The Madcap Syd Barrett

Syd BarrettWhat we know of the Elizabethan theater world is largely due to Philip Henslowe‘s diaries. He was owner of the Rose in partnership with the greatest actor of the period Edward Alleyn. We don’t know when Henslowe was born, even the exact year. But we know when he died and it was today in 1616.

On this day in 1412, Joan of Arc was most likely born. To me, she’s a cautionary tale. Strong belief in God is dangerous. And it is especially when he starts telling you to do things. Given her age, I assume she was suffering from schizophrenia. She was of that age, as I will discuss more in a bit. But whatever the sources, they got her involved in the conflict between England and France. She supported France regaining its independence. This ended with her being put on trial for heresy by a the Bishop of Beauvais Pierre Cauchon, who supported the British. She was found guilty as people pretty much always were. It’s kind of like being accused of “Gribble temporal trending folk bottles.” What do you say in your defense? So she was burned at the stake at the age of 19. Just so you understand: she was a Catholic and she was killed by part of the Catholic Church. Twenty-five years later, the Pope looked at her case and found her innocent. If you are a Christian and believe all its dogma, then that might mean something to you. To me, a young woman was tortured to death because she was born in the wrong country.

Joan of ArcHeinrich Schliemann was born in 1822. He was one of the most important archaeologist of all time. In particular, he was the first person to dig at Hissarlik, which later archaeologists were able to prove was the actual site of the Trojan War, which by the 19th century was thought to be pure myth. Schliemann also, unfortunately, destroyed much of the site because of his belief that old sites had to be deep. And it turned out that seven main cities had been built on top of the site dating from about a thousand years before Troy. The whole story is amazing, and I highly recommend watching In Search of the Trojan War, which you can find links to in my article, Jesus and Troy. For any Homer fan (And Schliemann was definitely that!) it is a joy.

E L Doctorow is 83 today. He is known for his historical fiction in the best sense of that phrase. His books are expansive, even epic. But I have to admit, I’ve only read Ragtime. It’s interesting. Milos Forman made a great film based upon the book. But he only used a tiny slice of the novel. And the movie is pretty complex. So that ought to give you some idea. Both the book and the movie are recommended. I really should read more of Doctorow’s books. There is so little time!

E L DoctorowOther birthdays: co-inventor of the hot air balloon Jacques-Etienne Montgolfier (1745); the great French painter and engraver Gustave Dore (1832); the great Romanian painter Stefan Luchian (1868); poet Carl Sandburg (1878); suprematism painter Aleksandra Ekster (1882); actor Danny Thomas (1912); actor Loretta Young (1913); musician Earl Scruggs (1924); actor Vic Tayback (1930); and comedian Rowan Atkinson (59).

The day, however, belongs to Syd Barrett who was born on this day in 1946. He was, of course, the founder of the band Pink Floyd. He is probably best known for going crazy and having to leave the band. I’m not going to go into it much here, because I discussed it in some length in, Cause We’re the Fishes. But there is a general belief that Barrett became schizophrenic because of his use of the drug LSD. I don’t think that’s true. Barrett, just like Joan of Arc, developed the disease at the age when people develop it: the late teens and early twenties. I just found this very short video of a television interview where Barrett shows himself to be extremely wellspoken and intelligent. Regardless, if you want to know more about him, read the other article. For now, enjoy one of his many great songs of The Madcap Laughs, kind of the title track, “Octopus” (note: a couple of the images are of Pink Floyd without Syd, but mostly they are correct):

Happy birthday Syd Barrett!

2013 Review: Part 5

2013 Review

September 2013

September began the drum beat for war with Syria. It seems that Joe Lieberman has never seen a war he wasn’t in favor of. No wonder he and John McCain are such good friends. It seems that I spent the whole month making the argument if we cared about Syria, we should have done something before 100,000 people were killed in the conflict. I also noted that what all the clamoring for war with Syria was about was providing a backdoor into war with Iran.

This month, I also wrote about the atheist religious scholar Robert M. Price, Another Conservative Atheist? I really like him because he knows a lot about the Bible and he’s amusing. But I’ve read him long enough to notice occasional comments that indicate that he’s politically conservative. I talked about it in that article. But then, just two weeks later in his podcast, The Human Bible, he mentioned hypocrisy and gave as an example, people in Congress who didn’t want to have Obamacare apply to them. Well, that was too much! That’s straight out of right-wing radio. The answer is that Obamacare is not supposed to apply to anyone who gets his insurance from his employer. So I was none too happy to hear that. As a result, I commented on the podcast:

Oh my, a bit of Dr. Price’s conservative politics has fallen into his podcast! I wouldn’t mind if it had been something other than a talk radio canard that shows a total lack of understanding of Obamacare.

My advice: more Chuck Heston impersonations, less low information conservatism.

