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.

Morning Music: Crosseyed and Painless

Remain in Light - Crosseyed and PainlessToday we get to the greatest Talking Heads album, Remain in Light. And I guess I will spend two days on it. I figure you’ve all heard “Once in a Lifetime,” so let’s skip it. Although I have to admit, that was the song that got me into the album. I love the way that Byrne shouts the lyrics. And the rhythm section part is so infectious. Of course you could say the same thing about everything on the album. You could certainly say it about today’s tune “Crosseyed and Painless.”

Byrne is at his best when he is writing about people who are pathologically alienated from life. I suspect that says something about him, although I’ve never gone out of my way to find out what he is like as a person. He’s always seemed overly intellectual — sort of the way people see me. Of course, they are only partly right about me, and so I’m sure I’m only partly right about Byrne.

Regardless, I love the rap part of “Crosseyed and Painless”: facts are simple and facts are straight; facts are lazy and facts are late; facts all come with points of view; facts don’t do what I want them to… It’s rare that white people — especially of that time — were able to make rap their own. It is absorbed into the music, not poured on like taco sauce to give it a different culture’s taste.

The whole thing is amazing. I often complain about production, but in this case, all the stops are pulled out. The song goes crazy. But that drum and base riff is just unstoppable and it carries us through. It’s amazing to think that the band that started with Talking Heads 77 was able to reach this point of musical brilliance.

Anniversary Post: Richard Ramirez — Satanist

Richard Ramirez - SatanistI’ll admit that this is a bank shot. On this day in 1985, Richard Ramirez started his Los Angeles murder spree. He had already murdered two people, but this was the day that he really got going. He was labeled the “Night Stalker” by the press. In total, he killed 14 people. I’m not that interested in him. What I am interested in is the fact that he said he was a Satanist. This I find curious.

What does it mean to be a Satanist? I don’t think I am overstating when I say that it means absolutely nothing. It’s kind of like the word atheist in the time of Shakespeare. An atheist was anyone who wasn’t your form of Christian. So Protestants called Catholics atheists. And vise versa. Usually, when people say they are Satanists, they do so simply to shock people. It’s childish, but less so than the reactions of Christians to the idea.

What Makes a Satanist?

I don’t know of there ever being actual Satanist in the form we see in movies. Today, Satanism is a movement reflected in groups like the Satanic Temple, which are explicitly atheistic and use Satan merely as a symbol. The only people who take Satan seriously are fanatical followers of Abrahamic religions — people like ISIS and Pat Robertson.

It is well established that in early Judaism, Satan was more of a prosecutor for God. It is only later that he gets transformed into a kind of Yin to God’s Yang. And what that means is that the Abrahamic faiths are fundamentally polytheistic — but not in a fun way like the Greek, Norse, and most of all, Hindu myths.

But if we are to believe Terry Pratchett (and I see no reason not to), gods gain their power by having people believe in them. I rather doubt that Richard Ramirez was a Satanist in any meaningful way. He was just a psychopath. So if there really are gods, it’s the Christians and the Muslims who are keeping Satan alive.

Economic Inequality and Insecurity Is Planned

Mark ThomaMark Thoma, the gentlest economist around, wrote an article that I mostly agree with, Rising Insecurity and the Rise of Trump and Sanders. He argued that populist movements are the result of increased economic inequality and insecurity. I think the second word there — insecurity — is actually the more important one. Most people can deal with their lives as they are. The hardest part of our society is not knowing if it is all going to be destroyed through no fault of your own. As Thoma put it, “When new technology is adopted, some people who did nothing worse than pick the wrong industry to work in will lose their jobs, while others will see their incomes rise, sometimes spectacularly if the new technology serves an important, unfilled need.” You know, it’s called “luck.”

The core of what Thoma talked about is what has happened during globalization. In general, it has made the world richer. But instead of the wealth being distributed, it all went to a small group. This is to be expected. It is also to be expected that in a democracy, measures would be taken to fix things. As Thoma noted, “If the gains are $1,000 and the losses are $300, transferring $301 or more from the winners to the losers would leave everyone better off.” But we have not seen that.

