|
Back in October, I wrote about my dear, wondrous and joyful friend Philippa Salisbury, who had just passed away. It was called "How to Be Unique." Today would have been her birthday, and so I couldn't let the day pass without mention. If you have joined these pages since it was written, you can find the article here.
I still get contacted by people because of the piece. Just today, in fact, I heard from a woman at Warner Bros. who knew Philippa -- they never met face-to-face, but traded emails for 10 years. Philippa had called the office, they got to talking, and became friends and stayed in touch. That was pure Philippa. If you said "hello" to her -- and there was a good chance you would, because she'd say "hello" to most everyone -- it was likely you'd get into a conversation. And then adore her. There are some people whose spirits transcend life. Philippa is one of those. She may not be sitting at your elbow, but she's everywhere else. Always.
0 Comments
Last week, I wrote here about former major league pitcher Curt Schilling's latest spate of egregiously nasty Tweets, which prompted his employer ESPN to say it took the issue seriously and was looking into the matter. The network had previously suspended Schilling for other equally mean-spirited posts on social media.
I wrote that my personal dilemma was that Schilling is such a wonderful baseball analyst, one of the very best, and from other things I know of him, has some very good sides to him. As well as, alas, this very dark and cruel one. Well, just to update you, my dilemma is over. The network released a statement last week which said, in part, "ESPN is an inclusive company. Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated." Well, okay, that's that then. Schilling has subsequently gone on social media to whine and blame others, as has his supportive wife, explaining what a wonderful heart Curt has and people don't really know him or know how inclusive he is. As I said, I am sure that Schilling has many sides. And I know enough about him that some of those sides are really terrific. Unfortunately, I also know this other side. And it's cold, spiteful and ugly. And really stupid -- because he was suspended for this already and even released a statement at the time taking responsibility, so he had to know what the risks and consequences were of continuing to do this. And to be very clear, this isn't a First Amendment "free speech" issue which some conservatives are trying to wrongly claim. The First Amendment is solely about the government not being allowed to make laws abridging speech. It says nothing -- zero -- about a company not being allowed to protect its self-interest as a business. Curt Schilling was a very public face and voice of ESPN, representing them. So, when he posts such cruel things under his name, it reflects on his employer as their public face. Not surprisingly, Mr. Schilling is trying to blame this on others and their reactions and misunderstandings. He also is trying to weasel his way out of it by saying that the worst of the words were not his at all, but he was rather just re-posting things that others have written. But, of course, it's his choice to post them. And his choice not to refute them. And his choice not to post what others have said on the opposite side of all these issues. So, his point of view comes through very loudly. And after his firing, he went back on Facebook, and his latest is posting memes by "others" that use the image of the late Prince with fake words seemingly attributed to him that slam Democrats and liberals. Way to go, guy. At least it's not "your" words, just someone else's. Blame them. And while you're at it, maybe you'll explain that it was the devil that made you do it... And who knows, maybe Fox Sports will find a place for him. After all, they hired Pete Rose and his lifetime ban from baseball. It would be a lovely fit. Last Tuesday, AMC started running a six-part mini-series of The Night Manager, which is a co-production with the BBC. It's based on the novel by John Le Carré and stars Tom Hiddleston and Hugh Laurie. I won't say too much, other than the first episode was superbly done, and it was a big success when it aired in England. Hiddleston was absolutely great. His role is far bigger in the premiere than Laurie's, which is why I single him out. Oh, and it has a stunningly-high 94% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The mini-series airs on Tuesday nights at 10 PM (Los Angeles time), so if you want to catch up on the premiere before Episode Two tomorrow, it's available On Demand. Or you can watch the first episode directly on AMC's website here, with no log-in required. (They also have the second episode available.) The story is about a hotel manager (Hiddleston) who is recruited by British Secret Service to infiltrate an organization run by Laurie as a major philanthropist, who is called "the most evil man in the world" since his charities are really a front for massive arms and chemical weapons-running A couple of friends who read the book said the first episode was a terrific adaptation of the novel, despite several changes. (Most notably, the initial locale where the night manager works was moved from Cairo for the Arab Spring, and a major arms deal was changed from Colombian to the Middle East, and makes a reference to the Syrian refugee crisis. Also, the British agent is a woman in the mini-series.) Also, despite the changes, author Le Carré -- who has been critical about most adaptations of his books -- has been full of praise for The Night Manager and said it's one of the best adaptations he's seen. Each episode runs an hour and 15 minutes, which is about an hour without the commercials. Here's the trailer. It's good, but doesn't give a sense of the intelligence, subtlety and craft of the opening