I don’t know if it makes any difference. But I think it’s important to push back against this kind of thing. As I’ve argued a lot lately, atheism is linked not only to libertarianism but to conservatism generally. And I’m sure that all the people Price hangs out with agree with his politics. Well, I want him to know that I don’t listen to his podcast for his political opinions. Even if I agreed with them, when it comes to politics, he’s a low information voter. In the last two podcasts, there have been no political commentary. More than anything, I hope he was embarrassed, because what he said showed a shocking level of ignorance.

After 23 years on death row, I was pleased to pass along the information, Debra Milke Released on Bond. The entire case came down to Detective Armando Saldate’s claim that Milke had confessed to him. Milke claimed she did not. The jury believed Saldate. But since then, it has been shown that he has lied repeatedly under oath and that he abused witnesses and twisted their words. On 18 December 2013, the judge in the new trial against Milke allowed Saldate to plead the 5th Amendment. He is rightly afraid that the defense team will tear him apart on cross examination and open him up to charges of perjury and much else. If he doesn’t testify in this case, the judge has said that the prosecution cannot introduced Milke’s supposed confession into evidence. Without that, they really have nothing. I can’t imagine that they won’t drop the case. But who knows. I didn’t think they would go this far.

The second half of the month brought back the debate of who would be the next Fed Chair. Many insiders really wanted Larry Summers. But as I wrote, after many similar articles, Just Nominate Janet Yellen! Eventually Yellen was nominated, but Obama handled the whole thing badly. It went on and on. She was just confirmed by the Senate.

This was also the month the the chicken came to live with me, Fred Henhouse. At the beginning of the month, she just showed up and wouldn’t go away. Also, I couldn’t find any neighbors who would claim her. But I rather liked her, so I bought feed and started taking care of her. Unfortunately, just as I was making plans for a permanent house for her, she was killed by some local animal. It was very sad because I became very fond of her.

Memorable Articles

The Rich Lack Empathy
Alcoholics Anonymous is Not Like the Washingtonian Movement
Obama Diversity Problem Goes Deep
Pretty Woman Ugly Tweets
GOP Bad Faith Obamacare “Replacement”
Presidential Ideology
Government Policy Led to Inequality
I Was a Middle Class Food Stamp Kid

Enjoy the entire: September 2013 Archive.

October 2013

This was, of course, the month of the government shutdown. The funny thing is that September was filled with articles about how the government shutdown was going to be terrible for the Republicans. And then it was. By the middle of the month, they collapse and learned nothing from the experience. At the same time, the Obamacare website came online and was a disaster. At first, I was an apologist for it. But when the problems became clear, I approached it as a technical issue. There’ll be more about that in November. The main thing is that it was never what the Republicans claimed, “The government can’t do anything!” It was that the proper resources were not given to the project and once they were, the website was fixed. We’re not hearing anymore about it now.

Memorable Articles

Sad Result When Libertarians Get Practical
Nine Month Democratic Super-Majority Destroyed California Film Industry 7 Years Ago!
Why Democrats Aren’t an Extremist Party
In Which I Am Tested for Personality Disorders
No Contradiction in Genesis Eve Creation
The GOP Problem Is Not Messaging
The End of the Bagel Exception
The Power of False Lessons
What’s With “Democrat Party”?
What I Think of George W Bush
Obamacare Is Not Liberal Policy
Truthful Obama Bumper Sticker
New Democrats and the Rightward March
Libertarianism Incompatible With Atheism

Enjoy the entire: October 2013 Archive.

Art Laffer’s Economic Model

Art LefferI’ve got my mojo back a bit. And so I’m very eager to write three long and involved articles that need to get done today. But there is so much else to write about. Paul Krugman went on vacation from writing columns for the last week. As I result, I stopped checking his blog. I shouldn’t have. He’s an addict. He just can’t help himself. Anyway, on Friday, he wrote an amazing short post, In Praise of Art Laffer. I am no fan of Laffer. Previously, I wrote of him, “He greatly annoys me, because all he does is smile and babble.” And Krugman doesn’t have a fondness for him either.

But in a recent article in Business Insider, Laffer responded to his 2009 prediction of soaring inflation. For the record: inflation is low: too low, if you ask me or pretty much any reasonable economist. The reason Krugman is praising Laffer is that his response was honest:

Usually when you find the model this far off, you’ve probably got something wrong with the model, not that the world has changed. Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven.

This is a big deal because most economists and similar types somehow justify their predictions. One big one is that inflation actually is high and that the government is just lying about it. That, of course, is ridiculous. I go shopping every couple of days and I don’t see prices going up. In fact, I see them as being really stable. Another common excuse is that the Federal Reserve is artificially keeping inflation low by keeping interest rates low and through its quantitative easing program. That has been shown not to be true experimentally. But there are many more excuses to choose from, so it shows a decent amount of intellectual integrity on Laffer’s part to admit his error.

