The Rich Are Causing America’s Decline

American Empire in DeclineI was watching an interview on Democracy Now! with Kevin Phillips from a couple of weeks after the last presidential election. Phillips is an interesting guy and he is always worth listening to. But he said something that really stood out to me. He noted that America was a nation in decline. This is a big issue to me that I almost never hear anyone talk about.

Where I see America’s decline most clearly is among the rich. These people demonstrate a “circle the wagons” mentality. That’s what all the tax policy is about. The rich seem to have gotten to the point where they don’t think they will get richer because the nation is getting richer. Instead, they just want to take a larger and larger slice of the economic pie. That’s how you get rich in a dying empire.

What’s really important here is that this belief in the decline of the nation is self-fulfilling. Over the last 40 years, we have given the rich a larger and larger share of the economy. This has effectively decimated the middle class. So while we are still a very wealthy nation we have become a kind of banana republic. Of course, instead of having banana plantations, we have a financial industry. That makes it worse! At least you can eat bananas. Most of the financial industry is useless even regarding its already dubious purpose of moving capital around.

The other important aspect of this is the income inequality. Increasingly, we have the very rich and we have the poor. In as much as we have a middle class, it is made up of the remnants of our once unionized work force. For a very large segment of the modern American work force, it might was well be the late 19th century. There is no 40 hour work week when you work 3 jobs. There’s no overtime. There’s no benefits, even at companies that offer them because you don’t work enough for that particular company.

And we are declining in the most horrible way possible. We are constantly told that we don’t have enough money to provide for the poor or have universal healthcare or a clean environment. But we do have enough money for corporate welfare. We do have enough money to lock up cannabis smokers. We do have enough money to cut the taxes of the rich. And note this because it is very important: spending money on the things that our rich overlords tell us we can’t afford would make our country and our economy stronger. And the things they say we can afford are the primary causes of our national and economic decline.

Arnold Schwarzenegger once said, “If you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.” Pretty much the same thing has been said about every politician during my lifetime. But I haven’t seen any of them do anything about it. It is patently false. Obama hasn’t even tried to do anything for the labor movement. Why would he?! New Democrats don’t believe in that old economy stuff. They think if everyone would just teach themselves computer programming, everything would be fine.

But everything will not be fine. That’s because the rich have given up on America. They are just consolidating their gains. And their politicians have given up on America too. The only ones who haven’t given up on America are the poor. But no one listens to us. When the Occupy movement started, the media yawned. “Just a bunch of liberals.” But when the Tea Party movement started, the media celebrated. “A bunch of old people backed by the rich pushing for lower taxes on the rich!” That was something “new” and worth reporting!

And that’s our country in decline: the only things that matter are the things that matter to the rich and that’s because the only people who are ever listened to are the rich. This is not democracy. This is not freedom. If it weren’t so tragic, it would be a joke.

2013 Review: Part 3

2013 ReviewWell, this gets us halfway through the year and I now thoroughly regret having started this series. It is really hard to sum up a month’s worth of writing. One thing that has become clear to me is that I’m only interested in certain kinds of things when it comes to politics. I would be best paired with one or more people to do an overall look at the news. That’s kind of what The Reaction is supposed to be. But the truth is that it would take a full time editor to do that.

What’s also interesting is that most of the political stuff has a short lifetime. My writing about film and music seems interesting for a lot longer. This may cause me to change the way I cover politics. I know there is an ongoing complaint that my political coverage assumes too much knowledge. We’ll see if anything changes when I look back next year.

May 2013

May was a big month, because we published our 2000th Article. Of course, later in November, we published our 3000th article and didn’t even mention it. Regardless of what else you can say about Frankly Curious, we grind out content. And I read a lot of blogs, and in my not at all humble opinion, the quality of the content here is quite high. But that probably says more about the quality of the writing in the blogosphere than it does my skills.

I wrote a lot about immigration reform during this month. Just like gun control, I was pushing hard against this idea that something was going to happen. And it turned out to be exactly the same as with gun control. The proposed law was so watered down that I barely supported it and then it didn’t even get a vote because the Republicans are now building suburbs to Crazytown. It gets tiring. I know I’m a smart guy, but the people I read are at least as smart as I am. Yet again and again they make this mistake of thinking the world of politics is the way they think it ought to be, not the way that it is.

So I rarely wrote about Republicans on the immigration issue. What is there to say? Basically: they hate immigrants. If there is one thing that most defines the conservative movement in this country it is racism. So even though big business wants a bunch more low-paid workers, the racism trumps that for the GOP. That’s all I really know about the immigration issue when it comes to the Republicans and that’s really all there is to know. The only reasonable discussion of immigration on the right is about H1-B Visas and how businesses can get cheap labor. There is no discussion at all about what the issue means broadly. Conservatives are fine to have illegal immigration be our dirty little secret that keeps the gardens of the rich well tended for little money. So the issue for me is why liberals pretend that there is any kind of conversation going on with conservatives. There isn’t, but a lot of really smart liberals keep hoping.

As many of you know, one of my filial obligations is to go see action movies with my older brother. In May, I went to see the terrible Iron Man 3 with him. I mention it only because I managed to write three articles about it! The first was Physics in Iron Man 3. That was a fun one. I know that you aren’t supposed to hold action movies to the standards of science. But I thought what I did was very good. The second was Escapism in Iron Man 3. In it, I discuss how the movie works as escapism, even as it mocks the very people who use it as escapism. The third is Humor in Iron Man 3. Basically, it is a love letter to Ben Kingsley who is wonderful and funny in the film.

May, of course, was the month the “scandals” started. I humorously commented on the Benghazi “scandal” with Hillary Killed Foster and Stevens! As I noted from the beginning, there was nothing at all to the IRS “scandal.” It is still amazing to watch how the conservatives get the mainstream (and even liberal) media to play along with their fishing expeditions. There was, of course, a real scandal: the NSA and the Associated Press and all that. But no one was really interested in that, because the conservatives don’t care that America has become a police state. It’s what they want—at least for the “little” people.

