If you missed Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on Sunday, the Main Story was about UFOs. Yes, really. As you might imagine, this lent itself to a great deal of humor. That said, the focus was serious, dealing with the question of whether investigations into the issue have been substantive enough. While I agree with that point, I also think there have been some investigations that have more substantive that the show suggests. Regardless, it's a very entertaining piece. This is also where I again get to point out that when Oliver mentions (much too off-handedly, I believe, as just a name on a list...) the Army's Project Blue Book, I had an astronomy class at Northwestern taught by J. Allen Hynek -- who had been the civilian head of the project. The class was not about that, though he did devote two days to the subject. (Hynek was also the technical adviser on Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Spielberg even gives him a cameo close-up on the movie. It's in the final sequence when all the scientists are gathered in a semi-circle, and previously-abducted humans leave the ship. One of the scientists -- who looks exactly like an astronomer with with a gray goatee -- weaves his way through the crowd, steps forward, takes out his pipe, and gets a closer look. That's Dr. Hynek.) Three things I remember from the two days of UFO classes: One is that when he got a sense that the project was going to be closed down, Hynek made copies of material to take home so that he could later continue research on his own. A second thing is that he said that Project Blue Book was not allowed to be shut down until all cases were classified -- the problem for the government was that there were many still-open cases. So, what they did was classify those cases as "unidentified" and therefore could close down the project. And the third thing is that Hynek said he never came across a case that convinced him the UFO sightings were aliens -- but -- he said it is ludicrous to think that we are the only living beings in the universe. He said a whole lot more on the subject, as well as on astronomy in general, but after all this time, that's all I've got... And as a bonus -- I actually tracked down Dr. Hynek's scene, in Close Encounters of the Third Kind!! I'm sure there have been many people who've watched the movie of the years who have wondered, "Gee, that's a weird shot of just one guy pushing his way through, what is the point of that??!" Well -- now you know the point.
0 Comments
This is the annual reprint of a column originally written on The Huffington Post in 2009. And this year is the 22nd anniversary of the actual event itself, Some stories simply demand repeating. Or better put, demand not being forgotten. This is one of them. And so, once again, here 'tis. One additional word. happily Maurice Cheeks is still in the NBA. He's currently the assistant coach for the Oklahoma City Thunder, who made the playoffs this season (though alas were knocked out this week). He also had a strong career as a solid player, and is still 16th on the all-time list of assists with 7.392. But though this doesn't count on that list, it may be his best assist of all... April 25, 2009 Oh, Say Can You Sing? A National Anthem to Remember As I prepared to write about an act of uncommon decency by a professional athlete, I realized that calling it that was unfair, that it diminishes what happened, because this was simply an act of uncommon decency, period. That it happened on such a high level and under such a bright microscope might likely stir the heart more, but it's the act itself that is ultimately what stirs us to begin with. Who it was and when it took place simply moves it up the pedestal. Today is the sixth anniversary of Maurice Cheek's moment on the pedestal. There is in the American consciousness for notable performances of the National Anthem at sporting events. Jose Feliciano's evocative singing at the 1968 World Series in Detroit was the first to interpret the "Star Spangled Banner" before a national audience. Because 1968 was one of the most tumultuous years in U.S. history, many at the time were so outraged that it took his career years to recover. Today, the rendition not only seems tame, but one of the most tender and beautiful. (And among the least known. If you've never heard it, do yourself a favor and click here to listen.) Whitney Houston gets mentioned often for her rousing rendition at the 1991 Super Bowl, during the Gulf War. For many, Marvin Gaye's deeply soulful performance at the 1983 NBA All Star is the most memorable. But for sheer emotional joy, it's hard to top what happened on April 25, 2003, before Game 4 of the NBA playoffs between the Portland Trailblazers and Dallas Mavericks. Context only adds to the story. So, once again: This was the playoffs. This is what all professional athletes live for, what their year is about. The regular season is a prelude, an effort to get into the post-season and be in place to win the league championship, to become a part of your sport's history. Everything centers on this. As the start of each playoff game nears, as the roaring crowd is at its highest pitch, as players put on their proverbial "game faces" and the battle is moments from beginning, all external thoughts get filtered out, and focus is completely, solely on their task ahead. The National Anthem, for most athletes, must be one of those external influences. More than most of us, who hear the "Star Spangled Banner" largely on special occasions, professional athletes have heard the National Anthem played before every single competitive game they've played. Game after game repeatedly each season, and season after season, for decades. Relentlessly. As meaningful as the song is, it is also just part of the ritual for a professional athlete, focused on the game, geared up for the game, anxious to start the game. Silent, not singing, maybe not even hearing the music. Waiting for the National Anthem to be played, and finished, so