I was sure I had posted this years ago.  And I may have, but when I searched for it a while back I could find so trace of it.  So, I figured I'd post it some other time -- or "again," since it was so long ago if I did.  And this seems a good time for a Really Feel Good video.

It requires a lot of set-up, I think, to do the whole thing justice, because time and place is critical to it all.  And as much as is explained, there still is a sense of surprise, even if you think you know where maybe it might be leading, but even if not, because it's the anticipation and unexpected moments along the way -- and ultimately the joyous audience appreciative for whatever morsels they got that is the heart of the treat.

You may recall that over 20 years ago, back in 1997, there was a news story about Julie Andrews having a botched throat surgery, and her vocal chords were ruined enough that she said it was not likely that she'd sing again.  Three years passed, and it was announced that she would be hosting a PBS special, My Favorite Broadway: The Love Songs.  Not to sing -- she wasn't singing anymore -- but to introduce the numbers and performers.  And having her back on stage with musical performers was a big deal, and the show was thoroughly wonderful.

At the end, Michael Crawford came on stage to sing the final song from, of all shows, My Fair Lady -- "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face."  And when he finished, he did a little dialogue from the scene...when off in the wings, there's a surprise as you hear Julie Andrews deliver her Cockney dialogue from the show, recreating her legendary performance -- and then walked out on stage completing the scene Crawford had begun.

It was a magical moment -- just seeing her in a "musical number" and from her most-famous show, no less -- was almost more than enough, even if it was just a dialogue scene.  Keep in mind that she'd been hosting the whole evening, just talking while everyone else around her sang, so it was impossible not to hold everything in full perspective.  But then, that moment shifted, because Crawford began the spoken lead-in to the song "The Rain in Spain," and Julie Andrews joined in.  And although Eliza's part at the beginning is only talked , it nonetheless built the moment even more to hear her speak the famous words, and with music then quietly playing underneath, and the audience -- all Broadway musical fans who knew fully the entire story -- responded with huge enthusiasm.  No, it wasn't singing -- she hadn't sung in three years, and couldn't anymore -- but this was Julie Andrews at least talking the opening of "The Rain in Spain."  But it turned out that they continued and were going to do the full number.  And not only did the applause grow wildly from just that alone...so what if she just sort of talk-sings her part, Rex Harrison talked-sang all his musical numbers in the show -- this was Julie Andrews doing "The Rain in Spain...but even more, as the song and cheers went on, I'm sure it was impossible for anyone in that auditorium or even at home watching, to wonder.  No, would she...??  Is it possible???  No.  She can't sing anymore.  If she could, there was a full show she hosted and she had a chance repeatedly and didn't sing once.  So, no.  She can't sing.  But nonetheless, this is really more than enough, far more and so unexpected.

And still...well, let's just say this is all quite a moment and that the whole sequence just blows the roof off the building.  And as much as the attention was on Julie Andrews, I think the most excited person in the room is Michael Crawford -- watch the expression on his face as he holds her in his arms.  You can't miss it, because he has to hold her for a very long time as the wild cheering went on, over half a minute.  And even then, it still went on.

It's a great, chilling moment, even 20 years later, knowing what is coming.  Try to imagine this in 2000, not having a clue.

​A love song, indeed.

I've written here about how I grew up in a district so conservative that Donald Rumsfeld was my congressman.  In fact, when he left office to work for the Nixon Administration, the new congressman who replaced him, Philip Crane, was so far-right wing that he made Rumsfeld look almost moderate.  Happily, with redistricting that put Crane in another district, and with Watergate that crushed the Republican Party in the 1974 elections, an actual, truly-wonderful liberal sneaked in, Abner Mikva.  He won by about a whopping 200 votes and got re-elected by about 300.  So, when President Carter offered him a federal judgeship, he jumped at it.  Though just a kid I was disappointed, but even I could understand why a lifetime judgeship was the right way to fly compared to trying to always run in so conservative a district.

(Fun fact: at the end of the movie Dave, when Ben Kingsley's character is sworn in as President by the Chief Justice on the White House lawn...that is Abner Mikva playing the Chief Justice.)

