This requires a bit of background to make sense, somewhat convoluted, but I think it’s worth it.
 
Last night, I posted a tweet about a White House legal matter, after an article in the New Yorker quoted Rudy Giuliani suggesting that Trump might try to declare some of the Mueller unconstitutional to block it.  I noted that it probably wouldn't hold up in court, but even if it did it would be a public disaster for him and the GOP.

Someone referenced my note and hoped a lawyer would chime in.  Another person responded bluntly to put to first person down that “Robert IS a lawyer.”  They had a bit of back and forth, and the first person did a mea culpa, explaining that since my Twitter profile didn’t say I was a lawyer, that had been unclear.
 
At that point I chimed in to explain that the reason my profile didn’t say I was a lawyer was because…I wasn’t a lawyer.  Adding how I wanted to clarify that so there was no confusion.
 
Which is the background and brings us to the tweet in question from the first person.  Initially I was a bit thrown off by it.  The comment seemed like such a total non sequitur, and for a moment I tried to figure out if it was referring to another conversation entirely.  But then I realized.  No, the reply was indeed meant for me, and it turns out...well, you'll see.  What the note said was --
 
“Thank you for being clear because my sister can be incredibly condescending (to me). Thank you, sir.”
 
I burst out laughing the moment I figured out what was going on.  I have no idea if the two correspondents are brother and sister, or two sisters.  And at first I didn’t know if they were adults and still have a chiding relationship that had been going on for years or what, especially since it was 1:30 AM, long past when most sane people  (I include myself in that) were asleep, particularly if they lived anywhere east of the West Coast.  The only other option was Hawaii or Alaska, though the odds lower with that.  Anyway, I wrote back to tell this first person that the good news is they now have something to hold over the sister at Thanksgiving dinner, and got a clue as to their relationship when I received another reply.  It said --
 
“She’s across the hall, if you can believe that drama. Ridiculous. Anyway, thank you. And I’M the baby!”
 
I’m still laughing.  So, clearly they still live at home, and it seems most-likely are teenagers or perhaps in college.  I suspect that this person’s sister must have a fun time tormenting her younger sibling on a regular basis since childhood.  Hilarious.

Back in September, 2016, I raved here about a new show on NBC called The Good Place.  I didn't expect it to last, since it was so wildly clever and unique.  But it did catch on, and has made it through two limited-episode seasons, 

Last year, they had a huge and hilarious twist.  And to deal with it they did an episode in which the world had to be "rebooted" countless times, somewhat like Groundhog Day, but on steroids.  The world of the show had to be different each time, and that meant (now famously) they needed different names for the restaurants there, all of which were food puns.  It turned out that all the puns -- which were all a hoot -- came from the writer of that episode, Megan Amram.  Like "The Pesto's Yet to Come," "Lasanga Come Out Tomorrow," "Cake Canaveral," "Beignet and the Jets" and MUCH more.  The series' creator Michael Schur talked about that in an interview --

"I actually think, no joke, her brain is like the computer in Lost where if you didn’t enter the code and press enter every like 100 minutes or whatever else, the world would end. That’s Megan’s brain with puns. If Megan doesn’t make a pun every 37 minutes, her brain will overheat and her head will explode and she’ll die. That’s the only possible explanation for how many puns Megan makes out loud and on Twitter every day."

But it was more bizarre than just that.  Because it wasn't that she came up with the 20-30 food puns needed for all the restaurants in the episode.  Oh, no, that would have been much too easy.  Especially if your brain is like the computer in Lost with puns.  Schur explained what happened --

"This is not an exaggeration: Megan, in that section of the script, included a giant paragraph full of puns for different kind of names of different kinds of ethnic restaurants. I think it went on for six or seven pages. It just went on and on and on. Partially she was doing it to lean into her stereotype as a person who loves puns. But also, it was just straight-up impressive."

