He's ba-ack! After over five months off the air, due to the Writers Guild strike, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver returned to HBO. The Main Story was about Prison Health Care, which I've embedded below, but though it was a good report (not one of their best, but good), what I wish is that instead they had made available the first segment, which I know they never do. But it was a 10-15 look back at some of the major stories they weren't able to cover during the past 5+ months. It was often extremely funny -- most especially their scathing treatment of Lauren Boebert (R-CO) getting kicked out of the musical Beetlejuice. But a lot more topics, as well. Including a wonderful segment on the Writers Guild Strike, while noting that the AMTPT studios could have settled this with those terms five months ago, rather than put many tens of thousands of people throughout all manner of jobs at risk or out of work. Still, this report is, as I said, good. And ultimately, it's great to have the show back.
0 Comments
We take a point of personal privilege today, and in doing so also take a blessed, momentary respite from the woes that is Trump. I’m mentioned in the past my cousin Diana Leviton Gondek, who’s a very talented artist back in Chicago. (Actually, she’s a very talented artist wherever she is…) I’ve noted her getting a commission from the City of Chicago to make several large, wonderful horse sculptures to honor fallen Chicago police officers that were placed around the city, including the lobby outside the mayor’s office, when Rahm Emanuel was His Honor. She also was commissioned to design the 50th anniversary poster for the Special Olympics (which I never knew until then began in Chicago). And just received a grant from the State of Illinois. I bring up these few items of many to make clear it’s not just my bias saying what a very talented artist she is. But rather my honesty… Diana is now involved with a project on behalf of epilepsy, the Hidden Truths Project, which is dedicated to engaging and empowering those with epilepsy through the arts. (Founded in 2012, they've raised over $500,000 for epilepsy research. You can read more about the organization here.) And on behalf of that, she was interviewed by the local CBS television station that did a piece on the exhibit. You’ll see her with a painting she had in the show – her new style is one I particularly like. And happily, she sold it, and proceeds will go to the charity. You can see more of her work here. And so, using Squatter's Rights on my own website, here's the two-minute video. It turns out that Republicans have realized that proclaiming themselves “Pro-Life” isn’t resonating with the public anymore, and what’s needed is to “re-brand” themselves. Because, yes, that’s the problem, the brand name – not that their position is to restrict abortions, in some cases no later than after just six weeks when most women don’t even know they’re pregnant, with no exceptions for rape or the health of the woman, and pushing towards a national abortion ban. It’s the brand, apparently that is infuriating women voters -- in fact, voters of both genders and both parties, and by massive majorities. It’s the name! In fairness, there have been instances where a product name did hurt the brand. Most notably the appetite suppressing candy Ayds, which never was able to overcome the unfortunate allusion to a deadly illness, and it went out of business. Other problematic brand names include – IKEA’s Fartfull Workbench, Wack Off! Insect repellant, The Jew’s Ear juice beverage, Reebok Incubus athletic shoes for women, iBeat Blaxx mp3 player, K.U.M. Hair Care and 666 Cold Preparation. (And yes, all these are real.) So, with all these examples supporting them, “Pro-Life” proponents in the Republican Party clearly believe they’re in very good company for pointing to horrific brand-names that pummeled the product. Of course, the hurdle with this thinking is that in these other instances, the companies had perfectly good products, but mind-numbingly awful names. Pro-Lifers have a perfectly excellent name with a crash-and-burn product. The result of all this is that Republicans have been searching around for a new brand that people will like. One possibility I might suggest is “Pro-Choice.” The public seems to love that -- a lot. Unfortunately, it’s been taken. As has another alternative to Pro-Life -- “Live Long and Prosper”. A good brand that’s available might be “Team Pizza.” No, it has zero relation to abortion, but that’s clearly a good thing, and people really love pizza. Or perhaps “Pro-Ceed.” After all, “pro-” has the right connotation that these brands require, “proceed” is forward looking, and “ceed” is a homonym that would remind people of the initial step of procreation and life! However, what the Republican Party seems to have come up with (for now, because – as they say in show biz – it doesn’t seem to have legs. Or thought) is “Pro-Baby.” That’s what the GOP’s ace marketeer Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) came up with. (Interestingly, it’s possible that he was spurred on to this brand by adapting my “Live Long and Prosper” idea. The connection to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock would remind people of Dr. Spock – and he, of course, is beloved as the famous baby doctor! Pro-Baby, indeed.) Despite initial skepticism, one thing I must acknowledge is that there’s something brilliant about this new brand for former Pro-Choice Republicans. Not only does “Pro-Baby” let Republicans appeal to voters on behalf of cute, roly-poly cherubs – but even more, it’s a direct connection to the Republican Party Leader! In fact, they even already have a mascot built in and ready to go! And what brand isn’t improved by an adorable mascot? Pro-Baby! Imagine how impactful this brand-new brand name and flying Trump Baby will be in tandem at anti-abortion rallies for the Republican Party!! Oh, baby! Such excitement. The fevered pitch of proselytizing, outraged speeches on behalf of babies, beautiful wholesome babies, as eyes search the sky in anticipation of that explosive moment when – there it is! -- the blimp soars overhead. And instead of throwing confetti in the air, crowds could bring talcum powder and fling it.