In fact, we have seen the opposite. Even as globalization has helped the rich, we have seen policies that have made things even worse. Let’s just list a couple of things. When you buy oil for your car so you can go to work, you pay sales tax; but when rich people buy stocks, they pay no sales tax. While manufacturing workers have been put in direct competition with foreign workers, doctors, lawyers, and other highly paid workers have not. While incomes of the wealthy have skyrocketed, their taxes have gone down — way down. None of these are economics; these are political decisions designed to take money from the lower rungs of society and give them to the upper rungs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics did a detailed study of workers from 2007 through 2014 and they found that for the bottom 80% of workers, total compensation was stagnant or went down…

This all brings me back to Milton Friedman’s claim that while the rich might be getting much richer, the poor too are better off. Well, that’s been open for debate for a long time. Just last year, Glenn Hubbard (Yes, that guy.) was claiming that if you looked at total compensation (rather than just wages), the lower classes weren’t stagnating. Now I’ve always found that a disingenuous argument, because our protectionist healthcare system makes it look like people are getting more in benefits, but its just the cost of those benefits that are going up. If these people were working in Canada, they wouldn’t see any increase.

Well, Lawrence Mishel reported yesterday, Pay Is Stagnant for Vast Majority, Even When You Include Benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did a detailed study of workers from 2007 through 2014 and they found that for the bottom 80% of workers, total compensation was stagnant or went down — with the median worker seeing their pay decline by 4% and their total compensation decline by just under 2%.

So what are we going to do? Nothing, of course. This is because the power elite really don’t care. If I had Milton Friedman in front of me right now, I would ask him what he thought about this. It does, after all, go against what he argued for years. But I know what he would say: it doesn’t matter. He was never making a practical argument. He only threw those out for the prols to keep them off his back. And that’s true for all the rest of the power elite.

Go back to the days of feudal lords and you will see that the real justification for our system of inequality and insecurity is the same: there are the deserving and the undeserving. In Mark Thoma’s article, he wrote, “We don’t have to abandon capitalism.” And most people think that capitalism, despite all its flaws, is still the best thing we have. I think the problem is in our biology. The reason that capitalism is the best system we can come up with is because we are still hierarchical pack animals, so we can’t imagine a system that doesn’t involve winners and losers. If anyone ever did come up with a system where everyone was able to live dignified lives, we’d rebel against it. We want people to feel the insecurity so they will constantly know their place.

Morning Music: Life During Wartime

Fear of Music - Life During WartimeWhen I was younger, I was wild about Talking Heads’ third album, Fear of Music. And it is certainly a great album. But I have to admit to not enjoying it as much now as I did then. I think it is because it is a transitional album. The best example of that is “Life During Wartime.” That song points directly to by far the greatest Talking Heads album, Remain in Light.

I’m not doing any research for these posts, so forgive me for just telling you what I remember. But I recall an interview with Tina Weymouth where she said that while they were working on the song, at least three of them were aware that there was a collaboration going on. It seems that David Byrne was resistant to giving anyone else any credit. But given the later history, we know with some certainty that Byrne is something of a horse’s ass — maybe not as bad as Lou Reed, but also without all the drugs to explain the behavior.

Anyway, the song sounded very new. It seemed the first time that funk and punk really merged together to create something greater. And the lyrics are funny, although I don’t think they are meant to be. David Byrne as a lyric writer has always reminded me of David Lynch as a director: someone very interesting, overly serious, and never quite aware of what he’s doing. That has led to greatness for both men, but also some of the most pretentious nonsense I’ve ever encountered.

“Life During Wartime” features prominently in Stop Making Sense. And it works really well. But it also loses its essential punk feel and becomes more funk with an edge. I don’t think I can explain it. But the album cut is better.

Second Annual Richard Stallman Day

Richard StallmanLast year, I decided that 16 March would from that day forward be Richard Stallman Day. Most people don’t know who he is, but isn’t that typical of people who revolutionize the world? Let the Obamas and the Putins think that they run the world. The rest of us know that they are mere figureheads who the greater social forces allow their illusions of power. Richard Stallman has no illusions of power because he has no power. He is just a thinker — one who changed the world.

If you don’t know who Richard Stallman is, I will tell you. He is the guy responsible for the server that delivered these words to you. He started the Free Software Foundation and the GNU project. He wrote the gcc and g++ compilers — and much more. But most of all, he led the free software movement, which led to what is normally called Linux. It doesn’t make a lot of sense that it is called Linux, though. It is named after Linus Torvalds. And not to take anything away from him, but an operating system kernel is not an operating system. It’s like calling a quarterback a football team.

