Whitman Ads

I did not start watching the Brown-Whitman debate until just as the first question was asked, thanks to a phone call from Will. The debate was covered only by channels 2 (KTVU) and 3 (KCRA). Will watched the debate on KTVU and tells me that in the half-hour before the debate there were at least six Meg Whitman ads compared to only one (or maybe two) for Brown. This is what we've come to expect, of course. In fact, Robert Creamer discusses this as one of Four More Reasons Why Democrats Will Retain Control of House and Senate. He points out that this advertising advantage will decrease as we get closer to the election because campaigns with limited financial resources save their money for use at the end of a campaign. Certainly this has been Brown's strategy from the beginning.

Compassion on Campus

From the New York Times: "It started with a Twitter message on Sept. 19: 'Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.'" And then he and "Molly" streamed this personal moment on the Internet. Three days later the roommate, Tyler Clementi killed himself—doing exactly what he said on his last Facebook entry, "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry." Tyler's roommate has been charged with four counts of invasion of privacy; Molly two. In Molly's defense, she claims she did not know they were streaming it on the Internet—still bad, but not as bad as the Tyler's roommate who definitely did (and tried to do it a second time).

Leave it to Paul

Tony Curtis dies and I have to hear about it from Paul Krugman!

Sorry for the few days off. I was going completely frigging crazy. Now that I'm back to just ordinary frigging crazy, the madness continues.

Brown and Whitman

Last night, Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, candidates for California Governor, had their first ever debate. Strangely, there has been almost no coverage on it. Even DailyKOS seems to have completely ignored it. I found it quite interesting. I had very low expectations for Whitman, but even given that, I was disappointed. She wasn't even at the debate. She sleepwalked through it, saying nothing we haven't already heard in her three main TV ads that have run over and over and over and over again. She seemed extremely ill at ease and made Brown's portrait of her as an amateur who would be useless if elected easy to accept.

Here is the whole video: Brown-Whitman Debate

For his part, Brown seemed like an old college professor: a man who was very comfortable and knew it all, but had the problem of getting across all of his wisdom to an ignorant and arrogant class. Whitman hammered away on campaign donations that Brown had received from unions (you know, working people). Brown hit back repeatedly on different fronts. First, he pointed out that Whitman had received $25 million in contributions from wealthy people who stand to gain greatly from her tax cut plans. Then, he twice made reference to Arnold Schwarzenegger and his statement that since he was self-funded, he would not be beholden to special interests. "Look how well that worked out!"

In the end, I thought Brown devastated Whitman. Whitman had nothing to say beyond her commercials, and even when questioned on her deceptive (and worse) attacks on Brown, she side-stepped the issue. If Whitman becomes governor, she is going to find herself way over her head. Brown, on the other hand, has a lot of fire left in him. What's more, he is way funnier than Whitman. She had only a single joke in the whole debate; it was canned; and it got almost no laugh. Brown got huge laughs from lines that I'm pretty sure were ad libbed.

Jerry is an old codger. It's the first time I've said it, but I'm proud to say it now: you go old codger!

The Cost of War

I just found this:

Some time ago, I promised that I would write about Janis Bell's Clean, Well-Lighted Sentences. And I haven't yet. And I won't today. The truth is that I had an idea for an article about this book and some disagreements I had with it. Unfortunately, I never wrote them down. So now I've read the book a second time to see if anything reminded me. It didn't. I still have some things to say about it, but I find that I don't disagree with Ms. Bell very often or (more important) very passionately. But I'm getting to it. I'm getting to it.

I do want to discuss a little grammar, however. It came out of the coverage yesterday of Margaret Witt's case against the US Air Force and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that Witt should be reinstated as soon as "practicable." This was not the first time that I have read or heard that world. But I don't recall ever hearing it outside of a legal context. A friend of mine is having a well drilled on her property, and she doesn't say, "It will be drilled as soon as practicable." No one but lawyers and people quoting lawyers use this word! (All right, that's an overstatement, but if you can't tell the difference between my considered writing and my rants, then get the hell off my website.)

Being a practical man (Or is it a "practicable man"?), I have never researched the difference between these words because I knew that I didn't need to use the word "practicable"—unless I became a lawyer or was quoting one. But the day has come for me to end my ignorance—and yours, whether we like it or not. And I do not.

You see, there really isn't much difference between these words, except that "practicable" doesn't mean as much as "practical." "Practical" has a number of definitions: five according to Merriam-Webster and only two (but it should be one) for "practicable." They both mean, "Capable of being put to use."

You might think this would be an issue like Enunciating and Annunciate where I think it is high time to ditch the latter word. But alas, it is not so simple. Encarta makes a strong case for retaining the two words, and especially their anti-versions: impractical and impracticable:



So there you go. But! If "impracticable" just means "impossible," why do we need it? In fact, I would say we can get rid of it because its use will not mean "impossible" to 99% of English speakers. Instead, they will just hear "impractical" and think you are a weirdo. So I say we jettison that garbage. For the time, let's hang on to "practicable" as being the non-judgmental version of "practical."

It is practicable to maintain the lawn with kitchen shears, but I'm not sure it's practical.

Stephen Colbert at Congress

Stephen Colbert testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and Border Security. Here is his opening statement:



During the questions, he was asked why he cared about this issue. It was the only time he really fell out of character. He spoke of the Bible and taking care of the least of our brothers. It was very moving. As of yet, I haven't been able to find a clip of it or of the whole hearing—but I saw it, so it must be around somewhere.

They stamped it, didn't they? Those damn Gideons.

I picked up a copy of the New Testament on the bus yesterday—one distributed by The Gideons International. And I open it and on the first page is a big picture of an American flag! Under it is quoted Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." Damn it! I am so tired of Christians never quoting the fucking Gospels! And why do they never do so? Because the Gospels contain what Jesus actually said and he never said anything about being patriotic. Other than saying you should pay your taxes, he didn't give a shit! He transcended national boundaries. That's his whole gig: we are all one in the Lord. It doesn't matter where you're from.

