And yet, I am still working hard to improve the user experience here at Frankly Curious—in ways that almost no one will notice.
About a month ago, I added a set of sitemaps over at the right. So if you click on one of the links under “Articles” (other than “Greatest Hits!” which is still a mess) it will take you to a list of all the articles I’ve written on that topic. For example, if you click on “Film, TV & Theater” you get a list of all my writing that relates broadly to performing arts. And each link comes with a couple of sentences from the beginning of the article. I think it is helpful in using this site, but I wrote it for my own use. And I make use of it several times every day.
Today, I added another section on the right: Random Articles. This is just a list of 5 random articles on each page. This, of course, won’t be useful to me. But I thought it might catch some eyes and keep people on the site longer.
But I always find coding a lot easier than writing. So that’s all I’ve done today because it’s too darned hot:
With the right combination of artistic brilliance and full tilt self destructiveness, Roger Miller is a hero to me. A long time amphetamine addict, it was the legal and encouraged drug of smoking nicotine that killed him. At his worst, Miller was a country hack; at his best, he was smart and tuneful. And of course, he was wonderfully funny and silly—so silly that he fits right in with the Muppets.
Here he is doing one of his best, King of the Road:
This is wonderfully silly and delightfully funny. And at only 40 seconds, you should watch it:
The interesting thing about this is that I feel for the conservative blogger. I’m pretty careful about looking things up, but I can totally see myself embarrassed in this way. And from a conservative point of view, it hardly matters. Look: the Democrat is married to a reporter. QED.
In a very cheeky installment of Alter-Reviews, Eric Alterman discusses using a time machine to go back and watch a Muddy Watters show. He points out that he would first kill Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Then he would go back to Florida in 2000 and show the people how to use their voting machines.
I’m in favor of all these efforts. But the whole time machine to kill Hitler idea bugs me. And yes, I know that I have a very typical liberal view of history. I don’t just find the Great Man theory unconvincing; I find it offensive. It only remains today among conservatives who want to think that the rich and powerful really are better than everyone else—that the world would be lost without them.
I wrote my own cheeky letter to Alterman, which I figure he won’t publish, so I’ll do so here:
I know your time travel comment was meant lightly, but I wonder if you believe the whole kill Hitler thing. Other than preferences regarding time machine uses, I don’t think that individuals are all that important. For example, I think Einstein’s publications in 1905 are probably the greatest intellectual achievement in history. Yet it seems certain that all these discoveries would have been made without him, within the following ten years. So if Einstein had never lived, the world would not be that different today.
Which brings us to Hitler. I’m sure that if we killed Hitler as a child (Or gave him art lessons?), we would not have had the Holocaust as we did. But certainly we would have had something very bad. Stalin killed far more people, and I always wonder if he didn’t kill more Jews too. (And I know you want to kill them both, but I think that’s a cop out. One murder per person!) Regardless, just as there are always other brilliant men to fill the void left by careless time travelers, there are always other evil men to fill the void left by careful time travelers.
Or maybe I’m wrong. I do know this: if I had a time machine, I’d go back to the late Jurassic and get eaten by an allosaurus.
That last bit is mostly true. I guess I am truly a scientist at heart. When I daydream about time machines, I always imagine going far back in time and seeing what the earth was like. I care about the murder of millions of people, but that’s not where my mind goes. This may also have something to do with all the science fiction I’ve seen and read over the years. And there’s one thing I know: if I killed Hitler, it would change the world and that would mean I (And everyone else!) would never have been born. So that’s kind of a drag.
I was just listening to a lecture by Slavoj Žižek where he quoted (of all people) Friedrich Hayek. In it, Hayek says that capitalism necessarily rewards some unworthy people and that this is good. If it were only the meritorious who made it to the top in capitalism, people on the bottom couldn’t deal with it. As it is, poor people can look at the rich and rightly think, “Idiots!” And thus they can live with the fact that life is unfair.
This remark is unheard of from most free marketeers. They want to pretend that the capitalist system is a meritocracy—that only the good, hardworking, and clever make it to the top. Modern free market philosophy is based more on Hayek than anyone. And in case you don’t know, Hayek (like most free marketeers) was not a good guy; Corey Robin has a series of article about When Hayek Met Pinochet.