​As proof, here's a mere partial list that Megan Amram posted on her Twitter feed.  I can't help but mention two at the very top, "Penne for Your Thoughts" and "Pasta Expiration Date".  This is a bizarre and incredibly clever writer, folks.  I mean, who comes up with "We Ciabatta Zoo"??  And this is just the freaking abbreviated list!!!! --

All of which is just a very long lead-in to a six-episode webseries that the inveterate Chris Dunn told me about.  It's titled, An Emmy for Megan, that Megan Amram wrote, directed and stars in.  The point behind it is that Ms. Amram learned that there is an Emmy Award presented for Outstanding Actress in a Short Form Comedy and Drama Series -- and she wants to win one.  And the rules to qualify are really easy -- basically there have to be six episodes, and it has to be submitted by April 27.  And so, we have six, short episodes of An Emmy for Megan -- in which she shamelessly does everything possible that she can to win over Emmy voters.

It's short, about 28 minutes in all, very low budget (though well-done), with some Emmy winners and recognizable actors (including a couple from The Good Place) along for the ride.

To get you started, here's the first episode, that largely sets up the whole thing.

And if you're interested in watching the remaining five episodes, about another whopping 22 minutes, you can catch them all here, at An Emmy for Megan.

You may recall that three months ago, I posted a wonderful 3-minute video here that Burger King produced about bullying.  If you haven't seen it, check it out, it's terrific.

They're back with another terrific video shot again in one of their restaurants on a topical story, this one a bit more surprising because it's not only taking a stand on a political issue, but one against the government.  It explains Net Neutrality in the context of buying burgers, and makes their position strongly in favor of it.

What I don't know if these videos is how much is "real" and how much set up.  My sense with both is that there's a mixture -- some things seem like they might be set up (and therefore more controllable), and some things appear to be real that they let play out.  And then edit it all together.  That's a little bit moot, since the point of what they're doing is what's important, more than how it's done.  Though how it's done is still fascinating.

The bottomline is that I have HUGE admiration for Burger King for this video, as well as for their anti-bullying video. I don't know who at Burger King has decided to do this, but they deserve a raise. And customers.

I've noticed that the two times I've dared to politely criticize a TV host on Twitter, his fans have come out of the woodwork to relentlessly SLAM me for daring to say anything negative about their beloved hero. But the even more whimsical thing is that BOTH TIMES the hosts themselves actually replied politely in basic apology for the gaffe.
The first time was Ali Velshi, which I wrote about here. The most recent was last night, when I sent a note about ESPN's SportCenter with Scott Van Pelt, since oddly the show didn't cover the Northwestern bowl game win -- a game that ESPN thought noteworthy enough to actually broadcast. He very thoughtfully wrote back to say that they'd intended to cover it, but the show got cut back by 30 minutes. Perfectly good and gracious explanation. Yet the slams poured on... 

It's sort of a tribal pack mentality (or perhaps a wolf pack mentality...), yet it transcends that because it's SO funny and bizarre when the Beloved Hero himself has actually responded and acknowledged the gaffe.  Yet there are the LOYAL AND MOST DEVOTED ACOLYTES defending their Beloved Hero to the ends of the earth and trying to shred any enemy who dare criticize him about anything.  I always want to write back to such people, "Hey, y'know, we ALL make gaffes. Even Shakespeare wrote Troilus and Cressida.  Even Dickens wrote Barnaby Rudge.  Even Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote, Me and Juliet.  It happens.  Deal with it." 

It reminds me of when I got into a bit of a kerfuffle with Alec Baldwin on the Huffington Post a few years back in which we traded a couple of articles during the WGA strike.  (Long story, but it began when he defended the tactics of directors when it came to strikes, schooling the Writers Guild, and I explained why this was historically wrong-headed.  He didn't take well to that, and a further exchange followed.  I was chomping at the bit to reply after he snarked at me directly, but instead I followed the Nell Minow Rule: "Someone has to be the adult here" and instead just walked away.)  Yet even after stopping, I still kept getting slammed in the Comment Section of my articles by his adoring fans, prostrating themselves to the Beloved Hero.  I tended not to respond, but think that I did at one point write back to someone, "No matter how hard you try, he isn't going to invite you over for dinner.")

The inveterate Chris Dunn has described this syndrome well.  They way he put it is "If the Beloved Hero isn't looped in [the the Twitter exchange] to begin with, the Defender of the Faith will be sure to @ them into the conversation so as to ensure getting credit for standing up for them.  I see it ALL. THE. TIME."