Memorable Articles

Transubstantiation of Elvis
Cold War Politics in Hogan’s Heroes
“You Gotta Thank the Lord, Right?!”
Family Guy Rush Limbaugh Whitewash

Enjoy the entire: May 2013 Archive.

June 2013

I started June by laying out the basics of an article that I am working on in longer form, False Lessons of the New Democrats. Basically, I’m saying that the Democrats lost the presidency for 12 years because of bad economic luck and Clinton didn’t win the presidency because he was conservative. Any Democrat would have won. But by that time, it had become Democratic doctrine that the party needed to move to the right. And that’s still Democratic doctrine. The party always has to move to the right—at least on economic issues that the wealthy funders care about.

June was also when I got Josh Barro very mad at me. It was actually exciting because it showed that the website is making a bit of an impact. I wrote, Josh Barro Phenomenon. Now, the truth is, I’m rather fond of Barro. But in this case, he was doing his conservative apologetics—defending Chris Christie’s decision to kill the new Hudson River tunnel for mass transit. It was all based on the fact that it was too expensive and there was waste in the project. Well, that’s always the case. That argument can always be made. So Barro was just defending Christie with something reasonable when that wasn’t the real reason that Christie was killing the project.

Well, Barro was very offended and tweeted out how stupid I was. Whatever. It was clear he didn’t finish reading the article. My point was not that the tunnel should be built, but simply that Barro was acting as an apologist for extreme, partisan behavior on the part of Christie. Since that time, I have noticed that Barro has a kind of political crush on Chris Christie. Generally Barro makes a lot of sense, but he just talks gibberish when the issue of Christie comes up. This is something I write about a lot: there is nothing reasonable or moderate about Chris Christie. He is as conservative as they come. And he’s also an asshole. What a great combination! (See What Josh Barro Hasn’t Figured Out Yet for a full discussion of Barro’s confusion on such matters.)

June was also the month I went to a Democratic Party meeting. And I felt so at home that I will never go to another one. They don’t exactly make it easy to get involved. But I’ve figured out that I’m not really the type to help out in that way. I’m socially awkward. I’m at my best doing what I’m doing right now: sitting in front of a computer writing.

If May was the month of “scandals,” then June was the month of Edward Snowden. And oh did many liberals fail their final exams on liberal fundamentals. Sure, the conservatives hated him. But far too many liberals were skeptical or worse. Looking back on it now, how can anyone question that Snowden was anything but a hero. Without him, we never would have had that “conversation” that Obama was promising us. Our country’s treatment of people like Snowden just disgusts me. This is the kind of nonsense that made me think the Soviet Union was bad when I was a kid. People had to flee the USSR just because they told the truth. Well, that’s the USA today. Are we proud?

Memorable Articles

Why Reagan but Not Bush?
Drunk Driving Hysteria
Michael Bloomberg Wants to Destroy the Democratic Party
Supply Side Dogma
Unstable Weirdos and Business Success

Enjoy the entire: June 2013 Archive.

GOP Reformers Just Make Things Worse

Michael R. StrainEarlier today, Jonathan Chait wrote, Republican Reformers Stop Being Polite to Tea Party, Start Getting Real. Seeing that title, I jumped right in. I was prepared to savage any silly ideas that Chait had about Republican reformers and where they do or do not fit into the conservative movement. But that title was just about as inaccurate as it could be.

The article summarizes two articles in the most recent issue of National Affairs magazine. One by conservative hacks Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. And another by AEI’s Michael Strain[1], who I will admit has shown himself in the past to not be a total idiot and nutjob. As Chait describes it, the “Prague Spring for the mainstream” conservative intelligentsia. And then he spends the rest of the article showing how it is nothing of the sort.

The problem is that being a conservative in any capacity is a really well-paying gig. No one is going to threaten his cushy job at AEI in the name of fixing the Republican Party. But even if one were so inclined, they would quickly figure something out that I’ve been talking about for years: the Democratic Party is the conservative party. So if these people really want to reform the Republican Party, they have to pretend that the Democratic Party is something that it is not. Chait puts it perfectly:

What they refuse to do is compare actually existing Obama policies to actually existing Republican policies. The reason for their refusal is obvious: It would force them to forfeit their claim to partisan loyalty by defending the Democratic agenda. After all, if they consider broad access to medical care a worthy goal, isn’t Obamacare—while perhaps suboptimal—better than nothing (which is the plan Republicans have repeatedly voted for)? If they favor fiscal stimulus to reduce unemployment, even if they quibble with the particular design of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, isn’t it a radical improvement over the Republican program of fiscal anti-stimulus?

He then goes on to note that it isn’t that Republicans don’t have actual policies that they are vigorously pushing. It is just that they are the most vile policies imaginable that no conservative apologist could countenance. This is the Wonderland that conservative intellectuals live in. If you talk to them (And I do!) about their policies, they will tell you about how they are good for the poor. This is where Paul Ryan gets all the hammock garbage. The reason that people are poor is that the government is giving them too much! But when you step out of Wonderland, it gets hard. Poor kids go to school hungry. Poor kids get worse educations. Poor kids die at a much higher rate than rich kids. Well, the conservative intellectuals don’t want that, so they stay locked up inside Wonderland where all children are equal and have a good shot at the American Dream.

What’s most important to me in all of this is that these would be reformers aren’t just spewing out their Wonderland message of the perfect conservative policy. They are also reinforcing the beliefs of the reactionaries that Obama and the Democrats are secret communists trying to destroy the nation. And these “Republican reform” articles (it’s a genre) are always peppered with these distortions about the Democrats that reinforce what the Tea Party crowd already believes.

