As readers of these pages know, I like to post videos of the wonderful Steve Goodman from time to time. I thought it was time for one of those, so I found a couple of funny ones, and was trying to decide between them when I came upon this one, and it was just too perfect not to post instead. Still, I wasn't hesitant. The song is is "My Old Man," his tribute to his father. It is not remotely a funny song -- though he's lighthearted in his introduction -- but it's profoundly touching, in particular his performance beyond just what the song is. My hesitancy is that the song is soulfully wistful and deeply heartbreaking, and I don't even remotely want "transference" to occur and have people think this is me and what I'm going through. As I've said, I'm sad at the loss of my father, but he was a month from 95 and lead a rich, full life. This is not what Steve Goodman is singing about, losing his father at a much-too-young age. But it's such a freaking great song. And it's Steve Goodman. And so, it's just too appropriate, and therefore here it is --
2 Comments
The other night, Donald Trump sat down for an interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox. I watched a little of it, but only as much of it that I could take, which wasn't a lot.
Most notable, of course, was Ms. Kelly's anticipated question to him about the insults and crass statements he'd made towards her, in particular, describing her as a "bimbo." His reply was depicted afterwards as a bit self-effacing and apologetic, however it was anything but. Actually, it was pathetic and really not much of an apology at all. To begin with, he tried to feign ignorance that he'd even said anything wrong -- this from the man who's bragged that he is so smart, really smart, with a really great memory, the best memory ever. And he wasn't sure that he actually had ever referred to Megyn Kelly a bimbo. If you rarely watch television, even you probably know he called her a bimbo. "Uh, that was a retweet. Did I say that?" he somewhat sheepishly asked. "Many times," she replied. Many times, indeed. And Donald Trump didn't supposedly remember even once. The real way to reply is "I'm sorry, it was said for effect and in the heated course of a campaign, and wrong." (Actually, the real way to reply is much longer than that, but we're talking Donald Trump here. I'm making it easy for him.) And even though he sort-of, kind-of, in-a-way regretted his words (without actually apologizing), at least regret for Donald Trump (not by human standards), by then saying "Ooooh, OK," followed by a meaningless and paltry, "excuse me" -- the sort of thing you might say if you elbowed someone in the head when trying to get in front of them in line -- he then wiped even that out by trying to explain that surely she must have been called far worse, and so it really wasn't all that bad. Really. He said this. "That’s not the most horrible thing. Over your life, you’ve been called a lot worse. Is that right? Wouldn’t you say?", he awkwardly twisted. Well, yes, she probably has, and by Donald Trump, no doubt, like that whole "blood coming out of her...wherever" thing. But no, sir, it was bad. And wrong. And you say, "I'm sorry," and take it like an adult. Especially when you want to be President of the United States. "It wasn't that bad" is not only idiotic, but makes even a pathetic semi-apology a non-apology. But from reports I came across, other parts of the interview were awful, as well. "The thing that gets me in trouble is the retweet," Donald Trump said. "The retweet is really more of a killer than a tweet. I seem to do pretty well with the tweet." First of all, a) no, you don't. You do pretty poorly with the tweet, too. And you do it a lot. B) it doesn't matter if it's the "retweet," it's coming from you and it counts. And c) no, dear reader, these words are not coming from your 12-year-old pre-teen, trying to explain away infantile online actions in social media, so they don't get grounded and lose computer privileges. This was said by the Republican Party nominee to be President of the United States. Dear God, really. Further, Donald Trump (R-Trump Towers) explained why he gets so obnoxious and vicious and mean-spirited in his attacks and that supposedly they're not bullying. "When I'm wounded, I go after people hard. I try to un-wound myself." Then he added, "I'm responding, Now, I then respond times-10. I don't know. I then respond pretty strongly." Okay, let's take a deep breath and go again. First off all, no, he doesn't just do this when he's "wounded." He was scathing towards Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorna and other candidates none of whom "wounded" him, but solely because they were competitors and he wanted to take them out. Though I suppose with Donald Trump's clearly paper-thin skin, he likely can't take any criticism and sees even a single negative word -- even when he's actually wrong, which is...well, a lot -- as someone "wounding" him, even if it isn't. Secondly, this isn't just "responding," this is bullying. And third, again, these words aren't your 14-year-old teenager called into the principle's office and trying to explain their bullying, nasty, social misfit behavior away, while squirming in the chair. This is the Republican Party nominee to lead their party as candidate to be President of the United States. But finally -- is this how the man will act when he's meeting with world leaders and negotiating with them??! If they disagree with him...God forbid, if they actually criticize him sharply, which I'm going to guess happens a lot in international politics...is this how Donald Trump expects to act??? Honestly, I don't even think it's a matter of how he "expects" to act, I think this is who Donald Trump is. And has show himself to be for 30 years. Period. And in fact he proved it near the end of the interview. That's when he made clear that that, y'know sort-of, kind-of fake apology to Megyn Kelly earlier was pointless, and he didn't even mean it, no matter how small "it" was. That's because he told Kelly that he stayed mad sometimes for a long time, and suggested that his vendetta with her might return. "This could happen again with us," he said. I don't think "could" is the proper word. With a petulant, spoiled, mean-spirited egomaniac who always gets his way and is now raised to the exalted level of leader of the entire Republican Party -- the man who GOP consultant Mike Murphy said has a "chimpanzee-like understanding of national security policy" -- I think you can count on it. And Fox and Megyn Kelly just let so much of this just slide by. Because...well, they're Fox. And this is who the Republican Party has chosen to be their titular leader as nominee for President of the United States, commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and leader of the free world. Shame on them. Pathetic. And it's only just started. May this incompetent, cruel, clueless, self-aggrandizing clown not get any closer than he is today to the Oval Office -- even on a White House tour -- and hopefully be pummeled by national voters deep into the ground, and take the GOP with him. But thanks to the Republican Party, he actually has a chance. Shame on them. It's one thing to dislike a candidate. It's another thing to be horrified by almost everything about them even if they weren't a candidate. A couple of days ago, I posted here a video from the TV production of Cole Porter's classic 1936 Broadway musical, Anything Goes. It was produced for the Colgate Comedy Hour in 1954 and most notably starred Ethel Merman at her peak, re-created her famous original role. And she starred opposite Frank Sinatra in the TV production. The show featured four songs that remain today as popular as any of Porter's -- "I Get a Kick Out of You," "Your the Top," the title number "Anything Goes, and this one, which might have been Ethel Merman's signature song from the show and perhaps my own personal favorite, not just from the musical but of anything Cole Porter wrote. "Blow, Gabriel, Blow." (Indeed, when they made the Cole Porter biography film, De-Lovely, with Kevin Kline, my guess when watching was that they'd end the movie with this song, and in a big production -- and so they did.) Mike Murphy is Republican consultant. I can't say I like him, but there are many things about him I do like, most notably that he's reasonably honest and speaks his mind. So, even when I don't agree with him, I don't generally get the sense that he's pushing something he doesn't believe, just to flim-flam the public.
