A lot of people are talking about Andrew Breitbart dying. In general, the script goes something like this: I disagreed with him, but he wasn’t who he appeared to be; the private man was different and I morn his death. The problem with this is that no one would be talking about Breitbart if it weren’t for his public image. I don’t know the private Andrew Breitbart. For all I know, he was a great guy. I can only talk about the public Andrew Breitbart, both because that’s all I know and because that’s the only person anyone reading this will care about. And that Andrew Breitbart was a lie propagating fear monger.

I can imagine what it is like for his family. The man was only 43! It must be shocking and painful for them. It must be a horrible blow to all of his personal acquaintances.

But for the world? Unfortunately, the institutions Breitbart created (Big Government and so on) will go on spreading lies and fear. I’m sure we will continue to suffer along with James O’Keefe for many years to come with the mainstream media ever willing to accept new stunts by this serial-liar. In that way, Breitbart lives on. And that’s bad. But I expect that these ventures of his will lose much of their gloss; they will have less influence. Also, Breitbart won’t be around to go on supposedly liberal news programs to justify his propaganda, as he did last year defending the Sherrod video on ABC News. For these reasons, we can be very glad that he is gone.

Andrew Breitbart didn’t have to die in order to stop having a pernicious effect on our culture. He could even have had a political awakening, like David Brock. But he did die. And I just don’t see the down side for our culture.

Update

Matt Yglesias tweeted: Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.

A friend told me that she was going to punish her girls for fighting by having them write a song about sisterhood. Yes, she is a cruel woman. This caused me to do a Google video search on the phrase “sisterhood song.” It turned up this. (Don’t click on it!) I wasn’t ten seconds into it before I had to stop it. It was that bad.

I was just trying to help and just look what happens. I offered up some potential lyrics the girls might use. I thought she might be looking for something along these lines: “See my sister / See her shot! / See you sit / And stink and rot!” Surprisingly (or not) she indicated that this was exactly what she was looking for.

Marvin Gaye

In order to detox from listening to ten seconds of “Sisterhood Song,” I turned to a master.

The video below is an amazing live version of Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On from the DVD Marvin Gaye: The Real Thing – In Performance 1964-1981. As I was watching it, I noted that the video had been voted, “26,970 likes, 304 dislikes.” I thought, “What the hell?! How could 304 people dislike this?” I’m sure that the people who clicked “dislike” were not really discerning listeners. Instead, I suspect they were people who like a different kind of music. What’s more, I’m sure they are people who only like one different kind of music.

I was encouraged to note that the top rated comment by W1nky13 was, “302 dislikes, WTF, There sure are some losers out there, this is the best fuckin video on youtube.”

If you read this whole article, I will reward you with a cartoon. But I know what you’re thinking, “I can just skip down to the cartoon and read it now!” Silly reader! You won’t be able to understand it without reading this article. Unless you know a lot about map projections. You don’t, do you? I’ll bet you don’t know anything, and now that I’ve turned off comments, I don’t even have to risk hearing that I’m wrong!

Projection Wars

Imagine that you are part of a group that works for pedestrian rights. For years, you’ve been lobbying the government to get rid of the “right turn on red light” law because it is so dangerous for pedestrians. Then this guy, who has no connection with your group, holds a press conference. He says, “This ‘right turn on a red light’ is madness! It must be changed. All these pedestrian rights people are wrong for supporting this law all these years.” You’d be pissed off at the guy, right?

That’s what happened in 1973, when Arno Peters held a press conference to blast the cartography profession and propose his new projection. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Map Projections

The world is spherical—or very nearly: it is wider in the middle than from top to bottom, just like many people my age. Maps are flat, and despite what the flat earth society might tell you (there really is one), the earth is not. So in order to translate the 3D globe onto a 2D page, compromises must be made.

There are hundreds of different map projections. Wikipedia lists almost 100 specifically. Why? Because each one has its advantages. For example, the Mercator projection (the one you probably think of when you think of a world map) is great for use in navigation. But it is horrible to look at; it greatly distorts the sizes of different places; for example, Greenland is as large as Africa, even though Africa is 14 times as big.

Back to Arno Peters

Arno Peters made a big splash in the 1970s when he came out with his map. It turned out it wasn’t new; James Gall had invented it 120 years earlier, but Peters probably didn’t know about it. What was important was not the details of the map, but why Peters thought a new map was needed.

Peters felt that the Mercator projection had bad political implications. And he was right. Just look at it: the countries surrounding the equator are minimized. Peters map does indeed fix this problem. But he made a lot of other claims for the map that turned out to be false, probably because he was not a cartographer.

The cartography community had long been complaining that the Mercator map was a lousy choice for general-purpose. They attacked back and forth and now, among many people, Peters and his map are vilified. This is wrong, I think. The truth is that Peters was able to do what the cartography community had not been able to do in 400 years: get non-cartographers to care about this issue.

The main problem with the Gall-Peters projection is that it looks kind of odd. The areas may be right, but the shapes are wrong. There are other maps that do the same thing better.

Other Projections

Back in about 100 AD, Marinus of Tyre came up with the projection I would have: meridians become equally spaced up and down lines; circles of latitude become equally spaced right and left lines. It is called the equirectangular or the plate carrée (square plate) projection. Sure, it is not accurate, but it’s easy and it looks pretty good.

