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.

What I Think of George W Bush

Bush Sad ClownAfter mistakenly believing that George Bush Jr had created prettified versions of the Abu Ghraib torture photos, I have reflected on why I could believe that he would do such things. Part of it is that I have a very low opinion of Bush. He’s a trust fund kid who skated through life into the White House. And the world is a far worse place for it. But that’s not really the main issue. I wouldn’t, for example, think the same thing of Dick Cheney who I dislike even more.

In my mind, if not in reality, Bush is still the cheerleader at Yale—a deeply unserious guy. Look at his paintings: he signs them “43.” To me this says that being president wasn’t about much other than the title. It reminds me of Primary Colors where Jack Stanton says, “You know as well as I do, that plenty of people playing this game, they don’t think that way. They’re willing to sell their souls, crawl through sewers, lie to people, divide them, play on their worst fears for nothing! Just for the prize.” That’s Bush. But of course, he didn’t have to crawl through the sewers.

Throughout the time that he was in office, he seemed to think it was all a joke. When he was serious, it was more like he was playing the part of the serious president—although maybe that’s all that any of them do. There was his response to the famous presidential daily briefing, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” There was his golf course moment, “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.” There was, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” But most of all, he was cavalier about the job generally.

So it wasn’t (and really still isn’t) that hard to imagine him approaching the history of his presidency with what he would think of as a rye sense of humor. The pictures from Abu Ghraib really are beyond the pale. At least in retrospect. But sad clown faces on Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? That’s entirely in keeping with what we know about George Bush’s sense of humor. And I think that’s the core of why I found the fakes believable.

The whole thing started with a gallery of a dozen or so George Bush paintings. (I can’t find the link.) It contained a number of authentic Bush paintings, and most or even all of these fake ones. None of them were distinguished. I eventually traced the source back to the original Vanity Fair article. And I found many other references to the paintings, none of which clearly indicated parody. In fact, the Vanity Fair article was completely straight except for the final paragraph. Of course, I should have noticed the headline, “Fauxsclusive…” But alas, I am clueless at times.

There you have it. In the end, embarrassment aside, I’m glad that George Bush has not taken to apologetics in his paintings. And on a more fundamental level, maybe thinking that he would was giving him more credit than than was due. He’s still more a cheerleader than a sad clown. Go team!


Thanks to Andrea for doing the image!

Freedom and John Dewey

John DeweyOn this day in the distant past, two great painters were born. The Dutch Golden Age painter Aelbert Cuyp was born in 1620. Mostly, he was a landscape painter. He does amazing things with skies: light, not the way it is, but the way it ought to be. The French portrait painter Nicolas de Largilliere was born in 1656. I don’t think that he is as good, but his work is still amazing.

The great composer Charles Ives was born in 1874. Here is Central Park in the Dark, which is one of the most important classical works of the 20th century. He wrote it in 1906, but it wasn’t performed for another four decades. And that is probably for the best. Today it sounds fine: dissonant, but fine. In fact, it reminds me of the Howard Shore’s title music for the film Existenz. But it likely would have caused riots in 1906. It is hauntingly beautiful.

Two great actors were born on this day in 1882. First there is Bela Lugosi. I’ll be honest, although I really enjoy him in Dracula and White Zombie, I much prefer Boris Karloff. The second actor is the wonderful Margaret Dumont, Groucho’s foil in many Marx Brothers’ films. She was perfect as the representative of the establishment that the brothers rebelled against. Without her, Groucho especially wouldn’t be as much fun.

Other birthdays: pianist Jelly Roll Morton (1885); discoverer of the neutron James Chadwick (1891); film director Jean-Pierre Melville (1917); baseball player Mickey Mantle (1931); actor William Christopher (81); musician Tom Petty (63); film director Danny Boyle (57); actor Viggo Mortensen (55); and musician Snoop Dogg (42).

The day, however, belongs to the great philosopher and educational reformer John Dewey who was born in 1859. Below is a nice, brief, discussion of his influence by A.G. Rud. I like that he mentions that Dewey would be skeptical of our modern focus on testing standards. What real educational reformer is not? Our modern treatment of students as though they are widgets on an assembly line really bugs me. It reminds me of a very Soviet approach to education. The approach is all about turning children into adults who will be useful to the business community. It should be about maturing children into good citizens in all the glorious diversity that the word ought to suggest.

Happy birthday John Dewey!

