Yesterday, I posted a comic sketch for Red Nose Day with Dame Judi Dench, along with French & Saunders, coming to “The Repair Shop,” which is a BBC series where people bring important family heirlooms in need of repair. My guess is that she appeared in the sketch because she had been on the show itself, for real, when she brought in a pocket watch she’d given to her late-husband, the actor Michael Williams, when they’d been married for a year and were appearing in a play together. It's clearly very emotional for her talking about him and hoping to get the watch fixed. I don’t know if this is the way the show usually is done, though I suspect not, that this was part of a special event, because mid-way through the piece cuts to them all on stage at the Edinburgh TV festival, and they talk for a couple minutes, before going back to the film to see what work was done. And then return to the stage for the Big Reveal.
0 Comments
In his new book, published yesterday, former Trump Secretary of State Mike Pompeo brings up Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, who was brutally murdered and then dismembered by the Saudis – an action believed to have been under the direction of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The horrific event galvanized the U.S. in outrage, so it’s understandable that Pompeo would address it in discussing his time in office. What’s utterly inexplicable though is that Pompeo chose to attack, not the Crown Prince or the Saudi killers, but Jamal Khashoggi, who (to repeat) had been brutally murdered and dismembered. That seems weird and reprehensible even by Trump administration standards. Pompeo, for reasons known only to him in his fantasy quest to become U.S. President, writes about Mr. Khasghoggi that “we need to be clear about who he was -- and too many in the media were not.” And from that, Pompeo goes on to refer to the career journalist instead as solely an “activist,” while additionally making ham-fisted suggestions that try to hint at supposed, tangential connections to the world Khashoggi wrote about, yet without any specifics to support what he wants you to believe, which is the very opposite of “a need to be clear.” Though, in fairness, what you might expect from a former CIA director used to obfuscation. Even more deplorable is that Pompeo not only tries to redefine who he wants you to believe Jamal Khashoggi is, taking victim-shaming to a new low, but he wants to eradicate who the journalist was and make you think he wasn't even a journalist, suggesting instead that Khashoggi (who wrote for the Washington Post) was not "a Saudi Arabian Bob Woodward martyred for bravely criticizing the Saudi royal family through his opinion articles in the Washington Post." Never mind that Mohammed bin Salman was so angry at Khashoggi's work that he told an aide -- in a conversation intercepted by intelligence sources -- that he would go after Khashoggi "with a bullet." (Which by most standards, when you're brutally murdered and dismembered, qualifies as being martyred for bravely criticizing the Saudi royal family.) But going even further, what Pompeo bizarrely tries to say even more is that Mr. Khashoggi was a journalist only “to the extent that I, and many other public figures are journalists. We sometimes get our writing published, but we also do other things.” Mike Pompeo is a journalist the same way that Kermit the Frog is an actual, real-life amphibian. Since Pompeo says he has a burning “need to be clear” in reprehensibly demeaning a man who was brutally murdered and dismembered, let’s take a moment to point out that Jamal Khashoggi was a career journalist for 33 years. He began as a correspondent for the Saudi Gazette in 1985, and then worked for a variety of Arab newspapers from 1987 to 1990, including Asharq Al-Awsat, Al Majalla and Al Muslimoon. In 1991, he became managing editor of Al Madina where he worked for eight years, later becoming acting editor-in-chief – while at the same time working as a foreign correspondent. He then was hired as deputy editor-in-chief of Arab News. And eventually, as his journalistic career progressed, he moved to the United States, where he become a legal U.S. resident, and in 2017 was hired to be a columnist for the Washington Post. (Where Bob Woodward also works as an associate editor.) It's like Mike Pompeo wants to do to Jamal Khashoggi's legacy almost the same as what the Saudis did to his body. So, yeah, to serve his face-saving purposes, Mike Pompeo wants you to believe that Jamal Khashoggi only “sometimes” got his writing published. In reality, Jamal Khashoggi got his writing published “sometimes” only if you define “sometimes” as “Not every day of his life.” And Mike Pompeo wants to make you think he himself and Jamal Khashoggi were exactly the same in their writing careers by flim-flamming inattentive readers with the overly-generous, disingenuous use of the words “we” and “our.” But don’t take my word for it. Here is what Washington Post publisher and CEO Fred Ryan wrote yesterday in blunt and scathing response to Pompeo about journalist Kamal Khashoggi who was under contract to write for Ryan’s Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper as a journalist -- "It