I was working in Silicon Valley for the last couple of years of the boom. The bust came as no surprise to me. I was working for a real estate investment company up through 2006. The later financial meltdown came as no surprise to me. I was freelancing up through 2003 and so was listening to a lot of NPR. The mendacity of our Iraq venture came as no surprise to me.

I do not say these things to show how clever I am. It is precisely because I am not clever that I mention them. If I noticed these things, it could not have been subtle. It could not have required great insight. It could not have required special knowledge or training or powers.

There are people I read all the time who were in favor of invading Iraq. These are smart, well educated people. And they look back at their opinions leading up to the Iraq war and they ask, “How was I fooled?” Peter Beinart tries to answer this question in his book The Icarus Syndrome: a History of American Hubris.

It is an interesting book—very well researched. But mostly, it is just an apologia for his earlier endorsement of the war. And it seems to show that Beinart hasn’t learned a damned thing. Unlike Norman Solomon’s excellent War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, Icarus doesn’t think that wars are generally a bad idea. He thinks we just have to pick well.

Here’s the thing: Beinart was deceived by the likes of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. You see, he kept warning people that we shouldn’t go to war—that it might all end like Vietnam. And it didn’t, see! Like the Persian Gulf War. That was fucking brilliant! Sure, there were roughly 30,000 Iraqi conscripts killed. But we didn’t see them. We didn’t know them. So it was brilliant. Right?

Beinart has determined that there were three bad wars during the 20th century: World War I, Vietnam, and Iraq. In between them, we lost sight of the fact that war can be a terrible thing and then: bam! We fight a war that we end up regretting. That’s the thesis of this City University Associate Professor and New America Foundation Senior Fellow. Question: how do you know someone is a Serious Thinker without looking at his job title? Answer: If he’s been wrong about the most important policy issue of his day, he’s Very Serious!

The worst thing about all the supposed liberals who have traditionally been hawks—people like Beinart—is not that they were previously wrong and have seen the error of their ways. It is that they have only seen the error of their specific opinion. In most cases, it is not as clear as it is for Beinart. I’m pretty sure that most of them will repeat the same mistake. The next war will be different in some fundamental way that necessitates its support. In Beinart’s case, there is no doubt. What he needs to write is a history of his own intellectual hubris.[1]

[1] I read this book because of all the praise that The Crisis of Zionism has received. And it looks like it might be a very good book. The guy is most clearly smart and knowledgeable. But those two qualities have never stood in the way of war mongering.

Media Matters is reporting on the Fox News campaign to link May Day to Soviet Russia. As they point out, May Day started in 1867 after a week-long strike in response to the fact that “a state law limiting the work day to eight hours was ignored.” Later today, I will have more to say about socialism in the United States and the reaction to it. Socialism is not an import from Europe.

Last Night on The Last Word, Jonathan Capehart and Ryan Lizza were talking about the current Romney scandal. But all I could think was, “Do these guys have the same mother? Who dresses them?”

With all this discussion of the Trayvon Martin murder, various news outlets are dredging up old cases that are similar, like the Bernhard Goetz case. I was very surprised to hear about the Joe Horn in Texas. In this case, Horn, a 61 year old retiree, used the Texas “Castle Doctrine” law to murder two men who were robbing his next door neighbor. Here is a bit of discussion about the case with the original 911 recording:

Like the end of it where you hear one of the panelists say, “Good Lord”?

As horrible and damning as this 911 recording is, it isn’t even the worst part of the story. Police who arrived on the scene determined that both men had been shot in the back.

Is this what we’ve become?

I’m rather fond of the old British sitcom Black Books, even though it isn’t that good. It is mostly a vehicle for Dylan Moran who is brilliant. Here he is talking about Americans:

One of my goals in life is entirely beyond my control: to see Orson Welles’ The Other Side of the Wind. I first learned of it in the documentary Orson Wells: One Man Band (it comes on the extras disc with F for Fake, which you really should own). That film contained two clips from The Other Side of the Wind. Since then three more clips from the film have been released. I had been under the impression that the film was finished and that only legal problems stopped it from being released. This is not the case. Welles only cut 40 minutes of the film, leaving 70 minutes of screen time to be cut together. The current status of the film is that all the legal problems have been eliminated. The only problem now is that Oja Kodar, Welles’ companion in later years and co-writer of the film, will only give the go ahead if someone ponies up the cash to complete the film properly. She is rightly concerned that it would turn out like Welles’ Don Quixote.[1]

The story is complicated. It is primarily about Jake Hannaford (played by director John Huston). Based on Ernest Hemingway, he is a great but out of favor filmmaker who is trying to make an edgy, modern film that will get him back on top—or something. It starts with one of Jake’s friends, Billy Boyle (played by director Norman Foster), at a screening with a studio executive, trying to get money to complete the film. During the screening, we see scenes from the movie Jake is making, “The Other Side of the Wind.” Then the story turns to Jake’s 70th birthday party where there are actors and media. At the party they screen the film until the power goes out. Then they move to a drive-in theater and watch the rest of the film. Jake, drunk and despondent, kills himself (intentionally or not) by driving his sports car into the movie screen.

Below is a playlist I put together of the four scenes I could find from the movie in the order I suspect they occur. The first is the screening. The second is Jake’s arrival at the party with his protege Brooks Otterlake (played by director Peter Bogdanovich). The third is a pretty explicit sexual scene in the movie Jake is making. The fourth is two conversions, one between two of Jake’s friends (directors Henry Jaglom and Paul Mazursky) and one with one friend (director Dennis Hopper); they are often talking to Jake who is always off screen. Every one of these scenes is thrilling. You ought to be able to tell why one thing I want to do before I die is see this whole film.

[1] Regular readers of this site should know two things about me: I’m a nut for Don Quixote and I greatly admire Orson Welles. It should thus be a powerful statement when I say that Welles’ Don Quixote is almost unwatchable. There is, however, this one moment of brilliance which is not in the released film. The clip is silent. The music the poster put on it is not appropriate (it sounds like Nico).

In addition to everything else, this clip shows that Welles really understood Don Quixote.

Right now, I’m reading Four Plays: A Thought in Three Parts, Marie and Bruce, Aunt Dan and Lemon, the Fever by Wallace Shawn. The first, A Thought in Three Parts is disturbing in the extreme. It is all about how people are incapable of connecting with each other, despite all their external attempts. The second part is so pornographic that I wonder how it could be produced. But it has been. According to Wikipedia, it “caused a minor uproar in London in 1977 when the production was investigated by a vice squad and attacked in Parliament due to allegedly pornographic content.” Allegedly pornographic content?

It gets worse. Helen proposes a contest to see whether Bob or Dick can ejaculate higher onto her naked body. I forget who won.

Having said all this, Shawn is an extremely interesting writer. I’m sure seeing one of his plays today is very much like what it was to see The Bald Soprano in 1950. But they are in no way easy; they challenge emotionally and intellectually. Most people will not be willing to work as much as these plays require. What’s more, they are not what people who know Wallace Shawn, the film actor, will be expecting. There are no comments on the joys of electric blankets or exasperated inconceivables.

For anyone who likes Shawn or who has been paying any attention to politics over the last 30 years, the following clip is easy. And extremely funny.