On this day in 1048, the great mathematician and poet Omar Khayyam was born. It is a point of some annoyance to me that most people think that mathematics is not a creative field but rather just one where complex rules are applied to problems. But if that were the case, math would be easy. You would just memorize the rules and apply them. But it isn’t like that at all. In fact, in college I noticed that math classes were very much like music classes: some people just got it and other didn’t. (This is an indictment of both math and music instructors!)

There is a very famous story about a very young Carl Friedrich Gauss, which is probably apocryphal, but it hardly matters. Because mathematics education was as bad then as it is now, his teacher had the class add up all the numbers from 1 to 100. I suspect this was more a way to keep the children busy for a while than anything else. But Gauss immediately answered 5,050. His solution was brilliant but also quite easy. He didn’t do what most of us would do: 1+2=3; 3+3=6; 6+4=10… Instead, he noted that 1+100=101 and 2+99=101 and so on. Thus the answer is 50×101=5,050.

So the essence of mathematics is seeing the universe in a different way than others see it. Work is adding together a hundred numbers; play is finding clever ways to not add up a hundred numbers. Work is grinding out yet another story just like the hundreds of stories that went before; fun is finding a new way to tell a story. I think mathematics is the most creative human endeavor because it is normally done without context. It is not much different from the writing of The Marriage of Figaro, except that the audience that can appreciate it is sadly so much smaller.

Khayyam focused on geometry. In a sense, he invented non-Euclidean geometry. Euclid created five postulates from which all of what we think of as normal geometry can be derived. That’s a remarkable thing. But the essence of non-Euclidean geometry has to do with the fifth postulate. It posits a line and a point and says that there is only one line that passes through the point that doesn’t intersect with the first line. For centuries, mathematicians tried to show that you could derive this result from the other postulates, but you simply can’t. However, since it is a postulate, you could say that there are no lines to that do that—or an infinite number of lines that do that. The universe that such assumptions imply are not the universe as we generally find it. But that’s one of the things that makes math such an amazing thing: it’s pure thinking.

He was also a great poet and astronomer and philosopher. And not surprisingly, he was a mystic as I think all mathematicians are. There is something about the nature of mathematics that strikes me as the closest that we ever get to what one might call God. And the ineffable nature of mathematics itself leads one to a simple appreciation of existence itself.

Happy birthday Omar Khayyam!

I’ve spent a lot of time over the last many years wondering, “Would Hillary Clinton make such a bad president?” I’ve thought that because, contrary to what most liberals think, her husband was a terrible president. I know, I know: unemployment was really low. That was great! But that wasn’t him. That was Alan Greenspan who was so crazy that he didn’t accept the idea that 5% unemployment was full employment. Yes, Greenspan was terrible for many other things. But in terms of Clinton’s economic miracle, it was all Greenspan.

What Clinton the Male was responsible for was greatly increasing income inequality, although we didn’t really see it until the tech market bubble burst. There are two big things he did. First, he pursued a strong dollar policy. What that did was push manufacturing jobs outside the United States. Sure, it’s nice to be able to buy cheap imported products. But it’s better to have a decent job. And the second thing that Clinton did was end welfare as we knew it. That too didn’t have an effect right away. It didn’t matter as long as there were jobs a plenty, that our entire federal government became a collective Scrooge, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?!”

The greatest thing that Clinton the Male ever did was not being Bush the Younger. There’s a reason why Republicans today think he’s just great: he was a conservative. He was the model New Democrat and that’s worse than an Old Republican. And our modern political system is so screwed up that none of his terrible domestic policies (to say nothing of his foreign policies) caused him any harm. But getting fellatio from an intern, that’s something the people care about!