The Walter Behrmann projection is really great. It does what the Marinus of Tyre projection does with the meridians, but it squishes the circles of latitude as they get away from the equator. In 2002, the Hobo-Dyer projection was developed based upon the Behrmann projection. How they are different, I don’t know, because I just don’t care that much.

There are, as I’ve noted, lots of other projections. And they all have their uses, even the weird ones, like the Waterman butterfly. (But don’t let the cartoon fool you, the Hobo-Dyer is a lot more recent.)

Randall Munroe Cartoon

Now you know enough to appreciate one of Randall Munroe’s more obscure cartoons—and that’s saying something.

The great affliction of the 20th century was the redemption story. You know it, because you’ve seen it during every episode (and I do mean every episode) of E! True Hollywood Story and Biography. Mr. Neutral does something bad and becomes Mr. Bad. Mr. Bad stops doing bad thing and becomes Mr. Redeemed. And the crowd goes wild!

I despise the redemption story for many reasons. Just on its face, it is artificial: anyone’s story can be cast in this way and that is why the aforementioned TV shows use it. Who has not been led astray, willingly or unwillingly? But even more offensive is the the idea that redemption is even possible. It isn’t. You’ve done what you’ve done. You live with it as best you can. To take an extreme example: there was nothing Hitler could have done to redeem himself. Of course, by Christian dogma, had he found Jesus in the bunker, he’s in heaven right now, enjoying pure ecstasy in the beatific glow of God’s love. How about that?

The 19th century had a different affliction: the redemptionless story. In it, the world is divided into good people and bad people and rarely the twain shall meet.[1] And so it is, in the surprisingly good The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by the lesser Bronte sister Anne.

Make no mistake, I hated this novel. And yet, it was hard to put down. I really think that Anne was the most talented writer of the sisters. She combines the power of Emily with the detail and cunning of Charlotte. Added to that, she doesn’t stick with convention, organizing the novel as a long letter with someone else’s diary stuck in the middle. Although I think that everyone should read Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights if for no other reason than that everyone should know who Rochester and Heathcliff (not the cartoon cat) are, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is probably a better read.

My biggest complaint about the book is that Bronte spends 200 pages—200 pages!—on “my husband is awful!” Yeah. I figured that out. He’s debased, debauched, degraded; perverse, perverted, and decadent; unclean, sick, and rakish; depraved, unwholesome, dissolute; slutty, demoralized, and warped. He’s a libertine, a reprobate. Yes, yes, yes! He’s all this and more synonyms. Get on with it already!

And another thing that really bugged me was in Chapter 15, Graham gives Gilbert her diary, saying, “Bring it back when you have read it; and don’t breathe a word of what it tells you to any living being. I trust to your honor.” Understand: Gilbert is the good guy. What does he do? Only reprint the entire diary for his pen pal! Perhaps it didn’t count because it was written and therefore not a word was literally “breathed”?

The primary annoyance of this really very capable novel is the rigidity of the characters. The only thing the reader has to look forward to is how the good people will finally end up together. In this way, I can see why after years of Jane Austen (who I love) and the Brontes, George Eliot was such a refreshing change of pace. In the end, it must be admitted that English Literature of the 18th century is what we now get from Hollywood. Cervantes and Homer it ain’t.

[1] Sydney “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done” Carton is kind of an exception.

Michael Close is a professional magician and jazz pianist. He is a very impressive guy. What I most like about him is that he works presentations until they are finally tuned—more finely tuned than just about any other magician around. He is also an innovator. One of his effects—the pothole trick—moves a hole punched in a business card around the card and then onto another card. It is amazing and the presentation is wonderful.

Here he is doing an excellent presentation to a really simple—even brain-dead—effect:

Most of Close’s work has been published in 5 volumes of a series he calls Workers. They are all good and I’ve purchased them all twice, because I have a habit of loaning out books to people who don’t return them. Other than effects, Close also provides essays that are always worth reading. Oh, that they were required reading of anyone who ever might show me a magic trick! Mostly these essays are very useful. But not always.

In Volume 3 of the series, Close provides a “sermon” that he calls “Ethics.” In it, he argues that it is wrong to copy his books. And it is. It bugs me that so many (especially young) people think it is just fine to steal all of their entertain. But I think that Close goes too far. He writes a parenthetical paragraph:

I don’t know about stupid, but Close is clearly presumptuous. I suspect that these young men did what all magic geeks do: loan them to their friends. Does Close really think that these young men should each buy a copy of each of his books and guard them selfishly?

As a matter of fact, based upon email conversations with him in the past, he does think that. He, like many “creators” does not see the bigger picture. For example, in the video he talks about doing a 60 city lecture series. Does he not see that he would not have been paid to do that (and given the enormous financial opportunities that go along with it) if he hadn’t published these books? Or that ten people having seen a single copy of one of his book is ten people far more likely than they would otherwise be to pay to hear him lecture or see him perform? Or that some people buy his books multiple times? (Not that I have anyone specific in mind!)

This is the lesson that independent musicians have learned. Any artist can complain about every unit they don’t sell. But when they behave this way, they lose something much more dear than a buck in royalties; they lose good will. And the truth is that I would never go to see Michael Close, because to me, he will always be an angry old man. It doesn’t matter that he’s not angry at me or even that he’s gotten over this. I will always hold his books in high esteem, but as a person: he’s ruined his brand. For me, anyway; you might still want to see him.