For today's Holiday Fest, we have songs that are both the unknown and known -- though an uncommon version.  Both are from Marlene Dietrich.

This first is her recording of "Der Trommelmann" -- which might seem like it's the unknown song, but in fact it's the very well-known "Little Drummer Boy." But her recording in German is one of the most haunting (and to me best) versions.

The other song is the one that's unknown -- and absolutely beautiful.  Again in German, it's "Still War die Nacht." (Still Was the Night).
​

We interrupt the Holiday Fest currently in progress so that we my bring you this special posting.  The Holiday Fest will return soon -- like this evening.  This afternoon, though, we honor the State of Illinois on the 206th anniversary of it being admitted to the Union in 1818.  Huzzah!

In honor of it as the true birthplace of America, or at least of me, we do have music, so those of you who miss the latest installment of holiday songs at least have something to hold on to.  It's the state song, "Illinois," quite an aptly-named title, I must say.  It's also often know as "By Thy Rivers Gently Flowing," the song's first line, which adds a bit of grace to something otherwise more perfunctory.  There's a lovely chorus that sings along, very slowly as if it was a religious hymn.  For all I know, that's what they songwriters intended, rather than something to rouse the spirits -- or not.  Hymn-like does make it lovely, albeit interminable.  I have a feeling that it's all because of the word "Thy."  When you put "Thy" in a song, people are going to sing it like a hymn.  And if you give people a hymn and make it long-enough, there's a reasonable chance they'll turn it into a dirge.  And that's precisely what the dirge-like version I posted in 2018 for the state's 200th birthday was.  

(By the way, I still have zero idea why on earth that video was titled, "Illinois, Worth Fighting For."  I wasn't aware it was under attack.  Not when the song was written, not in the intervening years and not now.  Unless you count by people from Wisconsin driving down on tractors wearing their cheeseheads.  But that usually isn't legally considered an act of war.  Then again, that 2017 video turned out to have other problems with it I noted later -- like pictures of presidents born in the state for Republicans Ulysses S. Grant and Ronald Reagan but not Barack Obama, a photo of Republican Speaker of the House Henry Hyde forced to resign in scandal disgrace, and a graphic of Trump Tower.  So, good riddance!)  

Here is a significantly shorter, 1-minute orchestral, rousing version that is played like a state's anthem should be played!

And for those who want to sing along, I'll post the lyrics to the first verse below.  You're welcome!
​

 
 
Before commenting, I came across several posts on social media that did a good job expressing my thoughts, though more pithily.
​
“At this point I guess Biden has zero fu**s left to give.”
-- Brian J. Karem (White House correspondent)

We’re not accepting complaints about the Hunter Biden pardon unless you also complained about the Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort pardons.
-- David Corn (journalist for Mother Jones)

“Literally, if you're a self-imagined journalist who did ABSOLUTELY NO coverage of Trump's pardons during the election, you should crawl into a dark room in shame for caring about this. There is nothing sleazier.
-- Marcy Wheeler (national security expert journalist), in response to press criticism.


If you were Joe Biden watching Trump appoint his son-in-law's pardoned extortionist daddy as ambassador, then you'd pardon Hunter Biden too.
-- Grant Stern (executive editor of Occupy Democrats)
 
Okay, just one more.  It’s not pithy, but worth including.  That’s because it’s a tweet from former Attorney General Eric Holder.

​What’s stood out to me from the criticisms of the pardon are that it’s hurts the public’s perception of the rule of law, and that it’s hypocritical of President Biden after saying he wouldn’t pardon his son.  That, and one other thing:  the extensive coverage of the pardon.
 
To start with, when some of wrung their hands in distress over the rule of law, I don’t think the impact of this pardon on how the public sees the rule of law borders on zero.  After all, the public has lived through Trump trying to overthrow the government and being able to use the rule of law to force so many delays that he hasn’t had to face a single court trial on it, despite two federal indictments, both of which have now been dismissed.  Further, the public has seen the Supreme Court rule that a president can commit almost any crime (!) while in the White House and have immunity for it.  Moreover, the public has also seen Trump convicted of 35 felonies, been found liable of rape, and been found guilty of business fraud – and then shrugged and elected him president.  So, when it comes to the presidency their perception of “the rule of rule” has already been bent out of shape so much that a president using his Constitutional right to pardon his own son for reasons (whether or not one agrees with the reasons) that most legal experts say are justifiable pretty much doesn’t even register on the “Rule of Law-o-meter.”
 