A more fundamental problem is that if there really were such a thing as a reasonable Republican, he would not stay one for long. Think of Michael Strain. If he really believes in what he claims to believe in, he fits much better in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. But if he became a Democrat, he might lose his job at the AEI. I’ve wondered the same thing about Norman Ornstein, who is also at AEI. But I put him in the same category as David Cay Johnston and Bruce Bartlett: people who align with Republican ideals but don’t seem to vote with the party anymore. But Strain is much younger without the enormous reputations of these three men. So he has to be careful.[2]

But I have some advice for him and others like him: stop trying to be reformers. You’re only making things worse.

Afterword

Look at that picture of Strain above. He looks like a nice young man. He’s welcome in the big tent of the Democratic Party. I know that the two of us would be on opposite sides of the tent. But I’d welcome him. I doubt he’s much more conservative than Obama.


[1] Be careful. This is Michael R. Strain. It is not the Louisiana Republican Michael G. Strain.

[2] Generally, reform is for the older, so Strain is actually showing more bravery than most people in Washington.

Ever Since Marion Davies

Marion DaviesOn this day in 1880, Francis Browne was born. He was a Jesuit, like our current Pope. But he is best known for his photographs—especially for his photographs of the Titanic. He had received a ticket to take the ship from England to Ireland. During that leg of the trip, a rich couple befriended him and offered to pay his way to New York and back again if he would hang out with them. He sent a telegraph to his superior asking for permission. The replay was no, “GET OFF THAT SHIP – PROVINCIAL.” So he did and didn’t die. Maybe there is a God after all.

The writer J R R Tolkien was born in 1892. He was a good writer and I enjoyed his work well enough as a child. But good God, is the man ever overrated. And now, thanks to Peter Jackson and company, he’s more exposed than ever. And you know one of my big complaints about books: padding. Tolkien was the king of padding. And then, to make things worse, Jackson divides The Hobbit into three parts. I hate to break it to the great director, but that was Tolkien’s shortest and best novel. It wasn’t a trilogy! But there is this great John Rogers quote:

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.

Victor Borge was born in 1909. What was he exactly? A musician? A comedian? I don’t know. He was a very good performer. Here he is describing the history of the piano. It is very funny:

The great film director Sergio Leone was born in 1929. Interestingly, he isn’t even listed on the front page birthdays of IMDB. Who is? Danica McKellar who I’ve never heard of. Dan Harmon who I’ve never heard of. Actors I rather like Dabney Coleman (82) and Robert Loggia (84). And of course, bigot with real anger issues Mel Gibson (58). I’ll admit, Gibson is a fine director. But Leone he isn’t. He isn’t even close. Here is the trailer from what I think is his most underrated film, A Fistful of Dynamite:

Other birthdays: Roman philosopher Cicero (106 BC); playwright Douglas William Jerrold (1803); actor ZaSu Pitts (1894); overwrought Ukrainian composer Boris Lyatoshinsky (1895); actor Anna May Wong (1905); the great music producer and arranger George Martin (88); singer-songwriter Stephen Stills (69); and musician who I thought was dead, John Paul Jones (68).

The day, however, belongs to Marion Davies who was born on this day in 1897. She was a fine comedic actor and would doubtless have become a great comedic actor and probably an actor everyone knows. Unfortunately for her, she was William Randolph Hearst’s lover and companion. And Hearst didn’t like seeing her be silly on screen, so with his many connections and gobs of money, he got her to star in historical dramas. She was pretty, there is no doubt of that. But that wasn’t who she was. You need to be careful who your benefactors are.

The only reason I even know who Davies was is because I’m a big Orson Welles fan. In Citizen Kane, Kane tries to make his talentless mistress into an opera star. This was certainly a dig at Hearst who tried to make Davies into something she was not. But it most certainly wasn’t an attack on Davies herself, who Welles defended time and again. Anyway, here she is in her final role—the kind of role should should always have been playing. It is Ever Since Eve (not available on video anywhere), and although it is sexist as hell, it is quite a fun movie.

Happy birthday Marion Davies!

MSNBC Creates False Equivalence for Itself

Melissa Harris-PerryThis is a good segment from The Young Turks, about another MSNBC “scandal.” What happened was that Melissa Harris-Perry had some comedians on her show and they made a joke about the Romney family. Immediately, there is a freak out in the right wing media. The comedian then apologized and Harris-Perry apologized again and again and again. What’s interesting is that there is literally nothing to this. And the fact that Harris-Perry feels the need to beat herself up publicly, just shows how successful the right has been at working the refs.

Jimmy Dore is great in this segment because he totally calls it: this is false equivalence. Now, whenever anyone on MSNBC says anything that ruffles a single feather on the right, those on the left are equating it with the really vile stuff that is said on the right. This isn’t an MSNBC problem; this is a liberal problem. For all of their awful behavior, at least the right wing is loyal to itself. The left wing throws its own people under the bus for the smallest of causes.

Where I disagree with Dore is that Harris-Perry wasn’t over-apologizing because she isn’t smart. She was over-apologizing to protect her job. Given that both Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir were fired over minor things, there is no reason to believe that MSNBC wouldn’t have turned on her as well. And notice, these two guys were fired, but when Phil Robertson says the vilest of things about happy blacks before they were allowed to vote, nothing happens to him.

I have gotten used to the mainstream media bending to the whims of conservative outrage. But this is totally out of hand when the supposed liberal cable channel (that I no longer watch because of the firing of Bashir) allows itself to be worked the same way. Have you noticed that very little has been said about Sarah Palin’s outrage about Bashir and then her great defense of Phil Robertson’s free speech rights? Come on liberals. Grow a fucking backbone. We’re fighting this war of ideas on the conservatives’ terms. So even when we win, we lose.

