There is a bit of buzz about the upcoming blockbuster Zero Dark Thirty. It is already getting rave reviews, which goes to the heart of my problem with film “critics”: they aren’t critics, they are ombudsmen. But it is a big mistake to listen to them. They tend to be too pretentious for most moviegoers and too stupid for real movie fans. This movie is the newest from the team that brought you The Hurt Locker. And it looks to be the same kind of film: brilliantly constructed and morally abhorrent. I have no intention of seeing it, but I don’t doubt that it is great filmmaking.

Although the film is not yet released, it is getting attention because of its depiction of torture as being instrumental in the hunt for bin Laden. Glenn Greenwald takes the writer and director to task on this point. He notes that the director,Kathryn Bigelow, has been going around the country saying that they took “almost a journalistic approach to film.” But when presented with the fact that numerous sources have claimed that torture played no role in finding bin Laden, she hides under claims of artistic license, “It’s a movie, not a documentary.”

It is all a mush and this is one of many reasons to hate movies “based on a true story.” You are either telling the truth or you are making up a story. If you’re going to introduce torture that wasn’t part of the true story, then you are creating fiction. Worse actually, because the truth that is in your film implies that the fictions are just as true. But Bigelow continues to play both sides by claiming she is depicting, not advocating. But as Greenwald notes, saying that torture was critical to doing the only thing that most Americans feel really good about, is the same as endorsing torture. In fact, he compares Bigelow to Nazi film maker Leni Riefenstahl:

But, says Bigelow, that is not her responsibility: she is merely depicting, not advocating. Without comparing the crimes involved, that was always the controversy surrounding German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, widely hailed as one of the most brilliant and innovative filmmakers of the 20th Century, yet also widely despised for producing films that glorified Nazism and excluded all of its crimes. One of her principal defenses—I was simply showing what was taking place, not judging—has been rather vehemently rejected by most commentators, because it (at best) naively ignores the obvious effects of what she produced, and because she had a responsibility to judge those crimes.

One of the things that has bothered me for the last 11 years is our cultural acceptance of torture. I know that we have always tortured. But we were publicly against it. In films, torturing was almost what defined a villain. James Bond was tortured; he was never the torturer. And then came 9/11 and Dick Cheney’s “dark side” and 24. And now Zero Dark Thirty: torture got bin Laden! Torture is great!

I have this strange idea that I don’t care for Dylan Matthews over at WonkBlog. But I just looked at my writing over the last year, and I find I am always very impressed with his work. I know that from time to time, he falls into false equivalence and splitting the difference fallacies. But mostly, he is a very good reporter who understands economics.

Last week, he wrote perhaps the best thing I have yet seen from him, Ten Ways to Reduce Inequality Without Raising Tax Rates. He lists ways that will reduce inequality for “both sides to get what they want.” That’s reaching up to Ezra Klein level adorableness. I am far too cynical to think that Republicans would ever go along with these ideas. The reason is simple: Republicans like inequality; they are as a rule against anything that is good for the country generally. (I would not have said this 30 years ago.)

1. Make it easier to start and join unions. Oh, there’s a proposal Republicans are going to jump on! This is a great idea. Unions are one of the big reasons why workers shared in the productivity gains after WWII for 30 years and their demise is one of the big reasons why workers have hardly shared at all in the gains of the last 30 years.

2. Weaken the dollar. This is all about big dicks on both sides of the aisle. A weak dollar makes our exports more competitive. But those who already have wealth hate a weak dollar because it lowers what their wealth can buy. But this is a no-brainer: a weak dollar is good for the economy. Politicians like a strong dollar because it makes them think they are powerful. Or something.

3. Promote trade in highly-skilled professions. This is one that Dean Baker pushes. We have allowed globalization to hit low wage workers in manufacturing, but we continue to practice protectionism for doctors, lawyers, dentists, college professors, you name it. If we had a truly free market, workers would have less money, but they would need less to pay for things like healthcare and education.