is shocking and disappointing to see Mike Pompeo's book so outrageously misrepresent the life and work of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. As the CIA — which Pompeo once directed — concluded, Jamal was brutally murdered on the orders of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. His only offense was exposing corruption and oppression among those in power -- work that good journalists around the world do every day. Jamal dedicated himself to the values of free speech and a free press and held himself to the highest professional standards. For this devotion, he paid the ultimate price. It is shameful that Pompeo would spread vile falsehoods to dishonor a courageous man's life and service — and his commitment to principles Americans hold dear — as a ploy to sell books." For utterly inexplicable reason, in trying to undermine a man brutally murdered and dismembered (something that can’t be repeated enough), former Trump official Mike Pompeo wants to wipe out from existence Jamal Khashoggi’s long and involved career as nothing more than an “activist.” So, again, in the “need to be clear,” what Jamal Khashoggi was…was a legal U.S. resident, with a wife, living in the United States. Who worked for an American newspaper as a journalist, a profession protected in the Constitution by the First Amendment. A man who was brutally murdered and dismembered. Because he spoke out against a repressive, savage regime. Which raises the question, bending over backwards to be fair to Mike Pompeo, a concept he doesn’t employ, so what if Jamal Khashoggi also was -- or wasn't -- an activist fighting horrific repression, in addition to being a career journalist who worked for a U.S. paper??!! By the way, also in the need to be clear, taking Mike Pompeo’s word about anything is never a sure thing to do. After all, this is the guy who signed over Afghanistan to one of the co-founders of the Taliban, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who the Trump administration helped get out of prison – and then took a cool photo together to commemorate the event. Not that one should draw any false connections to terrorists from that, even if Pompeo himself might do such a thing if it was others. Why in the world Mike Pompeo oddly wants to denigrate activists is another question his efforts raise. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was an activist. So was Rosa Parks. And Gandhi. Rep. John Lewis was an activist. And Harriet Tubman. Margaret Sanger. Nelson Mandela. Cesar Chavez. Greta Thunberg. Nobel Prize-winner Malala Yousafzai. And Nobel Prize-winner Desmond Tutu. President Theodore Roosevelt was an activist and also won the Nobel Prize. President Barack Obama, too (including the Nobel Prize). Elijah Cummings. Alexei Navlny. Bob Geldof. Upton Sinclair was an activist – and a writer. Maya Angelou was an activist – and a writer. Elie Wiesel was an activist – and a writer, and won the Nobel Prize. All of whom (and so many others) worked to make society a better place. But Mike Pompeo wants you to think activism is a bad thing. Whether it’s your full-time endeavor or something you do as part of your life. It must be noted that he does also write about legal U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi, a career journalist and activist, who was brutally murdered and dismembered, that “ It is just utterly bewildering that Mike Pompeo made a conscious decision in his book to go off in this direction about U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who was brutally murdered and dismembered. That he also notes about Mr. Khashoggi, oh, by the way, "he didn't deserve to die" is so woke of Pompeo. "He didn't deserve to die." Nice attempt at a save, as they say. It’s hard to imagine what possessed Mike Pompeo to address the brutal murder of a U.S. resident and journalist in the preposterous, contemptible way he did in his book. One can come up with all manner of disreputable explanations, though they’re nothing more than guesses – and for all we know, might not go far enough. Desperately trying to cover his butt as part of a deplorable Trump administration response as he hopes in his fantasy world to dream of becoming president is probably the most polite explanation available. Covering the butt of Trump's many dealings with the Saudis (including the current LIV golf tour) and Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from them is another matter, as well. Finally, it’s at this point, I have an unexpected addendum to this all. I had been planning to write this article the moment I saw the story about Pompeo’s strange attack on Jamal Khashoggi. In fact, I initially posted a tweet about it. Then, a half-hour latter, I noticed that I got a reply. It was from Ms. Hanan Elatr Khashoggi. My first reaction was that “Not acceptable" is the polite term. This is a wonderfully loony sketch for the Red Nose Day: Comic Relief telethon in England from 2022. The video is centered around a parody of a BBC show, The Repair Shop, in which – as far as I can tell – people bring treasured family heirlooms that need fixing and then there’s a Big Reveal when they come to pick it up. The sketch features two of the main stars of the actual The