The other day, Trump once again tried to tell every Jewish person who votes for President Biden that they should all be ashamed. For a long time, whenever he’d say this, I’d respond on social media that Trump and his fascism has never been the go-to guy for what Jews should do. But it’s taken a while for the reality to kick in and recognize that his words about this are never about votes – after all, it’s not going to change what anyone does -- but it's his anti-Semitic screed dog whistle to demonize Jews to his supporters, giving them even more permission to spread their own anti-Semitic hate.
Speaking of racist hate, last week Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) talked about his concerns about how immigrants had grown to a larger percentage of American citizens than they had been in recent years. The first thing to know is he was not talking about undocumented immigrants, but immigrants who were in the country legally, including many (if not most) who were U.S. citizens. And second, the percentage is almost exactly the same as it was in 1920, over 100 years ago. But almost more to the point, never mind that almost all Americans are immigrants, children of immigrants or, like Trump, grandchildren of immigrants.) Fun Fact: the Founding Fathers of the United States were all "foreign born." And they actually wrote the Constitution that Chip Roy is crying out about. (Well...yes, but the United States didn't exist before. True. Also true: they were all foreign born. And created the U.S.) And then, just days later, Chip Roy said that he had “strong concerns” about Sharia law becoming used in the U.S. What’s long become clear is that Chip Roy’s real concerns aren't Sharia law or immigrants, but about Chip Roy and his personal insecurities towards minorities and “others.” Finally, it was sort of shocking and disturbing to read the New York Times Editor-in-Chief go on the record to say his paper’s job was not to defend democracy but be objective in telling the truth. For the record, one can defend democracy truthfully while being completely objective – most especially when recognizing that it is democracy that allows the New York Times and all newspapers to tell the truth. I can imagine a future New York Times article, "At his rally, described by one observer as 'reminiscent of a putsch,' Mr. Trump announced arrests of the Times editorial board & reporters as 'enemies of the people.' There were no comments from the paper as it has been closed down."
0 Comments
Well, the day has finally come. I finally made it back to Wrigley Field after over five years. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that this occasion doesn’t thrill others like it does me, but then – well, that’s why God created the concept of “tomorrow,” when those uninterested can check back for other folderol. For anyone else (and “anyone” might be a particularly appropriate word), here are a few ponderings about the day. One of the great (and perhaps unique) things about going to a Cubs game is that the El train stops literally a block-and-a-half from Wrigley Field. (It’s in the middle of a brownstone neighborhood after all – something I love. You’re walking through a old world neighborhood, turn a corner…and then there a baseball park looming up in front of you.) So, getting to a game is profoundly easy. There’s an El station only an eight-minute walk from where I’m staying with my aunt. They come by about every 15 minutes, and on a Cubs game day, every El stops at Addison, where Wrigley Field is. I went with my cousin Susie, which gave me more trepidation than it might seem – that’s because she’s a big White Sox fan. She said she thought about wearing her White Sox cap, but after some consideration she decided against it. It’s a glorious ballpark, built in 1914, the second oldest in the U.S, after Fenway Park in Boston. And it still has the only scoreboard in baseball that’s hand operated, looming over center field It's not just that the day was great -- sunny, around 70 degrees, a light breeze -- but we lucked out, catching a doughnut hole. It was supposed to rain Tuesday, yesterday and Thursday. And it did rain on Tuesday...and is still expected to today -- but when we were at the game yesterday? It cleared up perfectly for some reason known to a greater power. Everything was wonderful about the game, except the game. The Cubs only manage one lousy single -- and it was a scratch, infield dribbler that Cubs catcher beat out by half a step. And that was it. And they lost 3-0. Pretty good pitching by the Cubs, but that carries the "positive side" only so far. Making things worst, the San Diego Padres pitcher, Dylan Cease, is a former pitcher on the Chicago White Sox. And a favorite of my cousin. So, she kept enthusing about how great he was doing. The best I could muster was, "I'm so happy for you..." Still, the day was a joy. It was wonderful being back at Wrigley after far too long, and it was a treat watching the Cubs in person there. The elves taking care of the homestead back in Los Angeles say they are very jealous. Alas, no, we 30,000 in attendance didn't get to sing Steve Goodman's "Go, Cubs, Go" after a victory. But there are about 125 games to go. Or to put it better -- about 125 games to go, Cubs, go. We now return you to our regularly scheduled website. Yesterday, Stephanie Clifford (who works as ‘Stormy Daniels’) took the stand in the Manhattan election fraud trial against Trump. She’ll continue testifying again tomorrow. A lot of legal media analysts seemed to say that it was risky testimony for being so lurid, and if the jury doesn’t like her (or believe her) that could impact the trial.
