On this day in 1726, the father of modern geology, James Hutton was born. He proposed the idea that the surface of the earth was slowed formed by processes such as erosion and sedimentation. I never think of geology as an especially theoretical subject. This undoubtedly is based not on any great understanding of the subject but the fact that when I was in school, the geology students were all so fit and tanned and always going on geology camping trips. I extrapolated based upon that. But Hutton figure out how the earth works primarily based upon theory. In addition to his many accomplishments, he is the first person to propose what came to be known as the Gaia Hypothosis.

Opera composer Antonio Sacchini was born in 1730. Here is a bit from his opera L’isola d’amore. Have you noticed how opera singers (female and male) have gotten, well, very attractive? Or more simply: sexy. This woman could use a couple of pounds, but she has really great legs. And she can sing. I’m not too fond of the choreography, but the rest is impressive:

Uncle Tom creator Harriet Beecher Stowe was born in 1811. Publisher and original author of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, John Bartlett was born in 1820. I have a 1944 edition of the book always close by. It is extremely well organized. But I have to say: it doesn’t usually have the quotations that I’m looking for. It really is necessary to have a more up to date copy since sayings go in and out of vogue.

Burl Ives, who I know as the snowman in Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer was born in 1909. Gene Barry of The War of the Worlds fame was born in 1919. And novelist Jerzy Kosinski was born in 1933.

Two real fucktards are having birthdays today: Donald Trump is 67 and Pamela Geller is 55. And Boy George is 52. I don’t have many thoughts either way about Boy George, but for some reason, I read his autobiography.

The day however, belongs to the great musician Junior Walker who was born on this day back in 1931. I’ve really loved his music over the years. I’m sure you’ve heard this classic:

Happy birthday Junior Walker! You are sorely missed.

Speaking of enfant terrible, Josh Barro’s counterpart on the left is Matt Yglesias. (It says much about our screwed up political system that these guys largely agree on policy matters.) Today, Yglesias wrote an apologia of sorts for the contention of the European Union elite that Ireland is some kind of economic success story. It isn’t that Yglesias himself thinks that Ireland is a success but he is putting forward a defense of how these people can possibly think that Ireland, with a 13.5% unemployment rate, is a “success.”

Basically, the argument comes down to this: “Ireland is doing a lot better than Spain!” I have a word for that argument: pathetic. But Yglesias pushed it. He rightly noted that since 2011, Irish unemployment has gone down a tad whereas Spain has seen its unemployment rate go up by 5 percentage points. But this is where he went wrong, I think. He blamed the rise in unemployment on the Spaniards’ “many iterations of protest marches, strikes, and even riots.” In contrast, the Irish, although they too hate austerity, have been “good soldiers.” This is absurd! First, he presented no argument at all to indicate that the strikes are the reason for the increased unemployment. Nor is it at all clear that the Irish would not also riot if their unemployment rate were to double.

Yglesias even implicitly makes this argument. He showed that Iceland’s economy is doing even better than Ireland. Whereas Ireland only saw its unemployment rate go down starting in 2012, Iceland’s has been steadily decreasing since mid-2010. There are a number of reasons for this, in particular the fact that Iceland has its own currency and that they let banks fail rather than propping them up like they were “supposed” to do. And yes, he’s right that Spain and Ireland are both in a bad situation because they don’t have their own currencies. But he’s dead wrong to suggest that the difference between austerity being marginally successful and being a total catastrophe is how well behaved the populace is.

It’s this kind of very theoretical, too smart by half writing that is most annoying about Yglesias and Barro. They both seem far too caught up in their own clever notions about policy to care about the actual human lives that are harmed. In Yglesias’ article, he blames the Spanish workers whose lives have been destroyed for the fact that austerity continues not to work. This strikes me as typical of war apologia (although far more understandable). It is shocking, but there are many who claim that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was well worth the at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths. Regardless of how much one may have wanted to get rid of Hussein, that is too high a price to pay. The best I can say is that such people have become disconnected from their fellow humans. And I’m afraid that is especially easy when looking at something as theoretical as economics.

Afterword

I admire both Yglesias and Barro. I wish I didn’t have to say that. Most of the time I write about them, it is to present an interesting idea or perspective. But that doesn’t stop me from being annoyed with them. What makes them great is also what makes them annoying. The late 20s and easy 30s are a hard time for intellectuals. I understand. That was when I was a bleeding heart libertarian. And I have long admitted that part of my dislike of Barro is that he reminds me of myself at that age, even if he is smarter. (And that is a question; until anyone beats me at a differential equation solving competition, I concede nothing!)

