On David Letterman

I was never a David Letterman fan. At times I found him funny, sardonic, sarcastic, amusing, silly, and/or entertaining, but in the main I was not drawn to his shtick. I watched his Late Night show on NBC on occasion for a number of years in the 1980s but was not drawn to what I would call his physical comedy and his style of humor, which included dropping objects from the NBC building to the sidewalk below. In later years, after he had departed to CBS and was hosting the Late Show, I increasingly did not find him particularly funny. Admittedly, as a result of these experiences, I did not watch him a great deal.

After viewing his concluding broadcast this week, I was curious what others felt about Letterman. Not surprisingly, in the period since he announced his retirement, and especially during the last few weeks, many were giving him high praise, which was quite understandable. I was curious whether there were any other perspectives.

I sought out reviews on the internet to see whether there were varying points of view about him, his style and his performance over the years. I came across a number, three of which I am linking below together with an interview Letterman gave The New York Times in late April of this year. One is very praiseworthy; two are highly critical; and, the last is the Times interview Letterman gave. I am sharing these for any who might be interested, as I was, in what others are saying about David Letterman.

1. The irreplaceable David Letterman.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-irreplaceable-david-letterman 

2. Why David Letterman is among television history’s biggest losers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/20/david-letterman-the-biggest-loser-in-tv-history/ 

3. After losing to Jay Leno, David Letterman’s bitterness cost him his Indiana soul.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/05/20/after-losing-to-jay-leno-david-lettermans-bitterness-cost-him-his-indiana-soul/ 

4. David Letterman reflects on 33 years in late-night television

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/arts/television/david-letterman-reflects-on-33-years-in-late-night-television.html 

The arbitrariness of death

I've been ruminating the past few days about the arbitrariness or unpredictability of death. While all sorts of people die every day, particular occurrences sometimes stand out for each of us. Two recent deaths struck me because of their apparent accidental nature, not the result of old age, disease or suicide.

One was the death of Bob Simon not long ago. He was an accomplished reporter and commentator, in recent years with 60 Minutes. He was roughly my age, in his early 70's. As I recall, he was being driven in NYC in a chauffeured car, apparently using a limo service he had often used. There was a car crash that took Simon's life, suddenly and unexpectedly. Actions of his own driver may have contributed to Simon's death.

Just the other day, Dave Goldberg, best known to most as husband to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg but also head of SurveyMonkey, died on vacation in Mexico. He was exercising on a treadmill at the vacation resort when he fell and hit his head and died of traumatic brain injury. It appears to have been an accident. He was only 47 years of age.

I haven't tried to draw any "lessons" from these events. I'm more sad than reflective about them. I guess "seize the day" does, however, come to mind.

On Obama and Bush 43: A Tweet

Donald Newman‏@donaldnewm

#Obama no more expected the #ArabSpring than #Bush43 expected 9/11. Neither adequately managed a response. W launched wars; BO avoided them.

0 retweets0 favorites

2:47 PM - 20 Apr 2015

On Preparing Wristwatches for DST

Computers and smartphones do it on their own. But not wristwatches. I mean springing forward an hour at 2 AM Sunday morning for DST. Since I may be too distracted at that hour, I decided to advance my four wristwatches at 10:30 PM Saturday night. Here I was sitting on my couch with all of the watches calibrated to 11:30 while I stared at my cable TV box as it edged to 10:30 PM. At that moment I rushed to push in the knobs on all four watches, trying not to send any to the floor that had been draped over my right knee. Success! But now I realize that the three that indicate the date need correction because February was such a short month!

My reaction to Netanyahu's speech to Congress on March 3, 2015

Here are my tweets in response to Bibi Netanyahu's speech to Congress on March 3, 2015, and some further comments beneath them:

#Netanyahu: reject deal, #Iran will blink, better deal to emerge. Evidence? None. That's been #Bibi approach to #Palestinians w/zero results

9:11 AM - 3 Mar 2015

.@SenFeinstein Excellent observations on #Netanyahu speech, its strengths, weaknesses. Bibi short on concrete alternative but evokes symbols

9:36 AM - 3 Mar 2015

Netanyahu, GOP can rail against Obama's #Iran nuclear deal as weak. #Bush43 & #GOP sure reined in North Korea's nuclear weapons. Not! 👎

9:48 AM - 3 Mar 2015

@RepAdamSchiff Agree w/you on @wolfblitzer. Bibi alternative? Iran blinks. Likely? Not really & P5+1 may relax sanctions, #Iran develop bomb

10:21 AM - 3 Mar 2015

I would like to see Obama respond publicly to Netanyahu's speech, calmly but with force and emotion outlining the rationale for his approach