So the question remains. Would Clinton the Female be a good president? Would she perhaps not be just another New Democrat as her two Democratic predecessors? Oh, you see, I can be an optimist at times. But in this case, I find it hard to think that she would break the mold. In addition to her simply being who we all know she is, the rich people who will fund her election are exactly the same people who funded the presidencies of Obama the Hopeful and Clinton the Male. As a group, they all care about what I care about. And on those issues that don’t cost the rich any money, you can depend upon them to do something. Same sex marriage (now that it’s popular): yes! Access to birth control that has only become controversial in the last five years: yes! Social Security for people over 68 years old: yes! How proud we liberals are of our social beliefs!

I will leave aside foreign policy, because we all know that whoever is president is going to continue to murder innocent people all over the world in the name of some kind of rubbish American presidents always spout. But economic issues: they are the crux of the matter. And that’s where we got a nice little introduction of the bold economic plan that Clinton the Female has in store for us, Hillary Clinton Calls on Business to Help Close Income Inequality Gap.

According to the article:

You know what this sounds like? Herbert Hoover! Although you can find this documented many places, Steven Horwitz wrote in Hoover’s Economic Policies:

And they did it! They kept wages high. For the few employees who they didn’t fire, their wages stayed high! See how effective it is to depend upon the good intentions of the business community?

I’ve come to the conclusion that we would be better off with a failed Elizabeth Warren campaign than a successful Clinton the Female campaign. At least a Warren campaign would remind the people of the United States that there are more policy options than “give all the money to the rich” and “give almost all the money to the rich.” This country is badly in need of having its Overton Window expanded. Over the last forty years, we’ve seen the window move to the right, but not expand at all. And that means that “left” now means cutting aid to the poor while “right” means ending aid to the poor and giving ever more aid to the rich. That’s not much of a choice and the American people know it.

We deserve better. And thus far, we are not seeing anything better from Clinton the Female.

Target Smart has a great web application, What’s in a Name? It uses a database of voter registration throughout the country and allows you to look up your last name. It will tell you what percentage of people with your name are registered Democrat and Republican. It also tells you how likely you are to vote. It’s a whole lot of fun!

For example, I put in “Koch” into the database and found that 56% of people with that name are registered as Republicans. That’s unusual, because most names I looked at skewed Democratic. For example, “Smith” is the number one name in America and it is 57% Democratic. But as usual for the registered Democrats, the Smiths don’t vote as much as average. They vote 48% of the time, whereas the average is 49%. But those Republican leaning Kochs vote 57% of the time.

The other top names are similarly skewed. Johnson: 63% Democratic; Williams: 70% Democratic (but even less likely to vote); Brown: 64% Democratic; Jones: 65% Democratic; Miller: 50% Democratic; Davis: 61% Democratic; Garcia: 80% Democratic (they really don’t vote much); Rodriguez: 80% Democratic (they vote even less than the Garcias); and Wilson: 58% Democratic.

What you see going through all of this is that the notion that America is a center-right nation is total nonsense. America is a center-left nation. But because our voting system makes it so hard to be part of the electoral process, American voters are just barely right of center and that won’t be the case for more than a year or two. Note to all my liberal friends: if you care about democracy, then get people to vote: if you know old people or disabled people or people with kids who have a hard time getting to the polls: help them! Remember: we are still nominally have a democracy. Let’s use it while we still can!

You may be wondering where the Moraes name came down in all this. Well, it turns out that it’s a little complicated. The Moraes name is kind of a new-world mistranslation of the original Portuguese name Morais. In general, people with the name Moraes are from India and Brazil. My family came from The Azores, a Portuguese island that is way in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This is why I’m so pasty, because English sailors historically stopped by the island and did a whole lot of fornicating as sailors are wont to do. But I still think that we are all one big happy name. (Also: I would rather spell my name “Morais” for two reasons. First, “Morais” is more or less how it is pronounced. Second, half my mail comes to “Morales.” I hate that.)

The two names are not very different and given the small number of people with the names (only a total of 1341), they probably are consistent. Moraes is 71% Democratic and Morais is 78% Democratic, for an overall rating of 77% Democratic (because there are a lot more Morais). Also, we Morae/is people are not big voters. The average is only 42%. I may take it upon myself to call all my extended family members to lobby them to get to the polls. (Note: I don’t care how people vote because I love democracy!)

