Birthday Post: Shelley’s Expulsion

Percy Bysshe ShelleyOn this day in 1811, Percy Shelley was thrown out of Oxford for publishing a little book, The Necessity of Atheism. It’s a notable event in the sense that it shows something that isn’t widely understood: schools are used primarily for the purpose of constraining thought. I remember as I was making my way through college being shocked that many great scientific advancements seemed so obvious. But I eventually learned that, despite the propaganda of the academy, scholars are encouraged to fall in line. Like everywhere else, it is easier to go along to get along.

That doesn’t mean that scholarship doesn’t work. But our colleges are dependent for their very existence on the good will of the power elite. They don’t like academics to shake things up. In general, that doesn’t affect the sciences as much as it does other areas of study. But most of all, they don’t like anything that will challenge their power. That’s why global warming is a far more contentious issue than quantum mechanics.

Historically, religion has been one of the greatest tools for maintaining the status quo. Even today in America, I hear people justify the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor in moral terms. It’s a great way to stop people from asking questions, “Things are this way because God wants them that way!”

Of course, Shelley did a lot more than just question the existence of God. He questioned the existence of free will. That is a much more frightening idea to the power elite. If we are not responsible for our thoughts and actions, then there is no justification for massive inequality. The basis of capitalism is the idea that incentives matters. If that isn’t true, there isn’t much left to justify it.

I’m sure that Shelley would have agreed with me. He was a political radical. I still think it is amazing that these people living 200 years ago were miles past where most Americans are today in terms of politics. It speaks well of him that he got himself kicked out of college. Good job!

Happy birthday Percy Shelley’s expulsion!

Why Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! Is a Great Film

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!As I was writing the birthday post for Russ Meyer, I managed to get myself sucked into watching Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! My plan was just to watch a bit of it to get reacquainted with it. But I couldn’t stop watching it. It really is a shockingly good movie.

Let me run down the plot for you so that this is clear to those who haven’t seen the film — or at least not in a while. It starts with the three women dancing in a go-go club. The men are the way men tend to be in those places. That’s just set up. The film cuts immediately to the three dancers driving around rural California in her own sports cars. They end up at a spot used by people to race cars where they meet a young couple, Tommy and Linda. The leader of the dancers, Varla (Tura Satana), ends up killing Tommy, and drugging and kidnapping Linda. When they stop to get gas, they find out about an old crippled man who is supposed to have lots of money on his farm.

The dancers go to the farm looking for the money. We find out that the old man became crippled while saving a beautiful young woman from a train. The woman caught the next train — probably because that was why she was at the train station to begin with. But as a result, the old man has a raging hatred of beautiful women who remind him of this incident. So apparently, he has his mentally limited beefcake younger son kill such women while he watches, getting some thrill out of it.

Although it’s totally pulp fiction, it also has remarkably well formed and motivated characters — always fully in keeping with the genre. This allows for the psychopathic lead, Varla (Tura Satana), to be matched with an equally (or more) evil antagonist, the old man (Stuart Lancaster). So the emotional core of the film exists in the supporting cast who are all sympathetic in their ways — victims of circumstances.

The best example of this is Rosie (Haji), Varla’s first lieutenant or enforcer or whatever you want to call her. Although she spends much of the first half of the film arguing that they just kill Linda, the young girl they kidnapped, Rosie never really kills anyone. She does run over the old man, but clearly against her will. The film goes to great pains to show that Rosie’s motivation is that she’s in love with Varla. As such, she is clearly the most tragic character in the film, and arguably the most sympathetic. Who hasn’t fallen in love with the wrong person?

Rosie is also the most intelligent and analytical of the three dancers. Varla, of course, is just a psychopath who has little interest in anything but demonstrating her power over those around her. She’s an interesting contrast to Billie who just wants to have a good time. But Varla and Billie are just alike in never thinking much about the future. They both would have been better off if they had listened to Rosie — something neither of them ever did.

Rosie is matched on the farmer side by the old man’s elder song Kirk (Paul Trinka). His commitment to his family has resulted in his father planning to kill him. He is mocked for reading books. (Nerds as noble characters is a constant thread in Meyer’s work.) He tries to limit the damage done by his father. And once it becomes clear that the kidnapped girl Linda is threatened by both his father and Varla, he spends the rest of film trying to protect her.

