This is a fun, oddity sent to me by Nell Minow. It's an 1962 episode from the show Stump the Stars, which is another name for charades. There's a weekly set team who gets challenged by various guest celebrities -- and this week they do something a little different: the various guest celebrities here all come from the same place. They're the cast members of The Dick Van Dyke Show. (Mary Tyler Moore, Morey Amsterdam and Rose Marie.) Apparently, Dick had appeared on the show as a guest, and had a good time and convinced the others to come on. Either that, or someone at CBS thought it would be a great way to promote The Dick Van Dyke Show... But they seemed to have practiced a lot, so it might well be the former reason, or a combination thereof. On the opposing "home" team is captain Sebastian Cabot (who most people would recognize as 'Mr. French" on Family Affair), Beverly Garland (though she's probably best-known to most people as joining the cast of My Three Sons by marrying Fred MacMurray's character, if you live in Los Angeles near Universal Studios she's familiar for another reason -- you likely ever passed by the Beverly Garland Hotel, and this is her), actress Diana Dors, and Ross Martin, who was Robert Conrad's sidekick, Artemus Gordon, on The Wild Wild West. And the host is Pat Harrington, later a co-star on One Day at a Time as the superintendent, 'Schneider.' The contest is pretty close, though one team pulls away when they get a hugely unfair advantage with a clue. While it was meant to be cute and clever, it is much too easy for a reason that will become clear, and what should have been clear to the producers. The biggest oddity to me is the opening credits where the man who created the show, Mike Stokey, is prominently highlighted overwhelmingly as if his name is a big deal and means something. Maybe it did in 1962, but I have a reasonable sense of that time, and I don't have the slightest idea who he is. I looked him up, and this show seems pretty much his only significant credit, other than some early TV specials. (And as for being so impressive about created the show, it's really just "Hey, how about if he had celebrities playing charades!") The show is broken down into two segments, and I have the separate videos below.
0 Comments
The other day, I posted a wonderful, little-known song here, "I Worry," by Sheldon Harnick and Jerry Bock for a little-known musical they wrote for TV, The Canterville Ghost. It was from a terrific double-CD put out last year, Hidden Treasures, with Harnick (mostly, but not exclusively) singing his leser-known songs.
Here's another gem. This is a wonderful song that got cut on the road for their 1960 musical, Tenderloin, which was the follow-up to their Pulitzer Prize-winning (and Tony Best Musical) Fiorello! The entire creative team reunited, though the results weren't as strong, and the show flopped, though it did run for 216 performances, which is half a year. The show takes place around 1930, concerning a crusading minister trying to clean up New York's red light district and a cynical reporter hoping to get a story, mainly about the minister. As Harnick has said, the problem is that the main character is sort of a stick-in-the-mud, and the lesser character of the reporter was much more interesting. But with noted Shakesearean actor Maurice Evans in the lead, they couldn't really trim the role, and as a result the show just didn't work well-enough. But the score has some very nice things in it. One thing it doesn't have in it, however, is the song, "I Wonder What It's Like," which got cut before the show made it to Broadway. It’s sung by two naïve, innocent young ladies who work for the reformer, wondering what it’s like to have sex before you’re married. It’s really wonderful. During the pre-Broadway tryout, female critics loved it, but especially at that time there weren’t many of them, and the male reviewers disliked it since apparently a song like this in that era, still a fairly genteel time, made them uncomfortable. It would likely fit just fine today if Harnick ever decided to readdress the show for revivals, which it still gets. Well, though the song was cut, here are Harnick and Bock together singing it with much sweetness, and exuberance. (Sheldon Harnick is the first solo voice your hear at the :30-second mark. Jerry Bock, of course the other, is at the piano.) Well, I'm not up to the 600-page mark. Only 855 to go.
The latest doings -- Prince Nikolai learned that Count Nikolai has taken service in the army, while Prince Andrei told Prince Boris that Princess Helen has married Count Pierre whose cousin Princess Katerina has received a smaller stipend than expected which was left to her by the late Count Kiril whose distant cousin Princess Anne had implored Prince Vasily to intercede on her behalf, as Countess Natasha attends her first ball and has caught the eye of the window of Princess Lisa.who died giving birth to Prince Nikolai, Jr. It's a prince of a novel, where you can count on many relationships overlapping. I really meant it the other day when I wrote that "I'm starting to get tired of writing about Jeb Bush." But I find myself once again having to, not because he simply says things I don't agree with -- that's to be expected in politics and part of the process -- but because he's saying things so mind-numbingly egregious that I don't even begin to understand what he's thinking.