I learned something else about my extended family. We mostly live in California, Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. And my fellow Moraeses really don’t like Chris Christie! My fellow Moraises are more widely spread on the east coast, where they have been helping to turn Virginia and North Carolina into blue states.

So what has your family been doing to make America great?!

I have mentioned many times that Gosford Park is one of my very favorite films. But I’ve never really written about it. Tonight I sat down and watched it again and it has lost none of its power. It’s hard not to compare it to Downton Abbey which is like a cartoon version of Gosford Park. The difference is that Downton Abbey is pure genre. Godford Park is what we might call postmodern genre. It pretends to be genre but it isn’t. It is a manor drama where someone is murdered and there are lots of suspects. But no one really cares about the murder mystery and it is clear from the start that that the inspector is not going to get his man.

Although it is an ensemble cast with some of the best actors working, it is the story of Mary MacEachran, an inexperienced lady’s maid played by Kelly Macdonald. She is the first character we see at the start of the film and the last character with any dialogue, and pretty much the last character we see. Because she really doesn’t know her job, she acts as us. And as such, she is the only person who solves the murder. And she gains great wisdom throughout the film.

People always get mad at me for “spoiling” films by explaining what happens. I don’t think such complaints are valid. Barring truly surprising endings like The Sixth Sense and Psycho, we all know how films are going to end. But in Gosford Park, it probably helps to know what’s going on. Because it is the densest film I’ve ever seen. I’ve talked to people who have seen it once who had no idea what happened in the film. I had figured out what the crux of the film was within the first quarter of it, but it took me a good five viewings to get straight all the subplots. I think the importance of the orphanage is pretty obvious if you are watching the film closely. The script is really good at setting up the denouement.

But it isn’t the main plot that keeps me watching the film. It is filled with interesting characters, all trying to get through life as best they can. And although none of them are absolutely terrible people, most of them are not very likable. And sometimes it is very sweet. The three sisters are an exercise in literary formalism. One of the sisters married for money and has a miserable marriage. One of the sisters married for status and has a miserable marriage. And the youngest sister married for love and has a nice marriage, although they are constantly struggling financially.

The younger sister’s husband is Commander Anthony Meredith played by the always wonderful Tom Hollander. He is feeling defeated generally in life and has hid away in the jam cellar. Dorothy, servant responsible for the jams who is played by the equally wonderful Sophie Thompson comes upon him. He asks her, “Why is it, would you say, that some people seem to get whatever they want in life? Everything they touch turns to gold. Whereas others can strive and strive and have nothing. I wonder, do you believe in luck? Do you think some men are lucky and some men just aren’t and nothing they can do about it?” She responds, “I believe in love. Not just getting it, but giving it. I think that if you’re able to love someone, even if they don’t know it, even if they can’t love you back, then it’s worth it. And…” At that point, she realizes that she has been too forward and revealed too much of herself. She’s embarrassed, but his eyes have been opened. He says, “That’s a good answer.” Then he goes to his wife in the drawing room and kisses her quite publicly and passionately.

Now sure: that could be sentimental. But it isn’t. It’s just a simple scene that shows a man, who like all of us, has lost sight of what is good in his life by focusing on the little problems. He has the one thing that no other man in the film has: a wife who loves him. And even though everyone looks down on them, that’s not their problem. They have an absolute good. And the others are living their lives like they are playing a game.

The other standout subplot involves an aristocratic man who married a middle class woman for her money. The money turned out to be less than he had thought. And so he hates her because of their lack of money and because of her bourgeoisie tastes. He is cruel to her and arguably the least likable character in the whole film. But over the course of the film, she finds herself. She realizes that she has value and her husband is just a pompous bore. That marriage may not last, but he will no longer have the power over her.