So what's with the fucking flag?! And this from The Gideons International. But do you know where they're located? Where else? Nashville, Tennessee. Why? To be close to The King, of course!

Hot burnin' love—as in napalm.

War Heroes

I constantly hear of "war hero John McCain" but almost never "war hero John Kerry." But I had never heard anything about what made McCain a hero other than being a POW and passing up early release available to him because of his powerful father. Thus, I looked up his war record. There is a lot of George W. Bush in the young McCain, but he did receive a Bronze Star and the Navy Commendation Medal—an award considerable less prestigious than the Bronze Star. His Bronze Star was for dropping bombs on Viet Nam—not exactly what I think of as heroic, but okay: he got the award and I guess we can call him a hero.

John Kerry, on the other hand, won both the Bronze Star and the Silver Star—for acts of heroism that I could never see myself doing. By any definition, Kerry is as least as big a war hero as John McCain. And yet, during the 2004 election, Republicans were more than willing to shit all over Kerry's heroism in the name of politics. And to this day, McCain is the "go to" man in the Senate when it comes to the military—not John Kerry. Could it be that we are not forever hearing about "war hero John Kerry" because he happens to be a member of the Democratic Party? That he is generally against war?

Is it any wonder that we are perpetually at war when the only people we look to are warmongers who mostly have never seen war. And I include people like McCain who only saw the war from a horrible POW camp and a mile above land?

The Daily Show

Just when I hit Jon Stewart, he puts out a good show. Of course, it was easy for him: he got to make fun of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Republican's silly Pledge to America. But it was good—at least until the third act when he had a really boring interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Of course, there is that other problem: Colbert was still a hell of a lot better. "Lingo is a term for an Australian lesbian." Need I say more?

More Self-Torture

I read Parts 3 and 4 of The Shock Doctrine this morning. It is heartbreaking. It is hard not to be self-loathing. Eastern Europe wanted to reform itself, and what did the West offer: economic shock and awe; the looting of their economies; the impoverishing of their people. We suck.

Pithy Hypocracy You Already Know

So here I am reading "Sketch of a History of the Doctrine of the Ideal and Real" in Philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, translated by Belfort Bax and Bailey Saunders. And it is well translated: very clear English with not a hint of German syntax. Then: bam! Schopenhauer starts to discuss the ideality of time in Plotinus' Ennead 3.7: "On Eternity and Time." And he quotes part of it. In Greek! But not to worry, for those illiterates like me, he provides a translation: in Latin!

You see the problem for translators! They are translating a German text into English—and doing a beautiful job of it. What are they to do when Schopenhauer left text in Greek and Latin? Obviously, Schopenhauer thought his readers would know ancient Greek or at least Latin—in 1851 when Parerga and Paralipomena (where the essay first appeared) was published. Why should they translate these passages into English now?

I will tell you why! No one who needs German translated into English knows ancient Greek! This wasn't even true in 1936 when it was translated. Anyway, isn't it obvious that Schopenhauer only provided the ancient Greek and Latin quotations because they were readily available? A German translation would have had to have been done by him. This would have opened him to attacks that his translation was all wrong in terms of detail and meaning. And then no one would have even considered the arguments he was making.

What were Bax and Saunders thinking? They couldn't provide endnotes with the English? This was written before Google Translate, you know!

Update: Google translate does not include Latin or ancient Greek. There seems to be no really good free auto-translators for Latin. I don't know about Greek. But it hardly matters: I wouldn't even know how to enter the characters!

A woman in Montana was charged by a black bear while she was in her back yard. Thinking quickly, she picked up the closest weapon to defend herself: a large zucchini, with which she fended off the bear. All I can say is that had she grabbed a zucchini, this story would not have ended so well. I hope that I don't have to explain why!

Show Sucking Daily

For about six months now, The Daily Show has been really pissing me off. John Stewart and company really go out of their way to be "even handed." This might be okay if both sides of the political debate were equally ridiculous. But as we know, this is not the case. In fact, Glenn Beck has already tried to turn the "Rally to Restore Sanity" into some kind of conspiracy to whip up young people into a frenzy right before the election. Who on the left is anywhere near this paranoid and just plain nutty? And yet, on last night's episode, Stewart bent over backwards to make an equivalence between the Democrats and the Republicans on the issue of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Almost no mention was made to Republican hypocrisy on this issue, and absolutely no mention was made to John McCain's towering hypocrisy. Stewart rarely makes me laugh any more, and we he does, it is because of his silliness. The Colbert Report has been consistently better for the last six months. So has The Rachel Maddow Show! Stewart's satire just isn't working—I think because satire can't be "even handed." Anyway, we already have enough of that: it's called the mainstream media.

Regarding the "Rally to Restore Sanity": it is almost certain that it will draw far more people than Glenn Beck's rally. The Daily Show has as many viewers as Beck at a time when far fewer people are watching TV. Those viewers are far younger, and thus more likely to go out to a rally—or free live comedy show, depending upon how you want to look at it. And the rally is taking place in a liberal area. It will be interesting to see how many people show up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets well over double Beck's paltry 87,000.

This is Rich

On the day that important health care reform goes into effect, the Republicans are presenting "A Pledge to America." In reporting about it, the New York Times waits until the fourth paragraph to get at the heart of it: "The blueprint was also clearly intended to provide fresh ideas to answer allegations by Mr. Obama and Democrats that Republicans simply want to return to the policies of the Bush administration. Still, many of the proposals represent classic Republican ideals of small government and low taxes pursued for generations by George W. Bush and other party leaders."

