Martin Bashir Fired, MSNBC Sucks

Martin BashirJust in case you didn’t know it, liberals are a bunch of spineless fucks who have no loyalty at all. MSNBC has fired Martin Bashir for his comment about Sarah Palin. I’m sure the network will claim that he is resigning or whatever, but we all know the truth. As you all know, after the incident, I wrote, Martin Bashir Was Wrong to Apologize. And I noted in that article that Bashir offered the best public apology I had ever heard. That should have been the end of the story.

But MSNBC has always been a terrible network. They have some good people, but the network does not support them. They are also not very smart. It was a bad idea to move Chris Hayes from Up, where he was the perfect host. Steve Kornacki, who now hosts the show, is ill-suited to it. He is much better on a weeknight hour-long show like All In. Then, of course, there was MSNBC‘s unconscionable treatment of Ed Schultz. The firing of Alec Baldwin after five episodes was just pathetic. Meanwhile, they hold onto Lawrence O’Donnell, one of the most self-important and annoying people on cable news. They allow Rachel Maddow to focus on gay and reproductive rights almost to the exclusion of anything else. Not to mention her schoolgirl naivete about sex scandals. Apparently, they are tutoring Chris Hayes to be more combative to bring up his disappointing ratings. And don’t get me started about The Cycle.

I’ve been having problems with MSNBC for some time, but this is the last straw. I simply will not watch the network anymore—ever. And I encourage everyone else to do the same. Al Jazeera America is now widely available on cable. Go to their site and see if it is available for you. It does a much better job than any of the big three American cable news channels. Also, check out Sam Seder’s Majority Report and The Young Turks. These are both excellent resources.

There is another problem with MSNBC. I never learn anything. They just cover stories that I’ve read about earlier in the day. They were fine background noise for the time that I was cooking. But they certainly didn’t present stories that provided new insight. And when there was breaking news, they turned into a slightly more boring version of CNN. Oh! And have you noticed how much they hock all the pathetic books they publish? Most recently it’s been, Tip and the Gipper—a book with the intelligence and gravitas of Sarah Palin’s Good Tidings and Great Joy. Hard hitting journalism that!

MSNBC is dead to me. Maybe Martin Bashir can move to Al Jazeera America.

Afterword

It is also true that since MSNBC changed its website, everything is fucked up. All In can go days before posting shows. No one on MSNBC has any right to complain about HealthCare.gov.

Update (4 December 2013 6:30 pm)

I just found an excellent article by Justin Baragona that said much the same thing I did when Bashir apologized, Did Martin Bashir Really Need to Apologize to Sarah Palin? It makes it all the more ridiculous given that even after a very real apology—the kind we never get from the right—Bashir is fired:

Bashir contritely and professionally offered a full apology to Sarah Palin. He seemed legitimately sorry for his choice of words and stated that he would make sure to carry himself in a more mannered, adult way in the future. The sad thing here is that Palin’s idiotic statements get swept under the rug, as she now continues with her well-worn brand of victimology. It is always about poor little Sarah getting picked on by the big, bad liberals. It doesn’t matter that she is a polarizing idiot that says dumb, offensive things and helps push the Tea Party’s barely-masked racist agenda against this president.

No, the main thing here is to make sure that Palin is treated with respect, even when she never shows any herself. It is perfectly fine for Palin to constantly insult and denigrate POTUS, liberals, Democrats and anyone that just doesn’t agree with her. Why? Because they deserve it, that’s why! However, let anyone truly dig into her and take her to task for the ignorant, hateful a-hole she really is, then out comes the victim mentality. Her and her supporters immediately cry ‘sexism’ and immediately blame the ‘lamestream’ media for allowing this to happen. And then she gets her apologies. It has all grown so tiresome.

Maybe Bashir was right on Friday. Perhaps he shouldn’t have apologized yesterday. Maybe someone does need to take a big sh*t in Sarah Palin’s mouth. At the very least, it would keep her quiet for a bit.