Interestingly, Kirk is also attracted to Varla in an unhealthy way. When she seduces him because she wants to get information about where the old man’s money is hidden, Kirk gets some of the best dialog in the whole film. After telling Varla that she is like his father in most ways, he explains why he is there kissing her, “Because you’re a beautiful animal. And I’m weak, and I want you.” But unlike Rosie, Kirk is not a tragic character because he is able to move beyond his attraction to Varla to actively fight against her.

The other aspect of the film that is really interesting is that it is fundamentally a feminist vision of the world. It isn’t just the portrayal of the physical power of the three lead women. Nor is it that men are largely portrayed as obnoxious and weak. But the film does seem to be saying that the only reason that women don’t completely dominate the world is because they haven’t chosen to do so. But the best reflection of the feminist basis of the film is found in the ending.

The last 20 minutes of Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! is setting up a final confrontation between Kirk and Varla. Kirk and Linda have been fleeing across the desert. Varla, after killing everyone else, uses the family truck to track down Kirk and Linda. Varla and Kirk fight with obvious results: Kirk is about to die, just like Tommy did at the start of the film. So Linda runs to the truck and starts it up. This gets Varla’s attention and she moves toward the truck, allowing Linda to run her down.

This is fairly standard in a movie today. But this was fifty years ago — in 1965. That’s the year when the top five grossing films were: The Sound of Music, Doctor Zhivago, Thunderball, Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines, and everyone’s favorite, That Darn Cat! What’s more, when I see a strong female character in most movies today, I don’t usually believe it. It is proforma: stuck in the film the same way that the eccentric sidekick is. It’s movie writing via Mad Libs. Russ Meyer offers something more.

I first saw Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! 20 years ago. I thought it was an amazing film then. But it has only improved over time. I really don’t understand why it isn’t a more widely admired film. There doesn’t seem to be any rational reason why Criterion Collection hasn’t released it with film scholar commentaries. So it must be that there is an irrational reason: it’s a Russ Meyer film. It’s exploitation. It has big breasted women who show them off. But I think there is something more: our society hasn’t even caught up to where Russ Meyer was in 1965.

Venezuela’s Continuous Coup

Alfredo LopezThe evidence is overwhelming that the rich and powerful of Venezuela have followed a continuous, constantly morphing plan to de-stabilize the country and take over the government by any means necessary and that the United States government knows about that plan, supports it and, as much as it can, is assisting in it…

Everything about Venezuela — including its progress and successes, its growing status as a leader in its continent and its difficulties, stumbles, and failures — is driven by two realities. One is its government’s commitment to a genuine program of fundamental political and economic change and the other is an equally committed effort to sabotage that program and overthrow this government.

Is there a coup planned in Venezuela? All the time.

—Alfredo Lopez
Venezuela’s Continuous Coup

David Cameron Lies About UK Economic History

Simon Wren-LewisAh, the good old days! That was when conservatives everywhere resorted speaking in only sentences that consisted of a noun, verb, and “Greece.” Every conservative policy under the sun had to be enacted or: “We’ll turn into Greece!” Well my friends, now United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron is back with a shocking bit of noun, verb, and “Greece” propaganda. While in Brussels to discuss matters related to the Ukraine, he took a moment to talk about domestic matters, because he’s afraid that the conservatives might not win the upcoming election. And so he lied in a very big way, claiming, “When I first came here as prime minister five years ago, Britain and Greece were virtually in the same boat, we had similar sized budget deficits. The reason we are in a different position is we took long-term difficult decisions and we had all of the hard work and effort of the British people. I am determined we do not go backwards.”

Translation: we screwed our people and claimed it was for their own good; those lazy Greeks didn’t do it and look at what a mess their country is today; and vote conservative because we are doing everything right! Except that isn’t at all the case. Luckily, Simon Wren-Lewis is around to strike back, Controlling the Past. But before I get to what he wrote, I want to talk about something he barely mentioned, because he’s a real economist writing for other real economists and so assumes everyone knows: currency.

The United Kingdom, like the United States, has its own currency. So it is much easier for it to bounce back after a crisis, because other currencies will simply rise relative to it. But for a country like Greece that shares the euro with most of its trading partners, there can be no currency devaluation. Thus there is far more disruption as wages have to go down. Basically, Greece is stuck with using Germany’s valuable currency. So this made it infinitely easier for the UK to weather the 2008 financial crisis. And it is the reason that Greece should never have been used as a scare tactic for the UK and the United States. What happened to Greece simply couldn’t happen to the UK and US.