I’m not a lawyer, as the expression goes. Nor was I in court. And I trust what lawyers say here, being very experienced at this sort of thing. But I also have additional thoughts – which may be valid or not, whether or not what these lawyers say is valid. For starters, “impact the trial” doesn’t mean result in a hung jury. After all, many lawyers were saying that it wasn’t absolutely necessary she even testify. That the trial isn’t a sex case, but one about election fraud. And so, whether jurors like or believe her, the charge is that Trump still paid to silence her in order to illegally affect the election. Keep in mind that when a woman claimed that President Biden sexually assaulted her, he and his team took her on directly and publicly, showed the inconsistencies and ultimately falseness in her story, and it disappeared. As for her testimony, it would seem that the problem for Trump is that she’s the only one testifying about what occurred. His lawyers can cross-examine her, of course, and try to break down her story. But if Trump doesn’t testify (and it’s likely that he won’t), then her testimony is the only one the jury can hear under oath. And if he does insist on testifying, the prosecution is most certainly prepared and likely anxious for that. The other problem for Trump is that, even if jurors don’t like Ms. Clifford, at issue is Trump relentlessly insisting he never had sex with her. And her detailed testimony (even if jurors don’t like her) shows that Trump did have an involvement with her, and made efforts to illegally hide it to impact the election, as AMI publisher David Pecker testified -- which is the very point of the trial. Further, even if (for whatever reason) they don’t even believe her, Trump still made that $130,000 payment to silence her claims…which again is the whole point of the trial. The checks exist. The documentation about it exists. Whatever the surface reason those checks exist, the foundational reason was to silence her so as to illegally not hurt his election chances. And I suspect that jurors are likely to think, especially given earlier testimony, that Trump is not someone to pay $130,000 to silence something that didn’t happen. Especially given he has been relentlessly been shouting out loud for years that he did not rape “that woman” and didn’t even know E. Jean Carroll – a cry for which he has been twice found guilty of defamation. So, if he has no problem defaming a woman by insisting he didn’t do something two juries found he did – why on earth would he pay $130,000 to hide something he claims he didn’t do??! Again, I have no idea how the jury will see it all. And those lawyers who note the risk, make good, valid points. I just think, whether or not these lawyers are right, there are these additional points. And also, as the experts note, as well, the trial is about far more than this, and much of that is on paper and has been corroborated. On today's jaunt for my first trip back to Chicago in five years, I went to the Art Institute. What was great about this trip is I took advantage of Members Get in One Hour Early, which I didn't know existed on previously visits. And that meant, since the place was empty, I could walk up close to Georges Seurat’s famous painting "A Sunday on La Grande Jatte" (the basis for Stephen Sondheim's musical, Sunday in the Park with George). As a result, I could check out his pointillism extremely up close. This hasn't been possible before, since to room is always jammed, specifically to see that painting, and doing so would blocking everyone else’s view. Today, no one else was in the room. And Seurat's work was AMAZING. What he did was almost unearthly. Here's the best I can do to show what I mean – This is the painting in full: And here’s a section up very close. (It's the man wearing a top hat in the lower left.) The minute detail and tiny shifts in color from one "dot" to the next is remarkable. The entire painting is made up of this dots. And as you can see, it's a huge painting. Further, to do that up close while having to imagine what it all will look like from afar. What a stunning achievement!!! It took him two years to complete, and still continued with some touch-ups. Know, too, that this small-section photo doesn't do it justice, peering at the expansive painting from inches away. Here's another fun painting to have come across. Most people know the painting "Whistler's Mother" by James Whistler. But have you ever seen Whistler's brother? Here he is -- And it's a treat every time to see "American Gothic." It's so iconic, almost a cliche as a piece of folklore. But then, there the real thing is in front of you. Finally -- and I'm going to make it "finally," because I could go on and on. Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks," great works by Picasso, Monet (including my favorite, "Sandvicka, Norway"), Renoir, Chagall -- especially his great "American Windows" montage that he did on commission for the City of Chicago, Dali, Magritte, Georgia O'Keefe, John Singer Sargent, it's tremendous. But making it even better is how thoughtfully and superbly it's all laid out and presented. I spent five hours wandering around. But finally, I'll offer this painting that I've grown to love, not just because it's so wonderful, but even more because it's nothing like what you expect from this artist. If I asked people who they thought painted this, I suspect most would say someone like, perhaps, Winslow Homer. Though it's not. Here's the painting -- As I said, no, it's not Winslow Homer. But as you can see, it appears to be a very nice, rich New England ocean scene, filled with warmth. So...give it some thought. Who do you think painted this. I'll just note that, no, it's also not a New England ocean scene. This was painted by Vincent van Gogh. Yes, really. Even the elves taking care of the homestead can't believe it. They think I'm lying. But I'm not. More to come... It turns out that Gov. Kristi Noem's (R-SD) "Killing the Puppy was OK" Reclamation Tour is getting worse (and yes, that's possible -- and yes, it's still going on) as she quintuples down at this point. And as she helps isolate herself from much of the caring world. It's not that her story keeps changing as she tries to make "Cricket" seem more vicious than in her book (among other things, no longer talking about the puppy killing a couple of chickens as she writes in her book, but now referring to them as "livestock"), or that the story isn't just that she shot this