On top of which, the public has also seen Trump, when previously in the White House, pardon four men -- Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort -- under threat of indictment for their involvement in trying to overthrow the government.  So, I suspect that pardoning one’s son convicted of basically tax evasion (which he paid back) and filling out a form illegally not only doesn’t rise to that level, but doesn’t rise to any level when impacting how the public sees the rule of law.
 
And beyond even that, the public saw Trump say repeatedly as a campaign issue that he may pardon everyone in prison who was convicted from their part in the January 6 Insurrection.  So, thinking that Joe Biden pardoning his son for crimes that most legal experts say almost all others would never have even been charged in the first place will be something that the public sees as warping their view of the rule of law…is ludicrous and ignores the world of Trump we live in.
 
As for whether or not President Biden was hypocritical for pardoning his son after saying he wouldn’t, I don’t think there’s anything remotely hypocritical about it.  Conditions changed, and so opinions change.  It’s how life works and should work. And the conditions that changed are critically important:  because we now have an incoming president who has stated clearly and repeatedly that “I will be your retribution.”  That when in office, he plans to use the courts for revenge to go after his enemies.  And has named as his nominee to head the FBI someone who has been just as clear about politicizing the agency and using it to go after those who opposed the party and against whom he holds grudges.  And further, Trump just named his daughter’s father-in-law, who is a convicted felon that he pardoned, to be the Ambassador to France!  So, when those conditions changed, some which put his son at risk of further retribution, and some which took the power of the pardon to reprehensible and uncaring levels, a president pardoning his son after having his life dragged publicly through more mud and for longer than likely anyone ever convicted for the same charges does pass the smell test.
 
And if ultimately someone does want to believe that the pardon is hypocritical (and as I said, I don't believe it is in the slightest), if that’s the absolute worst charge that can be made about the pardon compared to the unending stream of gross hypocrisies that Trump has foisted onto the American public, changing positions from the minimum wage, health care (supporting a single-payer plan in 1999), vaccines and abortion, or changing positions when someone has offered him money – whether on cyber-currency, criticism Bud Light or wanting to ban TikTok or a range of other issues – not to mention the 30,000+ lies that the Washington Post reported when he was in office, it’s an empty case devoid of substance.
 
Which leaves the matter of press coverage.  President Biden pardoned his son for being convicted of crimes (and yes, they were crimes) that almost all legal experts say others are almost never charged.  That he was hounded and charged solely because he was the son of President Biden, and MAGOPs wanted to impeach him but couldn’t find grounds after years of investigation.  So, they went after his son.  And the press has made this an on-going story.  In fact, right before posting this article this morning (two days after the pardon), MSNBC spent 20 minutes on their morning show still dealing with criticism.  And seemingly will continue doing so.  Despite having let it largely fall through their reportorial cracks when Trump pardoned Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort – people who were involved in trying to overthrow the government and democracy.  And pardoned donors, Blackwater war criminals, corrupt MAGOP politicians, participants in the Russia probe scandal and more.  Many of which actually impacted “the rule of law” in the United States.  And despite having just said he would appoint an extended family member, who he had pardoned, to be U.S. Ambassador to France.  (Which has received a ho-hum, oh-my, well, that's Trump response.)  But…Hunter Biden!  Who most legal analysts have said wouldn't have been charged if his last name wasn't Biden.

Or as Marcy Wheeler explained the situation yesterday morning:  “Literally, if you're a self-imagined journalist who did ABSOLUTELY NO coverage of Trump's pardons during the election, you should crawl into a dark room in shame for caring about this. There is nothing sleazier."

Yes, there have been reporters, legal analysts and commentators who’ve complained that pardoning his son is a gift to Trump, who will use it to justify whatever horrific pardons he makes in the future.  To me (and plenty enough others I've seen, as noted above), this is an almost stunning belief devoid of meaning or grasp of the real world.  To think Trump wouldn’t make the pardons otherwise, to think Trump wouldn’t find some issue to try to explain away his pardons, to think Trump even cares about ever justifying his actions making a pardon or for doing anything ignores everything we all have seen of Trump over the past eight years – or through our lifetime observing Trump. 
 
