Monthly Archives: December 2015

Anniversary Post: Saddam Hussein Capture

Posted on by
17

Saddam Hussein CapturedOn this day in 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured by American forces in a hole on a farm near Tikrit. I’ve always felt a bit sad for the man. Sure, he was a horrible despot. But he really did play by the despot rules. He had managed his power with a great deal of thuggish intelligence. And then he gets invaded for what?! I’m still not clear on it.

And the Persian Gulf War: what was up with that? Here’s the thing: the United States had supported him while he did all kinds of terrible things. And then, suddenly, it decided that it wasn’t going to support him. It amazes me that people like King Abdullah trust us. We really aren’t good allies. Personally, I would prefer if we actually did stand for democracy and all the other nice things we claim to. But we don’t. Is it asking so much to have a bit of consistency?

Of course, there is consistency. It is just that it isn’t of action, but of motivation. We do whatever is in our best interest at any time. We are not loyal to anyone. In other words, as countries go, we are a psychopath. Saddam Hussein never seemed to realize this. Before the invasion, he thought we were just bluffing. He was right that it made no sense in the grand scheme of things. (That’s another thing about us: we are sometimes led by complete idiots.) What can I say, it’s hard out there for a pimp; but it’s much worse for a despot.

Taking a Second Look at Brazil

Posted on by
10

BrazilIn 1985, I saw Brazil in the theater. Mostly, it didn’t affect me greatly one way or another. And then we came to the end, and I hated it. I was a big fan of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. And just the year before, Michael Radford had made what I still consider one of the greatest film adaptations of a book ever. It really was a perfect rendering of what I had imagined while reading it. What’s more, it showed the perfection of totalitarian efforts — where you couldn’t even die to escape it. Thus, I saw the ending of Brazil as a cheap attempt to create a happy ending.

That has been my position ever since. But recently, I began to wonder about that. Part of this is just a function of my cooling off to the book. I still think it is great, but very clearly, totalitarian regimes have never perfected their art. It is rather “free” societies that have managed to break the wills of we Winstons without anything so extreme as Room 101. What’s more, I always knew there was a loophole in the novel. O’Brien tells Winston that sometimes the Ministry screws up and the victim dies — although it is not clear whether he is just saying this as part of the process.

Regardless, I decided to watch Brazil again. It certainly is a great film. But I can see why I wasn’t enthused at the time. I didn’t appreciate Terry Gilliam’s visual style when I was younger. The obsession with plastic surgery and ducts freaked out little Frank. But mostly, I was way too serious when I was that age. I think the idea of laughing my way through Nineteen Eighty-Four was offensive. As with so much about life as I have found it, these are the elements that I most like now.

In general, I think that Gilliam is too much of a visual artist to do comedy. Yet it works perfectly here. The first two acts are filled with very funny scenes. The third act is not, but that’s hardly unusual for a comedy. And Jonathan Pryce is just so likable in the film, I found myself totally absorbed — and delighted. That’s not to say everything is perfect. In particular, much more could have been done with Kim Greist as Jill Layton. (Maybe they could have brought in a female scriptwriter?) In fact, this is one of the reasons that I still think 12 Monkeys is a superior film. (Interestingly, it was co-written by a woman: Janet Peoples.)

From a political standpoint, the film works very much in accordance with the modern world. Everything is screwed up because everyone is going along with the system. Michael Palin’s character, Jack Lint, seemed evil to me when I first saw the film. Well, he is evil. But that isn’t what’s most important to his character. He’s totally afraid. Everyone is. Everyone in a position of power is worried that they will be blamed for something. This is the basis for my favorite line in the film. In discussing the wrongful arrest and death of Buttle, Lint says, “It’s not my fault that Buttle’s heart condition didn’t appear on Tuttle’s file.”

