​On Sunday night, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley sent out a ludicrous tweet about a political comedy bit that aired during the Grammy Awards. 

​The issue isn't whether Ms. Haley should have liked the sketch or written a complaint.  It's what she wrote to complain about that was so loopy.

Apparently, Nikki Haley hasn't paid attention during those "always" years since music has "always" had politics in it. The music of the '60s was OVERWHELMED with political protest songs. It was virtually the very point of the music movement of that decade.  Folk music of the '50s was HIGHLY political. The most-famous folk music group of that era, The Weavers, were Blacklisted and had their careers ruined for supposedly being political -- with such "dangerous" songs as "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" and "If I Had a Hammer," which Nikki Haley probably later sang at summer camp.  I Nikki Haley doesn't think that the Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Bruce Springsteen and on and on and on had politics in their songs, she's wasn't listening close enough...or at all, just paying attention to the "music."

But even further, the likely reality is that if the Grammys had had James Woods, Scott Baio and Ted Nugent reading from The Art of the Deal, would she have posted a complaint?  I'd bet a whole lot of cash money not. So the U.N. Ambassador shouldn't pretend her whining is about how she just loves "music" and doesn't want "politics" thrown in. She doesn't want politics she doesn't approve of.

And the most ridiculous thing of all is that if she actually, truly, honestly, really doesn't want politics in the arts or sports or any area that has nothing to do with politics, then she should tell her boss to keep his own pie hole shut and stop tweeting about it.

And the thing is, the bit wasn't all that wonderfully-done or particularly funny.  It was okay, but not a whole lot more than that, just sort of straight forward.  If you want to complain about the sketch, that's what you should complain about.  It was fine, and that's about it.
​

I'm trying to figure out how to write this properly.  The challenge is my conflicting reactions of great admiration and utter incredulity about the very same thing.  My great admiration is first and foremost and honest and sincere.  However, the utter incredulity is overwhelming.

I will withhold all names but one, to protect the "innocent."  And that "one" is only because the story can't be told properly without it being referenced.  Alas, that makes it easier to track down the specifics I'm referring to, but my assumption is that most people won't have the interest in doing so, but if so, that's the reality of life.  And still, even then it might not be certain who I'm referring to.  Which is just as well, since the "who" isn't ultimately the point here, but the why.

I was on Facebook last night, and saw a little notice for someone running for Congress in Los Angeles – and I knew who it was.  I haven’t seen the person for many years – we used to travel in the same circle and crossed paths quite a few times.  Very nice, quite bright, and talented.  We didn't know each other well, but this was  good person who I liked.  As happens, that circle separated a long while back, people went their separate ways, and I haven't seen many of them in perhaps 15-20 years.  However, when I joined Facebook a while back, some of their names cross my path, and I "Friended" some, even though we haven't exchanged any communication between us.  And then came that notice about running for Congress.
 
I checked out the campaign website, and happily saw that it was a Democratic candidacy.  The mission statement said thoughtful, insightful things about why it was important to run next year, and have a Democratic presence across the country.  It all sounded great.  And all the better, it was in Los Angeles, so I could spread the word about someone I knew and liked and would be an asset on any ticket, I'm sure.  Being in the 28th Congressional district, I figured maybe I’ll write a nice piece about the race.  I didn't know where the 28th district is, though, and what Republican would be the opponent – assuming that my distant acquaintance would be able to win the Democratic primary.  So, I checked it out.  And…
 
It turns out it’s a Democratic district.  And it's not an open seat, but there’s a Democrat currently in office.  So, this would be primarying the incumbent.  But far worse than that, the sitting-candidate is – Adam Schiff!!!
 
What on EARTH is any challenger in that race thinking??  Adam Schiff??  The Ranking Member and co-chair of the House Intelligence Committee??  Outside of Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most outspoken and important Democrat in the House against Trump??  That Adam Schiff??!!!  Running in a Democratic primary against Adam Schiff??!!!!  Seriously???  Adam Schiff is not only great, out-spoken and important, but he also has one of the highest-profiles  of any Democrat in Congress!!  

The only thing I can think of is that at some point I’ve read that Adam Schiff is thinking of running for Dianne Feinstein’s seat whenever she retires.  So, maybe the thought is to run to get your name known if and when the seat becomes open – though Feinstein is running for re-election next year, so that possible opening is six years away, unless something untoward happens earlier.  But even stretching possibilities that far, that’s the best I can think of.  Because otherwise, this seems inexplicable.  The point of Democrats running everywhere and being competitive in every district in the country is wonderful, getting voices heard where they're needed and otherwise silent.  But as far as I can tell, new and unheard voices aren't remotely needed in the CA-28th district.  Adam Schiff is wonderful.  Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly don’t have a clue…

I’ll go a step further:  if Adam Schiff, of all people, one of the most outspoken critics against Trump and strongest defenses against the Devin Nunes-wing of the House Intelligence Committee, got defeated, whether by Republicans or within his own party, it would send an absolutely terrible message about public interest in the investigation.  So, Democrats shouldn’t even want to think about seeing him not get re-elected. 