Update (7 December 2013 7:14 pm)

Here is a discussion on Democracy Now! about the firing of Phil Donahue that I discussed in the comments:

The Myth of Modern Christian Persecution

The Myth of PersecutionI haven’t read Sarah Palin’s new book, Good Tidings and Great Joy. But I’ve skimmed it. It’s hard to take. Yet another book from a Christer claiming to be oppressed because the clerk at Target says, “Happy holidays!” Oh, if Saint Sebastian were alive today, how could he endure? Arrows are one thing, but this is war. If nativity scenes aren’t allowed in state courthouses, the baby Jesus pees blood. It’s a God damned shame!

Palin’s book is a good companion to a book I actually did read, Candida Moss’ The Myth of Persecution. Moss is a Christian herself and she thinks all of this nonsense of Christian martyrdom is bad for the religion. A professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, she knows what she’s talking about. It turns out that all that business of Christians being fed to the lions is a myth. Well, it’s a myth in the sense that they weren’t fed to these beasts because they were Christians. Lots of people were so abused. When Christians were killed, it was generally because they broke the law. The early Christians were a radical group, many of them would today be called terrorists.

So I love Bruce Cockburn’s excellent song “Wondering Where the Lions Are,” but it’s a crock:

Consider our old friend Saint Sebastian. His story is so filled with clear folklore, that it is hard to take any of it seriously. He made the mute talk and the blind see. Merely hearing about his acts of healing caused people to be healed. But here’s the thing. He was a captain in the Praetorian Guard, serving under Emperor Diocletian. Now the Christians will have you believe that Diocletian got mad at Sebastian because he was converting people to Christianity. But that doesn’t appear to be what was going on at all. For example, he converted Chromatius who then set all of his prisoners free from jail and resigned. That’s the sort of thing that would get a soldier court-martialed today.

So Diocletian basically sentenced Sebastian to death (or perhaps just torture) by having him tied to a tree and having his men shoot arrows at Sebastian. Left for dead, he survived and was nursed back to health. So Sebastian presented himself to Diocletian to rub his nose in the fact that he was still alive. So the emperor had his men beat Sebastian to death and throw his body in the sewer. God did not heal him from this. Of course, we don’t know that any of this is even true. Sebastian was never even discussed until a century after this all supposedly happened. The point is that the story is supposed to show Christians being persecuted for their faith when, if anything, they were persecuted for being dicks and rabble rousers.

This mythology of the early Christians being persecuted did lead to actual martyrdom later on, because myths matter. If people are told that the best thing they can do is martyr themselves for the cause, there’s no surprise when people do just that. We see the same things today with Muslim martyrs. But when it comes to all of these religious people, any religious persecution was at best isolated and idiosyncratic.

And that brings us back to Sarah Palin. Because of this myth of Christian persecution, she and so many others like her, practice their faiths by pretending that they are some oppressed religious minority. They do this at the same time that they want to claim that America is a Christian Nation. They also love to point out that roughly 80% of the country self-identifies as Christian. I wrote about this last year, Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas. As I said then:

The substitution of “happy holidays” implicitly relegates Christmas to the level of all other seasonal holidays. Christians want to be told that Christmas is more than just their holiday—an expression of their religious belief. They want to be told that Christmas is true—an expression of what God really is and not just their opinion.

A moment’s thought on this issue will show that this is true. But notice how the deconstruction lays bare the absurdity of the request. It is not enough to include Christmas in a greeting, the greeting must single out Christmas because, you know, unlike those other religions, it’s true! Now, I’m as deluded as the next man, but I don’t require that others pander to my delusions.

So that’s what Sarah Palin’s new book is all about. Christmas is not everyone’s holiday. It is the holiday that belongs only to those chosen people who happen to believe in the right God. And the rest of us who are not Christians and who really don’t care are waging a war on Christianity through our indifference. So the myth of the persecution of Christians lives on, but now it has been so debased that cable “news” networks spend whole segments whining about the fact that non-Christians don’t celebrate the winter solstice the “right” way. Proving one’s love to God comes pretty cheap to the modern Christian.

The One Ronnie

Ronnie CorbettOn this day in 1795, the great historian Thomas Carlyle was born. His The French Revolution: A History was the basis for Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. He was a fascinating man. He is probably best known today for coining the term “the dismal science” for economics. And the way most conservatives approach it, it is dismal. The general idea is, “We can do nothing to limit suffering because markets must be ‘free.'” By “free” they mean skewed as to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor.

