Michael Bloomberg Was No Moderate

Michael BloombergJonathan Chait wrote a very interesting feature about Michael Bloomberg over at New York Magazine, The Dashed Dreams of President Bloomberg. It gets at a very important point to me. A lot of pundits (most notably Thomas Friedman) think that what America really wants is a moderate president. What is so exasperating about this idea is that for the last two years, the Democratic Party has given the American people moderate after moderate. But the Republicans have defined these moderates as extremists and the pundits have gone right along. And when it comes to liberal economic policy, the people mostly love it. But the national politicians don’t. In fact, pretty much no one on the television does either. It just isn’t acceptable policy for the Smart Set.

Bloomberg seems to have made the mistake of believing the pundits. He thought that he could be a moderate and the people would rise up and make him King of America. But Chait makes a mistake in his discussion of this. He correctly notes that Bloomberg is a social liberal and half admits that he is an economic conservative. But that doesn’t make him a centrist or a moderate. What it makes him is a typical politician who only cares about what is good for his class. He has friends who are gay. He knows women who have had abortions. Some of his best brokers are black! These are all great things, but they don’t make him a centrist. In fact, by American standards, they put him fairly far to the left on social issues and very far to the right on economic issues. So he’s an extremist—just in a slightly unusual way.

Chait tries to lighten the case by noting that Bloomberg wanted to allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire. This is not a liberal position. People often mistake it for one because Obama was for it. But Obama really is that vaunted moderate, although he too is mostly socially liberal and economically conservatives—just not as much as Bloomberg. Raising taxes during an economic downturn is a bad thing. It is bad for workers who have jobs and bad for workers who do not. It puts debt concerns well ahead of unemployment concerns. And the way that Bloomberg wanted to do it would have hurt workers both because it would have caused a bigger economic hit (the tax increase would have been bigger) and it would have taxed the poor more. That’s not liberal economic policy!

But perhaps the worst thing about Bloomberg is that he is an authoritarian when it comes to the poor but a libertarian when it comes to the rich. The poor are not healthy? Stop them from smoking in bars; ban trans-fats in restaurants; eliminate the Big Gulp at 7-11! None of these are the worst ideas that a politician has ever come up with. But they are all authoritarian. They are all things that the government shouldn’t have much say in because there isn’t a compelling social interest. (The smoking in bars is perhaps an exception.) But after a huge financial crisis when the government spent hundreds of billions of dollars to save the banks, Michael Bloomberg was Wall Street’s greatest defender! We needed no regulation. It was the libertarian ideal for the banks (and socialism whenever they got themselves into trouble).

Chait summed up Bloomberg’s paternal attitude nicely:

In a valedictory interview with the Atlantic, Bloomberg uttered the single phrase that best encapsulates his worldview. Following the polls, he said, is not only “not ethical” but ineffective politics, “because people aren’t good at describing what is in their own interest.” They need the Bloombergs of the world to scrutinize the data on their behalf and figure out what is in their interest. And then, even if he does something for them that they think they don’t want, they’ll appreciate him in the end.

In my many conversations with normal conservative and liberal voters, the one thing they tend to agree on (at least in the abstract) is economic populism. Even Paul Ryan uses that rhetoric. Everyone understands and dislikes the fact that individuals and small businesses have great constraints put upon them, but big businesses get whatever they want. But our politicians are beholden to these large business interests. And Michael Bloomberg is the poster child for this kind of thing. And he doesn’t even want us to be able to buy a really big soda to drown our sorrows in.

War and Tolstoy

Leo TolstoyOn this day in 1657, the German Baroque composer Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer was born. He is thought to be one of the best composers of his time. Unfortunately, very little of his work has survived. Here is Chaconne, a very impressive piece for harpsichord:

The great scientist Luigi Galvani was born in 1737. He did a lot of stuff, but he is remember for only one thing. And it is about the coolest “man” thing ever done. He took a dead frog’s legs and applied an electric spark to them. And the legs twitched. This is actually very important. It showed that there were electrical signals in the body. But at this point, we mostly know it from grammar school science fairs and this really cool scene from Frankenweenie, which unfortunately, I had to create because no one seems to agree with me about what scenes are most important in films:

Film producer and lyricist (“Singing in the Rain”) Arthur Freed was born in 1894. Novelist James Hilton was born in 1900. He wrote the novels Lost Horizon and Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Actor Cliff Robertson was born in 1923. The creator of the C programming language and one of the developers of unix, Dennis Ritchie was born in 1941. And the great singer and songwriter Otis Redding was born in 1941. He was only 26 when he died, but he still left a lot of great music. There isn’t a lot of video of him available. Here he is doing doing his own song “Respect,” which is still my favorite version:

Actor Hugh Grant is 53 today. Comedian Adam Sandler is 47. He seems to be incapable of doing anything but really stupid work now, regardless of how much talent he surrounds himself with. And actor Henry Thomas is 42.