But let’s get to the bulk of Wren-Lewis’ article. It focused on the claim that “Britain and Greece were virtually in the same boat.” Is that true? Not even close:

The real travesty however is in the implication that somehow Greece failed to take the “difficult decisions” that the UK took. “Difficult decisions” is code for austerity. A good measure of austerity is the underlying primary balance. According to the OECD, the UK underlying primary balance was -7% in 2009, and it fell to -3.5% in 2014: a fiscal contraction worth 3.5% of GDP. In Greece it was -12.1% in 2009, and was turned into a surplus of 7.6% by 2014: a fiscal contraction worth 19.7% of GDP! So Greece had far more austerity, which is of course why Greek GDP has fallen by 25% over the same period. A far more accurate statement would be that the UK started taking the same “difficult decisions” as Greece took, albeit in a much milder form, but realized the folly of this and stopped. Greece did not get that choice.

So in addition to not having its own currency, Greece enacted more than five times as much austerity as the United Kingdom did. But it is those noble pasty white Brits who did the hard work. This is very clearly meant to both stroke the ego of the British public and to make them feel that the very real pain they’ve been put through was for a reason (it wasn’t). The point of all this is to change the narrative of the past so that the current government looks good. And they want to push the idea that the same old conservative policies that they are always for are what we should thank for the better economic times. It’s ridiculous.

Education “Reform” and Teacher Shortages

No Child Left Behind - Mike Keefe

I don’t write as much as I should about education. The reason is that it greatly depresses me. The education “reform” movement is so pernicious and so powerful that it is hard not to think that all is lost. Here in the United States, this movement seems focused on destroying teacher unionization more than anything else. And as always when there is an attack on worker rights, the quality of jobs goes down. Even the most idealistic of those in the “reform” movement seem only interested focusing on test scores because that is something that is easy and quantifiable. It’s the old story of the drunk looking for her keys far away from where she lost them because “the light’s better here.”

Stephen MucherLast week, Stephen Mucher, the director of Bard College’s “master of arts in teaching” program, wrote an important article, The Teaching Crisis That Unions and School Districts Won’t Address. It contains some amazing information in it. For example, “Since 2008, enrollment in teacher education programs in California is down 53%, and other bellwether states report a similar trend.” This trend is — Oh, what is the word?! — predictable. Let’s think about this for a moment.

The nation as a whole wants better teachers for our children. Everyone at least gives lip service to the idea that great teachers have a huge effect on our children. And the solution that we’ve come up with is: test the children more, over-structure classroom time, and vilify teachers. Oh, and don’t forget: get rid of their unions, decrease worker protections, and lower their salaries. That’s clearly not the way to get better teachers working in our schools. In fact, it is a recipe for destroying good teachers that are already working.

So what is it like to be a teacher?

Historically, teachers are happier than other professionals. Teaching ranks high on measures that gauge an employee’s sense of purpose and social impact… But this powerful incentive to join a field dedicated to public service is increasingly offset by other concerns.

Asked, for example, whether their “opinions seem to count” in the workplace, teachers ranked dead last among surveyed professions. Asked whether supervisors create a workplace that is “open and trusting,” teachers gave their field similarly low marks.

It is hard to see the whole of the education “reform” movement as having any philosophy other than, “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” Now Mucher isn’t specifically talking about the “reform” movement. But the focus on testing and the vilification of teacher unions is all coming from the “reform” movement. And the “reform” movement goes where the money pushes it. And the money comes from the same people who moved our manufacturing jobs overseas. They want to do for education what they’ve done for the rest of the economy: turn teachers into low paid cogs, who can be plugged into any educational machine.

Mucher is clear as to what needs to be done. In addition to “competitive salaries, benefits and better working conditions” teachers need their jobs to be fulfilling:

Our most promising educators crave work that honors their creativity and intellect. They are suspicious of easy answers. They need to hear more than the cliche that a great teacher can make a difference in a student’s life. They want to know whether this profession will make a difference in their own life.

No surprisingly, Diane Ravitch had a few choice words to say about all this. She noted something that is telling, “I doubt that most critics would know how to teach a classroom of 30 children of any age, but they feel emboldened to complain about those who do it every day.” I think that is part of the problem with the way that Americans look at teaching: they think it is something that anyone could do — very much the way that they think about politics. I’m not sure where they get this idea, except that Americans just have a tendency to devalue the work done by anyone. To me, the kind of teachers that the “reform” movement is crying out for practice the easiest kind of teaching.