that they can finally start what they're there for. It's likely as much background noise as it is patriotic uplift. And so it must have been as the Trailblazers and Mavericks prepared for their playoff game to start. Stepping out onto the court was Natalie Gilbert, a 13-year-old girl. Just another National Anthem, just another youngster who won a contest, just another two minutes the crowd wanted to get past for the game they were there to see, to start. And she started fine. A little hesitant, since it's a frightening occasion for a child, with a national audience, flashing lights and a military guard. But in her wavering voice, she was prepared. Except that a few lines in, the high pageantry of the moment got her, and something went very wrong. She totally, thoroughly forgot the words. A young 13-year-old child, standing in front of over 10,000 people, lost. Alone. And that's when Maurice Cheeks showed the kind of person he was. Maurice Cheeks had had a very good NBA career as a player. He played for 15 years and was selected to four All Star games. When he retired, he was the all-time leader in steals and fifth in assists. He averaged over 11 points a game. And then he later became a coach, the position he was currently in for the Portland Trailblazers. It was Cheeks who was responsible for his team, responsible for keeping them focused on the game, responsible for guiding them. But he saw a 13-year-old girl in trouble. And that's when Maurice Cheeks showed the kind of person he was. Immediately. Cheeks always had a reputation in the NBA as a good guy. But he was about to prove it on a national stage. And what happened next - not just with Maurice Cheeks, but eventually with all the jaded players whose minds had been previously-focused on their game, an entire stadium of basketball fans there to see basketball, even the opposing white-haired coach Don Nelson - is just enthralling. The moment is wonderful, but how it builds and surprises is even better. And at the end, this tiny girl looking up at the giant of a man - who stayed around, refusing to leave her side and return to his team - with her face awash with relief, a huge hug, and the clear words mouthed, "Thank you," is all you need to see to why it's hard to top what happened on April 25, 2003, before Game 4 of the NBA playoffs for sheer emotional joy. Six years ago today. This is a very interesting interview (and often funny) that Larry David did with Joe Scarborough for Morning Joe. It not only covers Larry's career, starting with floundering as a stand-up comic and briefly a writer for Saturday Night Live, but also has a lot of background footage about how his show Curb Your Enthusiasm is made. Most fun -- and surprising -- is hearing Larry talk about things in his life and career, and then seeing clips of Seinfeld for how they much later turned into episodes. I think TV legal experts have been doing a very good covering details of the Trump trial and analyzing their importance, often even giving virtual play-by-play reporting at times about what’s going on in court. Yesterday’s testimony from David Pecker seems to be generally thought to have been very strong for the prosecution – all the more so because Pecker is a close Trump ally. He’s laid out a strong vision of the long pattern over time of Trump’s efforts to commit election. Additionally, as former Watergate lawyer Nik Ackerman pointed out, his being able to identify and comment on an audio recording between Trump and Michael Cohen means that when Cohen (with his conviction of perjury allowing the defense an opening to try and undercut his testimony) takes the stand, many critical things he says will have already been verified – which only serves to shore up his credibility. From my end, not being a legal expert, there are often things separate from the legal minutiae that catches my eye. And the last couple of days, that’s been Trump’s ranting about how the massive legion of Trump supporters have supposedly been showing up on his behalf. In contrast, by most reporters’ accounts, there were only three such Trump people in the entire area that morning, although to be fair that number did change later, dropping down to one. Trump, however, has been melting down in his comments to waiting reporters on a wide range of subjects, none of which have any bearing in court (all the more so since he likely won't even be testifying -- though God-willing that will change...). But the most recent and repeated one raised an imponderable question for me, which I’ll get to in a bit. Indeed, he posted in a long FULL CAPS rant about it on his social media platform, outraged by how supposedly the police are putting up road blocks to stop traffic and keep his horde of supporters away. "THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE TURNED AWAY FROM THE COURTHOUSE IN LOWER MANHATTAN BY STEEL STANCHIONS AND POLICE, LITERALLY BLOCKS FROM THE TINY SIDE DOOR FROM WHERE I ENTER AND LEAVE," Trump wrote, in part. "IT IS AN ARMED CAMP TO KEEP PEOPLE AWAY." For the math challenged, the one person who stuck around is a smaller number than “THOUSANDS.” One of the most outspoken reporters about Trump’s claims has been MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard, who has not only shown footage of traffic comfortably driving by the courthouse and all the public walking around, including the many people there who are protesting Trump, but also has bluntly called Trump’s claims to be “lies.” The most-telling story about how disturbing the teensy pro-Trump crowds are to Trump is also the funniest for revealing his mindset, proving the point by him denying it. It began when New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote an article that referenced how Trump was bothered by the small crowds were on his behalf. Fair enough, who wouldn't be bothered by three people showing up to support you, let alone just one, especially if you're a malignant narcissist? But that brought about a Trumpian reply -- “Maggot Hagerman of