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.

Dark Triad: The Key to Success

Machiavelli - Dark TriadDigby wrote an article yesterday, A Quick Test for The Donald. To be honest, I think she’s lost much of her edge. Even before the election, she wrote almost exclusively about Donald Trump. And this article was especially dumb. She suggested, “In case you had any doubts about our new president being a sick piece of work, take the following short test as if you were Trump.” But do any of us really need to take any kind of test to find out that Trump is a narcissistic Machiavellian psychopath? But I was pleased that there is a name for this group of pathologies: the dark triad.

Learning about the dark triad made the article worth while, of course. And the fact that it linked to a single test for all these of these things — In just 27 questions! — made it all the better. As regular readers know, I love tests like these. I think a big part of it is that they are so difficult for me. I have to fight with myself. The tests are never hard to figure out. So I have to use my limited power of objectivity against my super-power of wanting to look like a Good Guy™.

Dark Triad Test

You can take the Short Dark Triad test at the Open Source Psychometrics Project. It tests for “Machiavellianism (a manipulative attitude), narcissism (excessive self-love), and psychopathy (lack of empathy).” I’ve already tested myself multiple times for narcissism and psychopathy. It reminds me of a David Mitchell joke, “I don’t have OCD. I know — I took a test — about a hundred times.” Strangely, I too don’t have OCD, despite taking multiple tests to find out. But I do — and think this is important — score higher on OCD than everything except for straight anxiety, which is connected.

I’ve never tested myself on Machiavellianism, so I was curious how I would come out. I knew my score on narcissism would be low because I’m going through a depressive phase and that always lowers my score. And I always test low on psychopathy, either because I really am empathic or because I am such a clever psychopath that I always fool the tests. But I could see myself testing high on Machiavellianism — as long as the test didn’t distinguish between successful and unsuccessful Machiavellianism.

My Machiavellianism

As I took the test, I felt sure that I would get a high score. It contained questions like this, “It’s not wise to tell your secrets.” Well kiddies, I have some advice for you all: It’s not wise to tell your secrets! I have learned this from extremely painful experience. The test only contained 5 choices, ranging from disagree to agree. If I could have entered, “agree to the googolplex power,” I would have. So maybe the test just wasn’t up to power of some my answers.

There were more standard Machiavellian questions that I agreed with. For example, “Avoid direct conflict with others because they may be useful in the future.” It’s not exactly something I live my life by, but it makes good sense. And how about, “There are things you should hide from other people because they don’t need to know.” You can take this statement in a negative way, but I consider it an act of kindness. There are too many things people have told me that I didn’t need to know. Why do they do that?!

Vague Questions

There were also questions like, “I like to use clever manipulation to get my way.” On those, I tended to disagree — but not completely. And the questions are vague. I assume this particular question didn’t mean entering the right numbers in your television remote control to watch the shows you want. But still, don’t most people like to manipulate situations to their benefit rather than find themselves dumped on for no good reason?

The answer appears to, “Yes!” I scored at the 20th percentile in Machiavellianism. That means 80 percent of you all are working the world more than I am. And it explains a few things in my life — like my relatively low success despite having really very good opportunities in life. It also explains, I think, my low credit rating. But we’ll leave that to another time.

Pathologies or Key to Success?

I scored at the 6th percentile on both narcissism and psychopathy. You can post your results, if you like. But I already know they will be low. That’s because Frankly Curious readers tend to be pathetic losers like I am. What is interesting is Digby’s relating this test to Trump. But it isn’t really about Trump; it’s about most of our society’s “winners.” It’s curious that our society rewards the behaviors that it teaches children to eschew.

The dark triad is a bad thing!

Also: the dark triad will make you rich and famous!

Your choice kids.

Difficult Wellesian Period

Orson Welles, Volume 3: One-Man Band - Difficult Wellesian PeriodKnowing that I had this difficult Wellesian period in my sights, friends sympathized with me — “how sad it is,” they said, “such a terrible decline.” But I have never shared that view. Welles did it his way. If he had modified his behavior — if he had trimmed his sails, if he had pulled in his horns — he could have made many more films. But he would not then have been the force of nature that he was. He would just have been another filmmaker. As it was, this period in Welles’ life left behind him at least two films, Touch of Evil and Chimes at Midnight, that are remarkable by any standards, plus extraordanary work in several other media — but above all I looked forward to tracing that arc as Welles struck out towards the unknown region.

