Recently, I found myself at Michael Moore’s website. I posted a comment that included a link. The link was stripped out. I’m used to that. It kind of explained why there were no comments.

Today, I was over at Corey Robin’s site. It has never had a problem with my adding a link to a comment. But today: the link was stripped out.

This got me to thinking. It is clear that I am using comments to market my site. In fact, Robin’s site has been very good. I got a lot of click throughs there. But it isn’t as though I am not adding to the discussion. Normally, I comment on the article and refer to something I’ve written in more depth on my site. As a reader, I like this for a couple of reasons. First, it introduces me to new websites. Second, I don’t like long comments; they disturb the browsing experience; if someone has something I want to know more about, I click through.

Let’s get one thing straight: this is not a spam fighting mechanism. The website still lists the commenter’s website (if he provides one). So why am I not happy with that? Providing user website links produces almost no click throughs. There is a simple reason for this: there is no reason to believe that the commenter has any more to say. In fact, many people just put up email addresses so the reader has to check to see if there is even a website link.

Can it be that website owners are annoyed by this behavior? I don’t see why. Or perhaps more accurately, I don’t see any compelling reason why. I think it must be a control issue. But if you really want control, why add comments at all? Doing so basically means you want people to provide you with free content and in return, you will offer them this: nothing.

The problem is that there are too many people who are more than willing to accept nothing. I’m amazed at people on Amazon who write book reviews that are every bit as good as those in the New York Times. What a great deal that is for Amazon! I’m not surprised that people do this stuff for free; I like that about humans. What I don’t like is other people getting a direct non-reader benefit from it. Strange times we live in. It is the internet equivalent to buying a Coors shirt and being a walking billboard.

I picked up a copy of Hideo Gosha’s Three Outlaw Samurai the other day. I didn’t know anything about the film, but hey: samurai. It tells the story of three ronin who work together to protect a group of peasants. If this sounds familiar, it is basically the same plot as Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. But otherwise, the films have little in common. In Kurosawa’s film, the samurai are honorable men; In Gosha’s, not so much.

The film starts with a sequence that is very much like another Kurosawa film: Yojimbo. Sakon Shiba comes upon three peasants who are holding the magistrate’s daughter hostage. At first, it looks like he is going to free the girl, but then he changes him mind when he finds out the peasants haven’t raped the girl and are only holding her to get the magistrate to listen to their complaints about staving to death. But this doesn’t cause him to help them—at least at first; he just hangs out to see the fireworks.

The second samurai, Kyojuro Sakura is first fighting for the magistrate, but switches sides in the middle of a battle. And the third samurai, Einosuke Kikyo, is the most cynical of all, working for the magistrate without really doing anything. He only switches sides when the magistrate tries to have him killed.

The characters are not nearly as complex as we get from Kurosawa. But they have enough quirks to still be fun to watch. Sakura, for instance, kills Oine’s husband on the way to the battle before he has switched sides. When he finds out, he feels terrible about it and tries to make amends. As a result, a romance starts between the two. It gets complicated from there.

The main thing about the film is that it is visually stunning, but not in a classical way. It shows all the signs of being shot quickly, but by a brilliant group. This isn’t too surprising, though: this was Gosha’s first feature film after being well established as a TV director.

Unfortunately, the DVD comes with no extras, commentary, whatever. You can read more about it at the Criterion Collection website, Three Outlaw Samurai: The Disloyal Bunch. But mostly, I recommend just watching the film. It is a lot of fun.

Here is the idiosyncratic trailer for the film that combines the story and the telling of the story:

Steve Kornacki provides us with a tale of two votes, What the Republican Party Has Become. In 1990, the Senate voted to approve the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and yesterday, it voted to approve a nonbinding United Nations treaty to encourage other countries to pass their own version of the ADA. Oh what a difference decade or two makes!

The ADA was a big deal back in 1990. It greatly expanded the rights of the disabled and cost the country a lot of money. Yet Republicans were largely for it. When the final vote was case, 37 Republicans voted for it and only 6 voted against it. Jump ahead 22 years and the numbers are basically reversed: 7 voted for it and 38 voted against it. But that’s not the most telling part of the vote.

Six senators who voted for the ADA 22 years ago voted against the UN treaty yesterday: Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, and Richard Shelby. You read that right: the Senate Majority Leader voted against it.

The no votes are due to right wing paranoid about the United Nations coming to take away disabled home schooled children. I am so not kidding. What is worse is how almost no one in the Republican Party elite will stand up to this demagoguing by the likes of Rick Santorum. But maybe I’m asking too much. This is, after all, a party that depends upon people being distracted by mythical threats so it can implement actual harmful policy. Still, at this point, when the majority of the Republicans in the Senate are to the crazy of John “Benghazigate” McCain, you’re left shaking your head.

Afterword

For all the “both sides do it” people out there: no! All Senate Democrats voted for both of these bills.

I don’t know how old this is, but I just saw it for the first time. So watch it. It’s very funny.

Notice that there are three binders on the floor labeled “women.” There is a book titled, “Nate Silver Can’t Add.” Also, “Think of the economy as a cliff and the rich man is the driver. If you don’t give the driver all the money, he’ll drive you over a cliff. It’s just common sense.” And, of course, they never pass up a chance to insult New Jersey, “Immigrants welcome: please use New Jersey.” Finally, the savior of the Republican Party: Marco Rubio. (He’s a Latino!)

