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.

God the Deal Maker

Corey RobinThe Talmud tells a story: the reason God covenanted with the Jews was that they were the only ones who were willing to take the deal.

According to a commentary on Deuteronomy, “When God revealed Himself to give the Torah to Israel, He revealed Himself not only to Israel but to all the nations.” First God goes to the children of Esau, asking them if they will accept the Torah. They ask him what it contains, God says, “Though shalt not murder,” they say, no thanks.

God goes to the Ammonites and Moabites. Same response, only for them the prohibition against adultery is the deal-breaker. He goes to the Ishmaelites, to all the peoples of the earth. Each time, they turn him down. They can’t accept some portion of the Torah’s instructions and injunctions.

Then God comes to the Jews. They don’t ask questions. They simply “accepted the Torah, with all of its explanations and details.” So God “surrendered them [the Torah and all of its details] to Israel.”

You almost get a sense, reading the midrash, of God’s weariness. The Jews aren’t his first choice, but they’ll take the deal. God’s exhausted, history is made.

—Corey Robin
From the Talmud to Judith Butler

Global Poverty and Crème Brûlée: Neoliberals Care

Jonathan Chait and Global PovertyI’ve noted it many times, but it bears repeating: you know someone’s argument is nonsense when its justification keeps changing. I most associate this with conservatives. But the truth is that as the Democratic Party moved further and further to the right over the last 40 years, we’ve seen a lot of the same thing from liberals — especially when it comes to trade policy. And a great example of it came from The Very Definition of Liberalism Himself™, Bernie Sanders’s Case Against Free Trade Is More Ignorant Than Donald Trump’s. Jonathan Chait, you see, cares greatly about global poverty. And Crème brûlée.

The basis of my complaint is the same as it was last year, Data Journalists Don’t Know Anything About the Poor Anywhere. The point is that “free” trade deals were sold to the people of this nation as a great thing — for us. And if you look at total wealth, they have been good for us. The problem is that the gains haven’t been shared. So the poorer classes in this country are doing worse than they were before (more on that in a moment). So what is an upper class neoliberal like Jonathan Chait (or Matt Yglesias or Annie Lowery or Dylan Matthews or Ezra Klein) who is faced with this fact to do?

Change their arguments, of course!

Upper Class Journalists

“There are people in Zimbabwe who are really suffering… Oh, and I’ll have the crème brûlée for dessert…”

Because let’s be clear: each of those five journalists I listed make over a hundred grand a year — probably a lot more. Globalization has been great for them! Their iPhones are cheaper because they are made is sweat shops and their cab rides are cheaper because Uber drivers get all of the responsibility and none of the advantage of being “independent contractors.”

So they don’t pretend to care about American poverty anymore. Now it is all about the global poverty! Who cares if a black man in Alabama with a college degree isn’t doing any better than his father did without a high school diploma. “There are people in Zimbabwe who are really suffering… Oh, and I’ll have the crème brûlée for dessert…”

Trade and Global Poverty

In his article, Chait argues that trade has been great for the reduction of global poverty (and implicitly that the American poor should just suck it up — and crème brûlée for him too). This is true, but it is hardly the whole story.

For one thing, Chait point to an article by economist Branko Milanović, but even he isn’t making that case. As is well-established, the reduction in global poverty is almost exclusively the result of China — not the world. And that decrease in poverty has gone along with about a doubling of income inequality in China.

Trade Is Great — in Theory

Trade is a good thing — in theory. The way it is supposed to work is that the costs of things go down — for everyone. It was never sold as a solution to global poverty. Everyone was supposed to benefit. But our trade deals have not been structured to help everyone. It’s been free trade when it comes to middle class workers here at home but full tilt protectionism for upper class workers. In a perfect world, it wouldn’t matter that a janitor was making less money if the cost of things like medical care were going down too. But they aren’t.

As Dean Baker has noted, “Under US law it is necessary to go through a residency program in the United States to practice as a doctor.” Is that really about saving us from unqualified doctors from Germany, Japan, and India? Of course not! It’s about a rich and powerful interest group skewing the economy to their benefit. And that is why doctors in the US make roughly twice what they do in other industrialized countries.