“I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I’m not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.” — Richard Stallman

The history of GNU/Linux is typical of our economic system where 99% of all the work can be done, but the person who puts that final piece of the puzzle gets an overabundance of credit. The truth is that GNU/Linux was the result of many thousands of developers working over decades. And all of that should be honored. But just like the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s is celebrated with the moniker of one of its great leaders, Martin Luther King Jr, GNU/Linux and the free software movement should be celebrated in Richard Stallman’s name.

I think we should build statues to Richard Stallman. But I don’t see that happening any time in the near future. For one thing, he’s a political radical. And he’s radical about things that most people have never thought about. Every time I hear him talk or visit his website, I’m struck by how much of a sellout I am. But I’m just not smart and brave enough not to be swept along by doing what is easy, even if it makes me somewhat queasy. Then again, I’m not a technologist. I would be happy to go back to the typewriter.

Barring that, Richard Stallman has done great work to make technology better. It isn’t just GNU/Linux. Although Big Computer has never embraced free software, it has embraced open source software. And that continues to have great effects. Richard Stallman started a movement that has had as great an effect on the world as anyone I can think of in my lifetime. The world owes him a great debt.

Happy Richard Stallman Day!

Good News About Carbon That Republicans Are Also Denying

Jonathan ChaitAll of these innovations have allowed the economy to decarbonize quickly without imposing noticeable costs on consumers. The coal industry is in a state of collapse. In just the last year alone, its share of US electrical generation fell from 36 percent to 28 percent. The four largest American coal-mining firms, which were worth a combined $34 billion five years ago, are now worth $150 million — a loss of more than 99 percent of their value.

In recent years, natural gas (which emits much less carbon than coal) has accounted for most of the decline. But the electricity sector is rapidly transitioning into zero-carbon sources. Solar and wind accounted for more than two-thirds of all new electric capacity last year. As these technologies rapidly grow cheaper and more efficient, their spread is accelerating. By the end of 2016, the US solar market will be ten times as large as it was in 2010.

—Jonathan Chait
Climate Change and Conservative Brain Death

Editor, Writer, and the the Division of Labor

EditorI got a message from my publisher (and nominally “editor”) today. After 28 chapters have been submitted and typeset, I am told, “Need to have 2-3 call outs in chapters that are all text.” It made me think that it would be a good idea to discuss what editors do and what writers do. But first I should explain to you what “call outs” are. In the publishing industry, a “call out” is nothing at all. There is no term. The phrase is idiosyncratic: the result of a tiny publisher cut off from the rest of the industry — and one that really doesn’t know anything other than what it does.

What I am being asking for now are what are called “pull quotes.” You have seen them a lot, because I use them a lot. A pull quote is “a brief, attention-catching quotation, typically in a distinctive typeface, taken from the main text of an article and used as a subheading or graphic feature.” They were first used in magazines and now are widely used on the internet. But they are rarely used in books. They make books look less serious. If a book wants to go with a magazine kind of layout, it will focus on pictures. So not only do pull quotes make books look silly, they make the publisher look cheap.

There is a symbiotic relationship between a writer and an editor. A great editor can make a mediocre writer good and a good writer great. And a good writer can make the work of an editor a pleasurable experience.

But this is all fine. There is just one problem that I have in all this: there are things that writers do and there are things that editors do. Asking a writer to provide the pull quotes is like asking the writer to provide the cover art and the ISBN. Look in any style guide: the editor, in the process of editing the work, selects passages that they consider effective. But I understand the problem with this particular editor: doing that would require actually reading the text!

Editor and Writer Together

There is a symbiotic relationship between a writer and an editor. A great editor can make a mediocre writer good and a good writer great. And a good writer can make the work of an editor a pleasurable experience. What I’ve found fascinating about editing is that it takes me as long to edit a good writer as it does a bad writer. But the process is different. And the results when working with a good writer are edifying, whereas working with a bad writer is exhausting. With a good writer, it’s like you are putting a great work of art in a fine frame and mounting it on the wall. With a bad writer, it is like you are putting out a fire.

There are times when there is some crossover between writer and editor. For one thing, writers often need particular illustrations for a piece and they will ask that they be placed in particular places. Writers will ask for other things, like not having a cover that totally sucks. But these are all requests and the editor has final say. But since most people have some notion of fairness, writers aren’t expected to do all the work and have no say in it. They provide the content and that’s about it. That’s the way things work in the publishing industry.