Second Guessing the Falsely Accused

The SuspectLast week, This American Life produced an episode Confessions. The show primarily consists of two stories. The first is about a detective who learns that he had unintentionally created a false confession. The second is about Jeffrey Womack, whose life was haunted by a murder allegation that he refused to talk to the police about. What is interesting in both cases is the reactions of other people and how they second guess what happened. It is the ultimate example of blaming the victim.

In the false confession case, the officer is so convinced that the suspect did the crime that he feeds her details to parrot back. The case falls apart after the defendant recants and the physical evidence falls apart. But of course, the officer is sure that she was somehow involved. It is only ten years later when he looks back on the “confession” tape that he sees the problem. He says to her, “Let me refresh your memory.” And then he gives her credit card receipts that allow her to know basically all of the details of the case.

What’s most interesting here is that the officer now lectures to other police officers. But he says that he can’t give a lecture on preventing false confessions because no one will show up. So he has to lecture on interrogation tactics and then just throw in a bit about false confessions at the end. As he points out, there is nothing that the police believe as strongly as the fact that innocent people will not confess to a crime they did not commit. This is despite the fact that there are many notable cases like the Central Park 5.

Police work ought to be like science, and under the best of circumstances I’m sure that it is. The evidence should lead the detective to a conclusion. But most cases are obvious. As Verbal says in The Usual Suspects, “To a cop the explanation is never that complicated. It’s always simple. There’s no mystery to the street, no arch criminal behind it all. If you got a dead body and you think his brother did it, you’re gonna find out you’re right.” But that leads to detectives filtering out exonerating evidence. For example, in this case, the woman under investigation was in a homeless shelter during the crime, but the officer didn’t even check until months later after she had recanted her confession.

The second case is one where the police went after a teenager, Jeffrey Womack, for a rape and murder. His lawyer told him not to talk to the police or the media. Again, the case against the kid fell apart because he wasn’t guilty and he had a decent lawyer. But for 30 years, until the actually killer was convicted, he lived under a shadow. Everyone just knew that he did it. But now that there is no doubt of his innocence, no one in the police department thinks they were wrong to harass him. They all think the same thing, “None of this would have happened if he had just talked to us!” Most people in the area think the same thing.

The story interviewed a reporter who said more or less, “I just don’t understand it; if it had been me, I would have been shouting my innocence from the rooftops!” You get that? Because this guy was not behaving the way she thought she would have, it must mean that he’s guilty. I noted this some months ago about the coverage of Debra Milke. Long before people are convicted in court, they are convicted by the media, using the same snap judgments that usually are correct. But “usually” really isn’t good enough. I wouldn’t want to be convicted of murder because a reporter or a police officer thinks I did it and is usually right about such thing.

What is fascinating about these two cases is how the victim is always wrong in the eyes of outsiders. In the first case, people think that the young woman should not have trusted the police; she should have just remained silent and nothing bad would have happened. (To be fair, the detective does not make this argument.) In the second case, people think the young man should have trusted the police. In the first case, I don’t think things would have been much different, except that she might have spent slightly less time in jail. In the second case, I suspect the young man would have spent a lot of time in jail and might have even been convicted. The fault is not with these victims but with the system itself.

Afterword

I think it is interesting that the false confession detective has made a whole career out of it. The victim’s life was destroyed.

Songwriter Vinicius de Moraes

Vinicius de MoraesOn this day in 1862, the elder of the Lumiere brothers, Auguste was born. His younger brother Louis was born on 5 October 1864. They were moving picture pioneers. They invented, for example, the perforation on the sides of film that allow it to be perfectly fed through cameras and projectors. But they are most known for their films. Together, they made almost 200 films. Admittedly, most of them were like Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat, which is 48 seconds long and simply shows a train arriving at the station. But they did arguably make the first comedy, The Sprinkler Sprinkled. I find this period fascinating because you get to see how a gimmick very quickly leads to the production of art. It is only 20 years from these earliest films to The Birth of a Nation, which pretty much has all of the modern film syntax. Another interesting thing about the Lumiere brothers (mostly Louis, I think), is that they had a great eye for photography. The shots are always well framed. This isn’t a surprise, given how much work they did with still photography. But most films at that time were not as well made.

The great professional wrestler Tor Johnson was born in 1903. He is best known for a still popular Halloween mask and, of course, his star role in Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer Space. Here he is, and yes, he was a sex machine:

The great musician Peter Tosh was born in 1944. I didn’t realize that he was murdered during a home invasion—just a couple of years after I got into his music. Here he is doing “Legalize It”:

Two conservative assholes are 57 today. The first is also an idiot, Steve Doocy. The second is just evil, Grover Norquist.