The day, however, belongs to one of the greatest writers ever Leo Tolstoy who was born in 1828. Now obviously, I’ve never read him in Russian. But his voice comes across pretty clearly in translation. And Anna Karenina is amazingly affecting—literally a sob story for the reader. As a person, he doesn’t seem to have been so great. Paul Johnson referred to Tolstoy as “God’s elder brother.” I’m afraid that does sum him up, but Johnson (a conservative apologist for just about every atrocity ever) has little room to talk.

Happy 185th birthday Leo Tolstoy!

Rainy Days and Mondays

The CarpentersIt is in the 90s even as I write this. And what song has been going through my mind all day? The Carpenters‘ “Rainy Days and Mondays.” I don’t think much about The Carpenters. They certainly created finely crafted music with Karen Carpenter’s beautiful voice. And boy did they work with great people. On this song, we have Joe Osborn on bass and Hal Blaine on drums. It was co-written by Paul Williams (lyrics) and Roger Nichols (music), who are not exactly underachievers.

At one point in my life, I probably would have brushed the song aside as so much sentimental nonsense. But it really is more than that. It’s got a great old AABA structure with a really strong refrain. And Jack Daugherty’s production is just perfect for the song. It builds in intensity rather than volume with some very nice background vocals during the bridge. I think it compares well to the modern “wall of sound” where no emotion is ever allowed to leak through.

Now, of course, it seems that everything The Carpenters ever did is even more bittersweet than it was at the time because of Karen Carpenter’s unfortunate end. I do wish she were alive today: old, fat, and working a cabaret stage in Las Vegas. Oh well:

My favorite of their songs is Leon Russell and Bonnie Bramlett’s “Superstar.” I don’t think it is as well written as “Rainy Days and Mondays.” In particular, I don’t like the disjointed transition from the verse to the chorus. And to be fair, the original Delaney & Bonnie version deals with the transition much better and is generally a better version of the song. But I like The Carpenters‘ version because it is plays the naivete way up. This includes changing the original lyric “I can hardly wait to sleep with you again” to “I can hardly wait to be with you again.” Very Biblical!

Anyway, since you have probably heard The Carpenters version too much anyway, here is the Delaney & Bonnie version:

And it is now down into the 70s as I write this.

Will US Back Syria Deal?

Sergei LavrovMost people don’t know it, but the original phrase was, “Be careful what you wish for US Secretary of State John Kerry, you might just get it.” Okay, it wasn’t really, but it should have been! While in London, a reporter asked if the Assad government could do anything to avoid an attack. Kerry took the bait and replied, “Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week—turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting. But he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.” Au contraire, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!

Within 5 hours, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put just such a proposal together and gave it to his Syrian counterpart. And Syria said that they welcomed the proposal. Lavrov said, “If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons… makes it possible to avoid strikes, then we will immediately get to work with Damascus.”

Of course, we will have to see. After all, in Kerry’s original statement there was not only the firm statement that Assad wouldn’t do it but that it can’t be done. And such statements are typical of people like Kerry. They want to go to war but they also want to seem like they are being forced to do so. The United States will likely claim that they would love to accept the deal but unfortunately, they just can’t trust that all the chemical weapons are gone. There might be one microgram somewhere. According to Reuters:

White House officials made clear their skepticism of the workability of the Russian proposal. Syria is a battleground where access for foreign experts would be dangerous. And it would be very hard to verify whether all sites had been sealed.

What’s more, the administration is working the other side. Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said, “It’s important to note that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerting. So it’s even more important that we don’t take the pressure off and that Congress give the president the authority he’s requested.” So maybe Russia shouldn’t broker this deal because it will send the wrong message to the Obama regime!

Even more obvious, the rebels hate the idea. A rebel commander said, “It is a trap and deceitful maneuver by the Damascus regime and will do nothing to help the situation. They have tons of weapons hidden that would be nearly impossible for international inspectors to find.” How exactly he would know that, I can’t say. But I find it particularly interesting that he said it would do nothing to help the situation. I’m sure that’s true… from his perspective. My understanding is that the rebels are losing this war and an attack by the United States may be their last best chance to win the conflict.