Maybe the reason that I liked the film so much this time is that I’m receptive to its message. Of late, I’ve been focused on this idea of the social system being evil and stupid in ways that no individual would be. Everybody’s just trying to get by. But in some kind bizarre anti-sum-of-the-parts, the more individuals involved, the worse the system gets. Brazil might be nominally presenting some kind of authoritarian system, but what we actually see is a libertarian system where each person doing what is in their own best interest leads to catastrophe.

Afterword

I want to make note of Robert De Niro’s character, Harry Tuttle. He’s a freelance plumber — working outside the system, and so referred to as a terrorist by the government. This actually highlights the distinction between European and American libertarianism. Tuttle wants to be at liberty to do what he wants. He is not looking for the “liberty” of cornering markets and therefore controlling (destroying the liberty of) whole classes of people. This is why American libertarianism is such a joke. It has nothing to do with liberty; it is all about replacing one system of relatively benign control with another that is as bad as the world in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Brazil DVD cover used under fair use.

How to Become a Scientific Hack

Posted on by
11

William HapperYou have probably heard of the Greenpeace climate denier sting. Zaid Jilani provides a good introduction to it, In Greenpeace Sting, Professors Agree to Produce Research for Fossil Fuel Industry Without Disclosure. It focuses on the story of Princeton physicist William Happer. And it is stunning. But I know what I would wonder if I did not have inside information, “How does this happen?” I don’t go in for the whole business about people being evil or greedy. These are academics. If they were really greedy, they would have gone into another line of work. So why do they do it? I think I can provide the answer to that question.

The group that I worked in for eight years was focused on methane emissions. That wasn’t my work, but I was very much involved in it, and even published one paper that was focused on it. For a long time, people said that methane could not be increasing in the atmosphere because it was created by natural processes. It was actually my group (long before I was in it), that proved that wasn’t the case. While it was true that methane comes from “natural” sources like animals and wetlands, we greatly affect these in terms of breeding cows and growing rice.

“You son of a bitch, I haven’t taken a dime! I haven’t taken a dime, you son of a bitch.” —William Happer

Some of our group’s work showed that methane production from American cattle was not nearly as high as it was for cattle in other countries. Understandably, American cattle ranchers were thrilled about this information. The work was covered prominently in American Cattlemen and similar industry periodicals. Now, I don’t remember if the group got any funding from “organized cattle.” But this is how it works. It isn’t that someone from the cattle industry would go to a scientist and say, “Fake some research for me” — some kind of backroom deal. Rather, it is that these industries will preferentially support people who have research results that are helpful to their interests.

The biggest problem that researchers face is getting funding. I know that my thesis adviser did not go to research conferences to hear what other scientists were doing. Everyone already knew that. He went to them to meet with project managers. Even existing grants had to be constantly tended to like a garden. And it’s sad, because my adviser was, even then, a very big deal. But that’s the nature of academic research. So if the cattle industry wants to give you $60,000 to look at cow flatulence, you take it. That may not seem like a lot of money, but it’s probably almost half your year’s salary (after overhead), where you could be working rather than teaching a bunch of premeds.

None of this means that people need to turn into hacks. But my group was always pretty well connected — both nationally and internationally. (We had a huge joint project with China looking at rice field emmisions.) Maybe it would have been different if it had been overly dependent upon one source that was highly motivated to see one particular result. Now, I’m not saying this is what happened to William Happer with his work for the coal industry. But I feel certain Happer started as a climate change denier and then the money started rolling in, and not the other way around. Over time, I don’t know what went on with him.

I think it’s important to remember this. It isn’t just a question of understanding fellow humans, even when you think they are behaving very badly. It’s important to understand that science isn’t immune to this sort of thing. Of course, that is the beauty of science. Unlike politics, science makes the whole greater than the individuals. Science can and does get things very wrong. But eventually, it finds its way. But most of all, science won’t be hijacked by a small number of cranks and iconoclasts — unless they happen to be right. There is enormous indication that in the field of global warming, the cranks and iconoclasts are dead wrong.