When I’ve worked with other small presses, this is the way it has worked. In fact, when I worked with this small press, this is how it worked. Of course, these small presses get away with murder. They don’t actually edit the works. They typeset. I was reading the original book (published with another publisher) and I found embarrassing errors. I compared them to my original manuscript: they were the same. No copy editing was done. It’s the same thing here.

Editors and writers should be best of friends. And in general, I’ve gotten along swimmingly with editors. But these pretenders are not editors. They don’t care about words and syntax and style. And some of them don’t even care enough to read the book so they can decide on their own pull quotes or “call outs.”

Morning Music: The Big Country

More Songs About Buildings and Food - The Big CountryStrangely, after yesterday’s morning music, I’ve had “The Book I Read” going through my mind. Catchy tune. Anyway, let’s just move on to the first truly great Talking Heads album, More Songs About Buildings and Food. It’s the one that had a reasonably big hit: their cover Al Green’s “Take Me to the River.” I like it, but I think it succeeds more because of Brian Eno’s production than anything else.

Yesterday, I avoided “Don’t Worry About the Government” — a song that is widely misinterpreted. Today, I want to highlight another song that is widely misinterpreted, “The Big Country.” On it’s surface, it is an attack on rural and suburban America with the chorus, “I wouldn’t live there if you paid me.” But if that were the point of the song, it would be trivial — and offensive. It is the view from seven miles up from an elitist who really knows nothing of the people he is — literally and figuratively — looking down on.

It’s only in the third verse that the song gets to the point. The singer lacks a community. His attitude about the way “those people” live their lives has caused him to be cut off. His life lacks meaning. The song is ultimately, an attack on that kind of adolescent rejection of everything that is “normal.” And the singer makes a breakthrough, “I’m tired of traveling; I want to be somewhere.”

It speaks to Byrne’s weakness as a writer that he doesn’t manage to rework the chorus of “The Big Country” to integrate his epiphany. But far worse would have been to simply repeat the chorus. So instead, they go into a coda where he sings, “Goo goo ga ga ga” — which I believe means nothing at all. Still, the song works and the music is beautiful.

Anniversary Post: My Fair Lady

My Fair LadyOn this day in 1956, My Fair Lady premiered on Broadway. I have two things to say about this. The first is that when I was 17 years old, I was part of a concert band that toured Europe. It was interesting. But the band was filled with people from the south. There were only two people who were at all from the west coast: a guy from Alaska and a gal from Arizona. Now the guy turned out to be my best friend on the trip. He was the only one who was willing to crawl out of windows and go roaming around the great cities of Europe drinking wine. Really: most of those kids were real duds.

But London was where we had first arrived and I didn’t know him that well. But in London, they had set up for us to go to see one of two plays on the West End: Annie or My Fair Lady. Well, I certainly did not want to see Annie — perhaps the most vacuously American play ever. And although My Fair Lady was at least British, I had seen the movie many times and I generally wasn’t interested.

I was a theater nerd. I loved the theater and I knew what was going on around the world in the theater scene. My thing was theater of the absurd, but I stayed up on everything — I read the weekly Variety at the library. And I had always thought that if I made it to London, I would have to see, No Sex Please, We’re British. I tried to stage a revolt. But the only person I could get on my side was the gal from Arizona. So we went to see My Fair Lady. I think there were only maybe 4 of us who did; the rest of them went to see Annie. And people wonder why I think so lowly of the south! (For the record, the performance of My Fair Lady was exceptional.)

Pygmalion and My Fair Lady

My second thought about My Fair Lady is a joke from Woody Allen. In his routine “The Vodka Ad,” he goes through a list of people the company was trying to get before him. He said, “They wanted to get Noël Coward originally for it, but he was not available. He had acquired the rights to My Fair Lady and he was removing the music and lyrics and making it back into Pygmalion.” Now, Pygmalion is a George Bernard Shaw play from 1913. And My Fair Lady really is just Pygmalion with songs. Some of the scenes are almost word for word.

Anyway, here is the Woody Allen routine, which is stand-up comedy at its best.

Morning Music: Talking Heads

Talking Heads 77When I was young, I loved Talking Heads. And I think I have a lot to say about them. The truth is that I haven’t listened to anything since Little Creatures. And in fact, I thought that Speaking in Tongues marked the end of the band as a truly creative force. There is a problem when people get good enough to do the kind of art they always wanted to. Talking Heads always wanted to be a funk band. On the first two albums, they totally failed at that. In the next two albums, they had created a bizarre kind of funk. That was all great! Then they actually became a funk band and they just weren’t very interesting.

