I've posted a bunch of Carpool Karaoke videos from James Corden in the past, although not for a while. This one is a bit different (okay, more than a bit...) and, in its own weird way, a lot of fun. He has two guests here -- Sting and reggae artist Shaggy.
0 Comments
I saw this last night, and thought it was too hilarious not to pass along. It start out funny, and then goes in a direction I didn't expect.
Over the years, I would often bring up an offbeat idea in my column that no one else was making, and my dad would never accept it unless he had read it in the New York Times. It's what I referred to as the “If this was so smart, why hasn’t the New York Times written about it?” gambit. My answer was always that I had thought of it first, and they just haven’t yet -- but alas, that never held any water. Periodically the Times would subsequently make the same point that I had weeks (or months) early, and I’d bring it to his attention. He’d accept it then, although I still couldn’t build up any carryover points by being right numerous times. It was only on a one-time, after-the-fact basis. For the longest time, as I've heard Democrats complain about the filibuster and wanted to get rid of the rule, I've argued against that. I understood what was being complained about and why, but my feeling was that the problem wasn't with the filibuster, but how the rule had changed and been abused over the years. Once upon a time, if you wanted to filibuster, you had to literally stand up, not ever take your seat and talk. Or pass along the right to talk to someone else -- but they would have to stand and talk, not sit down, no bathroom breaks. It not only was a physical challenge, but it showed to the entire country who specifically was filibustering and blocking the Senate from moving forward, keeping legislation from passing. There was both a physical challenge and political risk to filibustering. You had to stand and talk. Most famously, this was used in the final sequence of the classic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, when Jimmy Stewart stays standing on his feet for days, finally collapsing in exhaustion -- but winning the day. In more recent days -- and in realty -- state senator Wendy Davis famously held a 13-hour filibuster to stop an anti-abortion bill in Texas, where they not only still have the old U.S. Senate room about standing during a filibuster, even far-more draconian rules, including not only having to speak exactly on-topic the entire time but also not having any assistance of any kind. (She was successfully challenged for straying off-topic twice and having a fellow-Senator help her with a back brace.) But today, in the U.S. Senate, the only thing needed to "filibuster" is to basically say, "I'm filibustering" and then going out for lunch. If Republicans don't want to get rid of the filibuster rule (and there's no "if" about it) or Democrats can't get enough votes to end it, then perhaps they should try to see if the Senate could return to the original rule on how filibusters actually worked. Don't get rid of the filibuster -- just make a filibuster a filibuster! Not a check box like ordering at a diner. I bring this up because on Wednesday, there was a long op-ed in -- wait for it... -- the New York Times saying the very same thing! The article even had a still from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. O huzzah! While I'm sure my father would have initially thought my idea was not workable, I feel comfortable thinking he would now think that it made great sense. Especially since it was written by two eminent lawyers -- Burt Neuborne, a professor at New York University Law School, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. (By the way, the reason I found out about the article is because a friend -- who I've been yammering about my filibuster idea for years -- read the op-ed, and sent me a link to it, noting that "I think you will like this. And he had no idea about the “If this was so smart, why hasn’t the New York Times written about it?” gambit.) You can read the full article, "Make the Filibuster Difficult Again: Here’s a way to address the tactic used to stall the Senate and upend presidential agendas" here. And what I most like about that title is that it's the very point I've been making for years -- you don't have to get rid of the filibuster, just make it hard to do. Like it initially was written and intended. Among the things they write, as they go through the interesting history of filibusters in the U.S. Senate was -- "But what if a genuine compromise were possible that preserved the Senate filibuster as a protection of individual conscience while giving President Biden a fair shot at enacting a desperately needed Covid-19 relief package? Such a compromise exists, we believe, by restoring the original “speaking filibuster,” made famous by Jimmy Stewart in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' in place of the modern version. "In the beginning, from 1789 to 1806, debate in the Senate could be ended at any time by majority vote. In 1806, the Senate abolished that rule, leaving no way to cut off debate. This decision gave birth to the filibuster to delay or block legislative action. This involved a senator holding the floor continuously, as Mr. Smith did (not easy), or to act in carefully choreographed relays with like-minded colleagues (also not easy) and prevent a vote on the merits." And they end by writing -- "The filibuster has already been abolished for Supreme Court confirmations, executive branch appointments and lower federal court nominations. If a filibuster must exist in the Senate, let it be the original “speaking” version that protects the conscience of the minority without turning the Senate into a super-majoritarian body. Hopefully all Democrats can agree to this reform. It would go a long way to allowing Mr. Biden’s legislative agenda to succeed." Much as I fully agree with what they wrote, and love that it overlaps with my braying at the moon for years, I also like that one of the authors of that piece, Erwin Chemerinsky, went to Northwestern when I was there. Though I didn’t know him, he was the debate partner of my two-years roommate, Jim Backstrom (who himself had an eminent career and later went on to head the Justice Department's Anti-Trust division based in Dallas. So, as you might imagine, yes, they were a very good debate team…) I do have vague recollections of meeting him a time or two, but the important thing is that after all these years, it's nice that we overlap in our our thinking on this. So, the lesson here is that if you do stand on your feet and talk about something long enough, sometimes others will start talking about it, too... Once again, here's another video from the fine folks at The Dodo. And while this does fall under the category of an Adorable Animal Video (or more to the point, a heartwarming one), I prefer to think that it's really about the magic of Italian food Yesterday, a news story revealed that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was an FBI informant. Immediately, I thought that what would be interesting is to suggest to all QAnon followers that perhaps "Q" has long been an FBI informant, because that would be SO "dark state" of the FBI, wouldn't it? Co-opting "Q," which would mean that they all were at risk. They couldn't even trust "Q" anymore. Or the Proud Boys. After all, everything about them could be a deep state plot!!
