SNL Greats --The List

 #331: Ok, A Link To A List

..............................

I've watched Saturday Night Live for a majority of the 46 years it's been around (exceptions: the first 10 years, and another 10 years from 2000 to around 2010--when we could finally DVR way too late night material).  I often don't think the humor is good enough (we skip over many a skit after giving it a look), but occasionally something'll be so good I'll actually remember it years later (Dana Carvey's "Broccolee, Broccolii")

Anyway, Paste has a fairly good list up counting down the show's top 50 comedians.  I agree with the majority, save for these exceptions (and a few 'stinker' stickers which I won't apply).

1.  In general, the first 7-8 years don't measure up to the occasional comedic brilliance found in later shows--save for Dan Aykroyd.  But I wasn't there.

2.  This list doesn't give its women members their due.  Cecily Strong, Maya Rudolph, Kate McKinnon, and Melissa Villaseñor (not on the list--had a great solo Covid sketch recently) especially deserve a higher (lower) number.

3. A few times, specific performers drew me back to watching regularly: Martin Short, initially, Mike Myers around '90, and Tina Fey in '08--proven talent, and each deserve greater recognition.

The list, without the photos and several paragraphs on each:

50. Joe Piscopo

49. Cheri Oteri

48. Garrett Morris

47. Leslie Jones

46. Beck Bennett

45. Kyle Mooney

44. Molly Shannon

43. Tim Meadows

42. Bobby Moynihan

41. Jimmy Fallon

40. Cecily Strong

39. Laraine Newman

38. Ana Gasteyer

37. Seth Meyers

36. Chris Rock

35. David Spade

34. Billy Crystal

33. Fred Armisen

32. Vanessa Bayer

31. Jason Sudeikis

30. Adam Sandler

29. Martin Short

28. Dennis Miller

27. Darrell Hammond

26. Jane Curtin

25. Chevy Chase

24. Norm Macdonald

23. Maya Rudolph

22. Jan Hooks

21. Aidy Bryant

20. Will Forte

19. Mike Myers

18. Jon Lovitz

17. Kate McKinnon

16. Kristen Wiig

15. Andy Samberg

14. Tracy Morgan

13. Bill Murray

12. Chris Farley

11. Tina Fey

10. Kenan Thompson

9. Amy Poehler

8. Bill Hader

7. Dana Carvey 

6. Gilda Radner

5. Dan Aykroyd

4. John Belushi

3. Phil Hartman

2. Will Ferrell

1. Eddie Murphy

Our Culture Of The Vicarious

 #330: How Did A Land Of Plans Become A Land Of Fans?

...............................

There's much to be worried about these days, and whether a nation of do-it-yourselfers (both prairie pioneers and off-the-boat entrepreneurs) is becoming overly distracted by the entertainment of others, shouldn't rank all that high.  But, I'll run through a few activities that are making us more 'follower' and less 'leader', and describe ways I've overcome.

Music

We all have the best music (and worst, with much in-between) at our finger-tips.  But why aren't we listening to quintessentially American, self-taught geniuses--the contemporary equivalent of a Jimmi Hendrix, let's say, instead of the formulaic 'sounds-like-all-the-rest' quivering, quavering voice that sounds self-indicting to my ear.

I sat myself down at the piano in 2014 and, using a beginner's playbook, started practicing.  I had had lessons as a kid.  A few times I experimented with notes and chords that sounded good.  I wrote them down.  Next year (it's always next year, isn't it) I will finally check out that Garage Band app and get started.

Movies

We also have the best of film available.  And most of us will gladly watch several a month, living through the triumphs and tragedies of other peoples' lives.  The spectacle, the emotional thrill, the rush of events.  But what about our own lives?  Are there things we're missing as a result.

For me, a 2-3 hour commitment is way more than I have time for, unless I'm making a social move, and can discuss what's going on during (hitting the pause button) or afterwards ("I bet you liked the scenery.") Otherwise, I'm 99.9999% selective, and haven't seen a movie in many years.

Celebrities

There's something about a familiar face that lights up our minds.  And that 'turn on' can find us buying a People magazine, or watching a television appearance.  Fandom is fairly innocent, after all.  But, with celebrities, there goes the urge to work on our own lives, to polish to celebrity-level status a few of our own traits--we're all good at something, given enough time.

My guilty pleasure in this regard is watching the occasional interview on DVRed late night comedy programs (Seth, Colbert, Fallon).  The questioning is almost always entertaining, and the celebrities usually are too.  This involves a lot of former SNL cast members.  And, I'm eating lunch or dinner, so I'm really not wasting time.

Sports

I'm sometimes amazed at how much my contemporaries follow sports.  I overhear conversations involving, not just the latest results, but which teams have what it takes.  The amount of time required to become knowledgeable in a particular sport is probably something one doesn't notice.  But to what end?