I can see why Republicans increasingly don’t see enfant terrible Josh Barro as a conservative. He will go on! Yesterday at Business Insider, he wrote, There Is Still No Conservative, Pro-Middle Class Agenda. It is primarily an attack on Utah Senator Mike Lee, but Barro is quite clear that he means it to be a more broad attack on the Republican party and even the conservative movement itself. He wrote, “But as is typical for Republicans, the key focus of legislation Lee supports isn’t reform—it’s cutting spending on entitlements in order to make space in the budget for tax cuts.” Although I completely agree, I know the counter argument, “But those tax cuts will spur the economy and all the poor will have good paying jobs!” There seems to be no amount of evidence and argument that can convince conservatives that this isn’t so.

This all raises a question in my mind. It is a personal question ever since Barro called me dumb for writing that he is a conservative apologist. The question is this: why is Barro a conservative? Liberals and Democrats want efficient infrastructure spending. It was the Democratic Party that changed “welfare as we know it.” And it was Democrats who enacted a “free market” reform of healthcare. Why is it that Barro wants to reform the Republican Party when it looks to me like what he really thinks it ought to become is the modern Democratic Party? (I’m all for that, by the way; the problem with the Republican Party is that the Democratic Party has moved much too far to the right.)

For the record, I don’t believe that Barro understood my article because he completely mischaracterized it. I wasn’t saying that he was wrong for wanting infrastructure projects to be efficient. I said he was being a Republican apologist for using reasonable arguments to justify others’ ideological decisions. I did and still do expect more from Barro, who I may disagree with but still think is brilliant.

Last week, Dean Baker wrote an article for the Huffington Post in which he discussed Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for making student loans more affordable. He said at first he didn’t like the plan because it wasn’t transparent and would certainly lead to the money being used in unintended ways like rich kids taking out loans to invest in the stock market. But then he realized something important, “Somehow sound economics are only important in discussions of policies that are intended to help the poor or middle class.”

Think about this with regards to infrastructure projects. Any actual project is going to have waste or at least things that some people will call waste. As a commentator, one can either argue for the project or against the project. But the argument cannot be simply that there is a lot of waste. Is the waste a reasonable trade off for the good? What’s more, when someone like Josh Barro argues that a transit project is too expensive or isn’t needed quite yet, he isn’t making the case for a more efficient or later project. As a practical matter, his arguments will be used to kill such projects.

Since Barro’s thinking is far more in line with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, I don’t see why he doesn’t come on over. And I’m not sure that even he knows. One thing he doesn’t seem to appreciate is the great favor that much of his writing does for those pushing policies he disagrees with.

Many will be surprised, but those who read me closely will know that I have a certain fondness for Rick Santorum. Yes, his conservative Catholicism is ridiculous. And generally his policy positions are terrible. But his economic rhetoric is quite compelling. He has a strong populist streak in him—and it is real, not like the pretend populism of so much of the conservative movement. As I recall, his grandfather was a coal miner, and regardless, he comes from the working class and values it.

Yesterday, Santorum spoke at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference. And he attacked the Romney campaign’s use of the “you didn’t build that” meme. He said that it was wrong to put only business owner up on the stage at the Republican National Convention to counter it. “One after another, they talked about the business they had built. But not a single—not a single—factory worker went out there. Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didn’t care about them. You know what? They built that company too! And we should have had them on that stage.” Damn right!

There are a couple of problems, however. First, of course, is that the “you didn’t build that” meme was always trumped up nonsense. Obama was talking about the public infrastructure that makes business possible. It was a mistake to try to make the comment into something that it was not. The public never accepted the narrative that Obama was against business for one very simple reason: Obama is not against business. In fact, he is arguably the most pro-business president we’ve ever had.

The other problem is that Santorum is being charmingly naive if he really believes that the conservative movement has any room in it for labor. As I’ve written about with regard to libertarians, conservatives simply idolize the Businessman. They see the worker at best as a kind of necessarily evil. Sometimes their rhetoric tries to appeal to labor. But after Reagan, I think that labor has learned its lesson.