What we end up with is a system that claims it wants Alfie Kohn acolytes in the classroom to stimulate and broaden the minds of children, but it wants to check in every two months to make sure that all the children have learned how to spell certain words and know the dictated parts of the multiplication table. That doesn’t work. But as I’ve said before, education “reform” has little or nothing to do with improving education, What Is the Goal of Education Reform? Since the real problems in our educational system are not being dealt with, it isn’t too surprising that the “reform” movement is only managing to make things worse.

Morning Music: Carol Kaye

Carol KayeToday, the legendary session bass player Carol Kaye is 80 years old. In the 1950s, she was a bebop jazz guitarist — working a lot in Los Angeles. But in 1957, she just happened to start working in the studio on the first Sam Cooke album. The following year, she created that great guitar part for Ritchie Valens’ hit “La Bamba.” It actually sounds a lot like a bass part, so it isn’t surprising that she went on to be known primarily as a bass player.

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the bass and the generally poor sound quality of YouTube videos, it is hard to find a song to highlight her. Although if you want, you can check out this amazing video of Kaye at 65 years old playing with Steve Bailey and Victor Wooten jamming at a National Association of Music Merchants meeting. The music isn’t that interesting, but it is amazing to hear all these musical titans playing together. She still has it.

Here she is playing bass on Joe Cocker’s version of “Feelin’ Alright”:

35 Years Without Óscar Romero

Oscar RomeroAs I’ve expanded exactly what a birthday post is, it was inevitable that I would finally get to deaths. But today we have a special death. On this day 35 years ago, Archbishop Óscar Romero was assassinated. I can’t think about him without thinking of Glenn Beck’s rant about how people should leave their churches if they hear any talk of “social justice.” It isn’t like it shocked me. I am well aware that a whole lot of American Christians think that religion has nothing to do with politics, except in the sense that Jesus was a big believer in capitalism. But clearly, Christianity was, from its earliest days, a political movement.

I don’t think that Romero saw what he was doing as being anything outside what the best priests had always done. Back in January, I wrote, Religion Is Politics. It was about how the Catholic Church, after 20 years of dithering, decided to say that Romero was a martyr to the faith. For all this time, there have been conservatives in the Vatican who wanted to deny him because they don’t believe in his politics. They are the Glenn Becks of the Catholic Church. As I wrote:

But mostly what churches do is political. And they are right in the thick of it. “Blessed are the meek” (Matthew 5:5) is a political statement. “Turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) is a political statement. And the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) is a political statement. Yes, those are all from the Sermon on the Mount. It is the best thing in the Bible and it is entirely political.

This gets to the heart of what religion is all about. Generally speaking, when religions start, they are revolutionary. But they are quickly tamed and used for the purposes of those in power. A small but important minority never lose sight of the reasons that people came to the faith to begin with. And they push back against power. The question we should ask is why there are not more religious leaders like Óscar Romero. The Catholic Church has produced more pedophiles in the priesthood than it has men who truly care about Jesus’ mission. And that makes Romero all that much more special.

I can’t exactly celebrate this anniversary. The world became much worse when Romero was assassinated. But I mark the date and honor the man.

The Devil and Daniel Webster

The Devil and Daniel WebsterI saw the DVD The Devil and Daniel Webster at the library today, so I grabbed it. It is one of those titles that stand out as something you must have seen but have no memory of. On reading the case, I realized that I hadn’t seen it. But it was irresistible. It was yet another story about a man who sells his soul to the devil. I think I have a special love for that plot because it is so problematic. In almost all cases, it depends upon some trick to get the hero out. And when it is a tragedy, as with Dr Faustus, it has the problem of being silly. What person who believes in God would sell his soul for 26 years? Or seven years, as is the case with this film.

As with Dr Faustus, it is far easier to side with the Devil than it is to side with the protagonist, Jabez Stone. In fact, the contract with the Devil seems to be the least of his concern. He turns into a truly vile human being — only seeing the error of his ways in the final hour or so before the Devil comes to collect his soul. Such redemption comes easy as the people who love him quickly forgive him. That leaves only for the family friend Daniel Webster to come to the rescue and defend him in front of a kangaroo court. Frankly, the only reason that I cared was because Webster had to put up his soul in exchange for Devil’s allowing the trial. Stone’s redemption didn’t much matter at that point.