Check out the segment; it is really good:

Quantity Over Quality

Isaac AsimovOn this day in 1822, the great physicist Rudolf Clausius was born. He basically put the Carnot cycle into the formulation that we now use. But more important he introduced the idea of entropy into thermodynamics. Entropy is kind of like the disorder of a system and it is the reason that systems are not reversible. Think of Humpty Dumpty: it takes a lot more energy to put him back together than you got from breaking him in the first place. Anyway, Clausius is extremely important to the field of thermodynamics and thermodynamics is a really cool (no pun intended) field of study.

The great Croatian painter Slava Raskaj was born in 1877. She is best known for her water colors, which are magnificent. In her early 20s, she began to suffer from depression. So, as they did in those days, they shipped her off to an “institution” where she caught tuberculosis and died shortly after her 29th birthday.

Lotus - Slava Raskaj

The great Russian filmmaker Dziga Vertov was born in 1896. When sound came into film, it almost destroyed the American film industry. All of the visual brilliance that came from people like D W Griffith was forgotten to make way for sound. It’s understandable, but sad. In other countries they didn’t make this mistake. I watched L’Atalante the other night, and although it is a sound picture, the visual story is not sacrificed for the sake of dialog. Vertov was very much part of that, but he didn’t even make narrative films. He was an experimenter, and his film Man with a Movie Camera is still a really interesting film to watch. It was a collaboration with his wife Elizaveta Svilova. Vertov went out and shot interesting things and Svilova tried to edit it into something that made some kind of sense. And it works. It was also hugely influential while American filmmakers were trying to figure out how to hide microphones in flower vases. Here is the whole thing:

The singer-songwriter Roger Miller was born in 1936. He wrote fun and funny song. I love this song:

And finally, someone I really don’t like: “journalist” Judith Miller. More than any other single media person, she sold the Iraq War. And we cannot say that she was deceived. Dick Cheney’s office would feed her information, she would report it, Dick Cheney would then go on the PBS Newshour and say, “It’s not just me who’s saying this; the New York Times reported the same thing!” And then, once she had destroyed all of her credibility, she went on to work for Fox News and other conservative media outlets and “think tanks.” So she was always a conservative, pushing a war that the conservatives wanted, and did it while claiming to be an “objective” journalist. Certainly, she is nowhere near as bad as Bush the Younger or Dick Cheney. But I think she is a traitor, both to her profession and to this country. Instead, I’m sure she’s living the good life, making lots of money, widely applauded in the conservative circles she now finds herself. I guess that’s the new American Dream: betray your country and then get paid huge amounts of money for it. Go team!

Other birthdays: composer Mily Balakirev (1837); sculptor Ernst Barlach (1870); a man who now looks like George Washington compared to what his party has become, Barry Goldwater (1909); and actor Cuba Gooding Jr (46).

The day, however, belongs to Isaac Asimov who was born on this day in 1920. He is mostly known as a science fiction writer. I don’t care for his science fiction. He also wrote books about just about anything you can think of. I’m not too fond of those either. But I do like that he was interested in a lot of different stuff. The problem with his work is that he went for quantity over quality and it showed. Or at least it showed whenever I read him. He wrote or edited over 500 books. I haven’t read more than ten of his books. But I could definitely see how he managed to write so many books: he didn’t put a lot of work into them. He also tended to write short books. Now, I’m all for that; I think there is far too much padding in most books today. But his popular science books were always just good enough, you know? Regardless, he was totally my kind of guy and he was very impressive. So…

Happy birthday Isaac Asimov!

2013 Review: Part 2

2013 ReviewHere we are with the second part of my six-part series on what the hell I was writing about last year. To some extent, it is getting boring, because I am most concerned about the same issues. Of course, I mix things up by talking about movies and music and science. But we continue to live in a shockingly unjust country. And every time I hear a conservative claim that America is the best country in the world I have a stifle a scream.

March 2013

I started March of last year being very annoyed by pundits pretending that Republicans actually mean what they say. A good example of this was, Adorable and Wrong Ezra Klein. Klein had gone to an off-the-record press conference with a Republican in the House. A reporter asked him if Obama putting Chained-CPI (basically cuts to Social Security) up for negotiation would make a difference. The politician said it definitely would because it would show that Obama was serious. Well the fact was that Obama had offered Chained-CPI over and over again. Klein claimed that the real problem was that Democrats and Republicans were talking past each other. That wasn’t it at all. As I noted at the time, as soon as the politician was set straight on the issue, he would come up with another reason why Obama wasn’t “serious” and thus not worth negotiating with. I see this stuff all the time. Reporters in Washington are so desperate to make the Republicans look halfway reasonable they end up just looking silly.

March also contained a couple of articles that got some attention. As I noted before, my birthday post about Lou Reed was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. The Daily Beast picked up my Zero Dark 30 parody video. Actually, that video ended up being far more popular in France than in America. Shocking, I know!

One article I was very pleased with was, Michelle Obama and Downton Abbey. It was about how people can watch shows like Downton Abbey and feel superior that they don’t have anti-gay prejudices like the people of that time did. But they are completely ignorant of their own prejudices. In the First Lady’s case, she has a husband who has admitted to committing drug felonies countless times, but somehow still supports locking people up for drugs. That was pretty much the beginning of my writing more about drug policy in this country. It’s a subject I would like to avoid, but I am so tired of liberals patting themselves on the back about their recently enlightened attitudes toward the LGBT community, while maintaining actually far worse prejudices against drug users.