Trade deals have worked out better for people in poorer countries, and that’s good. But the economy is not, as Chait clearly believes, a zero-sum game. Everyone was supposed to be better off. But they aren’t, because of government policy that makes sure the rich get ever richer. But let’s be clear, it wouldn’t matter to Chait or Lowery or the rest if the global poor were doing better or not. They’d just come up with another reason why globalization rocks. Because it does. For them.

“Crème brûlée, anyone?”

A Good Year for the Roses

George Jones with LoveI believe it was The Atlantic magazine that carried a one page short story on its last page. And in its writer’s guidelines, it said it was looking for stories with the impact of a whole novel. The one story I remember was amazing. It was about a man whose wife had just died. And going through her things, he found a collection of illustrations of their son who had been killed in an accident when he was quite young. Apparently, every year, she went to a forensic artist to get an update on what he would look like. She told the artist that he had been kidnapped. It’s a heartbreaking story — not just that she never got over the loss but that she hid it from her husband for years.

There are songs that have a similar power. One of those is Jerry Chesnut’s country classic, “A Good Year for the Roses.” It’s so evocative. What’s especially great is the use of lipstick traces. First, it’s on the cigarettes in the ashtray. And then we get this beautiful mixture of pathos and bitterness:

And the lip-print on a half-filled cup of coffee
That you poured and didn’t drink
But at least you thought you wanted it,
That’s so much more than I can say for me.

The other aspect that maybe is specific to me: the chorus about only being able to talk about trivialities when you want to talk about something deep. I know everyone has had that experience. But it has long been a painful irony that I can write but not really talk. Of course, in “A Good Year for the Roses,” Chesnut makes the obvious truth concrete in the second verse, “I guess the reason we’re not talking — there’s so little left to say we haven’t said.” By the time it reaches that point, talking is worthless.

But “A Good Year for the Roses” really is a novel in a song. You can listen to Chesnut do part of the song, but here is the whole original by George Jones:

Afterword

Yes, I know that Elvis Costello did this song on Almost Blue. And I love his version and that album. But even the biggest Costello fan has to admit that he didn’t do much with any of those covers. The production and performance are often identical — which I believe was the point. Regardless, I think it is far more likely that readers of Frankly Curious are familiar with his version than Jones’ version, much less Chesnut’s.

No, Jefferson Didn’t Want to End Slavery in the Declaration of Independence

XXXPaul FinkelmanIn his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson condemned the Crown in more forceful language, asserting that the king had “waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty” by perpetuating the African slave trade. Calling it “piratical warfare,” Jefferson asserted that “a CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain” was so “Determined to keep open a market where MEN” were bought and sold that he used his “negative” to suppress “every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.”

The Continental Congress removed Jefferson’s tirade from the Declaration, in part because it simply did not ring true. The colonists, for the most part, had been willing and eager purchasers of slaves. Nor is there any evidence that either Jefferson or any of the other leaders of Virginia had any interest in actually ending slavery. Virginia’s attempt to ban the trade was purely economic, and not based on any moral opposition to slavery. Similarly, the Crown’s refusal to allow them to limit or end the trade was economic.

—Paul Finkelman
The Abolition of the Slave Trade

4th of July: Peace, Love, and Understanding

Nick Lowe - Peace, Love, and UnderstandingIn 1978, Elvis Costello recorded the best known version of “What’s So Funny ‘Bout Peace, Love, and Understanding.” It’s a great version, there’s no question of that. But a lot of people are surprised to learn that he didn’t write it. This is because his version seems sarcastic. The song was written by Nick Lowe, a man certainly capable of great cynicism. But I think this song is really a self-indictment. It’s an honest question, “What’s So Funny ‘Bout Peace, Love, and Understanding?”

When I was in graduate school, I lived with two Brits. I liked them both very much. I still do. They were fun people. But they had a very cynical view of the world and considered themselves very cool. In some ways, I thrived around them. It was knowing them and their incredible self-assuredness that got me to start my first underground newspaper and eventually led to me being a professional writer. But it also brought out a lot of bad things in me, especially being over-conscious of how people viewed me.

As any teenager can tell you, the easiest way to feel un-judged is to be cynical and to pretend that nothing really matters. And I think Nick Lowe suffered from that same thing as many creatively minded people do. So the song is kind of him slapping himself in the face. I know how that goes. I remember writing a song once told from one perspective and thinking that it was so unfair. So I wrote a song from the other perspective. The second song was better, because it was more thoughtful.