Paul KrugmanKrugman asks what I think is an honest question, “I do wonder exactly what model Laffer was using.” I think I have an answer for that. Laffer may have at one time been a real economist. But for decades, all he’s been has been a conservative apologist. I don’t think Laffer had any economic model that predicted that inflation was going to soar. It is just that everyone on the right knew that interest rates were going to soar. Think about all the stuff from Alberto Alesina and Reinhart-Rogoff about how economic austerity would cause growth (or at least stop stagnation). Most conservatives (even the economists) just grabbed onto a plausible sounding excuse to justify what they wanted to believe. Look at Greg Mankiw who believed in stimulus under Bush, didn’t believe in it under Obama, and was laying the groundwork to believe in it under Romney.

So I’d be shocked to find that Laffer actually had a model that predicted inflation and wasn’t just following the pack. He believed inflation would soar because Obama was president. Had McCain been elected and enacted the same policies (and as far as I can tell, he would have), Laffer never would have predicted that high inflation was just around the corner. It’s great that Laffer is admitting straight up that he was wrong. But I’m sure that his next “model” will simply be what all the other conservatives are pointing to as the reason why things always go to hell when a Democrat is in the White House.

60 Minutes Conservative Rampage Continues

60 MinutesLast night I watched the first segment of 60 Minutes. It looked like they were going to do a hit job on the clean energy industry. And I was not disappointed. After all that we’ve been through the last couple of months with the show, I am now convinced that someone is in charge who has a real conservative ax to grind. First we had Benghazi. Then we had the NSA whitewash. And now we’re back to what was effectively a rant about Solyndra going out of business and “wasting” a half billion dollars!

The documentary We’re Not Broke (currently available on Netflix) reports that every year, the federal government loses $70 billion from corporations using offshore tax havens. Yet 60 Minutes is concerned that the government spent a couple billion dollars investing in cutting edge technologies that have not paid off? That’s not reporting. That’s propaganda.

Leslie Stahl listed four clean energy companies that had gone out of business. Then she added, “I’m exhausted.” Four companies exhausted her! No wonder her reporting is so bad. If saying 14 syllables exhaust her, then doing any research would be out of the question. (Note: in the transcript, more was written, but she gave up after the four in the actual interview.) The answer to this from Steven Koonin was, “As I told you at the beginning, the energy business is tough!”

Think Progress published a great article with some informative charts, 60 Minutes Hit Job on Clean Energy Ignores the Facts. It responded:

Memo to CBS: Every business is tough! In 2012, the Wall Street Journal ran an informative piece on just how tough the private sector venture-capital businesses is, headlined, “The Venture Capital Secret: 3 Out of 4 Start-Ups Fail.”

It seems at first that this is a secret 60 Minutes is unaware of, since the show focuses almost entirely on the failures. But CBS explains that “the venture capital model is that for every ten startups, nine go under”—except that CBS appears to see that as a bug, not a feature, failing to understand that the successes more than pay for the failures.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of start-ups go bankrupt, the government’s investments do far better. Even with the half billion given to Solyndra and Abound, the “DOE Loan Guarantee Program has a whopping 97 percent success rate.” Now I’ll admit, if 60 Minutes had presented the story accurately, it would have been a puff piece, “Government Program Really Successful in Clean Energy Funding!” But why not a puff piece? The show was more than willing to present a puff piece to justify NSA spying.

According to Media Matters, one of the people 60 Minutes interviewed for the segment, energy expert Robert Rapier, tweeted after the the show that he gave them a list of successes and told them that solar energy was the future. But that conflicted with the narrative that Leslie Stahl and company wanted to present. So that information didn’t make the cut.

Perhaps the most egregious (but hardly shocking) fact about the story was that global warming was not mentioned once. In fact, about half way through the story, it became clear to me who was really behind it: the fracking industry. Stahl dutifully noted that that natural gas was “relatively clean.” Well, in terms of local pollution it is quite clean. And in terms of global warming, it is a hell of a lot better than other hydrocarbons. So in that regard, I guess it is “relatively clean” in the sense that eating off the floor is “relatively clean” compared to eating out of a dirty toilet.

Also not mentioned were the huge subsidies that traditional energy supplies get. When Vinod Khosla said there was no down side to gas made from trees, Stahl responded in voice-over, “Well there is: first off, his clean green gasoline costs much more than what you pay at the pump.” (BTW: there was no “second off.” That was her only complaint about it as an energy source.) I guess that Stahl and her producers have never heard of externalities: costs that we all pay for that isn’t factored into the price. You know: like global warming and oil spills. And then there are all those tax subsidies that Exxon-Mobile gets by keeping all their profits off shore. And there is much more. The price we pay at the pump is not the price we pay. The real price we pay is much higher. Higher than Khosla’s gas? I don’t know. He might be a charlatan for all I know. But the fact is that even with all its unfair advantages, soon the fossil fuel industry will be beaten by solar.

But Leslie Stahl and 60 Minutes are doing everything they can to push that day off as far as possible.

Stopping Kaleidoscopic Optical Illusions

Moving Optical Illusion

This is a common optical illusion that I have seen in any number of books. It was tweeted out this morning by Brain Games. Normally, I wouldn’t present it to you because it really isn’t that interesting. I mean, some optical illusions are more interesting to certain kinds of people than others. Personally, I most like optical issues that look different depending upon how you approach them (eg two faces and a vase). So in the past, I’ve passed it (and similar ones) off as, “Oh, it disorients the eye.” But I noticed something different this morning.