Repair Shop, Jay Blades and Steven Fletcher, and other of the show's experts, and the guests who arrive in need of assistance are Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French, as well as Dame Judi Dench (yes, really) and her actress daughter Flinty Williams. Adding some fun perspective to this, Judi Dench actually appeared as a guest on the real Repair Shop show, bringing in a very-meaningful pocket watch she had given to her late-husband 50 years earlier that needed repair. I suspect that was the impetus for her wanting to appear in the sketch. And not to worry, I tracked down that video and will post it soon, perhaps tomorrow. He's ba-ack. We turn our time over this morning to Randy Rainbow who returns with one of his funniest and most clever parody songs. I burst out laughing when I saw the title, and that was almost enough, as much in admiration of him realizing that this was the song to write. Excellent production values, as well. It's most-especially fun if you know the musical Les Miserables -- not just for this particular song, but a couple of other references he buries in there. (One of them I didn't get the first time around, but on second viewing I realized the homage was to the song, "One Day More.") This builds up speeds and zips through pretty past in the second part, so read quickly. Or perhaps watch more than once. Today is my Aunt Joan's 95th birthday, and it reminded me of one of my favorite tales that I posted here five years ago the day after a surprise party for her 90th birthday. So, I thought it appropriate to post it again in her honor. I unfortunately wasn't able to attend the party my cousin Susie put together this time around, but we did talk, and she's still the spitfire I refer to in the article. (She said, "I'm so glad you remembered it was my birthday!" I replied that I've had a lot of practice...) The only things different from what I wrote in the article are that her husband Dick, who I refer to, passed away in the interim after a long, terrific life together, and she's not on all the committees she was at the time, feeling it was best to let others have a chance to take the responsibility -- though she still consults and gives her opinion. Of course. Surprise Yesterday was the surprise party for my Aunt Joan 90th birthday, though her actual birthday isn't until Tuesday. It went very well, wonderfully organized for months by her daughter, my cousin Susie, but the logistics were dicey because she’s still very dynamic, and it required maneuvering her to do things uncommon for her because she likes to be in control and without her guessing she was being maneuvered. I've always said that if I’m ever in a war, I want her in my foxhole – even today. She's still that vibrant. I occasionally get phone calls from her at 10:30 at night...but that's in Los Angeles. She lives back in Chicago, so it's 12:30 in the morning. She's usually working on some project at that hour, "And I don't want to go to bed until I get it finished." Her husband has long-since been sleeping, but she's working away. And it's not a little project for herself, but for some organization she's working with. She's also the head of food committee at the independent living residence where they are -- she's wanted to quit that, but the managers keep asking her to stay because she's so good at it. She went back to school in late-middle age to get her Masters degree (at the beloved Northwestern) and then ran a family services social program there. She's quite the dynamo -- so maneuvering her around without her guessing was no easy task. Part of the plan was to get her to the curb outside her residence and have her daughter (my cousin) call to say she was running 20 minutes late -- and not have her decide to go back upstairs to wait. Instead, a few of us had set up the idea of visiting a room across the street where an earlier party had taken place that I hadn't been in town for and wanted to see, because the room and view were supposed to be so nice. That's where our party was taken place. There were some hiccups along the way, but we tapdanced though them and got her across the street, into the other building and going up the elevator. And it all worked – but came apart with 50 feet to go. That close to the promised land, she saw a server in the doorway, and thought someone else was having a party there. And she wouldn't go in. In fact, she stopped dead in her tracks. I said I thought it would be okay, and would check. But she didn't want me to do that, and when I kept heading towards the door to "check," she got very blunt about it. She saw the coat rack and knew therefore that there was indeed a party. I tried to noodge her on, but you don't noodge Aunt Joan. "There's an unwritten rule at the residence," she said forcefully, "that when someone else is having a party, you do not intrude in any way." And the more I said it should be fine, the more I could see her not only shutting down, but starting to get angry. And took a few more steps closer, and it looked like she was about to implode, insistent that I stop. "I live here," she said through clenched teeth, "you don't. I deal with these people all the time. Stop." What I realized was a double problem: that not only did I have to get her in, but if she imploded too much she wouldn’t enjoy the surprise. And we were on the verge of that. She had that Aunt Joan Look. So I quickly decided that I had to blow the secret. I walked back to her, leaned in close in a very personal, quiet way, and said, “There is a party. And it’s for you. It’s a surprise.” She was bewildered for a moment and said that it couldn’t be because she’d just gotten a call from her daughter who was 20 minutes away. “No,” I said, “she’s here. In the room. that was part of our ruse.” When I moved her forward a little bit and she saw an easel at the doorway with pictures of her, that's when it finally clicked in that this was real. However, she was still slightly uncertain about it all. But walking through the door, even with the surprise being blown, that turned out to act as a sort of set up, and once inside, she was overwhelmed to see how many people were there, filling up the place, and kept saying, “Oh, my. Oh, my. Oh, my. Oh, my!!” So, it worked out. And she had a wonderful time. And was all smiles at the end, appreciative of the ruse. Phew. On Sunday, a man walked into a dance studio in Monterey Park, just east of Los Angeles, and shot 20 people, killing 10 of them. He later entered a nearby ballroom, but his gun was wrestled from him, and he fled. He later was killed by police.
The Monterey Park area is a largely-Chinese community, which was celebrating Lunar New Year. I haven’t been there often, but when I’ve gone it’s generally been to eat at one of the massive number of Chinese restaurants that fill the streets. I once did an experiment to not have a destination in mind where to eat, and just basically picked a place at random. After all, if you not only have that much competition (and it really seemed like a couple of Chinese restaurants on every block) but also to diners with a discriminating plate, I figured you’d better be really good, or you’d be out of business quickly. The gambit paid off, the meal was wonderful. I was going to say that I assume we’ll see a lot of “Thoughts and prayers” tweets, but then I realized that since this was an Asian community, today’s extreme-right might not be as comforting as they would be otherwise. But then, it doesn’t matter much, since “Thoughts and prayers” have long-since lost their meaning. If “Thoughts and prayers” had an impact, we would have stopped seeing gun massacres long, long ago. And all those on the far-right trying to make a point that, even with strict gun laws in California, there was still this massacre -- it must be noted that one of the guns used is banned in the state, likely brought in from elsewhere. (I've also never understood the strange argument that because a state or city has tough gun laws and a mass shooting occurs there, this means gun laws don't work, so we should get rid of them -- or some such empty point. After all, that's like saying even though we have laws against bank robberies, and they still happen, it means laws against bank robberies don't work, so we should get rid of them.) The only good thing in the news story is that we didn’t have to read Ted Cruz saying anything about how if only there were fewer doors, the gunman couldn’t have gotten in, and all would have been okay. Also, there was another incident in the community the same night that police believe might possibly be related. In that instance, which took place at a nearby ballroom, it was unarmed people who got the gun away from the man, which undermines the whole “Good man with a gun” gibberish. Yes, there were 20 people shot, and 10 killed at the dance studio, but then people dancing don’t tend to do so wearing gun holsters. And are easy targets for someone with a semi-automatic weapon. But speaking of other incidents the same night -- This wasn't even the only mass shooting the same night. There was another mass shooting on Sunday in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where 12 people were shot. And speaking of other mass shootings -- We're only 23 days into the new year, but already there have been 36 mass shooting this year alone. Yes, that's not only more than one mass shooting every single day, but it's over 1-1/2 mass shooting. Every. Single. Day. Saying that you are outraged by this all and sickened by it is almost beginning to have little effect, as well. After all, even though this was 20 people shot and 10 killed, if you can’t get most of the country rising up in fury when schoolchildren are continually massacred, what chance to you have with a dance studio. “Almost beginning,” thankfully, since at least a gun safety bill did pass Congress last year. It was pretty weak for what was needed – most notably to get rid of assault weapons off the street – but what issues did get passed were beneficial and hopefully will save lives. As always, whooping cries from the corporate-owned, gun manufacturer-run NRA terrorist organization will come that “This is not the time to talk about gun safety laws” (tm) – and as always, the proper response is that that’s correct: the time to talk about this was before the massacre. Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people. |
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
|