Every time you think “Pro-Baby,” you’ll also think of Trump. And every time Trump comes to mind, you won’t be able to help but think immediately “Now, there’s a Pro-Baby.” It’s marketing 101 heaven. There is, however, one major downside to marketing your no-abortion brand as “Pro-Baby.” And unfortunately, it really is a big one. (Well…it’s a really big one when you’re the Republican Party, so maybe they haven’t thought this through all the way.) If you are going to call yourself the “Pro-Baby” Party, then you pretty much have painted yourself into a corner of being obligated to support…well, babies. And that’s never been a major GOP strong point. Being “Pro-Baby” means you have to support accessible and affordable funding for child care. And paid family leave from work -- for both the mother and father. And childhood vaccines. And early pre-K education. And you need to do all this, providing not just basic assistance, but going all-in with full, unfettered support because you are now “Pro-Baby”. There is also one other, more pesky problem for Republicans in switching from being “Pro-Life” to “Pro-Baby.” They will now only be able to address abortion from the standpoint of the baby. No more convoluted arguments trying to convince others about when “life” begins. Or trying to give human rights to a xygote or a fetus. Because we all know what a baby is, and a seed isn’t a baby, a xygote isn’t a baby, even a fetus isn’t a baby. (After all, that’s why it’s called “a fetus.”) And once the fetus does finally become viable as “a baby” – which is now, with its “Pro-Baby” brand, the core of the GOP anti-abortion brand – there is absolutely no political official of any party who is trying to make a case for allowing abortion at that point. None. Zero. Nada. So, Republicans appear to be in a very difficult place. And they’re making it much harder for themselves by choosing to go Pro-Baby. (Or, to put it another way, by taking the pro-choice option to be Pro-Baby.) Mind you, I’m all for Republicans becoming Pro-Baby. It’s about time. It’s just a huge problem for them, both having to drop their old, Pro-Life brand and live with this new Pro-Baby one. My suggestion is that Republicans make things so much easier on themselves and drop the whole "Pro-Baby" idea and, instead, just go with -- The Associated Press did an analysis of government data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the current status of COVID-19, in relation to people who are fully vaccinated and those who refused to get shots. And while the results aren’t surprising, they’re notable.
And that begins with the report showing that COVID deaths in the United States are about 300 a day as of March (it’s down to about 100 per day now, though should go up again next winter). But critically important, it added that almost all of these COVID-19 deaths today in the U.S. are for people who weren’t vaccinated. But, y’know, that whole “personal choice” thing and all. So, life goes on. As does COVID Also, while the data from May shows there have been 853,000 hospitalizations for COVID-19, less than 1,200 of those come from “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted. Which, for those of you without an abacus is 0.1%. In addition, there were more than 18,000 deaths COVID-19 in May, but by comparison, only 150 of those were for people who were fully vaccinated. And that’s 0.8%, which by most mathematical standards is really small. Which means that a lot of people who had the option to make a “personal choice,” did a very tragically bad job choosing. In fairness, the CDC says that some states are more aggressive than others when tracking breakthrough infections, and not every state even does so – five or so don’t. So the data likely understates breakthrough infections. But the trend is clear and emphatic. For instance, Andy Slavitt, who was the Biden Administration adviser on Covid-19, estimated a few weeks ago that 98% to 99% of Americans who are currently dying from COVID-19 are unvaccinated. But then, that’s their personal choice, of course. Further, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky reiterated that very same point this week when discussing the effectiveness of the vaccine, saying that "nearly every death, especially among adults, due to COVID-19, is, at this point, entirely preventable.” And as such, she said that deaths from COVID today are “particularly tragic.” And tragically, that was their personal choice. Unfortunately, it was not the personal choice of the vast majority of Americans who got vaccinated to continue living with an active COVID-19 virus that continues to mutate among so many unvaccinated. There are a few softball issues that are perfect for politicians. To mix sports metaphors, simple layups that they can score easy, open points on. “Do you like puppies?” would be one of them, for example.
So, it always amazes me when Republicans lately swing and miss on one. Trump was big on that – like when he’s said he thinks people are suckers for joining the military. “God bless our troops” is a no-brainer. Joe Biden has ended all his speeches with that for years. But not Trump, to him, they’re suckers. True, it was said in private – though repeatedly – but what politicians (let alone president, the Commander-in-Chief for goodness sake!) even thinks that?? And one of those softball positions has to be – “I believe we should protect the health of our children.” (Side note: No, this isn’t about guns and schools. It could be. But it isn’t. Because it’s even a simpler matter than that. Which, given that guns are the number cause of death for children, means it’s pretty simple.) So, again, one of the most softball position a politician can take is – “I believe we should protect the health of our children.” That seems core basic standard, and any other synonyms you can think of, for a politician while eating a hot dog and saving apple pie for dessert. A foundational fundamental position to take without even thinking. It’s the kind of subject every politician probably dreams about having to deal with. The kind of question every politician prays to get when kneeling at their bedside before going to sleep. Because they can answer it in their sleep. “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children?” Click, whirr, ka-ching – “I have always believed that children are our future. And we must protect them and cherish them, because children are the best we have to offer. God bless our children. When I look at children, I know America is in great hands. And we have to do everything to keep them safe and healthy.” That’s just a politician getting started, without even trying. Then they’ll go into their long, elementary, grassroots speech about families and values and their family and their children, and looking into their eyes, and doing anything for them – “and you parents out there, you know what I’m talking about” – and the politicians are just winging it at this point, not needing anything planned, because this is just rudimentary, normal, core, basic, standard, foundations, fundamental, elementary, grassroots stuff…not even trying hard or needing to catch their breath. Posing with their family, pictures of them and their children on their campaign material, for their holiday cards, on their personal websites. “Our kids. It’s all about our kids, isn’t it?” Cue the cheers. This is a softball subject for a politician. (I first wrote “issue,” but it doesn’t even reach the level of “issue,” any more than “air” is an issue when asked “So, what are you breathing?” Which is why it is utterly bewildering to me how many Republican politicians are whiffing on the subject. Missing the layup with no one else on their side of the court. Republican legislators are passing laws to deny healthcare to transgender children. Let me rephrase that in case it wasn’t clear -- Republican legislators are actually passing laws to deny healthcare to transgender children. This is totally separate to what they as politicians think about LGBTQ or what they think about how their constituents more feel about it, or more specifically about the subject of transgender. They might hate it or be confused by or think it’s against God or think it’s sad or unfortunate or be scared by it or not know what to make of it or think it’s okay but bad politics or whatever. They might hate the parents who allow their children to have a transgender operation or hate the doctors who perform the operation or be confused by it all or think it’s okay but bad politics or whatever. But at issue is something very basic – if a child needs healthcare, whoever they are, we as humans give the child healthcare. For goodness sake, doctors perform operations to help save the lives of murderer. And as much as people might be bothered by that, even Red states have not passed laws to outlaw that. Yet they’re passing laws not to give healthcare to children who are transgender. And to be clear, it’s more basic than that: they’re passing laws not to give healthcare to children. “They” being people who, if you asked them, “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children?”, would answer – after the click, whirr, ka-ching: “I have always believed that children are our future. And we must protect them and cherish them, because children are the best we have to offer. God bless our children. When I look at children, I know America is in great hands. And we have to do everything to keep them safe and healthy.” If Republican politicians want to hate the parents who allow such operations to proceed on their children, that’s a position to take – no matter how right the politician may feel or wrong others might say -- to try and defend to the public. But that’s the parent. For the politicians to then take their reaction toward the adult out on the child -- who is a child, unless that isn’t clear to them -- seems barbaric. And especially barbaric if asked “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children? and -- click, whirr, ka-ching – answered, “I have always believed that children are our future. And we must protect them and cherish them.” There’s no asterisk for that. No “…however.” No “…except…” To the core, basic, standard softball question -- “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children?”, the answer is “Yes. Always. Of course. For every child.” But it’s not for far too many Republican politicians. And “one” is too many. The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast are Andy Slavitt and Laurie Garrett. The two are among the top experts on the pandemic, and they talk with Al about the question “The End of the COVID Emergency?” and where things actually stand where we are right now.
|
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
|