, why wouldn't they initially accept the official version? What would they report? He's dead but we don't know why? Further investigation has revealed the truth and it's been reported all over the place. So how has the media failed in doing its job? I hate defending the media, but it seems they did ok in this case.

|12.9.04 @ 1:50PM|#

pat tillman was a perfect storm for the left...good-looking, pro athlete, widely admired by those who knew him, and oh yeah, patriotic. everything the left hates. everything the leftie misanthropes can't or won't be themselves. every comment i have ever heard about him from the anti-war crowd just oozes with bitterness and self-loathing. the rockwell piece is no different. this may be the first political movement in history distinguished by its singular need for antidepressants and therapy.