Here is Žižek’s lecture, queue up at the Hayek quote:
Maybe I’m just a crude little man. After 9/11, when people talked about the tragedy to the families of victims, I always thought, “I’m sure glad my mother wasn’t killed by a drunk driver on that day.” Death is death, right? If 3000 people die unnecessarily, that is more tragic than one person similarly dying. But no one of those 3000 deaths are more tragic than one single unnecessary death.
So I feel bad that I look at the shooting in Aurora in a purely analytical way. It is a tragedy that 12 people were killed and 59 wounded in a senseless act of violence. It raises important questions for our society about things like mental health and gun availability. But thus far, I don’t see any discussion. I just see people wringing their hands about an event that is, in every way that matters, the same thing we see all the time. Later there will be liberals, afraid to call for gun control, asking if we mightn’t be able to stop the gun show loophole. (Is there still a gun show loophole?) And conservatives will counter, “Tyranny!”
Tonight, one 16 or 17 year old will die in a car crash. Today, two people will die from an accidental gunshot. People die all the time. For stupid reasons. For evil reasons. By saying this I am not suggesting that young men gunning down large numbers of people in public places is not a problem. But I am suggesting that the public hand wringing only serves to justify inaction. I am suggesting that noting that the world would be better off if humans were nicer doesn’t help. I am suggesting issues such as these need constant attention, not intermittent hysterical cries of outrage.
It would be great to do something about all these problems. But as far as I can tell, we can’t do anything about gun violence because gun manufacturers would block it. We can’t do anything about teenage driving fatalities, because car and oil companies want to get the kiddies driving as young as possible. We can’t do anything about global warming because, well, you know.
As long as we live in a corporatocracy, there will be few improvements. What ails us economically is the same thing that ails us culturally. We cannot have economic stimulus for the same reason we must watch our children die in movie theaters and on roadways. Conservatives believe that freedom is the lack of restraints. But when another’s freedom leads to my slavery, something has gone wrong. When one billionaire can spend as much money as he wants on political “speech” (Just like me!), we do not live in a democracy. Freedom is not an absolute; it is a compromise. Ditto for justice. As long as we allow conservatives to continue to claim that what is good for GM is good for me, we are lost.
As for the 71 in Aurora, I’m sorry. Now let’s get to work.
At least vote!
Update (20 July 2012 7:02 pm)
Darcy Burner has an article over at Crooks & Liars called Adult Conversation About Guns. She provides the following list of recent mass shootings, which gets to the heart of my point far more directly:
On January 17, 1989, a gunman in Stockton, California walked onto a playground and opened fire, killing 5 children and injuring 30 more.
On July 1, 1993, a gunman in San Francisco walked into a law office and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 6.
On April 20, 1999, two gunmen in Columbine, Colorado walked into their high school and opened fire, killing 13 people and injuring 21 others.
On January 16, 2002, a gunman in Virginia walked into a law school and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.
On July 8, 2003, a gunman in Mississippi walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 8.
On March 21, 2005, a gunman in Minnesota walked into a high school and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 5.
On November 20, 2005, a gunman in Tacoma walked into the mall and opened fire, injuring 6.
On March 25, 2006, a gunman in Seattle walked into a party and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 2.
On February 12, 2007, a gunman in Utah walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 4.
On April 16, 2007, a gunman in Virginia walked onto the Virginia Tech campus and opened fire, killing 32 people and wounding 17 others.
On December 5, 2007, a gunman in Nebraska walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 4.
On December 9, 2007, a gunman in Colorado Springs walked onto a church parking lot and opened fire, killing 2 and wounding 3.
On February 7, 2008, a gunman in Missouri walked into a city council meeting and opened fire, killing 5 and wounding 2.
On February 14, 2008, a gunman in Illinois walked onto a college campus and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 17.
On June 25, 2008, a gunman in Kentucky walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 1.
On January 24, 2009, a gunman in Portland walked up to a nightclub and opened fire, killing 2 and injuring 7.
On March 29, 2009, a gunman in North Carolina walked into a retirement home and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.
On August 4, 2009, a gunman in a suburb of Pittsburgh walked into a fitness club and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 9.