For the record, this is not an animated gif or anything like that. It is one stagnant image. How it seems to work (and I have done no research whatsoever) is by confusing our binocular vision. Try this. Don’t look at the image generally. Stare are one spot in the image. It will stop moving. It is quite interesting to see what happens when you move your focus to another spot on the image. It starts to move and then again stops. This also happens if you focus on a spot outside the image. The same thing happens if you focus your gaze at infinity, the image stops moving. But that is effectively doing the same thing: you are focusing on a single place.

What is most interesting to me is how my perception of the image has changed. When I first looked it, the image moved so much that it was dizzying—and annoying in the extreme. But now, I have a real hard time getting the image to move at all. About the only way I can get it to move is by focusing on a spot in one corner and then moving my focus to another corner. And even then, it moves in fits and starts. It has lost all of its kaleidoscopic charm.

It will be interesting to see if I stop looking at it for a day or so, if the original dizzying quality will come back. Or even more interesting, if other types of these optical illusions would now have the same problems for me. My guess is that they are all ruined for me right now, but that within a day or even an hour my brain will be back to normal.

Why the Duck Dynasty Bleeps?

Duck DynastyI just had a thought about Duck Dynasty. Remember last October when Phil Robertson was complaining that the “editors” of the show were putting in random bleeps to make it sound like the clan was made up of a bunch of foul-mouthed hicks? I wrote about it, The Sad Reality of Duck Dynasty. At the time, I speculated that Phil Robertson knew exactly what was going on and that’s why he complained about the editors and not the producers. Well, I’m still sure that’s the case. But something occurred to me just now.

The reason that the producers thought that it would be just fine to make the Robertson clan look more like hicks by throwing in implied expletives is that they already knew that the Robertson clan had no problem pretending to be hicks by growing long beards. So the bleeps was just part of the same thing. And I assume that the producers have been doing that for a long time. But it was only once the show was hugely popular that Robertson went out and started complaining. Anyway, that is undoubtedly what the producers were thinking, “Why would the Robertsons care; they’re a bunch of phonies anyway.”

I’ve had another thought. Maybe the days of Duck Dynasty really are numbered. I know that the show will get a bump from the recent controversy. But the people who I know who like the show, like it because the Robertson’s are rich backwoods hicks. They don’t dig on the “good Christian values.” If the Robertsons manage to make the show as boring as Phil would like to make it, they will be left with the Christian crowd, and that isn’t their main audience. They are currently on their fourth season. I would be surprised if the show makes it past the sixth season.

The truth is that in America, you can be a good Christian or you can get good ratings. I know the Robertsons are just a bunch of rich assholes who are Christians only in a cultural sense. But the repeated attempts by Phil Robertson to save face have lost the show much of its fake credibility. But it can easily be replaced. How about, Romney Riches? Sounds like a winner. Especially if they all grow beards.

The Name of Umberto Eco

Umberto EcoAs I made some mention of back a few weeks ago, I had entered into a depressive phase. I always say that I am lucky because in general, my manic-depressive cycle is minor compared to many people who suffer greatly from it. And I also claim that my depressive phases tend to be short. All of that is true, but it isn’t always true. I think my writing of the last few weeks shows that I’m not that into it. I keep hoping that this ends, but I’m afraid it is seeping out in my normal relationships. Yesterday, my older sister was grilling me about signs she has seen of my depression. I denied it all. There’s nothing so tiresome as talk about all that. Writing about it, however… Given that things are more anonymous and that generally, most people didn’t think I’d last this long, I have the opportunity of being more honest. I’m not the suicide type, but I have been fantasizing about dying recently. I rather think it will come to pass. The idea that I might live another 30 years is unthinkable. Of course, just imagine my living to be 100. It would be the ultimate proof of an evil God. What could I possibly have done that is so bad as to justify such punishment? Anyway, I tell you all this as an apology and a reminder. I’m sorry if my writing of late has been uninspired. But remember (you and me, both): soon I will be feeling better and have more to say that is worth listening to. Until then, here is another (Insert: exhausted yawn) birthday post!

On this day in 1762, Constanze Mozart was born. I was inclined to give her the day, but alas, that idea only echoed in my brain for a while. (Note: pun!) There are two things I find really interesting about her. One is that Mozart loved her. She wasn’t anything especially great, but then, when they met, neither was the great composer. By that time, he had lost all the boy genius allure and few people wanted to see him perform. And he still wasn’t the great composer that he would become—although still greater than most composers of his time. The other thing is that for the longest time, Mozart biographers blamed Constanze for all of the couple’s financial problems. It was said that she didn’t know how to run the household and all kinds of other garbage. Of course, after Mozart died, she managed his estate extremely well and actually became rather wealthy. Here is the Requiem (which she was responsible for getting finished with Mozart’s student—and a great composer in his own right—Franz Xaver Süssmayr) just for her:

This one’s fun. I get to tell a secret. When Andrea was a little girl, she had a crush on Mr. Green Jeans on the television show Captain Kangaroo. In one of the episodes that I’ve written of The Post-Postmodern Comedy Hour, I use that fact for what I think is a very funny joke. Now that I think about it, the whole show has a lot of references to that kid’s show that I never really liked. In particular, I’ve used Mr. Bunny Rabbit, although in my version, he writes poetry and is the reincarnation of William Wordsworth. I like my comedy erudite, damn it!