Santorum, unlike Reagan, I think actually does value labor. I think he is fundamentally a decent guy who is looking for ways to contextualize his conservative ideology so that he isn’t a horrible person. And he is quite correct to try to introduce the importance of labor into the conservative narrative—hopeless though I think that effort is. Because regardless of the conservative love for the Romantic notion of the Job Creator—symbolized by the half-dimensional John Galt—labor is far more important to business success than capital. Labor can exist without capital; and without a large group of buyers there would be no point to capital investment. So Santorum should be applauded for his rhetorical efforts on the part of labor. There are a lot of Democrats I know who could learn a thing or two from him.

I just watched the 2005 film version of Pride & Prejudice. It’s the one with Keira Knightley. When it comes to filmed versions, most people mention the 1995 BBC version with Colin Firth. And I agree that it is quite a good version. But although it is well done, it is still typical of such versions: too much talking and rather too faithful a rendering of the book. The 2005 film breaks with such conventions, telling Jane Austen’s story the way it ought to be told on the screen.

A good example of this comes near the end when Lydia comes home with her Mr. Wickham. In the book, this requires a whole conversation between Elizabeth and Wickham where she makes it clear to him that she knows who he really is. This is all unnecessary. It seems to be in the book so that Austen can show that Wickham is not only a libertine, but a moron as well. Can Wickham really be so stupid as to think that Elizabeth would still admire him given what he did to the Lydia and the family? What’s more, could he reasonably think that all his other lies have not been revealed? In the movie, anything that needs to be said in this regard is done with Wickham trying to catch Elizabeth’s eye, and her turning sharply away. That’s the kind of thing that film can do and this version does an excellent job of this again and again.

One down side of the film is that it underplays just how horrible Darcy’s family and friends are. It isn’t completely absent, of course. There is plenty of Caroline and most especially Lady Catherine. What’s more, the film does a good job of contrasting Catherine with Mrs. Bennet. Neither is in an objective sense worse; they are just horrible in different ways. The Bennets may be silly and uncouth, but they are not silly and snooty. The book clearly does a better job. In fact, so good a job that I often think that Jane Austen was not a very nice person: she thought pretty much everyone was horrible. (Not that I disagree.)

The producers of Pride & Prejudice have also worked very hard to make the characters more sympathetic. Mrs. Bennet is still a ridiculous character, but she’s portrayed as a woman who is trying to do her best in a bad situation. There is one scene at the end of the book where Mr. Bennet tells Jane, “You are each of you so complying, that nothing will ever be resolved on; so easy, that every servant will cheat you; and so generous, that you will always exceed your income.” To this, Mrs. Bennet replies, “Exceed their income! My dear Mr. Bennet, what are you talking of? Why, he has four or five thousand a-year, and very likely more.” It is played for pure comedy: the silly Mrs. Bennet. But in the movie, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are in bed and he tells her this referring to Jane. Mrs. Bennet replies as in the book, but it is said playfully and then he reaches to kiss her. I really like that because it shows why Mr. Bennet might have married Mrs. Bennet in the first place and it shows that they do not have an entirely dysfunctional relationship.

This version is also by far the best cast version of the book. I’m not a big fan of Keira Knightley, but she is wonderful as Elizabeth. I particularly like her easy laugh, and this goes right along with her character in the book. In one of her first conversations with Darcy, she says, “I dearly love a laugh.” And then they go on to discuss the difference between (for example) the silliness of her family and her intelligent wit. Knightley brings that off brilliantly. Similarly, Matthew Macfadyen is perfect as Mr. Darcy. In fact, he embodies the character so perfectly that I’m not sure how well their marriage will work out. There is no question but that he needs her more than she him.

The supporting cast is equally strong. Judi Dench as Lady Catherine is wonderfully horrible. Tom Hollander perfectly captures the servile yet self-important Mr. Collins. Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn add depth to the elder Bennets that isn’t even in the book. Rosamund Pike as Jane is two things that we almost never get from screen Janes. First, she’s gorgeous. This is often a problem because she isn’t the lead. But in her case, she is actually better looking than Knightley. Second, she isn’t just a quiet beauty. She has lots of depth and her intelligence comes across on the screen. I could go on about the rest of the cast. There isn’t a single bad performance in the whole film.

Perhaps most important of all, the film makes a lot of very good assumptions based upon the novel. The most important of these is how Elizabeth and Darcy have a connection from the start. He loves her despite all of the objections of her family. And she loves him despite the fact that intellectually she’s sure she should hate him. This continues throughout the film. The following is my favorite scene. I think it is the most romantic of things when Elizabeth says she is rather fond of walking and Darcy says, “Yes. Yes, I know.” And that dates back to when they had only just met. And he remembered. Also note how after she leaves, the camera dollies back to a close-up of his hand.