On November 5, 2009, a gunman at Fort Hood in Texas walked into a medical center and opened fire, killing 13 and injuring 29.
On November 29, 2009, a gunman in Lakewood, Washington walked into a coffee shop and killed 4 police officers.
On January 7, 2010, a gunman in St Louis walked into a power plant and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 6.
On January 12, 2010, a gunman in Georgia walked into a truck rental place and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 2.
On February 12, 2010, a gunwoman in Alabama stood up in a college faculty meeting and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.
On August 3, 2010, a gunman in Connecticut walked into a warehouse and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.
On August 7, 2011, a gunman in Ohio broke into his girlfriend’s house and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 1.
On September 6, 2011, a gunman in Nevada walked into a pancake restaurant and opened fire, killing 4 and injuring 7.
On October 5, 2011, a gunman in Cupertino, California walked into a quarry where people were working and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 7.
 There are three times as many murders committed with handguns than all other guns. There are four times as many murders committed with guns than with knives. Note: knives are far more common than guns.
A reader suggested that I check out Slavoj Žižek. So I grabbed a copy of First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, his attack on modern liberalism from a leftist persepctive. These are my kinds of books. Part of it is just that I’m an iconoclast. I’ve already researched libertarian theory about as far as one can. As regular readers know, I find it intellectually interesting but a practical disaster—the kind of thing that eggheads love because it has a kind of deductive perfection but with all kinds of hidden (and ridiculous) assumptions.
So even though I consider myself something like a social democrat, I find hard left critiques very useful. Plus they are welcome relief from a country with such a narrow, extreme right-shifted Overton Window that classical liberalism is considered “far left.”
Žižek is worth checking out. The book is very interesting. But right now, I want to discuss something he writes early on:
[Republican Senator Jim] Bunning was the first to publicly outline the contours of the reasoning behind the Republican Party revolt against the [2008 TARP] bail-out plan, which climaxed in the rejection of the Fed’s proposal on September 29. The argument deserves a closer look. Note how Republican resistance to the bail-out project was formulated in “class warfare” terms: Wall Street versus Main Street. Why should we help those on “Wall Street” responsible for the crisis, while asking ordinary mortgageholders on “Main Street” to pay the price? Is this not a clear case of what economic theory calls “moral hazard,” defined as “the risk that somebody will behave immorally because insurance, the law, or some other agency with protect them against any loss that his or her behavior might cause”—if I am insured against fire, say, I will take fewer fire precautions (or, in extremes, even set fire to my fully insured but loss-generating premises)? The same goes for the big banks: are they not protected against big losses and able to keep their profits? No wonder that Michael Moore wrote a letter to the public decrying the bail-out plan as the robbery of the century.
What I want to discuss does not relate directly to Žižek’s book. Instead, it is this issue of the overlap between (for lack of better terms) the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.
If you listen to what people in the two groups say, they are often shockingly similar. The way they talk about the issues is different, but the core issues are the same: justice. The TP people, being older, often show off their ossification: the whole “You kids get off my lawn!” thing, with the repulsive (but understandable) acceptance of welfare that I get and rejection of welfare that “they” get. And the OWS people, being younger, tend to be more idealistic and sometimes say silly things. But on the whole, there is a lot of agreement, so why don’t the movements agree on anything?
In particular, I wonder why it is that the TP people did such a good job of organizing for the 2010 elections only to vote entirely against their own interests. Who did they elect? A bunch of people determined to destroy government except when it comes to abortion rights. Did any of the people they elected stand up against corporate welfare? Not that I’ve seen. They elected people who talk populist but govern corporate.
I think the main problem is with their leadership. First, they wedded themselves to the Republican Party whose ideology over the last 40 years has been whittled down to: power for power’s sake. Second, the leaders inside the Tea Party itself seem to be the same old social conservatives that took over the local Republican Party offices over this same time period. Thus, when it came time to get people elected, the most important thing was that the candidates be radically anti-choice. For example, Sharron Angle’s advice to a 13-year-old girl who is pregnant because her father raped her:
I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.
Lemons: daddy rape. Lemonade: unwanted deformed children! Get rid of corporate welfare? Just as soon as you stop abortion everywhere—especially all those depriving us of such delicious lemonade!