Paul O’Neill is 78 today. He was Treasury Secretary under Bush Jr. He’s important because he was fired by the Bush administration. No level of incompetence or corruption could get you fired from that administration. But O’Neill did the one thing you just couldn’t do: he told the truth. I don’t actually agree with him. He’s a budget hawk. But he countered the Republicans’ totally unjustified claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. So he had to go. Logic and reason are not allowed when one is down the rabbit hole.

Actor Jeff Bridges is 64. I like him well enough as an actor. However, it’s an outrage that he received the Academy Award for Crazy Heart. In that film, he played a tired cliche (the sympathetic drunk) in an entirely standard way. Steve Buscemi did a far better and more complex job in Trees Lounge. But whatever; the Academy is made up of a bunch of fools anyway. What really bugs me about Jeff Bridges is his voice acting work for television commercials. Bridges is worth something on the order of $30 million. Does he really need to take work away from all the really talented voice actors who are struggling just to get by? I think it is unconscionable. He should be a social pariah for that behavior.

Actor Marisa Tomei is 49. I have liked her in just about everything I’ve seen. I thought her performance in Slums of Beverly Hills was really subtle and wonderful. But I’ll always love her for My Cousin Vinny. In particular, this scene:

Other birthdays: film director Lloyd Bacon (1889); jazz guitarist Jim Hall (83); actor Max Baer Jr (76); and musician Jay-Z (44).

The day, however, belongs to Scottish comedian Ronnie Corbett, who is 83 today. On the show The Two Ronnies, he did these armchair monologues. The idea was that he would tell a joke, but usually the jokes were old and often not funny. What was funny was his monologue leading up to the joke. For Americans, they can be a bit hard to understand because he uses a lot of British jargon. Still, the humor comes through loud and clear. I never really liked the show, but I watched it just to hear these monologues. Here is “The Parrot Joke.”[1]

Happy birthday Ronnie Corbett!


[1] The other parrot joke he is referring to is as follows. It is taken from the website Planned Parrothood, but I’ve edited it to improve it. (I fancy that I tell the joke rather well.)

There was once a magician on a cruise ship who performed mainly sleight of hand tricks. He was part of the ship’s cabaret entertainment. He was actually quite a good magician, but his routines were regularly ruined by the parrot who was part of another performer’s animal act. The parrot would squawk at him from the side of the stage, revealing how his tricks were done.

“Awk, it’s up his sleeve! He put it up his sleeve!” the parrot would squawk.

Or it would burst out, “Awk, there’s a duplicate card! A duplicate card!”

Or, “Awk, he switched the lemon! Switched it for a prepared lemon!”

The magician was getting pretty sick of this and started fantasizing about killing the bird. The next evening right at the climax of his act, just as he was about to do his best trick—the slow motion card vanish, the ship hit an iceberg and sank in seconds.

Amazingly, the magician was the only survivor. As he was lying on a piece of driftwood in a daze, the parrot flew in from out of the blue and landed next to him. The parrot just stared at the magician. This went on for hours. It was like a staring contest: neither the bird nor the magician looked away.

After several hours of this, the parrot finally spoke, “Awk! I give up. What did you do with the ship?”

Here is the slow motion card vanish:

A Better World Without Hitchens

Christopher HitchensThis is amazing. It is an hour long debate between Eric Alterman and Christopher Hitchens. It is mostly a discussion of Hitchens’ support of the Iraq War. The debate takes place right before the 2008 presidential election. It is really worth watching. Alterman is great as usual, and quite reasonable. I don’t completely agree with him; he’s quite a bit more conservative than I am. But Hitchens is just amazing. In this one video, he shows how he had lost all credibility toward the end of his career.

The last decade he was alive, he spent it using his considerable intellect and erudition to avoid admitting that he had been wrong to cheerlead for that war. I won’t take the time, but there must be at least thirty times when he simply lies. (His comment about the Bush administration having to be forced into going to war is contradicted by just about everyone who was around at that time. See, for example, Richard Clarke.) And when he’s not lying, he’s brushing aside important questions with snarky comments. This is a great example of why his death had absolutely no effect on the level of public intellectual discourse. He had long ago gotten out of that business.