First there was his defense of the United States going to war in Iraq and four changing-explanations on what he actually meant. Then, there was him stating contrary to existing law that any business could discriminate, as long as it was part of their religious belief. Which basically is core of hate-filled anarchy. And now, he's saying as a layman that climate scientists are "arrogant" for almost unanimously coming to the exact same conclusion on climate change as a result of independent, peer-reviewed research. I'm beginning to think that contemplative, analytical thinking is not an inherited trait handed down to the Bush children. Among the potential Republican candidates for president, Jeb Bush is one of the more reasonable, though that’s a low standard. But I really don't begin to understand what he's been thinking the past couple weeks. Yes, I know he wants to get the GOP nomination, so he likely feels he has to indulge the whimsies of the radical far-right base. But not only am I not sure that the radical far-right base of the Republican Party believes all the things Jeb Bush has been spouting lately, the reality is that if he does actually got the party's nomination (something that seemed probable just two weeks ago, and more questionable today), he'll have to live on these statements in the general election. And they're making him look sort of clownish. And clueless. Just look at this most recent pronouncement. It's bizarre not just on the most eye-catching level that's made the news, but on so many levels. Here's what I mean. As a simple starting point, this is Mr. Bush's quote about climate change that's getting the most attention: "And for the people to say the science is decided on, this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you." Now, if Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida eight years ago, doesn't want to believe in the man-made causes of climate change, so be it. That's his right. But if you do actually want to make that claim and be taken seriously (especially as an aspirant for President of the United States), it's sort of incumbent upon you to support it with actual scientific research and facts that contradict the opposing position. Just saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. (This is akin to the Third Grade Rule of Arguing. "You're stupid." "No, you are." No, you are.") Why is it wrong? Show your work. If you want to be president, lead the way. It's part of the job description. But then, it's not just that Mr. Bush the younger says it's wrong, he actually says it's "arrogant" of scientists to draw their researched scientific conclusions. And once again, not only does he not provide a single scintilla of support for his assertion of "arrogance" -- not one, nothing, zero -- his non-scientific, layman claims against the near-entire peer reviewed scientific community is the definition of arrogance itself. While we might like the image of the lone voice with arm raised railing against the powers of the world, it's worth remember that often when we see that person in real life, we carefully guide our children to the other side of the street and point as a warning why it's important to do homework and change your underwear at least once a week. Let's be clear about something: this supposed "arrogance" is 197 world science organization that support the idea of man-made involvement in climate change. And I've yet to come across a single one (none) who say otherwise. Zippo, nada. Even the last holdout, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (what a shock...) jumped ship in July, 2007. They changed their position and finally acknowledged in the very first sentence of their public statement: "In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere." They weren't certain the degree to which the problem was man-made, but even they (the sole, remaining holdout) were at last recognizing that people were involved. But now, with the Petroleum Geologists association even jumping ship, there are no world science organizations I can find who support what Jeb Bush is trying to contend. And 197 on the other side. Again, it's his right to believe whatever he does, or say the world is flat. Or that his brother actually got more votes in Florida than Al Gore. But to suggest that everyone else who are actual world science organizations, and 97% of "actively publishing climate scientists" -- which is how NASA describes it (NASA, for goodness sake!) -- are themselves "arrogant" belies all common sense. Really, what on earth and in the ozone is Jeb Bush thinking?? Assuming that "thinking" is a term separate from "pandering." But the thing is...it's not this "arrogance" claim that may even be the most strange thing in his comments about climate change. That's got the most attention, but it's something else that leaps out when you read the full statement he made on the subject. And that full statement was -- "Look, first of all, the climate is changing. I don't think the science is clear what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It's convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on, this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you. It's this intellectual arrogance that now you can't even have a conversation about it. The climate is changing, and we need to adapt to that reality." There is a quagmire of blind contradictions here so deep and tortuously tangled that it makes America's getting out of Vietnam an easy task by comparison. To begin with, after slamming climate scientists as "arrogant" for stating the results of their research as fact, Mr. Bush the younger then goes and himself states as fact that "the climate is changing." Now, much as I myself agree with him, he has to know that much of his own party's base doesn't. It's not at all decided among the radical far-right that the climate is changing. So, imagine the arrogance of Jeb Bush to say it is so -- and then repeat it, and then state that it is "reality." But further, as he must know -- he just has to know, unless he's been holed up with Dick Cheney in seclusion meditating for the past eight years he's been out of office -- that much of this far-right base of his GOP is so adamant that the science isn't remotely decided on climate change (or "global warming" as they like to inaccurately call it) that their minds are lock-closed on accepting the research from the 97% of peer-reviewed climate scientists. Here's the problem with that -- To be honest with you (as Mr. Bush likes to say a lot the past week, which is a shame because I think it would be much better for him if we thought maybe he was just joking) when I first read him stating, "It's this intellectual arrogance that you can't even have a conversation about it" -- I thought that he was talking about the Republican far-right base, and taking a swing at them! I