What I’ve seen is that populism on the right always leads fanaticism on the part of its adherents. And this always leads to plutocracy and autocracy. The same thing has happened on the left, but I think the history of communism tends to keep the modern left on a pragmatic footing. Certainly fascism should do the same for the right, but it doesn’t. For whatever reason, most people today think the fascists were bad because of their antisemitism alone. Thus, any form of fascism that isn’t antisemitic is okay, as long as you don’t call it fascism.
Where the two movements stand today is telling. The OWS movement is buzzing with activity. They have presented a lot of really thoughtful policy critiques and proposals. The TP movement, on the other hand, has been reduced to nothing but slogans because in the end, all they stood for was the Republican Party platform—but more so!
There is the potential for the movements to interact. The problem, I think, is the ossification of the old. I listened to a Richard Carrier lecture recently and he explained that humans take long-held opinions that have not been challenged as evidence that those opinions are right. Given the media landscape in the United States and the ability to get all of one’s “news” from Fox, it will be hard to get the TP members to even admit that they don’t necessarily have all the answers. (Except in theory, because everyone will admit this in theory.)
Our only hope is with the young. And they are as likely to get things wrong as right. Remember, one of Hitler’s earliest coalitions were the university students. But OWS seems to be headed in the right direction.
In Paul Krugman’s column today, he quotes from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novella The Rich Boy—twice! That’s one of the reasons that I like Krugman: he’s not only an astute political observer, he’s also an interesting and knowledgeable guy. Anyone who quotes Fitzgerald (other than about second acts in American lives) is at least somewhat interesting.
One great thing about Fitzgerald is that he grew up around rich people without being rich. (Actually, today I would say Fitzgerald’s family was rich given that they were well in the top 20% of earners, but not part of the beau monde.) As a result, he was able to see the rich clearly. And the picture he rendered was not pretty. The Buchanans in The Great Gatsby sum up his views pretty well.
Krugman quotes what I consider some uninspiring lines from the novella, although they are some of the most harsh. I am most taken by the first paragraph of The Rich Boy:
Begin with an individual, and before you know it you find that you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find that you have created–nothing. That is because we are all queer fish, queerer behind our faces and voices than we want any one to know or than we know ourselves. When I hear a man proclaiming himself an “average, honest, open fellow,” I feel pretty sure that he has some definite and perhaps terrible abnormality which he has agreed to conceal–and his protestation of being average and honest and open is his way of reminding himself of his misprision.
Someone famous and smart said something about how all fiction is a meditation on the writing process. That is perhaps more true of Fitzgerald with his intense first person narration. But in this paragraph, he sets the rules for his story; he is planning to walk a tightrope: an honest depiction of a young man, a symbol of a type but not himself a type. As a result, he provides better advice more beautifully packaged than all the creative writing courses in the world.
If I weren’t determined to push all my nonfiction aside and read Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum this weekend, I would read The Great Gatsby. But you could. Or The Rich Boy if you only have an hour.
There are two bits of sex in the news that I think I had better address. The first is the man with the world’s largest penis. Jonah Falcon, the man with said penis, was stopped at the San Francisco International Airport by TSA agents for the bulge in his pants. Apparently, there was no foreign object in his pants; it was all him. According to Falcon, he not erect. What’s more, his flaccid penis is so large that he has to strap it to his left leg. Frankly, I feel sorry for the guy, but he seems to be very happy with all the attention he is receiving.
The folks at The Young Turks had a very funny discussion of it. I thought that Ana Kasparian made some excellent points, but probably just because she said more or less what I thought and more or less what I want to think women ought to think about all this. Here is the whole 8:00 segment, which is well worth watching:
I have a few questions:
At 13 inches, is the penis ever truly erect? Isn’t the torque on it so large that it droops down? Would this not be something of a turn off to a sexual partner who wants to feel that they are exciting Mr. Falcon?
I assume that the extra length goes along with a larger girth; does that mean that fellatio is out?
Is any woman’s vagina 13 inches deep? Doesn’t this mean that coitus could be dangerous—like jamming a pole into the vagina? And doesn’t this mean that there would be little bodily contact—especially clitoral contact?
