The writer of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” Julia Ward Howe was born on this day in 1819. She was an interesting woman. I recommend checking out the This American Life episode Lost in America. The third part of it is “Teacher Hit Me with a Ruler,” which is a history of “Battle Hymn” by Sarah Vowell. It’s a lot of fun. The whole episode is.

In 1837, Wild Bill Hickok was born. He didn’t live long. Also that year, the leader the of Russian democratic art movement and great painter Ivan Kramskoi was born. Author Dashiell Hammett was born in 1894. And Vincent Price was born in 1911.

Actor Christopher Lee (who is still working) is 91 today. One of the great villains of the last 20th century, Henry Kissinger is 90. Author John Barth in 83. Science fiction writer Harlan Ellison is 79. And the great Bruce Cockburn is 68. Here he is doing one of my favorite songs:

But the day belongs to biologist Rachel Carson who was born on this day in 1907. In 1962, she published Silent Spring about the dangers of pesticide use. But more important, it is the book that launched the modern environmental movement. Unfortunately, Carson did not live to see much of the effect of her work. She died two years later due to complications from breast cancer.

Happy birthday Rachel Carson!

In general, I like caveats. The world is not a simple place. But that can be taken to extremes, especially by supposedly liberal politicians. The best description I’ve ever heard of Obama is by Roger Hodge in The Mendacity of Hope, “Obama presents a dizzying series of hands—on the one and then the other, repeatedly, like some hyper-discursive blue-skinned Hindu deity—in which he discusses the Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (the wing to which he belongs, but he doesn’t really come out and tell us that), which embraces the new economy of advancing pools, even though ‘a sizable chuck’ of the Democratic base resists the agenda.” In other words, Obama is a conservative Democrat but he respects the rest of us who aren’t.

After President Obama’s speech last week, I didn’t know what to make of it. As usual, it sounded very nice. He got all the stuff that I didn’t like out of the way at first so he could provide me with a soft landing. But I’ve been hearing pretty words from Obama for five years and I’ve been disappointed in his actions for four. On economics, I feel more qualified to cut through his bullshit, but I’m none too clear on the War on Terror, regardless of what the current administration wants to call it. So I have to depend upon more knowledgeable people like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald to clarify what the truth actually is. So I was very eager to hear what Greenwald had to say, especially given his tardiness in weighing in. Finally, his morning he published, Obama’s Terrorism Speech: Seeing What You Want to See.

He started out saying what I’ve long known, although in this case specific to Obama’s speech on Thursday:

He then goes on to point out the fundamental purpose of the speech was to calm progressives. I’m a little more positive than Greenwald. I think it is progress that Obama cares enough to shore up his left flank. Most of his presidency was marked by a total disregard (Or worse!) for his base. Remember Rahm Emanuel calling us “fucking retarded”? That was Obama’s Chief of Staff telling us we were evil and stupid.

But that’s a small advance. There is a fundamental problem with all the plaudits Obama got for claiming the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) should be scaled back and eventually repealed. I don’t read this as, “Obama wants to repeal the AUMF.” I read it as, “Obama wants to tinker with the AUMF while he’s in office and then he’ll be for repeal after it isn’t his to use.” He also said, “Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.” As far as I can tell, he’s the one with that power and he’s the one who chose to use it so intensely.

And let me be very clear: the attempt to mollify liberals with the speech was offensive. To begin with, it was fundamentally the usual (very successful) appeal that, unlike George W. Bush, we can trust Obama. He only kills innocents all over the world after thinking about all of the complexities. What’s more, he said, “For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live.” That’s pure horseshit. Unlike Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini, I do not believe that this or any other president loses a moment of sleep over all the killing they do. What’s more, as Norman Solomon writes in War Made Easy, presidents always claim to be very concerned about going to war; it is the last thing they ever want to do. The fact that they don’t end up killing themselves is either a miracle or an indication that they are lying. Which do you think it is?

Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Michael Hastings all agree on one thing: Obama’s speech put nice sounding words on top of what is George W. Bush 2.0. And so do I.

This morning, the New York Times reported that at least some of those Tea Party groups the IRS targeted were anything but pure. It noted, “But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former IRS officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.” For the umpteenth time: the more we know the less there is to the IRS scandal. (The same goes for Benghazi. Of course, it is the opposite for AP associated scandals, but no one cares about that!)

What were these groups doing that might cause the IRS to target them? Just the usual stuff that you would expect Republican groups to do. Also for the umpteenth time: the Tea Party is just the base of the Republican Party. Here are three examples from the Times:

• CVFC’s “biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.”
• The Wetumpka Tea Party trained people for GOTV efforts for the (as they put it) “defeat of President Barack Obama.”
• The Ohio Liberty Coalition “sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature.”

Again, I don’t see any problem with this stuff as long as it is understood as common partisan Republican campaign activity. The real problem with all of this is that the Tea Party groups really do think that they are something other than Republicans. Half the Republicans in the House of Representatives self-identify as “Tea Party” and yet the Tea Party thinks it is something removed from the Republican Party. It’s ridiculous.