4. Force the Fed to get serious about unemployment. The Fed has a dual mandate to minimize inflation and maximize employment. But you’d never know it. All the Fed seems to care about is minimizing inflation. I think this has to do with the class of people at the Fed: they are the rentier class. No one they know is out of a job, but lots of people they know own stuff that would be hurt by inflation. Back in June, Matt Yglesias asked a great rhetorical question, “If the unemployment and inflation rates were reversed, would the Fed do something about it?” The answer is, of course, that they would work very hard to change it. But these numbers are not reversed and so the Fed continues to do the bare minimum.

5. Reform IP law—especially for medicine. This is another Dean Baker issue (although he talks about them all). Our intellectual property laws are used by companies to stifle innovation and competition. Check out more from Lawrence Lessig on this.

6. Relax licensing rules. At last, an idea that a Republican might support! This is basically the idea that the guy who cuts your hair shouldn’t need to have a license. I think we could liberalize such requirements. But I don’t think they are all bad and I don’t think there is that much to be gained here. Hence: the perfect Republican issue!

7. Ease up on zoning restrictions. This basically means having a free market in housing. A lot could be done on this issue. Matt Yglesias is very interested in this subject. Check out his e-book, The Rent is Too Damn High.

8. Increase transfers. Instead of focusing on taxing the rich, focus on helping the poor. Matthews points out that much of Europe is more unequal than the United States. In fact, the United Kingdom and Germany have more regressive tax codes, but their societies are more equal because of all the countries do for the poorer classes. Of course, the biggest example of this is to provide healthcare for everyone. But we can’t have that here! At least, we can’t have it unless the insurance industry gets its pound of flesh.

9. Fund early childhood education. Want to make a society that really does have equality of opportunity? One necessary part of this is to help children early on enhance their cognitive skills. Necessary but not sufficient!

10. Get the lead out This one surprised me. Lead in painted surfaces have amazing consequences to society. Here’s Matthews:

These are great ideas. I wish supposed liberals like our president would start talking about them. But even without that, it is very exciting to think about the options we have to create a more perfect union.

Dear Mr. President:

-Frank Moraes

A political science professor once told me about a friend of his who claimed that Richard Nixon killed his father. Every time Nixon appeared on television, this guy would start shouting. “That lying bastard!” And so on. Well, one time Nixon came on the TV, the man started shouting at it, had a heart attack, and died.

I don’t watch much TV, but like many liberals, I never miss Up with Chris Hayes. One of the Hayes-approved conservatives is Avik Roy. I despise Avik Roy. Unlike Joss Barro (or even Ross Douthat), who often makes sense, all we ever get from Avik Roy is another Republican talking point dressed up with nice words and a calm demeanor. And like the father I spoke of above, I can’t help but yell at the screen.

At first, I am just trying to correct his deceptive statements. Unfortunately, there are so many, I can’t keep up and I just go full Tourette’s, “You fucking conservative lackey. I want to rip off your scrotum and suffocate you with it. Cock sucking plutocrat bastard!” I don’t think this is an accident. I think Avik Roy knows what he’s doing. So if I end up dead, you’ll know what happened.

Rather than show you what Avik Roy does, I’ll show the reaction. He manages to make David Cay Johnston quite angry, “We need to have a fundamental discussion about tax policy but we need to follow the 500 year old principal that gave birth to democracy: the greater your gain, the greater the burden you bear. And real conservatives believe that. It is the fake radicals who call themselves conservatives who are running the debate and who are totally ahistorical.”

Let’s get Avik Roy off the TV machine. If not for me at least for the great (And Republican!) Mr. Johnston.

See also Avik Roy: Charlatan

The video below is a teaser for an upcoming documentary, Landfill Harmonics. It is wonderful and will make you laugh and cry and become a part of blah blah blah. What I worry about is that these people are left to live and die in poverty—but at least they have imported European classical music! Don’t get me wrong, I would not begrudge these people any small happinesses they may get. What’s more, I haven’t seen the movie; from this clip, I can’t tell what is going on. What is normally the case is that rich western classical music lovers funnel in money for these programs. In this case, it looks like the people are doing it themselves. The makeshift instruments are very cool. Of course, they could all be a marketing gimmick.