Image cropped from TV appearance. Licensed under fair use.

Anniversary Post: Lebensborn

Posted on by
18

LebensbornExactly 80 years ago, in 1935, Lebensborn was founded by the Nazi SS for the purpose for getting more Aryan babies born. Like racists everywhere, the Nazis were very concerned that the “lesser races” were breeding too much. Walk around California and you will hear people say the same thing about Latinos. Of course, there is something to this. Immigrants tend to be the people who are scapegoated. Immigrants tend to be younger. Younger people tend to have babies. It’s the perfect situation for racists.

Anyway, what I think is interesting about Lebensborn is that it is based on a kind of thinking that is very common among middle class white liberals. It is the idea that what we really need to do to help the poor is to stop them from having babies. I’m pretty old and I’ve never had any children. So I don’t think it is necessary to have children to have a fulfilling life. But that was my choice. I don’t think that’s true of most people.

But we have this attitude that unless someone has money, they shouldn’t be able to be parents. Why do we do that?! Why is it that as liberals, we think the poor have a right to food and housing, but not parenthood? I think it is mostly because we’ve never thought about it. We are still operating with conservative notions — very much linked to racism and eugenics. And we need to stop doing this. It is one thing to make birth control easy to get. It is great to help people avoid pregnancies that they don’t want. But let’s not get confused and try to stop the poor from having children because we might think that it is a good idea.

Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1973-010-11, Schwester in einem Lebensbornheim by Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1973-010-11. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de via Commons.

The Visceral Nature of Email and Texting

Posted on by
33

Texting EmojiI am a connoisseur of click-bait. But I rarely click. Sometimes, though… Yesterday, I saw this headline, Study Proves Only Jerks End Their Texts With a Period. I didn’t want to click. I felt like I was being manipulated. Just the same, I figured I might get some useful information. And the grammarian in me wanted to know how a mere bit of punctuation could take an ordinary woman and turn her into Jerk-Woman — strange woman from another planet who can set emotional tone with the typing of a single stop.

After clicking over, I saw that it was actually fairly serious. I’ve even wondered about it in the past. Consider this text message, “See you tomorrow.” It comes off as distinctly uninspired. It’s emotional content ranges from Eeyore depression to Monty Python, “Piss off!” On the other hand, this seems very nice: “See you tomorrow!” So the study isn’t about what I had thought: not using a stop at all, but about the apparent need for text messages that are filled with exclamation points! Because everything we say will be twisted if we don’t! They will read the last syllable down and not up! And we can’t have that.

There is one person I work with very closely. She has the habit of filling her email with smiling emojis. At first I thought it was kind of odd. But I’ve come to think that she’s just protecting herself. There is something about electronic communication that makes us all really insecure. In the past, I’ve found myself fine tuning tweets so they can’t be misinterpreted. And it always ends up with me canceling the tweet, because it just can’t be done.

I wonder why it is that we can’t give each other the benefit of the doubt. There is another person who I used to work with. She was older and had been in the computer trenches long before the dot-com boom. And her philosophy was that email was fast and imperfect. You had to assume the goodwill of the person writing to you. I’ve always remembered that. But it is hard to do. When you read something — especially if it is meant specifically for you — it hits you in a visceral way. It isn’t an intellectual process. So it is no surprise that “see you tomorrow” becomes “go away.”

Talking, on the other hand, is amazing. I used to know this storyteller and performance artist. He frequented a number of pubs that I did. And one time he revealed to me that he was hard of hearing. So in a bar setting, he usually could not make out the words that people were saying to him. But with all the other information that people provided in terms of tone and pacing and body language, he got 90% of it. I’m sure he did! This is probably why people are usually struck by my fairly forceful writing style and my conversational style. I’m not sure how to describe the latter, but everything about it is designed to say, “Are you with me?! It isn’t my intention to offend!”

Given that, you would think that people close to me would know better. But I don’t think they do. So now I have something else to worry about. My texts must end with an exclamation mark! Because I am not saying piss off! I’m just going to bed!