Anyway, Hugh Brannum was born in 1910. He is best known for playing the part of Mr. Green Jeans. But he was a very accomplished musician. He was associated with the singer Fred Waring, for whom he wrote and arranged gobs of music. Leave it to Andrea to have a crush on a guy who, without her knowledge, was actually really cool.

I had no idea that Walter Mondale was still alive. He’s 86 years old today. I bring him up only to say that he didn’t lose the 1984 presidential campaign because he was too liberal. He lost because the economy was good and that you can credit to Paul Volcker. And we smart Americans re-elected a president who was clearly in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Aren’t you proud to be an American?

Other birthdays: French surrealist Yves Tanguy (1900); the great novelist Stella Gibbons (1902); highly successful charlatan Jeane Dixon (1904); I don’t care what they say, proto-abstract expressionist Nicolas de Stael (1914); actor Jane Wyman (1917); great record producer and finder of talent Sam Phillips (1923); poet W D Snodgrass (1926); great actor Robert Duvall (83); animator Hayao Miyazaki (73); actor Diane Keaton (68); and actor Clancy Brown (55).

The day, however, belongs to Umberto Eco (Eco! Echo!) who is 82 today. I most like him because of The Name of the Rose, which is one of the best novels I have ever read. I’ve also read a number of his essays. He’s a brilliant man. What I couldn’t do was read Foucault’s Pendulum. I tried. I’m sure it’s good. But the beginning really made me think that this might be an “unreliable” narrator and I really don’t much like that. But I will always love him for The Name of the Rose. If you haven’t read it, please do. And if you have seen the movie, forget it. The movie is pathetic. (Yes Bob, the sex scene with Valentina Vargas and Christian Slater is really great.) Anyway, he’s a great thinker and a great writer.

Happy birthday Umberto Eco!

Afterword

I don’t think of myself as suffering from depression. Clearly, I suffer from some manic-depression kind of thing because my highs are much higher than those of others and my lows are lower—sometimes frighteningly so. The most clear problem in my life is a high level of anxiety. And some day, I might have the money to get that treated. Regardless, I don’t wish I were someone else. The devil you know…

Update (5 January 2014 8:17 pm)

Okay, maybe I was too harsh. I found the movie The Name of the Rose on youtube. It is nowhere near as good as the book, but the film is not too bad. And it has a bunch of great European actors. Check it out if you like:

[You know YouTube! The film is no longer available. But here is a very good scene from it, although the aspect ratio is screwed up. Still quite good. -FM]

Update (5 January 2014 11:10 pm)

One big difference between the book and the movie is that the movie kills off Bernardo Gui at the end. And he is just as vile in the book. As I recall, he simply flees when the peasants revolt. Eco couldn’t kill him off in the book, because he was a real guy who lived to be about 70. As Inquisitors go, he probably wasn’t particularly bad. But we know about what those people did because of all his writing on the subject. In fact, Practica Inquisitionis Heretice Pravitatis (Conduct of the Inquisition into Heretical Wickedness) is pretty much an early 14th century how-to book for aspiring Inquisitors. Here is a good example of his thinking, On the Albigensians. What you see is the same thing I see with Christians today. Different Christian sects just hate each other over the most minor theological differences. You can well imagine what kind of “Christian love” Gui meted out to these “Manichaean heretics.”

GOP Strategy Won’t Change 2014 Elections

Martin LongmanMartin Longman wrote an interesting article over at Booman Tribune yesterday, GOP’s Irrational Exuberance. It’s about the Republicans and their conviction that they are going to totally rock in the 2014 elections. Longman isn’t so sure. He thinks that “they will have to develop a positive message.” If he’s right, then all hope is lost for the GOP in 2014, because the party just doesn’t have a positive message. That’s what made Reagan so important to the conservative movement: as vile as his policies were, he seemed like he cared. (He didn’t really; he was the leading edge of winner-take-all conservatism.)

What I think will happen in the 2014 election regarding the Republicans is what always happens. The Republicans will run the same old candidates and hope that the Democrats just don’t come out to vote. (This is unfortunately, a highly successful approach.) But as I discussed this last week, the GOP attempt to get better candidates won’t work. Almost half of the Republican Party is made of fools who believe the Fox News propaganda as faithfully as they believe the Bible.