Early in life I was a rabid local sports fan, though I confined myself to baseball, for the most part.  And I have followed the home team's ups and downs fairly regularly, even watching a game once every year or so (a good use of time when ill). 

Then, many years ago, I was part of a privately run league whose Commissioner used a computer game version of Stratomatic Baseball, run super-fast, to create an entire season's worth of games, using the real world players that we managers groomed, traded, benched, etc.  Then, the following year, the previous year's results were used, rather than real life stats.  What fun, as each week during the season we'd receive a packet of game printouts and team statistics in the mail.   While it lasted it was an absolute joy.

Lately, I've been introduced to the world of fantasy baseball (bid for players on 'your' team, then competitively match batting and pitching statistics with other teams in your league of twelve).  You have a budget that allows you to, as the team's manager, let go of duds and sign promising talent, etc.  The managerial challenge is what makes this more than a silly diversion--at least that's what I tell myself.  And discussing one's actions with another manager is a delight!  It's on Yahoo and it's free.

Television

Again, we have access to all the shows we might care to watch, old and new.  And for many, the temptation to let TV take over our lives must be overwhelming.  But, how many shows do we remember a few years out?

I vaguely recall a show I must have seen in reruns, The Wild, Wild West, which was set on the American frontier during the mid-1800s, but involved fascinating gadgetry, lots of chases on top of moving trains, costume disguises, and the like.  Entertaining, for sure, but do I remember anything more than a vague greatness?  No.

So, I pretty much stick to the DVRed late night comedy shows, plus a few current events / talking heads shows that keep my amateur's A+ rating current in that field.  Then I read about the unbelievable torrent of shows that I never get to, and the chatter behind each, skipping over articles like "Top Ten Shows To Watch On Netflix" (I get a lot of general interest newsletters).  Obviously, I don't subscribe to a downloading service.  Maybe some day.

Twitter

As with much else in life one can find all sorts on Twitter--or any other social media platform for that matter.  There are the friends one wants to encourage, the celebrity lives that can be 'all anyone's talking about', even the odd-ball retweeters who will send you "funny", "clever" or "outrageous" content.

My approach is to avoid the arguing (seriously, what arguing?) and instead follow journalists and keen observers.  The journalists are all in one "List" that I compiled recently (and now access nearly every day).  This keeps me current (that amateur's A+ rating I mentioned earlier).  Many journalists are retweeters (so a few goes a long way), and some are exclusively 'inside scoop' and 'my take' writers.  Then I have a fun list of people I've found interesting, that I look at when I have time, and that I occasionally add to, once I check out a likely retweetee's postings and decide they have something to say.  Plus, I limit Twitter to breakfast time, so that I'm not tempted to scroll indiscriminately.  And my lists don't have ads (I'm always surprised that Twitter still allows ad-free lists), so I'm not grossed out by an ad for something I find sickening (fabric detergents that smell like artificial flowers for example).

Mystical or Missed-The-Call?

 #329: Do We Sensationalize The Everyday Surprise?

..........................

Here at the computer I can see my collection of persimmon wood (wonderful texture and gnarled structure).  One piece (see below) had been partially covered by a sweater set on a hanger.  I put the sweater outside early last fall to air out (I bought it for a few dollars at a 2nd-hand store), since I can't stand the artificial aromas that attend most detergents (it's got to be scent-free for me).

Well, yesterday was windy, and gazing out my window I noticed the sweater, blowing in the wind.  Then I remembered I'd planned to bring it in to wear before the cool weather was over.  After a half-year outside, it would smell wonderful.

That was at about noon, maybe a quarter after.  At 12:28 I saw a blur outside, and was shocked to realize the sweater had been blown off its hanger.

A person who appreciates the wonders of our world will think this mystical.  Had a sweater felt itself called by a nearby mind?  Was it eager to be put on?

Maybe, until I realized I could be blowing the call.  It's a bit disillusioning, but think about the logic in reverse.  I only noticed the sweater because it was moved by an especially strong wind.  If there'd been no wind, I wouldn't have thought about it.

So, to sum up, if I were a mystical person, I'd think it was nigh a miracle.  And if I were a science-only person, I'd be satisfied it was all happenstance.  Since I'm a mix of the two, I have to say I enjoyed the drama....  I did look at the sweater again just now, and saw that it has an 'Izod' brand stylized logo sporting the initials "I" and "Z".  Hmmm.

Photos taken Oct. 2nd, 2012

Another piece.  Why the swerve?

Sleeping Giant Stirs: Voting Rights

 #328: HR1's All-Encompassing Fixes

.............................

I have now read through the entire Brennan Center walk-through of House Resolution 1: The For The People Act, which tackles disfunction in our political system.