It’s interesting that he was an outspoken atheist. First, it was the only thing that kept him relevant in the public. The atheist community found him too amusing to throw away, even though his thinking on religious topics was pathetic. Second, his previous writing in favor of the Iraq War became his own personal Bible. He effectively became an apologist for that corpus. Remember, this is a man who to the end would savage the Ronald Reagan presidency. But he couldn’t say anything bad about Bush. Bush could have been decapitating babies and it would have been okay because he killed that very dangerous man Saddam Hussein. (Funny how the CIA couldn’t be trusted because they over-estimated the strength of the USSR, but Bush is great despite the fact that he over-estimated Hussein hundreds of times worse.)

I’m glad Hitchens is gone (he wouldn’t have to be dead). As a public figure, he was a disaster. He made the world a worse place. Plenty of people do that, of course. But few of them have the brilliance to do good. Christopher Hitchens used his gifts to push for an unnecessary and evil war. And then he spent the rest of his life trying to justify it. He should have either admitted his error or just shut up. We are so much better off without him.

My Creepy People Models

Bunny Slippers and Personality TypesTo some extent, I think that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a load of crap. But then, I think that of just about all tests. Still, these tests can be really helpful in understanding oneself. I test as an INTP (introversion, intuition, thinking, perception). As I’ve gotten older, that “thinking” part has become much less extreme and now I sometimes test as “feeling” instead. This is clearly part of the vagaries of the test. While it is certainly true that I’ve gotten more in touch with my feelings as I’ve gotten older, thinking is still primary.

Let me give you an example, which may creep some of you out if you aren’t of my type. I create mental models of every person I meet. It’s not like a hobby, I just do it automatically and I always have. One of the great delights of my life is when someone I know breaks my model. I immediately begin creating a new model for that person. Most people never break my initial model. The really complex ones do it once. But there is one guy who I went to college with named Mark. He broke my model three times. And I think that makes him the most interesting man in the world, regardless of what beer he drinks.

I fully admit that I’m not a very observant person. But when it comes to little things, I am often shockingly observant. Many people have observed that I won’t notice the most obvious thing in the world but I will notice some little thing they never would have. It’s a little like autism, but let’s not dwell on that. (Although I’m an excellent driver!) So when I make my models of people, they aren’t based on the big picture. I just grab hold of a bunch of little things and try to synthesize them. It is heavily weighted toward the questions that people ask and how they ask them.

Many years ago, I was at a dinner party with David Griffiths. I knew of him because he wrote a very popular intermediate level electromagnetism book that I quite liked. At the party, all he did was ask questions—about everything. He was a knowledge sponge. He really put a lot of people off because they thought he was challenging them. That wasn’t true at all. He was complimenting them. He just assumed that they knew what they were talking about. If it was knitting, he knew he wasn’t an expert, so he assumed the other person was. And from a practical standpoint they were. He quizzed me excessively about the film Citizen Kane. I was thrilled about it; very few people care enough to ask questions about the things you care about. Anyway, clearly, I have a model of him and I doubt if I spent more time with him, it would change. People don’t have to be ineffable to be interesting. It doubtless helps that we are both intellectual sponges, just of different types.

But as I think you can tell from all of this, I may have a thinking tendency—a need to take data and organize it into theoretical models. But this is not Mr. Spock kind of thinking. Regardless, my thinking function is not all that pronounced. What is most pronounced is my “introversion” and “intuition” functions. And that’s why I think I notice the little things but commonly hit my head on clearly visible obstacles. (That is not hyperbole.) So the data I get to work with are fascinating and varied, but not necessarily reliable. Thus the fun of getting to reevaluate an entire person based on the inflection of a single word, as opposed to, say, the corpse rotting in their bathtub that I overlooked.

All of this is to say that I totally have you figured out. Until I don’t. But it will not take long for me once again to have you totally figured out. And that’s all there is to it. Unless you are Mark.

Afterword

Regular readers know how much I love tests! If you want, you can take the test (72 yes/no questions) and then read all about yourself on Wikipedia! History shows that most of the people who can put up with me are INFPs. There are some Ss and Ts in there, but the I and P are extremely common. The J types are far too reasonable to waste time reading me. And the E types have friends to meet at that bar everyone goes to. Or to put it the Frankly Curious way, “The Js are boring and the Es are all drunks!”

