For my taste, the PBS Masterpiece mini-series, "Mr. Bates vs. the Post Office" (based on a true national scandal) is every bit as great as its reputation and huge success that it had in England. An ensemble cast, but starring Toby Jones. Usually he plays offbeat, quirky characters, sometimes villains, but here he's quiet, low-key, down-to-earth. That's much the way the series is -- but very personal, involving and often-deeply moving. Crushing at times as you witness deeply-decent and innocent people being rolled, many with lives ruined, some wrongly imprisoned, all for reasons they don't understand by a government behemoth. Yet, appalling and tragic as much of the story is -- it's also about the fight back and is very much uplifting, as well. The story is about small-town sub-postmasters (sort of like a step-up from people who run Mailbox Etc. stores) who are prosecuted for major theft, each told they were the only one with the problem they were claiming, when it turns out it was a systemwide computer error. That simple description only because to do justice to the building emotion of everything. Though the series does a great job in focusing the story in a manageable tightness, it actually is still somewhat going on after 20 years, and 160 million pounds in restitution have (so far...) been paid. Two episodes down, two to go. If you subscribe to PBS, you can catch up on the series on PBS Passport. In fact, all four episodes are available there, including a short follow-up featurette on the true story. Here's the short trailer from when it aired in England. It only touches the surface. As it says, "The largest miscarriage of justice in British history."
0 Comments
Yesterday, the House Republican crack impeachment team marched their Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate for the trial of Department of Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas.
This is one of the stupidest things the MAGOP can do, and it’s my understanding that many Senate Republicans wish this would go away so that they don’t have to vote on it. If they vote “Yes,” they look like idiots, but if they vote “No,” they risk offending the MAGOP base. It’s stupid for many reasons. Impeachment is required to charge someone for high crimes and misdemeanors. None were presented in the investigation of Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, MAGOPs on the committee insist there are, but it’s all just over disagreement on policy decisions. As one analyst said, if the standard of impeachment was policy disagreement, not only would you get few people wanting to work in government, but nothing would get done. Another reason, as a codicil of sorts to this, is that this is the first impeachment of a cabinet secretary in 150 years. And that impeachment was over bribery and kick-backs. Not "We don't agree with the way you're doing your job." A further reason is that this is clearly a desperate effort by House MAGOPs upset that they haven’t been able to find anything to impeach President Biden over, so this is the next best thing they can come up with to placate the disappointed extreme right members to “make good.” Also, the public has shown it hates impeachments of a president over no reason – Bill Clinton’s approval skyrocketed after his impeachment. And while this now is not a presidential impeachment, it’s one of his cabinet members, and an impeachment of the president by proxy. Additionally, it’s stupid because there is zero chance of conviction in the Senate. It needs a two-thirds vote for that – and Democrats control the Senate, so it won’t even get a majority. And may even get a lot of Republican votes. Of course, “having no chance” is not a reason not to impeach someone – though when you have no actual high crimes and misdemeanors to charge Secretary Mayorkas with, and the public hates meaningless impeachment, it makes “zero chance” a huge red flag warning. And even more, an impeachment of the Department of Homeland Security head for not doing his job the way the MAGOP want only serves to shine a bright light on the reality that as loud as the House Republicans cry out about border security, they are who blocked a bipartisan border bill from passing. But most of all, the most stupid thing about this upcoming Senate trial is that the House has made Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), one of the more deeply ignorant members of the House who seems bewildered by facts, reality and Jewish Space Lasers, one of the impeachment managers. In fact, this is all so stupid – and problematic for the Republican Party – that word is both Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate are working to see if they can find a way to make this go away as quickly as possible. Perhaps table it, perhaps set up rules so that it can be handled speedily. While that’s understandable, and probably for the best, there’s a side of me that would like to see it go to trial. Though with specific reasons on how that would work. For instance, one hope is that Democrats let House Republicans have all the time they need, especially so that Marjorie Taylor Greene can speak and make a whiney, annoying fool of herself as much as possible – and then when it’s the Democrats’ turn, they don’t even put up a defense and just call the vote, defeat it, and move on. I think it would be a pointed embarrassment to MAGOPs. Somewhat similarly, another tactic I’d like to see is that whenever it’s the Democratic time to speak, their defense team gets up and says, “This is really stupid” and then sits down. And then let Republicans and Ms. Greene yammer on. A codicil to this gambit is to let someone like Jamie Raskin speak each time Democrats have the floor(though it could be split up among other eloquent speakers like Dan Goldman, Jasmine Crockett, and Eric Swalwell), and rather than defend Secretary Mayorkas, they instead use their time to lambast all the transgressions of Republicans that the MAGOP are letting slide without investigation. Above all, the last thing I want to see Democrats do is use their time to actually defend Secretary Mayorkas, because that would give credibility to the trial. And there is no credibility to the trial. But mainly, the top reason that a side of me sort of wants to see the Senate trial go forth is because I want to see Marjorie Taylor Greene -- the Georgia Impeach -- speak as much as possible and humiliate herself and the party. And I feel confident that would happen, because I’ve seen her speak a lot on really simple things, and she has not yet failed to make a fool of herself. And an impeachment is not a “really simple thing,” but substantive. And she would taint the full party by association. Yes, I’m sure there are many on the extreme right to whom she is “heroic.” But that doesn’t make her heroic, and it doesn’t mean the other 80% of Americans see her that way. She has not only proven her incompetence time after time, but this impeachment is not only a substantive matter, as I said – but there is no material or evidence for even a scholar to make a case with. So, yes, that side of my does sort of hope she gets a chance to demean herself on such a prominent stage. Though above all, I’d be fine if this impeachment trial withers and disappears by a joint effort of Senate Democrats and Republicans alike. Because it’s stupid. If you didn't see Jon Stewart's day hosting The Daily Show, here's the opening segment. He covers Iran, Israel and Trump's election interference trial -- along with a debate of which of Trump's claims that he's more like Nelson Mandela or Jesus is the most accurate. It's thoughtful, pointed and very funny. This may be among their least-known, most improbable, and yet still funny material. Probably in the late-1950s, as their comedy career was booming, Mike Nichols and Elaine May took on a major challenge – make funny Public Service Announcements on behalf of national CPA Associations to remind people to file their taxes on time. In honor of Tax Day today, here are three of them. Hey, they took on death, in their classic and hilarious $65 funeral sketch here, so why not taxes?! (NOTE: Despite how the screen shot looks below, if you click on it, the video should run properly.) We're going to turn this morning's effort over to Jimmy Kimmel for 90 seconds. This video isn't current, but something he did five years ago. It's a comparison to how President Obama and Trump announced somewhat similar breaking-news items. It is very funny, but only if you can put aside that he could be elected president again. And it's substantive, as well, even though five years old, because there's much here that relates to Trump today -- but only tangentially. I say "tangentially" because while "Trump today" has the same level of ego and lack of understanding as here in 2019, he is also far more rambling and experts say showing more signs of early dementia. The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast are Democratic strategists Rachel Bitecofer and Justin Barasky who talk with Al about Democratic messaging. As Al notes, “The 2024 election is less than 8 months away. How do Democrats defeat Trump? How do they retain the Senate? Our guests say that it all comes down to messaging. It’s important to remind voters that on issues like abortion and the economy, the Democratic Party represents their interests.”
|
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
|