Monthly Archives: February 2014

A Little Valentine’s Day Reality

Posted on by
Reply
You'll Do

I am a cynical son of a bitch when it comes holidays and romance. So Valentine’s Day is a big day for me. In 2012, I wrote The Blood of St. Valentine’s Day. It was about the two (or three) saints who the day is most likely named after. And it turns out that they were both brutally murdered, like most saints. Ah, romance! In 2013, I wrote Play Valentine’s Day Well. It was my advice to men about how to play the game of love. Actually, it is very good advice. But what do I have to say for 2014?

According to Wikipedia, “In 1797, a British publisher issued The Young Man’s Valentine Writer, which contained scores of suggested sentimental verses for the young lover unable to compose his own.” This is still with us today. But now guys can’t even be bothered to copy the trite and plagiarized sentiments; we just buy greeting cards. Still, I think it is a hell of an idea. Most women love it when you write them a poem. I know because I’ve done it for countless friends and it always plays well.

So I thought for 2014, I would update that tradition. I offer the following poem to young lovers everywhere to do with as they please:

I hope that I should never see
You screwing a guy who’s not me.

A guy who’s handsome and can speak,
Who’s manicured and does not reek;

A guy who’s total take-home pay—
One month of mine takes him one day;

A guy who drives a great new car,
Who pals around with movie stars;

Upon whose greatness all rely,
And always hate to say goodbye.

If this attractive you would be,
You never would have been with me.

I actual like that poem because it does get down to the ultimate truth of romance: we punch our weight. People don’t hook up with us because we are the best person in the world to them; we hook up because we are each about as good as we can get. And that’s great! It’s the nature of the universe. The only word that I disagree with is “if” when Stephen Stills wrote, “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” Settling is not only acceptable, it is necessary.

As you live through this Valentine’s Day, remember the wisdom of That Mitchel and Web Look. Be a little bit deluded in each other’s favor. That’s what love is!

Rian Johnson’s Problematic Looper

Posted on by
Reply

LooperAnother day, another time travel movie. Last week, I watched Looper and last night, I watched a bit of it to remind me what it was all about. It is the third film by Rian Johnson. The first was Brick, an interesting but ultimately disappointing film. The second was The Brothers Bloom, an interesting but ultimately disappointing film. Looper is also an interesting but ultimately disappointing film.

The basic plot is that a crime syndicate 30 years in the future sends people back in time to be killed and disposed of. The Loopers do the killing. When they are done with their careers, they from 30 years later are sent back to be killed. After that, they get to hang out for 30 years until the syndicate finds them and sends them back in time to be killed. Time travel narratives are always difficult. I’m fine with paradox, but it really creates a drag on drama. And personally, it takes me out of the film.

A good example happens at the beginning of the film where a minor character allows his 30 year old self to escape. In order to get the older character to come in so he can be killed, they start cutting parts off the younger character’s body. These immediately disappear from the older character. By the time he comes in, he has so little left of his body that he has to crawl. This creates nothing so much as a thousand questions in my mind. It is later explained in the film that as different things happen, it changes the probability distribution of the future character’s life. I think a fairly interesting science fiction story could grapple with some of these issues. But the film does not and it creates a muddled foundation on which to hang the plot.

Apart from this, there are other problems. Johnson is a distinctly intellectual writer. When it comes to emotion, he is largely lost. Other than having less stylized dialog, the main character in Looper (Joe) is no different than the main character in Brick. They are both hard men who don’t seem to care about anyone. Yet both plots depend upon the character actually caring. There is no arc for the character. This is particularly problematic in Looper, where the plot depends upon Joe changing from selfish to altruistic. In the end, I didn’t buy it.

The film is also overly dependent on exposition voice over. It’s almost too much at the beginning when Joe provides what seems like a treatise on loopers. And it comes in multiple chapters, I assume because even Johnson realized he was telling the audience way too much to do it all at once. But that isn’t the greatest sin—we are used to films talking too much to get the plot rolling. The problem is at the end when Joe does something that is completely out of character. The denouement is totally dependent upon it. But it would have made no sense if Joe hadn’t been there to explain it.