A Tale of Two Krauthammers

Charles KrauthammerI’ve been pretty clear about my thinking regarding the filibuster over the years. And most recently, I even discussed the whole question of hypocrisy, arguing that one could reasonably have been in favor of keeping the filibuster in 2005 but be against keeping it now. It absolutely doesn’t work the other way around. Filibuster abuse is far worse now than then. If it was a good idea to get rid of it in 2005, it’s an even better idea now. End of story.

This leads up to that great icon of conservatism Charles Krauthammer. Jonathan Chait was nice enough to do a little Googling for us, Today in Hackery. On 13 May 2005, Krauthammer wrote, Nuclear? No, Restoration.

Two hundred years of tradition has been radically and unilaterally changed by the minority. Why? The reason is obvious. Democrats have not had a very good run recently in the popularly elected branches. Since choosing the wrong side of the culture wars of the 1960s, they have won only three of the past 10 presidential elections. A decade ago they lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years, and now have lost all the elected branches. They are in a panic that they will lose their one remaining ability to legislate—through the courts…

If Republicans accept this kind of deal [the Gang of 14], they are fools. They have a perfectly constitutional, perfectly reasonable case for demanding an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, and they should not be throwing it away for a mess of potage and fuzzy promises…

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What the Democrats have done is radical. What [Republican Majority Leader] Frist is proposing is a restoration.

But it is eight years later. The Republicans now filibuster virtually everything. They commonly filibuster appointees who go on to be unanimously approved. The situation is far, far, far worse than it was in 2005. If what the Democrats were doing then was “radical,” what the Republicans are doing now is “super doubleplus radical.” So he’s all for what Harry Reid did, right? Well, I’ll give you a clue; his Thanksgiving column was titled, An Outbreak of Lawlessness. Ready or not, Dr. Charles Krauthammer:

For all the gnashing of teeth over the lack of comity and civility in Washington, the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of political norms, legislative and constitutional…

A Senate with no rules. A president without boundaries. One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care Web site are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.

Yeah, whatever. In his defense, he’s not being completely hypocritical. Now he’s saying that the problem isn’t getting rid of the filibuster. It is how the filibuster was gotten rid of. The problem is that how the filibuster was removed now is exactly the way it was going to be removed in 2005: the Constitutional option. This is a typical rhetorical device that provides him with wiggle room if anyone confronts him on Fox News.

I know Charles Krauthammer really well. He’s the kind of conservative pundit that my father likes, so I try to stay up on what he’s talking about. I know what appeals to my father. He’s soft spoken. He uses “the other side says” as a rhetorical device that makes him sound like he’s looking at both sides of the argument. But he is just a conservative hack. The right wing is full of them. This is the same game played by George Will, David Brooks, and Avik Roy. It was perfected by William Buckley. But it is all the same. The only time one of these guys goes off script is when one of them finds out one of his kids is gay.

Charles Krauthammer: king of the hacks.

Afterword

Just in case anyone is worried, Charles Krauthammer’s physical problems (he was paralyzed in a swimming accident when he was 20) do not seem to have affected his ability to procreate. He has a son from his marriage four years after the accident. I’m very impressed with how Krauthammer has managed to live his life with his disabilities. It’s just too bad they haven’t made him any less of a right wing hack.

Conservatives Hate Obamacare for No Reason

Cornelius KellyAs you’ve probably heard, the Healthcare.gov website is now working quite well. But I had the unpleasant experience of hearing Charles Krauthammer on Fox News yesterday. Do you know what he was saying about Obamacare and Healthcare.gov? Exactly what he was saying a month ago! Now instead of claiming that Obamacare is hopeless because the website wasn’t working, it is that Obamacare is hopeless because it has a 1% error rate. He even had the pea-brained idea that the government can’t do anything right because Amazon is able to manage a much larger flow of traffic with less difficulty. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Amazon has been in business for almost 20 years. Second, and much more importantly, what Amazon does is trivial compared to what Healthcare.gov does.