I don’t mean to be excessively graphic or analytical, but these are the questions that come to my mind. I would think that the guy might well be able to attract a large number of lovers who would be into sex with him for the thrill of it—just like they might want to do a bungee jump once. But I would think this guy would have to possess other characteristics to make a lover stick around. With all due respect to everyone involved, Mr. Falcon would seem to be very similar to a hermaphrodite: a person who wants to be in long term relationship with one of them would either love them despite their physical characteristics or because the person had a fetish. I would prefer the former. At this point in my life, I would hope that anyone would love me despite my body, not because of it.
Is That a Gun in Your Pocket, Fred?
Fred Willard was arrested at a porn theater in Hollywood. Frankly, who cares? I have a hell of a lot more respect for that than I do for drunk drivers. But according to the Sacramento Bee, Larry Flynt has offered Willard a free online subscription for Hustler. He said, “We think Fred should join millions of others and enjoy porn in the privacy of his own home, and, what better way to do that than with a free subscription to our popular Website?”
I think that’s a fine offer. I hope Willard takes him up on that.
Fred Willard could be a serial killer and I would still always love him for Fernwood 2Night:
Ezra Klein sends me to a graph by Naomi Robbins, who is clearly a very smart woman (scientist, grapher). She has created this excellent graph that compares the Obama and Romney federal income tax plans. The main thing about this graph is that it does not distort how much Obama plans to raise taxes the way that most graphs do. If you are interested, check out Klein’s article.
Here is the graph:
<%image(20120719-taxcompare.png|446|485|Obama and Romney Tax Plan Comparison)%>
If you’re in the top 5%, by all means, vote for Romney—he’s got your back. But for anyone else, you would be crazy to vote for Romney. Sure, if you are middle class, Romney will cut your taxes whereas they’ll stay the same under Obama. But Romney will cut the hell out of your social security and medicare. In the latter case, he will likely cut it to the point where it will be useless and you will face retirement without medical care.
For the bottom 95%, there is basically no change in your federal income taxes. Those in the lower middle class will see a slight decrease in these taxes. If you are in the lower class, Romney is going to raise your taxes as he decimates safety net programs for the poor and middle class.
Let’s be clear about this. Romney believes that the rich are morally superior and deserve to have even more money than they already do. This is bad enough. But what always goes along with this is the belief that the poor are morally inferior and deserve to suffer as much as possible. The middle class are just neutral, but in the effort to harm the poor and favor the rich, the middle class are also hurt.
I’m all for voting against my own self-interest. It is fine to vote for higher ideals. But I fear that most people who vote for Republicans do it for the wrong reasons. They think they are voting for their own self-interest, but they are doing the opposite. The Republicans are for the status quo; they don’t want the poor to become rich. (Can you say “Too big to fail”?) If you are poor and you aspire to become rich, vote for any party other than the Republicans.
You’ve got to see this. I found this new blog Reading is for Snobs via Atrios. The video is queued up at exactly the right place, so there’s only about 15 seconds to watch:
I can’t find this video anymore, but I explain it in the text.
John Sununu claims that the rich are fleeing to Canada, that great bastion of the free market. When I had heard that conservatives said after the SCOTUS upheld the ACA that they were thinking of moving to Canada, I concluded that it was a joke.
I just tuned into the beginning of The Rachel Maddow Show. She was talking about tests of leadership and mentioned that John McCain passed his test of leadership in this 28 second video clip from the 2008 campaign:
I am so tired of McCain getting credit for this. He said this on 10 October 2008. By that time, he was 90% certain that he had lost the presidency. His countering this woman was his effort to save what little dignity he had left. Had the race been a dead heat, John McCain would have pandered as much as, say, Mitt Romney this last year.
John McCain gets far too much credit for reasonableness that he does not exhibit. People think he goes against his party, but the only time he did that was to get back at George W. Bush for his “black baby” whisper campaign. John McCain is a standard Republican senator. I can understand why conservative news outlets like him. What I can’t understand is why centrist news outlets treat him as anything other than another conservative. And I really can’t understand the honor showed him from liberal outlets.
John McCain. Orrin Hatch. Chuck Grassley. There all interchangeable.