Meanwhile, the administration continues its bellicose rhetoric. Kerry continues to make outrageous statements that he can’t back up. He said that during is (brief) time in the DA’s office, he had successful prosecuted cases with less evidence than he has against Assad. Well, that may be. After all, poor people are convicted of all kinds of things that they didn’t do. But one would think that the case for going to war would be a little stronger. Instead, the administration just keeps pushing more deceptive intelligence. On all 5 of the Sunday talk shows, White House Chief of State Denis McDonough repeated the same line about how no one has refuted the intelligence. That’s true, but most people also don’t find it that compelling. Just like for the Iraq War, the administration is massaging the intelligence to deceive.

But this proposal by Russia could really be good. In addition to stopping a bombing campaign, it would get rid of a large stockpile of chemical weapons. That’s a win-win from my perspective. What we are going to find out is if Obama really wants to go to war or not. If the speculation is right that he simply painted himself into a corner, he will use this opportunity to get out of an attack. If he really does want war, he will find a way to kill this proposal. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say during his media blitz the next two days.

Journalism: Where Truth Does Not Matter

AmazonHave you heard about the free Amazon smart phones? On Friday, Jessica Lessin (the temporary location of a new technology news website) published a story, Amazon Wants to Offer Its Smartphone for Free. Who Will Follow? That’s not a totally ridiculous idea. Amazon doesn’t seem particularly interested in making money right now; they are only interested in crushing every other business on the planet. But it turned out that not only would other companies not follow, even Amazon won’t.

Will Oremus at Slate reports today that on Sunday, the site currently named Jessica Lessin printed a second article, Amazon: No Phone Launch “This Year” and “Would Not Be Free.” Well, that clears that up!

Oremus is very kind regarding the mix-up. And understandably so! People make mistakes. And maybe Amazon was thinking about releasing a free phone but when it went public, they pulled back. But there is something problematic about the idea of getting two stories out of a nonevent. For example, I could publish an article with the following headline:

Amazon Wants to Invest Millions in Frankly Curious

And then two days later I could publish:

Amazon: No Investment in Frankly Curious—Whatever it Is

Of course, it is necessary to have a reputation to destroy with such stunts. Certainly Jessica Lessin and the author Amir Efrati have that. But it isn’t clear that their reputations are damaged, much less destroyed. It’s because everyone pretty much agrees that journalism is little more than a game. I might not agree with that when it comes to politics and wars. But when it comes to technology reporting, it’s hard to care. It has become little more than an industry of professional cheerleaders for various corporations.

Florida Arrests All… Except for Murder

George ZimmermanGeorge Zimmerman was arrested on some domestic assault charge. Whatever. I’ve always felt he was kind of an idiot. But I was very interested in what the Lake Mary police spokesman Zach Hudson said about Zimmerman’s detention. “Anytime we have anybody suspected of doing anything, we place them in investigative detention until a complete investigation has been done.” What a difference 5 miles makes!

You see, when Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, he was in Sanford, Florida. That’s 5 whole miles away. Apparently, in Sanford, anytime they have anybody suspected of doing anything other than murder, they place them in investigative detention. What’s more, in Sanford, they do criminal background checks on the victims, not the perpetrators. But mostly, they just assume that if you killed someone, he must have had it coming.

I’m glad to see that in Lake Mary they take policing more seriously. Or do they? After all, George Zimmerman didn’t kill anyone this time. Maybe if he had stood his ground against his wife and killed her, he wouldn’t be in jail. “She was banging my head against the colander and I felt threatened!” We won’t know until George Zimmerman kills again. Check back here for updates!

New Van Gogh Sunset at Montmajour

Sunset at Montmajour - Van Gogh

The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam unveiled a recently discovered Vincent Van Gogh landscape painting from 1888—two years before his death. The painting is named Sunset at Montmajour and it is entirely typical of Van Gogh’s generic landscapes. I think the discovery is really interesting, because I would never have thought that works by him would be sitting around. The Van Gogh Gallery previously provided the following answer to the question, “I [have] an original Vincent van Gogh Painting that I [found]. Do you know how much it is worth, or how I can find out?”

If it truly is an ORIGINAL Vincent van Gogh painting that you or someone else has found the price would be outlandishly high. It would be one of the greatest lost paintings ever found.