He was a guest on Tuesday night's MSNBC election night coverage. He's been very public about how he can't and won't vote for Donald Trump, though won't vote for Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, he added that he'll likely write-in someone who is more in line with his own politic views, noting that who he'd like to vote for is Wendell Wilkie. Later, he was asked what it was specifically that he didn't like about Donald Trump. His response, delivered with great,vibrant brio, was one of the reasons I can generally enjoy listening to Mike Murphy. On the surface, it could perhaps be viewed as a rant, but it was delivered so pointedly and with an almost matter-of-fact clear-headedness in answer to a question that it fails the rant test and was just a straightforward response that deserves to be repeated here in full. So, what is it that GOP consultant Murphy exactly doesn't like about Donald Trump as his party's presidential nominee? "He fails my commander-in-chief test. I think he is a stunning ignoramus on foreign policy issues and national security which are the issues I care most about. And he’s said one stupid reckless thing after another, and he’s shown absolutely no temperament to try and learn the things that he doesn’t know and he doesn’t know just about everything." .Murphy then listed a range of specific examples and Trump's horrific emptiness on foreign policy, including saying he'd meet with the North Korean dictator, and then added, "The guy has a chimpanzee-level understanding of national security policy" -- which cracked up the entire panel.. I'll leave it at that. I don't think I can add anything. It's been a while since I've posted photos of my wanderings around the Art Institute of Chicago. It's quite a remarkable place -- not only for housing some of the most famous artwork in the world, but just so much of its core works. Besides which, the place is just so beautifully designed and laid out.
Still, it's hard not to focus on the famous works. There's something bizarre to stroll around, turn a corner and suddenly see looming up before you an iconic work. Something that we've all seen our entire lives, repeatedly and sometimes even in satirical ways, since they've become so much a part of world culture. And then there it is, the real thing, right in front you. And you walk up as close as you can to get an ever better look. Like this. "American Gothic" by Grant Wood. The real one. The original, It was disheartening to see the disarray at the Nevada Democratic convention, which was described as breaking into violence. By all accounts, it was Bernie Sanders partisans outraged at...well, whatever Bernie Sanders partisans are outraged at these days, mostly that they didn't get their way because everything is supposedly rigged. This isn't the case of all Sanders supporters, just the most vocal. But I can't say I'm deeply surprised because it tends to be the tenor of what I've read in online exchanges.
One of the occurrences was Senator Barbara Boxer getting shouted down as she spoke for Hillary Clinton, as Sanders supporters put their signs in front of cameras so that she couldn't be seen on the hall's big screens. They claimed that she was condescending to the Sanders people, which prompted the reaction, but the highly-respected Nevada news reporter John Ralston said that this was totally untrue, that the shouting and booing began even before Boxer began speaking. Ralston also reported that the proceedings were handled fine and fairly, and that no one was prejudiced against. He noted, as well, that it's important to remember that Hillary Clinton had actually won the Nevada Caucus a month or so back, and won handily by 5 points, so whatever disappointments the Sanders people felt at not getting their way wasn't justified. Worse though was that the phone number for the Nevada Democratic chair Roberta Lange was given out publicly, and she was inundated by vicious, virulent, obscene phone calls and death threats, with even threats against her children. Pretty reprehensible. But almost more problematic has been Bernie Sanders' response. The next day his campaign issued a statement that basically condemned the violence, however it had a "but..." attached to it, that his side had been wronged in whatever way they felt they had been wronged. Usually, they didn't get their way, after having lost the caucus. And that they weren't treated with "fairness and respect." And so they got violent and made direct threats. The Sanders statement, a day late,struck me as a pretty weak reaction to some real issues that needed to be shut down, notably the violence and threats to the state chair and her family. I don't doubt that there could have been some real issues that the Sanders side had reason to be bothered. I have no doubt that there are real such issues at all conventions and affect all sides, though perhaps more one side than another. But whether the issues reached the level being claimed -- especially given that Hillary Clinton actually won the state caucus and (as we always hear and know) elections have consequences -- seems less likely. And in the end, given various claims, I tend to side with John Ralston, who is one of my favorite thoughtful, fair-minded reporters. |
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
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|