But most of the coverage of the IRS scandal on the left is all about how this has nothing to do with Obama. I agree: this scandal has nothing to do with the president. Or at least it has nothing more to do with him than it had to do with former IRS head Steven T. Miller. Miller was fired from his post, even though he was not in charge when any of this took place. On the left, the reaction has been a great big yawn. The attitude seems to be, “Well, somebody needed to be fired!” If that’s the case—if accountability doesn’t matter—then why don’t we impeach Obama? I know that he had nothing to do with it, but somebody needed to be fired!

So start with an extremely minor scandal regarding IRS agents being politically incorrect in rightly targeting the tidal wave of 501(c)(4) applications from conservative groups. Add to that a right wing that is hysterical about even a hint of scandal. Finally, add a dash of the spineless left wing that cares more about protecting President Obama than any of the millions of other innocent Americans. And what do you have? The fall of a once great nation.

And the la-hand of the Freeeeee!
And the hoooome, of thhhhhe, braaaave!

French Baroque painter Philippe de Champaigne was born on this day in 1602. Blackface singer Al Jolson was born in 1886.

The great depression era photographer and social activist Dorothea Lange was born in 1895. She is best known for her 1936 photograph “Migrant Mother.” It is often hard to say why exactly a photo is great. This one is great just considering its aesthetics. But there is also something about its primary subject—Florence Owens Thompson—who embodies both strength and pain that makes it particularly compelling. Add to that its social context and you have a classic. Thompson’s migrant farming family broke down in the pea-picker’s camp on Nipomo Mesa, where a couple of thousand other migrant workers had become stuck after a bad freeze had ruined the crop. The people there were starving and the publicity from the photo caused the government to step in and help the people.

So much of Lange’s photography is beautiful and compelling. Normally, I would have given the day to her, but… Well, you’ll see. Check out more of her Farm Security Administration work.

Actor John Wayne was born in 1907. I’ve never understood his appeal. I still feel that he makes movies I like less good. There’s no accounting for taste, I guess; mine included. The original Dr. Who, Peter Cushing was born in 1913. Jack Kevorkian was born in 1928. Levon Helm was born in 1940. And Mick Ronson was born in 1946.

Stevie Nicks is 65 today, so she won’t be working anymore. Actor Pam Grier is 64. Bobcat Goldthwait is 51. You remember him:

Lenny Kravitz is 49. And Helena Bonham Carter is 47.

But the day went to Miles Davis, by somewhat less than a nose. He was born on this day in 1926. When I was younger, I didn’t really understand his music. But about 20 years ago it clicked. It’s really amazing regardless of what he does. Part of it is just that he always surrounded himself with great musicians. And that may be why I especially like his cool period stuff. Here he is doing “So What?” from Kind of Blue (although not with exactly the original band):

Happy birthday Miles Davis!

I don’t much care for American sketch comedy because of the generally poor writing. The typical skit is some funny idea that the writer (although the actor is often more important than the writer) riffs on for a while and then just stops. For example, Julia Sweeney’s androgynous Pat character. Pat enters, makes people uncomfortable and cleverly deflects questions designed to determine her sex, and then Pat leaves. If the ideas were always as funny as Pat, that would be one thing. But in general, the ideas are weak and they lead nowhere.

Recently, I’ve been revisiting old episodes of SCTV. When I was younger, I preferred the show to SNL. But actually, the show suffers from the same problems. It is just better because the cast is a lot better. There is also a whole lot more depth to the show because it is supposed to be a small local television station. So characters like Guy Caballero (Joe Flaherty) and Edith Prickley (Andrea Martin) were developed through the run of the show. Of course, there was also my all time favorite Count Floyd, the distinctly non-frightening host of Monster Chiller Horror Theater, their version of Creature Features that I grew up watching.

Given my problem with the lack of punchlines in “American” comedy, I was pleased to revisit one skit from SCTV that I think is brilliantly written (as well as acted). It features another Andrea Martin character, Pirini Scleroso. Scleroso is a great character who hardly needs a punchline. She is the janitor at SCTV who appears to speak little English but apparently just has a very bad accent. I also like that she is eager. She frustrates everyone, but is still charming:

“You just go down two blocks; you can’t miss it!” Now was that so hard?

Afterword

Here is a typical SCTV skit with Pirini Scleroso in the part of Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady. As usual, when SCTV did a parody, they presented it as a “coming soon” commercial. This is very funny:

The fourth season of Arrested Development came out this morning on Netflix. I watched the first episode. They seem to be structuring the episodes differently this time. Each one focuses on one character. This first episode was on Michael. In the original series, it took quite some time to realize that Michael was actually just as narcissistic as the rest of his family. In this episode, Michael is horrible. And as usual, his target is the only genuinely nice character in the whole show, his son George Michael. As usual, Michael refuses to hear what his son is saying. In this case, he’s been living with George Michael in his dorm room for six months. It is very uncomfortable to watch.

The good news is that the episode is very funny. But it does feel different. The first episode is 32 minutes long. My understanding is that all of the episodes are different lengths. Since they didn’t have to shoehorn episodes into broadcast television time slots, they didn’t. This is nice. However, after years of watching the show, I’ve developed a strong sense of its timing, and that is gone. The new show is not as crisp. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It allows scenes to linger in nice ways that it never could have before.