I think that America suffers from the same kind of insecurity. This is why we take up 48% of the world’s military spending. We just aren’t right with us. What’s So Funny ‘Bout Peace, Love, and Understanding? Everything! It’s for weak people, suckers, or as Donald Trump would say, losers. But I want all the peace, love, and understanding that I can get.

The 4th of July always strikes me as the opposite of peace, love, and understanding. When I was kid, I liked the fireworks. They were colorful. But now they are all illegal. So people get illegal “fireworks” that are not pretty. They are just bombs — loud. And I hate loud sounds. They are the sounds of conflict, hatred, and intolerance. And that is what America is for me to a large extent. If Donald Trump becomes president, it will be a catastrophe, but it will also be fitting.

But on this 4th of July, I want to offer the hope that we can be better — that we won’t laugh at those who are kind. That being an “easy mark” is a sign of greatness, not stupidity. What’s So Funny ‘Bout Peace, Love, and Understanding? Not a damned thing.

Morning Music: I Felt Like a Gringo

I Felt Like a GringoThe Fourth of July always makes me think of the Minutemen’s song “I Felt Like a Gringo.” It tells the (true) story of the band taking a day trip down to Mexico on 4 July 1982. It ends with the line, “Why’d I spend the fourth in someone else’s country?”

I guess that’s why I don’t much go in for this holiday. I feel like an outsider. I think that’s a lot of my desire to live in Mexico: if I must feel like an outsider, I might as well be one.

Anyway, “I Felt Like a Gringo” was first released on the EP, Buzz or Howl Under the Influence of Heat. It was the first Minutemen album I bought. Less than three years later, D Boon would be dead in a tragic car accident, and one of the best bands ever was finished.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

Got a ton of white boy guilt, that’s my problem,
Obstacle of joy, one reason to use some drugs.
Slept on a Mexican beach — slept in trash
American trash — thinking too much can ruin a good time.

I asked a Mexican who ran a bar for Americans
“Who won,” I said, “The election?”
He laughed, I felt like a gringo.
They played a song and they had some fun with us.

Why can’t you buy a good time?
Why are there soldiers in the street?

Why’d I spend the fourth in someone else’s country?

Clara Shortridge Foltz’s Smack Down

Clara Shortridge FoltzCounsel tells you that I am a woman. I wonder that the planets did not stand still in their course and rivers cease to run to the sea at the announcement of this startling discovery. I am amazed that His Honor did not faint upon the bench and that you gentlemen of the jury have survived this awful shock to your nervous systems.

Let me kindly admonish the learned counsel that in a matter of great pith and moment like this he should break the news gently and not plunge such an original thought upon an unprepared jury. A few more such thoughtless revelations and your nervous forces will be destroyed and your reason dethroned. Counsel should beware how he heedlessly enlightens an unprepared jury on such a vital topic.

Again he tells you that I am a woman. By a natural antithesis I presume he would have you infer that he is not. I suppose he wants me to tell you that he is a man and he takes this hurried opportunity and adroit method of testifying to the fact. Though nobody has yet denied it, he seems to be in a fever of anxiety to emphasize that he is a man. I don’t know why he should make such unseemly haste in announcing it…

I am that formidable and terrifying object known as a woman — while he is only a poor, helpless, defenseless man, and he wants you to take pity on him and give him a verdict in this case. I sympathize with counsel in his unhappy condition. True, the world is open to him. He is the peer of all men — he can aspire to the highest offices, he can carry a torch over our streets during a political campaign and sell his vote for a dollar and half on election day, and yet he isn’t satisfied. Like Alexander, who wanted more worlds to conquer, he wants verdicts, and in order to awaken your sympathy for him, he tells you that I am a woman and he is only a man.

—Clara Shortridge Foltz, 1890
(Quote is in response to attorney Thetas Stonehill noting that she was a woman.)
On The Art of The Smack-Down

Glenn Greenwald on the Brazil Coup

Glenn GreenwaldJust think about what has happened when it comes to control over the world’s fifth most populous (and very oil-rich) country [Brazil]. The democratically elected president was impeached despite no allegations of personal corruption — by politicians who are knee-deep in bribery and kickback scandals. The primary pretext used to impeach her has just been debunked by the Senate’s own independent expert report. The corruption-plagued man they installed in her place — who currently has a 70 percent disapproval rating, and whom 60 percent of the country wants impeached — is now secretly meeting with the very judges whose supposed independence, credibility, and integrity were the prime argument against calling this a “coup,” all while he plots to save his bribery-enriched fellow party member. And while all this happens, they are blithely proceeding to impose a right-wing agenda of austerity and privatization that democracy would never allow.