Such was my plan. But I was baulked by Welles himself. His prolificity during these years was so immense, the circumstances surrounding every venture (successful or unsuccessful) on which he embarked were so complex and extraordinary, and the ambitiousness of his approach to each was so unfettered, that had I attempted to encompass nearly forty years from 1947 till his death, the book would have run to considerably more than a thousand pages…

–Simon Callow
Orson Welles, Volume 3: One-Man Band

I Love The Intercept, But…

Scott LemieuxThe Intercept, during an election campaign between a competent, moderate liberal and an unprecedentedly unfit and corrupt candidate who ideologically represents a cross between George Wallace and Calvin Coolidge, devoted a substantial amount of resources to analyzing hacked emails from the campaign of the former. And rather than admitting that they had been sent on a snipe hunt by an Australian libertarian who was plainly trying to throw the election to Wallace/Coolidge, they decided to hype up inane trivia (“Hillary Clinton’s campaign has a PUBLICIST!” “Candidates say snarky things about opposing candidates in private emails!”) as if they were revealing the Pentagon Papers. And, as Paul [Campos] says, they did this in the context of media coverage being dominated by the coverage of Clinton non-scandals that revealed no significant misconduct, drowning out coverage of the countless examples of Trump’s actual misconduct. I can’t blame Glenn [Greenwald] and his publication for wanting to be preemptively absolved of any responsibility, but it won’t fly. It is absolutely true that The Intercept — like mainstream publications — also published coverage critical of Trump. Both Sides Do It was perfectly good enough for Trump, and while that it helped Trump in itself doesn’t condemn the press coverage the fact that this effective false equivalence is utterly ludicrous certainly does.

–Scott Lemieux
On the Accept-No-Responsibility, Blame-Everyone-Else Posture

What Barack Obama Still Can’t Say

President Barack ObamaRacism greeted Obama in both his primary and general-election campaigns in 2008. Photos were circulated of him in Somali garb. Rush Limbaugh dubbed him “Barack the Magic Negro.” Roger Stone, who would go on to advise the Trump campaign, claimed that Michelle Obama could be heard on tape yelling “Whitey.” Detractors circulated emails claiming that the future first lady had written a racist senior thesis while at Princeton. A fifth of all West Virginia Democratic-primary voters in 2008 openly admitted that race had influenced their vote. Hillary Clinton trounced him 67 to 26 percent.

After Obama won the presidency in defiance of these racial headwinds, traffic to the white-supremacist website Stormfront increased sixfold. Before the election, in August, just before the Democratic National Convention, the FBI uncovered an assassination plot hatched by white supremacists in Denver. Mainstream conservative publications floated the notion that Obama’s memoir was too “stylish and penetrating” to have been written by the candidate, and found a plausible ghostwriter in the radical (and white) former Weatherman Bill Ayers. A Republican women’s club in California dispensed “Obama Bucks” featuring slices of watermelon, ribs, and fried chicken. At the Values Voter Summit that year, conventioneers hawked “Obama Waffles,” a waffle mix whose box featured a bug-eyed caricature of the candidate. Fake hip-hop lyrics were scrawled on the side (“Barry’s Bling Bling Waffle Ring”) and on the top, the same caricature was granted a turban and tagged with the instructions “Point box toward Mecca for tastier waffles.” The display was denounced by the summit’s sponsor, the Family Research Council. One would be forgiven for meeting this denunciation with guffaws: The council’s president, Tony Perkins, had once addressed the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens with a Confederate flag draped behind him. By 2015, Perkins had deemed the debate over Obama’s birth certificate “legitimate” and was saying that it “makes sense” to conclude that Obama was actually a Muslim.

By then, birtherism — inflamed in large part by a real-estate mogul and reality-TV star named Donald Trump — had overtaken the Republican rank and file. In 2015, one poll found that 54 percent of GOP voters thought Obama was a Muslim. Only 29 percent believed he’d been born in America.