Having now seen all three of Rian Johnson’s feature films, I do think I have a handle on him. I think he is a good director. And as a writer, he has a lot of good ideas. But he is badly in need of a writer to fix the many problems that he doesn’t seem capable of fixing. First, he needs someone who can write interesting characters. Even his best characters are two-dimensional. Second, he needs someone who can provide an emotional core to his scripts. He’s clearly aware of this problem because he does play around with it, even if he is ineffectual. And finally, he needs someone who can land the ending. Brick was okay because it was pure genre. But both The Brothers Bloom and Looper have endings that don’t mesh with what came before.

Grant Wood and Lots of Songs

Posted on by
2

Grant WoodI just got word that Ralph Waite has died. You probably know him as the father on The Waltons. But more generally, he was a character actor—undoubtedly the most fulfilling kind of actor one can be on the screen. But I have long admired him for a film I’ve never seen. In 1980, he wrote and directed the film On the Nickel. It is the story of a ex-drunk who gets lonely for his old skid row drinking buddy. So he goes and finds him and stuff happens. Like I said, I haven’t seen the film, but it looks like an inspiring work. I do have mixed feelings about it. I’m not fond of people romanticizing drug addiction. On the other hand, the film clearly shows the drunks as more than the sum total of their problems. My hope for it is that it is as good as They Might Be Giants. And that is very good indeed. Here’s the trailer:

On this day in 1910, William Shockley was born. He is best remembered as the co-inventor of the transistor. So he is one of fathers of modern electronics. But he is most remembered for his beliefs in eugenics and racial differences in intelligence. The thing about all of this is that intelligence tests are a mess. I’ve discussed this a bit with regard to Jason Richwine and the Flynn effect. But regardless of the science, what we see with Shockley is racism dressed up as science. It just goes to show that you can easily be brilliant in one field and clueless in another.

And now, if you don’t mind, we are going to have a little musical interlude. There are a number of musicians with birthdays today. I don’t have a lot to say about any of them, so I’m mostly just going to present some songs. The first musician is Tennessee Ernie Ford who was born in 1919. Yesterday, I wrote about the Red Army Choir singing “Sixteen Tons.” That was a whole lot of fun, but it was Ford who had a mega-mega-mega-hit with the song. So get those fingers snapping, because here we go:

Peter Tork is 72 today. He was the member of The Monkeys who wasn’t all that cool with it. He was also the one with red hair. Here he is doing Goffin and King’s “Pleasant Valley Sunday”:

Peter Gabriel is 64 today. I used to be a huge fan of his, but I’ve been out of touch for some time. For now, let’s listen to his first solo single, “Solsbury Hill”:

And then the unique Henry Rollins is 53. He was, of course, the primary lead singer of Black Flag. It is interesting to see him now because he is so muscular. But he used to be a skinny little thing. He started working out because of all the violence at Black Flag concerts. Anyway, here he is with Rollins Band, doing a very good and funny song “Liar”:

Other birthdays: great Rococo painter Giovanni Battista Piazzetta (1682 or 1683); economist Thomas Malthus (1766); philosopher Lev Shestov (1866); economist Roy Harrod (1900); Burmese painter Aung Khin (1921); actor Kim Novak (81); actor George Segal (80); actor and personal man-crush Oliver Reed (1938); theologist Elaine Pagels (71); actor Donald Sumpter (71); actor Stockard Channing (70); and Jerry Springer (70).

The day, however, belongs to the great painter Grant Wood who was born on this day in 1891. He is best known for the painting American Gothic. I think it is a remarkable painting just because of its composition. Thematically, no one seems to really agree about it. Some have claimed that it is is satire about American repression and others think it is a celebration of American hard work. I side more with the satire crowd. Wood, of course, was satirizing nothing. But the painting does bring to mind the vacuousness of the American work ethic: we work a hard and long because that’s the way we are, and we get no special joy out of it. The father looks right at the observer, so one gets a sense of resolve from him. The daughter is looking away, providing a sense of acquiescence. For good and bad, it is a representation of America.

Appraisal - Grant Wood

I haven’t seen a lot of other works by Wood, but nothing that I have seen is as powerful as American Gothic. But his work is quite impressive nonetheless. I see in his work a mature synthesis of a lot of different art trends. There is especially a lot of illustrative and “primitive” aspects to his landscapes. I would like to know more of his work. I’ve requested a number of books on him, so if he becomes another of my fascinations, I’m sure you’ll be hearing about it.

Birthplace of Herbert Hoover - Grant Wood

Happy birthday Grant Wood!

Ranting Leftist on Economic Inequality

Posted on by
Reply
Raise the Minimum Wage?