Other birthdays: essayist James Henry Leigh Hunt (1784); painter Theodoros Vryzakis (1814); painter Umberto Boccioni (1882); oceanographer Walter Munk (96); writer John le Carre (82); actor Michael Gambon (73); actor Divine (1945); actor John Lithgow (68); and the really bad film director Jon Favreau (47).

The day, however, belongs to Vinicius de Moraes who was born on this day in 1913. He is certainly one of the greatest Brazilian songwriters of the 20th century. And he’s probably the best lyricist. He wrote the lyrics to “Garota de Ipanema,” which is better known as “The Girl from Ipanema.” He was also a great performer. Here he is with a very young Toquinho:

Happy birthday Vinicius de Moraes!

Business and Tea Party Are Not at War

War or Tea Party and Business Interests

There have been a lot of articles written in the last two days talking about the battle raging inside the Republican Party. Yesterday, for example, Bloomberg published, Republican Civil War Erupts: Business Groups v. Tea Party. But I don’t buy it. If there is a war going on in the GOP, it is only between those who want to immediately eliminate all aid to the poor and those who want to do it incrementally over the next decade: Paul Broun versus Paul Ryan.

I think Josh Barro is beginning to see the light. In the middle of the crisis, he wrote, “The most dangerous group in Congress is moderate Republicans, many from the northeast, who could reopen the government and break extremists’ grip on their caucus’ agenda, but choose not to.” Implicit in that statement, however, is the fact that the supposed moderates are choosing not to do anything for their own personal reasons. And I know from other things that Barro has said and written that he largely thinks it is cowardice.

This is the conventional wisdom in Washington. Most of the Republicans are not so very extreme, they are just worried about challenges from the right. But what really appears to be happening is that these supposed moderates believe exactly the same things that the extremists do. They are just trying to thread a needle. If there were no bad political consequences, they would be voting extremist, not moderate. There are a couple of reasons I think this. First, most right wing challenges fail. Look at how Orrin Hatch turned even further to the right because of a primary challenge. And what finally happened? Hatch won his primary by over 30 percentage points. So the fear may be real, but it isn’t all that valid.

Add to this the fact the Republicans especially overestimate how conservative the people they represent are. What this means is that these supposed moderates are eager to join the extremists. They have fear of the right and the left (actually the center). But when there is pressure from the two sides, they always move to the right. Mike Coffman, for example, won re-election by less than 7,000 votes. In his district, Obama beat Romney by 5 percentage points last year. Coffman, in other words, is extremely vulnerable in 2014. And in the end, he voted to reopen the government. But where had he been? In the nice warm waters of GOP extremism because that’s who he is.

The same thing goes for business interests who are now supposedly upset that their Republican lapdogs are doing things that make them a tad uncomfortable. There is no rift here. The only difference between Ted Cruz and Sheldon Adelson is that Adelson wants policy results. And really, who cares if the Republicans weaken the economy, as long as they also push policies that continue giving more and more to the rich? I’ll admit, the business community might like to soften the edges of the GOP. But that’s just as true with gay rights as it is with government shutdown and Debt Ceiling crises. What the business community (as represented by the nation Chamber of Commerce) wants is exactly what the House extremists want. It’s just that the business community would rather finesse the argument. “Let the poor die!” just isn’t good marketing. But it is a shared policy goal.

Update (19 October 2013 4:26 pm)

Dave Weigel says more or less the same thing, Tea-ism: Why Big Business Won’t Abandon the Tea Party. But as usual for him, he accepts the Tea Party rhetoric at face value. The reason they are unruly is simply because they have actually drunk the tea. The business community knows that Obamacare will not bring about a socialist hellscape. That’s just rhetoric that they generate to get the base’s attention. It just doesn’t work as well to say, “This is the kind of program that might lead to slightly less freedom for the very rich over the coming decades.” Again: the end goal is the same. The only thing that the two “sides” disagree about is urgency.

Terrorists Would Never Harm Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney60 Minutes claims that Dick Cheney had his defibrillator altered to guard again a terrorist attack. According to the story that will air this Sunday, his doctor “had the device’s wireless function disabled so a terrorist couldn’t send his heart a fatal shock.” I find this odd. It has been my understanding that the terrorists hate America. If that’s the case, why would they want to kill Dick Cheney?

I was thinking this morning that if Cheney were rotting in a jail somewhere, I would have a certain level of sympathy for him. But as it is, his very existence infuriates me. He is an evil man. And what it says to the world is, “It doesn’t matter how awful you are, as long as you have the power, nothing will happen to you.” Hitler died only because he lost the war; otherwise, he would have lived another 20 years and received a state funeral.