The point is that the conservative complaints in general, and the Fox News complaints in particular are of no value. They hate Obamacare and they will attack it no matter what. Their actual argument against healthcare reform is that it taxes the rich and gives health insurance to the poor. But clearly, that won’t fly. Even most die hard Republicans would find that argument repellent. So they use the “government can’t do anything” argument and grasp at any and every problem that comes along. And, let us not forget, they make up problems.

Yesterday, the always great Aaron Carroll wrote, Media Madness, ACA Edition. It was yet another Fox News report about the evils of Obamacare. In this case, it was a couple that couldn’t get insurance for their one and a half year old child because Obamacare mandates that children must be at least two years old before they get insurance. It’s laughable on its face. This is a couple with four children and the insurance company supposedly said, “Father, mother, three kids? Fine. But that toddler? No way!” It turned out that when daddy was filling out the forms, he only listed three of the children, apparently forgetting that he had a fourth.

Of course, that part of the story was not reported on Fox News. Why would it be? It doesn’t make Obamacare look bad. And it isn’t news. I think that everyone knows that if you buy an insurance policy for 5 people, that insurance policy will not cover anyone other than those 5 people. But there’s more to the story. The father is Cornelius Kelly, a prominent member of the Conservative Party of New York State, a group of people who think the Republican Party is too liberal. In 2012, they went after Republicans who voted for same-sex marriage. So clearly, he had an ax to grind against Obamacare.

But that’s the thing: conservatives hate Obamacare. But unlike what they say, they don’t actually think it will be a disaster. They think it will work really well. And that will just show once again that conservatives are against every good policy idea for no reason other than their commitment to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor. But the better Obamacare does, the less we will hear from these people. But it won’t go away completely. There are still conservatives who are trying to dismantle Social Security and that’s been law for almost 80 years!

Afterword

Carroll noted the following that I think can’t be stressed enough:

I’m sorry, but I find it somewhat hypocritical that only now, after decades of about 50 million people being uninsured every year, that suddenly the media is outraged by stories of people (healthy, mind you) having difficulties finding insurance. Really? Suddenly this is an issue? Didn’t seem like it before…

Cause We’re the Fishes

Syd BarrettSince I was quite young, I’ve been a big Syd Barrett fan. For those who don’t know, he was for all intents and purposes the founder of Pink Floyd. And with all due respect to the other members of the band and all the great work they did, it was Barrett who put them on the psychedelic music road that they pursued. Most people just know his work from the first Pink Floyd album The Piper at the Gates of Dawn and the single “See Emily Play.” If you haven’t heard it, you owe it to yourself to. I think it has the seeds of everything good that Pink Floyd would become without the ponderous Roger Waters lyrics that would eventually destroy the band:

Last night, I listened to all four of the other members of the band discuss what Syd Barrett is mostly remembered for: his mental illness. The folklore is that Barrett was an “acid casualty.” He took so much LSD that he went insane. This certainly seems to be what the band members think. But I don’t buy it. No doubt the drugs made his condition worse. But Barrett began showing signs of schizophrenia at exactly the age that the disease manifests. What’s more, schizophrenics tend to gravitate toward drugs such as LSD and amphetamines. So I think it works the other way around. (I just found a good Wikipedia page on the subject: LSD and Schizophrenia that largely agrees with me.)

What was most interesting in the interviews is how much guilt the band members feel about not getting Barrett help. I think that’s valid in the sense that they let him fall in with a bad group who did him harm. But I seriously doubt that professional help would have been beneficial. Even today, I think treatments for schizophrenia are of marginal value. Forty-five years ago it would have been a total waste. The best thing for Barrett was what eventually happened: he returned home and lived with his mother where he lived a quiet life painting, gardening, and writing.