And before your eyes begin to close (the way mine did several times while reading), let me say that the legislation is everything one could want.  It fixes dozens of holes in our federal election system, as well as in our government in general--many shown to be problems by the mendacity and avarice of our most recent president.

It has problems, as pointed out by a recent article in the Daily Beast by Jessica Huseman.  But these problems are mainly related to timing.  If and when the Senate passes what is now S 1, any remaining deadlines and mandates that are problematic can be adjusted in conference with the House.

First, we'll describe, in brief, what the bill does, then deal with any problems the bill might have.

In short, it's as if someone were to wave a magic wand, and fix everything subject to legislative adjustment:

* Makes Voter Registration easier and (eventually), covers everyone automatically

* Requires (eventually) Paper Ballots that can be examined by the voter prior to tabulation, and can then be recounted by hand--thus removing any chance of fraud

* Strengthens Early Voting and Vote-By-Mail options, and requires vote counting begin ASAP, to enable quick election night tallies

* Election day becomes a holiday

* Looks into making Washington DC a state

* Eliminates Gerrymandering (weird-shaped voting districts, meant to help one party over another) by 2031

* Stops potential Foreign Interference in the US voting process, mainly through auditing election results

* Removes the ability of foreigners to spend money on Campaign Advertising

* Mandates full disclosure of all funding sources for political Online Advertising

* Political Ads must include who's paying for them

* US Corporate Donations that are political in nature must be OK'd by shareholders

* Presidential Inaugural Fundraising is limited 

* Campaign Finance Reform includes 6-to-1 matches for congressional races, without using taxpayer monies, for candidates sticking to the 'little guy' rules

* Major Lobbying Reform (example: foreign agents), including presidential appointees recusing themselves when conflict-of-interests arise

* Ethics and Transparency Upgrades for congress as well as the president and his team

* Requires Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to disclose their Tax Returns

......

So, what could possibly be wrong with all this?

Huseman's article makes the following major point:

While the bill is laudable, it fails to take into account the real-life experiences of our election officials who know what's possible.  Note: I have included two "(eventually)" above, to indicate it will take time to get these provisions implemented.  

Part of the bill writers' oblivious attitude was likely due to the early version (2018) having no chance of passing the Senate, let alone getting a presidential signature.  Now, perhaps due in part to the Republican over-reaction to their presidential ticket loss, the odds of passage have improved, though are probably less than 50-50.

And here are a few minor points:

1. Not enough money has been allocated to pay for the bill's mandates (beyond the initial set up)

2. The bill requires that those wanting to register to vote be allowed to do so using an automated telephone system that doesn't yet exist

3. Another problem: voters are allowed to sue their states and counties if those entities have failed to meet all mandates--an invitation to divert resources away from actual voting

4. E-poll books, used by poll workers, are included in a list of voting technologies that must meet strict standards--but those e-poll books standards don't even exist

5. Paper ballots must be stored somewhere, prior to the random chance that they'll be audited.  This involves vast amounts of warehouse space.  Where does a small, rural county find such, let alone pay for it?

Aside from the obvious provisions whose deadlines will have to be extended (automatic voter registration for states that'll take years to get it right, plus paper-trail voting machines for all), the handful of problems listed as minor points can simply be avoided:

1. Provide the $$ for future needs

2. Dump this option

3. Dump this as well, allowing voters to contact a hot-line number that refers matters to Justice Department voting rights lawyers

4. With ballot auditing, this is a minor weakness in the system--put off the compliance deadline 

5. Coordinate ballot storage at the federal level, if necessary

With all the above changes, Democrats may well have everyone but West Virginia's Joe Manchin on board.  To both get to 60 votes (to avoid a filibuster), and/or to convince Manchin to make it 50, there will likely be a need to appeal to a bi-partisan consensus, which will mean symbolically cutting the bill back, then when Republican opposition is all but certainly made manifest, Manchin can be allowed to demand any changes he might require.

Another option is to look for success in the 2022 congressional elections.  If there were more than 50 Democratic senators at that point, the Manchin bottleneck could likely be avoided.

......................

Further discussion by Igor Derysh in Salon.  Also, by Andrew Prokop in Vox.

Biden's Border Blues

 #327: The Over/Under, Round and Through

............................

Vice President Kamala Harris has been tasked with border issues.  Here, listed in reverse order, are her options as I see them.  #1 is the option I expect will be chosen.  But who knows?

#6  Do Nothing.  This issue is a loser, and the more effort expended, the further it becomes your mess.  Essentially, nobody wants to say 'no' to young, desperate people eager to work hard.  But, there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, who would come if they could.

#5  An Exception To The Filibuster For Immigration.  Democrats decide to devour the 'whole enchilada'.  Negotiate with Republicans, meet with resistance, decide things among themselves.