Someone on Twitter commiserated with me and said that this is precisely why the "Block" option exists.  That's true, except that, alas, I have yet mastered the skill to Block someone in advance and expectation...  That said, after-the-fact, I did choose the Mute option here. Generally, I prefer to utilize blocking for things like racism and crudity, rather than inordinate foolishness...

And speaking of "inordinate foolishness," I might possibly be willing to include the concept of going on Twitter to dare criticize a TV host.  Foolish, perhaps, but when deserved at least one is now forewarned.  And as such can be ready to duck.

Twitter:  It's Not Just for Twits Anymore.

Even though a weekend has passed (and more) since the news stories came out about Facebook created algorithms for advertisers seeking to focus their sales efforts to anti-Semitic news feeds, I'm still trying to figure out why on earth Facebook would direct advertisers to topics like “Jew hater,” “How to burn Jews,” or, “History of ‘why Jews ruin the world.’”

To be clear, I'm not so much bewildered that Facebook would try to connect advertisers to anti-Semitic feeds -- though that's pretty high on the Reprehensible Meter all on its own -- but more to the point, why in the world would they create algorithms for “Jew hater,” “How to burn Jews,” or, “History of ‘why Jews ruin the world'" in the first place??!!

And we haven't even touched the concept of Facebook accepting Russian ads for the U.S. presidential election.  On the one hand, sure, anyone can let a couple mistakes slide through unnoticed -- after all, if your “History of ‘why Jews ruin the world'" algorithm slipped past Quality Control, any glitch is possible -- and let's bend over backwards and even accept a world where $100,000 in ad buys might slip through the cracks when you are a $500 billion-dollar business, after all that's pocket change.  But...but...not when it's paid for in RUBLES!!  Surely  if you've got an algorithm for "Jew hater," you have a red flag -- literally -- for that.

And this doesn't get us around to how Facebook closed down 30,000 fake accounts in France during its election -- but in the United States, which has 323 million people compared to 67 million in France, only around 470 fake accounts were shut down.

But, sorry, I still can't wrap my head around that whole "How to burn Jews" algorithm thing...

For all these stories, though, my initial thought when I heard them all was not outrage at Facebook.  That was only #2.  No, my first thought was -- 

Well, there goes Mark Zuckerberg's plans to run for president.

It's been quite a while since I've posted one of the "Mean Tweets" segment from the Jimmy Kimmel show.  So, to correct that passage of time, here's an entertaining one.

While watching it though, you do nonetheless have to wonder about some people in the world, hiding under the safety of anonymity...
​

Well, yesterday was a special day for me on Twitter.  I "blocked" my first person ever.  Bring out the confetti.  To be clear, I didn’t mind that he was an idiot – I’m fine chiding such folks – and I do think "idiot" is an objective observation.  So, idiot is okay.  That's life.  But then he started sending me 10 outraged tweets to every one of mine.  And that’s a wee bit beyond my acceptable limit.  So, he got blocked.
 
This was the exchange. 

His handle was “Facts Matter,” and his first note was scathing, among other things telling me that “you and Dems is ruining America.”  I wrote back a simple reply that it actually should be “you and Dems are ruining America.”  And I noted that I only mentioned this because, after all, “facts matter.” 

This apparently outraged him because he wrote back an angry reply about how “Elsiberg, you are awful.”  So, I responded very politely that it was actually spelled, “Elisberg,” something I said I only brought up because, of course, “facts matter.”

He tried to posture his way through this, saying that he would refer to me any way he believed he wanted to.  I said, "No, misspelling and bad grammar is not a belief system."  And added that they probably do more to actually ruin America than a tweet.  Because, ultimately, “facts matter.” 

And that’s when he went off mad-crazy with his tsunami of tweets, unrelenting, and so I blocked him.  But I could see other people’s replies to him that were hilariously scathing.
 