mean, after all, that's the whole reason there's even a faux-debate on the subject of climate change. Then I came to my senses and understood he was just being disingenuous and contradictory -- and blithely unaware of the bizarre irony that he was doing it. I just don't understand what Jeb Bush is doing this past couple weeks. If he wants to make any of these pronouncements, fair enough, it's his right. And his far-right. But that doesn't mean they don't make him look clueless and floundering, most especially when unsupported by anything to back them up. But in the end, to be fair, here is the list of world scientific organizations that I've been able to find who support Jeb Bush's position that it's "arrogant" to claim there's man-made involvement in climate change -- 1. And just to be completely above board, so that you know the full disclosure, here from the California Office of Planning & Research is the list of arrogant Worldwide Scientific Organizations that "hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action"
It's been a while since we've had a Mystery Guest from What's My Line?, and this is an especially fun one from November, 1966. Actually, multiple-fun. The guest is Frank Sinatra -- and then when his segment is over, one of the panelists, Mark Goodson (one of the show's producers), says they're going to do something the show has never before done, and that's have him leave...and Sinatra takes his place on the panel. But that's not the end of it. Because later they have a second Mystery Guest...and it's Mia Farrow, who shortly before had married Sinatra. (In fact, catch how she signs in...) For those who like to jump around, rather than watch the whole thing, Sinatra comes in at the 3:50 mark, and Farrow shows up around 14:00 I watch with a bit of bemusement, as well as annoyance at all the hand-wringing stories about discord on the trade bill between President Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. It's not that I'm bothered that there's disagreement on either side, but rather what's bemusing is the concern that this inter-party disagreement is a problem. While there are certainly huge strengths when there is full agreement within a party, I've always thought that when Senators & Representatives criticize their own party's president -- and vice-versa -- that's A Good Thing.
The branches of government are supposed to be separate. We're taught from grade school that it was the point of the Constitution to create checks and balances. Regardless of my own feelings on the trade accord, I think the country is better off that it is happening now with the Democratic Party, because healthy debate is, in fact, healthy. Indeed, I think the country is always better off when it happens, whatever the party. I think the country would have been significantly better off if the GOP had ever had the fortitude to "dare" do it under George W. Bush. Imagine if there had been a debate in Congress over the Iraq War where some Republicans actually expressed then what some said long after the fact -- that mistakes not just "were" made, but are being made. That it wasn't just some Democrats raising the contrary view -- and being painted as "traitors" on occasion for it. Imagine if there was a debate in Congress as the economy was headed towards crashing, and it wasn't just Democrats saying that "trickle down economics" didn't work under Reagan and isn't working now, and that removing protective controls over Wall Street put in after the Great Depression was a very bad idea that risked the same problems, but some Republicans did, too. I'm all for Senators and Congressmen criticizing their own party's leader when they believe he is wrong. And for the President criticizing those from his party in Congress when he believes they are pandering to the public for votes back home, or simply wrong. Democrats haven't done this enough in recent years, but they do it -- and have always done it a whole lot more than Republicans. The great humorist Will Rogers once famously quipped as far back as in the 1930s, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Democrats has always, long been a party of arguing amongst themselves, and sometimes eating their young. The party's 1968 presidential convention in Chicago was a near-free for all. On the other hand, Republicans have long lived by Ronald Reagan's famous "11th Commandment" -- Thou shalt not criticize another Republican. Part of this is because there are liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats. But Republicans, most especially today, are almost exclusively conservative. They've always been generally moderate to conservative, though once upon a time there have been more moderate-to-liberal Republicans. Sen. Jaccob Javits of New York and Sen. Lowell Weicker of Connecticut were liberal, as was New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. President Eisenhower was generally moderate, so was then-Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. President Theodore Roosevelt was liberal and fought corporations. For that matter, the Father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln probably wouldn't recognize his party any more -- having gone to war with the South and fighting for the rights of black people. (What a concept.) Many Democrats were not only critical, but scathing of their own party's president during the Vietnam War. Senators Frank Church, William Fulbright, Albert Gore, and George McGovern among others were often vociferous in their criticism, indeed at times outrage. Senator Eugene McCarthy went so far as to challenge Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic Party nomination as president, ultimately helping in part to lead towards Mr. Johnson.dropping out of the race. On the other hand, during the Iraq War, which lasted longer than even Vietnam and cost over two trillion dollars and 4,500 American lives -- and was based on a lie -- where were any Republican voices in Congress that even suggested questioning whether this was maybe, possibly not a great idea? Might not a few dissenting voices within the party been good for the country? At the very least, it certainly would have been good for the GOP, since it led to Mr. Bush leaving office with a 22% approval rating and the election of Barack Obama as President. And so now there is disagreement between President Obama and some Democrats in the Senate, led by Elizabeth Warren on the trade accord. Good. There should be. There should be debate, even within the party. That's how you figure out what's good and what needs fixing. And rather than the press and public thinking this is problematic when it happens within a party, they should instead rejoice at it. It's what the branches of government are supposed to do. We learned it in the third grade. |
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
|