The document (pdf) is rich in that it contains the same welfare for the rich policies that we always get from Republicans. But what is even more rich is the whole tone of the piece, especially the introduction. Take for example, this gem where they talk about the need to address, "Rising joblessness, crushing debt and a polarizing political environment"! Rising joblessness? Who forced the stimulus to be cut and to be distributed in the least stimulative way? The Republicans! Crushing debt? Who wants to extend tax cuts for the rich that will increase the budget deficit by $700 billion over the next ten years? The Republicans! Who has created a polarized political environment? Oh please! Was it Obama because he had the audacity to be black?! The Republicans have been in lockstep in opposing anything the Democrats want, even when it was originally a Republican idea—like McCain's health care reform, which is what we got stuck with, even though he voted against it. The Republicans: they're rich in more ways than one.

But let John Boehner get to the heart of the matter:



Self-Torture

For whatever reason, I decided to torture myself yesterday—but it didn't start until this morning. I picked up a copy of The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, from the library. I've already read the book; Andrea sent it to me as a "gift" about two years ago, after she found she could not make it past the first chapter. It is perhaps the most important book I've read in the last ten years, but it is also an extremely unpleasant one. Well, those two aspects of the book are tightly linked. I could not bring myself to read the first chapter about Ewen Cameron again, so I started on the second chapter and read all of the second part about Milton Friedman's and Augusto Pinochet's two pronged torture of the Chilean people. It is so sad and it makes me so ashamed to be an American. None of this is what we are supposed to be. None of this is what I was taught in civics classes. But more and more, this is what the conservatives in this country explicitly claim. This is not to say that the liberals are not also very much to blame (although less so), but they don't hold up such despicable behavior as ideals of our nation.

Ayn Rand

I heard about this from Paul Krugman, but it is originally from King Fu Monkey: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

On the same page is a statement that makes it clear that Kung Fu Monkey is a kindred spirit, "The news that there is now a retractable version of the Uniball Vision pen matters to no one ... except those few of us to whom it matters more than our mother's love." Of course, I would never use such a pen, but it is not the taste that matters so much as the fact that taste matters.

Countdown dedicated half of their show today on the real definition of "small business" as the Republicans are using it to make the case for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The "small" in "small business" refers to the number of owners. So companies like the Chicago Tribune are considered "small businesses." The biggest "small business"? Bechtel with over $30 billion in revenue each year. Yep: ol' mom and pop Bechtel! I'm worried about them making ends meet.

From the beginning, I've thought that Helen Thomas got a raw deal over her comment that the Jews should get out of Palestine. She wasn't referring to refugees after WWII. She was talking about the current practice of Israel allowing Jews from all over the world to immigrate directly into illegal and quasi-legal settlements in Palestine. But this was never discussed, because unlike in Israel, in American we cannot say anything bad about Israel. Matthew Duss doesn't discuss it either, but he does show that there is a double standard about the way people can talk about Israelis versus Palestinians. Calling Israel on their bullshit is not antisemitic. As I've noted before, liberal Israelis are very upset about this situation. This can't be an issue that we are not allowed to discuss.

Howard Fineman is leaving Newsweek to head the Huffington Post. Fineman isn't horrible in my experience of him, but Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting brings to light much that is troubling about his long career. As they say, "In his 30 years as a reporter and pundit at Newsweek, Fineman could be counted on to represent the conventional take on politics. For example, Fineman is forever either urging Democratic politicians to move to the right or praising them for doing so." That does pretty much sum up the supposed liberal media.

It is so good to be done with Bush:



Yeah, it's sentimental and staged. But it's still truthful.

Ars technica has reported on a study about how skeptics discount scientific consensus by casting doubts on the scientific experts. Basically it says that if an expert says what they want to hear, they go along with it; if not, not. I don't think there is any doubt of this, but I question the study itself. For one thing, they describe conservatives as "individualistic" and liberals as "hierarchical." This is a real problem. Unfortunately, I don't have a link, but it has been pretty well established that conservatives actually value hierarchical structures and acceptance of authority far more than liberals. In fact, what most seems to define liberals is that they do not acceptable authority—instead they mostly value individuality and empathy. In modern American politics, does anyone question that the teabaggers are not for individual freedom, despite what they claim? The group is overwhelmingly socially conservative, which is to say that they believe that proper behavior is comes from some law from on high. I know I have my blind spots, but that does not make my intellectually expansive world view at all equivalent to the anti-intellectual claptrap of American conservatism.

I still believe that video games could be far less pathetic than they now are. In fact, I think that there are many old game ideas that have been abandoned in the name of the current 3-D shot-em-ups. But I've seen this commercial for Civilization V with the tag, "What will your civilization stand for?" Fuck! What does any civilization stand for? Self-perpetuation. Or maybe I've just lived in America for too long.

Christine O'Donnell ditched appearing on Face the Nation on Sunday—no surprise there! But she also ditched Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. You may remember Wallace as the one guy on Faux News that occasionally asks real questions of conservatives. As Media Matters put it, "However, faced with the prospect of having to answer questions from Chris Wallace—who unlike Hannity sometimes plays the role of an actual journalist on television—and faced with the prospect of likely being asked about her recently discovered comments about how the proud conservative Christian candidate had once 'dabbled in witchcraft,' O'Donnell backed out to ran [sic] back to Delaware." Some of this campaign is fun, but I do wish Media Matters would learn how to format their m-dashes. I'm not talking New York Times wrong here—which is bad enough; I'm just talking wrong wrong; I'm talking hitting the streets with Lynne Truss!



It is another sad day when Lady Gaga makes more sense than 90% of the national politic leaders.



"We are not asking you to agree with or approve the moral implications of homosexuality. We're asking you to do your job." Amen.

Mr. Johnston has a confusing middle name. It is pronounced "kay" as in "Mary Kay." So I thought I heard people refer to him as "David C. Johnston" and "David K. Johnston"! I figured some people weren't doing their homework, but I did mine and found out so had they.