And to make matters even worse, Donald Rumsfeld and I went to the same high school, albeit at different times -- New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois.

I've also written on these pages about my childhood friend from growing up in Glencoe, another Don -- Don Friedman, who periodically drops a comment or two, and has gone on to be a wonderful entertainment lawyer. (If you watch the film that Bruce Springsteen made last year, Western Stars, and sit through the end credits, you'll see among the "Thank you's" one to Don.  Oh, sure, as he points out, it comes after the catering and custodians, but I like to think of it as saving the best for last.)

Anyway, a couple days ago, Don (the Friedman one) sent a note about how he was going through some old photos and came across one from a class trip we took to Washington, D.C.  Both of us think this took place during junior high, though the box was marked Freshman Year in high school.  

But there I am -- with Don -- and also the other Don.  You can see Don Rumsfeld standing with the teacher chaperones in the lower far-right (and how appropriate is that?!) .  And you can see that he signed it on the Capitol steps.  That's me, the short fellow in the top row, fourth gremlin from the left.  Don Friedman is to my left, in the light sportcoat and dark sweater.

I always knew that Rumsfeld was my congressman as a kid -- I never remembered that there was a photo with both of us in it.  I’m trying to decide if it’s a good thing or bad that I have a picture with me and Don Rumsfeld together.  However, I take great comfort knowing that the two of us are about as far apart as two can be in the photo, which is a lovely metaphor for life…

We have another Reunited Apart episode from host Josh Gad.  And this one brings back the cast and filmmakers from the movie, Splash.  It doesn't have as many surprises as some of the other episodes, but does have enough.  And it's full of wonderful behind-the-scenes stories.  There is also a fun "Cast Questions" section -- one the best of which gets answered by Ron Howard.  And they also have a couple of nice video tributes -- a wonderful one on the late John Candy, and the other leads to a great quip by Tom Hanks that...well, let just say it's about names.

Perhaps the most blunt ad that the Lincoln Project has put out -- which is saying a lot.  It comes from a veterans association.
 

Yes, that Project Lincoln ad above is probably the most brutal…but man, this new one below from yesterday is a really close second.
 

If you missed Last Week Tonight with John Oliver this past Sunday, it was a particularly interesting one about a subject that it especially timely.  It dealt with evictions as a result of people out of work during the pandemic -- and many state's renter protections run out...today.  He's somehow able to bring humor to the subject, but mainly he brings a lot of insight and outrage.

I don't care if you hate sports.  I don't care if you especially hate bowling.  I don't care if you don't consider bowling a sport.  This is a must-watch, 30 seconds of your time.

It starts as yeah, okay, so what.  Then, it turns into...oh, my God, no, wait, he's not actually going to...

​But yes, he is.  And does.  It's wonderful/

If you watched The Rachel Maddow Show a couple nights ago, you saw her do a story about Jack Abramoff.  He was the lobbyist who concocted a scheme with Grover Norquest and Ralph Reed and others that defrauded American Indian groups he was supposedly representing.  Abramoff not only went to prison for his crimes, but his acts were so egregious that an Abramoff law was passed, specifically named for him -- and as Maddow pointed out with a sort of bemused relished, the first person ever found guilty of that law was just sentenced the other day.  And that person was -- yes, really -- Jack Abramoff.

I mention this because I actually sort of cross paths with Abramoff about 30 years ago.  That was when he was producing some movies in Hollywood.  In 1989, a friend of mine, Philippa Salisbury (who I wrote about here) had been in contact with him for some inexplicable reason -- but then, that was Philippa who was often in contact with totally-unexpected people for some inexplicable reason.  It was about a project, Three Men in Malacca, and she needed a treatment based on a one-page idea Abramoff had.  (A treatment is basically a short story version of a movie, before developing the actual screenplay.)

I wrote a 20-page treatment that had to do with old army buddies going back to Malaysia where they'd fought in World War II and got involved with an adventure about a buried treasure.  (Oddly, as I think about it, this is somewhat the premise of the new Netflix movie from Spike Lee, Da Five Bloods, which is quite good.  I'm not even remotely suggesting any overlap -- the movies are totally different -- just noting the whimsy of similarities as I tell this tale.)  I remember the subtext I added to the plot -- making it a bit of an twist of The Wizard of Oz, including that one of the old buddies had been a coward during the war, another was somewhat cold and imperious, and with the passing of years the third had become a bit feeble-minded, as they headed off onto their journey.

