Today is the 97th birthday of Broadway lyricist Sheldon Harnick, who won a Tony Award for Fiddler on the Roof, a Tony and Pulitzer Price for Fiorello!, and such other musicals with Jerry Bock as She Loves Me, The Apple Tree, The Rothschilds, Rex (with Richard Richard Rodgers), and the opera Captain Jinks and the Horse Marines -- and much more.
I interviewed him years ago when I was a student at Northwestern, and he returned to campus as Homecoming Grand Marshal. I then made a radio documentary from it for the school radio station, WNUR, and two decades later finally tracked down his address through a mutual friend to send him a copy. And when I told my mother after all that time that I finally found someone who knew where Harnick lived, she said, "Oh, you mean, Aunt Joan?" I was floored. I never had any idea that they grew up together and went to college together. Though. no, she didn't have her address. When I sent him the radio documentary though and explained my further connection, he sent a handwritten note back, and the first line was, "OH, MY GOD!!! JOAN SERED!!! (which was her maiden name. And yes, this is the Aunt Joan who I wrote about here a few Januarys ago for her surprise 90th birthday party.) Though they've periodically crossed paths over the many decades, I was able to get them together 14 years ago when we all saw a production of his show She Loves Me at the Writers Theatre in Glencoe, Illinois. (And yes, this was the production I've written about several times that starred Jessie Mueller before she left for Broadway and won a Tony Award for starring in the musical Beautiful.)
But enough of all that. On with the show. Here's a wonderful, hour-long interview with Sheldon Harnick at the Kennedy Center seven years ago when he was 90, and you'll see he's vibrant and entertaining. Know too that this isn't just an interview, but includes several of his songs from wonderful performers.
And here's one of my favorite of his lesser-known songs, "In My Own Lifetime," from The Rothschilds, which starred Hal Linden who won the Tony Award as Best Actor. Harnick writes poetically and richly with the simplicity of almost everyday language, which is his hallmark. Years ago, when I made that aforementioned radio documentary for the college station, I ended it with this song -- which I preceded with a clip of Harnick talking about how he'd like people to listen to his songs and say, "Yeah. Yeah, that's true."
And we'll end our celebration with this video from three years ago -- when Harnick was 94 -- singing absolutely wonderfully one of his classics, "Do You Love Me?" from Fiddler on the Roof with Judy Blazer.
After Joe Biden's Presidential Address to Congress the other night, a friend commented that what he liked was how Biden delivered his speech as if he was talking to the American public watching, not to the members of Congress in attendance, most likely because the room -- which normally seats around 1,200 people -- only had about 400 and so delivering the speech to such a smaller group made a more personal approach the best way to go.
While my friend may have been right, what I said is that whatever the number of people sitting in the House of Representatives, when a president gives his address to Congress, he should always do so in a way that is speaking to the American public, not those people present. After all, 30 million viewers is more than 1,200 members of Congress and their guests. I'm sure the natural inclination when giving a speech to 1,200 people in front of you is that you talk to them -- but still, 30 million people watching at home remains a larger number than 1,200 people in attendance.
It turns out that talking directly to the American public, rather than having them just listening in as you give an address has its benefits. The approval rating that President Biden got for the speech was an amazing 85%. Almost as amazing was that 71% of Americans said that they felt better about the direction of the country after hearing the speech.
In fairness, I suspect most people who hate the sitting-president don't tend to watch a Presidential Address to Congress, so that likely skews the numbers higher. But not only has Joe Biden not yet built up an antipathy after just 100 days in office that would keep all or most Republicans away, but his general approval thus far is reasonably good.
What I also suspect helped the public reaction is what President Biden said in his speech was pretty positive. In fact, as I was watching, I wondered at one point how many people could be against this. Yes, I know I'm biased in my support of what he was talking about, but nonetheless -- most people are for ending the pandemic, helping families and creating new industries that create new jobs. The only people who seem not to be are Republican members of Congress and recalcitrant Trump supporters still upset that the insurrection didn't work.
And even those people were struggling to find things not to like. For Republicans in Congress, it's tough to keep complaining about the cost of things people really like, when you passed a $3 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, which most people didn't like -- except the wealthy. And for Republicans who want to get into Congress, there was a tweet from JD Vance, a conservative Republican venture capitalist who wrote the memoir Hillbilly Elegy and is considering a run for an open Senate seat in Ohio. He wrote about one of President Biden's proposals in his family bill that "'Universal Day Care' is class warfare against normal people."
While I'm sure there are people against Universal Day Care, I'm not quite sure what "normal people" would be, especially to the extent of going to class war to stop it. The best I can guess is that, at least as a starting point of "normal people" is single people who don't have children or jobs. Not limited to that, of course, but just as a foundation to build on. In fairness, I'm also sure there are people against pretty much anything, including puppies and pizza, so being against Universal Day Care isn't inherently a notable achievement, even for normal people.