#4  Negotiations Based On Reforming Asylum Law.  Once one realizes that as Climate Change drives hundreds of millions from their tropical and low-lying lands, offering asylum to all will become impossible.  So, why not cash in the chit now, if concessions from Republicans were on the table?  Perhaps legal status for all those already here, and a generous, but permanent level of refugee admissions.  Asylum would be reserved for prominent leaders of communities fighting for their rights.

#3  Negotiations Based On The Romney/Cotten Proposal.  Instead of the Romney/Cotton offer of a $10 minimum wage coupled with much stricter E-Verify (businesses check a government website to determine whether new hires are citizens), counter-offer $12.50, a more reliable system to check on status (several people using the same Social Security number would seem solvable), and legalization (over an extended time) for all those already here.  Be prepared to compromise.

#2  Make A Few Well-Meaning Gestures.  Since the issue is near impossible to solve, politically, keep it from getting out of hand, but don't try to fix it.  Included here is the blanket acceptance of children, financial help for Central America, cooperation with Mexico, and perhaps additional judges to hear cases.

#1  Create Difficult Votes For Republicans.  Legislation to make Dreamers (those brought to the US as children, who know no other country) full-fledged citizens would be step number one.  

...

Why list them in that order?  

Putting Harris in charge probably gives Biden a few months, but eventually Harris will do something, so Doing Nothing is hard to see.  Likewise, an exception to the Senate Filibuster.  Though not out of the question, it's hard to see WV senator Joe Manchin agreeing to anything much.

#4 and #3 would risk alienating Democratic activists, on the one hand, and making it harder to win over Trump's least committed voters, on the other.  Ideally, both could be satisfied with well-thought-through legislation.  But, not likely.

And that leaves #2 and #1.  A few gestures is less likely than a vote on Dreamers simply because the Dreamers are a very sympathetic cause, and the vote is likely to be not only revealing, but also bi-partisan--at least it should be. 

Winnowing Photos

 #326: What To Keep

.........................

I was reading an article in the latest New Yorker about someone who hires herself out as something of a photo collection editor.  She'll wade through your tens of thousands of photos, and remove the junk, leaving you with just the best.

My immediate thought was 'no way'.  Many times when looking at old photos I've wished the photographer had turned the camera a little bit this way or that.  Here's a good example:

Family members and their pets

(and bikes) are wonderful.  Even 

the photographer (looks like a

woman's dress?) is in the picture.

But a few steps to the right is an

old house whose interior is lost

--nobody thought to take pictures.

Here's an 'outside' example:

"What kind of a mailbox did you used to have?"  

"I don't remember.  Oh wait, here's a photo.  You

can just barely see it."

And, finally, the 'studio shot' 

photo from long ago:

If people then had known 

what to photograph, they 

could've been rich, maybe 

even literally so.  

But no, we've just the one 

image.

Which means, unless you're absolutely sure there's nothing in a photo, don't junk it.

But, then there's also the thought that if we're living in the present, do we really need sub-par shots to waste away our lives?   

The Years Ahead: Best Case Scenario

 #325:  A Brighter Future

..................................

Mike Lofgren, at Bill Moyers' On Democracy blog, thinks the US Constitution needs major repair work, and despairs at the likelihood of achieving the necessary transformation.

Ah, but let's not forget our history.  As Lofgren notes, the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century was followed by the Progressive Era.  So, here's a brief description of how a similar makeover may already be upon us.

First, the bill of particulars:

1.  Because of the Electoral College and the Senate Filibuster, ours is not a democracy, but rather a minoritarian oligarchy. 

2.  Congress is cowardly, failing to impeach, or at least invoke the 25th Amendment.  Treason, in the form of an insurrection, comes and goes, yet nothing is done.

3.  The Executive branch is out of control, conducting minor wars with virtually no oversight.

4.  Justice is applied selectively, with massive self-dealing by those at the top of the political food chain, while the little guy meets with a steady erosion of civil rights.

Now for that more hopeful chronology:

2021: By November, Democrats in Congress pass another popular big ticket bill: this time, Infrastructure.

2022: The true extent of former president Trump's malfeasance emerges.  Not only the January 6th insurrection, but the long parade of bad faith.

2023: Thanks to their two massive spending bills, the economy picks up, and the mid-term elections give Democrats the votes to significantly adjust the Senate Filibuster.

2024: Republicans are unable to resist Trump's allure.  The party has shed all pretense to be anything but a Trump vehicle.  Instead of his 31.00% of potential voters in 2020, and his 25.60% in 2016, Trump barely hits 22%, losing decisively to the Biden/Harris steamroller (Romney was at 25.90 in 2012, McCain at 27.64% in '08, Bush 28.70 in '04 and 24.50 in 2000).

2025: By now, Democrats are contending with a defeated, hollowed-out opposition that is unable to stop passage of long overdue government reform.  A new progressive era begins.