The Failing New York Times, falsely reported that I was disappointed with the crowds," Trump insisted in his gracious, social media post. "No, I’m disappointed with Maggot, and her lack of writing skill…" It should be noted that for the first time in recorded history "Elegance in Writing" is high on Trump’s list of qualities he most admires. This is most-especially surprising since “reading” is low on his list. There were other things he of course said also disappointed him (he’s Trump, after all) but, weirdly and amusingly -- and unintentionally -- in saying that Ms. Haberman's story was false, he did not say that her facts were wrong about the tiny one-person size of the crowds, only that he claimed he wasn’t disappointed by the size. Further, this insistence totally contradicted his previous ALL CAPS post fuming in anger over “THOUSANDS” supposedly having been turned away. THOUSANDS!!! (Question: can one person be considered a “crowd”?) All of which led to my imponderable. There is a side of me that thinks Trumps says his crowd of supporters is so massive in order to mostly convince his supporters who are watching him on TV -- while on the other hand, a side of me thinks he's doing this to mostly convince himself. I have no idea which is true. I’m sure both are true in part. What I don’t know is which is predominant. If I had to make a guess, it’s the latter, trying to convince himself. After all, everything with Trump begins and ends with Trump. So, convincing himself that there are THOUSANDS of supporters for him there – rather than three…or, ultimately, just one would seem necessary to salve his malignant narcissistic ego and allow him to function. All those other acolytes following his every word, waiting to be lovingly lied to, are the natural progression from that. The ultimate point to all this is that, whatever the legal realities of the court case are, it seems that this whole process for Trump -- not being in control, needing to follow the direction of the judge, having to listen to witnesses under sworn oath saying terrible things about him, needing to sit the entire time, not being allowed to say anything, having to get to court early rather than start his day as usual at 11:30 AM, none of his family there in support, only one supporter outside and on and on -- all that and more is clearly taking a huge toll on him. It's there in his hunched-over shuffling through the hallways, in his grimaces in court, in him seemingly so tired and bored that he's dozing off during testimony, in his needy claims of non-existent huge crowds, in his continually being unable to restrain himself and lashing out at witnesses and jurors breaking judicial gag orders, Sending a long, ranting post against Jimmy Kimmel having hosted the Oscars five weeks ago and confusing him repeatedly with Al Pacino. Rambling at rallies with inexplicable statements and gibberish made-up words, such as most recently "illegal adlinthin," "magastine" and "weak nicks" that psychiatrists say is often the first stages of dementia. Even Fox, seemingly to offset and explain away what it appears must be clear to them, in case things gets even worse, had host Jesse Watters note how “they are draining Trump’s brain by having him sit all day.” Yes, he really said that. That’s how bad Trump seems. People who work for a living, many in jobs of physical labor, many raising children, are asked to feel great sympathy for Trump for his burden of having to "sit all day" -- lest his brain drain. The presumptive GOP nominee to be president! (Actually what Watters said is even worse, as he added, “You’re going to take a man who’s usually golfing and you’re going to sit him in a chair in freezing temperatures.” Putting aside that no one is the courtroom is bundled and most are in shirtsleeves, how hilarious to hear the credentials of the presumptive Republican nominee for president described, not for his active efforts and exhaustive achievements on the world stage on behalf of America, but -- as "a man who's usually golfing"!!!!) And this was only Day Two of the trial. Which by all accounts is the most unimportant of his four indictments. And only having the first witness so far – and not even a hostile witness at that, but actually one of Trump’s longtime friends. Imagine how much more disturbed and drain Trump will get as this least-important trial drags on and more come pounding on him, as he deals at age 77 with the world he knows and needs, emotionally and physically, is peeled away. Insisting that there are huge crowds of support for him outside the enclosing walls of the courthouse that don't exist is only an indication of it all. The journey of a thousand supporters begins with a single misstep… Jon Stewart made his Monday appearance on The Daily Show, and the main piece he did was a slam on the breathless, hyperbolic coverage of the Trump trial. I thought his criticism was a bit off -- this, after all, is the first-ever criminal trial of former president, and wall-to-wall coverage is not terribly unreasonable, especially since no TVs are allowed in the courtroom. However, the perspective on how over-the-top and repetitive a lot of that coverage is was spot on. More to the point, it's almost all very funny. And funniest of all, without giving it away, is some self-awareness on Stewart's part, thoroughly willing to be the butt of some excellent humor. And as a bonus, here's Stewart's very good interview with Salman Rushdie, about his new book that takes a deep, insightful look at the near-murderous attack on him 18 months ago, and the societal culture where that fits in. It's a very thoughtful interview, but both Steward and Rushdie are able to bring humor to it. The other day, I wrote here about a weird story that concerned Trump going on a bizarre social media rant about Jimmy Kimmel hosting the Oscars. It was bizarre for many reasons. One was that the former president, facing four indictments, running for the White House again, was writing about the Academy Awards. Another