There is no doubt that the 2005 version of Pride & Prejudice is not terribly accurate to the exact plotting of the book. But more than any other version, it brings the book to life as it was in my head. If you love the book, read it again. I think I have read Pride and Prejudice more than any other book. But if you want to watch it, this is the version to watch.

On this day back in 1865, the great poet William Butler Yeats was born. I’ve never taken the time to really appreciate him. Perhaps someday. With all due respect (not much) to Robert Downey Jr, the ultimate and forever screen Sherlock Holmes, Basil Rathbone was born in 1892.

A whole bunch of actors have birthdays today. Malcolm McDowell is 70. It always amazes me how badly attractive men age. Both Richard Thomas and Stellan Skarsgard are 62. Tim Allen is 60. And crush of my youth, Ally Sheedy is 51. Finally, a musician, David Gray is 45. And because I’m suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning and thus just going through the motions, here’s one of his songs:

There are three great physicists who stand distinctly above all others. They are Newton, Einstein, and the guy normal people have never heard of: James Clerk Maxwell. And it is to him, born in 1831 that this day belongs. His work in color analysis alone was enough to make him famous in this own time. His work in statistical mechanics alone was enough to make him one of the most important physicists of all time. But it is for his work on electromagnetism that makes him as a scientist of unsurpassed importance.

He took the fields of electricity, magnetism, and optics and combined them into one consistent theory: Maxwell’s Equations. You may have seen t-shirts or (in this case) a mug with the following very nerdy physics joke:

Happy birthday James Clerk Maxwell!

I am deeply confused about the Israel-Palestine conflict. I feel for both groups of people and I truly feel that other than the extremists on each side, the people just want to live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, one side of extremists have an incredibly powerful and effective military at its disposal. But regular readers will know that I tend to sympathize more with the Palestinians at this point because they have little power and die in far greater numbers. Although I understand why a Palestinian would become a terrorist, it should be clear at this point that their efforts are only giving Israel a compelling excuse for killing thousands of their countrymen. I’m not sure if a lack of Palestinian terrorism would do much, however. The current regime seems happy enough to allow illegal Israeli settlement to grow, even (especially?) at the risk of destroying any possible two-state solution. Regardless, none of this makes me against Israel, much less against Judaism.

So it should be pretty clear: I’m conflicted on this issue. But the following video from Eye on the UN doesn’t help; it hurts. The argument is one I am beyond tired of. It is, “If you say anything against Israel, you are antisemitic!” Roger Waters went to the UN and talked about the Plight of the Palestinians. The good thing is that one would have to be a true believer to watch this video and think it anything but a hatchet job. Waters provides an apologia of sorts for Palestinian terrorism by noting that occupied people usually push back. He says, “History tells us that the invasion and occupation of a land and the subjugation of its people almost always creates a resistance. Ask the French or the Dutch or the Poles or the Czechs.” The narrator claims that in saying that, Waters analogized the Israelis to the Nazis. Well, actually, he didn’t. But if the shoe fits… The Nazis did invade these countries and occupy them. That did create a backlash. I think we can all agree that as far as that goes, it is accurate. It is not at all the same as saying that the Israelis are involved in a genocide.

Speaking of genocide, the video deceptively cuts to imply that Waters says Israel is guilty of “ethnic cleansing.” He may have actually implied that, but then why the jump cuts? There are other similar edits. If I felt more up on the issues involved here, I would go and find the original video. But it is clear that this bit of video is highly deceptive. What’s more, its purpose is to stop anyone anywhere from complaining about the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. And that is totally unacceptable.

Before we get to the birthdays, we need to discuss a death. Early in the morning 50 years ago today, civil rights leader Medgar Evers was assassinated by white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith. But that was not the first attempt on his life. Others had tried to run him over and fire bomb him. It is shocking that to this day he isn’t widely known outside the civil rights movement. In fact, Emmett Till is far better than known than he is, even though Evers was so important in getting out the story of Till’s torture and murder. But there can be no doubt of just how important and effective Medgar Evers was. Just look at the reaction he got from the Mississippi bigots.