This begs the question, “Is this one of the greatest lost paintings ever found?” Personally, I’m not so sure. Bearing in mind that I’m not much of a fan of Van Gogh, I don’t much like the painting. I mean, it’s okay, but nothing to get excited about. The clouds are kind of interesting, but above all, the painting isn’t composed well. And indeed, Van Gogh wrote in a letter that the painting was a failed attempt.

But the story of its loss is really interesting. Apparently, Theo Van Gogh owned it at his death. It was sold a few times, eventually ending up in the hands of a Norwegian collector. At some point, he was told that it wasn’t a Van Gogh, but rather just a copy. So he stored it in his attic where I assume it was eventually found. The Van Gogh Museum spent the last two years researching it.

So this is all quite exciting. Too bad they didn’t discover another Modigliani. We could use a few more of his.

The Well Regulated Blind Militia

Blind FuryYesterday, the Desmoines Register published, Iowa Grants Permits for Blind Residents to Carry Guns in Public. It is a fairly long article, but there really isn’t much more information in article than there is in the headline and the subtitle that reads, “Sheriffs and advocates are divided on whether that’s a good idea.” I’m divided on the issue myself. On the one hand, these are blind people—with guns. On the other hand, are they really any more likely to be idiots than sighted people?

It seems to me that society has already decided this issue. We don’t allow the blind to drive cars—both for the public safety but also for the safety of the blind person. So if the society decides that guns should not be carried around by blind people, that seems pretty reasonable given our social norms. Then again, I’m not keen on limiting people’s rights. And it isn’t that hard to imagine cases where a gun could be used effectively by a blind person. (It would seem that a taser would be just as effective, however.)

What I find interesting in all this is that guns in general are not treated like cars. In order to use a car, one must get training and pass a driving test. No such requirements are applied to using a gun. You just leave the gun store and accidentally shoot and kill your son. I think the problem is that we don’t perceive guns as the dangerous things they are. They just sit there doing nothing until quite suddenly they explode a projectile with often tragic consequences. For example, the guy who killed his 7-year-old son in the gun store parking lot was experienced with guns. But he apparently didn’t think there was anything wrong with having a loaded 9mm handgun sitting around his autistic child.

With public carry permits, the situation is better. Most states require some kind of training. And Iowa is no exception, “but that requirement can be satisfied through an online course that does not include any hands-on instruction or a shooting test.” I think that gets to the heart of the problem. Our pathetically weak gun laws and almost nonexistent proficiency requirements are not just a fluke. They are the result of ideologues pushing for laws that make gun ownership and use as simple as possible.

From a broad social standpoint, blind people walking around with guns just doesn’t matter—there are not many of them. But what bothers me is that legislatures think it is a good idea to provide such liberal gun laws that we are even discussing whether it is a good idea for completely blind people to walk around with loaded guns. I would prefer that we be much more careful about who we allow in public with guns. An armed society is not a polite society.

Armed Society is a Polite Society

America Is That Guy…

Abu GhraibYou know that guy? He’s rich. Everyone knows it, but that doesn’t stop him from boasting about all his money and his great car. He also boasts about how generally great he is. But he also complains. He complains about every way that every person in his life has harmed him. In fact, if it weren’t for his brilliance, he’d be living in the gutter—or dead. But lucky for him, because he is so amazing and hard working, he has been able to make a success of himself despite all the people who are out to get him. Oh, and did I mention that he inherited most of his money? The extra money he stole from people. But they were bad people—people who were out to get him.

That guy is America. I remember that growing up. I was well into my 20s before I learned that the Soviet Union wasn’t cowering in the corner during World War II. According to our television documentaries, the great war went like this: Germany attacked Poland and France and they both folded like a cheap ironing boards. England tried to fight Germany, but hey, they’re English. And the Soviets were somewhere else—perhaps vacationing in the Bahamas. So America had to step into the war and save the world. And remember: it only became the world war when America joined!

Meanwhile, we harm people all over the world. Our history since World War II is really quite bad. Look at the Vietnam War. There were about 1.5 million Vietnamese killed in that war. Many of them were killed in ways that I can only think of as constituting war crimes. But what do we talk about? The 58,000 Americans who were killed. I don’t mean to minimize our losses. But I don’t think more than one out of ten of those guys were keen on fighting that war. The more the people disliked the war, the more the country killed its people and 30 times as many Vietnamese.