I was paid next to nothing for it. (Not hyperbole -- i could say it was three figures, which is true, but that would be giving it visions of grandeur because it had a kinship so close to two figures that if it got drunk and toppled over, there stood a good chance of it landing in that district...) This was on the hope that if it moved forward I'd get to write the screenplay.  It was a foolish thought, but it was earlier in my writing career days where such foolish, naive thoughts take residence, though not so early that I should have known better how foolhardy it was.  To be clear, it wasn't foolish so much because I was paid so little, but that I didn't own the property, so if nothing happened with the project, I couldn't ever do anything with it.  And nothing happened with the project.

And I liked the story a lot.  It was really a fun adventure that had other layers to it, along with a family relationship mixed in.  So, knowing that the project was pretty much dead, I wrote to the company that developed it and asked -- since the project was going nowhere and was based on a one-paragraph idea -- if I could return what I had been paid and perhaps get or buy the rights to it for a reasonable fee.  And the head of that company I wrote to was...Jack Abramoff.

I eventually received a letter back.  And he said, no.  In fairness to him, it was a very polite correspondence, and he had every right to say no.  And certainly, maybe some day he could develop it again.  I just didn't think he ever would -- that rarely happens in Hollywood.  Projects based on just a one-page idea that die are generally put in the bin and buried, and people move on  to something new and fresh.  And indeed, in the 30 years that have passed since then, not only has nothing come of the project since that letter, but Abramoff moved from Hollywood into political lobbying.  And has been to prison.  Twice. 

That was my only annoyance at the letter.  He had every right to say no, and was polite -- but I was certain the project would die, and I liked it so much and would have loved to pursue it.  So be it.  In the end, I'm at my desk typing...and he's in prison. 

Again.

And here below with the signature from Page 2 is the evidence.  A word that Jack Abramoff has probably grown to loathe...

(That's Reiner's daughter Annie in between him and Brooks.  The photo was taken two days ago.)

​I was going to say that I didn't have any stories from crossing paths with Carl Reiner ​...but then I remembered that I did, although we didn't talk.

In late-2005, during "awards season," I went to a small Academy screening of Hustle & Flow, the film that won a Best Song Oscar for "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp."). It was held in a screening room that could seat about 70 people.  Only a handful of us were there early, when I noticed by the door that Carl Reiner had showed up to check in.  What stood out was that the young guard checking in guests had no idea who Carl Reiner was and had to ask his name and slowly go through the list of names.  Through the slow process Reiner was incredibly polite, with no whiff at all of "How dare you!" petulance for not being recognized and having to wait.  However, the few of us in the screening room saw all this and burst into laughter. When Reiner finally get OK'd for being on the list and walked in, those few of us gave him our "thumbs up" for getting approved, and he just graciously and sort of sheepishly shrugged. Mainly, I admired that Carl Reiner -- then 84 -- went to Hustle & Flow ​.

I did get to meet with his son.  I only mention that because the two were very close, and I sense that Rob Reiner got his core and compass very strongly from his parents.  It was when Reiner and his partner were looking to hire a story editor. I eventually got called in to meet with him, and we spent an hour talking.  He came across as extremely personable, a highly-focused and smart, fun guy who was a terrific storyteller.  Which, again -- from all I know about them, and to bring the story back full circle -- I have always sensed he got from his mother and father. 

(Quickly, to finish the tale, in the end the partners felt their two-man operation was too small -- their Castle Rock company was still a few years away -- and so they didn't hire anybody.) 

​​There's so much video to choose from to show for Carl Reiner, but I don't think you can go with anything first other than him with Mel Brooks as the "2,000 Year-Old Man."  So, here they are in 1966 on the Hollywood Palace, ​hosted by Phil Silvers.

And as a bonus, because this is Carl Reiner, after all, so why limit ourselves to just one video, here he is as the host on the classic parody from Your Show of Shows of the TV program ​This is Your Life.