–Ta-Nehisi Coates
My President Was Black

What Republicans Mean By a Pro-Worker Agenda

Donald Trump - Pro-Worker AgendaGreg Sargent wrote a good article yesterday, When Will We See Donald Trump”s Big “Pro-Worker” Agenda? He mentioned that Stephen Bannon is still pushing the narrative, “It’s everything related to jobs.” But as Chief of Staff Reince Priebus acknowledged recently, even Trump’s vaunted infrastructure bill will be on hold as they concentrate on killing Obamacare and “reforming” taxes. So much for the American worker.

Let us take a moment to bask in the glow of why so many people voted for Trump. As Sarah Kliff reported in Vox, “The Kentucky voters I spoke with constantly mentioned ‘change’ as a reason they supported Trump.” As Kathy Oller, whose job is signing people up for Obamacare, said, “It was Russian roulette, but I felt that we needed change.” Change. Where is that change, people? The Trump presidency is shaping up to be exactly like that of any other Republican — just more vulgar and ostentatiously hateful.

People Voted for “Change”

People voted for Trump because of his populist and nationalist rhetoric. He was going to bring the jobs back. And he was going to get rid of those dirty Mexicans. But what is he actually doing? He’s killing the best program the federal government has created for the middle class in almost five decades. And he is lowering taxes on the rich. Those things go together. As Kliff has also reported, Obamacare repeal means a $197,000 tax cut for the 0.1 percent.

Now I understand that the base of Trump’s support was from bigots. And they will be getting the change they want: a white man back in the White House. But these were not nearly enough people to allow him to win. People like Oller had a very vague notion of what “change” was. But they showed an amazing amount of naïveté in voting for Trump. In fact, throughout Kliff’s article on Kansas are statements from people that Trump wasn’t serious about doing any of the things that they didn’t want. He was only to be believed when it came to what they did want.

People Just Got a Typical Republican

So okay! They got themselves a good ol’ Republican instead — one who doesn’t give a damn about helping them. But it’s important to remember that inside the twisted mind of a Republican, cutting safety net programs and lavishing the rich with tax cuts and deregulation is helping the working class. It’s the biggest economic con of the last four decades: supply side economics.

Just to remind everyone, it goes as follows. Give the rich more money and more “freedom” (to pollute, etc) and they will create more jobs and make everyone richer. Now we have decades of evidence that exactly the opposite happens. Giving the rich more money and cutting safety net programs does exactly what common sense tells you it would: it makes the working class poorer and the rich even richer. It’s also showed that it’s bad for the economy overall because economic growth just gets slower as inequality rises.

It turns out that giving money to the poor helps everyone. I wrote about this years ago, I Was a Middle Class Food Stamp Kid. Give food stamps to the poor and they spent them at my parents’ 7-11. My parents then bought a car. And so on: the money works its way through the economy very efficiently. It doesn’t work the other way around because the rich don’t need the extra money. Yes, they can invest it. But in what? The lower classes don’t have the money to buy the stuff that new businesses would make. So you end up with what we’ve seen a lot of recently: the rich just sitting on piles of cash.

What Republicans Mean by a “Pro-Worker” Agenda

So the answer to Greg Sargent’s question “When will we see Donald Trump’s big ‘pro-worker’ agenda?” is that we are already seeing it. It is just that when Republicans say “pro-worker” what they mean is “pro-capitalist.” And shame on the roughly one-quarter of the voters who still think that the Republicans — even one as noxious as Trump — mean anything else.

I understand that Obama offered “change” too. And we didn’t get that. But I have to give the man credit: he tried. I think he was an idiot to think that he could transcend partisanship. But no reasonable person can question that he was fully invested in it and that it was the Republicans who blocked him. (I realize the Alex Jones and Fox News crowd are convinced otherwise, but historians will bear me out.) Trump is making no such effort. From the standpoint of American workers, this is yet another bait-and-switch from the Republicans.

But from the Republicans themselves, they are quite innocent. This is what they always meant by “helping the working the man” with their “pro-worker” agenda. And shame on the voters for thinking that they meant anything else.

Trump Supporter on the Obamacare She Needs

Debbie Mills Signs Up for ObamacareDebbie Mills and I spoke for about an hour about Obamacare. By the end of the conversation, it had moved from me interviewing her to her asking a few questions about what might change and whether the coverage she would sign up for in a few minutes would still be valid.