And yet the Twitter Day was only starting.  In the evening last night, I wrote a series of tweets about the huge concern of the far right, pushed by Donald Trump, of course, notably in his infamous "Second Amendment people" speech, about how Hillary Clinton wanted to repeal. the Second Amendment, something that seems to be an ongoing concern of their.  Never mind that she doesn't, has never hinted that she wants to, nor have I ever heard any political leader ever suggest such a thing.  (Never mind, too, that there is no Second Amendment around the rest of the world, and yet countries have gone on fine, and guns are available everywhere. The only difference is that they have far fewer gun murders and mass killers.  But I digress...)  The point of my tweets was that the reality is that's an INCREDIBLY HARD thing to repeal an Amendment, to the extent of it being near-impossible,.  I explained that it requires 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House, and after all that, 3/4 of every state legislature.  (Keep in mind that it's taken about 80 years to try and get the Equal Rights for women Amendment passed, and after almost a century to no avail.  For equal right for women.  There is no lost irony that for the first time in 240 years a women is running for President of the United States.)  

Most of the response I received was an outpouring of Likes , Retweets and praise, though a few loons chimed in.  And again, I think "loons" is an objective term.  One, for instance, slammed me with every imaginable insult the person could think of for every part of me.  What I replied...well, actually, no, I didn't even bother to reply. It fell into the "life's too short" category.  To another, which was merely angry and hated me, I simply wrote back that I appreciated him letting me know and "Enjoy the Olympics."  

The worst though showed up over overnight, and I saw it this morning.  Such a fine way to start the day.  It came from a guy who was saying to me that Hillary Clinton didn’t have to repeal the Second Amendment, she could just sign an Executive Order to get rid of it.  I mean, seriously, what do you say to that in 140 characters?  So, I kept my reply as low-key as reasonable,, basically writing, “Please, tell me you’re not serious about this.  The president can’t repeal the CONSTITUTION by a mere Executive Order.”  And added a “Sigh…” at the end.  He wrote back to again insist that the president only had to declare “Marshall Law” (perhaps this is an offshoot of the Marshall Plan -- never mind that actual "martial law" is temporary) and could then sign an Executive Order that would repeal the Second Amendment.  Once more, I simply repeated that I dearly hoped he wasn’t serious, that actually repealing an real Amendment was far more difficult than an Executive Order, and left it at that, with another sigh – knowing that others would pour on his ignorance.  And so they did.  Like a torrent.  And he hasn't replied since.
 
But the point of all this isn't Twitter, which serves only as the foundation to what's important here.  And that's how reading things like this, reading from people who actually believe that Hillary Clinton wants to repeat the Second Amendment and -- far worse -- that they actually believe to such a fevered degree that a president can simply sign an Executive Order to change the United States Constitution, and are in such a gall-ridden fury over who hates America because that person hates Donald Trump, it makes it all the easier to understand how Donald Trump came to lead the Republican Party.
 
It's not that facts and reality doesn't matter, it's that thinking doesn't matter.  It's that ignorance is the foundation and something to be cherished and even embraced.  Not knowing this isn't "Civics 101" stuff, like some people pointed out.  It's Social Studies in the 5th grade.

And we get Donald Trump.

And his campaign is spinning out of control and down the drain.  Deservedly so, but not without damage done that will take time to repair.  But it will be repaired.

Tomorrow (Thursday), the BroadwayHD website will be streaming a live performance from Broadway of the wonderful Harnick & Bock musical, She Loves Me.  This is of particular note because it's the first time in Broadway history that a performance will be streamed live online.  (There have been live performances on TV, though.  But if this works, it would be a step for the future.)

She Loves Me has a score by Sheldon Harnick and Jerry Bock, who wrote Fiddler on the Roof, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning (and Tony Best Musical, Fiorello!.  The 1963 show is based on a Hungarian play that also served as the basis of several movies, including The Shop Around the Corner and You've Got Mail.  

This new production stars Laura Bernanti, Zachary Levi and Jane Krakowski.  It was nominated for a Tony Award this year as Best Revival of a Musical.  

You can watch it live on the Broadway HD website (which you can get here), and the stream begins at 8 PM East Coast Time.  If you're a subscriber to Broadway HD, the show is included in the subscription, otherwise it costs $10.

Here's the presentation for the show from the recent Tony Awards.