As a ranting leftist, I have a little economic news to impart to you. It seems that what people like me have been saying for a long time is backed up by economic data: both the private views of the rich and the public views of the mainstream are driven by the self-interest of the power elite. Who that is allowed on network television would ever have imagined?

Last week I saw a segment on The Young Turks, What Changes When You Win The Lottery. It was about an article by Andrew Oswald and Nattavudh Powdthavee, Money Makes People Right-Wing and Inegalitarian. As I’ve written about here, in general, the rich are conservative and the poor are liberal. So these researchers looked at why that is, “Rich people typically lean right politically. Are they motivated by deeply moral views or self-interest? This column argues that money makes you right-wing. It shows that lottery winners in the UK are more likely to switch their allegiance from left to right.”

Their conclusions are disappointing but hardly surprising. One can imagine someone like Daymond John (founder of FUBU) thinking that he made it on his own so anyone could and thus his being a conservative. That would be how humans acted if they were morally rational. But it seems what really drives us is our sense of self-justification. And I get that. We all want to think that the bad things that have happened in our lives are the result of bad luck, and the good things that have happened are the result of our own brilliance. But it is sad that we generalize about this to others, and use it to justify high levels of income inequality just because it makes us feel better. As the authors conclude, “Voting choices are made out of self-interest and then come to be embroidered in the mind with a form of moral rhetoric.”

Paul Krugman discussed this study today along with another paper that discusses a different aspect of inequality. The paper by two IMF scholars, Davide Furceri and Prakash Loungani, is, Who Let the Gini Out? Searching for Sources of Inequality. They find that the standard neoliberal economic policies actually make income inequality worse. The two issues they look at are austerity (which lowers employment rates) and increased capital flows (which allows companies to move operations away to cheaper countries).

These two studies do not bode well for the world. It means that mostly the rich are trapped in thinking that high levels of income inequality are good simply because it is good for them. Related to this is that the neoliberal policies that almost everyone who is given a voice in the economic debate accept as God given. In fact, it is quite common for economic reporters to scoff at anyone who argues that “free” trade agreements might not be so great.

Krugman puts it exactly the way I would, so I will leave the conclusion to him:

So, if you were a ranting leftist, you might say that political attitudes are shaped by class, and that ideological justifications for high inequality are just a veil for class interest. You might also say that “sound” economic policies are really just policies that redistribute income upwards. And it turns out that the econometric evidence more or less supports your rant.

Bill O’Reilly’s Microwave Now at $85,400

Posted on by
Reply

Colbert with Microwave OvenLast night on Colbert Report, I learned that Bill O’Reilly is auctioning off his notes from the pre-Super Bowl interview with President Obama. Colbert lampooned this by auctioning off the microwave that he stole from The Factor when he was a guest on it. O’Reilly started the bidding on his notes at $10,000. Colbert decided that the microwave would normally be worth $40, but given that Bill O’Reilly had used it, he started the bidding at $43.

Well, this morning, I had to check E-Bay to see how the bidding was going. And not surprisingly, it is going really well. There have been 294 bids and it is currently at $85,400:

Bill O'Reilly's Microwave That Stephen Colbert Stole

It is amazing that someone has almost $100,000 to spend on what is, in the end, just a joke. What’s more, in the time I was working on this, the bid went from $85,300 to $85,400. So there are at least two people willing to do this. Go figure.

Here is the segment, which is pretty funny:

Dark Cynicism in House of Cards

Posted on by
2

House of CardsI’ve decided to get rid of my Netflix account because I’m just not using it. So last night I watched the first episode of House of Cards because I’ve heard good things about it. I’ve heard good things about Orange Is the New Black too, but I just can’t deal with a prison drama. Given that House of Cards is a political drama with Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright. What’s not to like?

Well, it turns out: quite a lot. What most bothers me about it is that the characters are not realistic. They are archetypes and not very interesting archetypes at that. So the show presents what appears to be a realistic story, but it is anything but. That in itself is not a problem. But I can’t get past the fact that it is all just an intellectual exercise that means nothing and says nothing about anything.

The show is self-consciously Shakespearean. Francis—the Kevin Spacey role—spends a great deal of time talking directly to the audience. It is very much like Richard III, where he explains his grand machinations. The episode starts with a dog getting hit by a car. This leads to Francis giving a soliloquy about useless pain as he kills the dog to end its suffering. But unlike in Richard III, we are not looking forward to a conclusion where the protagonist either succeeds or fails. We look forward instead to at least three seasons of the same thing.