I read David Cay Johnston's Free Lunch today, and it made me really angry. The subtitle of the book is, "How the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at government expense (and stick you with the bill)." That about sums it up. It tells stories of large companies that get huge government subsidies for opening up stores. As Johnston points out, if a large sporting goods store opens in a town, there are going to be no tax revenue increases, because without such a store, people would just buy their sporting goods elsewhere. In fact, if the large sporting goods store charges less, the government will get less tax revenue. Usually the argument is made that the store will be a destination and that people will come from hundreds of miles to shop at these stores. In reality, this is never the case. What's more, in virtually all cases, the government subsidies are much greater than any increased revenues.

He also spends time on professional sports. It turns out that none of the major sports leagues in America (baseball, football, basketball) would be profitable without government subsidies. Yes, some particular teams are profitable, but not any league taken together. This is mostly because the teams get local governments to pay for their expensive playing arenas. What's more, since the leagues have a monopoly, ticket prices are on average $15 more than they would be in a free market. (Why are there 30 MLB teams? Because MLB says so. Why do they get to say so? Because Congress granted them the monopoly.)

The most shocking thing I learned was that many large retailers work out deals with the state and local authorities to not pay sales tax. So when you go to WalMart and buy a shirt, you are actually paying 9.25% more (in California) than you are if you bought it at a smaller place like Ross. In other words, WalMart gets to mark their prices 9.25% lower than what they are really charging you.

What really made me made about this book, however, was thinking about what my father would think of it. I told him about the sales tax scam and he was outraged. And I know if I could get him to read the whole book, he would agree with it. But he has been so poisoned by Faux News and Hate Radio that it would have a different meaning to him. He wouldn't see that all these giveaways to the rich are the result of all these people he listens to who claim to be for free markets. He would blame exactly the politicians who are fighting this kind of theft. It would most likely make him think just what the teabaggers think: the problem with Republicans is that they aren't conservative enough!

There is something to this. As Johnston points out, the two people in Congress who most consistently fight against this kind of thing are socialist Bernie Sanders and libertarian Ron Paul. But I've never known my father to really embrace libertarianism, and as much as the teabaggers claim to be libertarians, they are anything but. People of this ilk (including libertarians, but at least you can have an intelligent conversation with them) don't understand how much their way of life depends upon the government and other people. Understanding why progressive taxation is the only morally acceptable form of taxation is a prerequisite for any real understanding of what is wrong in American politics. I am working on an essay about it, but it is harder to explain than a "flat tax," which is simple and sounds good, but is evil incarnate.

For three years, Billy Bob Neck has been on YouTube spreading the love and wisdom of Jesus. Before I say any more about him, however, here he is with "The Burn a Koran Song":



Okay. Billy Bob Neck is a character created by comedian Paul Day. This is the best satire since A Modest Proposal. He has 130 similar videos—always wearing the same clothes—on his "The USA Patriotic Freedom Channel." They just get funnier. "George W. Bush is the best President since Winston Churhill!"

I discovered him via The Rachel Maddow Show which ran his The Shocking Truth About Rachel Maddow where he proves conclusively that Rachel Maddow is not just a lesbian, but a vampire.

Most people think that Billy Bob Neck is for real. Based upon the comments, I would say about 80%. When I first saw him, I didn't know for sure and I had to do a bit of research—even watching several of his videos did not nail it for me. In the age of Terry Jones (not the guy from Monty Python) and the Westboro Baptist Church's "God-Hates-Fags-Dot-Com (Not even Dot-Org!) it is hard to tell. But many people when first presented with A Modest Proposal don't see the irony. But once you see what Paul Day is doing, it is hilarious. I hope you enjoyed the song!

Elizabeth Warren!

It amazes me that the Republicans won't allow Obama to have anything he wants. It is clear that Elizabeth Warren should be nominated to head the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. But we know that the Republicans will filibuster her nomination, because she might actually be effective and Wall Street and big banks might actually have to start playing a little more fairly with all their customers. So for now: no nomination.

So instead, Obama just appointed her to set up the agency. You know: to structure it and to hire the people working in it. Damn! That President of ours is a smart guy. I'm totally serious. This was brilliant.

God Hates Fags!

You might think that Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) would have a URL like www.WestboroBaptistChurch.org or even www.WestboroBaptistChurch.com. But no. They are Christians, and if there is one thing that Christ was really clear about, it is that God Hates Fags! But that is not all that WBC knows Christ believed. They also know Jews Killed Jesus and a charming country-by-country explanation of why God Hates the World! But mostly, God hates fags—that's their main site.

As my 2.72 readers know, the header to this site is based upon an couple of paintings by Rene Magritte. One of them is not the following:



This is one of my very favorite Magritte paintings, however; it is called "La condition humaine" ("The Human Condition") and was painted in 1935 (to distinguish it from paintings of the same name painted at different times). Again and again, he used the device of hiding the object that he was painting. An example of this would be Le fils de l'homme ("The Son of Man")—a self-portrait with a green apple obscuring his face. With "La condition humaine," Magritte is obscuring what is behind the easel with an exact representation of what it is obscuring. Very clever, right? And beautiful!

So there I am at the library, and notice The Art of Optical Illusions by Al Seckel. It is supposedly a book for young adults, but frankly, anyone who doesn't find this book fascinating is dead. (Plus, it is the ultimate book for an LSD trip. I think.) So I'm flipping out as I flip through it, and I come to plate 33, titled "This is not a Magritte."