H/T karoli at Crooks & Liars

James Carter made a marvelous catch today. Rand Paul was interviewed on WMAL-AM, out of Washington DC. And he got to bitching about what’s on everyone’s mind: Ashley Judd. She’s kind of like the modern Al Franken; everyone wants to know how events of the day will affect her, Ashley Judd. Thinking of starting a relationship? First ask yourself, “How will this affect her, Ashley Judd?” Driving to the supermarket? “Will she, Ashley Judd, be on the road? What would she, Ashley Judd, think of that plan?” Rand Paul cares about what might affect her, Ashley Judd.[1]

Rand Paul even cares about what she does. He’s even willing to give her political advice. When asked about some talk that she might run against him in 2016, he said, “She’s way damn too liberal for our country—for our state. She hates our biggest industry, which is coal, so I say, good luck bringing the ‘I hate coal’ message to Kentucky.”

Carter notes that Kentucky’s junior senator doesn’t seem to know what the state’s biggest industry is. It isn’t coal. In fact, coal isn’t even in the top 10 industries in the state. Check out his article for two different tables showing that coal is 13th by GDP and 15th by employment. He adds, “Shouldn’t a senator be embarrassed to make a mistake like this? And shouldn’t someone besides me be reporting it?”

Here is the interview:

Afterword

During the interview, Rand Paul says a whole bunch of other things that are deceptive and even down right false. Neither he nor his father understand much about the Constitution or the economy. They are blinded by ideology.

[1] If you’re not aware of the Al Franken Decade, then this should clear things up:

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve been incarcerated… I’d have fifteen cents.

—John Lyshitski
Let’s Go To Prison

Bill Maher has more followers on Twitter than anyone else I follow. Guess who has the second most? Nate Silver.

I know what you’re thinking, “The election is over; who cares about Nate Silver?” Everyone who ever cared as far as I know. Plus a few odd people like Dick Morris and Karl Rove. And the reason is simple: Silver continues to pump out really interesting and even useful information.

This evening, for example, he brought us this surprising headline, Alaska: Future Swing State? Let’s look at the data.

In 2000, Al Gore lost Alaska by 31 points. In 2004, John Kerry lost by 26 points. In 2008, Barack Obama lost by 22 points. And this year, he lost by 14 points. Correlation is not causation, but still.

There are other things. Alaska has one of the highest percentages of independent voters. And it has elected democrat Mark Begich to the Senate. And you know about Lisa Murkowski. So there’s that. And then there is (like elsewhere) a demographic change. Alaska’s population is growing and most of these people are coming from California, Oregon, and Washington. What’s more, although the state is fairly conservative economically and with regards to fossil fuel, they are not that religious.

Of course, Alaska only has 3 electoral votes. But still, it is nice to see the bluing of America.

It’s sad whenever someone who is not actively evil dies. So I’m sad that Dave Brubeck died. But here’s the thing…

He wasn’t great. Don’t get me wrong: he had his moments. He was a very capable jazz pianist. But Bill Evans he wasn’t. But here’s another thing…

If I could be Bill Evans or Dave Brubeck, I would pick Brubeck in a second! First, he got 40 years more. Second, he had a regular, happy life. Other than the music, the same cannot be said for Evans. (There’s nothing like an expensive heroin and then cocaine habit to make the regular parts of life a hell of a lot harder.) So Brubeck had the better life and that should be enough without all of us kissing his metaphorical ass.

There is one thing I really like about Brubeck as a musician: Paul Desmond. He is what made the Dave Brubeck Quartet really work. And he is the reason why 99% of you even know who the hell Brubeck is. Desmond died 35 years, 6 months, and 5 days ago—just for the record, since you didn’t even notice.

Here is the Quartet playing their most famous tune with its writer on alto sax:

Afterword

I know you want it:

Hear the difference? (And if you don’t, please don’t tell me.)

David Weigel posted an article on Slate earlier today, Marco Rubio Mentions the Middle Class 35 Times in One Speech. But that’s not really what it’s about. But it does get to the heart of the matter. You see, Rubio mentioned the middle class, but never really engaged with the concept.

As I’ve noted before, this is par for the course when it comes to Republicans. Their idea of reaching out to groups that aren’t already part of their coalition is to talk nice. There will be no changes to policy! I understand where they’re coming from. Republicans have been very good over the past several decades at convincing people who have very contrary interests to vote for them anyway. Why wouldn’t they think it will continue to work? And the sad thing is that they may well be right.

This is SOP: take traditional Republican positions and claim that they are good for the middle class. So Weigel notes that Rubio just reworks his standard speech except that “stuff that Republicans wanted to do already becomes stuff that will help ‘the middle class.'” And just look at what that stuff is!

Rubio says, “Sound monetary policy would also encourage middle class job creation.” This is just the old “job creator” canard dressed up. The Federal Reserve has a duel mandate: keep inflation low and employment high. But Republicans don’t like this. They want the Fed to have a single mandate: keep inflation low. The claim is that this will help employment by helping the “job creators.” This is supply-side economics: the money will tinkle down on the poor.

The whole “job creator” myth is just a repackaging of the old supply-side economic theory. But everyone knows that there is very little to supply-side economics and that under most circumstances it is just plain wrong. So the Republicans try to sell the same old snake oil under a different name.

Weigel mentions a number of other Rubio zingers. But the main thing is that he’s trying to claim that the same old Republican policies that everyone knows just enrich the wealthy are really good for the middle class. And I think we must all call out this deceitfulness every time we see it. It will keep us busy!