episode. This is the annual reprint of a column originally written on The Huffington Post in 2009. And this year is the 13th anniversary of the actual event itself, Some stories simply demand repeating. Or better put, demand not being forgotten. This is one of them. And so, once again, here 'tis. One additional word. Maurice Cheeks is still in the NBA. He's currently the assistant coach for the Oklahoma City Thunder, who are in the playoffs... April 25, 2009 Oh, Say Can You Sing? A National Anthem to Remember As I prepared to write about an act of uncommon decency by a professional athlete, I realized that calling it that was unfair, that it diminishes what happened, because this was simply an act of uncommon decency, period. That it happened on such a high level and under such a bright microscope might likely stir the heart more, but it's the act itself that is ultimately what stirs us to begin with. Who it was and when it took place simply moves it up the pedestal. Today is the sixth anniversary of Maurice Cheek's moment on the pedestal. There is in the American consciousness for notable performances of the National Anthem at sporting events. Jose Feliciano's evocative singing at the 1968 World Series in Detroit was the first to interpret the "Star Spangled Banner" before a national audience. Because 1968 was one of the most tumultuous years in U.S. history, many at the time were so outraged that it took his career years to recover. Today, the rendition not only seems tame, but one of the most tender and beautiful. (And among the least known. If you've never heard it, do yourself a favor and click here to listen.) Whitney Houston gets mentioned often for her rousing rendition at the 1991 Super Bowl, during the Gulf War. For many, Marvin Gaye's deeply soulful performance at the 1983 NBA All Star is the most memorable. But for sheer emotional joy, it's hard to top what happened on April 27, 2003, before Game 4 of the NBA playoffs between the Portland Trailblazers and Dallas Mavericks. Context only adds to the story. So, once again: This was the playoffs. This is what all professional athletes live for, what their year is about. The regular season is a prelude, an effort to get into the post-season and be in place to win the league championship, to become a part of your sport's history. Everything centers on this. As the start of each playoff game nears, as the roaring crowd is at its highest pitch, as players put on their proverbial "game faces" and the battle is moments from beginning, all external thoughts get filtered out, and focus is completely, solely on their task ahead. The National Anthem, for most athletes, must be one of those external influences. More than most of us, who hear the "Star Spangled Banner" largely on special occasions, professional athletes have heard the National Anthem played before every single competitive game they've played. Game after game repeatedly each season, and season after season, for decades. Relentlessly. As meaningful as the song is, it is also just part of the ritual for a professional athlete, focused on the game, geared up for the game, anxious to start the game. Silent, not singing, maybe not even hearing the music. Waiting for the National Anthem to be played, and finished, so that they can finally start what they're there for. It's likely as much background noise as it is patriotic uplift. And so it must have been as the Trailblazers and Mavericks prepared for their playoff game to start. Stepping out onto the court was Natalie Gilbert, a 13-year-old girl. Just another National Anthem, just another youngster who won a contest, just another two minutes the crowd wanted to get past for the game they were there to see, to start. And she started fine. A little hesitant, since it's a frightening occasion for a child, with a national audience, flashing lights and a military guard. But in her wavering voice, she was prepared. Except that a few lines in, the high pageantry of the moment got her, and something went very wrong. She totally, thoroughly forgot the words. A young 13-year-old child, standing in front of over 10,000 people, lost. Alone. And that's when Maurice Cheeks showed the kind of person he was. Maurice Cheeks had had a very good NBA career as a player. He played for 15 years and was selected to four All Star games. When he retired, he was the all-time leader in steals and fifth in assists. He averaged over 11 points a game. And then he later became a coach, the position he was currently in for the Portland Trailblazers. It was Cheeks who was responsible for his team, responsible for keeping them focused on the game, responsible for guiding them. But he saw a 13-year-old girl in trouble. And that's when Maurice Cheeks showed the kind of person he was. Immediately. Cheeks always had a reputation in the NBA as a good guy. But he was about to prove it on a national stage. And what happened next - not just with Maurice Cheeks, but eventually with all the jaded players whose minds had been previously-focused on their game, an entire stadium of basketball fans there to see basketball, even the opposing white-haired coach Don Nelson - is just enthralling. The moment is wonderful, but how it builds and surprises is even better. And at the end, this tiny girl looking up at the giant of a man - who stayed around, refusing to leave her side and return to his team - with her face awash with relief, a huge hug, and the clear words mouthed, "Thank you," is all you need to see to why it's hard to top what happened on April 25, 2003, before Game 4 of the NBA playoffs for sheer emotional joy. Six years ago today. My favorite story in recent weeks is how some in the GOP Establishment are trying to rally around their prospective nominee by saying that Donald Trump is now going to change and start being "presidential."