Seckel has almost nothing to say about this photograph, "This photographer caught an unusual painting by an artist." No other information is given for the photo. It looks rather old—judging from the the man's dress and the high contrast (but that could just be the photographer). Certainly, the photograph was set up; this was not a coincidence. In fact, it could be done as follows:

1. Mount the camera


2. Mount the easel with a canvas frame, but no canvas


3. Take the picture and develop it


4. Replace the canvas frame with a whole canvas


5. Paint the picture with the help of the photograph


6. Take the final photograph

It is wonderful to imagine that this photograph was taken before 1933 when Magritte first did this (as far as I know). Of course, it is also wonderful to think that some artists were trying to do Magritte in the real world. In addition to the photograph, there is a certain anti-art going on here, because anyone standing where the camera was at that time got to see this wonderful piece of ephemeral art. It is also possible that it is a fake. It could be a collage or worse. Regardless, I am interested in finding out. Unfortunately, Al Seckel doesn't seem to be an easy man to locate. I'm going to send his publisher a letter.

Update

I really like Rachel Maddow and I think she is really smart and knowledgeable. But the other night, she used René Magritte's painting, The Treachery of Images to make a point. The painting is a realistic rendering of a tobacco pipe with the words "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" ("This is not a pipe") written on it. Here is the segment:



The problem is, that she seem to misunderstand the painting. Magritte was not being ironic. He was making a comment about painting (or photography or every writing). The truth is, The Treachery of Images is not a pipe; it is a bunch of dried paint on a canvas that looks like a pipe; in other words, it is a painting of a pipe. This may not seem to be a very interesting point, but there is actually a lot here. Images are just that: images. They only become meaningful in the mind. Everyone knows that painting that (depending upon how you look at it) is two faces or a single vase—or another that is an old woman or a young woman. Nothing changes in the painting, ever; but depending upon the state of your mind, everything changes.

Maddow used Magritte's painting to good effect, but that effect depends upon trivializing the painting. I am not saying that everything is just a matter of how you look at it. I believe there is some absolute reality. For example, The Treachery of Images is most definitely oil paint dried on a canvas. Also: the current protests in Wisconsin are most definitely about union rights. But Magritte's painting: it is most assuredly not a pipe.

I'm really tired and I am cramming for a job interview—a good one that will let me pay off my $100,000 in medical bills and tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes. Plus no one (give or take me) reads this anyway. So here is episode ten of the third season of Elon James White's This Week In Blackness:

It amazes me looking at the comments on conservative blogs. There are a number of somewhat reasonable old-school Republicans, but at least half the comments are from delusional teabaggers. Here is one such comment:



So Democrats, who are angry at Obama for not being liberal enough, are going to flock to ultra-conservative O'Donnell (She is an outspoken opponent of--wait for it: masturbation!) rather than vote for the Democratic nominee Chris Coons. Unbelievable, especially when DailyKOS reported that Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling is releasing poll numbers today that say that Coons has a 44-28 lead over O'Donnell--again, wait for it: among Mike Castle voters! Admittedly, after they calm down and after the big-time Republican media machine comes in an gives O'Donnell a make-over, those numbers will shift. But Delaware is a blue state. Mike Castle was a sure winner because he is an old-style, moderate Republican who has been in Delaware politics for decades (I think he has won a total of 30 different times—really).

Like I said: delusional. You know, my politics are out there on the fringe—but at least I know it. It isn't like I think my neighbors believe what I do. These people think everyone agrees with them. Of course, they only talk to people who agree with them. One person responded (sort of) to a comment I made on some other blog by relating a story of how nice everyone was at the Glenn Beck Rally. She was looking for a water fountain and asked someone who didn't know where one was but who gave her a bottle of water. I responded that I'd had that exact same experience at a rock concert. I pointed out that with few exceptions, people are pretty nice. What I wanted to say, but didn't was: isn't it easy to be nice to one another when you are all white, rich, and ignorant. Truly, I don't think that water giver would have be a tenth as likely to give water to a homeless black man. It is easy to be generous to people you consider part of your tribe. And the bad thing about the teabaggers (and I did say this) is that they consistently define liberals as not just people they disagree with, but as people who want to destroy the country. They don't think for a second that they just might be a tad bit wrong about what America is.

Newt Gingrich is going around saying that Obama conned his way into the Whitehouse. He's just an opportunistic liar. The woman who posted the comment above is just ignorant. People like her don't seem to know that if voting were required by law (as it is in 32 countries including Australia, Brazil, and Singapore) that there would be a huge political shift to the left. American's are far more liberal than their politicians. But no. They want to claim that people who say Obama is not a US citizen are equivalent to people who (rightly) said that George W. Bush was not a legitimate president (by popular vote or electoral college).

The teabaggers can go on about their conspiracy theories all they want. What makes me mad is that they think they somehow speak for America. Or that they even know what America is. They are yet another anti-intellectual group that has decided what they want to believe and the facts be damned. They are no different from the Intelligent [sic] Design crowd or the Global Warming Deniers or the Flat Earth Society. (I always thought the Flat Earth Society was just a joke. It is no joke. They have a very nice website.)

Anyone who thinks at all knows that the new plug-in hybrid and electric cars are not zero-emission vehicles. (Solar cars are, however.) The July 2010 issue of Scientific American has a nice short article on this called The Dirty Truth about Plug-In Hybrids. (Note: link does not include entire article.) What the article shows is that just how green a vehicle is depends upon where it is. For example, in California where 99% of our electricity comes from natural gas, plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles emit far less carbon and save huge amounts of gasoline compared to ordinary hybrids. On the other hand, in Illinois, where roughly three-quarters of the electricity comes from coal, these vehicles produce way more carbon, even though they still save about as much gasoline as they do in California. On the third hand, in New York, where two-thirds of their electricity comes from oil, these vehicles produce a bit more carbon, but save only a little gasoline: about 10%.

This is all very interesting, but it doesn't provide the reader with a lot of context. (And to be honest, I think I just provided you with all you need to know from the article in a much more understandable way. But we must remember that only the best writers get to work at Frankly Curious!) The electricity that these cars require has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is a power plant near by. This power plant is necessarily going to (1) be more efficient at turning raw materials into energy and (2) less polluting—especially in areas where we care about pollution, like downtown Los Angeles. Even in those few places where plug-in hybrid and electric cars produce more carbon than regular hybrids, they only produce slightly more and they produce quite a lot less than old-fashioned gasoline engines. What's more, if every car in the US was a plug-in hybrid or electric car, the net result would be a huge reduction in carbon emissions (not to mention emissions that affect local air quality).

We are not going to cure our global warming problem on the backs of cars, anyway. As a result, the bigger issue to me is gasoline. Regardless of where you live in the US, these vehicles greatly reduce oil consumption. Most of our electricity comes from natural gas and coal. We produce 84% of our own natural gas and 100% of our own coal (that link's a PDF). What all these new car technologies mean is that we are less dependent on oil and that is a good thing, because we don't have a lot of oil. So this makes us more self-sufficient. And that's a good thing.

Getting off coal (which creates 52% of our electricity) is going to be harder. But we can do that too.

Alone as usual, but I eat better than you.

The Clarifying Chaos

William Saletan wrote a wonderful overview of the whole Koran burning episode and how it relates to the Park51 project. I'm afraid it is written at too high a level to be of much use to those who need it most. Basically, Saletan says that we speak only for ourselves. He suggests that "Eventually, it will dawn on [Palin, Gingrich, and their chorus of right-wing commentators] that the Muslims who want to swim, eat, and worship at a community center in Lower Manhattan really are different from the Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center." I wonder how I can get in on some of this group hate? I mean, I know I qualify as an intellectual elitist (I was called that recently), but I think everyone knows they need smart people. What group am I part of that can be hated? Who is Merritt Stone?!

All or Nothing

The Republicans (in the Senate anyway) really do seem to be set on refusing to give a tax cut to 97% of the nation in the name of giving really big tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. It used to be the Democrats who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but it looks like the Republicans have taken over. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell keeps claiming that most people are for extending the tax cuts for those families making over a quarter million dollars a year (just $200,000 for single folk). In fact, it is really just the usual 30% wacko Republicans who are for this. November is looking up! Speaking of which...

O'Donnell Strikes a Blow for Democrats!

The Washington Post announces, "Christine O'Donnell upsets Mike Castle in Delaware Senate primary." This is great news! Now she will face New Castle County Executive Chris Coons in the general election. Polling stated that Mike Castle was 95% likely to beat Coons in the general. The same polling stated that O'Donnell was 17% likely to beat Coons. O'Donnell is a nutjob. I'm liking the teabaggers more all the time!

Who would have thought I would still be doing this? Certainly not me. Nor do I know why I continue, except for my addictive personality.

Prayer Rooms In World Trade Center

Samuel J. Freedman reported in the New York Times on Friday, that there was an official Muslim prayer room on the 17th floor of the south tower and an unofficial prayer room in the stairwell between the 106th and 107th floors of the north tower. This unofficial room was created by roughly three dozen Muslim staff members who worked at Windows on the World. At least two of these staff members died on 11 September 2001—very likely in their makeshift prayer room. Please, read the story; and pass it on.

Budget Deficit Lower Despite Stimulus

This fiscal year's budget deficit is supposed to be almost 10% lower than last year's. Despite the fact that the media keep claiming the everyone cares deeply about the deficit (they don't), that very same media don't seem that interested in reporting this surprisingly good news.

We All Wish We Were as Smart as Paul

For some time, Paul Krugman has been pushing the fact that the main long-term budget problem we face is Medicare and medical cost eating up a bigger and bigger part of our income. But there is a bigger picture here. In his blog yesterday, he said, "And let’s be clear: you could not have gotten the cost savings without the move to near-universal coverage, for both political and technical reasons. This thing really is a package—a package that, with all its flaws, both makes our society more decent and improves our long-run budget outlook." Amen.

Madame Tutli-Putli is a 2006 Canadian animated short by Chris Lavis and Maciek Szczerbowski, which was nominated for a 2007 Academy Award. It is exquisite—both in animation and in content. There seems to be much confusion about its meaning. But first, we need context. I don't want to say a lot about what happens in this 15-minute film when you can (and should) just watch it. The only version I could find is in two parts, so I put them together via a playlist. As a result, there is a little hesitation between the two.



It should be clear to all that this film is about transformation, in a general sense. It would be easy enough to provide a Christian analysis of it, but I think this would be boring—trivializing the material the way that Christian analysis almost always does. The key to the film is the three appearances of the moth—always right before the appearance of a train light: before it first arrives, before it starts back up, and before the other train passes by. These appearances occur almost exactly at the beginning, middle, and end of the film.

The film Madame Tutli-Putli doesn't really mean anything at all. It does, however, tell the story of Madame Tutli-Putli, who has an extremely meaningful experience—a transformative experience. At the start, she is weighted down by her possessions. She is terrified when she sees the sign warning of thieves. Soon after, the thieves arrive, gas the passengers, and steal all of her stuff. On waking, she notices the thieves removing a sleeping man's kidney. After this is accomplished, one of the thieves moves close to her, indicating that she should be quiet. Apparently, they are not after her or her organs. In fact, one gets the impression that she is on their team—even if she doesn't know it. Her suspicion that this has all been a dream is quickly dispelled by the mud tracks left by the thieves.

Now we see the train is empty. Were all those other people dead? The chess players certainly didn't play chess, but rather just watched as the bouncing of the train arranged pieces on the board. The boy was physically protecting himself by reading a hardcover book titled "How to Handle Your Enemies." The tennis player made crude sexual gestures. Everyone seemed combative but ultimately impotent and irrelevant. If they are still on the train—if they are still alive, they do not matter—to anyone.

She desperately makes her way to the dining car and her last encounter with the moth. But this time, instead of annoyance, there is tranquility—an almost destroying love. She follows the moth, knowing somehow that it is showing the way. She reaches the front of the train just as the other train passes by. And she is transformed: from a burdened, frightened creature to one who thrills in life.