The film was made in 1941 — released just two months before the United States entered World War II. And it is a curious mix of New Deal patriotism. It clearly vilifies money, and goes to great lengths to claim that the problem isn’t money itself. I think what the film is trying to say is that money is going to corrupt anyone who isn’t as great as Daniel Webster. Overall, it is a very liberal film. At one point Webster notes that political freedom means nothing if you don’t have personal freedom. That’s an idea that has lost all its currency in modern America. Now it seems that Americans think everyone is free, even if they can’t find a job and can’t pay their bills. That’s no kind of freedom.

The best line in the film goes to the Devil himself. Webster claims that the Devil has no right to take Stone because the Devil isn’t an American. The Devil claims he is very much American. As proof he says, “When the first wrong was done to the first Indian, I was there. When the first slaver put out for the Congo, I stood on the deck.” Can you imagine the outrage — even among many Democrats — if a major Hollywood film said such a thing today? That’s not the American way! Today, we make films glamorizing psychopaths and weep about how hard a time they have reentering regular society.

It’s an interesting — and in its way a great — film. But it stands out to me as a political document. I wish I could get all Democratic activists to watch it. It shows how liberals can grab onto populism and patriotism. I talked about this with regard to William Jennings Bryan. Patriotism doesn’t have to be stupid. It is just that we’ve allowed the Republicans to claim that theirs is the only kind of patriotism. And that is nothing but the festering corpse of patriotism. It is patriotism used for one purpose: to make the rich and powerful ever more rich and powerful. Shame on us liberals for allowing that to happen. We aren’t channeling Daniel Webster and we’ve allowed the Devil to take control of our country.

Afterword

The real Daniel Webster was a great man. However, in his later years, his lust for the presidency did cause him to abandon the “common man” who he had spent most of his career working for. It seems the Devil eventually got to him. But this isn’t the Daniel Webster I am talking about above.

On Commitments to Political Constituencies

Daniel O'ConnellI am the more confirmed in this determination by everything I see and hear in this country. Their statesmen in and out of office have their minds too occupied with English and foreign affairs to have either leisure or inclination to be troubled with the wants of Ireland or the rights of her people. I solemnly declare my conviction that the senate of Petersburg or the divan of Constantinople would be as ready to attend to the grievances of Ireland as the British House of Commons. There is an utter ignorance of, and indifference to, our sufferings and privations. It is really idle to expect that it could be otherwise! What care they for us, provided we be submissive, pay the taxes, furnish recruits for the Army and Navy and bless the masters who either despise or oppress or combine both? The apathy that exists respecting Ireland is worse than the national antipathy they bear us.

—Daniel O’Connell
Letter to TM Ray, 1839

No Girls Allowed: Gamergate and Privilege

No Girls AllowedI don’t stay up much on the whole gamergate thing, for reasons that will become clear enough in a moment. But I found Todd VanDerWerff’s article over at Vox interesting, Gamergaters Don’t Think It’s About Ethics in Journalism. They Think It’s About Colonialism. For those of you who are blessed with having never heard about it, gamergate is basically a great big whine on the part of the traditional gaming community who think that the girls and the darkies are going to pollute the insular fun of their Call of Duty games. I think the best way to think of gamergate is to imagine three ten-year-old boys inside a tree fort with a sign on the outside that reads, “No girls allowed.”

This article is in reference to an article by Gita Jackson at Boing Boing, We Are Not Colonists. According to her, the traditional gamers feel as though they are settlers of a world with their distinct culture. And now, they feel all these “foreign” elements are coming in and taking over. This is, of course, a ridiculous notion. No one is trying to stop people from getting their vile kicks from Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto.

I think the “colonization” paradigm is a useful one. But it describes the situation from the inside. Jackson asked the question, “Are there ‘natives’ to non-physical spaces?” Of course there aren’t. What makes one a native is to be born and raised in a place. These gamers are just as much immigrants as anyone else. But most of all, no one is taking anything from these guys:

Colonialism historically removed power from minority groups, stripping them of their homes and cultures. But no matter how many thinkpieces on gender and race and sexuality in games get written, there will be a new Call of Duty every year. For every Twine game, there are thousands of bros who will buy the next hot AAA release without reading a single review.

