Arrested Development Season 4!

Arrested Development Season 3I know this news will be important to a number of my readers: the fourth season of Arrested Development is coming out next month. Netflix announced that they will be releasing 15 new episodes that will constitute a fourth season. All of the episodes will be released at once at 12:01 am Pacific time on 26 May.

The weird thing about this is that I’ve been checking Wikipedia often to see if anything had been announced. There hasn’t been a thing. I had begun to give up hope. One problem is that everyone (especially the kids) are getting older. But more important, many of the stars have become much bigger and thus, much more expensive. Now, it seems quite suddenly, Wikipedia reports that on 7 August of last year, the gang began shooting the new episodes.

Because I’m a pessimist at heart, I’ve suddenly become very worried. I was looking forward to the fifth season of Breaking Bad, as well, and it turned out to be a total disaster. I’m more hopeful for Arrested Development. It can take off in any direction. That wasn’t true of Breaking Bad. The problem with it is that the producers decided to turn the protagonist into an antagonist; it isn’t just that I don’t like that; the show is supposed to be believable and that change just isn’t. Arrested Development is a series about a bunch of really narcissistic characters. I’m sure they won’t change that and so there should be no fundamental problem plaguing the show as there has been for Breaking Bad.

So set your calendars and watches. I know I’m going to be there at one minute past midnight to watch one or more episodes. I’m sure I will have much to say here in the afternoon of 26 May.

Afterword

If you don’t have a Netflix subscription, I’m sure you can get one of those one month trials and start some time in May. Provide a little time before, so you can catch up on the show. They currently have the first three seasons on Instant Watch. But be sure to leave enough time afterwards to watch all 15 episodes. In my case, that would be about half a day.

In Memoriam: 4 April 1968

AFSCMEIn 1968 sanitation workers made history in Memphis, Tennessee. Over a thousand workers went on strike to protest unfair wages, discrimination, and unsafe working conditions that took the lives of two of their own. Marching through the streets, they wore signs declaring “I Am a Man.” In April, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. arrived to Memphis to support the workers and was assassinated after delivering his famous Mountaintop speech.

Conditions for sanitation workers in Memphis today are surprisingly similar to conditions in the 1960’s. The city is threatening to privatize their jobs, workers are not earning a living wage, and working conditions are hazardous and unsafe.

In the midst of contract negotiations, the sanitation workers of Local 1733 continue the struggle for fairness and respect begun forty five years ago.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

Two Mistakes from Obama

Obama CopePresident Obama screwed up twice in the last day or so. The most recent will probably get the most press. I also don’t think it is nearly as important. He said that Kamala Harris from California was brilliant and hard working and all that stuff. And then he added, “She also happens to be, by far the best-looking attorney general.” Ouch. Not good. Not appropriate. And all that.

But Obama is, after all, a man, and we are like that. Certainly, he needs to apologize and move on. And as Jonathan Bernstein notes, “A jovial ‘Michelle says I screwed up’ won’t do it.” Indeed.

But Obama did something else recently that he can’t so easily take away, because it reflects who he is. Reuters reported, Obama Cutting Own Pay in Solidarity with Federal Workers. How much is he cutting his pay? A whopping 5%! How will he ever survive?

Token gestures like this really bug me. My understanding is that federal workers getting furloughed will be losing 20% of their pay. And they make a lot less than Obama makes. Most of their money is not discretionary. So Obama will not be suffering at all and yet he wants credit for suffering along with the prols?!

I have an idea: why doesn’t he donate all the money he’s made from his books to charity. That would hurt and then maybe he would feel just a little of the pain that federal employees (and many others) are feeling.

What I Learned from the New Quinnipiac Poll

Quinnipiac PollThose clever devils at Quinnipiac thought to ask people whether they thought the same sex marriage issue should be settled by the Constitution or by the states. The results were: 56-36 in favor of Ye Good Ol’ Constitution. Everyone wants the Constitution to decide this one. Except… Are you ready for a shocker?! Republicans think the states should decide by the relatively narrow margin 49-45. What does that tell us?

Primarily, it tells us that people who know they are losing a battle grab onto states rights. The argument goes like this: Sure, you godless homo huggers can have your gay-boy marriage, but leave me and mine here in our intolerant state alone! And so what we have here is the conservative movement hunkering down and trying to stop the inevitable march of progress from touching them. They’re probably hoping North Korea bombs us back to the stone age before they have to give in on one of the two issues that God really cares about. (The other is that every zygote is sacred.)