I ended up reassuring Mills that nothing would change for her coverage in 2017, and likely not 2018 — but that wasn’t a guarantee. I didn’t know what would happen either.

Our interview began to make her a bit nervous.

“You’re scaring me now on the insurance part,” she said. “I’m afraid now that the insurance is going to go away and we’re going to be up a creek.”

–Sarah Kliff
Why Obamacare Enrollees Voted for Trump

Workers of the World, Unite — On Twitter

Writers, Editors, and Workers of the World, Unite -- On TwitterIt seems I got in trouble on Twitter again. Elizabeth forwarded me a tweet from Eve Peyser (see below) about a contract job with Mic. And the ad was hilarious, as these things usually are. It claims that it is a part-time job that will last for four months. And what is expected of this part-time worker is amazing. The tweet highlighted, “Identify, assign, edit, and publish at least 10 articles per day.” But right below that it also noted that this person would write one to two articles per day. This is in addition to much else. It’s ridiculous.

Just the same, the tweet annoyed me. As I write this, it has 282 retweets. And all I could think was, “Do these people not know that this is what it is like to work in the modern ‘gig’ economy?” So I replied to the tweet, “What’s the big deal? Typical in my line of work. This is why most of the web is crap. You forgot to include the really poor pay.” I didn’t even think about it. Obviously! Whenever I think about it, I always decide not to reply. Twitter is a bad forum for me for so many reasons.

Spreading the Word

I exchanged a couple of tweets with Peyser, and she made the reasonable point that just because a practice is typical doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call it out when we see it. And I agree with that. If I did not also work in this very same field, I probably would have responded more enthusiastically. (Actually, depending on the pay, I’d take this gig. It actually sounds easier than what I’m doing now.) The truth is, I thought I was giving a thumbs up on the tweet with my ending, “You forgot to include the really poor pay.” But I now see how that could be taken as sarcastic.

But I don’t think that spreading the word is all that important. It reminds me a bit of Donald Trump and the jobs he “saved” at Carrier Corporation. Or consider Martin Shkreli. The price of Daraprim shot up and people grumbled. It did do some good: causing another company to enter the market. But what Shkreli did was only notable in how extreme it was. What he did is what capitalists do every day. And I do think there is a great concern about focusing on such individual acts.

Systemic Change

As you regulars know, I’m a political radical. I no longer believe in capitalism — at least in the way it operates here in the US. So it isn’t surprising that my interest is in how we make systemic change. It’s shocking that people think that unless capitalists are allowed to charge rents, then no one will work because they can’t strike it big. How is it that people like me work so hard for relatively little pay and absolutely no hope of becoming rich? How is it that Mic knows it can find someone to do all the work it is asking for — probably for no more than I make?

But every time I bring up my concerns about capitalism, I get some variant on Jonathan Chait’s, Reminder: Liberalism Is Working, and Marxism Has Always Failed. Our society is so far gone that even among liberals it is considered outrageous to suggest that we wouldn’t turn into a Maoist dystopia if Bill Gates weren’t allowed to live in $63 million house.

Are Unions the Answer?

There was a time when unions seemed to be the answer. But what we have seen is that unions were powerful only as long as the capitalists allowed them to be. And the only reason the capitalists allowed them to be powerful was because they were afraid that there would be a revolution here. Once that ceased to be a concern, unions were brought to their current lowly position. Now they act as a kind of tool against further unionization. Most poor workers I know are simply resentful of those lucky enough to have a union job.

My point is that all we workers are going to have bind together and find a new system that works for everyone.

I know that any solution will have to be at the system level. It isn’t enough to help the writers and editors because the same issues we face are faced by taxi drivers and in-home healthcare providers and pretty much every other worker. And if it hasn’t affected you, just wait. Our system is broken.

The Big Picture

And it isn’t just we poor workers who see things getting worse and worse. Over the last many decades, we have seen our total economic productivity increase at a slower and slower rate. A lot of this is due to the concentration of wealth. For capitalists to make money, they have to have people to buy their junk. I keep thinking of a line from The Sun Also Rises. When asked how he went bankrupt, Mike says, “Two ways: gradually and then suddenly.” Things could go wrong with our capitalist system very quickly.