March also brought perhaps the most important political science study that I heard all year. It turns out that Republican and Democratic politicians alike all assume that their constituencies are more conservative than they actually are. This is one of the reasons that I did not write that much about the gun control talk after the Sandy Hook massacre. Sure, the people wanted something done. But as the year progressed, it became more and more clear to me that we really don’t live in a democracy. It would be one thing if Republican politicians systematically thought their voters were more conservative than they were if the Democratic politicians thought their voters were more liberal. But that’s not it at all. What it actually means is that the true constituency of both parties is the super rich. They always get their way and the poor never get their way. Clinton may have ended welfare for the poor as we knew it. But welfare for the rich is bigger and easier than ever. Much of my writing was about the various ways that this was affecting our country and it is when I really started to argue that the Republicans had become so radical because the supposed liberal party—the Democrats—had become so conservative that there really was nowhere else for the Republicans to go.

And in the middle of March was the first of many articles about Debra Milke, the woman who had spent two decades on death row for the murder of her son, even though she clearly had nothing to do with it. She is now out on bail awaiting another trial, but I still don’t understand that given that the state actually has no evidence against her. The only evidence they had in the first place was a lying cop. Since he’s been exposed as a serial liar and much worse, I don’t see why the state is continuing except, as always, in a desperate attempt to save face.

Enjoy the entire: March 2013 Archive.

April 2013

By April, I was even complaining that Jonathan Chait was naive. Eric Cantor said he would “see about additional taxes” if Obama showed he was serious about cutting the budget. The thing is that Obama has savagely cut the budget already. This is one of the reasons our economy is doing so poorly. So all Cantor was saying was that he would not see about additional taxes. If by April of 2013, Cantor didn’t see Obama as being “serious” about the budget, he never would. And indeed that’s exactly what we saw. But it was telling that Chait fell for this. Chait is usually much better about this kind of stuff.

I wrote an interesting article about websites like Yahoo! Answers where the “best” answer is the one with the most votes. I had my own question, Were Women Allowed to Act in the Theater in the Shakespearean Era? It turned out that every answer given was filled with misinformation. And I detected more than a hint of racism in it too. The more you know about a subject, the more concern you have about “crowd sourcing.” It often gets the questions wrong and brings out the worst in people.

April also brought more coverage of Chained-CPI. It was all part of the Grand Bargain that Obama and “centrists” are so in love with. Thankfully, the issue eventually went away because there was no way that the Republicans would vote for anything that made the rich pay even a penny more in taxes. I always knew this, so most of my attacks were on the Democrats. I don’t know what they were thinking. We have a poor economy. And what do they want to do? They want to cut government spending, which will be bad for the economy. And they also want to raise taxes, which will be bad for the economy. So the Grand Bargain was bad policy. But it was also bad politics. Other than the professional centrists like Thomas Friedman and Barack Obama, no one was interested in such a lose-lose bargain.

There was also some news that we were going to get some national gun control legislation. It was so watered down as to be useless. And in the end even it couldn’t get through Congress. I had been predicting that for a while. I think gun control is a stupid issue for Democrats to focus on. It is not a winner. There are bigger fish to fry. Unfortunately, most of Democratic politicians don’t want to deal with those bigger fish, because doing so might offend their funding sources.

Christopher Knight is the actor who played the role of Peter Brady on The Brady Bunch. But in April, we met a hermit with the same name who lived alone for 27 years before he was arrested for petty theft. It is a fascinating story, which you should read if you missed it, North Pond Hermit. Of course April also had the Boston Marathon bombing. And Reinhart and Rogoff crashed and burned. And it was the 25th anniversary of Reagan signing the United Nations Convention Against Torture. I wrote a number of articles that month about torture. And I officially got rid of the nofollow tag in comments. And immigration flared up again.

My high level of cynicism about what Congress would do served me well the whole year. That really started in April. Most liberals have this very childish idea that the Republican Party will go along with legislation if it is popular enough. That’s not the way it works. And at this point, saying no to everything is about the only policy idea that they have. If they start agreeing with the Democrats on anything other than the names of post offices, they will lose their brand.

Enjoy the entire: April 2013 Archive.

Missing Scene From Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are DeadHamlet Will you play upon this pipe?

Guildenstern My lord, I cannot.

Hamlet I pray you.

Guildenstern Believe me, I cannot.

Hamlet I do beseech you.

Guildenstern I know no touch of it, my lord.

Hamlet ‘Tis as easy as lying: govern these ventages with your fingers and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most eloquent music. Look you, these are the stops.

Guildenstern But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony; I have not the skill.

Hamlet Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.

[Enter Polonius. Guildenstern turns to Rosencrantz.]

Guildenstern Can you believe that?

Rosencrantz Yeah. What an asshole!

Guildenstern Excellent good friend, my ass!

David Brooks Puts Profits over Prophets

David BrooksBecause of a bit of a mix-up, I happened to read David Brooks’ yearly discussion of the Sidney Awards, The Sidney Awards, Part 1. There is nothing quite like reading David Brooks or Thomas Friedman or oh so many other major newspaper columnists to make a writer feel good about himself. With Brooks, one gets a beautiful combination of lazy thinking, boring prose, and intellectual pretense. And all of this comes together perfectly when Brooks discusses work by people who can actually think and write reasonably well without undue pretense.

In this collection, he tries to figure out if there is more to humans than just a bunch of electrochemical processes going on in the brain. Brooks is clearly divided on the issue. The religious part of him wants to think that there is something other-worldly about humans—that soul that’s gonna go to heaven and party until forever never comes. But the political part of him wants to think that humans are just a special kind of resource that businesses use to bring products to market. Having read him for years, I know where he comes down on all this. Profits over Prophets. I’ve never met a big time conservative who wasn’t perfectly clear on that issue. Profits over Prophets.

Does Science Explain All?