The good news is that normal people being against Universal Day Care is a step up from the most common GOP issues today of Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head, going to bakeries and giving books to immigrant children. Not all that much better, but better, which is one of the advantages of being on the side of normal people.
The problem for today's Republican Party is that if they actually go after the normal people vote, they're in serious trouble. Unless they go by JD Vance's definition which, at the moment, is still undetermined.
And so, the result is that there stands President Joe Biden with an 85% approval of his Presidential address and 71% of Americans feeling better after hearing it for the direction the country is going. This is just the reaction to one speech, of course. But responses aren't that high -- normally.
The other day, I posted a piece that CBS This Morning did about the song "Strange Fruit" that Billie Holiday famously recorded and focused the story on its writer, Abel Meerapol. Alas, CBS This Morning didn't hold up their end of the bargain and deleted their own video. Nonetheless, at the end of the report when it did initially air, they mentioned that Meerapol also wrote the words to the song the reporter mistakenly called "What is America to Me?", though its actual name is "The House I Live." And she noted that Frank Sinatra had had success with the song.
Although Frank Sinatra did record the song and sang it throughout his career, the impression given was that he introduced the song, but in fact it was written for a musical Let Freedom Sing in 1942. Sinatra did popularize it, however, when he starred in a short 10-minute film, The House I Live In, in which he sang the song. The short was released in 1945 and won a special Oscar. It was made, in part, to combat anti-Semitism as the end of WWII, which makes one change to the song in the film all the more surprising -- they only sang the first verse and cut the second...which has the line about "my neighbors black and white," a cut which enraged lyricist Meerapol and he protested.
Also notable is that the song was equally made famous earlier by the great Paul Robeson. Which adds a bit of irony to the song's history, since he was later blacklisted. As was Earl Robinson who wrote the music. And Albert Maltz, who wrote the Special Oscar-winning film that brought the song to the wider American public was one of the famous Hollywood 10 screenwriters, who were jailed for defying the House Un-American Activies Committee looking into Communism in the U.S. And Abel Meerapol felt he had to use a pseudonym for his work, Lewis Allan.
Here is Paul Robeson especially-wonderful recording of "The House I Live In" -- with the second verse intact. This should also be a treat to anyone who hasn't heard Paul Robeson sing. By the way, know that Paul Robeson starred in the original 1936 movie of Show Boat and brought "Old Man River" to fame. In fact he was cast in the original 1927 Broadway stage production and was supposed to introduce the song, but the musical got delayed, schedules got changed and he had to bow out -- though did play the role when the show opened in London's West End. Also...well, I'll be posting more about Other Things Robeson upcoming.
And as a bonus, this is that aforementioned Special Oscar-winning 10-minute movie -- without the second verse. (If for some reason the video does play, since I've been having some trouble with it embedding, just click on the link here.)
I realized a conundrum the other day. It's one I don't expect to resolve, because its foundation is based on insanity. But that doesn't make it any less a conundrum.
One the one hand, we have this mass of people on the far right who are so outraged at China for supposedly being the cause of the deep hell that the United States (and world) have gone through for the past year, as the COVID-19 coronavirus spread and disrupted all of our lives due to the life-threatening dangers it brings from infection and has killed 588,238 Americans so far. And this anger at China has been so pronounced and virulent that hate crimes against people from China or even against people who just look like they're probably from China or look like they may have ancestors from China.
On the other hand, we have basically this same mass of people on the far right who think that COVID-19 is a hoax and not any worse than the flu, and that face masks don't do anything and so there's no need to wear them, and that social distancing is not even remotely necessary, and that they won't take the vaccine and that businesses should be allowed to open and schools should open and that life should be totally normal since all is okay.
I just have no idea how people can hold both these diametrically polar-opposite views. Thinking that China is supposedly so horrible for being the cause of all this infection that has disrupted our life and killed almost 600,000 Americans -- and at the same time think that everything should be normal and that no precautions are necessary at all because COVID-19 is a hoax and everything is, in fact, pretty much fine.
As I said at the beginning, I don't think there is any way to resolve this conundrum, which has a gap so wide that it makes the Grand Canyon it looks like a paper cut. When an opinion has no foundation in reality and is untenable, yet becomes core to to a person's belief system, that alone is enough to become an unmovable object. When it's two such opinions without foundation in reality -- and they contradict each other -- yet are both core to a person's belief system, it is more a case of the fabled unmovable object meeting the unstoppable force, but within a single person, which is likely closer to the kind of chain reaction that causes an atomic bomb going off in that person non-stop. Which may explain a) why it is unresolvable, and b) why we now see so many on the far right acting with such insanity, manifesting itself in things like insurrection, voter suppression, defense of killing unarmed minorities and believing a totally anonymous conspiracy leader without having the slightest idea where on earth its lunatic pronouncements come from because from all those inner-explosions you have caused in yourself you are in desperate need of some direction, any direction, and are willing to accept anything that sounds like it's something you want to believe in, no matter how insane it is, since you probably can't tell.