You see, it doesn’t matter what the “establishment” Republicans want for candidates. What they believe in are exactly the same things that the Crazy 40 believe in. Oh, I know! The establishment types don’t really believe that it is better to let a pregnant woman die than get an abortion. And they don’t believe that God Hates Fags. But they know that they can’t upset the Crazy 40 or they will be decimated in the general election.

And let’s look back on the notable crazy candidates of the past. In 2010, it was Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. But even if the Republicans had nominated better candidates who had won the general election, the Republicans would not have taken control of the Senate. In 2012, it was Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. But again: had better candidates been nominated and won the general election, the Senate would have remained in control of the Democrats. Right now, the Democrats have 55 seats (including two leftist independents who caucus with the Democrats) in the Senate and the Republicans have only 45. So even if all of the 4 crazy Republican poster children had won, the Democrats would still control the Senate.

What’s more, those last two elections were ones where the Democrats had vastly more seats to protect. And that is again the case in 2014. But in 2016, it will be the opposite. And that means a couple of things. First, it means that the Republicans only chance to take over the Senate is to do it in 2014. Second, it means if they take over the Senate, they will only have it for 2 years, under a Democratic president so it won’t do them much good anyway. And third, it means that the in 2016, the Democrats could again have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

As for the House, the gerrymandering continues to help the Republicans. But as each day goes by, the gerrymandering has less and less impact. I’ve argued that 2016 will be a huge year for the Democrats where what little gerrymandering advantage the Republicans still have will not be enough to maintain control of the House. Given that the Democrats will also likely keep the White House, 2016 will look a lot like 2008. But even that will not cause the Republicans to make any policy changes. That will have to wait until 2018, when they find that they can’t even win elections in an off year anymore. But they may not be willing to make changes even then; they may just disintegrate. (Note: the next redistricting takes place after the 2020 elections—an on-year election that is likely to benefit the Democrats. If I were a Republicans I would be terrified. Or maybe not, because if I were a Republican, I would be an idiot.)

Regardless, I think Republicans have advantages in 2014 that will allow them to keep the House and if they are very lucky, take over the Senate. It will be a last hurrah for them, however. And no amount of strategy is going to change 2014 in a big way. It will mostly be a wash, regardless of what candidates the Republicans manage to nominate.

2013 Review: Part 4

2013 Review

July 2013

It’s interesting going back over old writing. Much of the time I can tell I’m just grinding out the article. But sometimes things really click. That was the case with the first article of this month, Can’t Two Puppets Cuddle? It’s a riff on that Bert and Ernie The New Yorker cover with them snuggling on the couch watching the Supreme Court on the television. It was an opportunity to discuss male culture and my belief that half of all the time men spend together is an effort to prove that their not gay. The problem is that being gay is about being attracted to people of the same sex. It really has nothing to do with being a macho jerk. And there is something wrong with that!

Chris Kluwe, is back in the news. And it was in July that I wrote about him, Chris Kluwe Better Punter Than Writer. It’s part of my bigger concern about winner-take-all economies like we have today. The man is neither a very good thinker nor a good writer, and yet he had just published a book and an article in Salon. And why? Because he was good at punting a football. So if now he lost his job because he was too outspoken, no one should care. I’m sure there will always be publishers around willing to pay him to write meaningless books with stupid titles.

I’m surprised at just how angry I am at the Republican Party during this month. It probably comes from the fact that for most of the year I’d been complaining about the Democrats. As much as I complain about my dear old party, I never forget that it is vastly superior. I cannot understand why anyone would be a Republican at this point. Well, I can understand why, I just don’t think the reasons are good. You could be a racist. You could totally lack empathy. You could be rich and a total jerk. That’s about it. If you are a Republican, you are one of those things. There are those who are Republicans because of what the party used to be. So I guess there is that fourth category: delusional. It’s time to wake up.

July was the month when a bunch of conservatives started talking about “libertarian populism.” As I wrote time and again, all that was the same thing the Republicans have been feeding their base for decades: economic libertarianism and social conservatism. I don’t understand what these people are thinking. It’s just the same old stuff. Republicans want everyone to think they are reforming without them actually having to change their policies in even the smallest way. That’s why I’ve argued that it won’t be until after the 2018 elections that the Republican Party might start making some changes.

Memorable Articles

Four Independence Days
Are the Rich Above the Law?
The Real IRS Scandal
Why Screenplays Suck
How We Treat Real American Heroes
Christianity Stifles the Search for God

Enjoy the entire: July 2013 Archive.

August 2013

In August for some reason, I wrote a lot about the fake IRS scandal. What really bugged me was that even though the scandal was fake, all the credulous reporting on it made the IRS look bad. And earlier today, I was asking about just how bad conservatives were. Well, in this month, I wrote, Trust Funds, Hedge Funds, and Slampieces. It was about that really vile letter that a trust fund baby sent out to his frat brothers about starting a hedge fund with daddy’s money. It’s interesting, because as I’ve reported before, in general, hedge funds don’t make money. They are kind of a con that the rich play on themselves.