What is the point of all this? Are we to take away the fact that powerful people have no moral rudder other than their desire to gain more power? There are two problems with this. First, we already all think this. Second, it is a problem that we already all think this. This kind of implicit cynicism is self-fulfilling.

What’s more, the show is utterly contemptuous of the one character who does have a moral sense. And as a result, the whole thing is nothing more than a Jim Thompson novel like The Grifters. But in Thompson’s telling, there is a kind heart. There is the idea that being a cynical bastard who preys on the weak lives in his own hell. Francis is kind of a Washington insider’s perfect politician: a guy who doesn’t believe in anything but gets things done.

Perhaps I would like the show more if there were any character that I liked. But there really isn’t. What’s more, all of the characters are there either to be Francis’ foil or pawn. And Francis’ wife—the Robin Wright part—is the head of a nonprofit, but every bit as Machiavellian as he is. That reminds me of something else, their relationship is entirely unbelievable. But then, you could say that about the whole series.

On the positive side, the show has its moments. In one, Francis is about to meet with the President’s Chief of Staff. He tells us that she will most likely say that the President wants Donald Blythe for Education Secretary. When the Chief of Staff comes in and tells him exactly this, Francis looks into the camera and gives a look that says, “Told ya.” But there is a whole lot of relentless cynicism one has to put up with to come upon charming bits like that.

The show is well made and I can see why it appeals to many people. As for me, I wasn’t even tempted to watch a second episode. I suspect that when people revisit the show in ten years, they will wonder what they thought was so great about it.

No GOP Hypocrisy on the Debt Ceiling

Posted on by
Reply

FilibusterEd Kilgore calls out the Republicans for hypocrisy about the Debt Ceiling. He notes that only 28 of the 272 Republicans in Congress voted for it—just over 10%. He also notes that of the twelve Republicans in the Senate who voted for cloture, none voted for the actual bill. I think he is totally wrong to call this hypocrisy.

The Debt Ceiling vote has long been little more than an opportunity for grandstanding. And that’s just fine. When Barack Obama was a Senator, he voted against it and we rightly justify that because he did it knowing that the Debt Ceiling would pass. That’s all that the Republicans are doing here. The only difference is that the Republican base has become so crazy that the vote is also a matter of political survival. So I think we should applaud them: we got enough Republicans to cooperate and got the Debt Ceiling raised. Yay!

Even worse than this, however, is complaining that the Senate Republicans voted for cloture but not for the bill. It amazes me that a smart and knowledgeable commentator like Kilgore would say this. The way things are supposed to work is that votes are allowed on bills even when 41 Senators are against it. Kilgore is implying that this “if you don’t like a bill you filibuster it” approach to legislation is right and proper.

Kilgore quotes an article by Carl Hulsey about the Vote No, Hope Yes Caucus. And yes, there is a small difference between that and Obama’s Vote No, Know Yes vote. But that’s just politics and I think we should all be a little understanding of the hole that Republicans have created for themselves regarding the base.

Hulsey spends a good chunk of his article talking about what this means for immigration reform. Kilgore also discusses this. It is the kind of Villager stuff that drives me crazy. We are not going to get reasonable immigration reform while the Republicans control half the Congress. But to these guys, anything that is called immigration reform is good. They apparently would be thrilled if Congress passed “The Immigration Reform and Deport Everyone Act.”

All this discussion comes down to is a plea that we all just get along. But the vote on the Debt Ceiling was an example of us getting along. So we aren’t going to get a bad immigration bill that is a huge giveaway to corporate America. Big deal. In Washington this week, we managed to raise the Debt Ceiling without further harming the economy. I call that a win. Let’s move on.

Chuck and Abe

Posted on by
Reply

Charles DarwinSid Caesar is dead. Unlike a lot of old icons, I actually knew that he was still alive. He was 91. As I get older, I am more and more aware that I’ve died a thousand deaths. When you get into your 90s, are you still the same person? What I’m getting at is the old joke/observation about an ax that has its handle changed and then its head changed. There’s a continuity there, but at the end, it isn’t the same ax. Anyway, Caesar was a funny guy—a bit broad for my tastes, but still funny. It is sad for his family, but the rest of us have all his movies and bad video tape of his shows. He ought to be able to rest in peace; he lived a worthwhile life.