So...no, I don't expect to resolve the conundrum. But recognizing it at least helps know where not to step to avoid mucking up your shoes.
And hey, even if there's no resolution, happily we can always face it with a song...
A couple nights ago, I watched a 40-minute documentary short on Netflix streaming called Long Shot. It’s not aesthetic filmmaking – though it’s very nicely done, telling the tale extremely well...but what leaps out is that it's the most amazing story, with several twists that if you saw it in a fiction movie you’d think it was ridiculous. I don’t want to give anything away, but it’s about a young man wrongfully arrested for murder.
(in fact, if you do watch it, try to even avoid the Netflix description, because the less you know, the more the surprises will leap out.)
I did know about one of the big twists, but not the main one – and when that one comes along I could only stare at the screen and go, “Oh, my God.” And then it twists further.
Again, without giving anything away, I think a lot of people will be aware of something related to that main big twist. And oddly, for reasons I won't get into, I shouldn't have been -- but even I knew about it. And that it comes into play here is really quite utterly stunning. And when it reaches it's pinnacle, you're just in awe of how life sometimes works out, against all imaginable odds.
I looked into posting the trailer here, but it gives away some of the twists, and I don't want to give away any. I did see a User Comment from someone who wrote, "This is the kind of story they should make movies about." Except that if they made this movie, and even said it was a true story, you'd still probably think they were making things up. Including the cliché that the prosecuting attorney had never lost a murder trial.
The documentary zips by pretty quickly and is really enjoyable.
Yesterday, I posted a tweet from the CBS This Morning show that included a segment they did about the song "Strange Fruit," which focused on the writer, Abel Meerapol. I mentioned that it was full of interesting surprises throughout -- and then it turns out that CBS This Morning deleted the video from their own show that they themselves had posted! So, my mention of "surprises" in the story was totally meaningless -- and probably a bit annoying.
I can't remember all the "surprises," but I do recall a few of the more notable ones, so I can at least fill in those gaps.
A lot of the stories came from two men being interviewed in the piece, who were the sons of Abel Meerapol, and they talked about some of the famous people who'd often be in their house. Most were what would be called radicals of the time, some of them perhaps Communists or sympathizers, as was their father. I wish I could remember who, but alas. Sorry
But I do remember the biggest twist to the story, a little over halfway through. And it's that the two sons were both adopted. Their birth parents were...Julius and Ethel Rosenberg! And it's when they were executed for having been convicted of passing information on the Manhattan Project to the Soviet Union that Meerapol and his wife adopted the two boys.
The other surprising story that I recall came at the end, and I did allude to it. And it's that Abel Meerapol also wrote the fairly famous song, "The House I Live In." I'll have more on that later.
This is not a level of kindness that we've seen from the White House over the past four years. It's most certainly refreshing. Then again, simply not calling your opponents names would be refreshing. But this stands out.
I don't know if "Fox News" will have Tucker Carlson apologize for his anti-mask rant the other day. I doubt it, though they've had him do so in the past for things that were far-too creepily over-the-top for even them. However, if they do see advertisers start to flee (though there aren't too many left on Carlson's show at this point who would be upset with him about...well, anything) and they do have him say something -- and if it's another of his standard "one sentence 'oopsie' things followed by several minutes slamming The Left," save it. That's not actually an apology, but an excuse to play the victim. Instead, he should use the time on his show for something more meaningful, like showing another of the hot panda sex videos he's been known to run.
If you don't know about his rant, basically he said that if anyone saw a child outside wearing a mask, people should treat that like child abuse and call the police about it.
"Hello, police? There's a white supremacist fascist on my TV who's a public health menace and is encouraging people to harass the general public for their lawful conduct."
More to the point, if the police get overwhelmed by people calling them to harass children with face masks (or anyone with face masks), they should know these calls were directed to them by Tucker Carlson. And any angry police responses about a waste of their time and an abuse of public safety should be sent directly to Carlson or at least to "Fox News" who will be able to take a message for him.
We're beyond the point of calling anything that Tucker Carlson does is despicable or reprehensible. Given things like his semi-coded defense of white supremacy a couple weeks ago that wasn't a dog whistle but a fog horn, descriptive words are pretty meaningless now. And "now" is a pretty flexible term, since Tucker Carlson's white supremacy and fascism go back pretty far, even to his bow tie days.