I got back on my usual complaints about liberals and their naive ideas about how Republicans are going to change. One such article was, Hoping Won’t Make Chamber of Commerce Hate GOP. That was based upon another Greg Sargent article. I’ve gotten to the point with him that I won’t bother reading what he writes. It’s like he lives in Wonderland with the Republican “reformers.”

The month also contained a big bout of conservatives re-defining “equality of opportunity.” One of the articles I wrote was, Conservatives Define “Equality of Opportunity” Out of Existence. The truth is they never believed in equality of opportunity or anything else. But as long as “equality of opportunity” didn’t mean anything, they went with it. Once it was shown that in order to have even a little bit of it, they’d have to change their policies, they decided it was something else. The new definition: equality of opportunity is not having a rigid caste system.

Memorable Articles

How Much Could McDonald’s Pay Workers
Jesus and Troy
Blacks Getting Educated, Then Forgotten
Using a Teleporter Is Suicide!
Collectivist Pro Sports in Land of the Free
Stalin, Not the Bomb, Defeated Japan
Ashton Kutcher Works Hard for the Money
Rocky and Bullwinkle

Enjoy the entire: August 2013 Archive.

Blame Obama Not Brooks for Drug War Problem

Barack ObamaI’m no fan of David Brooks. A couple of days ago, I wrote, David Brooks Puts Profits over Prophets. But I don’t see why liberals are so upset about his Drug War apologia. Don’t misunderstand: I see what they are saying. David Brooks used to smoke pot, but he thinks it should remain illegal without the slightest recognition that the drug’s legal status had no effect on his life. He was white and upper middle class (at least). If he had been black and poor, the drug’s legal status might have destroyed his entire life. He doesn’t understand that. I get it.

Of course, David Brooks also doesn’t seem to get that simply being born black and poor would also destroy your whole life. Not a lot of poor black kids get to go to Grace Church School. David Brooks seriously needs to go to a Tim Wise seminar. But that’s what David Brooks does: not understanding that we live in an incredibly unjust country with an economic system seemingly designed to reward the worst of what we are. He’s an apologist for the rich. And the fact that he is well paid to work at the “newspaper of record” is all the indictment of our society that you need. We have a very sick culture.

David BrooksBut David Brooks isn’t the only clueless person around. Our last three presidents have all committed drug felonies. Two of those three were Democrats. Our most recent president was paid millions of dollars to write about how he not only smoked pot, but also did cocaine from time to time. None of these men seem to care that the lives of young people today are being destroyed by those very same laws that they managed to avoid getting applied to them.

I can hear the apologists calling foul right now. Yes, I understand. There is a reason. There is always a reason. Clinton was a draft dodger so he couldn’t actually be liberal when it came to drug “crime.” Bush was a conservative so what do you expect? Obama is black so obviously he can’t be liberal, except in as much as he is dragged along by popular opinion. And I haven’t seen a whole bunch talk about those cocaine laws that Obama occasionally broke.

We have a major problem with drug laws in this country. But David Brooks is not part of that problem. Did anyone expect him to come out in favor of drug legalization? Even David Frum still thinks that cannabis is a dangerous drug! And who cares what David Brooks thinks? I know some people do but they’re all idiots anyway. Our drug law problems come from our politicians—especially our “liberal” politicians. So complain all you want about David Brooks’ hypocrisy on our drug laws, but just remember: he is way at the back of a line that’s head is guarded by President Obama.

Tom Thumb and a Hypocritical Jerk

PT Barnum and General Tom ThumbExactly 130 years ago, the Fabian Society was founded. It was originally a socialist organization, but never revolutionary. It called for gradual changes to make society a better place. Today, it is more or less what I call liberalism, but not the kind of liberalism that the Democratic Party supposedly practices. It is also associated with the London School of Economics. It continues to operate as a think tank, linked to the British Labour Party.

As for birthdays, today really sucks. I’ll only talk about two people. And one of them, I hate.

Bob Black is 63 today. He is an anarchist writer. But he would be no more well known than I am had he not been responsible for getting Jim Hogshire arrested. Black was spending the night with Jim and his wife. It turned ugly and Jim forced Black to leave. Stories conflict (and don’t go by the white wash on Black’s Wikipedia page—most of which I suspect Black wrote himself), but I suspect it was mostly due to Black being drunk. I wouldn’t even bring it up, but Black went whining to the police about Jim’s supposed “drug lab.” Now coming from just anyone, whatever. But coming from a man who made his living arguing for anarchism and libertarianism, it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Of course, Jim isn’t the only person who Black has had problems with. In fact, being an asshole is what he is primarily known for. I would have given him the day in the tradition of people like Hitler, but I just couldn’t do it. Even though Black is a vile man, he’s about as significant as a cockroach.

Other birthdays: writer A E Coppard (1878); sculptor Wilhelm Lehmbruck (1881); DC Comics founder Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson (1890); painter Andre Masson (1896); actor Sterling Holloway (1905); football coach Don Shula (84); boxer Floyd Patterson (1935); guitarist John McLaughlin (72); historian and writer Doris Kearns Goodwin (71); singer Arthur Conley (1946); comedian Dave Foley (51); and musician Cait O’Riordan (49).