And the more I thought about that, the more I realized that what I'd most love is for a reporter to ask a spokesperson for FBI if "Q" is an FBI informant, too. Of course, the Bureau wouldn't comment on who informants are, but that question and its "no comment" answer would be on video -- in fact, the FBI could even put out a press release reiterating that they don't comment on such things. But it would all build on the Proud Boys revelation and raise a "deep state" conspiracy theory. And the problem for QAnon followers is that not only are they predisposed to believe any negative story about the government and any conspiracy that involves politics -- and this rumor would have a serious foundation in addition to all that since the Proud Boys leader was actually revealed as an FBI informant -- but, and this is the most important thing, there would be no way to refute it, which would only add fuel to the conspiracy fear. With other such stories, the person in question can always deny the charge. The Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, for instance, said that "I don't know any of this. I don't recall any of this." (Which, you have to admit, is comically weak as far as denials go, especially for a domestic terrorist.) The problem for him though is that being quoted works both ways, and a former federal prosecutor Vanessa Singh Johannes said in a court hearing that, in fact, Tarrio "cooperated with local and federal law enforcement," Worse for Tarrio, an FBI agent at the hearing added that the Proud Boys leader was a “key component” in local police investigations." .And while his staunchest supporters could dismiss that as being how "the deep state" operates," the worse thing for Tarrio in his "Um, er, wait, really?" denial is that his own lawyer at the time Jeffrey Feiler said in court at the hearing that his client had indeed helped out in many investigations by going undercover and was a "prolific" cooperator. And added that his client “at his own risk, in an undercover role met and negotiated to pay $11,000 to members of that ring to bring in fictitious family members of his from another country,” So, Tarrio is pretty much in trouble when the Proud Boys have their next meeting. But an anonymous "Q"? There's no way an anonymous denial would even be as substantial as the empty, flailing words of Enrique Tarrio. I can just imagine the new story -- "'Oh, no, I'm not an FBI informant,' said the anonymous 'Q'" in a statement that he, she or they released to the press. When con man Clifford Irving famously faked an as-told-to memoir of the Howard Hughes, he was certain that the reclusive Hughes would not surface. And though the mega-billionaire did not surface in person, what Irving didn't count on was Hughes making a conference phone call to several journalists who had known and who who could question him on personal details to verify that he was, in fact, Howard Hughes. But "Q" can't do even that. Since he, she or they is (or are) totally anonymous, there's no one who could verify anything about the denials. It would be quite the conundrum. I'm sure that many QAnon believers would deny that any such a story could possibly be true -- but I'm equally sure that since it could, of course, possibly be true, most especially with an anonymous leader and with the leader of the Proud Boys being revealed to be an FBI informant, it would send many of the cult into disarray and anguish since they are so deeply ingrained to believe any government conspiracy. This all becomes all the more important given the DHS advisory that was released yesterday about the possibility of major threats from domestic terrorists for the next few months -- many of whom, the advisory notes, are angry at the election results. So, gee, one wonders where-oh-where in the world could that have come from??! And yes, that's today's Republican Party, and this connection to violence is the foundation of fascism. And it is not shocking at all to hear the deafening silence from Republicans about the report. So, if something as simple, as basic as merely asking a question about whether the "Q" leader of QAnon is an FBI informant can cause any disarray in the conspiracy cult, all the better. And the reality is...I have no idea if "Q" is an FBI informant or not. For all I know, he, she or they is/are. I have absolutely no idea in the world about the identify of "Q," and neither does most any member of the conspiracy cult. So, suggesting that the person or persons unknown might possibly be an FBI informant is a totally reasonable question to ask. Hey, if a science fiction writer can develop a fake religion on a lark and convince masses that Scientology is real, there's no reason to believe almost anything is possible in who came up with leading an anonymous cult conspiracy. So, gee, I mean, I really do want to know -- is "Q" an FBI informant? Well, either that, or Trump's 400-pound kid living in his parents' basement. It's possible. Or hey, who knows, maybe even both! Or a Russian troll. For that matter, why not it all? A 400-pound Russian troll living in his parent's basement who is an FBI informant. And given the lunacy of the conspiracies, it's actually not that outlandish to think it's so. But first, as a starting point -- is "Q" an FBI informant? The celebrity today on the Mystery Guest segment is two-time Oscar-winner for Best Actress Olivia de Havilland, who won for The Heiress and To Each His Own. She's very simple in her answers, but clearly having a thoroughly fun time. She lead a long life, spending her later years in Paris, and died last year at the age of 104. Making the segment fun, too, is that Carol Channing on panel. And also, it's a rare panel where Arlene Francis is on with her husband Martin Gabel. If you want to jump right to the Mystery Guest, it begins around the 18:00 mark. |
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
|