—Glenn Greenwald
Major New Brazil Events Expose the Fraud of Dilma’s Impeachment

Why Donald Trump Will Be the Republican Nominee

Donald Trump: Republican NomineeScott Lemieux wrote a laugh-out-loud funny article, #NeverTrump: Never Stop #NeverTrumping. It’s about the newest anti-Trump effort. But unlike those loser attempts that came before, this one is really going to work because a lot of people you’ve heard of but who don’t actually have any power are involved in it. But I thought it might be a good time to discuss why Trump absolutely, positively will be the Republican nominee for president.

The truth is, the party can do whatever it wants to do. It can make anyone at all the Republican nominee. It can change the nomination rules to say that anyone is eligible except Donald Trump. And it could do a lot of other more subtle things that would accomplish the same thing. But the party won’t do that because the party would be crazy to do that.

Why Elites Don’t Want Trump as Republican Nominee

Don’t be fooled. The biggest thing against Trump that the Republican establishment has is that he’s going to lose. Him being on the ballot will cause some percentage of Republican voters to not even show up to vote. And that means they not only lose the White House, but a number of down-ballot races that they would otherwise have won. That’s a problem — no doubt about it.

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that a big loss for Donald Trump will fix the Republican Party. The base will just say that the party didn’t back him. And the elites will just say that you’ve got to keep the bigotry as subtext.

But imagine if the Republican elite come in and say, “You silly Republicans don’t know what you’re doing; so here’s Paul Ryan to run for president!” Now, instead of “some percentage” of Republican voters not showing up to vote, you have a movement. they might show up to vote, just to write-in “Donald Trump.” And then they’ll leave without even looking at the down-ballot Republicans, because they are just part of a corrupt and anti-democratic system.

This is why Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president. I can imagine what it must be like for long-time Republicans like Bill Kristol. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. He must have known all this time that the people who were voting for his side weren’t doing it for the same reason. But still, what a shock to have that cognitive dissonance destroyed — and in such a public way! No, they didn’t care about your crazy notions of tax cuts for the rich or rebuilding the Middle East into a libertarian utopia. They just cared about sticking it to black, brown, and poor people.

What the Republican Party Really Is

But like it or not, that is the Republican Party. If it had to depend upon the “reasonable” Republicans like Bill Kristol, the party would get maybe 5% of the vote. The power of Republicanism is the power of hatred. Trump is great because he is the latest and greatest and most obvious example of this. Sure, Ronald Reagan was a bigot who started his campaign as the Republican nominee near where Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were murdered with a speech about states’ rights.

Wink!

Wink!

Wink!

But Trump would never be so subtle. Those civil rights advocates came down to Mississippi to make trouble and they got what they deserved! (Of course, Trump wouldn’t say that today; hating blacks explicitly just isn’t what you do; you hate Mexicans and Muslims instead.) And the people who find that kind of thing appealing are critical to the Republican Party.

Without Bigotry, the GOP Is a Regional Party

Even if you want to be really generous to the Republican Party and say that such people are only a third of the party (and I think it’s more like 80%), that would still make the Republicans a regional party — only competitive in the deepest of red states. And note: I said “competitive” not “dominant.”

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that a big loss for Donald Trump will fix the Republican Party. The base will just say that the party didn’t back him. And the elites will just say that you’ve got to keep the bigotry as subtext. Nothing’s going to change in the Republican Party. If old school Republicans didn’t leave the party a decade ago, they aren’t going to leave it now.

But Trump will be the Republican presidential candidate. I am as certain of that as I am about what I had for breakfast this morning. And for the record: as usual, I had nothing for breakfast.

Short Film Inside 500 Days of Summer

500 Days of SummerI’ve never seen the film 500 Days of Summer. And I’m not inclined to. It is directed by Marc Webb, who directed the 2012 version of The Amazing Spider-Man, which I wrote about at the time, The Not So Amazing Spider-Man Writers. As you can tell from the title, my problem was with the writers, not the director. But the director is generally the guy who says, “Yes, this screenplay is ready; let’s shoot!” And look: if the guy were an artist, would he be directing such dreck?