The episode ends with Michael returning to the old model home, which is now in the middle of a ghost town, built by Michael shortly before the housing bubble burst. On returning to the house, he finds it in shambles with an ostrich inside it. And thus we move on to the story of Lindsay. I’ll update when I’ve seen more of the series.

Update (26 May 2013 12:54 am)

The next episode is not Lindsay’s. However, the ostrich does seem to be due to her.

Update (26 May 2013 1:23 am)

One reason that I’ve heard Arrested Development had trouble garnering an audience when on regular TV was that you really had to watch it from the beginning. The opening didn’t explain the plot (if that were even possible). And so it all just seemed bizarre. These episodes do a much better job of contextualizing what’s going on. I’m sure that’s largely because it’s been 7 years since season three. But it helps viewers regardless.

Update (26 May 2013 1:58 am)

The third episode is the funniest thus far. And it has Maria Bamford as a methadone patient. She eats butter.

Philosopher and writer Ralph Waldo Emerson was born on this day in 1803. I tend to accept a lot of his thinking, but his religious thought (understandably) is stuck in the early 18th century. Of course, that thinking is still far in advance of most religious people today. (Does that sound snarky? I don’t exactly mean it that way. I do however find religion fascinating and most believers devoid of any interesting thought at all. Religion is probably the worse subject for that. In economics, people might be constrained 90% by dogma. With religion it is often 100%.)

Bill “Bojangles” Robinson was born in 1878. He is most known for the movies he made with Shirley Temple. He was a capable dancer, but there’s nothing especially compelling about it. Of course, I’m not a huge dance fan. The bigger issue is that in the Temple films, he plays such “inoffensive” black characters. I understand that he was a trailblazer and important to race relations. But it’s still hard to watch. He seems to have been a good guy.

What I find most interesting about him is Jerry Jeff Walker’s song “Mr. Bojangles.” It appears that it was based upon a true story. But the dancer he described was not Bill Robinson. It couldn’t have been him since Robinson had died in 1949, when Walker was 7 years old. It is just that Robinson (like Robert Johnson) was so popular that people made entire careers out of impersonating him. So the song tells the story of one of these men, probably at the end of a downhill slide. Here is my favorite version of it by David Bromberg:

The other half of Burt Bacharach, Hal David was born in 1921. The great novelist Robert Ludlum was born in 1927. Poet and short story writer Raymond Carver was born in 1938. Actor Dixie Carter was born in 1939.

Producer Irwin Winkler is 82 today. Actor Ian McKellen is 74. Director and the soul of Miss Piggy, Frank Oz is 69. Vagina monologist Eve Ensler is 60. Comedian Mike Myers is 50. And that picked upon actor Jamie Kennedy is 43.

The day, however, belongs to Igor Sikorsky who was born on this day back in 1889. Contrary to popular opinion, he did not invent the helicopter. He did however, pretty much invent what we think of as a helicopter today. It’s a wild idea. Having one big rotor on top, should make the the bottom of the craft just spin the other way. But Sikorsky’s design the main rotor with a back rotor that is almost perpendicular to it that managed to equalize the angular momentum. Really, if I hadn’t grown up with helicopters and flown in them a few times, I wouldn’t even believe such a thing was possible. The modern helicopter is a work of engineering genius. Of course, Sikorsky did a lot more than that. Go read about him if you are interested.

Happy birthday Igor Sikorsky!

Harry Reid really needs to go nuclear. Mike Konczal has an excellent article over at Wonk Blog about what is going on with the nomination of Richard Cordray to head Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Just look at that face! How could anyone say no to him? Well, as Konczal explained, it isn’t about him. The Republicans don’t want anyone to head the CFPB. They don’t like the new bureau and they are going to hold their breath until they get their way. Or the political equivalent to it.

This is effectively nullification. And this is brand new. Well, Obama new. The Senate is using its right to “advise and consent” on nominations to strike down laws it simply doesn’t like. This is a very bad situation. Last February, 43 Republican Senators signed a letter saying they would not approve anyone to head the CFPB unless three of their demands were met. Does that sound like anyone to you? “We will kill all the hostages unless our demands are met!”

So what are their demands? First, they want the CFPB to be run by a bipartisan committee to effectively hobble it. Second, they want to be able to budget the CFPB year by year so that whenever they have the power, they can effectively destroy it. And third, they want a “safety-and-soundness check for the prudential regulators.” As Konczal noted:

Get that? It would basically say as long as banks are making money the government has no reason to punish them.

This is all reminding me of the Republican reaction to every other issue where they had no real leverage. Remember during the Obamacare negotiations, the Republicans would have no part of it. It was all or nothing. (In as much as the Democrats ever offer nothing!) And they got nothing. So after it passed they’ve tried to destroy it. First in the courts and now in the implementation. Here it’s the same thing. The Republicans lost their battle against the CFPB. And now they want a do over. As Konczal concluded:

Indeed. For this reason and so many more, Harry Reid needs to go nuclear.