Mic and all the other companies that expect our very souls in exchange for a lifestyle that is substantially below that of our parents are not the real cause of our problems. The cause is the system. For those who aren’t exactly clear what I’m talking about, I highly recommend Nicole Aschoff’s book, The New Prophets of Capital. You can read what I wrote about the book too, The Useless Messiahs of Reform Capitalism.

My point is that all of us workers are going to have to bind together and find a new system that works for everyone. We can and should shame Mic. But it is going to take so much more than that. I feel certain that Eve Peyser understands that as well as I do, even if she doesn’t necessarily agree with me on specifics. But this is the reason I should never say anything on Twitter. It just took me a thousand words to begin to say what I meant in my casual tweet.

Tyler Zimmer on What Marx Brought to Socialism

Tyler ZimmerThe simplest way to summarize the core of Marxism is to begin with Marx and Engel’s insistence that “the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working classes themselves.” “This struggle for emancipation,” they continued, “[is] not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule.”

The basic idea is this: instead of appealing to gods or saviors to liberate humanity from above, Marx argued that the masses of working-class people who make up the vast majority of modern capitalist societies could, by organizing themselves collectively, radically transform society for the better.

In capitalism, working people often feel like isolated, vulnerable playthings of chaotic economic forces they can’t control. The central theme in Marxism is that this need not be so. Rather than being passively subject to an ecologically ruinous system based solely on profit, Marx argued that the vast majority of human beings can and must bring the economic system under their conscious, collective control.

It’s important to remember that Marx and Engels weren’t the first socialists. They distinguished themselves by opposing earlier socialists who sought to administer socialism from above by devising detailed blueprints of what they saw as an ideal society. Unlike the “utopian socialists,” for example, who thought the masses too ignorant or helpless to liberate themselves from the injustices of capitalism, Marx and Engels argued that a better society could only be built by the conscious, deliberate activity of a democratically organized revolutionary movement of ordinary working people. This puts Marxism at odds with authoritarian bureaucratic regimes who claim Marx’s mantle like those of Stalin or Mao as well as with technocratic, neoliberal visions of governance that limit democratic participation to the vanishing point.

–Tyler Zimmer
Why Jonathan Chait Is Wrong About Marxism, Liberalism, and Free Speech

Lost in Neoliberal Hell

Covered California - Neoliberal HellIt’s that time of the year: the trudge through dozens of healthcare plans and figure out what your best option is. Because we all have to remember: we are all perfect consumers and by letting us waste hours and even days going over this, the God of Economics will look down on us fondly and make rich people even richer.

“We are currently experience high call volumes and are unable to take your call at this time… Goodbye.”

I’m happy with my current plan, which is with Kaiser Permanente. I have a hippy doctor who believes in doing as little as possible. And I love that because I think doctors are really dangerous. But there are a number of Kaiser plans. And I’m not inclined to pay $500 per month this year for health insurance — which could happen because I make substantially more money this year than I did last year.

Change I Can’t Believe In

So I have to go onto the Covered California website to make changes. But when I do, it tells me that it is not open enrollment now. This could be. I don’t recall getting health insurance until maybe March. So maybe I shouldn’t be putting myself through this madness until February.

“We are currently experience high call volumes and are unable to take your call at this time… Goodbye.”

The point of my bringing this all up is that I don’t need this extra stress in my life. It would be better if I just paid my taxes and the government dealt with the rest. You know, that way people who actually understand this stuff could take care of it. And I could just worry about when I ought to go to the doctor.

This Is Neoliberal Policy

My preferred system would be what we call “liberal” (or “socialist” if you want). The system we have now — Obamacare — is neoliberal. And this is one reason I got so mad when Jonathan Chait and others claimed that there really was no difference between “liberal” and “neoliberal” — except in terms of propaganda. In other words, “neoliberal” was just a pejorative for “liberal.”

“We are currently experience high call volumes and are unable to take your call at this time… Goodbye.”

That’s clearly not the case. Neoliberalism is what conservatism used to be — at least in terms of economics (which is pretty much the only conext that it is used in). You could call Reagan a neoliberal. So is anyone who thinks that the true way to help the world is to enrich the already rich. It’s why Nick Hanauer’s lecture about the myth of the job creator scandalized all those well-heeled “liberal” Ted Talk types.