Cheney hasn’t only escaped any kind of punishment, he is still held in high esteem throughout the country. We saw him making the rounds explaining what Obama should do about Syria. No level of personal failure can stop the media from listening to evil fools like him. Now Dick Cheney has written a book with his carteologist called Heart: An American Medical Odyssey, which will be available Tuesday. And 60 Minutes is eager to help him sell it.

I haven’t been able to find any reviews of the book. Why would there need to be any? A 15 minute segment on 60 Minutes is worth millions of dollars in advertising and thousands of reviews. It’s another illustration of why we live in a winner-take-all society. In a reasonable country where our leaders were capable of feeling shame, Cheney would at least be hiding out. But instead, he is out in public treated like royalty instead of the evil traitor that he is.

I’m curious about the subtitle of the book, “An American Medical Odyssey.” I assume there will be a lot of garbage in the book about how America has the greatest medicine in the world. I’m sure that’s true if you are Dick Cheney. But a country that fails so miserably for the vast majority of its population is no success story. Cheney could get the best healthcare in the world regardless of what country he was in. The sad thing is that Cheney doesn’t deserve it. He should have died a long time again and I hope he dies soon.

Afterword

This one is for that son of a bitch:

On Becoming Ex-Straight

Ex-Straight

I saw over on Crooks & Liars today that the anti-LGBT activist Peter LaBarbera was pushing the alleged success stories of ex-gay people in the media. His idea is that since Fox News has been so good about distorting demographics by highlighting the few black Republicans, the network should do the same for the ex-gays.

Let’s think about that for a minute. I can well imagine why Fox News might have a problem with it. As a people, we aren’t too comfortable with sexual vagaries. So even acknowledging that people get confused sexually is likely to turn off the average viewer who is in his 70s. But there is the other aspect of this, which is that almost no one really believes that sexual orientation is something that people decide. I think everyone’s experience is like mine: when I reached puberty, I started noticing girls. If I had been gay, it would have been boys. There wouldn’t have been a decision. So people introduced to the concept of ex-gay generally think that the people involved are really mixed up or they are simply lying to themselves.

For me, this is kind of personal, but I think most people, if they are honest, will understand if not identify. You can ask my many and varied wives and girlfriends and they will all confirm that I do not have a very great sex drive. But my sexual orientation is pretty strongly heterosexual. Still, I can imagine the effect it would have on me if I lived in a world that told me since I was a kid that heterosexuality was wrong. Or if I were told that God himself hated the fact that I had sex with girls and would torture me to the end of the time for doing it. In that situation, I would be an excellent subject for anti-straight therapy.

And look how great it would work if they put me together with some guy who also liked girls but didn’t have a particularly strong sex drive. A night of mutual masturbation, some cuddling while watching a movie, and we’d be home free. We wouldn’t be gay, really. We’d just have managed to stifle our sex drives and focus on the other aspects of our lives. And that, I think, is how it works with those successful ex-gay folks. It is common for ex-gay men to hook up with ex-lesbians. What’s up with that? God forbid an ex-lesbian would hook up with a man who had a strong sex drive!

So my guess is that the successful ex-gays are a collection of people who have been really warped by religion and other social mores. But they’ve got to be people who either have weak sex drives or who are bisexual and can choose to just go one way or the other. What it most definitely is not is a bunch of people who have strong homosexual drives learning to have strong heterosexual drives. And what that means is that the movement does not “cure” the people they ought to care the most about. In that same article, Tea Party leader Rick Scarborough said that “homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer.” If that’s the case, you’d want to go “cure” the most intense of the gays.

It reminds me of Prohibition. A lot of people have noted that making alcohol illegal really did reduce drinking. The problem is that it most reduced drinking among those who didn’t have a problem! So they take these poor men away and make them play football and slap each other on the back. And they take these poor women away and, I don’t know, force them to pretend they aren’t capable. And all they manage to do is get some bisexual woman to settle down with an effeminate man. Brilliant!

The whole thing is so sad from the perspective of those who are driven into such ex-gay therapy. The truth is that sex is a strange thing that our society ill prepares us for. And people have all kinds of sexual tastes and when those aren’t the rather narrow socially acceptable tastes, it has to be difficult. But the other side of it is pure evil. These are people who take the weaknesses of others and exploit them. They are the modern con artist and it makes it even worse that they do it for God.

Good Movie

If I Were YouI just finished watching If I Were You, a charming movie about Madelyn, a middle-aged woman who discovers her husband is having an affair with a young European woman. Then a bunch of stuff happens and soon after her mother passes away.