The day, however, belongs to General Tom Thumb who was born on this day in 1838. He was known mostly for being very small: less than three and a half feet tall. But he wasn’t a circus freak. He was an entertainer who sang, danced, told jokes, and did impersonations. Through his relationship with P T Barnum, he became an international star. And very wealthy.

Happy birthday General Tom Thumb!

I Fed the Trolls

Don't Feed the TrollsI know not to feed the trolls, but sometimes I just can’t help myself. Yesterday, over on a Jonathan Chait article, there were a number of really outrageous conservative commenters. And I wanted to share with you an exchange that I got involved with. It wasn’t about politics; it was about grammar and rudeness. Despite what you may think, I do manage to calm people down from time to time. This was not the case here.

Admittedly, my purpose was not to calm this person down but to just shut her up. There had been a flame war going on between quite a piece of work HarryWinstonLights and a fairly reasonable liberal beihai. After a fair amount of back and forth, beihai wrote, “I got better things to do with my time stumpy.” This provoked the following amazing response from Jenny1989:

@beihai – “I got better things to do with my time stumpy”

I got? I GOT??? Seriously? Do you mean “I have?” or “I’ve got?” You claim you’re a professor, an academic. How is that possible? Who in their right minds would hire someone as obviously dim as you?

Really?! She’s not only going after grammar, but in the lamest of ways. I also didn’t like the use of “who” as a plural there, but I guess that was acceptable. Anyway, I responded:

@Jenny1989 – I really like grammar. I love curling up with Fowler and a nice cup of tea. But what beihai wrote was not an error, it was a colloquialism. It’s like, “It don’t mean nothing to me.” It’s colorful. It doesn’t show a lack of understanding of grammar; in fact, it shows that one knows grammar well enough to play with it.

I assume you and beihai have a history and I don’t really care about that. But pointing out grammar errors and typos in web comments is just rude. And it makes you look stupid–especially when you make grammar errors yourself. I count at least two grammar errors in your comment. But I don’t think that says anything about you. You probably dashed off your comment, just like beihai and I did.

Admittedly, that wasn’t very nice. But it wasn’t terrible either. And compared to the level of discourse in that comment thread, it was downright gracious. I figured that it would just shut up Jenny1989, but oh how wrong I was. This one is a classic:

@FranklyCurious – Really? What were my grammar errors, cumdrinker?

This is amusing!

And as regards your defense of Behai, and as improbable as it may be, you are just as fuckingstupid as he.

Now you can get back to pleasuring your cat.

I couldn’t let that stand. She asked what her errors were. So:

@Jenny1989 – The question marks should not be inside the quotation marks, to begin with. You have shown yourself to be a truly vile person, however. So there will be no more communication between us.

That actually did shut her up—at least on that thread. But one of the other members of this conservative “group” responded, “you call people vile and stupid and you worry about THEM beeing rude? Get lost.” Now that’s very interested. I never called Jenny1989 stupid; I simply said that correcting other people’s grammar like that made one look stupid. And I only called her vile after she called me a “cum drinker” and “fucking stupid.” It strikes me that my characterization of her as vile was pretty restrained.

What I would like to know is if liberals go to conservative websites and do this. I don’t mean the general trolling. I know there are liberal trolls—I’ve even been one a couple of times myself. I mean the constant vulgarities and vaguely racist comments. Here is one from HarryWinstonLights:

@beihai – I’ll decide when and where I’m wasting my time, shitforbrains. But I will tell you this – you getting into a battle of wits with someone of my intellectual ability is a waste of your time. You’re an idiot. Truly. Why don’t you get off the computer, and go play Chinese Checkers with the three half-wits in the other room?

I actually responded to this:

@HarryWinstonLights – You got a problem with Chinese Checkers?

Actually, this comment sounds a lot like the French guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.”

So it’s parody, right?

There was no response to this because I think that HarryWinstonLights had turned into Jenny1989 by that time. I think that explains what at first seemed like an inexplicable comment:

The Pumpkin does not know it’s The Pumpkin. aka Jenny1989. aka HarryWinstonLights. aka NikkiManaj. aka poptart. aka ShaniquaObama. akaOlPurpleLips. aka MarcosAnderson. So much hatred, racism and ignorance requires many names.

So at least it is thought that all these accounts are the same person. One can only hope. But even if this particular collection of accounts are all one person, I know from comments I get here that this kind of behavior from conservative trolls is still quite common.

And what does that say about conservatives in a general sense? I’ve noted before that the main thing that holds the conservative movement together is racism. Another related part is this odd rage that doesn’t seem to be based upon anything. They are just angry and so they lash out. It’s interesting that in my experience, mentally ill people tend to be conservative. That’s probably because mental illness tends to make people very self-focused. And the essence of liberalism is empathy—understanding what others are going through. If I were a non-crazy conservative, that fact would really bother me.