Not that that's likely, mind you -- he won his last race against his Republican challenger by 78-22 percent.  So, given that reality, and how terrific, visible and important he is in Congress right now...WHY?  No matter how good and smart and thoughtful you are -- as this person really is -- WHY???

I was so pleased when I saw that someone smart and good I knew from years past was running for Congress.  I'd be happy to offer my support in almost any other district -- even my own, and I like my representative a lot.  I'd feel good with someone like this is Congress.  But when I saw who the opponent was -- Adam Schiff! -- I'm at a total loss.  As I said, I hope I'm missing something.  Perhaps it's as simple as wanting to be part of the political process, even knowing you don't stand a chance, to send a message across the land about participation.  But even at that, I’m almost sort of glad we haven’t seen each other for so long, because if we were still in touch I don’t know what I’d say if asked what I thought, or to sign a petition.  Is there a polite way of saying, “Oh, dear heavens, no!!!"???
 
It's not because this is an impossible race to win.  A famous Spanish proverb is "Only he who attempts the ridiculous may achieve the impossible."  So, if it's the dream in your heart to be elected to Congress -- great.  Go for it.  That's not the question.  It's -- if you're going to enter a race, even for the noblest of reasons while knowing you will near-certainly lose, you are on the ballot to win, so:  why on earth would you want to win in this district in the first place and not do everything you possibly can to make sure that Adam Schiff, more than perhaps any Democrat in Congress, gets as many votes as possible to send a critical message against Trump?

I have great admiration for the effort and utter incredulity.

I've been reading Joseph Anton which is written almost like a novel in the third person, but it's a memoir by Salman Rushdie about his early life and time during the 11 years being under the fatwa.  It's quite good -- the title comes from the code name he used during that time, "Joseph" coming from Joseph Conrad, and "Anton" from Chekhov.  And amid it all, there's one particularly interesting, fun passage that stands out for being one of those things we refer to as unintended consequences.

It comes during a section on negotiations to find a publisher for his upcoming novel, The Satanic Verses.  There was no controversy at that point, so the issue was a case of advance money and what publisher would be best to handle the distribution.

He had been with a small publisher for a few years and had become close to the owner, and his agent  (with whom he was also close) recommended it.  However, other agents were involved, as were other, larger companies.  (One -- which made the best offer -- was owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, and Rushdie notes how thrilled he is that the offer was turned down, because he's certain they never would have supported the book after the difficulties began.)

In the end, for long reasons explained in the book, he went with one of the larger publishers.  In the process, though, it hurt his friendship with the smaller publisher, and with his agent and friend, who he lost when he took the other offer.

Rushdie notes that, as it happened, over time, his strong friendship with the small publisher and agent managed to build itself up again, and they became very helpful supporters during his time being protected, which he explains in detail later in the book.  But it was something else long in the future which he said likely never would have happened if he had stayed with his former publisher, and so it turned out to be the decision all for the best, even though it didn't seem like that at the time.

As Rushdie notes, because his former publisher was so small, it is not likely that they could have handled the pressures caused by the fatwa.  Even his large, corporate publisher had huge difficulties with it -- having to build extra security measures in to their headquarters and pay a great deal for extra security personnel.  Not to mention needing the cover of a large enterprise to be able to handle all the requirements of logistics that came crushing down on the company.  He says that if the small publisher had handled The Satanic Verses, it's likely that they would have been overwhelmed by it all, taken huge financial its, and gone out of business.

And if that had happened, he writes, the small publisher, Bloomsbury, "would never have survived to discover an obscure, unpublished children's author called Jo Rowling."

​This is an older "Not My Job" segment from 2010 out of the archives of the NPR quiz show, Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!  Peter Sagal's guest is Tony Shaloub, from such series as, Monk and Wings, and the movie Big Night.  It's a charming conversation, and particularly enjoyable as he discusses his penchant for playing...well, not normal characters and talks about his brother the inventor.

There's sort of a fun postscript to the episode.  In the interview, Shaloub talks about his brother who invented a particular product.  (I don't want to give it away.)  Well...about three weeks ago, I was watching a rerun of Monk (it was the episode where the character has to adopt a lost dog, which plays into the plot, for those of you who watch reruns, as well...) -- and his assistant brings up the product!  It's easy to tell since, as you'll hear, the product has a very offbeat name and use.

The guests on today's 3rd & Fairfax podcast from the Writers Guild are the team of Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor.  Together they wrote (and Payne directed) such films as Sideways (for which they won the Oscar for screenwriting), Election, About Schmidt and the current Downsizing.  Separately, Taylor co-wrote Jurassic Park III and I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, and Payne co-wrote and directed The Descendants (for which he won the Oscar for screenwriting) and directed Nebraska.  (Okay, do you have that straight?  There will be a test later.)  To make it all the more clear and entertaining, they discuss their writing career, collaboration, and their process.