On this day in 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born. He was a very impressive man who did a lot of good. I think that it makes perfect sense that he is such a hero to Barack Obama. I tend to see them very similarly. Neither were especially ideological. Lincoln had greatness forced on him by totally unreasonable southerners. Obama had mediocrity forced on him by totally unreasonable southerners. There are a lot of similarities. The kicker is that Lincoln’s secretary was named Obama, and Obama’s secretary was named Kennedy Lincoln. You can’t make this stuff up! Oh, wait, I guess you can.

Other birthdays: German physicist Heinrich Lenz (1804); novelist George Meredith (1828); labor leader John L Lewis (1880); Russian painter Marie Vassilieff (1884); theoretical physicist Julian Schwinger (1918); great film director Franco Zeffirelli (91); quiz show guy Charles Van Doren (88); actor of sorts Joe Don Baker (78); musician Ray Manzarek (1939); musician Michael McDonald (62); Pretty Good Privacy creator Phil Zimmermann (60); comedian Arsenio Hall (58); and actor Christina Ricci (34).

The day, however, belongs to Charles Darwin who was born on this day in 1809. I could write a whole book just bouncing around things that I associate him with. One example: I was working a Church-run computer lab last night. And in the other room a tutorial session was going on. I noticed that one of the tutors was carrying around a book with a title something like, “Evolution is a Myth.” I thought, “Great. And that’s the tutor!” That isn’t to say that one can’t be a perfectly fine tutor of math while holding such a ridiculous belief. But still, it doesn’t bode well.

A big issue with Darwin is that even most people who accept natural selection don’t really understand it. It is a shockingly simple but powerful idea. You know, I tend to be pretty hard on Richard Dawkins around here. But his books on evolution are really great. I highly recommend them. But by far the biggest honest misunderstanding is that somehow, all species are evolving into us. By this theory, alligators are not as evolved as monkeys. But that’s an honest mistake. The biggest deceitful misunderstanding is that we evolved from chimpanzees. By this logic, animals evolve and then some just stop. So animals were evolving into chimps and then some of them stayed that way but the better ones struggled on and became us. Now, I’m not saying that people don’t actually think this, but it is almost always the result of religious disinformation.

One thing that annoys me about Darwin is how many atheists use evolution to argue God doesn’t exist. That is such a pathetic argument. It does, of course, argue against Creationism. But we really need to be clear about what we are doing. I think it is sad that for both atheists and theists alike, evolution has become theological. It isn’t. It’s science. The only way that it is at all theological is in that many theists get their science from religious texts. Beyond that, we should let it rest.

Happy birthday Charles Darwin!

George Will’s Convenient Libertarianism

Posted on by
Reply

George WillOver at The New Republic yesterday, Isaac Chotiner writes, George Will, Tea Party Tory. The article walks a thin line that will make both George Will lovers and haters happy. It discusses Will’s “evolution” from Tory to libertarian. And it doesn’t pull any punches as when it notes the erroneousness of Will’s claim that the global temperature has not raisen in the last 15 years. Still, I find the article more or less a whitewash of Will.

George Will is generally my first example of how it is easy to be a conservative pundit. As long as you don’t drool, everything is fine. And it’s funny to me that people like Will and David Brooks complain about liberal elites and their pseudo-intellectualism, but that is a better description of them. Regardless, for the umpteenth time: if Will were a liberal, the best he would be doing is teaching at a small state college. He certainly wouldn’t be working at the Washington Post and on broadcast television.

But you do have to give one thing to Will: he knows where his bread is buttered. That is well on display in this recent turn to libertarianism. Of course, like all conservatives, I’m sure that Will always saw himself as a libertarian. The great thing about being a libertarian is that you don’t have to do anything about social injustices, but you get to feel good about yourself in that you would never partake. For example: you don’t think the government should do anything to facilitate equal rights for minorities, but you would never treat another person differently because of their skin color.

So why is George Will all gung-ho about libertarianism now? That couldn’t be more obvious: he sees the conservative movement going in that direction. He’s already seen conservatism in America go from Toryism to radicalism. If he is to stay relevant, he either has to go libertarian or fascistic. And we know that fascism isn’t really fitting for his personality. So libertarianism it is! Or at least, the kind of wishy-washy libertarianism that some in the Republican Party have embraced.