apparently vicious puppy because she also shot and killed the family goat (who ruined her children's clothes), or that when she shot the family goat she first only wounded it but then had to go and find more ammunition while the goat suffered. Or that she killed three horses. Or that she could have trained the puppy better. Or kept the puppy in her car if she thought it was so vicious when she visited the farm with chickens. Or tried to place the puppy and goat in better homes. Or at the very least taken the puppy and goat to a vet who could more humanely ended their lives. Now, it turns out that she also would like to see President Biden's dog Commander put down. Yes, really. Because it's bitten a lot of Secret Service men. Never mind that maybe the problem there is that Secret Service protecting the President of the United States carry guns and are tough and perhaps seem threatening to a dog, especially when trying to protect the President. And never mind that it's weird when someone goes public about killing someone else's dog -- especially as the first option. But it's more than that. Because it also turns out that her book is full of literal lies. Like writing about staring down North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un -- "I’m sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants (I’d been a children’s pastor after all)” she writes -- ...despite never actually having met him. And also writing about how she was "slated to meet" with French President Emmanuel Macron last November, but cancelled it when she believed he had made comments that she felt was too "pro-Hamas." As it happens, Macron's office has said that no such meeting was ever scheduled. Which makes it a bit hard to cancel. Noem also writes that she was “slated to meet” with Macron in November last year while she was in Paris for a conference of European conservative leaders, but later canceled when he made comments that she considered “pro-Hamas.” There are some other mistakes (or lies) that the publisher has said will all be fixed before actually publishing the book. Mistakes (or lies) all in service of her effort to seem really tough. As she tries desperately to become Trump's running mate. Which is pretty clear now is not going to happen. But that appears to be the reason behind her desperate "Killing the Puppy was OK" Tour. By the way, when you've even put off Trump for being too cruel (the man who pushed for taking migrant children from their parents and putting them in cages), you know you've gone maniacally too far and quarantined yourself alone so distant from everyone else that they're afraid of getting infected by just being anywhere near you, even in the general vicinity. Sort of like during The Plague when those with the disease had to wear signs that said, "Unclean." Here is everybody, and way over there is Kristi Noem. For all the obvious tone-deafness of the stories in her book and her Desperation Tour, what stuck me, as well, beyond all that, is that even if you make the weird decision to tell the puppy, family goat and horse stories because you think it makes you seem tough, there are such better ways to do it. For instance, you don't say that the puppy's name was "Cricket," which is an adorable name and makes the puppy seem even more adorable than just calling it a puppy, which is pretty adorable on its own. And you don't write that when your young daughter came home, she asked, "Where's Cricket?" -- since, among other things, not only does that make you sound more cruel, but it shows that the puppy wasn't all that vicious and just because you hated the puppy, as she wrote, clearly her daughter didn't. Further, you don't write about the puppy running around chasing animals and having the time of its life, which shows it having fun and being happy around other animals. And you most especially don't tell the story about when you killed the family goat that you missed the first time and only wounded it, forcing the goat to be in pain as you tried to track down more bullets. And you leave out that what really bothered you about the goat that helped push you to kill it is that it ruined your children's clothes. Oh, and separate from this is the reality that Kristi Noem is actually banned from 17% of the land in her own state of South Dakota. Really. That's because she has been so horribly insulting to Native Americans (suggesting for reasons known only to her, but apparently still in her "macho tough" phase, that they're somehow involved the drug trade at the U.S.-Mexican border) that many tribes in South Dakota have banned her from their land. Not shabby for a governor. And yet, the Kristi Noem "Killing the Puppy was OK" Reclamation Tour rambles on. On Sunday, she was on Face the Nation, face-planting once again. When asked if she'd met with Kim Jong-Un, the best she could offer was, "I've met with many world leaders." So, that would be a big "no," then, right? But the best comment was, "Some of these anecdotes shouldn't have been in the book." Like, seemingly, the ones about killing the puppy and family goat, and also the lies. It's like she's unaware that reporters question her won't have read the book or read articles about it or fact-checked anything. Or not have a dog. Or know anyone who has a dog. But still, she goes on the interviews, unprepared, hoping the be picked to be a heart-beat from the presidency. Floundering on her one with no one within sight to throw her a lifeline. But, of course, above all, for someone who wants to be a Vice Presidential nominee or even be re-elected as governor, or be elected to any position, it really shows a total lack of awareness to not understand -- putting all that aside, which is a ton to put aside -- that almost all people actually like puppies. And would be against killing them. From the archives. This week's contestant is Jim Weeg of Cedar Falls, Iowa. In an odd way, I almost got the full puzzle. I did get the composer style, which is not as often the case. And my guess for the hidden song (which I thought was likely wrong) was the same as the contestant’s – and we were indeed both wrong. Even on a second listening, where composer Bruce Adolphe slowed things down and pulled the song out more, neither I or the contestant still had a clue. Amazingly and impressively, host Fred Childe was able to hear it on second play (though it even took him that slowed-down version). It’s beautifully done, but really tough.
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|