Regardless of all this, the clip is awesome. It’s a bit less than four minutes. Check it out:

See also, the fine documentary Waste Land.

And check out my other writing on film and music!

This morning, Paul Krugman maked a general argument following from what was, frankly, a rather technical article that Dean Baker posted yesterday. It has to do with the widely held belief that free market treaties are just great for the economy. For the record, my belief has always been that these treaties are great for business owners, but when it gets down to actual workers, it is not good.

Let’s look at it this way: inputs and outputs. A free trade agreements does indeed increase exports. But it also increases imports. The only way that such agreements can help workers in general, is if unused worker resources are used. Thus, the perhaps 6% of the labor force in the United States that wants to work but can’t find a job could be put to work. But a free trade agreement is only going to take advantage of a small part of that potential. In Baker’s article, he showed that a free trade treaty with the European Union would increase GDP by less than 0.1%. Note that history shows that this increase in GDP would probably not go to workers.

To me, this is easy. The best way to fill that 6 percentage point hole (or 2.5 or 3.5) is through government stimulus. Not only would this put people to work directly, it would be a direct stimulus to the economy. The only reason to be against it is for ideological reasons, like (to take a totally not random example) you want to destroy the government.

Krugman says that free markets don’t do much one way or another:

But one thing is clear: these treaties can be very disruptive to the economy and thus to workers. The question is naturally raised: what are we making worker jobs more insecure for? We know that it isn’t because it will have a great effect on the economy. I’d say it is because it would have a great effect on the bank balances of the super rich.

Yesterday afternoon, E. J. Dionne wrote, The Conservative Learning Curve. He claims that all the talk about the middle class from the likes of Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan is an indication that the Republicans are taking their first baby steps toward changing their party. This is the kind of wishful thinking that has made liberalism a naughty word.

As I wrote yesterday in Same Ol’ Rubio Plus “Middle Class,” there is nothing to this new talk but Republicans adding “middle class” to all their standard talking points. Instead of saying we should end the capital gains tax because it will help job creators, it is now that we should end the capital gains tax because it will help the middle class. There is no rethinking going on here; it is all rebranding.

Last night on The Last Word, E. J. Dionne appeared to put forth this theory. And in his defense, you can tell that even he doesn’t buy it. He is just trying to think the best of Republicans, because they have seemed a bit pathetic recently. Even still, I found it hard to listen to, especially with Lawrence O’Donnell agreeing with him. Thankfully, Richard Wolffe was there to set them straight:

To this, Dionne responds, “I agree that they have yet to adjust their policies to this new rhetoric.” In other words, he’s hoping. And here’s to hoping! E. J. Dionne is clearly a nicer and more optimistic person than I am. But I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the Republicans are changing in any way. And neither has Richard Wolffe. And frankly, neither has E. J. Dionne.

I shop a lot at Grocery Outlet. They have amazing prices. Also, they have puppet spokespeople, and you know how I love puppets.

So I’m at Grocery Outlet recently, and they are selling a Lois Prices bobblehead. And she is holding a sign that reads, “I [heart] GO.” That seems very strange to me, but luckily my quick wit bursts into action: Grocery Outlet is a Chinese[1] company and they mistakenly believe that the game Go is very popular in the United States. It doesn’t sound right, but that’s all I’ve got.

I call up Will. He too is a big Grocery Outlet shopper. I tell him the story: Lois Prices; bobblehead; I [heart] GO. What could it mean? His quick wit bursts into action. “Something to do with the game?” he posits. We spend some time puzzling it out but end the conversation with no compelling leads.

Move ahead a few hours. Will is driving in his car with his wife, Bethann. He tells her about our conversion: Lois Prices; bobblehead; I [heart] GO. What could it mean?