was that the Oscars had been held five weeks earlier. Also, that he was ranting about something related to the Oscars that had bothered him so much that it was building up angst inside him for five weeks and felt compelled to write about it all of a sudden with no context to anything else. But most bizarre of all -- even more than all that -- is that Trump repeatedly confused Jimmy Kimmel with Al Pacino. In case you missed Trump's rant or forgot the specifics, here it is again, because it relates to what follows. A couple days ago, amid all the hooey swirling around Trump, with his election fraud trial about to start in Manhattan, a thought about this occurred to me. It was that with all the news and headlines and four court events for Trump that week alone (the trial, the bond hearing, the gag order hearing and the start of Supreme Court oral arguments on "total immunity"), this silly, bizarre, loony rant by Trump had faded into the woodwork. It was just Trump being Trump. Trump being obsessive about Jimmy Kimmel. Trump obsessing about the Oscars. Trump getting details wrong. Trump lying. That's Trump -- and you laugh and roll your eyes and shrug and move on to the next lunacy. Business as usual with Trump. Next! Except, then I also thought -- wait, what if this was President Biden? What if President Biden made a long social media post about...the Oscars? And what if it was a rant? And what if it was personal attack on one person? And what if he lied throughout it? And... and...and...and most of all -- what if in that post he repeatedly had confused Jimmy Kimmel with Al Pacino???!!! If that happened, it wouldn't have been a laugh, a bunch of late night talk show jokes, an eye roll, shrug and move on, next! It would have been blasting headline across Fox for days -- and probably would have been notable news covered by all actual news media. And...it should have been! The President of the United States doing all that, even without repeatedly confusing Jimmy Kimmel with Al Pacino. But add in that major confusion. It would have been a huge concern even in the Democratic Party about if President Biden was losing it, losing his perspective, losing his memory, and wondering if this actually was a first step of actual early dementia. But, of course, President Biden didn't do that. Trump did. And people just laughed, rolled they eyes, did some jokes, shrugged and moved on. Next! It's just Trump being Trump. Totally normal. And so Trump gets normalized. Except -- it's not normal. The social media posting was bizarre. And was troubling for what it said about Trump. His choice of what he felt compelled to focus on and rant about while wanting to be the most powerful man in the world, in charge of U.S. security, his finger on the nuclear bomb, on the eve of four court events that very week and four indictment trials. And repeatedly confusing a TV talk show host for the past 21 years with one of America's most famous Oscar-winning actors. If you keep bringing something up lunatic from Trump's past (and there is mountains of things to bring up), even if the "past" is just a week ago, it's dismissed as "old news," and "that was long ago," and "he didn't mean it" and having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (a weirdly used name, I might note...) An acceptance that perhaps no one else in public life, but especially in politics, and most-especially presidential politics would be graced with. Yet it's the fact that all this lunacy from the past (wind turbines cause cancer, drinking bleach may cure COVID, airports existed in the Revolutionary War and on and on and on) began long ago and had continued on for years and is getting worse that is the very point of the acceptance and normalization of Trump's growing lunacy and, now, possible early dementia. The same illness that struck his father, Fred Trump. To be clear, this social media post isn't the worst thing Trump has done. It's not in the Top Ten. It might not be in the Top 100. Which is one of the main reasons it's laughed at and ignored. And is normalized, Trump just being Trump. While for anyone else -- anyone else -- it would likely be a cause of concern. And to be clear: as much as "Trump being Trump" sounds like a perfectly standard reason to accept anyone (like them or not) for just being himself, Trump being himself is Trump being a racist, pathologically lying, anti-Semitic, obsessively insecure, malignant narcissist -- found liable by two juries for the equivalence of rape and guilty of a decade of fraud, whose charity was shut down for "a shocking pattern of illegality." But hey, it's just Trump being Trump! I completely understand that people can't hold on to every lunacy Trump throws out into the world. The steamer trunk carrying them all would be much too crushingly heavy. But the point is that it was "loony". And it was, arguably further evidence of what many psychiatrists point out are pieces of evidence of early dementia. And that's nothing that should ever be normalized. For anyone. Including the crazy guy yelling at non-existent owls as city buses pass by. But most especially for anyone running to be president of the United States. Truly, just imagine if that post had been sent by President Biden. But...it wasn't. It was sent by Trump. And laughed at, and just moved on from. Next! But while actions like this by Trump should not continually be accepted as Trump just being Trump and normalized, they should be seen (and I would suggest must be seen) as Trump showing his growingly regular signs every day of craziness and, it seems, a mental breakdown and possible early dementia. Because the man does want to be President of the United States, wants to be a dictator, wants to throw out parts of the U.S. Constitution, and is a fascist and a danger to democracy. No, Jimmy Kimmel is not Al Pacino. And it's seriously not normal for anyone to repeatedly think so. |
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
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|