(On Jon Stewart's Monday hosting of The Daily Show last night, after giving lip service for 90 seconds to Kash Patel being Trump's nominee to run the FBI, showing news clips of Patel being called "the most dangerous nominee for democracy" and about him saying he wanted to jail judges, bureaucrats and judges -- a topic I therefore thought was about to be the theme of his segment ("the most dangerous nominee for democracy" seemed a pretty notable one, after all...) -- Stewart then brushed that aside and devoted the remainder of his 18 minutes to slamming President Biden for pardoning his son and ceding the moral high ground.  This is the same Jon Stewart, by the way, who only weeks ago slammed Democrats for them so-genteelly playing by the standard rules of politics, always taking the moral high ground, as it were, while Trump and the MAGOP found ways around that, bulldozing it into dust.  But now, oh-dear, President Biden pardoned his son!  As if the sociopathic, amoral Trump cares one tiny speck of dust about having the moral high ground "ceded" to him before he'll consider doing anything that undermines democracy. Let alone that it would take a lifetime to have the moral high ground ceded to him.  NOTE: Trump wouldn't know the moral high ground unless it was pointed out to him by a battalion shining klieg lights on it, and it was then reported on Fox -- at which point he'd bulldoze the thing.)

The bottom line:
 
There were no costs to past Trump pardons of those involved in the Insurrection to overthrow the government, or of war criminals, or of those involved in investigations of his own scandals, or more.  To try to put President Biden in the same category for pardoning his son for charges that would never have been brought if his last name wasn’t Biden and to protect his son against future retribution by those publicly out for vengeance and think there will be a cost to President Biden and the rule of law for it is twisting known reality until it’s unrecognizable.
 
And most people who are not the MAGOP base will fully understand the difference between a father pardoning his son wrongly targeted, and Trump pardoning white supremacist terrorists and those in prison for trying to overthrow the government.

Do I wish President Biden hadn't pardoned his son?  What I wish is that the MAGOP hadn't hounded and investigated Hunter Biden in Congress for two years, trying to get his father (and finding nothing), putting Joe Biden in the position where decency required appointing a special prosecutor who, in turn, likely felt obligated to charge him when he wouldn't likely have charged anyone else under the same conditions -- and that Trump and his FBI Director-nominee haven't relentlessly made clear they were about retribution and revenge, as MAGOP officials continue riling their base by talking about the non-existent "Biden Crime Family," making a pardon seem an understandable response.  At which point it should have been covered as a valid issue for a few hours before getting back to focusing on actual, literal threats to democracy.
 
And in the end, as Briam Karem so eloquently put it -- “At this point I guess Biden has zero fu**s left to give.”

Over the weekend, I  saw a social media comment that some MAGOP made in response to angry criticism at Trump nominating Kash Patel to be FBI Director, writing in his defense "The establishment spent a decade going after the man. Now you’re upset it’s payback time."

I responded that "Putting aside for the moment if others had valid reason to criticize Kash Patel's autocratic positions -- it's one thing for him to personally 'go after' anyone he wants, whether doing so was justified or not.  But it's another for an FBI Director with a sworn duty to the U.S. Constitution to use his office for personal vendettas and payback.  Most especially when just for being criticized, no matter how harshly."

As it happens, the next day, a recent video of Kash Patel was posted of him on an extreme right channel, where he said out loud, seemingly unaware that cameras and microphones you're talking to will send you words out to others:  "We're going to come after the people who helped Joe Biden rig presidential election... This is why we're tyrannical. This is why we're dictators."

(Hopefully, there will be at the very least a handful of Republicans in the Senate who listen to the FBI nominee calling his and their party tyrannical dictators -- and disdain that enough to vote against his nomination.  I'm not holding my breath on that, mind you.  But I expect the quote will come up in the hearings process.)

Kash Patel, of course, is hardly the only full-on Fascist who Trump has nominated for his cabinet.  Indeed, in many cases, that seems to be a qualifying position.  After all, it's the core who who Trump has become, and he expects totally loyalty from those he surrounds himself with.

All of which brought to mind an extraordinary video I've previously posted here (on a couple of occasions, I believe), the first time 10 years ago, on September 5, 2014 when I was attending an international tech show in Berlin and writing from there about the event and the city.  But as pointed as this video was when posted previously, it's too prescient now not to repeat it, along with the story to set up the background. 

​The video is no longer available on YouTube, but happily I had the presence of mind to download it and keep a copy.