I recall during the 2016 presidential race I was flipping through TV channels, and Carlson had someone liberal on, which shocked me, and I watched for a minute -- largely because the guest went into full takedown mode and was blasting some Republican actions as fascist (yes, even before that election). And poor little Tucker just had a meltdown. It was like a cartoon when the character turns all beet-red, his head begins to shake back-and-forth like a tuning fork, and then steam shoots high out of the top of his head and a steam whistle goes off. Carlson came pretty close to that in real life, and began sputtering, "How can you say that????!! How can you say that???!!!!" The words falling over one another, almost to incomprehensibility. He made no attempt to argue back or tell the guest off, but clearly was taking this as a very personal attack, even though the comment was not directed to him.
What stands out more about Carlson's anti-mask, call the police on children fascist rant was that there was no outrage from anyone of authority in the Republican Party or on “Fox News,” which speaks loudly how low that party (and channel) have plummeted. It’s now full-on fascist with no attempt to disguise the fact, unless you call them that and they then get all pissy, turn beet-red and have steam blow high out of the top of their heads.
Here's the thing -- I have no idea if Tucker Carlson even believe this about calling the police on children wearing masks. I'm certain he does believe the white supremacy fascist stuff, but idiot pablum like this to feed to his far-right conspiracy lunatic viewers? Who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if he actually believes much of it, because it fits into his mindset that he's displayed openly for years, but I wouldn't also be surprised if he just wants to rile up his audience and also wants to get the national attention because he's such an empty, egregious panderer. (Not to be confused with pandas, and his hot panda sex videos.) Either way, though, the words that regularly come out of his mouth are dangerous to the well-being of the country.
But for all that, this is not about Tucker Carlson. We know who he is. This is about the Republican Party, the far-right media, and wing-nut acolyte followers are are full-blown fascist, white supremacist, delusional insurrectionists and are all complicit.
And yes, that's a generalization. But it's pretty close to accurate unless shown otherwise. To be clear, I'm not talking about conservatives. Or every member of the Republican Party. But about the leadership and direction of the GOP which pushes its elected agenda, and about the "far-right" and all those that that encompasses. The lunatic fringe wing of the party and the philosophy. A wing which has become pretty close to taking over the full body.
Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head, Kamala Harris at a bakery, no more meat allowed, Kamala Harris' children book, on and on and on it goes. Nothing. Yammering. Not just lying, idiotic lying. Nothing. In the middle of a pandemic, economic collapse, racial unrest, insurrection. Nothing. They have nothing. This is what they offer. Nothing,
And so, you tell people to call the police when you see a child wearing a face mask to stay safe because there are no vaccines approved yet for children.
Despicable, reprehensible, nothing -- none of it even begins to do today's Republican Party justice.
Tucker Carlson isn't the problem. He's the symptom. Just one of the faces -- crying out to get to wear his bow tie again. Or his white hood.
We going to follow up our posting yesterday with Sarah Lee Guthrie and her father Arlo with a wonderful companion piece. Albeit a bit of an oddish one.
This features Arlo Guthrie, though comes from a concert he did with Pete Seeger. But not just them, but also Pete's son Tao Rodriguez. Also, there are three young women singing back-up, and as I looked closer, I thought that one of them might be Arlo's daughter Sarah Lee. Though I couldn't quite tell for 100% certain which she was. So, I wanted to see if there were credits at the end of the video. And there weren't. However, when I watched the video again, it turned out that there were credits at the beginning, but in small letters. So, I paused the video...and it turned out that, yes, Sarah Lee Guthrie was one of the three background singers. It also turned out that there was a good reason I wasn't completely sure which of the three she was -- since the other two were her sisters! Cathy Guthrie and Anne Guthrie.
(I should note that I was lucky enough once to see Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie in concert together, and it was wonderful. Though it was just those two -- not a full clan of six...)
Fun as this collection of Guthries and Seegers is, what leaps out is that Arlo Guthrie goes into top-notch Arlo Guthrie Mode and tells a long and wonderfully funny story about having performed years before with Pete Seeger and singing (to Seeger's shock) an Elvis Presley song. And though Seeger obviously knew the story, it's clear he takes great pleasure in hearing Arlo Guthrie tell it on stage. (And I should add though Arlo's storytelling here is in the manner of his classic "Alice's Restaurant," it is nowhere near as 18-minute long -- just long for most concerts where maybe you get a 30-second or minute introduction and told with the same sensibility of Alice whimsy.) And then they all sing Elvis. As Arlo interrupts the song throughout with his continued storytelling.
(Fun, too, is at one point watching the three Guthrie sisters just sort of ignoring their dad and talking together at the microphone.)
So, then, here are Arlo Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Pete Seeger's son (in blue, between them) and three Guthrie sisters at Wolftrap on August 8, 1993 -- with an absolutely charming version of "I Can't Help Falling in Love with You."
And I'm pretty sure that Sarah Lee Guthrie is the sister on the left in blue.
Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting.
Feedspot Badge of Honor