10:23 AM - 3 Mar 2015

While I believe Netanyahu gave an impressive speech that may serve his political purposes in Israel where parliamentary elections are scheduled in a few weeks, and may buttress Republican opposition to President Obama's negotiations with Iran, I do not think he effectively laid out an alternative approach for the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1.  Essentially, Netanyahu argued that the terms of the deal apparently on the table are bad and that if the United States walked away from negotiations and increased sanctions, Iran would ultimately blink, return to the bargaining table and negotiate terms better for the United States, Israel and the world. But Bibi offered no evidence that such an outcome was highly likely, or even likely, other than to evoke the Persian bazaar and Middle Eastern bargaining proclivities.

It isn't very clear that the other world powers involved in the negotiations would accept the rejection of the present deal and the sanctions regime, rather than being intensified, might collapse. As well, the Iranians would redouble their efforts to develop sufficient fuel for nuclear weapons, apparently a goal they are not far from achieving.

That leaves the threat of war or war itself as the final way to stop Iran, something Netanyahu threatened in a veiled way in his speech. War itself, which could occur if no deal is reached or if Iran violates a deal that is reached, is an outcome most Americans, including Obama, strongly oppose. As to the threat of war inducing Iran to capitulate to stronger restrictions, including such a threat from Israel, such a possibility cannot be completely ruled out but the evidence at this point that it would work to bring about stronger restrictions in a deal isn't apparent.

I was struck by Senator Dianne Feinstein's reaction to the speech. She too noted the absence of concrete alternatives but she noted that she favored a deal with a longer breakout period for Iran to develop sufficient nuclear fuel if it violated the deal's terms and a longer period during which the deal would remain in force. Will Obama seek better terms on these issues? Will Netanyahu's speech and the reaction in this country play a role in securing these stronger restrictions? Or will Iran's negotiating position remain unchanged, leaving Obama with the choice of the deal as presently understood or no deal at all? I suspect Obama will opt for the deal he recently sketched out over no deal: a one year breakout period and a 10 year period for the restrictions on Iran in the deal. And I support the President in this matter.

On Pete Carroll's Play Call to End Seattle Seahawks' Drive and Lose Super Bowl XLIX and Bill Plaschke's Column

Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times sports columnist, posted a column after the game called "Pete Carroll blows it for Seahawks in Super Bowl XLIX."
 http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-super-bowl-plaschke-20150202-column.html.  In it he expresses the disappointment of many but, in his case, cites to an earlier play call Pete Carroll made while coaching at USC that was also second guessed and considered by many a huge mistake.

Below is my email to Bill in response to his column and Pete Carroll's play call:

Bill,

I was among those who were rooting for the Seahawks and crest fallen by the interception to end their drive.  But, two thoughts:

1. I'm not quite sure Carroll's play call was the "the worst coaching decision in the history of American sports championships," a position you didn't quite embrace but which you cited in your column.  Other columnists have noted that the call had some statistical support.  See Neil Greenberg http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2015/02/02/the-play-call-that-costs-seahawks-super-bowl-victory-wasnt-a-bad-one/; and, Matt Bonesteel http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/02/seahawks-marshawn-lynch-isnt-exactly-money-from-the-1-yard-line/.

2. I offer you my own tweet that I posted shortly after the play:

The Lord giveth (Kearse catch), the Lord taketh away (Butler interception). #SBXLIX @Patriots @Seahawks  https://twitter.com/donaldnewm/status/562092558101532672

Who expected Kearse to end up with the football on the prior play? Was that not a gift, particularly as the second Patriot player, thinking the ball was falling to the ground, simply leaped over Kearse rather than kick the ball, pounce on Kearse (and risk a penalty) or otherwise assure that the ball fell harmlessly. Surely there was some "magic" or at least luck in that. Similarly, Butler's interception was a bit of magic or luck as well.  Things balancing out?

I enjoyed your column, particularly the historical perspective on Carroll's play calling, and, yes, the ghosts will haunt him.  But his or his offensive coach's call may not have been the dumbest imaginable.  Had the ball been given to Lynch and had Lynch failed to score or, worse yet, fumbled it while trying, the critics would have been all over Carroll for not first trying a pass to catch New England off guard (whether they were, in fact, or not) or at least keep them honest.

Thanks for your columns!  I enjoy them.

Donald 

On behalf of Uber

I got an email this morning from David Plouffe. I thought I had finally stopped the unending avalanche of emails flooding my inbox every day from this or that political figure on behalf of Obama. Why had one snuck through, I asked myself. How did I know it was on behalf of Uber!