But I also think it is simpler than this. The complaints of the gamers are exactly the complains of any group with power that sees that power threatened. It is really just about privilege. I don’t think the irony is missed on anyone that these aggrieved games are generally straight white mans of the middle class and up. The whole of gamergate can be seen as a microcosm of the American power elite’s clinging to power — or a replay of the aggrieved white male of the 1970s, trying to deal with the increasing public power of women.

From what I can tell, the ultimate fear of these basement dwellers is that people are starting to look down on them. And I think they are right. I think the portrayal of women in almost every game I’ve ever seen will gradually be seen sort of like Playboy magazine. But having the world think that you aren’t creepy, immature, or both is not something anyone has a right to expect. But expecting things you have no right to is the very definition of privilege.

Latin Mottoes and Conservative Outrage

Vermont SealVia The Vermont Political Observer, we learn that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. Go read the article and the ones before it — it’s fascinating. But the basic story is that an eighth grader who was studying Latin noticed that Vermont did not have a Latin motto. So she requested that Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning pass a law to add one. And it was a really great on: Stella quarta decima fulgeat, which means “May the fourteenth star shine bright,” a reference to Vermont’s status as the fourteenth state. But since I’m writing about this, you probably already know what happened.

People heard that the Senate was trying to create a Latin motto and they freaked out. Let’s list some of the more amusing comments:

  • Kevin P Hahn: “How about ‘go back south of the boarder'” [The Swiss border? The Austrian border? Or just that short Italian boarder who stays with us on weeknights?]
  • Phil Salzano: “My question is, are we Latin, or are we Vermonters? Alright then, English it is…” [Even better: make it Vermontish.]
  • Zeb Swierczynski: “ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!! sick and tired of that crap, they have their own countries.” [Well, had.]

This last one goes along with a number about how people need to know how to speak English. This is curious, because the original use of the word “illiterate” was to describe someone who could not read and write Latin. It is also funny how many people claimed that poor Senator Benning was “dumb” and “idiotic.” If ignorance is bliss, these must be some of the happiest people in the world!

What bothers me most about these reactions is that it shows that many Americans don’t even value the European traditions that they so often use to attack other cultures. So it is no longer a question of the United States being the most recent and greatest expression of western culture, it is that the United States is just this singularity that has no beginning and no end but rather just is. This represents a very big problem for me. I still think that there is much to be said about the “great books” approach to education. I want to be more inclusive, but I understand the wish to celebrate the western journey from Homer to Virgil to Dante — Greek to Latin to Italian. But to not know that intellectual history is submental and does not speak well of the United States as the greatest empire in human history.

Digby noted something else: “the conflation of Muslim with Mexican.” But it isn’t limited to that. To these people, all that seems to matter is that these other places are foreign. These are the same people, after all, who hated France because its government didn’t go along with our government in the invasion of Iraq. The only foreign country these people like is Israel, and that’s quite recent. And the only reason they like Israel is because it kills a lot of people who these conservatives hate even more.

An eighth grader requesting that the state create a Latin motto is a great example of American ideals. The negative reaction to it is a great example of American reality: ignorance, fear, and hatred under the guise of patriotism. It’s also the predictable outcome of our terrible educational system. But conservatives want to “fix” this system by making it even worse. Don’t let students know about the actual history of the world. Just start with Thanksgiving (1%), run through the Revolutionary War (50%), teach the Civil War as unnecessary because slavery was dying anyway (20%), explain how the income tax is unconstitutional (10%), and jump right to how Ronald Reagan saved the nation (19%). Give a multiple choice test and call it, “Education!” We don’t need no stinkin’ Latin!

Morning Music: Mozart

Kalle RandaluI think we desperately need a little Mozart this morning. And I’ll tell you, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik seems like the perfect thing. All those counterpoint lessons really paid off late in his career. Yet in his hands, it doesn’t seem at all technical. It’s pure brilliance, which is why well over two centuries after its composition, literally every person I’ve ever met knows it. And thus, I don’t think we need to listen to it. (But if you prefer, YouTube has Les Dissonances doing a very capable job of it.)

Instead, let’s listen to the last movement of Mozart’s Piano concerto No 15. Here is a delightful performance by the Estonian pianist Kalle Randalu. He isn’t nearly as old as he looks. But then, he’s a lot older than he plays. It is beautiful: