​I like The Rachel Maddow Show.  A lot.  But I always record it and wait about 20 minutes or so before I start watching – mainly so that I can fast-forward through her 10-15 minute opening history lesson which only has a tangential connection to the news story it’s leading to, usually one that (while interesting) shouldn’t necessarily be the lead story.
 
To be clear, I like that she gives history for perspective to the news.  It’s not only often valuable, but can be important, as well.  The problem is that I occasionally know the history, and also it can usually be told in a lot less time than she uses – which is important because an hour-long TV show only has about 44 minutes of content.
 
(I also will fast-forward through her endless repetitions of a point.  Mind you, as readers of these pages know, I like to use repetitions.  They’re a very good thing.  But generally not four or five of them.  And when I do use that many, it’s for dramatic structure, building to a point, not to Make Sure You Got What I Just Said.)
 
But mainly, it’s the history lessons at the start of the show, that for some reason she seems to think that if there’s a history tale behind it then that adds enough gravitas to make it the day’s lead story.  Occasionally it should be the lead story – but not because of the history.  Because of its meaning for the day, impacting people’s lives the most.  And usually, it shouldn’t be the lead story.  Just one for later in the show.
 
And so, in today's world with democracy at risk – indeed the day after The Rachel Maddow Show spent two-thirds of its broadcast on that very subject, based on an in-depth article in The Atlantic --  I could only shake my head when The Rachel Maddow Show spent, no, not the first 10 or even 15 minutes to History, but -- the first 20 minutes of their 44 minutes doing a history story about…about removing a statue.
 
It was a valuable story. The statue was of the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan.  And it was interesting.  (At least what I saw of it when I’d pause the fast-forwarding.)  But it could have been done in six minutes. It should have been done in six minutes.  And it should not have been done as the Lead Story of the Day.
 
After all, yesterday was the day President Biden had a video meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, brought about by a build-up of Russian troops on the Ukraine border.  Rachel Maddow did get to that, happily.  Eventually.  Well into the show.
 
And by the way, yesterday was the 80th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. One would think that if you’re going to do a history lesson, that would be a really good one to delve into.  Not necessarily as The Lead, though it could be since its historical impact on American and world society was profound.  Alas, she didn’t even mention it.  That's right, Rachel Maddow -- history maven -- did not mention the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Because – after using up 20 minutes on removing a statue – there wasn’t time.
 
(Fun Fact:  Even ESPN found time to mention the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor on their one-hour SportsCenter show of game highlights.  And did a very good filmed piece on it, and the event's overlap with athletes involved.)

Oh, and there also was zero mention on the Maddow show of the egregious far-right "election fraud investigation" in Wisconsin that finally issued its findings – and said that they found absolutely no widespread voter fraud.  A major story for its impact on America today – a story, in fact, that the show has been covering.  A lot.  Just not the results.  Because there wasn't time to talk about it.  They were too busy dealing with the…y’know, the history over the removal of a statue.
 
I like The Rachel Maddow Show.  A lot.  But I do record it so that I can fast-forward.
 
The problem is that even though I’ve figured out a way to deal with the interminable history lessons, that’s not good enough.  Rachel Maddow has a very important platform on MSNBC – indeed, in the world of news.  And to waste so much of it on overly-detailed history lessons as The Lead Story when you have such limited time is, to me, irresponsible.
 
And I love history.  It was my minor in college, and it’s one of my favorite things to read.  I’ve read the entire 11-volume set of Will and Ariel Durant’s Story of Civilization.  And I like very much that Rachel Maddow gives history lessons.
 
But not how she does it.  That’s a waste of precious time, most especially in an era when there is not as much time to waste as one would wish.

​For those who like to look at the calendar for such things, today is the 77th  anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944.  I thought it would therefore be especially appropriate to post this video.  It's the wonderful theme to the movie, The Longest Day, sung and performed most appropriately by the Cadet Glee Club of West Point, along with military band.
 
I first posted this video five years ago in 2017.  It’s my favorite one on the subject – not just for the performance, but for how movingly the video is edited.  It's particularly well-done, beginning with a minute of General Dwight Eisenhower's message to the troops before the invasion began, and interspersed with some excellent photos and archival film from the day, amid the soaring music.
 
By the way, the timpani you hear before the song begins is not only recognizable as the beginning of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, but more to the point, it's the Morse Code for “V” for Victory.
 
Also, in case you weren't aware, the main theme for The Longest Day, used throughout the film not just in the end titles, was written by pop-star heartthrob at the time, Paul Anka.

This is a very interesting, enjoyable report from Michelle Miller on CBS This Morning.  It covers both entertainment and politics, and looks at the history of the controversial song about lynching, "Strange Fruit," that became a signature song for Billie Holiday.  Though at the heart of the new Hulu movie, The United States vs. Billie Holiday, the politics of the time -- and its overlap with today -- weaves through the story.