And then the trains are gone and the forest is calm. Madame Tutli-Putli's transformation is complete. It was turbulent, frightening, exciting, and most of all: difficult. But now it is done and there is peace. She is not dead. In fact, I think she is at last alive.

Afterword

This film is on A Collection of 2007 Academy Award Nominated Short Films. These collections are always great. Each of the five live-action and three animated shorts are excellent. But just like The Academy: the weakest films (both still excellent) in each category won.

Say It Ain't So, John!

The Washington Post reports that Idiot Minority Leader in the house, John Boehner, told Face the Nation that he might not oppose ending the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. We'll see where that goes. But here's the thing: the article's lede states, "Congress is returning for a final pre-legislative session on Monday to confront the thorny issue of potentially raising taxes during an economic downturn..." This is not about raising taxes, as even the article itself makes clear in the following sentence. This is about letting a tax cut expire. Framing it as a tax increase is just Republican propaganda.

Making it to Third Basel

Global regulators are now going to require banks to hold 7% of their capital in top-quality (whatever that means) reserves. These are known as the Basel III rules. I can hear you say, "Only 7%?! What was it before?" It was 2% before. Hopefully this 350% increase will stop future financial meltdowns. What are the odds?

More Human All the Time

Georgia Tech scientists have created a robot that, "actively lies, cheats, hides and steals to accomplish its treacherous goals." And you thought we weren't making any progress toward human-like robots!

You Don't Actually Have to do it, Silly!

As expected (by me, anyway), most people where it matters don't know that the small group of intolerant "Christians" had called off their Koran burning. This resulted in two protesters being killed and many more injured during demonstrations in Afghanistan yesterday.

I am deeply depressed—it doesn't matter why. But this fact may explain why my entire entry today is a defense of Phil Davison. Yesterday, I posted his speech to the Stark County Republican Party's executive committee. I have watched it a few more times. You can hear people laughing at him during the speech. And I still find it very funny, myself. But it isn't as though the man is an idiot or is out of control. Sometimes you just get on the wrong track and you can't get off it. The guy had a bad day. Given that he is a Republican, I can't think too highly of him. Just the same, being an empathic person, I can totally see myself ranting like that. In fact, I probably do it all the time. It is just that no one cares enough about me to record it.

So Phil: if we are ever in the same town, I would definitely like to take you out for a beer. To be honest, you could use it! This may be the opportunity you are waiting for! Forget that treasurer business. Forget about infestation. I'm talking about the opportunity to drink beer with me in a well fumigated bar where we can watch football—not touch-football—winner take all, football! Let me repeat that so there is no miscommunication: if we are ever in the same town, I would definitely like to take you out for a beer and watch non-touch football in a well-fumigated bar! In all honesty, I think it would be fun. Because, like it or not: you are a nut. (And I mean that in the best way!)

Thank you very much!

Extraordinary Rendition

The "liberal" Ninth Circuit Court found 6-5 that victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue the government because national security concerns trump the rights of the tortured men. I don't have time to go into this and reading the link will not give you nearly enough information. The take-home message is clear: this is about not embarrassing the government, not about protecting our security. This reminds me of the Doonesbury comic where someone is visiting Asia and says, "This is the site of the secret Cambodian bombing!" Then a local man says, "It wasn't secret to us; I said to my wife, 'Look at those bombs exploding!'"

Moderate Republicans

Meghan McCain was on the Rachel Maddow Show last night and it really bugged me. She's a nice young woman and all, but she talked about remaining a Republican and fighting for moderation in the party. What was she talking about? The Democratic Party is the pragmatic party—they're the ones who do things that work. The Republican Party is the idealistic party—they're the ones who are supposed to do things because they are right. Setting aside the fact that the Republicans have an incoherent ideology (personal freedom for corporations, personal slavery for people), how do they moderate their platform. Is it: instead of Park51 being ten blocks from Ground Zero, it can be eight blocks? Is it: instead of the top income tax rate being 35.0% it will be 35.2%? I simply do not see how any reasonable person can be a Republican at this time. In 1970? Okay. In 1980? Okay. Even in 1990? Okay. But not now. And not for the last ten years—at least.

Richard Nixon would be a moderate Democrat today. Ronald Reagan would be a liberal Republican—maybe even a conservative Democrat. Glenn Beck would call Barry Goldwater a fucking socialist!

Ladies and Gentlemen: Your NEW Republican Party!

Trust me, you gotta watch this. Minerva, Ohio councilman Phil Davison gave an impassioned speech last night at the Stark County Republican Party's executive committee meeting to be their nominee for county treasurer. Sadly, he will not be their nominee. See if you can tell why:

All the Republican candidates are being told to say "Federal Government Bad! Local Government Good!" This, of course, is just the modern version of "states' rights" which just meant segregation. Think Progress reports on a townhall where Representative-hopeful Jim Renacci makes the argument that the federal government isn't really necessary in matters of civil rights (or interstate roads, one would assume). Here is some very troubling video:



The Huffington Post reports Obama's Bipartisan Obsession (Finally) Ends. And they are right. He gave another great speech today. I don't have easy access to a link, and I'm really tired. So find it yourself if you're interested. Regardless, I'm feeling fired up; what about you?

I read the entire Constitution of the United States today for a regular article that I'm about to write. What I found was that there are a total of 22 references of "citizen." And pretty much without exception, these references have to do with voting: who can be president, senator, representative, and who can vote for them. I bring this up because back a while, I heard some people talking about how only citizens have rights of Habeas Corpus. This is what the Constitution says about this in Article I Section 9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." You see: no "citizen" there. Conservatives really like to say that the Bill of Rights is just about citizens. It isn't. This goes back to the Declaration of Independence (and further), where Jefferson (well, actually Thomas Paine did the first draft) wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." That's "all men" and not "all men who just happen to be born in a particular place." (I don't have time to get into the sexism and racism of these documents—but I will!)