He starts by discussing two opposing essays by Steven Pinker and Leon Wieseltier. Brooks refers to them as “two intellectual heavyweights.” Well, he got that half right. Pinker is an intellectual heavyweight. Wieseltier is best described as a prominent fight promoter. These two guys tackle the question of whether science can or rather more correctly could some day tell us everything about everything. I haven’t read the articles and I have no intention of doing so. It would be hard to find a more boring question to think about. But the way that Brooks writes about the articles is so shamelessly biased as to be comical:

Pinker took the expansive view, arguing that, despite what some blinkered humanities professors argue, science gives us insight into nearly everything. For example, Pinker argues that science has demonstrated that “the belief systems of all the world’s traditional religions and cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans and societies—are factually mistaken.” …

Wieseltier counters that few believers take Scripture literally. They interpret. Meanwhile, science simply can’t explain many of the most important things. Imagine a scientific explanation of a beautiful painting, based, say, on a chemical analysis of the paint. “Such an analysis will explain everything except what most needs explaining: the quality of beauty that is the reason for our contemplation of the painting.” The scientists deny the differences between the realms of human existence and simplify reality by imposing their methods even where they can’t apply.

That’s a knockout for Wieseltier, don’t you think? Of course, there are a couple of problems. One is that, in fact most believers take Scripture literally. A 2004 CBS poll found that 55% of Americans think that God created man literally as it says in the Bible. That’s not “few,” that’s “most.” This is the number one weapon in the arsenal of religious apologists. Well, no one really believes that nonsense! But of course, they do. And when they are all alone, they encourage each other to think that nonsense. But that’s a minor issue. Let’s get to the big problem.

No Profit in Prophets

Pinker is not talking about finding beauty in the chemistry of the paints used by an artist. He’s a cognitive scientist. When he says that science can explain everything, he’s talking about understanding the chemistry that goes on in the brain. Why does one painting cause the brain to release endorphins while another does not? I don’t know if Wieseltier is presenting this “chemistry of the paint” strawman to knock down, but Brooks sure is. And that’s where he leaves it.

If two intelligent people were going to discuss this kind of thing, they wouldn’t be talking about a human’s reaction to art. They would be talking about whether humans could ever understand why the universe exists. And by the way: it is possible that there is an answer to that question. I believe that certain findings of math indicate that some day we will be able to prove that such a question is beyond the power of a machine that is limited to the perfect intellectual potential of the universe. In other words, it might be possible to prove that nothing can ever fully explain itself. If Pinker wants to write a book about that, I’d be interested in reading it. I’m not sure Wieseltier is even capable of understanding the question. And I know that Brooks isn’t.

Do Elephants Have Souls That We Can’t Bother Defining?

Elephants Have SoulsBrooks next discusses Caitrin Nicol’s essay Do Elephants Have Souls? All I can tell from what he wrote is that Nicol thinks elephants do have souls, but isn’t really clear on what souls are. I don’t know what the big deal is. To me, the soul is the essence of a person. It is what I think I am that is distinct from the environment that I live in. But for religious folk like David Brooks, it is far more difficult. And his difficulty with the word takes him back to his unfair discussion of the Pinker-Wieseltier debate. But I don’t think it is just Brooks’ problem.

He quotes Nicol as writing “when we talk about it, we all mean more or less the same thing: what it means for someone to bare it, for music to have it, for eyes to be the window to it, for it to be uplifted or depraved.” Really?! That’s award-winning writing? Because I don’t think the eyes are the windows to the soul, I don’t think people bare their soul except in the sense that they always do, I don’t usually refer to music as having soul, unless I am referring to the music of the 1960s and 1970s that combined R&B with gospel music. I don’t think we all mean more or less the same thing. Most of the people I talk to think the soul is something that lives in the body and goes up to heaven when they die. I don’t think that at all. I’m sure that elephants have souls in the sense that I understand the term soul. But it doesn’t seem like Nicol and Brooks are clear enough on the term soul to say anything at all about elephants.

Did Aaron Swartz Die Because He Was Too Free?

Aaron SwartzIt seems that Larissa MacFarquhar wrote a “brilliant” profile of Aaron Swartz. That may well be. But clearly, Brooks has an ax to grind when it comes to the question of the brilliant and depressed Swartz. Brooks callously observes, “He began writing big books or starting great projects, but he usually didn’t finish them.” Well, I guess that’s one way of saying that he was an idea guy. He was Frank in “Frank, Frank turned the crank; Joe, Joe made it go.” But you could just call him a loser who didn’t finish what he started. Less than a year after his tragic suicide, I guess the “loser” definition is the reasonable choice to explain Swartz. He uses the story to argue in favor of structure and not allowing those kids too much intellectual freedom. No mention is made of a government “justice” system gone wild, pushing an already fragile “soul” over the edge. But who needs those details when Brooks has an important story to tell about the evils of freedom and the uses really smart people put that freedom to.

Can Interviews Reveal the Ghost in the Machine?

Finally, we get to Don Peck’s essay about better ways to hire people to become corporate cogs, They’re Watching You at Work. The old ways of hiring are not working. I have no trouble believing that. “In one study at Xerox, previous work experience had no bearing on future productivity.” What’s more, people are hired more for how they get along socially with the existing staff than anything else. (This isn’t how Brooks puts it, because he doesn’t think that deeply.) Now I guess some companies are making people play video games so they can get the perfect employee with “a strict work ethic but a loose capacity for ‘mind wandering.'” Brooks tells us that it won’t matter if you went to Harvard or Yale. Of course, Brooks doesn’t like this idea at all. He thinks the analytics can’t work because there is something special in there that you just can’t test for. So these video games can’t find that special Brooksian “soul” but graduating from Harvard or Yale or (Brooks’ own school) the University of Chicago can.

Toast in the MachineI can tell you one thing. If these computer analytics do take hold in corporate America, they will only be used at the end of the interview process. Management will first make sure that you are the right kind of person. If you are black, they will make sure you are the right kind of black. You know the drill. And then they will do a background check on you to see if you’ve ever be arrested for possessing half a joint. And then they’ll run a credit check to make sure yours is at least in the high 700s if not a perfect 850. And then they’ll give you their little analytic test. But at that point, who really cares? They know you’re the “right” kind of person and you’ll fit in fine.