But there are also a lot of surprises that pop in throughout, as the two sons of the songwriter give their insight into the song and its history.  And the biggest twist comes about five minutes in.  Not to overemphasize the idea of "surprises" and "twists," these aren't oh-my-God! things that take the story in completely different directions, but rather parts of the story that are unexpected and fun to learn, notably about people who are part of the tale.

There's also an interesting, small surprise at the end.  However, the reporter makes a mistake about it.  But being a surprise (of sorts), I don't want to give it away here.  But I'll explain below the video that I've embedded below. 

Since you've gotten this far, I can now explain the minor mistake that Ms. Miller makes at the end of an otherwise very good, interesting report.

Actually, it's more a case of one minor mistake, and one small lapse of full information.

The other song referenced at the end that Abel Meerapol also wrote was titled, "The House I Live In."  What Ms. Miller says is he title -- "What is America to Me" -- is only just a line from the song. 

And also, although Frank Sinatra did record the song and sang it throughout his career, the impression given here is that he introduced the song, but in fact it was written for a musical Let Freedom Sing in 1942.  Sinatra did popularize it, however.  And the great Paul Robeson had a famous recording, as well.  But more on all that tomorrow.

I was going to make this a "Tweet of the Day," since it comes from a tweet -- but it's to substantial for just that.  As the note describes, it concerns Sir Nicholas Winton who saved many hundreds of children from Germany.  The shame is that this is only a few minutes, because I'm sure the full TV program at the heart of this would have been especially moving and wonderful.  Happily, this is plenty good.

It also puts in deeper perspective the previous administration taking children away from their parents and putting them in cages.

Elsewhere on Mr. Simanowitz's timeline, he had a quote from Nicholas Winton, who passed away in 2015 at the well-earned age of 106.  "Don't be content in your life to just do no wrong.  Be prepared every day to try to do some good."

A few months back, I wrote about an upcoming book co-written by my friend Steve Fifer back in Chicago, It's In the Action: Memories of a Nonviolent Warrior, an autobiography of Civil Rights legend C.T. Vivian, who collaborated with Steve.  Vivian sadly died this past July at age 96, although happily his memorial service got a great deal of national attention, including having Barack Obama as one of the speakers

​I'm above three-quarters through the book and am enjoying it -- especially because so much of it concerns voter suppression and the fight through the 1950s and early '60s for the Voting Rights Act.  Talk about timely.  (Vivian, who helped lead many of the non-violent protests during that time, also briefly  addresses when the Supreme Court reprehensibly rolled back the Voting Rights Act, basically saying it wasn't needed in full anymore since basically All is Well.  The reason I bring it up today is because of a passage I read yesterday.

In that section, Rev. Vivian talks about a confrontation he had in 1965 with the infamous racist Sheriff Jim Clark in Selma on the courthouse steps.  The event was noteworthy enough that the book quotes Andrew Young, former mayor of Atlanta and U.N. Ambassador as saying that without that moment, which was caught on film and played extensively on television, that "We would not have had the  Voting Rights Act."  Reporter Ernie Suggs of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is quoted that because it was on television, historians have called the exchange on the steps "one of the defining moments of the civil rights movement."

The book even explains how to find the important moment online -- which I suspect was a Fiffer inclusion.  I won't say why the confrontation was so important, since it will stand out all the more if you see it as if new, and I tracked down the video to post here.

Vivan says about Sheriff Clark that he "was a bully, but he was hardly unique.  His society, his cultute allowed bullies.  Look at the values that the churches they went to taught.  You can't be good under those circumstances.  Understanding this, you won't be surprised to learn that Clark not only denied our contingent of would-be registrants entry to the courthouse, but his manner was, shall we say, less than friendly polite."

And not only is that him saying this half-a-century later, but watching the video, and from want C.T. Vivian says in the book, it seems pretty clear that he knew this at the time about Sheriff Clark, and went out of his way to push things to their fullest on the courthouse steps.  Clark, of course, could have stepped back and handled the situation as a sheriff should.  Rev. Vivian appears pretty certain he wouldn't.  In fact, as Pulitzer Prize-winning civil rights historian Taylor Branch said about the exchange that Vivian "knew it was gonna advance the movement the moment it happened."

Here's that famous confrontation on the Selma courthouse steps.

On this week’s Al Franken podcast, his guest is historian Douglas Boin.  He and All discuss, as Al describes, “the uncanny parallels between Trump’s America and 410 AD Rome” when there was “hatred of immigrants, religious intolerance, systemic racism. And an Asshole emperor. Sound familiar?” The two talk about the story of Alaric, the Goth who led the sacking of Rome. Also, Al says he “establishes once and for all that the Romans killed Christ, not the Jews!”
 

The other day, to augment his clueless quote about Winston Churchill, Trump told the story of Churchill going outside to stand on the roof of a building during the Blitz and broadcast a speech to the British people.  I think the fake point he was trying to make was showing how the Prime Minister tried to calm the public by showing there was no reason to panic and just stay calm and carry on.  There's just one problem with his story -- and you're probably way ahead of me here -- it's not true.  Need I say, "of course"?