                                     It's the Very Spitting Image

This is one of the most remarkable pieces of political satire I've ever seen, and one of the most brutal.  And it comes from...puppets.

The puppets in question are the brilliant Spitting Image, a British TV series that ran from 1984 to 1996.  Created by Peter Fluck and Roger Law with Martin Lambie-Nairn, the show used phenomenally accurate yet overdone caricatured puppets to take a scathing look at politics and society, with a special place in its heart for the Royal Family, and didn't spare Americans any either.

(An episode I once saw had Ronald Reagan at a dinner party.  As he was talking blather, a guest came by, lifted up the top part of he head on a hinge, dug a fork in and spun it around like trying to get spaghetti.  He then popped the top of the head back in place and wandered off.)

How does this relate to Berlin?  I'll get to that.  But first, a bit more about Spitting Image.

The show won 10 BAFTA Awards, and even won two Emmys in the U.S. (in 1985 and 1986) when they did a few specials, in hopes of building interest for a series.  I suspect the show was far too biting for American tastes, and perhaps still skewed a little too British.

But scathing is the word.  As much as Americans might think they're tolerant of political satire, I don't think I've seen much that compares to Spitting Image.  And this particular clip is easily the most scathing of all.  I can't even begin to imagine it making it on the air in the U.S., nor what the reaction would have been if it had.

I saw this at what was a Museum of Broadcasting event that was a tribute to Spitting Image.  The whole evening was wonderful, but when they showed this clip, the room was stunned.

It originally aired in England on June 11, 1987, as the last scene of an Election Special.  The show was broadcast right after the British polls closed, with the presumption that the Margaret Thatcher Government would win in a landslide.  As it did.

You won't recognize most of the British politicians, no doubt, but the point of the sketch is as clear as could be. There is no subtlety here.  Subtlety is thrown far out the window.  The song they sing is from Kander & Ebb's musical Cabaret -- which was based on the play, I Am a Camera by John Van Druten, which in turns was based on two short novels by Christopher Isherwood, The Berlin Stories.

See!  I told you I'd get around to the Berlin connection!

Again, remember two things as you watch the video -- the first is that this was the end of the Election Special as the Thatcher Government won in a landslide...and second, I can't even begin to imagine this on American television. 

You can get away with more things when it's puppets, but...still.  This is remarkable.  And that's no hyperbole.

​As I mentioned earlier, our Holiday Fest also includes a few little-seen TV specials from the past.  This one tonight wasn't a standalone special per se, but instead was the Christmas special episode for the weekly Julie Andrews Hour, and they went all out to make it stand out.  This is from December 20, 1972, and the cast includes Jimmy Stewart, Joel Grey, Mama Cass Elliot, Carl Reiner, Steve Lawrence, Sergio Franchi, Dan Dailey, Alice Ghostley and Rich Little. 

(Side note: For those who don't know his name, Dan Dailey had a successful movie career in the 1940s and 1950s, including many musicals, and even got an Oscar nomination as Best Actor for When My Baby Smiles at Me.  I saw him on stage at the Blackstone Theater in Chicago as 'Oscar' in a 1966 production of The Odd Couple, which also starred Richard Benjamin as 'Felix,' who so often played nervous, neurotic characters and was memorably picture-perfect for the role. And years later I got to tell him that when I met him and his wife Paula Prentis at a Northwestern alumni party which was held before the football team played in the Rose Bowl in 1995.  And yes, he was stunned.  And pleased.)

(But I digress.)

The special is very well done.  Carl Reiner even has a solo song, and does a nice job on "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day."  Jimmy Stewart is the main guest, and travels around with Julie Andrews – and just when you think that that's pretty much all he'll get to do, later in the show he actually gets a solo number with "Away in the Manger" -- then sings a bit on two  duets, including one with Julie Andrews, which in the singing world is the definition of courageous.

What's also fun is that Alice Ghostley sings one of the little-known Christmas songs I've posted here the past few years from the TV musical The Stingiest Man in Town.  For that matter, they also perform yet another little-known song I post here every year -- “A Christmas Carol” from the movie Scrooge.  And are a couple of fun short sketches between Jimmy Stewart and Rich Little.  The special also includes the original commercials which adds some whimsy.

(Note: for some reason, this may open at the 1:48 mark, but  I think I've finally gotten it to begin at the start.  If not, though, you can just click on the scroll bar at the bottom of the video to get it all the way back to the beginning.)
?