It’s possible that there really is a “ghost in the machine” of us humans. David Brooks really wants to believe that. At the same time, all of his political philosophy just wants to treat humans like they are cogs in the business machine. Like most conservatives, the idea that humans are special and deserve dignity and respect is just dogma you recite for the hour or so per week when you go to your holy institution. The rest of the time, the world is a social Darwinian nightmare where the weak get eaten by the strong because that’s what really matters. Humans are really important in the mythical afterlife. But in the real here-and-now, humans don’t matter a bit.

Profits over Prophets.

Artist, Physicist, and Two Great Writers

Bartolome Esteban MurilloIt turns out that Paul Revere was really born on this day and not on 21 December, as I noted before. It’s that stupid Old Style and New Style date thing that screws me up all the time. Whatever. It’s not like he’s an important guy. If it weren’t for Longfellow’s poem, he wouldn’t even be in Wikipedia!

Speaking of founding “fathers,” on this day in 1752, Betsy Ross was born. I find her interesting for a number of reasons. First, she was married three times. Two of her husbands died in the Revolutionary War. Her third husband was in bad health and eventually died for whatever reasons. She knew George Washington because at the age of 21, she eloped with an Episcopalian (Ross was raised as a Quaker), who went to the same church as Washington. Anyway, the main thing she did with the flag was to change the stars from six points to the easier to create 5 point stars we know and love today. She and her husbands were very successful in the upholstering business. But what’s most interesting about her is how she has been used as a symbol in American life. See girls: you can be part of history too! Look, I think sewing and needle work and all that is very important. But the truth is that we had a terribly sexist society that stopped women from making the kinds of public contributions to society that they were capable of. (They made many, most untold, private contributions.) And the fact that we made a big deal of Betsy Ross when I was in school 200 years later is just pathetic.

E M ForsterThe great writer E M Forster was born in 1879. He is best known for writing A Room with a View and A Passage to India. But most people know him for having written the book that every Merchant-Ivory film was based on. Oh, I’m kidding! But sometimes it does seem that way. What I find most interesting about him is his short story “The Machine Stops.” One doesn’t much think of Forster was a science fiction writer, but there you go. The whole story is online, and I highly recommend reading it. It’s about 10,000 words long—so something even I could read in bed before going to sleep. And what is perhaps more interesting about it is that it really isn’t that different from A Room With a View in terms of its theme. Fundamentally, he was always writing about people trying to connect with each other. He may have been pessimistic about that much of the time, but he always held out the hope. Anyway, you can also watch a BBC production of “The Machine Stops,” although it will actually take less time to read:

The great theoretical physicist Satyendra Nath Bose was born in 1894. He is best known for his early work in quantum mechanics, especially Bose–Einstein statistics, which has to do with the ways in which a set of non-interacting bosons can arrange themselves in different energy states. Now what are bosons? They are one of the two classes of elementary particles that act according to Bose-Einstein statistics. The other kind of elementary particles are the fermions. It is probably easiest to think of fermions as the “stuff” of matter and bosons as the “glue” of matter. And before you ask, yes: at that level, our whole intuition of what matter is breaks down. Regardless, Bose was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century and almost no one would even know his name except that another great physicist Paul Dirac coined the term “boson.” Bose, like the elementary particles named after him, was a kind of glue. He did the work that linked the earliest quantum mechanics of people like Planck with the “new” quantum mechanics of people like Heisenberg.

J Edgar Hoover and Clyde TolsonJ Edgar Hoover was born in 1895. More or less a villain of history, I have no real interest in his day job. I’m interested in his sexual proclivities. It is commonly assumed that he was a closet transvestite. I seriously doubt that. In fact, I think that is about as likely to be the case as it is that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. The claim is based only on the say so of one very unreliable person. And people continue to believe it because it is delicious. But that doesn’t make it true. What is almost certainly the case is that Hoover was gay. I don’t necessarily think he ever even acted on it. The man might well have died a virgin. But there is no doubt that he had a very special relationship with Clyde Tolson. Regardless of the details of that relationship, it was sweet. After Hoover’s death, Tolson’s health immediately deteriorated, and he was dead within three years. Hoover left his entire estate to Tolson and the two are buried together. Whatever their relationship, we need more like it. Above on the left is a picture of the two of them together, probably from the late 50s or early 60s.

J D SalingerThe great writer J D Salinger was born in 1919. Look, I’ve had some very harsh words to say about the man. And if it turns out that he was working very hard all these years and he produced great stuff, I will take much of it back. I still find the whole thing obnoxious, however. The trolling for young English grad students is creepy. And I don’t buy the whole spiritual element of avoiding celebrity. For one thing, he certainly wasn’t against using his celebrity to get himself laid. What’s more, part of being a public writer is having a conversation with your readers. By cutting off all contact with his readers, he was snubbing the communal aspects of writing. And it is for this reason that I suspect when his work comes out we are going to find that it’s going to be some kind of bad Faulkner. But I’ll be happy to be surprised.

Other birthdays: actor Dana Andrews (1909); “Stymie” actor, Matthew Beard (1925); playwright Larry L King (1929); fine actor Frank Langella (75); comedian Don Novello (70); rapper Grandmaster Flash (55); and actor Verne Troyer (44).

The day, however, belongs to the great Baroque painter Bartolome Esteban Murillo who was born on this day in 1618. He is best known for his religious painting. And rightly so; it’s great. And that was where the money was in Catholic Spain of the 17th century. But in many ways, he is the successor of Diego Velazquez, another painter I greatly admire. And so I think we see Murillo at his best when he was painting the street life of Seville and Madrid. For example, here is The Little Fruit Seller, which he painted in 1670 in Seville:

The Little Fruit Seller - Murillo

Happy birthday Bartolome Esteban Murillo!