In the end, it is the same old conservatism. Libertarianism in the Republican Party is just a patina to give their “worship the rich and screw the poor” politics the look of a consistent ideology. For example, he’s tentatively in favor of cannabis legalization but not for the legalization of other drugs.[1] Libertarians argue, “You have a right to do whatever you want to your own body!” Republican “libertarians” argue, “You have a right to do whatever you want to your own body, as long as we’ve decided that it is okay for you!” A communist would argue exactly the same thing.

So George Will V 2.0 is out and he’s all for libertarianism? That means nothing, other than that he is following trends in the conservative movement. And this is what he has always done. It’s all that popular conservative pundits ever do. It’s why they are popular. And when the pretend libertarianism of the Republican Party peters out, George Will V 3.0 will be there to appeal to the new trend in movement conservatism.

[1] This really is the ultimate example for libertarians. If you believe that people have an absolute right to their own bodies, then you believe anyone should be able to grow poppies in their backyards, extract the morphine, produce heroin, and use it. Anything else means that you want to tell other people how to live their lives. But as I’ve noted before: even most “real” libertarians are all about telling other people how to live. A great example of this is how libertarians (almost to a man) want to stop businesses have having union shops. Voluntary contracts are great, but only when libertarians agree with them. Ugh!

Russia, Sixteen Tons, and Inequality

Posted on by
Reply

Sixteen TonsLast week, I wrote about the Russian police doing “Get Lucky” at the Olympics. It was mostly just an opportunity to snark at the complicity (Or more!) of Russian law enforcement regarding the country’s anti-gay laws. But Will send me a Yahoo! article, “Get Lucky” and 5 Other Mind-Blowing Covers by the Red Army Choir. I have to say, there is nothing particularly mind blowing about any of the songs, unless you think that no cops can sing.

But one of the songs really stands out: “Sixteen Tons.” The truth is that I think it is a great song regardless of who does it. And thematically it is brilliant. Popular music, then as now, reflects the interests of the power elite. That’s why the vast majority of songs are about love: it appeals to everyone without questioning the status quo. Listening to the radio, you would think that no one needs a job—they just need a nice girl or boy to love them. That’s why I’ve always hated, “All You Need Is Love.” What nonsense.

The idea of the Red Army Choir singing “Sixteen Tons” is itself funny, given its communist history. Even today, after the Boris Yeltsin years of “free market” reform where a small number of well connected business people managed to steal most of the nation’s resources, Russia has slightly less income inequality than the United States. So I like the irony of the very screwed up Russian establishment singing our own song to us.

When it was written in 1946, “Sixteen Tons” was looking back on the bad old days. At that time, inequality was lower than it is today and on a downward trend. Now it continues up and up. And although we no longer have people effectively enslaved to the company store, the overall picture for Americans is as bad or worse.

So enjoy the spectacle of the Russian police singing “Sixteen Tons.” It is very clear in this song that the lead singer does not speak English. And he sings with a wonderful East European accent. It sounds very much like Dracula singing. It is too bad that he doesn’t wear a cape. The truth is that the song is about how capitalist vampires suck the blood of workers. “Hurt at sweek an a bach ats trong!”

Afterword

The common conservative line about low wages is that workers don’t have to take a particular job. They are “free” to do whatever they want. Note that this is exactly what conservatives were saying when people lived in company towns and became enslaved there, “Well, they didn’t have to take the job!” And that was actually more true then than it is now. I get really tired of conservatives always seeing how silly their argues used to be, but never able to see that for the present.

Why Do Concerts Cost So Much?

Posted on by
Reply
Beatles Concert

Matt Yglesias dug up a great bit of data about The Beatles’ first tour of American 50 years ago: the tickets were really cheap. As you can see in the advertisement, tickets ranged from $2 to $4. Adjusted for inflation, this is $15 to $30.

This is really interesting. At that same time, movie ticket prices were about $1 (roughly $8 today). So seeing a live show was about twice the cost of seeing a movie. Intuitively, that seems about right. But today, a big headline show will cost you at least four times that much, and often much more than that.

The reason for this is that movie ticket prices have remained pretty flat in real dollars. The cost of a ticket in inflation adjusted dollars in 1967 was $8.38. In 2012, it was $7.96. In general, that is how things work: the cost of things decreases over time. Clearly, that’s not the case with live concerts.

Now, I can come up with numerous reasons for this. But the most obvious to me is that the big name music acts are already rich. They don’t need to perform live, so they charge a lot when they do. Going along with this idea is the fact that theater ticket prices don’t seem to have gone up. While it is true that Broadway shows are expensive, they always were.