Evers was shockingly young when he died: just under 38 years old. To provide a little context, his older brother (Republican civil rights spokesman) Charles Evers is soon to turn 91. So it is very possible that Medgar would still be with us. Meanwhile, his murderer, Beckwith, lived to be 80. He only spent 6 years in jail for the crime because it took 31 years to convict him when he was already 73 years old. Before that, he had been caught trying to plant a bomb at the home of a leader of the Anti-Defamation League. He was convicted of “transporting explosives without a permit.” What a justice system we have!

Here is this morning’s Democracy Now! segment on Medgar Evers:

On this day in 1929, Anne Frank was born. I think the enduring appeal of her diary is that it shows that life will go on regardless. There is a similar scene in Schindler’s List where a couple are getting married in the camp. Even when suffocated by evil, people still manage to hope.

The chess player Donald Byrne was born in 1930. He is best known for losing the so called “game of the century” to Bobby Fischer. I’ve always thought he showed very good sportsmanship for playing the game through long after he knew he had lost. Mostly, he underestimated the 13-year-old chess genius. The game is known for an amazing queen sacrifice by Fischer, but other than that, it isn’t that interesting a game. Fischer conspicuously ignored it in his My 60 Memorable Games. Byrne was a Master level player—one of the best Americans during his peak. In 1955, for example, while playing black, he beat one of the chess icons of the 20th century Efim Geller. Byrne was also an English professor. He died of lupus at the age of 45.

Geroge H. W. Bush is 89 today. I give him another year to live. He doesn’t look too good, but I figure he will make it to 90 and then move on to the undiscovered country. I think the same thing about Bob Dole. But he hits 90 next month, so don’t be surprised if he soon decides it’s just too embarrassing to continue to be a Republican icon in the modern world.

Jim Nabors is 83 today. I hope that married life is working out for him. I suspect that it is. Musician Chick Corea is 72. And John Linnell, of They Might Be Giants fame, and Scott Thompson, of Kids in the Hall fame, are both 54 today.

Out of respect for Medgar Evers, no one “wins” today.

This morning at the Plum Line (which is no longer free), Greg Sargent reported on Holding Dems Who Vote Wrong Way on Guns Accountable. It explained that Michael Bloomberg has sent out a letter to Wall Street fat cats telling them not to give money to four red state Democratic Senators who voted against the Manchin-Toomey background check bill. It is not altogether clear where Sargent stands on this move by Bloomberg, but he provided only the last paragraph to argue against the move and then pretty weakly.

To a large extent, this makes me angry because of my priorities. Economics is what most matters to me and Michael Bloomberg is very much the enemy. And this little move of his might please a very small part of me, but its bigger effect will be to help Republicans win. And on economic issues, those Republicans agree with Michael Bloomberg. I doubt that is his specific intent. But it certainly doesn’t hurt that he will be switching out a Democrat who disagrees with him on guns and the economy for a Republican who only disagrees about guns. Why New Yorkers think that Bloomberg is on their side, I will never know. I also don’t know why he calls himself an “independent.” He is a typical blue state Republican: liberalish on social issues and that is all.

Just on the merits, this “kill off the conservative Democrats” is a bad strategy. It does nothing to increase the pro-gun reform movement. In fact, it may do the opposite. By lowering the competitiveness of Democrats in red states, it weakens the environment in which people can discuss gun law reform.

What we all need to remember is that gun reform is a single issue. Michael Bloomberg is not a Democrat. Other than a couple of issues, he is very much against the liberal project. There are plenty of gun reform groups one could support that don’t have a vested interest in getting Republicans elected by default. Look, I have no love for blue state Democrats either. But the truth is that on the vast majority of issues, they go along with the party. If voting against largely symbolic gun reform bills is what it takes for them to stay in office, I’m all for it. And so should be any Democrat, or even any left-leaning person.

And there is another part of the whole Michael Bloomberg circus that I hate. It shows that just because he has a lot of money, he can cause great harm to the democratic process. He doesn’t care if he destroys the Democratic Party or even the whole country as long as he gets his way on his pet issue. Sargent wrote, “They view this as a battle that could take many years to win and will require a major shift in basic thinking about gun politics among many top Democrats.” Why the focus on Democrats? This reminds me of David Frum’s ridiculous argument that we should vote for Romney because the Republicans would just continue to misbehave if Obama were re-elected. In this case, Bloomberg is saying that the Republicans are just wacko. So let’s reward them by attacking Democrats.

Michael Bloomberg is an evil and dangerous man.