Yeah, yeah, okay, I think you all get it at the moment, Trump isn't just digging himself a deep hole, but he's called in a team of bulldozers.  And Republicans can try to spin the Russia bounty story all they want, but Trump has lost the news cycle on this.  His cult base may still think he got it covered and that it's all just a big hoax, but the bulldozers have dug a moat around them all, it's filled with water, and the rest of the country understands it's a horrible story whether Trump knew or didn't.  And the problem for Trump in getting out of it is that it relies on people believing you, and he lost his credibility points long ago.

And that's even before the A.P. came out with a new story that apparently Trump was informed about this Russian bounty a year earlier than the New York Times reported.  And to even make that worse -- and yes, it can get worse -- is that the person who has been telling his colleagues that he personally briefed Trump about it was... okay, wait for it...John Bolton.

So, yeah, Trump has lost the news cycle on this story.  And it's a big story.  Massive, striking at the heart of what most Americans hold dear, protecting the military.  So, it's a story that is likely to be one of those that lasts.  Moreover, Republicans have long-held a strong advantage in elections with support by the military.  Trump's military support in 2016 over Hilary Clinton was 60-34%,  But with this Russian bounty story on soldiers and with all the generals who recently spoke out so strongly against Trump, it will be interesting to see if there is any erosion in that long-held GOP military support.  And any change doesn't even have to give Biden the majority.  Or even shift a lot, for that matter.  But with 26 points to play with, there is a lot of wiggle room, and if only five points gets cut from the 2016 margin, that's hugely significant because being as far being in the polls as Trump is right now, he can't afford to lose support from anywhere.  But especially from voters he and Republicans count strongly on and never thought they'd have to focus any attention and money on.  Especially the possibly of losing as much as a paltry five points .  Let alone more than that.  Because the U.S. military is a Really Big Special Interest Group.

And you know there will be an investigation in the House.  There should be in the Senate, too, though there likely won't be.  But it points all Republicans in Congress into a corner -- whether to defend Trump on such an emotional issue bordering on arguably traitorous action or dangerous incompetence for which he's lost the news cycle, or come down on the side of their long-time military support and U.S. defense and be critical.

All in the middle of a pandemic.  And 47 million Americans filing for unemployment.  And businesses going bankrupt.  And the economy in trouble.  And social change protest across the country so deep that even the Mississippi state legislature voted almost 3-to-1 change the Confederate symbol in the flag.

And the best Republicans can do is flail.  Almost quite literally.

Yesterday, that ace suck-up Matt Gaetz (R-FL) posted the following tweet and photo --

​When I initially saw this, my first response was that, okay, I can play that game, too --  "In Matt Gaetz's America, boot-jack stormstroopers rule your town, the government can take your children whenever they want, and minorities no longer have any rights."

Of course, the difference is that I openly admit I'm making exaggerations up.  While Matt Gaetz wants you to believe what he's saying is true.

But then I realized that Matt Gaetz doesn't seem to understand the utter, mind-numbing stupidity of his tweet.  Doesn't seem to grasp that the photo he attached not only has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Biden, and is literally of TRUMP'S America.  In his blind, empty thoughtlessness to play up to Trump, Gaetz overlooked that the people in this photo aren't posing for an election ad, but instead the picture is very real and the people are very real Americans today, in a news photo, holding guns on other Americans right now who are peacefully protesting for social justice for Black Americans.

Gaetz didn't seem to get that this photo is not "all of us."  These are Trump supporters. In Trump's America.

And it's not a good look.  Especially during a pandemic.  When you're being painted as a traitor in a news cycle you lost.  And are losing by 8-14 points.

But this is the best that Trump and his acolytes (with an emphasis on the "light") have to play with.  

And that's why when it's not just about Trump but all the elected Republicans who enable him, have blood on their hands and are complicit, they have nowhere to hide.  And an empty hand of cards to play with.  And we can see their cards.

Yes, they'll try dirty tricks and voter suppression.  But even that can be seen by everyone.  

And if Democrats are understandably wary because of what's at stake...imagine how terrifying it must be for Republicans.