It’s much lighter than it sounds. The only reason I’m even mentioning it is because of this bit of dialogue. At her mother’s funeral, a co-worker offers his trite consolation:

Keith: But just remember – God doesn’t give us any more than we can carry.

Madelyn: God has some formula where he can calculate exactly how much pain to inflict on each individual? (Turning to her husband) Isn’t it interesting that things that are supposed to be mindlessly comforting are really, really horrible. You know, when you think about it.

On This Day in History: October 18

1867
The United States took formal possession of Alaska from Russia.
[Two places I will probably never see, and I’m okay with that.]

1892
The first long-distance telephone line between New York and Chicago was officially opened (it could only handle one call at a time).
[Kind of like AT&T today.]

1922
The British Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (BBC) was founded.
[I love Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant, and Karl Pilkington.]

1931
Inventor Thomas Alva Edison died in West Orange, N.J., at age 84.
[He was predeceased by Topsy, the elephant he electrocuted.]

1962
James D. Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins received the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology for determining the double-helix molecular structure of DNA.
[Awesome.]

1969
The federal government banned artificial sweeteners known as cyclamates (SY’-kluh-maytz) because of evidence they caused cancer in laboratory rats.
[I had at least three years of ingesting sweets before it was banned.]

1972
Congress passed the Clean Water Act, overriding President Nixon’s veto.
[Once upon a time, the U.S. Congress actually did a good thing.]

Other than that, nothing awesome happened on this day until 1992 when my son was born (see below).

You Never Can Tell With Chuck Berry

Chuck BerryIt’s a big day for literature. Moby-Dick was first published on this day back in 1851 under the name The Whale. And almost as quickly, it was disparaged and forgotten and not long after Melville pretty much stopped writing until shortly before his death. It’s sad. There are a lot of similarities between Melville and Cervantes, although the latter never stopped writing. But they both spent what should have been very productive years slogging through life doing government work. Its all very sad, but they both left us multiple gems of varying brilliance.

On this day in 1927, the great actor George C. Scott was born. I’ve liked him for a number of movies, most notably in Dr. Strangelove and Patton. But for me, the best film he ever made was They Might Be Giants. Yes, it is a modern version of Don Quixote, but that isn’t what matters most here. Scott’s performance is by far his most nuanced. Both film and actor are under appreciated.

Assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939. I bring him up only because I had no idea he was so young. He had just turned 24 when he murdered President Kennedy. Clearly, he was a very troubled young man. And because of that, I worry about loose talk of revolution and tyranny. In the late 1960s, we definitely got a lot of that from the left. That was wrong and dangerous. But today, we not only get it from the right, we get it from a lot of mainstream people. I suspect the only reason no one has taken a shot at President Obama is that the Secret Service have thankfully gotten so good at their jobs. But it really ought to be unthinkable.

Other birthdays: Baroque painter Luca Giordano (1634); the late Baroque, early Classical composer Baldassare Galuppi (1706); poet Thomas Love Peacock (1785); theoretical physicist Pascual Jordan (1902); one of the great racist villains of 20th century America Jesse Helms (1921); actor Peter Boyle (1935); actor Dawn Wells, our own Mary Ann on Gilligan’s Island (75); one of the few really distinctive movie composers Howard Shore (67); and musician Wynton Marsalis (52).

The day, however, belongs to the very great Chuck Berry who is 87 today and still performing. Most people associate him with his guitar playing. And it is great, fun pentatonic noodling—probably the most distinctive style in pop music. But that’s not why I gave the the day to him. As I noted back on 17 September, “If I had to name the greatest songwriter of the 20th century, it would be Chuck Berry.” His musical sense is wonderful and his lyrics are clever as hell. It’s just amazing stuff. Here is one of my favorites, “You Never Can Tell”:

Happy birthday Chuck Berry!

Someone Turns 21 Today!

newbornOn this day twenty-one years ago, my one and only son, emerged into the world and posed for his one and only mug shot.

Today he is a bona fide man, planning his very first beer run. He will not be drinking and then driving as he has more sense than his mother used to. To clarify, I do not drink and then drive, not anymore.

Still, the idea that I have a child who is twenty-one years old is a teeny bit unsettling. On the other hand, he is officially no longer my responsibility. Time to get a dog.


<%image(20131018-andrea_colin_1992.jpg|316|354|3weeks_1992.jpg)%>

In lieu of gifts, donations to the Colin English Student Loan Fund
are be greatly appreciated.