But nothing beats our response to 9/11. It was a tragedy and an outrage. But was it a singular event? Did the United States really suffer something that most of the rest of the world had not? People all over the world have seen their countrymen and loved ones killed unjustly—often by us. Eric Alterman mentions this in his book What Liberal Media? He took a trip in Europe after 9/11 and spoke to intellectuals there:

Almost all expressed solidarity with America vis-a-vis the 9/11 attacks. Alessandro Portelli, editor of an Italian literary magazine, voiced the hope that America’s recognition of its own vulnerability might help the nation develop some empathy for the vulnerable elsewhere in the world, who lack the ability to act on the world stage with impunity. Yet the primary response, as Portelli saw it, as voiced in the media and among well-known American intellectuals, has “a rhetoric of the exceptionalism of American sorrow.”

That’s right. Conservatives like to claim that the media are very critical of America. And then they point to things like this blog as though that has any relationship to what America is seeing and reading. According to our media, America never hurts anyone. We are just this beneficent country and others hate us for our freedom. And no one understands how we suffer when things go wrong here. We are the most powerful country in the history of the world. But somehow we are the real victims of the world—the only ones who really suffer.

I bring this up because I saw a couple of minutes of a documentary on National Geographic Channel, Inside 9/11. It was first presented in 2005. But it was added to over time up through 2010. The whole thing is over the top in its production as though Osama bin Laden were worse than Hitler. As though 9/11 is the worst thing that ever happened to a country. It is all designed to allow America the country to continue its aggressive foreign policy while pacifying Americans with the myth that no one ever has any reason to be pissed off at us.

You know the worst thing about that guy? Since he won’t take responsibility for the bad things that he does, he never learns. He’s the same immature asshole at 50 as he was at 15. And he seems to be incapable of understanding that. So we have many more years of listening to him go on about how great he is and how terrible everyone is to him for no reason at all. Because he’s just perfect. So completely fucking perfect.

Majestic Equality of Opportunity

Majestic Equality

Matt Yglesias caught something in President Obama’s speech for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. As with most professional liberals, Obama can’t make a speech without attacking his base. In this particular speech, he said, “And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support…” I don’t know why Paul Ryan didn’t come to the event. It sounds like he would have been right at home with that kind of rhetoric.

As Yglesias noted, “But this business on equality of opportunity versus a ‘mere desire for government support’ is pernicious nonsense. Unless equality of opportunity is going to be nothing more than a hollow formalism, you need a lot of government support.” But I think it goes further than Yglesias would like to admit. For Obama and pretty much any politician on the national stage, “equality of opportunity” is exactly a “hollow formalism” and they know it. It is just a phrase offered to the prols to justify why nothing can be done about our incredibly unfair economic system.

We now live in a nation that has more income inequality than it had during the terrible Gilded Age. And this is not just globalization—something we just can’t do anything about. Indeed, it is the direct result of government policies. In 1947, the federal government started its attack on unions (not that it had ever been keen on them), with the Taft–Hartley Act. That pretty much put a stop to union growth. Then in the 1980s, Reagan started policies that actively destroyed unions—mostly by simply not enforcing existing labor laws. And since then, no Democrat has done anything to improve the situation. In fact, one of the primary characteristics of New Democrats is their hostility toward unions.

So when Obama talks about “equality of opportunity” I know that he doesn’t mean anything by it. He doesn’t even mean a level playing field. He supports the Federal Reserve and their inflation obsession, even though a little inflation would help American workers. He supports Larry Summers and his strong dollar obsession, even though a weaker dollar would help American workers. And of course, he supports elite unions for doctors and lawyers, even though cheaper medical and legal costs would help American workers. He supports “equality of opportunity” in the sense that there shouldn’t be explicitly racist laws, which would make him very forward thinking if it were 1952.

Liberal politicians especially love to talk about how people should be able to get ahead if they “worked hard and played by the rules.” It’s bullshit of course. The last three presidents didn’t “play by the rules.” They all broke federal drug laws and yet life worked out pretty well for them. And they know (as do we all) that the best way to get rich is to inherit money. They are all involved with a federal government that constantly gives out contracts and other gifts to well connected businessmen. Working hard and playing by the rules has absolutely nothing to do with success in America. That’s because opportunity isn’t even close to equal in our society. And these people who talk about it are doing nothing to improve the situation.