Even my very favorite films have little flaws. Gosford Park has none. If you love great film, you owe it to yourself to watch it. But not just once. It takes a couple of times watching it to figure it all out. That isn’t to say that it isn’t enjoyable the first time. You will fully understand the film on one viewing, but it becomes richer and richer with subsequent viewings—at least up to six.

Afterword

I’m a big fan of Robert Altman, especially of McCabe & Mrs. Miller and The Long Goodbye and many others. But Gosford Park is the best thing he ever did.

Jonathan Richman is 63 today. I am deeply divided about him. He is one of the most profound popular musicians of the last half century who was hugely influential in the punk movement. And much of his work is marvelous. At the same time, I can’t really think of an artist who is as lazy as Richman. For years, he released half-hour records filled with new versions of old songs—and never his best material. What’s more, his later songs are rarely refined, often in need of second, third, and fourth rewrites.

What was always best about his work was the raw emotion that he put into his songs. He was never afraid to admit to his emotional needs. At 17, when most young men spend most of their time pretending to be stoic and without need, Richman wrote, “People all over the world are starving… for affection.” But he’s widely misunderstood. Most of his work is pedagogical. In fact, if you listen to him carefully, he can be annoying because he is very interested in tell you how to live your life.

With the release of Richman’s second album, Robert Christgau wrote that the album needed “one funny song as astonishing as ‘Pablo Picasso’.” Christgau is wrong; “Pablo Picasso” is not a humorous song. It tells the story of a cool guy and how all the girls are just giddy over him.The refrain is “Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole.” This is sometimes followed up with, “Not like you.” But the song ends with a devastating payoff, “Pablo Picasso was never called.” This is the defining theme of Richman’s work: you must risk being hurt in order to be loved. Sadly, it isn’t just Christgau who doesn’t understand this. Many people have covered the song and most don’t end it correctly. Most fans seem to think the song is about the painter. It’s really sad.

Even more sad is that most of the time, I don’t think that Richman knows what he’s doing. After boycotting the song for decades, he has begun doing it again. But now the song is more about confidence. It’s still pedagogical. But thinking is not his strength. The song is also an homage to the Velvet Underground, more so than any other song:

After this period Richman began doing charming children’s music that still holds up reasonably well, but is certainly nothing to be proud of. Finally, he came back to what the music was all about with a kind of stripped down surf music. His most fulfilling album was 1985’s Rockin’ and Romance. (Typically never released on CD.) That’s where his raw emotion met with having a wife and a child. Here is a live version of one of the songs off that album, “Now Is Better Than Before.” It’s adult without losing any of the youthful idealism of earlier songs like, “Girlfriend”:

And here is a little of his surf music from the same album, “Vincent Van Gogh”:

Happy birthday Jonathan Richman!

I sat down this evening and watched The Music Man. (Guess why.) In general, I don’t think musicals translate very well to the screen, but this film was even further harmed by the choice of Morton DaCosta to direct it. He directed the original Broadway version, and I’m sure he did a great job. He was, after all, a theater director. But the film is all over the place. At times it is just a filmed version of a theater piece, including fading spotlights to end scenes. But other times, it goes for realism. It’s disturbing because as a viewer, you never know how your supposed to approach the film.

One thing that I was more impressed with this time was Onna White’s choreography. It’s really fun and clever and completely in keeping with the time period of the film (1912). At times, its magical, as in the dance number for “Marian The Librarian.” But most dances numbers are at least denigrated by the direction. Overall, there is too much action. Each shot is filled with so many people, it is often hard to know what to focus on. DaCosta is in love with the long shot, like he had never seen any films past Griffith’s earliest.

Another problem is Shirley Jones. Her singing voice is so much stronger than all the other lead vocalist that it doesn’t seem to belong. (This is distinct from the ensemble singing that is without exception fantastic.) There is also an acting discontinuity between Jones and Robert Preston. As long as Preston is playing the cavalier con artist, he’s just great. But at the end, when the two of them fall in love, his performance is stilted and unconvincing. In fact, it is so much so that all these years I thought he was gay.