Texting Emoji by Intel Free Press. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Saadiq Long and America’s Due Process Problem

Posted on by
6

Saadiq LongDo you remember Saadiq Long? He’s the 10-year US Air Force veteran who lives in Qatar with his wife and daughter. In late 2012, his mother was very ill, but when he tried to fly home, he found he was on the no-fly list. Eventually, the government gave him a waver, and he made it to the US. But two weeks later, when he tried to return, he couldn’t, because he was still on the no-fly list. Eventually, he had to take a bus to Mexico and somehow get home from there. He was something of a cause célèbre on the left because this was a clear example of the ridiculousness of the no-fly list.

So you can imagine the glee among the Islamaphobes when conservative PJ Media “broke” the story, MSNBC’s “No-Fly List Is Islamophobia” Poster Boy Arrested in Turkey as Part of ISIS Cell. There was just one problem: it isn’t true. As Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain noted, “The story is entirely false: a fabrication.” This is just another segment of the ongoing “Saadiq Long is on the no-fly list” saga. He and his wife and daughter (both of whom are also on the no-fly list) were visiting Turkey, because they are looking at relocating there. But now, apparently because they are on the no-fly list, they are being deported from Turkey. There is no terrorism charge, much less a link to ISIS.

None of this stopped the usual suspects of crowing about the false report. Based upon nothing but the PJ Media report, Fox News published, Poster Boy for “No-Fly” Unfairness Held in Turkish Prison, Accused of Helping ISIS. The group of crowers also included everyone’s favorite atheist who just follows the facts, Sam Harris. He decided to take a victory lap based only on that one article:

I think Ben Norton had the right reaction to this, “[Sam Harris] claims to advocate the scientific method, but throws it all out of the window when right-wing propaganda confirms his bigotry.” And that the thing. It isn’t that I think that Harris is on par with Pam Geller. It is that Harris is the one who holds himself up as this icon of serious thinking. I like much of his work, but he’s a great example of how minds work: from the deep reptilian center outward; first comes the tribalism, then comes the justification.

But none of the details actually matter. What does matter is that this is just another case of people using individuals to represent groups. The smarter Islamophobes always claim that they are just talking about the jihadists — that most Muslims are fine people just trying to get by. So what did they get from this case? It would be exactly the same thing. We know there are Muslim terrorists, so why crow about this. Well, Greenwald and Hussain have an interesting idea:

The reason so many people were eager to mindlessly endorse this ISIS accusation is obvious. For his no-fly list challenge in 2012, Long was represented by CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations]. His story was first reported by The Guardian. And he was featured by a clearly sympathetic Chris Hayes in an MSNBC interview. So this entire episode started by this anonymous Pajamas [PJ] Media claim became a means of attacking people who have defended Muslim Americans from the relentless assault on their civil liberties, as well as generally trying to discredit claims that Muslims are the victims of civil liberties abuses. Smearing Long as an ISIS operative was just a tool to accomplish that end. He, his family, and their reputations were just collateral damage.

I think that’s about right. Again, with Sam Harris (who is one of the most reasonable people in the Islamophobic community), it’s important that he keep at least a patina of legitimacy. His fans don’t see him as standing up for racism; they see him standing for the truth, even when it is unpleasant. So when liberals have arguments against the no-fly list and other forms of official discrimination against Muslims, they feel the need to push back. Because the no-fly list seems like a pretty clear violation of due process, so at every point it is, “See! See! He’s actually a terrorist! These clear attacks on civil liberties only affect terrorists!”

To sum up:

In many ways, what just happened to Long is a microcosm of the abuses of the 14-year-old war on terror. First he was denied basic travel rights based solely on secret government suspicions. Now, an anonymous government official smeared him as an ISIS terrorist. A right-wing website “reported” the smear. And from there, a wide range of media outlets and individuals with prominent platforms and all kinds of axes to grind explicitly declared him to be a Terrorist: no evidence, no trial, no due process, not even any charges. The fact that he’s Muslim and under suspicion is enough for huge numbers of people to declare him to be a Terrorist, and he will now live his entire life under that cloud.

