There is always a lot more that I want to write about than I have time for. For the last day or two, I’ve been wanting to write about this rumor that Obama is going to appoint John Kerry as Secretary of Defense. If this is true, I am really worried about President Obama. It seemed that after the debt ceiling debacle, he learned that politics is a game that requires strategy. This could prove that he learned nothing.

Look, this is simple. In 2014, there will be 20 Democratic Senators and only 13 Republican Senators up for re-election. The Republicans have a very good chance of taking the Senate back in 2014. So the Democrats don’t want to lose even a single seat in the Senate. If Kerry steps down, that seat could easily go Republican. And I think you know the Republican I’m talking about: that great defended of Indian rights, Scott Brown.

I understand. If you are really bad at playing the game of politics, you might think, “The Democrats won’t lose control of the Senate if they lose one seat.” And this is true. But this is one more seat that the Democrats will have to hold in 2014. It doesn’t make sense to make a hard election even harder.

Some will say that I am underestimating the President. They will use the 9-dimensional chess argument. They will claim that he knows what he’s doing. But when people have made these claims in the past, they’ve been wrong. And even if the Democrats manage to hold onto Kerry’s senate seat, it will still have been a dangerous move.

Take one for the team, Senator Kerry: remain a lowly United States Senator!

Regular reader and sometimes writer Mack brought my attention to a PBS documentary, Independent Lens Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream. It is about the two ends of Park Avenue: the part in the Upper West Side and the part in Harlem. It is a way of looking at income inequality in a very concrete way. It is a nice addition to Winner-Take-All Politics—coauthor Jacob Hacker is even interviewed in it. (See my article on the book.)

What most struck me in the film was a study that social psychologist Paul Piff did with the game of Monopoly. Instead of giving players an equal start, he defined players as either rich or poor. The rich player received three times the usual starting cash. The poor player received half the usual starting cash, got half as much money for passing go, and had to roll one die instead of the usual two. Obviously, the poor player lost—and quickly. But what is interesting is that the designated rich players developed a sense of entitlement. They demanded their wages and seemed to feel large amounts of schadenfreude.

This is all very interesting, but I think the more important lesson we can learn from the game is something that Piff mentioned in the interview:

Here’s the thing: you have, as the Republicans like to say, “Equality of opportunity.” You get to roll the dice. You are as likely to land on Chance as anyone else. You too get $200 when you pass go. What’s the problem?!

The problem is that you have no money and you would have no current opportunity to buy any property even if you had money. True equality would be if all the properties were unowned and everyone had the same amount of money—with the Monopoly economy or the real one. But check it out: you could still win. If you were ridiculously lucky—way more than “spade royal flush” lucky—you could win. And if enough people play enough games of Monopoly, eventually a poor player will win. Just like some small percentage of people in the real economy who grow up in poverty but go on to be hedge fund managers.

And that’s what’s so frustrating talking to conservatives who throw up the occasional exceptional success as proof that there really is “equality of opportunity.” I think this Monopoly example really clarifies the issue. And I plan to use it a lot in the future.

Otherwise, Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream is a good documentary on income inequality. It’s well worth watching, even if you already know all about income inequality. And I’m going to make it easy on you. Here it is:

I just watched two documentaries about ventriloquism. The first, Dumbstruck, is about amateurs and the normal professionals. One of those normal professionals, Terry Fator, went from unknown to winning America’s Got Talent and becoming one of the highest paid comedians in history during the course of the film. On the other end of the scale is a 13 year old boy, Dylan Burdette, who dreams of being a professional ventriloquist. There is also Wilma Swartz, a 6’5″ tall woman who does a lot of charity work with her puppets. And Kim Yeager, a former beauty queen who does hundreds of gigs at schools every year.

One thing that really stuck out to me in this film was what dicks many of the family members were. Swartz’s siblings have disowned her, at least partly because of the puppets (she is otherwise quite eccentric). Burdette’s father is very concerned that his son plays with dolls and is short. (Burdette has since grown taller than his father but he still plays with dolls.) Yeager’s mother never seems to say anything other than that her daughter ought to give up the dolls and have babies with the first man who passes by. (Yeager has since married.) And Terry Fator’s father wouldnn’t even show up to one of his gigs after Fator signed a $100 million 5 year contract with The Mirage.

The most impressive of the ventriloquist featured in Dumbstruck was Dan Horn. But before I tell you about him: his wife of 25 years left him during the making of the film. (Andrea claims this is because he’s gay. But he’s not gay; he’s a ventriloquist; there’s a difference.) Anyway… I’m not that fond of ventriloquism. What I love is puppetry. And Horn is as good a puppeteer as I have ever seen. His characters come alive in ways that frankly I’ve never seen with a ventriloquist. Here his is back in 1988, although I think he is better now:

I liked Dumbstruck more than the other movies, because I liked seeing the real world of ventriloquism. Most people, however, would prefer the second film, I’m No Dummy. It is more the view of ventriloquism from the perspective of the stars. It does a good job of providing a history of the last century of the art form. There are also interviews with historians and a museum curator. Plus there is lots of old footage of Paul Winchell, Edgar Bergen, Arthur Worsley, Wenceslao Moreno (Señor Wences), and Jimmy Nelson (still alive and performing). It is all great fun to watch.

About half the film is made up of interviews with modern practitioners. I’m very fond of Lynn Trefzger and Jay Johnson, so that was all very enjoyable. Unfortunately, a lot of screen time was devoted to Jeff Dunham. I’m not just being a contrarian here. Terry Fator is now as big as Dunham and I have a high regard for Fator. Dunham is funny enough—amusing but not hilarious. As a ventriloquist, he is barely acceptable at the professional level. As a puppeteer, he is terrible. Watch him with Walter, Dunham can’t even get his lips to sync up with the voice. Whatever.

Both movies are quite enjoyable and worth a watch. There is far more actual comedy in I’m No Dummy, but Dumbstruck is also quite amusing with all the human drama of real lives. Plus: really unpleasant family members!