In between his time with Pink Floyd and his retirement, he released two albums The Madcap Laughs and Barrett. I think they are both masterpieces in different ways, although it seems even today that people jeer at the later album. Here is a taste of it, “Golden Hair” with lyrics by James Joyce

But contrast it with the last song on Barrett, the wonderfully silly “Effervescing Elephant”:

But finally, I want to present to you something really special. “Terrapin” is the first song on Barrett’s first album. For those who don’t know, a terrapin is a fresh water turtle. The song has only the vaguest of connections to these wonderful creatures. But it does make a certain intuitive sense. What makes this video special is that David Gilmour is performing it. The guitar work is just perfect; I’m sure that Syd would have appreciated it. His singing is a bit muddy (Syd was always a better singer), but it is still a delight:

Heart of Joseph Conrad

Joseph ConradOn this day in 1755, the great American painter Gilbert Stuart was born. He was mostly a portrait painter, but he did a lot of stuff and his work is really beautiful. Unfortunately, he is known for what I consider a pretty boring unfinished painting. I’m sure you know it. If you are my age, it hung in your grammar school principal’s office. It is the painting of George Washington, also known as The Athenaeum.

The Austrian composer Anton Webern was born in 1883. He was the most important student of Arnold Schoenberg and his twelve-tone technique. But Webern took it further into what we now call “total serialism.” If anything, I like Webern better than later Schoenberg. But I like early Schoenberg a lot more than Webern. Twelve-tone technique is interesting. But it rarely if ever works for a whole piece. Take, for example, Opus 27: Variations for Piano. The third (last) movement is based upon the following tone row:

Variations for Piano - Webern - Tone Row

Having played around with it a bit on the guitar, I find that I can actually make it work in pleasant ways. But I’m no music genius. What Webern does with it is make it as difficult as possible for the listener. At this point, I’m quite familiar with the tone row, and I barely hear it. See if you can:

The great cinematographer Sven Nykvist was born in 1922. He is most associated with Ingmar Bergman, most notably in Cries and Whispers, which has a very distinct look to it. Americans are more familiar with his work on things like Bob Fosse’s Star 80 and Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors. Interestingly, I just picked up Through a Glass Darkly to watch, most likely later today.

Other birthdays: activist Octavia Hill (1838); overrated direct Jean-Luc Godard (83); disgusting human being Ozzy Osbourne is retiring today; actor Daryl Hannah (53); and actor Julianne Moore is (53).

The day, however, belongs to Joseph Conrad who was born on this day in 1857. In my mind, he is so mixed up with Herman Melville. Of course, there really is no comparison. For one thing, they are two generations removed from each other. Although I tend to prefer Melville with his alcoholic strangeness, there is no doubt that Conrad is the better writer. While I would never call Milville sentimental, his work was old fashioned and labored. Conrad is in many ways the first American modernist novelist. Writing really didn’t change much from him until the publication of Naked Lunch.

Of course, it is hard for me to love Conrad too much. He was something of a philosophical whiner. A fatalist to the core, he couldn’t see any way for society to be organized correctly. I respect that sentiment. But in him, it took a nasty turn against democracy. The basic tendency was typical of men of his time. But a practical approach is always the best and I tire of people who think the only solutions to our woes are perfect theoretical constructs. Still, he left us a lot of good literature.

Happy birthday Joseph Conrad!

My New Romantics Anonymous Video

Romantics AnonymousI created another video. Kind of. My short love letter to Romantics Anonymous was flagged by the fucktards at Studio Canal. YouTube announced that the video would only be allowed to be shown in some countries. Well, I thought one of those countries was the United States, because I could watch it. But it turns out that you can’t watch it in the United States. It is just because I posted it that I was able to watch it.

Studio Canal’s claim to it was not for the video but just for the audio. So I decided to take out the audio. As it is, the dialog is in French, so people can still enjoy it. And instead of the dialog, I recorded over it with my own complaint about what’s going on. I will be deleting the original video soon. I hate to do it. It has almost 700 views and 4 thumbs up. But I just hate all this business. I don’t think that any individual person has done so much to promote this film. The whole thing just drives home how broken our copyright system is. I never do anything to harm copyright holders. I’m not one of these guys who posts long scenes from films. I am the kind of person who Studio Canal should be encouraging, “Please! Advertise our films for us!” But no. Like most modern businesses, they can’t see past next quarter’s profits.

Anyway, here is the new video, which is kind of fun. It is both a strong endorsement for the film and a blast at Studio Canal.