It would seem that the terrorists have won a major victory against us. They’ve managed to make the vast majority of the nation okay with a lack of due process for everyone in the name of going after Muslims.

This Just In

Anniversary Post: Alcoholics Anonymous

Posted on by
10

Bill WilsonOn this day 1934, according to Alcoholics Anonymous lore, Bill Wilson had taken his last drink. This has led to decades of drunks and other addicts all over the world suffering for far longer than was necessary. You see, AA is a religious program — a way to purify the soul. And in that way, I suspect it isn’t any worse than most other notions that Christians have about spirituality. But I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with drugs. It’s only thanks to decades of propaganda that anyone thinks addiction is a moral problem.

But you have to ask yourself: how did good ol’ Bill W get sober? I contend that it has squat to do with working the steps and all that malarkey. Rather, creating and building the group gave him something to do. I’ve long argued that rather than provide drug “treatment” in jail, they should provide job training. Give them something to do when they get out other than sit in useless — as much as it’s been tested, counterproductive — meetings.

“It works if you work it!” That’s what the AA bots say. Of course, that’s ridiculous. According to AA, addiction is a disease, yet its cure is some kind of spiritual self-help program? If you had cancer, would you ever consider an oncologist who told you that in order to cure the cancer, you were going to have a make a list of everyone you harmed and make amends? Of course not. You’d think she was crazy, or some sort of bizarre witch-doctor. And you’d find someone else.

Of course, the great legacy of Bill Wilson — the reason that he is known — is because AA became part of the criminal justice system. It needed something to do with all the drug users (Only some addicts!) that the state was arresting. So when a convict was on probation or parole, the state couldn’t just forget about “helping” the poor sod. Just the same, the state wasn’t willing to actually pay for anything that might work. And there was AA: the perfect thing! Did it work? No one cared. That’s the American way: it doesn’t matter that you actually accomplish something, so long as you look like you are working the problem. In that way, AA is perfect for America.

There is no question that Bill Wilson’s legacy is terrible. He has caused so much harm, it would be hard to calculate. Yet there are millions who admire him. This is because he created a cult. But not just any cult: a cult that was useful to the state! And then, with court-mandated “treatment,” lots of hospitals and private companies got into the 12-step gravy train. It’s been absolutely fantastic — for everyone but the addicts and their friends and family. For them, it’s sucked. Thanks Bill W!

Bill Wilson, Founder AA” by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia.

Power Elite and Fascists Share Goals

Posted on by
Reply

Paul KrugmanPaul Krugman wrote a brief but insightful article this week, VSPs and the FN. That’s FN as in Front National, or as we say here in America, the National Front. You know: the French fascist party that won the first round of the French regional elections, and is set to pick up two regions in the final vote this weekend. What Krugman has been trying to work out is why it is that people turn to right wing extremism after financial crises, generally, and our current economic situation specifically. His answer is basically, “It’s the Very Serious People, stupid!”

Krugman wrote, “If things keep going badly, this authority based on the presumption of expertise erodes, and politicians who offer more visceral answers gain support.” That’s especially true in Europe, for two reasons. One is that in Europe, there is a greater focus on the technocratic aspects of governing. The other is that, generally speaking, these technocrats have performed even worse than ours here in the US have. For example, the European Central Bank raised interest rates during the very trough of this recession. So on the political front, if mild mannered François Hollande goes along and does all the things the technocrats say, and things don’t get better, why not give the fire breathing Marine Le Pen a shot?

Dean BakerLet’s bring this back to the US. The Federal Reserve is going to meet next week. And they will almost certainly raise interest rates. But as I’ve been writing, there is no reason to do so. Let’s start with the easy part: unemployment (U3) is 5.0%, but we got down to 3.9% in 2000, and there was not much of any inflation. The employment to population ration for prime age (25-54) workers is still a couple of percentage points below its level before the crisis. And there is a lot more data. In fact, there is really nothing that indicates the Fed should raise rates — just data to justify it.

Dean Baker provided even more data in this regard, It Doesn’t Seem Hard to Get Good Help: the JOLTS Data. JOLTS stands for “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey.” It tells us how many job openings there are, and the number has been more or less flat since the first half of this year. Another thing is the “quits rate.” This is the percentage of people who voluntarily quit their jobs. It is an indication of how weak the job market is. So if a lot of people are quitting their jobs, it indicates that they have confidence that they can find another job. Right now, it is less than 2%. This is roughly what it was during the trough of the first George W Bush recession. As Baker concluded, “The current reading looks much more like a recession than a strong labor market.”

But this is what we expect, right? The power elite continue on, doing things that don’t help the country. As I’ve noted many times, they do just so happen to help their own class. So maybe they aren’t incompetent; maybe they are just evil. Regardless, they look incompetent. The power elite have managed, with one two-year exception, to keep wages of the working class stagnant for almost 40 years. Combine that with media hysteria over terrorism, and you have a recipe for major fascist inroads into our political system.

But will the power elite change? Of course not. They don’t have anything to fear from a Ted Cruz administration. He might make life harder on the elderly. He might starve huge numbers of children. But if anything, he’ll cut the taxes of the power elite. It’s almost like they’re in it together.

Trump, Clinton, and the ISIS Freak Out

Posted on by
10

Donald TrumpGlenn Greenwald wrote an important reminder for all of us, Donald Trump’s “Ban Muslims” Proposal Is Wildly Dangerous but Not Far Outside the US Mainstream. This should not come as a shock to anyone. Everywhere in Republican presidential field you see this kind of thing. I was shocked when Jeb Bush suggested that we only allow Christian refugees into the country. And that is part of a widely held view among Republicans that America is a Christian nation — an idea that is so far removed from reality to be offensive.

I understand that people are freaked out. But I don’t exactly “get” it. A couple of Muslims killed a bunch of people and now much of the nation is on tilt. Suddenly, “Something must be done!” If 2 December 2015 was like most days, there were about 30 other gun murders in the nation. Bad things happen. People murder. Hillary ClintonWhen a Latino murders someone, do we start talking limiting immigration? No. But when it comes to Muslims, hatred and fear is quite socially acceptable. And so talking nonsense about making major changes to the country to combat what is a minor issue at this point makes no sense.

Clearly, mass shootings generally are an important issue. I would like to see something done to stop them. But I don’t know of any mainstream politician who is talking about anything that would actually do much. However, there is nothing even approaching the kind of carnage that the UK saw during The Troubles. Of course, we know that the Republicans are crazy. The problem is that it isn’t just them.

I wanted to offer up a very disturbing contrast that Greenwald presented. (He got it from Trevor Timm.) Back on Monday, Trump was talking to a group of his blackshirts. And he had this to say:

We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, “Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.” These are foolish people.

Yes, these are foolish people. They are so in the tradition of the founding of this country onward. Very foolish! I understand that the murder of 14 people is tragic. But it is hardly the clash of civilizations. It does not suggest that we change our way of life and start shutting down parts of the internet. This is what the Chinese government and other autocracies do. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The truth is, it isn’t even about what they deserve; they won’t get the safety that is supposed to come with the loss of liberty.

But last week, Hillary Clinton talked about the same thing. And here’s what she said:

Self-radicalization that leads to attacks, like what we think happened in San Bernardino, we’re going to have to ask our tech companies… to help us on this. And this is complicated, you’re gonna hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, etc.

So other than the fact that she has some clue the issue might be “complicated” because, you know, the Constitution and all, how is that different from what Trump said?

In the “war on terror,” the US seems very much like a meth addict complaining that she isn’t getting any sleep. Implied in both Trump and Clinton’s comments is this idea, “We keep killing Muslims, and yet more just keep coming.” Maybe our strategy is wrong. Maybe rather than adding the destruction of the First Amendment to our weapons, we could do something that might work. Then again, what do I know? Maybe that meth addict just needs a strong cup of coffee in order to get a good night’s sleep.

Anniversary Post: State of Mississippi

Posted on by
4

Mississippi FlagOn this day in 1817, Mississippi became the 20th state in the union. And it’s pretty much stayed there. Oh, I know I should be nice. But I went to college with a guy from Alabama who told me the great pride of his state was that they could always count on Mississippi to be the 50th worst state in whatever was in question. The point was that Alabama was 49th. But that is probably being too harsh to Alabama. Not so much Mississippi.

Of course, there is an area where both states excel: in the amount of money they get from the federal government compared to how much they send. It changes year by year and analysis by analysis. But it’s always more or less the same: Mississippi gets roughly $3 for $1 it sends. In a lot of states, this is an indication of an old population (Social Security). But Mississippi is one of the younger states. It’s just that Mississippi is really poor.

So why is Mississippi a red state? Well, it isn’t because the poor are conservative. I guess it is because the poor don’t vote in high numbers. And knowing Mississippi, it probably isn’t really easy to vote in the state. But whatever. It does seem like it ought to be blue state, given it is almost 40% African American. Maybe liberals need to return another time and help the poor register and vote. There is little doubt the same stuff that was happening before is happening now, just in a less violent way.

Finally, I just want to mention that flag. Not only does it have the abhorrent Confederate battle flag in it, the thing is just poorly designed. I’m none too happy with the American flag. But the Mississippi flag makes our nation’s flag look like fine art. Why is it that bigotry so often comes with a total lack of taste?

“Flag of Mississippi“. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

Brain Chemistry and Video Watching

Posted on by
7

Sad FaceI am constantly amazed at the effect of chemistry on mood. For example, I always hope that I die right as I’m waking up, because when I wake up, I always wish that I were dead. Well, maybe not dead all the time. But I’m not pleased. Yet you get a cup of tea in me and I can be literally thrilled to be alive. This morning, for example, as I slide into consciousness, I started thinking about Schopenhauer — never a good sign: another day, like the last, which I will work in order to survive to have tomorrow, which will be like the last. It is pointless! I never forget this intellectually, but with the right amount of caffeine, it doesn’t seem important, emotionally.

But consider the chemical soup that swims around in our brains. It really does define us. Let me illustrate.

Happy FaceLast week, when I was going through a thankfully brief period of depression, I decided to watch A Collection of 2007 Academy Award Nominated Short Films. I have seen it before. These collections are wonderful. The truth is that short films are generally better than features because they are organic. They only need to be as long as they need to be. Features are almost always shoehorned into something between an hour and a half to two hours long — regardless of whether the film should have been eight hours or, as is more often the case, 20 minutes.

This particular collection contains two incredibly charming, light-hearted films: The Mozart of Pickpockets and Tanghi Argentini. I was undoubtedly thinking of these films when I decided to watch it. But the disc starts with At Night. It tells the story of three young women who are being treated for cancer at a hospital. Under normal circumstances, I would label the film “poignant.” But in my state of mind, it was devastating; I sobbed pretty much nonstop through it.

I had hoped that I would be about to embed it here, but it isn’t available. It is rather long anyway: almost 40 minutes. Although you can watch the wonderful Tanghi Argentini. Just in time for Christmas! It is a wonderful, heartwarming film. It also made me cry — but not nearly as much.

Okay, so yesterday, I was feeling much better. Great, in fact. And I happened on a sketch comedy show called, Bruiser. It came out in 2000, and I’m shocked that I didn’t know about it, because it was Mitchell and Webb’s first television show. (They are in a cast of six.) It only lasted for one series — six episodes. It’s a weird show with a lot of incredibly annoying characters. The duo definitely got much more subtle — and funny — as time went on.

Here is a series of skits that originally played at different times and across different episodes. It is a parody of Q from the James Bond films. What’s remarkable is that there really isn’t much of a joke here. It’s just: what if Q had really stupid ideas. Yet it made me laugh to the point of asphyxiation.

I must still feel pretty good, because I just watched again, and I found it almost as funny. Ah, brain chemistry.

“Sad face” by Roman Tworkowski — created with Inkscape.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

“Mr. Smiley Face” by Mistersmileyface.png: Otakuma derivative work: 0xF8E8 – This file was derived from Mistersmileyface.png. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The Ever Worsening Republican Party

Posted on by
13

Ted CruzMartin Longman asked a great question, How Did Cruz Become the Sane Alternative? A lot of people think the most likely scenario for the Republican nominating contest is that Trump will drop out and it will become a head to head match-up between Cruz and Marco Rubio. This narrative is presented as though it is a great relief. But how is that? Before Trump stopped being a joke, Ted Cruz was the crazy one that Republican elites were afraid of. Now we are supposed to think that he’s a statesman who can be trusted? That’s a reach.

The truth of the matter is that I fear Cruz more than Trump. There’s no question that Trump is not only a demagogue, but a damned fine one. Still, I think he’s at base a practical guy. He’ll say anything to get elected, but he isn’t going to destroy the world economy. If things go wrong, I think he will reverse course. On the other hand, Ted Cruz is a typical bitter ender. He is ideologically rigid. He always argues that if we just follow his One True Way™ then all will be fine. If a two week government shutdown doesn’t work, then a two month one will; and if not that, a two year one.

But what we are seeing in the Republican presidential campaign is what we’ve seen for decades with the Republican Party. Just look at the Bushes. First we had George HW Bush, and we thought he was pretty bad with his racist campaign. And then we got his eldest son who was equally as evil but spectacularly incompetent. And now we have Jeb Bush. A lot of conservatives have convinced themselves that Obama made the nation miss George W Bush. That didn’t happen. But Jeb has managed to make his older brother seem both less evil and incompetent.

Marco RubioLongman pointed out that, “Cruz is unapologetically at war with the mainstream of the party…” And he’s right to note that Rubio is no great shakes. Jonathan Chait pointed out some of his absurdity on Monday, Guns Don’t Kill People, Planes Kill People. This is in reference to Rubio’s ridiculous claim over the weekend that we can’t withhold guns from people on the no-fly list, because it is filled with errors. But of course, Rubio has no interest in getting rid of the no-fly list — or even fixing it. I’m sure if this lack of consistency were pointed out to Rubio, he would respond, “I’m not a logician, man.”

The larger issue was discussed in another Chait article, Donald Trump May Not Get the Nomination, but He Has Already Won. He showed Rubio’s disingenuousness — saying that Obama’s call for calm on Sunday was “cynical,” while only saying of Trump’s call for panic on Monday, “His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.” As Chait noted:

Rubio impugns Obama’s motives for rejecting discrimination against Muslims. (“Cynicism”!) He makes no such judgment about Trump’s motives. Rubio needs to harness the same passions that Trump is exploiting, but to do so more carefully. His anti-anti-bigotry message cleverly redirects conservative resentment away from Muslims and toward the liberals who cynically denounce anti-Muslim prejudice and refuse to present the case against ISIS as a war of civilizations.

Whatever Marco Rubio truly believes, it is clear that he is determined to win the same votes by the same basic demagoguery as Trump. He just doesn’t do the whole comic-in-chief act of Benito Mussolini. Rubio, Cruz, Trump? They are all pretty much the same. The elites can pat themselves on the back about getting rid of Trump (if they do). But this is just a process that has repeated itself again and again in the GOP. It’s the reason why the party is so much worse than it was 40 years ago.