The film is sexist as it could be, not least of which portraying the affluent women as hens. And there is not a single non-white character in the film. It also portrays the people of Iowa in a very bad light and generally has a low opinion of small town America. It is, in short, an extremely cynical movie with a sentimental ending tacked on. But in its defense, the ending could have been a whole lot more sentimental.

Having said all this, you probably think I hate the film. That’s not true at all. It works. And it works on a number of levels. First, there are the songs. Meredith Willson was a genius. There isn’t a single song in the film that isn’t a winner. And Willson does something especially well that most songwriters do really poorly or not at all: he writes great bridges to his songs. The only person who rivaled him was Richard Rodgers in his early years.

The script is also very funny and clever. The respectable women in town are against Marian because she reads things like, “Chaucer… Rabelais… Balzac!” It’s funny at the same time that they’re right: those writers are dangerous to their small minded views of the world. And the film does a much better job of providing a back story for Harold Hill, where we see that in a fundamental way, he is conning himself more than anyone. This is paid off really well when Winthrop asks Hill, “What band?” And Hill replies ruefully, “I always think there’s a band, kid.”

The Music Man is a nice film and I definitely think it is something that you should share with your kids. I just wish the adaptation to the screen that been better done as it was in 1776. And interestingly, that was the same situation: the Broadway director also directed the film: Peter Hunt. And for obvious reasons, Hunt went on to be a highly successful film director. But in terms of the songs and the story, The Music Man is better. Not that the kids shouldn’t be forced to watch both!

Paul Waldman wrote an interesting article over at The Plum Line, The Maximum Freedom of the Rich to Influence Elections. It follows off of Harry Reid’s recent idea that we need to have a constitutional amendment
to reverse the Supreme Court’s recent “money is speech” rulings. From my perspective, this is far too little, far too late. But that doesn’t mean that conservatives aren’t freaking out at the thought of it.

Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson Don Stewart started tweeting out rubbish like, “Sen. Reid on the floor now calling for an amendment to the Constitution to restrict the First Amendment.” Given the assumptions, you really can’t argue with this. It’s just that the assumptions are all wrong. Imagine a city council meeting where everyone got to speak, but the only person anyone could hear was the one with the loudest voice. Would that be democracy? That’s what the “money is speech” argument is.

Lately, I’ve been thinking of the fundamental libertarian principle (which is also the basis of conservatism more generally): government is the only entity that can limit your freedom because it is the only entity with the legal right to put you in jail or kill you. But that isn’t even true in the most basic way. I can think of three rich people who seem to have gotten away with murder: OJ Simpson, Phil Spector, and Robert Blake. And they all did it because we live in an Animal Farm country where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

There is no greater risk to the liberty of all Americans than granting the right of a tiny fraction of Americans to spend as much money as they like on presidential campaigns. I’m certainly willing to yield Stewart’s point: limiting campaign contributions would indeed decrease one kind of freedom in this country. But it would be far offset by the increase in the liberty of everyone to make their own unmolested political decisions. But Stewart’s argument is typical of libertarian argumentation: there are no competing interests. This is just an excuse to keep the status quo and to avoid increasing the total liberty of the nation. This is why, when you get right down to it, libertarianism becomes nothing but a system designed to remove all limits from the rich at the expense of the poor. Such a system would be even worse than communism under Stalin.

But I’m not too keen on many of the ideas out there for dealing with money in politics. Reid’s idea, as I said, is tepid stuff—even if it makes conservatives apoplectic. And I’m not too interested in Waldman’s pet idea of making all donations go into a blind pool were candidates didn’t know who gave to them. The problem, I think, is that this would work great for the super donors like the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson, because it isn’t just anyone who can give $100 million to a political candidate. There are other ideas—many others. Political scientists are really smart people. Personally, I would like to see strict limits to campaign lengths, but I don’t think that would be enough.

Regardless, I am behind any proposal that makes things better. Because what we have now is basically an oligarchy. And it is only getting worse.