Meanwhile, the price of recorded music has gone down. That’s largely because total volume has gone up. As much as I used to think that the music industry was becoming more open to mid-level acts, that’s not true. It is still a winner-take-all market, where a lot of professional quality bands have to work very hard just to survive.

What I find most interesting about this all is that live shows are no better now than they were when I was a kid. In fact, there is a nauseating trend in rock concerns to include video and other pre-recorded content. And while the shows may be live, they are entirely scripted—many acts might as well be lip-syncing. Of course, I’ve never cared for big shows. I feel like I would be better served by a disc or a concert film at a fraction of the cost. There is a certain magic to seeing great performers at little venues. Two concerts come to mind: Jane Siberry at the Cotati Cabaret and Steve Forbert at Mount Hood Lodge, where a snowstorm caused a total of ten people to be in attendance. Even a performance at a good venue like the Greek Theater can’t compete with that.

I think the reason that the public puts up with these ridiculous concert prices is that live concerts have come to be seen as events. The last big concert I went to was Kid Rock (who has some notion of the pricing problem, even if he puts on a ridiculous show). Watching the people, it was very much like the state fair. Everyone came very early and had picnics. And very few seemed all that involved in the concert. People shelling out hundreds of dollars to see The Rolling Stones are not doing it because they think it is going to be an awesome experience. They just want to be able to say that they saw Mick Jagger before he was confined to the wheelchair.

Debt Ceiling Ends With Snicker Not Bang

Posted on by
Reply

Debt CeilingExcuse me for being out the whole day. The truth is that my savings is almost completely exhausted and I am forced to start prioritizing paying work. Will called me up with a very boring computer job and off I ran. Why is it that the paying jobs are always the boring ones? Oh well, the job will be helpful because February is the month that all the host names and hosting costs come due. So I’m hopping.

Sadly, I missed something really exciting today. After more than a week of the Republicans jumping from one proposal idea to another, John Boehner finally just gave up and allowed a clean vote to raise the Debt Ceiling. What’s more, it passed! This is kind of a big deal because this morning Jake Sherman reported that there mightn’t have been the necessary 18 Republican votes to pass it even if all the Democrats voted for it. In the end, we got a whole 28 Republicans. Yay!

A lot of times, I think that people (Even I!) expect too much of politicians. Ultimately, their jobs are really just to get re-elected. Nothing else matters. They can be totally corrupt and incompetent, and it doesn’t matter as long as their constituency doesn’t mind. But the way that Boehner and the the rest of the Republicans have dealt with the the Debt Ceiling shows that they don’t even much understand how to do the basics of politics. After years of talking about how terrible the Debt Ceiling is and how we are just spending ourselves into Greece, for them to just fold like this is pathetic.

On the micro-scale, it is far worse. Every day we saw a new bunch of demands. It reminded me of the T-1000 at the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day. When it falls into the molten steel, it tries various forms, looking for one that will allow it to survive. Or perhaps better would be Max on Get Smart, “Would you accept a Medicare Doc fix and a case of single malt scotch?” A week ago, Jonathan Chait wrote, House Republican Debt Ceiling Hostage Update, with the subtitle, “It’s getting sad.” And it only got worse. “Would you accept a single bottle of blended scotch?”

I do, however, think that a lot of the liberal pundits are wrong to think that this clean Debt Ceiling vote means there won’t be anymore Debt Ceiling extortion. For one thing, there will still be fringe Republicans who will make lots of noise about this. Whether the leadership will pander to them, I can’t say. But it is clear that the whole Keystone Cops routine with different ideas about what the Republicans should require to raise the Debt Ceiling was nothing more than pandering to the stupid and extreme part of your party. (You know: the median!) So I’m not sure it really is over. After all, 28 Republicans voted to raise the Debt Ceiling and 206 did not. Still, it does look like the Debt Ceiling as a credible threat is dead for at least a couple of election cycles.

Now you’ve been updated. Tomorrow should be a more normal day with exciting updates through the day. I’m actually way backlogged. There are three movies I want to discuss: Ikiru, And the Ship Sails On, and Looper, although I’m not sure what I want to say about the second two. I have a few things to say about Victoria Jackson, who remains funny even as she spouts some of the most vile things. There’s a long overdue article about the history of the song “Man of Constant Sorrow.” And so much more! I do hope you’ll stop by.