It was legendary CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow who would periodically go on the rooftop of the building CBS would broadcast from, and he would do his news report back to the United States (his famous "This...is London" broadcasts), as bombs could be heard exploding in the background.  And it wasn't done to calm anyone, but to keep people fully informed and and honest as possible.

Murrow is one of my few "heroes" in broadcasting, and I've read three biographies on him.  So, when I heard Trump telling the story about Winston Churchill, I could only cringe and shake my head.

Which is a long way to explain why I thought it would be a good time to have this clip of Edward R. Murrow as the 'Mystery Guest' segment of What's My Line?

Murrow had one of the most recognizable voices in radio and TV (in large part because of those London broadcasts), and so he works hard to disguise it.  This video comes from December, 1952 – that's notable because while Bennett Cerf is on panel, this is so early in the show's run that he's not yet in his traditional seat on far right. 

If you want to jump right to Murrow's appearance, it starts around the 16:30 mark.  Nice, too, is that after the game, he sticks around to make a nice, moving presentation afterwards

Watching Trump the other trying to quote FDR and Winston Churchill the other day was sort of like watching a chimpanzee try to fly.  You know it had its eyes in heaven, but it will never understand when you try to explain aerodynamics to it.

In Trump's speech, one of his writers attempted to come up with a way to explain him lying to the American public about how the coronavirus was pretty much contained, that people didn't get infected by it from airborne droplets, that it was  no deadlier than the flu,and that young people were pretty much immune to it, when he knew none of that was true.

To be fair, while Trump did know at a certain point all that was untrue, it's possible -- being a malignant narcissist and pathological -- that eventually he convinced himself with his only lies. But still, from what he said on the recording to Bob Woodward that we all heard, he did know the truth at least at that time.  When he said it.

But to try to make everything think he was just being noble (which I'm sure not many people ever thought likely -- including his family and those who have known him for decades) and that he just didn't want people to panic (which I'm sure not many people ever thought likely -- including his family and those who have known him for decades, or a few days), the speechwriter figured he'd try to throw in a couple of the most famous, nurturing thoughts by the two legendary democratic world leaders who helped save the world from Naziism and fascism.

That would be President Franklin D. Roosevelt telling the American public, "The only thing you have to fear -- is fear itself.  And Prime Minister Winston Churchill telling the British people to "Stay calm, carry on."

Okay, this is really easy.  

When FDR made his statement, first of all it wasn't about WWII, but the Great Depression.  And the point wasn't to hide anything from the public to keep them from panicking.  It was to let people know precisely what was going on, and let them know that the only actual danger to be concerned about was the terror of not knowing.  That when you don't know what's going on, you create all manner of disastrous scenarios in your mind.  But when you're told, you can understand what is happening and see what the government is doing to resolve things.  Which removes fear and panic And so he would keep Americans informed, even to the point of later giving his famous Fireside Chats. 

When Churchill made his statement, he wasn't keeping information from the public.  He understand as clearly as could be that the British actually knew there was a war on in Europe, and that Hitler and the Nazis were taking over nations, and that England would be Germany's target.  This wasn't a secret.  He wasn't hiding the news about that.  And it was specifically because the British public knew that he dealt with them openly and honestly, so that they could see what the government was doing to resolved things.  And knowing the plans, being kept informed, they should them be able to stay calm and keep going.

This is pretty basic and obvious to anyone who takes half a moment to grasp the moment and have a clue about history.  Which I understand leaves out Trump.  It is also the exact opposite of what Trump told Bob Woodward he was supposedly doing in lying the everyone.  

And one other thing:  as Brian Williams noted, we also all know that after the Blitz, Churchill didn't say to the British people, "It is what it is."

While we can hope that Trump would have understood (or even just cared) what FDR and Churchill were actually saying, I think there's a better chance on that chimpanzee learning to fly.

​I was tempted not to say anything upfront, and just post this column as is, and only afterwards give an explanation.  But in the end, the piece has too many inconsistencies to be believed as having been written today and ultimately it was more fair to do it this way, at the top.

This is an article that I wrote for the Huffington Post -- over 13 years ago.  It was written on March 15, 2007, and I came across it while looking for a different column.  Skimming through, I was taken by how much of it not only holds true for today, but holds true so precisely, at times down to the word.  And not just the title, paralleling Trump's regular tweet of his "LAW AND ORDER!" rant.

But then, that's been a mantra of the Republican Party for years.  As has so much of this.  Which is why my oft-repeated comment, "This isn't about Trump, we know who he is, this is about the elected members of the Republican Party who enable him and are complicit," isn't just a catch-phrase.  This is about the Republican Party.  It's who they are, and who they've been for many decades.  The foundation was there.  Trump merely opened the door to let it out, and took it to a much higher, and fascist level.  But the GOP enabled him and are complicit because it's who they are.

So, here it is, from ?March 15, 2007.  Not a word changed.