2013 Review: Part 1

2013 ReviewAs it is the first day of 2014, and I have already discussed the last year in a general sense, it seems natural to go back and look at what I spent the last year talking about. This is the first of a six-part series of articles about what we were talking about this last year.

January 2013

The first thing you notice about this month is that it is when my love affair with the movie Romantics Anonymous started. In the end, no political scandal, no amount of bad behavior by our supposed leaders is going to trump a movie that will continue to delight me for the rest of my life. The first time I wrote about it was on the first day of last year. Apparently, I spent new year’s eve watching it, which is about as good a way to spend the night as anything else I can think of.

I also first wrote about something that has become a bit of an obsession with me, Live Long and Eat. It’s about how it is most healthy to be a little bit on the fat side. All those skinny people we see in ads and movies are actually bad examples for us. Let me put it in terms that Curb Your Enthusiasm fans can understand: it is better to be Jeff Garlin than Larry David. And remember, Jeff Garlin’s feature film debut as writer and director was I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With. Keep right on eating that cheese, Jeff!

The beginning of the month dealt with the Fiscal Cliff negotiations and my anger that the Democrats (Obama specifically) were doing a terrible job with those negotiations. After all, if they had not negotiated at all, taxes would have gone way up. The Republicans were not in a position to allow that. So why even negotiate with them. Give them the offer and say, “It’s that or income taxes go up on everyone and it will be your fault.” But in the end, a deal was made that was much better for the Republicans than they could reasonably have hoped for. One thing that wasn’t part of the deal was an increase in the debt ceiling. And as a result, we are still dealing with that situation today. Otherwise, on the political front, I was talking a lot about income inequality and I really started pushing filibuster reform.

Aaron SwartzOn 11 January Aaron Swartz killed himself. That resulted in a few articles about our social injustice but also about how depression works. There was too much of people trying to turn the whole tragedy to their own benefit: mostly by exonerating the government’s attacks on him and by just trying to pass it off as the act of a depressed young man. It makes me think of that part of the Bible where it says you aren’t allowed to beat your slave so badly that he dies within three days. Sure, depression is a terrible thing and maybe Swartz would have killed himself at some point anyway. But being hounded by the government made it so much worse. It’s like our entire culture is determined to destroy the best of what we are.

One thing our culture has lost is any sense of irony. Last January John Kiriakou was given two and a half years in jail for leaking information about the CIA’s torture program. And how many people in the CIA have been punished for actually torturing people. Let me think, there was that one guy that… No. Not him. How about that woman who… Oh, that’s right! Not only has no one been punished, no one has even been indicted. That’s because in America, torturing people is just fine. But revealing government secrets, well, that’s the worst thing a person can do. As a truly patriotic American, I am disgusted with my country.

Enjoy the entire: January 2013 Archive.

February 2013

This month saw the release of some of George Bush the Younger’s paintings. Some art “experts” even went to far to say that they were good. So much for the experts. Look, I’m not an artist, but I really like art and I learn as much about it as I can. And as a result, I can tell the difference between good art and really weak art. Bush isn’t terrible. But if he hadn’t been president, no one would take his work seriously. It is very much like the work done by men of his age and social class who take up painting late in life. This led me later to mistake some parodies of his work as the real thing. Such is the value I place in his work and his thinking. Speaking of which, I also wrote about Celebrity Painters. In general, I don’t like that kind of thing. But the fact is that Hitler really wasn’t a bad painter.

Most of the month, however, had me talking about income inequality in a lot of different ways. I wrote a lot about the minimum wage. The big thing about the minimum wage is that conservatives are always saying that it will cause companies to cut employment. The evidence just doesn’t support that contention. What’s more, as Dean Baker teaches us, prices are not set by the costs that companies pay to bring products to market. Just the same, employers don’t hire people to be nice. They hire employees because they need them. We get the same thing about the corporate tax rate. If you raise corporate taxes, they will just pass the costs on to the customers. No! That’s not the way the economy works and February was when I really started talking about the fact that conservatives really don’t understand economics or business.

Kathleen O'Brien WilhelmFebruary was also the month we first learned about Kathleen O’Brien Wilhelm. She is the Tea Party idiot who writes a blog for the Avon-AvonLake Patch. But you probably remember her as the woman who thought that deer crossing signs were a waste of money because, “Deer cannot read, do not obey the law and probably will cross where they wish.” I know, it sounds like an article from The Onion, but the woman is dead serious. I check up on her every couple of months and usually write something. But it gets harder because her articles rarely say anything. They are just the random “thoughts” of a committed Fox News viewer. Here most recent article for Christmas summed up, “Remember, this government has worked to take our guns, stifle our speech, and tear at our religious beliefs. It is time we stop them!” Yeah, those 80% Americans who are Christians are really being kept down. Oh, she also says, “As a Christian, do not turn the other cheek.” Because, you know, what Jesus said was important and all, but the NRA is really a high power.

The whole month shows a move on my part toward sarcasm. All of the talk about the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling and the Sequester seem to have finally gotten to me. The Republicans were just talking gibberish. But the Democrats weren’t doing much better. I think this was the beginning of the end of my mostly positive relationships with relatively liberal writers like Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein and to a lesser extent Ed Kilgore. Someone like Matt Yglesias may annoy me a lot, but he never bores me; he never feeds me the Democratic Party line. Although I am a Democrat, that doesn’t mean I’m happy with it. Half of the party is useless. As I’m always saying, we have one good conservative and one good liberal party in the United States, and they are both in the Democratic Party. But to be a Democrat, you’ve got to maintain a sense of humor.

Enjoy the entire: February 2013 Archive.