But the other day, I came upon this one sequence in the film that is shot in split screen. It is “Expectations vs Reality.” The principle character is coming to the birthday party of his ex-lover. He imagines that they are going to get back together. So on the left side of the screen, we see his expectations for the party, and on the right, we see the reality. In general, I’m not a fan of the split screen. In fact, I even wrote that I did not see a narrative reason to ever use it. Well, I think I was wrong. This is just marvelous:

I did hop over to Wikipedia to see if the whole of 500 Days of Summer might be worth checking out. But it turns out the whole film is more or less what you would expect from the director of The Amazing Spider-Man: boy falls in love with the wrong girl, eventually realizes it, finds the right girl. But this three minutes of film is great.

Afterword

If you get rid of the whole love-interest aspect of the reality part of the story, that’s pretty much every party that I’ve ever been to. It’s also why I don’t like going to parties — and why I always bring a book.

The Speed of Life

Hamster on Spinning Wheel - This is lifeI know you must all get tired of these articles where I whine about my life. But I think this one is a bit different and more interesting. It occurred to me today that what I most hate about my life is the speed of it. What is the point of it all? I understand that everyone has to work. But we all run around doing mostly pointless things. We do bad work — quickly.

For a month now, I’ve been wanting to write about two translations of Don Quixote. The first is by the painter Charles Jarvis and the second is by the novelist Tobias Smollett. The latter is the better known of the two, and is still published. In fact, the Barnes & Noble Classics edition uses the Smollett translation. The problem is, it is almost certainly not a translation. He seems to have just taken Jarvis’ translation and rewritten it.

To write about that properly would take days — many days. There are certainly at least a few PhD dissertations in it. I’m sure I could get a very long article just comparing one chapter. And that would be a worthy use of my time, even though very few people would be interested in reading it. It’s not like the “Smollett ripped off Jarvis” fact hasn’t been well established. Indeed, in 1949, Samuel Putnam wrote, “The version published by T G Smollett in 1755 merits little consideration as it is merely a working over of Jarvis.” But there is much to be said for doing something worthy at a leisurely pace.

A Sudden Opportunity

The funny thing is that after thinking this all day, I got the opportunity last night when the power for the entire neighborhood died. At first, I was frantic. But once I found the candles, I realized it was quite a blessing. I got one of my Jarvis copies out and started to read, laying on my couch. It’s hard to read by candle light, but that made it even better. It forces you to read slower and you can savor every word. And just as I was really getting into it — Ta da! — the power came back on.

And the world went back to its normal frenetic pace. I had to finish an article for work that had to be done fast. (If I’m writing it, it’s because it has to be done right away; about the best turn-around time is three days for a freelancer for reason that really have nothing to do with them.) And there were several other things. Plus, there was Frankly Curious, but you know: nothing really good or anything. This, as a matter of fact.

Pointless Speed

It wouldn’t matter if we were at war. Or working at a hospital. In fact, I tell my writers that when they screw up, “We run a website, not an ER.” But that really is the problem with the modern world: we treat everything like it’s life or death. I have a friend who works for ComCast — or whatever they call themselves now. And he works enormous numbers of hours. And when there is a big launch, he works even more hours.

And why? Really! I want to know. It isn’t life or death. It isn’t even profit or loss. It’s more or less profit. We have the technology to allow everyone to live meaningful, fulfilling lives. But instead, we all run around like some kind of bizarre organic perpetual motion machine. It’s not a machine that does anything of much value. It’s more like a hamster on a spinning wheel.

We’re crazy. We are all crazy.

Who Cares About Istanbul — They’re Muslim

Erik LoomisI for one am shocked that when terrorists strike the Istanbul airport, there’s not an outpouring of grief and sympathy from the west. Where’s all my Facebook friends changing their image status to the Turkish flag like they did with the French flag after the Paris attacks? Where’s all the talks about the threat to the glorious Turkish civilization? Where’s the 24/7 news coverage? It’s almost as if these things only matter to Americans if they happen to other white countries! If it’s outside Europe or one of its white settler states, it’s just another thing happening to those people.

—Erik Loomis
Where’s the Empathy for Istanbul?