The sad thing is that the conservative clowns on the Supreme Court are most likely going to do the same thing. “Oh, this is a state issue; why are we even talking about it?” I wonder if they really think that future Americans will find this dodge compelling. Certainly, when we see some person on the TV from years ago talking about “states rights” we don’t hesitate from thinking, “Bigot!” I suspect people like John Roberts think that their faith will protect them—that people will give them a pass because they were just following their religion. Of course, so were the bigots of the civil rights era.

It has been no secret that we are heading at breakneck speed toward sexual orientation equality. What is interesting about the Quinnipiac poll is that it shows that the Republicans understand it too.

Welcome to the 21th century guys! We look forward to you catching up!

Eric Cantor Is Not for New Taxes

Eric CantorI am constantly amazed at how naive mainstream, even insightful political writers are. This morning, Jonathan Chait made a big deal of the fact that Eric Cantor said “we’ll see about additional taxes” after being asked if he would consider taxes if Obama showed he was “serious” about the budget deficit. Of course, even Chait notes that Cantor immediately went back on his statement. But somehow, for Chait, Cantor’s statement seems to be telling, as though Cantor is really willing to accept new taxes and that his “no taxes” pledge is just a bargaining stance.

Bull Pucky!

What Cantor said was no kind of gaff. Republicans are forever claiming that they will raise taxes under the right circumstances. It is just that the Democrats are never “serious” enough for them to consider raising taxes. Even the White House has fallen for this. Remember their recent charm offensive where Obama was meeting with Republicans and showing them, “We really will fuck the poor and middle classes if you’ll just give us a few pennies from the rich.” The point that the White House and commenters like Chait don’t seem to get is that Republicans are always reasonable in the theoretical case of the Democrats offering them something that they know the Democrats will never offer them.

Of course, they make mistakes. Remember the unnamed Republican legislator who Ezra Klein introduced us to? He didn’t know that Obama had offered Social Security cuts. As I reported at the time:

One of the reporters at the meeting asked the legislator if it would matter to him if the president put Chained-CPI for Social Security on the table. The legislator responded that it would, because, “That’s serious!” This goes along with a very old Republican talking point that the president’s offers are not “serious.” Well, another reporter chimed in, point out what I thought everyone knew: the president has put Chained-CPI on the table. The legislator laughed and said, “I’d love to see it!”

Of course, Klein responded to this with another moderate’s Hallelujah Chorus, “See the Republicans aren’t intransigent; they’re just ignorant!” But they aren’t. Well, they are ignorant. But it doesn’t matter, because they are by definition intransigent. I’m sure that unnamed Republican legislator has since come up with other requirements before he can say of Obama, “That’s serious!”

The Democrats move more and more to the right, but this only causes the Republicans to move more and more to the right so that the two parties are no closer together. How long can this go on before otherwise smart political observers like Chait and Klein see that there really isn’t a reasonable party hidden inside the modern Republicans? Maybe after they control the White House and Congress, they will become a bit more reasonable. But for now, we need to stop reading the tea leaves. The Republicans are against any proposal by the Democrats because it is a proposal by the Democrats. The one thing that works against this is actual leverage. I would have thought that everyone would understand that by now.

Mojo Still Working

Muddy WatersThe great French director Eric Rohmer was born on this day back in 1920. And Anthony Perkins was born back 1932.

Overrated, but reasonably good writer Maya Angelou is 85. Record producer Clive Davis is 81. Hugo Weaving is 53. And David Cross and Robert Downey Jr are 49.

But the day belongs to McKinley Morganfield, or as you probably know him, Muddy Waters. He was born on this day back in 1913. Here he is doing “Got My Mojo Working,” which I think explains just about everything you need to know about why he was so important:

Good God Y’All

This song has been going through my head for days. It is a great one at least: Edwin Starr’s “War”:

What a great live version: totally kick ass band. And Starr sounds great— regrettably just a couple of years before he died.