The “Magic” of the Market

Neoliberalism is the belief that the best way to help the nation is through bank shots. A liberal would approach poverty by giving food, housing, and money to the poor. A neoliberal would give money to corporations with the idea that they would maybe give job training to the poor and thus allow the poor to get jobs and thus food, housing, and money to the poor. The critical element of neoliberalism is its fetishization of the market and its supposed magic powers.

“We are currently experience high call volumes and are unable to take your call at this time… Goodbye.”

And so, we couldn’t just have universal health insurance. No! We have to have healthcare exchanges where all of us totally unqualified people could take a whack at picking the right plan for us. And if we don’t have enough money to buy even the worst insurance, well, the government will pay. But not to us. We can’t be trusted to spend money properly — only to choose the right health insurance for us.

Making the Rich Richer

But there is a reason for all of this. The neoliberals are convinced that by involving the business community, everything will be much better. Oh, I’m kidding! They do it because the neoliberals who make the laws are themselves rich. They don’t want to see their rich friends miss out on the gravy train. (Of course: they couldn’t.) And as a result, I wasted hours this morning, doing my part to make the market do its magic.

“We are currently experience high call volumes and are unable to take your call at this time… Goodbye.”

Perfect Bottom to Potatoes au Gratin

Potatoes au GratinOne of my favorite recipes is Potatoes au Gratin. And it is popular among everyone I know. I get a lot of requests. I assume that’s because it is so simple. It’s just potatoes, onions, and cheese. Nothing complicated — just pure gooey goodness. But there has always been a problem that I will get to in a moment.

My Potatoes au Gratin also has the advantage of being really easy to make. And with my extremely busy life (that involves sitting in front of a computer screen), I find I just don’t enjoy working a long time in the kitchen. I’m filled with anxiety, thinking I really should be doing something pointless, but lucrative.

Potatoes au Gratin Recipe

In a baking dish:

  1. Place a layer of sliced potatoes.
  2. Place a layer of sliced onions.
  3. Sprinkle a layer of grated mild cheddar cheese.
  4. Repeat steps 1 – 3 until the baking dish is full.

There is an ontological issue with this recipe: what comes first, the potatoes or the cheese?[1] If you start with the potatoes, they stick on the bottom of the dish, not only wasting them but creating a nightmare for cleanup. If you start with the cheese, you end up with a solid layer of burned cheese that must be cut with a sharp knife to serve.

Now, if it were up to me, I’d go with the cheese on the bottom. I love that burned cheese. But others complain about it: the look, the consistency, and the bother. So I’ve come up with a solution.

The Solution

For Thanksgiving, I tried something new. It’s equivalent to starting with cheese. It does provide what tastes very much like the original cheese bottom. But it’s much more manageable.

Take a few potato slices and dice them up so that each piece is about an eighth of an inch square. (How many slices? About half as many as you would use for a normal layer.) Do the same thing with some onion slices. Put all of this along with about the same amount of grated cheese on the bottom. Mix it well so that the bottom is a consistent mixture of the three ingredients. Then you can complete the recipe as described above.

This works out shockingly well. Although as I describe it, I have to admit that the recipe doesn’t sound easy. Maybe it just seems easy because I don’t have to think about anything. With most recipes, you have to taste them, add spices, taste again. This is more along the line of assembling. Yes, the slicing the potatoes and onions, and grating of the cheese is all quite a lot of work. But there’s nothing to think about. Except, “Don’t cut yourself.” Of course, that’s more like a mantra.

Afterword

I hope that you noticed my use of assonance in the title. If you didn’t, I want you to take a moment and appreciate it, now!


[1] Starting with the onions is either like starting with the potatoes or the cheese, depending upon how thick your onion layers are. For me, it is the same as the potatoes.

Russia Hacked Republicans Too; Didn’t Release Info

Timothy B LeeFor months, evidence has mounted that the Russian government used its hacking prowess to interfere with the US presidential election, stealing emails from Democrats and and leaking them via Wikileaks. The Obama Administration formally accused Russia of hacking the Democrats two months ago.

Now the Central Intelligence Agency is going even further, according to reports from the Washington Post and the New York Times. In a “closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week,” intelligence officials told senators that “it was now ‘quite clear’ that electing Trump was Russia’s goal.”