You remember Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida who is planning an International Burn a Koran Day, right? Well, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, General Petraeus said that such a stunt would put American troops in danger. Conservative Christian bloggers are going nuts over this. They only like Petraeus when he just shuts up and kills people. The pastor is going to "pray on it."

Obama is coming out swinging. This is long (almost an hour), but man oh man, am I proud to call him my President. If you have the time, watch it.

This was a holiday: I should have taken it off.

New and many polls show that Americans by and large think the Republicans would do a better job running the country. I don't get it. Are people just not paying attention? I'm still hopeful that the polls are meaningless. It will drive you crazy trying to follow the races when they are still two months out. Don't be like me!

On Friday, Craigslist was forced to shut down their adult services section. This didn't surprise me, but as Danah Boyd points out, this is only going to make matters worse. I'll let her speak for herself:



More NATO forces are headed to Afghanistan. Does anyone really think we'll leave there in a year? Even in the way we've "left" Iraq?

Obama wants to cut more business investment taxes. Yawn! Paul Krugman put it well in a recent post:



And finally, I found this really interesting guy on YouTube, Radio Hogan, who has put up over 250 ten-minute lectures. This one is a nice little comparison of Keynes and Friedman. What he says is right on.

After spending $104 million, Meg Witless has mostly managed to greatly increase her negative ratings. Jerry Brown is just about ready to start up his campaign. I think we have a very good chance of winning this election. Ideology aside, I think that Whitman would be a disaster as governor.

Based upon a conversation I had with Pow Wow, he put a very good political song of his online:



He writes:

There wasn't a lot of news that interested me today. But the death of Matthew Dieckmann slapped me in the face as I was running errands. Surely, he deserves more, but this is the best I can do at the moment:



And I can't leave without mentioning Hillary Clinton is having a manage a trois with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. She's some hot lady. And smart too.

Signs of the Times

Not everything about the Glenn Beck rally was offensive. Watch this wonderful little video:



A Perfect Earl

Remember back in 1991 when the "perfect storm" hit the northeast of the United States and killed all the men aboard the Andrea Gail? At least you have to remember George Clooney playing Captain Billy Tyne in the movie. (Read Sebastian Junger's book—it is much better.) Well, that was the second most damaging storm of that year—largely because it stayed off the coast. The big storm that year was Hurricane Bob. Right now, Hurricane Earl is swirling toward Maine and it looks to be the biggest thing since Bob back in 91. Hopefully the preparations will make a certain catastrophe as painless as possible.

Over-Population Problem Reduced

Okay. A nutjob took some hostages at Discovery Communications. He's dead now. Why did he take the hostages? Over-population? No. He took the hostages because he was a nutjob. On the plus side, his exploit did lessen the over-population problem. A little.

Yesterday, I dropped into Twice Told Books in Guerneville, California—a very cool little store that just happens to be be for sale for just $25,000. This sounds like a deal to me, and if anyone wants to loan me $15,000, I think I can make a go of it. (Or if you want to buy it, you can contact Richard Lester and John Genovese at 707-303-6358.)

The proprietor of this charming store just happened to have the 22nd edition of El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote De La Mancha :Coleccion Austral behind the counter and let me have it for just five bucks! Generally, Spanish language versions of Don Quixote are at least twenty dollars, which is kind of strange given that they don't even require editors. This book, for example, doesn't even have a perfunctory preface, foreword, or introduction. (Not that these are necessary—Cervantes provided more than enough of that.)

Chapter 4

When last I discussed Don Quixote, I was praising its wit and modernity. But things have changed. It all started in Chapter 3. Up to that point, Cervantes was very light and funny. But then things turned dark. This is not a mistake but rather a cultural difference. I've seen it with Francois Rabelais, people's ideas of humor in the 16th century were much more coarse than ours. I'd like to look into this a little.

In Chapter 4, Don Quixote comes upon a farmer whipping a lad of fifteen who it would appear is nothing more than a slave laborer. The Don is appalled by this and forces the farmer to stop torturing the boy and to pay him what he is owed. The farmer claims that his money is at home and that he will take the boy there and pay him. The boy protests that this will not happen—that once the knight is out of sight, the farmer will renege on his promise.


Don Quixote brushes these concerns aside. He believes that the farmer is a knight and is bound by honor. Having seen justice prevail, Don Quixote rides off.


Don Quixote is crazy, of course. And I pitied him even through Chapter 3—where he behaved rather badly. But here, I found that I was really very angry with him. He was so caught up in the romance of knighthood, that he didn't find it necessary to make sure that justice was done—just that he announced what justice ought to be done. And in the end, Andres was harmed even more than he would otherwise have been.

This episode contrasts very well with a true story about Henry Bergh, the founder of the ASPCA. During the Civil War, he had a diplomatic post in St. Petersburg, Russia. According to Nathan J. Winograd in his excellent book, Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America:


Bergh spent the next twenty-two years of his life daily going about New York personally stopping animal cruelty—even arresting people and taking them to jail. If he saw a horse-pulled train that was over-crowed, he would stop it and force the riders to get off. Henry Bergh was a Victorian Don Quixote, in the sense of one man out to right wrongs, no matter what the odds.

I am reading Don Quixote very slowly. I just pick it up when I want something light. It almost always wins out over P. G. Wodehouse. And it can be read in much the same way as The World of Jeeves. It is highly episodic. All this means, however, that I don't know where Don Quixote is going. I'd like to think that Don Quixote really becomes the knight of his foolish fantasies. I hope that his quixotic quest leads him to the nobility of Bergh's.

---

More Don Quixote

Want to know more about Don Quixote and other 16th and 17th century literature? Check out my Don Quixote Page!