The Basis of Sam Harris’ Racism

Sam HarrisI don’t like the label “atheist” because I’m really not. Just the same, I think theism is ridiculous and not really much worth discussing. It is just that when it comes to cosmology I stand with Hamlet, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” As a result, I feel akin to the smarter atheists. I have never noticed that I had a disagreement with Richard Carrier: I agree with him about religion and philosophy. On the other hand, I have major problems with Sam Harris, even though I generally agree with him when it comes to religious matters.

Without a doubt, I most part ways with Dr. Harris when it comes to his hateful campaign against Islam. Look: I have no love for Islam. I normally just group it with the other Abrahamic faiths: belief systems that may have spoken to people hundreds and thousands of years ago but which really have no purpose in the modern world. But if I were to pick one religion that most bothers me, it would be Christianity. I say this even though I have a number of Christian friends. But Christianity is the religion that I know—the religion that as an American, I just can’t escape from. And above all: I feel responsible for it.

In the past, I’ve written about my difficulty being a member of the in-group. And maybe that’s what’s happening. But it seems cowardly to focus all of my anger and concern toward them and not toward us. Today, Glenn Greenwald called Sam Harris to task about this very issue. He wrote, “Beyond all that, I find extremely suspect the behavior of westerners like Harris (and Hitchens and Dawkins) who spend the bulk of their time condemning the sins of other, distant peoples rather than the bulk of their time working against the sins of their own country.” Indeed.

Much of the article is spent discussing whether Harris’ anti-Islam beliefs are racist. Greenwald will not go so far as to say that they are (although he gets as close as you can). I think I have some insight into this. I’m not sure if it is the definition of racism, but it is clearly a primary mechanism by which racism renews itself.

The nature of prejudice is that it accumulates confirming data and dismisses contradictory data. For example, suppose you don’t like Latinos and you are driving your car. If a white guy cuts you off, he is just some asshole who cut you off. If a Latino cuts you off, it is entirely typical of Latinos: they just don’t care! If a Latino stops to allow you to get onto a busy street, well, that’s the exception that proves the rule!

Sadly, this is what has been going on with Sam Harris for at least a decade. And it is easy to see why, especially given the propagandistic tendencies of American media. I see this kind of thing from conservatives generally. Every person they see in the Middle East who is happy about some misfortune that befalls us only proves that all them Islamists just hate us. And no amount of “Sorry people of America this not the behavior of our Islam and profit” signs will change that.

I had thought that Harris was liberalizing his beliefs in recent years, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.

Rory Cooper’s High-larious Tweets

Rory CooperMatt Yglesias caught a remarkable series of tweets this morning from Rory Cooper. Cooper is Eric Cantor’s Communications Director and as such is committed to idiotic conservative beliefs. Earlier, White House Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer said, “You don’t want to balance the budget for the purposes of simply balancing the budget.” Well, that was high-larious to Cooper. What idiots those guys are at the White House thinking you don’t want to reduce the debt just for the sake of reducing the debt!

Regular readers should know that this is how conservatives think. This is why they are so concerned about debt to GDP ratios instead of the debt interest burdens. Or to put it more simply: they don’t even know why they want to balance the budget, they just know that it is the good and moral thing to do. And this makes perfect sense when you consider that the Republicans are only using the budget deficit as a reason to lower taxes (!) and cut social spending.

You may remember David Frum’s series of tweets lampooning the NRA proposal that all we need is an armed guard at every school. Cooper was trying to do the same thing with his tweets this morning. Like with this one:

Except, of course, this is not the same thing. You don’t feed your kids for the sake of feeding them, you feed them for the sake of nourishing them and not causing them to die. Under normal circumstances (with a booming economy), you want to balance the budget so that the government’s borrowing is not taking capital away from the private sector. But right now, that isn’t the case at all. In fact, the private sector is sitting on loads of cash that they aren’t spending. So in fact, we don’t want to balance the budget because doing so right now would be really bad for our economy.

But conservatives don’t understand this. In fact, they think that reasonable economic principles that have been well understood for 70 years are high-larious. Because they are ignorant. And evil.

Afterword

In later tweets Cooper claims that balancing the budget is good for economic growth. As I pointed out: in the current economy this is not true. But there is no convincing him. He just keeps repeating “economic growth.” There is actual science behind that belief and Cooper does not understand any of it. It’s just talking points to him.