But let’s start with the first album, Talking Heads 77. It is clearly the weakest of the four great albums. And I’m not sure if I would even say that it is a great album. Certainly any Ramones album from this period puts it to shame. Still, it is an excellent album — and extremely consistent. The classics from it are, of course, “Psycho Killer” and “Don’t Worry About the Government.” The latter song has always bothered me in that almost everyone seems to think it is meant as satire, when I’m pretty sure they are deadly earnest.

But I want to highlight the first song on the album, “Uh-Oh, Love Comes to Town.” It is probably the song that most screams funk. And I love that bass line, which is damned hard to play over and over again — especially when you have hands the size of Tina Weymouth’s. It also has some lovely minimalist synth work by Jerry Harrison. And top it off with what are very funny lyrics. The truth is that love is very disruptive. “Jet pilot gone out of control, ship captain run aground; stock broker make a bad investment when love has come to town!” Tell me about it!

Anniversary Post: Casca and Cassius Don’t Kill Mark Antony

Mark AntonyOn this day in 44 BCE, Casca and Cassius were making their final plans for the assassination of Julius Caesar, which would occur the following day. And you might ask, why didn’t I just wait until tomorrow to talk about the assassination? For one thing, I don’t care about the assassination. I’m much more interested in the plays about it than the actual event. That’s the thing about power: there always other powerful people who want to kill you. This is why I like my quiet little life.

But Casca and Cassius made a fateful decision on that day. They decided that Mark Antony should be kept alive. Okay people, here is the lesson of the day: do not keep people alive who will hunt you down and kill you. Certainly, that is what Mark Antony did. So it was really important that he was alive. Oh, I’m just kidding! It made no difference whatsoever. But it is interesting what they were thinking. Their idea was that the Roman Republic was on its way out and they were trying to save it. So they didn’t want to turn it into a blood bath. They just wanted to get rid of Julius Caesar.

But it just goes to show that history isn’t about people. The Roman Republic was on its way toward the Roman Empire, and there were a lot of reasons that had to do with that. Julius Caesar’s being dictator perpetuo was not the problem. The problem was that the Senate felt the need to make him dictator perpetuo. And if it hadn’t been Julius Caesar, it would have been someone else. I don’t blame Casca and Cassius for thinking this.

Actually, most people today believe the Great Men theory of history, even if they don’t know that the theory exists. And I’ll admit: personalities do play some role. The fact that Hitler was alive meant something different to Germany than if he hadn’t been alive. Just the same, something bad was going to happen in Germany in the 1930s. And today: Trump doesn’t bother me. The fact that we have a good chunk of the population that is just begging for an authoritarian like him is what bothers me. And don’t fool yourself: the same authoritarian tendency that drives Trump supporters also drives Cruz supporters, so the Republicans are an authoritarian party.

But within two decades of the assassination of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony would be dead, and so would the Roman Republic. On the other hand, we never would have had I, Claudius.

Barack Obama on the Rise of Trump

Barack ObamaIn remarks as sharply critical as he’s ever been about the state of the 2016 GOP presidential race, Obama called the GOP presidential debate a combination of “fantasy, and school yard taunts, and sellin’ stuff like it’s the Home Shopping Network.”

Obama called Trump “a distillation of what has been going on in their party for more than a decade,” saying comparing establishment Republicans to Captain Louis Renault from the movie Casablanca.

“We’re shocked someone is fanning anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim sentiment!” he said. “We’re shocked! We’re shocked that someone could be loose with the facts. Or distort someone’s record. Shocked!

“How could you be shocked? This was the guy who was sure I was born in Kenya. And wasn’t letting go,” he said. “As long as it was being directed at me they were fine with it. It was a hoot — and suddenly they’re shocked! That gambling’s going on in this establishment,” he said.

Obama said the GOP message during his presidency is to “deny the evidence of science” or to accuse the other side of treason.

“Look it up, that’s what they’ve been saying. So they can’t be surprised when somebody says, ‘I can make up stuff better than that,'” he said.

—Gregory Korte
“They’re Shocked!” Obama Mocks GOP Establishment for Handling of Trump