The reason, according to the Times and Post summaries of the CIA’s reasoning, is that the Russians appear to have also hacked computer systems belonging to the Republican Party. But whereas the Democrats’ emails found their way to Wikileaks, Republican emails stayed under wraps.

–Timothy B Lee
CIA report: Russia hacked the Democrats to help Trump

Talking About Don Quixote — A Spiritual Experience

Talking About Don Quixote  -- A Spiritual ExperienceLast night was my big Don Quixote talk. I published my planned talk yesterday, Tonight’s Don Quixote Talk. And so, I found myself at the local Whole Foods conference room with nine other book nuts to talk about arguably my favorite book (but undoubtedly the book I know most about). Because I hadn’t prepared an actual lecture, I printed out my “lecture notes,” along with the other articles I had referenced in it. I prepared ten copies, which was perfect, given that nine people showed up, and I needed one myself. This helped to open things up. I’ve long known that reading was a spiritual experience, but talking about it?

We spent two hours discussing Don Quixote, and it really was a spiritual experience. As I told them, although I have a faithful online audience, I can depend upon them to ignore pretty much everything I write about this great book. And I can hardly blame you all. Just the same, it was so nice to be with people who had read the first Don Quixote and who were genuinely interested in it.

The Best-Laid Plans of Book Talks…

The talk did not go as expected. In particular, we got caught up in the question of Don Quixote being the first modern novel. I had included this in my notes only because it is such a common statement that I figured I needed to touch on it. Indeed, my main point about it was, “Unless you are an academic, I think this is a terrible reason for reading it.” But it really did become an issue that we had a hard time getting past.

It was a very edifying, spiritual experience for me, because I’ve never thought about the question much. The main reason that Don Quixote is “modern” is because it makes the human character the most important element. For the first time in literature, ordinary humans become the subject of our stories. And they turn out to be far more interesting than gods and heroes and all the rest. And Cervantes bursts out of the gate with two of the most splendid misfits to ever decorate a sheet of paper.

Don Quixote Begins

But the people in this readers’ group were not inclined to just accept simple answers. For one thing, they wanted to know if it really was all that sudden. And I had to admit that it wasn’t. I knew, for example, that the theater of the few generations before Cervantes had been undergoing a transformation. Plays had always been moral lessons with characters simply representations of concepts. It was only during the middle of the 16th century that this began to change. And this is what led to the vibrant theater around the turn of the early 17th century in England, Spain, and elsewhere.

But a play is limited in what it can do with character. And Cervantes, having wanted to be a playwright from his earliest years, knew the theater well. So there is a special confluence: the trends in theater and Cervantes’ generally poor skills in writing for it. What a fabulous and original way of looking at the creation of Don Quixote.

We also talked about literature after Cervantes. We now know that Don Quixote was extremely important to the evolution of the novel. But how did that happen? It wasn’t the case that everyone suddenly started writing like Cervantes. We started talking about books that we know, but the truth is that among this very well-read group, few knew much of the literature of the 17th and 18th century. The only book I could think of was The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling — almost a century and a half later. Someone else mentioned Daniel Defoe. But it still makes me very interested to know just what was happening for that first century after Don Quixote became a worldwide sensation.

A Spiritual Experience

It’s such a wonderful thing to discuss arcane subjects with other people who will engage in them. And the diversity was stunning. Some people were really grappling with the questions — hoping that I had the answers. Others were more skeptical of some of my more glib remarks. By the end of this two hours of discussion, I had two somewhat paradoxical thoughts. The first was that I understand Don Quixote at a fairly deep level. The second was that there are whole new ways of thinking about the novels that people who have only just read it reveal. It was an extremely edifying experience for me.

And from a social standpoint it was so hopeful. Here was a group of ten people who braved the cold and the rain to meet up to discuss a couple of books written over 400 years ago. It was like going to church — having a spiritual experience. Yes, the world is filled with problems and there are evil people who seem determined to make things worse just to aggrandize their already overfull egos and lifestyles. But we can let them live their hollow lives. We readers are the monks of our civilization — pursuing truth and beauty simply because it is there to be pursued. I’m so grateful to these people. I think there is hope for humanity after all.