Mona Lisa Now

Mona Lisa NowGiovanni Carmine, an art curator in Switzerland, had an interesting idea. It also turned out to be horrifying. He took a number depictions of women in great pieces of art throughout history and altered them into our modern standards of beauty. That is: he made them painfully skinny. We aren’t talking here about Rubenesque models who we know to be plump. He took women who I’d always thought of as being pretty thin—women like the model for Mona Lisa.

I recommend clicking over to the Ensemble Magazine article, The Mona Lisa Retouched, According to the Ideal of Beauty Now. What really stands out is how sickly the women look compared to the originals. But if you look at the new imagines for a while, you soon see that they aren’t distortions. They really are what the modern world thinks of as beautiful.

And that’s why it is horrifying.

Note: the Mona Lisa above is probably the least horrific of the many examples.

That Jane Goodall Tramp

Jane Goodall - Far Side CartoonAll my life, I’ve been disappointed with “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” It just doesn’t make any sense. What exactly am I supposed to get from it? I don’t suppose it matters. But back in 1783, Washington Irving was born on this day, so I’ll let it pass. Someone else I’m not a big fan of: Leslie Howard. He was born in 1893. The great Bay Area columnist Herb Caen was born in 1916. And Marlon Brando was born in 1924.

Doris Day is 89 today. Que Sera, Sera? I don’t think so! I didn’t even know she was still alive. Marsha Mason and Wayne Newton are 71. Tony Orlando is 69, so tie that around your old oak tree! Alec Baldwin is 55. He doesn’t look a day over, I don’t know, 55? And Eddie Murphy is 52.

The birthday prize goes out to the grrrrreat Jane Goodall who is 79 today. I’m sure you all know about her groundbreaking work on chimpanzees. But you may not know the story about the Far Side cartoon above. When it came out, Goodall was in Africa. Her people went crazy and sent an angry letter. But when Goodall came back and saw the cartoon, she thought it was funny as hell and the whole controversy was over. However, all money made from that cartoon goes to the Jane Goodall Institute.

Happy birthday Dr. Goodall! May we be able to say that many, many years into the future.

Conservative Situational Certainty

Samuel AlitoI just came upon an interesting article from last June by Jonathan Zasloff in The Reality-Based Community. It is about Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent in Miller v. Alabama. That was the case where the court found that it was unconstitutional to provide mandatory life in prison without parole for juvenile offenders. Alito wrote, “Nothing in the Constitution supports this arrogation of legislative authority.” In other words, Alito is saying the courts don’t have the constitutional right to usurp the authority of the legislature. Zasloff notes that this is interesting, because Alito didn’t think this when it came to Obamacare.

Alito was so angry about the court’s ruling that he read his dissent from the bench. This is typical of what I find so bothersome about conservatives generally, but especially on the bench. Samuel Alito here is making the case that the law is very clear. It goes right along with John Roberts’ statement that he just “calls balls and strikes.” But somehow, the clarity of the law vanishes the moment they have an opportunity to score a partisan blow. This predates Alito, of course. Just go back to Bush v. Gore, where the conservatives who hated the equal protection clause and interpreted it very narrowly suddenly found that it was very big when it came to the protection of George W. Bush. But even there, they had to add a statement that even though they had ruled for the equal protection of Bush, the ruling could not be used as precedent when it came to the equal rights for anyone else in the future.

When it came to mandatory minimums for juvenile offenders, Alito couldn’t find anything in the Constitution that would allow the Supreme Court to interfere. But when it came to Obamacare, Alito didn’t even think about such limits to its power. Here’s Zasloff:

Alito would no doubt answer that in the health care cases, the issue is whether the federal government has the authority in the first place. You can’t usurp authority from a government that doesn’t have it. But that was also the case with the issue of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles: if the Eighth Amendment applies, then the state government does not have the authority to impose those sentences. All of which is to say that “judicial activism,” the hobbyhorse that conservatives have used to complain about judicial decisions since Brown v. Board of Education (and yes—they vehemently complained about that one), is essentially a meaningless trope. For Alito to use it so casually shows that he’s almost as bad a judge as Scalia, which is [saying something].

The point is that Alito, like most conservative judges, takes the law very seriously. Until he doesn’t. As Zasloff says, “Cutting 30 million people off of health insurance, however, is just a day at the office.”