Debra Milke Released on Bond

Debra MilkeThere is a small amount of good news. I have written several times about the tragic story of Debra Milke, the woman who was convicted of murdering her 4-year-old son over 20 years ago. She has been on death row since that time. The evidence against her was terrible, to put it lightly. Mostly, it all depended upon the word of a police officer and serial liar who claimed that Milke had confessed to him. The case came down to his word against hers. So as is usual, the jury believed the police officer. Earlier this year, an Appellate court overturned the earlier conviction (based largely on the officer’s history of lying) and called for a new trial or for Milke to be release. Of course, prosecutors pretty much never admit error and so they are retrying the case. But in the meantime, Milke has been released on bail (against the hysterical arguments of the prosecution).

The injustice in this case makes it extremely compelling. But it is hardly unusual. What I especially like about the case is what it shows about the death penalty generally. Proponents of the death penalty always think that it is applied in cases where there is overwhelming evidence. After all, there is that whole requirement that the jury be certain to within a “shadow of a doubt.” But usually, people are put on death row and later executed based on the flimsiest of evidence.

In Debra Milke’s case it really is just just one guy saying that he told her she did it. Does he have a recording? No. Does he have notes? No. Does he have a history of lying under oath and abusing women during interrogations? Yes! That’s basically what the state thought they should kill Milke over. It is also, what they had no problem putting her in jail for 22 years for. But I think there is something more going on in this case. It was a well publicized case. A 4-year-old boy had been murdered. The jury was angry. They wanted revenge and Milke was offered up.

At this point, I think that Milke will be exonerated. In fact, I’m not sure why they are even having another trial. It seems to me that the prosecution is going to look foolish. They didn’t have much evidence 22 years ago. Now they have much less. That is assuming that the lying cop won’t be allowed to testify—it’s still unclear. And now Milke has a good legal team with financial resources. She’s not OJ, but she will at least get a fair trial. Then again, I won’t be shocked if she is convicted. As we’ve seen, the jury system is not exactly dependable.

But it is at least good news the Debra Milke is out of jail. It is a little bit of justice, a long time in coming. And hopefully it is a good omen for the future. I will continue to follow the story here.


H/T: Debra Milke News

Always Love Ann Beattie

Ann BeattieOn this day in 1588, the “father of acoustics,” mathematician and music theorist Marin Mersenne was born. The French Baroque composer Francois Francoeur was born in 1698. Here is his very fun Allegro Vivo:

Portrait miniature painter Ozias Humphry was born in 1742. The Mesoamerican ethnographer Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg was born in 1814. Composer Jaime Nuno was born in 1824. He composed the Mexican national anthem, which is not bad:

The great Czech composer Antonin Dvorak was born in 1841. He is not one of my favorite composers, but for a Romantic, he is quite good. Here is his “Song to the Moon”:

The modern composer Willem Pijper was born in 1894. His work is pretty difficult. Just the same, it has a lot of charm to go along with his polytonal palette. It really does reward the listener, although it isn’t something I’m often in the mood for. Here is his Concerto for Piano & Orchestra from 1927:

The great country singer Jimmie Rodgers was born in 1897. Here he is doing a few of his songs inside a really stupid (but charming) narrative structure:

The great comedic actor Peter Sellers was born in 1925. Here he is as a couple of characters in Dr. Strangelove:

Another great country singer Patsy Cline was born in 1932. She was only 30 when she died. Here she is doing “Crazy” on the TV box:

The great comedian Sid Caesar is 91 today. Playwright Michael Frayn is 80. He wrote the very funny farce Noises Off. Blues guitarist Guitar Shorty is 74. Socialist Bernie Sanders is 72. Musician Aimee Mann is 53. She started as the head of the band ‘Til Tuesday, a band that got less and less popular as it got better and better. Here is a great song from their second album. (Of course, Mann has had a great solo career since then.) I like the line, “But anything I could have said I felt somehow that you already knew.” The song isn’t perfect, though; it should have a third verse, but even Mann admits that she’s a lazy writer. If you want perfect songwriting craft, you need to check out her husband Michael Penn. Anyway, here is “Coming Up Close”:

And the great independent filmmaker Kimberly Peirce is 46.

The day, however, belongs to the great novelist Ann Beattie who is 66 today. She had an interesting arc as a writer. Her first three novels were light and funny. They were the perfect vacation novels. And then she wrote Picturing Will, a novel so full of existential angst that I couldn’t stop crying. It was a fine book, beautifully written. But it scarred me and I have not gone back again. However, I do think it would be fun to reread Falling In Place or Love Always.

Happy birthday Ann Beattie!