A little back story here: Will’s wife thinks we are both idiots.

Bethann’s quick wit bursts into action. “You two are idiots,” she says. Will stares blankly—he already knows that. “It stands for Grocery Outlet.”

Oh! Right! That makes a lot more sense than the game!

[1] Grocery Outlet is not a Chinese Company. It was founded in San Francisco and its headquarters are in Berkeley.

After Bruce Bartlett’s amazing performance on Up with Chris Hayes today, it is hard to complain much about him. Just the same, I found much to dislike in his The American Conservative article, Revenge of the Reality-Based Community.

The biggest problem is that Bartlett spends half the article justifying his conservative credentials. But then he discusses his awakening to new ideas and new insights. These place him firmly inside the big tent of the Democratic Party. And yet, he still considers himself a Republican and can’t understand why the whole of the Republican establishment has turned its back on him. He even writes in a particularly vulnerable moment, “Honest to God, I am not a liberal or a Democrat. But these days, they are the only people who will listen to me.”

This is kind of sweet, actually. But he follows up that statement with a bit of Old Testament level hubris, “When Republicans and conservatives once again start asking my opinion, I will know they are on the road to recovery.” Let me get this straight: Republicans are deluded because they don’t listen to him and all he is telling them is stuff that liberals are eager to hear? Well, I’m sure that he’ll get a call from the Heritage Foundation any day now.

If it talks like a liberal and thinks like a liberal it is a fucking liberal! But Bartlett doesn’t want to believe that because it would make a mockery of his past belief. And so he has become a kind of apologist for the past Republican Party, complimenting it for its successes and ignoring its many failures. I don’t doubt that his many blind spots are genuine. In particular, he seems blind regarding the racism of his party for Bartlett’s entire life. Here he is trying to steal the black vote for the Republicans in 2008:

This is offensive in a couple of ways. Why would African Americans give a shit about the racism of the Democratic Party during the Depression? This is just brain dead stuff. Like all people, African Americans vote their interests and those don’t have anything to do with long, long ago. And then his comment about historical racism? Yes, it has diminished radically since the 1960s. I wonder why that is? Something about a Voting Rights Act or something? And the Republican Party continues to push policies that promote endemic inequality.

I don’t understand Bartlett, even as I feel much like him. He is an iconoclast. He is independent minded. Why can’t he take the next step and admit he was wrong about much in the past and that he is no longer a conservative?

Ralph Nader has written a very good OpEd in the Washington Post on taxing stock trades. I fully expect that Dean Baker will write about this tomorrow, because this is one of his big issues. But I thought Nader laid out the case very well. The basic idea is that the government would levy a 0.5% tax on all financial trades.

There are many reasons why this is a good idea. What I most like about it is that it would put a serious dent into the practice of micro-trades. These are high speed trades done by computers. These not only don’t do what trades are supposed to do: get money from those who want to invest to businesses that need capital. They are often actively harmful and pose a constant risk of disaster. I know far too much about computers and programming to feel comfortable with this practice.

Nader points out that the United States had such a tax from 1914 through 1966. So what’s the big deal? The big deal is that stock traders don’t want this kind of thing because it would cut into their profits. And stock traders have a lot of money, so the government is very likely to listen to them. But as Nader notes, we already have taxes on regular economic transactions. Here in California, this tax is at least 7.25% and where I live it is 8.5%. There is no similar tax on stock trades, even though they are the in no way different.

A report from the Political Economy Research Institute (pdf) indicates that such a tax could raise as much as $350 billion annually. That’s over 10% of the total projected revenue for 2013. Compare this to the $11 billion that would be generated by raising the Medicare eligibility age.

I recommend reading the whole article. It isn’t long and it is very clear. Nader deals with all the possible criticisms of the idea and discusses its main advantages. It is a great idea. And thus, both Washington and the mainstream media will likely treat it with the aggressive indifference they treat every idea that rich people don’t like.