For the record, no, he isn't. We hear all the time about a candidate changing after the primaries for the national election. The thing is, that's a totally different fish entirely from saying Donald Trump will change to become "presidential." What the first refers to is how a candidate has had to run on a platform that's far to the radical edge of his party, in order to appeal to the fringe base and get the nomination. And then once the candidate has gotten that nomination, he'll try to maneuver himself back towards the center and flim-flam the electorate to become more palatable to the general public. That may be disingenuous, but it's not unheard of. But that's about changing your political views. It is something completely different from changing your personality. Donald Trump is not about to start changing his personality. Donald Trump is an egomaniacal, insecure, bullying, misogynistic, self-righteous, posturing, mean-spirited, borderline racist. Someone with that personality trait is not going to change. Even if he wanted to, there are far too many layers of caked-on detritus to peel away. Further, Donald Trump has been chiding Bernie Sanders for being SO old, so ancient. The thing is, if Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination, do you know what his age will be? 70 years old. Bernie Sanders is just four years older. Donald Trump is basically the same age as Bernie Sanders. Which raises the question: how many 70-year-olds do you know who changed who they are? How many of them changed the time they like to have dinner? Or changed their favorite toothpaste? And the GOP Establishment thinks and is trying to convince others that Donald Trump is going to change his personality. And become..."presidential." Donald Trump has almost as much likelihood of changing as Mount Everest has of moving from the Himalayas. Here's the thing, though. Forget all that "he'll be 70 and can change" for a moment. Just step back and consider how many people change their personality after they reach the age of 40? Some do change, yes, but it's a very gradual process of introspection, recognizing their personal flaws and building a deep desire to grow, to become a better person. It doesn't happen in a few years. It takes years -- sometimes it takes therapy, sometimes it only happens with great personal determination and nobility of spirit, if it happens at all, which usually it doesn't, And that's at a snappy 40. In fact, though, usually when someone completely changes their personality it's for another reason entirely -- because they either had a breakdown or mid-life crisis. Now, to be fair, while a mental breakdown is certainly a possibility for Donald Trump, it's not a great selling point to the GOP Establishment and voting public. And as for having a mid-life crisis, that's usually when a guy divorces his wife for a much younger woman and starts buying flashy, expensive vehicles to compensate for an emptiness inside. Donald Trump has been having a mid-life crisis for the past 30 years. So, been there, done that. A 70-year-old, egomaniacal, mean-spirited, insecure, misogynistic bullying, borderline racist is not going to change who he is. Not in a few weeks, not ever, not at least without divine intervention. Change? Change??! Why on earth would Donald Trump -- being Donald Trump -- want to change??!! Being an egomaniacal, bullying, misogynistic, mean-spirited, borderline racist is what got him here! And it's about to carry him to the Republican Party nomination to be President of the United States? So...change??? Change???! If anything, when Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination, he is not even going to just double-down on who he is, with the intoxicating fumes of perhaps becoming The Most Powerful Man in the World, he's likely going to quadruple-down. It is certainly possible that we'll see a few small changes in his speeches. That's why God created speech writers. I'm sure Donald Trump will be able to read an occasional speech well without choking on the adult maturity. But that's just a skill of reading, it has nothing to do with changing who he is at the care, changing his personality to become "presidential." At a certain point, all the reading ends, and the personality returns to the surface. Water always do reach its level. And sometimes that means it sinks to it. And the thing is, even if God did get involved and made Donald Trump beatific, it would be a problem. Because Donald Trump didn't get to this point of almost being anointed by the GOP by being beatific. His base would feel betrayed and disavow him. They adore the egomaniacal, bullying, mean-spirited, misogynistic racism. Lose that, and Donald Trump loses the core of his support. Not to worry, there aren't enough high-powered air-blasters and abrasive detergents to scrub the baked-on crud off of Donald Trump. He's monopolized the market on abrasive and crud. Ted Cruz has only been able to grab the droppings. Donald Trump is the man who demeaned war hero John McCain for having been captured, who slammed the looks of Carly Fiorina and Rosie O'Donnell, who ridiculed a disabled reporter, who joked about killing reporters, who quipped about being able to shoot anybody and getting away with it, who chided Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle, who demeaned Mexicans as rapists, who wants all members of the Muslim faith kept out of the United States, who promotes beating up protesters, who...who...who on and on and on and on. That's who he is. That is who Donald Trump is. And anyone who thinks Donald Trump is going to change -- forget changing to become presidential, just change, period -- is living in a fool's paradise. Pretty much literally. And anyone who then thinks Donald Trump is not only going to change but become actually presidential -- presidential!!! --- has largely given up the concept of thinking. When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1972, it was under the advertising banner of him now being "the New Nixon." So, how did that one end up working out? Compared to Richard Nixon, Donald Trump has even less chance of changing to become presidential. Richard Nixon at least had been Vice President. And had been a Presidential nominee. And was a U.S. Senator. And U.S. Congressman. And even with all that, the "New Nixon" ended up having to resign from office in disgrace for abuse of power. Donald Trump will now suddenly be more "presidential"? Now? Finally? At last?!! Just curious what he's been running for the past half-year?? The New Trump. Change You Can't Believe In. This week's contestant is Sara Tillotson from Tulsa, Oklahoma. At first, I was able to pick out the hidden song by focusing on the proper hand which was playing the tune, though eventually it became perfectly clear without that. As for the composer style, I didn't have a clue -- the same as the contestant. To my surprise, my one offbeat guess was bizarrely close. I wouldn't have ever gotten it, though. It's tough. But perhaps you can get the era and type of music.
|
Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
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
Archives
June 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed