About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

The Greatest Mankiewicz

Joseph MankiewiczOn this day in 1847, the great inventor Thomas Edison was born. Okay, I said he was great, now I can get to the point. I really have a problem with him. He was brilliant when he was young, but eventually he became Edison Inc, and that was a bad thing. At that point, it wasn’t about literally bringing good things to light, it was about making as much money as possible. His fight with Westinghouse is particularly telling. Because Edison had all the patents for DC, he tried to discredit AC as a method of delivering power. If the government had fallen for this, we would have been screwed for decades. DC is a terrible way to deliver power, except over very shot distances. Another example involves the creation of Hollywood. If Edison had had his way, film never would have become the great art form it did. His patent did nothing but price filmmakers out of work. It is a great example of how innovation thrived despite the patent system, not because of it.

The great singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow is 52 today. My opinion of her went way down when she hooked up with Kid Rock. I figure he must be great in bed. At least, I hope so, because it can’t be his intelligence or talent that attracted her. Anyway, here she is doing her song “Home”:

Other birthdays: photographic pioneer Henry Fox Talbot (1800); Egyptologist Auguste Mariette (1821); great American physicist Josiah Willard Gibbs (1839); great portrait painter Ellen Day Hale (1855); Futurist painter Carlo Carra (1881); nuclear physicist Leo Szilard (1898); boxer Max Baer (1909); novelist Sidney Sheldon (1917); actor Eva Gabor (1919); sex researcher Virginia Johnson (1925); Ginger Grant on Gilligan’s Island, Tina Louise (80); actor Burt Reynolds (78); songwriter Gerry Goffin (75); and actor Jennifer Aniston (45).

The day, however, belongs to the great film director Joseph Mankiewicz who was born on this day in 1909. He was also a great screenwriter. He won the Academy Award as both writer and director twice for A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve. Some of his other cinematic triumphs are Somewhere in the Night, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, and Sleuth. But he is also the man who took charge of the brewing catastrophe that was Cleopatra, and made it into a great film. I don’t think of Mankiewicz was a terribly innovative filmmaker. But he knew how to tell a story on film better than most. I greatly admire him. Here is a bit of his version of Julius Caesar:

Happy birthday Joseph Mankiewicz!

Republican Class Warfare on Obamacare

Class WarfareBrian Beutler wrote an interesting article over at Salon this morning, Why They Hate Working America: GOP Equates Benefits With Personal Failure. It is about the Republican reaction to the CBO report that said that, because of Obamacare, some people would cut back the hours they work and others would stop working altogether. The information in the report is mostly good news. In particular, it gets rid of the problem of job-lock where people are stuck in jobs just because they need the health insurance it provides.

Back in 2009, Paul Ryan himself asked, “[A]re we going to continue job-lock or are we going to allow individuals more choice and portability to fit the 21st century workforce?” But as usual with them, Republicans approach any problem with a long list of solutions that are not acceptable. So they may all be in favor of affordable healthcare, but they aren’t willing to do anything about it that would actually work. So it isn’t surprising that Republicans would twist themselves in knots to attack Obamacare with information indicting it is fixing a problem they’ve claim to care about.

Beutler notes that the main argument that is appearing from Republicans about the CBO report is pretty much the same as Romney’s 47% narrative. “They’re not condemning 47 percent of people in the country, but they are being much more specific about the class of people they’re condemning.” The best example I have of this is a two-income family where the one person only wants to work part time but has to work full time in order to have health insurance. So Obamacare allows the family to go from two incomes to one and a half incomes, allowing more time for managing the home and children. That ought to be something that conservatives would applaud—especially social conservatives!

Of course, it isn’t something that Republicans, in general, are for. Beutler quotes attempted murderer Avik Roy writing in Forbes, “Bored with your job? No worries—now you can quit, thanks to the generosity of other taxpayers.” And that seems to be the main Republican line of attack when they aren’t just outright lying.

There are a couple of things wrong with this. First, government policy always helps one group more than another. Before Obamacare, government policy helped people who had the kinds of jobs that provided healthcare. Obamacare actually makes the situation far more equitable. It still is the case that employees who get employer provided healthcare get an implicit tax refund. Under a normal system, they would have to pay taxes on the money and then buy health insurance. Roy is, despite everything, a smart guy. He knows this is true. But he throws out the nonsense above because it sounds good and supports the policy he wants regardless of the facts.

The second aspect of this is that there is no clearer example of class warfare. Any mention made of income inequality in this country causes Republicans to scream, “Class warfare!” But explicitly pitting middle class workers against the the rich, who will see their Medicare Tax go up by 0.9 percentage points on income over $200,000, is not. I’m not going to get into the issue of income inequality, although I don’t think discussing it is a matter of class warfare. But it should be clear that the notion of middle class workers freed of job-lock are abusing the rich is nothing but class warfare.

In general, the Republican party is focused like a laser on the needs of the rich. And the reason they are against Obamacare is that 0.9% tax on the wealthy. We see this in the Republican “alternative” PCARE, where the tax burden is taken away from the rich and placed firmly on the middle class. I don’t have a problem with that specifically. We should debate it. But we should not put up with this idea that taxing the rich is class warfare but taxing the poor is not. It’s just a difference of opinion. But Republicans scream so loudly because they know that in an honest discussion they would lose—badly.

Bertolt Brecht and My Doppelganger

Bertolt BrechtI am 50 today. I wouldn’t be so keen to tell you that, but it is public information for reasons I am still kind of fuzzy on how it came to be. But somehow it got on Wikipedia and so it is there forever. Whatever. I don’t particularly care that I’m 50 today, because I still feel about 17. What bugs me is who else is 50 today: Glenn Beck.

Now I should be clear, although I think Beck is a nutcase, there is something I like about him. He is a searcher. He really is interested in finding out the truth. I value that because I am very much the same. The problem is that Beck is a sub-genius: someone who is smart but not very smart. And that means he is smart enough to get lost in conspiracy theories. I think a lot of people miss this about Beck. They focus on his conservative politics, but he is really just Alex Jones, except a little smarter. I think that somewhere along the line, Beck read Cleon Skousen’s The 5,000 Year Leap and he thought he had found the Truth™. And everything pretty much flows from that.

In a purely commercial sense, Beck has been extremely successful. He has a large group of people who hang on (Off?!) his every word. Politically, of course, he is irrelevant. The people who follow him are already far to the right politically. Beck’s main power is to drain them of money, although if he wants, he can whip them up to vote or encourage them not to vote. I figure they already vote consistently, though.

But Glenn Beck is well worth having around to pollute our intellectual discourse because it resulted in some of the best satire ever by Jon Stewart. Here is the first part of it. In the second part, he nails exactly why Beck was fired from Fox News, “Well maybe Fox News thought it would be useful to hire some random talk radio host rehashing the same tired old John Birch Society conspiracy theories to seed an ultra-conservative viewpoints into the news cycle while making the rest of the network seem centrist by comparison. But he then began to believe his own messianic delusions and became a giant pain in the ass.” That’s about right. Click the link before for the whole thing. Or just watch the beginning:

The singer Roberta Flack is 77 today. I mention her only as an excuse for listening to Ewan MacColl’s “The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face”:

Other birthdays: naval commander William Cornwallis (1744); writer Charles Lamb (1775); great French Romantic painter Ary Scheffer (1795); saccharin co-creator Ira Remsen (1846); Russian writer Boris Pasternak (1890); actor Judith Anderson (1897); the Father of Modern Vaccines, John Franklin Enders (1897); actor Stella Adler (1901); actor Lon Chaney Jr (1906); great cinematographer Douglas Slocombe (101!); film composer Jerry Goldsmith (1929); actor Robert Wagner (84); swimmer Mark Spitz (64); and Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan (47).

The day, however, belongs to the great playwright Bertolt Brecht who was born on this day in 1898. I know him mostly as the guy with all the books in the section where I’m looking for Beckett plays. Despite the fact that he didn’t live that long, he wrote a tremendous number of plays—all of which have been translated into English. He is best know, of course, for writing the book and lyrics of The Threepenny Opera. But among theater people he is ridiculously important—not only because of his plays but because of his extensive writing on theatrical theory and practice. Here is “The Ballad of Mack the Knife” from the 1931 film based on the play:

Happy birthday Bertolt Brecht!

Captain Phillips Is a Laudable Thriller

Captain PhillipsRegular readers doubtless know about my trips to the movies with my comic book loving brother. These normally end in what I refer to as my “Marxist movie reviews.” These are reviews of films as they function as government propaganda. See, for example, Marvel’s The Despots. But yesterday, I had a different experience. I took my father to see Captain Phillips, at our cheap Third Street Cinema. I was actually more interested in seeing the other Tom Hanks film, Saving Mr Banks. But dad wasn’t that keen to go to the movies, so I figured Captain Phillips was a better choice.

The film is directed by Paul Greengrass or, as I have come to think of him, the handheld Tony Scott. And it is entirely what I’m come to expect from Greengrass: a big budget film for intelligent people that will appeal to idiots as well. In fact, I think Captain Phillips is the Iliad of the American empire. It provides an excellent illustration of how men on both sides of a conflict are supposed to act. Phillips, of course, is stoic while trying to safeguard his crew and eventually even the leader of the pirates, Abduwali Muse, and its youngest member. For his part, Muse does his best in a situation he does not like—never forgetting his duty to his employer and by extension the safety of his community.

There is much to like about the film. In particular, I appreciated that the US Navy was mostly not humanized. It presented it as the huge killing machine that it is. Once it is on the case, all hope is lost for the pirates. Another important aspect of the film is that Phillips is not really cast as a hero. A good comparison is John McClane in the first half of Die Hard, where all he is trying to do is get the police to notice the hostage situation. Phillips is trying to make the best of a bad situation. The role has a bit too much of the star hero, but it is surprisingly limited. And at the end, after he is safe, Phillips breaks down. So I liked all of that.

Of course, by necessity, the film is propagandistic. In the end, the Navy comes to the rescue, just like the cavalry did in bad westerns of old. And ultimately, most people will see the film as the bad pirates against the good merchant marines. The film does do a good job of showing that the pirates are also victims in this. In the end, three of them die, and nothing happens to the warlord behind it. In addition, nothing happens to those in the commercial fishing industry who destroyed the pirates’ village’s fish population. In fact, there is a great moment in the film where Phillips tells Muse that there has to be an alternative besides fishing and kidnapping. Muse responds, “Maybe in America.” But it’s still a bit subtle. For example, the actual pirates were all between the ages of 16 and 19. The film makes note of the fact that the youngest is 16, but this is made out to be different from the others. Muse was only 18, but Barkhad Abdi, who brilliantly plays him in the movie, is 28.

That’s all minor and beside the point. It isn’t the filmmakers’ fault that most people who go to see the film will have an extremely biased perspective and miss the subtleties. The fact remains that the film is largely respectful to its characters. In the end, I think the film raises important issues about equality and fairness. And it drops these issues in your lap and runs away. No one involved in this movie wants to deal with these implications. So they wrap it in an exciting thriller and figure their job is done. And they are right. But the rest of us ought to think about why we live in such an unfair world where it is just dumb luck whether you are killed at 18 because of a botched kidnapping or make millions off the hedge fund daddy gave you the money to start.

Something must be said about Paul Greengrass’ overuse of the handheld camera. I know that he is going for a cinema verite feel. And it often works, and worked the best I’ve ever seen in this film. But during non-dramatic scenes such as the car ride to the airport, it doesn’t make it feel real. The camera just calls attention to itself. That’s also the case when a beautiful helicopter shot interrupts the jitter-fest. And the camera man is clearly moving the camera more than he has to. Most camera operators can shoot scenes handheld without most observers even realizing it. So I think that Greengrass is being awfully pretentious a lot of the time. And then there is the over-cutting. It’s like he thinks that the film would die if there wasn’t a cut every three second.

That’s all meta criticism that doesn’t matter all that much. What is a bigger issue is that the film does kind of die once the pirates take Phillips hostage on the lifeboat. Much of the dynamism of the plot dies here. What’s more, most of the characters lose their interest. There are still many interesting movements like the “Maybe in America” line. But large chunks of time are taken up with all the Navy maneuvers. Given that it is based fairly closely on a real life story, this is understandable. But it was not necessary to spend so much time on kidnapping part of the story. I think the film could easily be cut down by a half hour.

Given all of this, it is still unlikely that you will see a better big budget thriller in the next several years. It is extremely engaging, the characters are well rendered, and its theme is important. If Hollywood made more films like this, we might become a better nation.