How to Improve the Capitalist System

Jeff BezosOkay, so Jeff Bezos wants to send carrots to my door via helicopter drones. Or something. I don’t know. My father gave me the news last night that 60 Minutes continued their long history of hard hitting investigative reporting by doing a puff piece about how Amazon totally rocks! They could have just photoshopped a picture of Matt Yglesias sucking Bezos’s cock, but that wouldn’t have eaten up 15 minutes of air time. Look, I’m for Amazon. Last year I was able to order Christmas gifts, have them wrapped, and sent my nieces and nephews without ever having to talk to them. Now if Amazon could just come up with a service to handling those “thank you” calls, I’d be set.

But here’s the thing. What if Amazon succeeds? The truth is that our income inequality problems are the result of exactly this kind of thing. We need to think about whether the capitalist system really works as human labor becomes less and less important. I’ve begun to think about it like a game. Imagine that the World Series was decided by a single game. It is well known that any team in the major leagues can beat any other team on any give day. So that wouldn’t be fair. But take it further. Imagine that none of the players on any of the teams got paid unless they won the World Series. That’s pretty much the system that we have.

Let’s think about my favorite example: Mitt Romney. He makes about $20 million per year. The average American family makes about $50,000. So he’s making 400 times as much as the average American and he doesn’t do anything. And he never did. He mostly just extracted wealth out of the work that other people did. But taken to extremes, what exactly is our society going to do when Jeff Bezos has all the money? What good will his carrot delivering helicopters do? No one will be able to afford carrots—just Jeff and Mitt.

Of course, it won’t get to that point. Economies evolve. But conservatives are so rigid in their thinking. They pretend as though the economy is the same as it was when Adam Smith was alive. But it isn’t. As I wrote last year at this time, Tsarist Russia Less Unequal Than America. And why is it less equal? It isn’t because people are worse now. It is that the economic system now allows for “winners” to win far more than is reasonable.

The question is what we are going to do about it. To me, we are at the point where we should provide a guaranteed income. This would do a number of things. First, it would reduce the amount that the “winners” win. Second, it would mean that businesses that wanted labor would have to pay reasonably well. Otherwise, there would be no point in working. Third, it would force businesses to automate and not use humans to do stupid, repetitive, boring work. Overall, it would be a boon to innovation. Conservatives claim that people only innovate if there are huge rewards for doing so. I haven’t found this to be the case at all. I work two different jobs that currently aren’t paying anything to speak of. One of them is this blog, which continues to grow in terms of its readership. The other is a high tech start-up. I’m doing both of these things because I have a financial cushion. If I had to worry about my next meal, no amount of potential future reward would make me work on them.

So if Jeff Bezos wants to deliver carrots by helicopter, he ought to be in favor of this new approach to our economy. Otherwise, there will not be enough people who will be able to afford drone delivered produce.

Raising Minimum Wage Won’t Raise Prices

Paul KrugmanPaul Krugman’s column today is on the minimum wage, Better Pay Now. Basically, he says that given how popular raising the minimum wage is even among Republicans, it just might be possible to do. It is true that 57% of Republicans claim to be in favor of raising it. But give Fox News just one week of coverage and see that number plunge down to the low 20s. So I don’t know about just how politically feasible it is.

But I was struck by the very first comment to the article by one bck453 from Wall, NJ. He made a counter argument that I hear from conservatives all time. On the surface, it sounds reasonable. But it actually shows the typical complete misunderstanding of how business and economies work.

If we raise the minimum wage, then something else has to be taken away. So companies will be forced to raise prices, demand more output from their employees, find a way to cut costs by laying off some of the higher paid employees or a combinations of all of these. Mr. Krugman, turns a blind eye to this inevitable outcome.

For the umpteeth time, repeat after me:

Prices are not determined by costs!

Every conservative would-be economist thinks that a company just passes on higher expenses to their customers. If they are selling a hamburger for one dollar and their costs go up by 15¢, then the price of the hamburger will go up to $1.15. If that’s the case, why was the restaurant not selling the hamburger for $1.15 all along? After all, they could have made an extra 15¢ profit on every burger they sold!

Markets don’t work this way. Most conservatives think that businesses sell their products at the lowest prices possible. This is exactly the opposite of the truth. They sell their products at the highest prices possible. The only reason that markets work is that there are multiple businesses who compete with each other. Our hypothetical restaurant owner above is selling his burger for one dollar because that’s the price that allows him to make the most money. If he had charged $1.15, much of his business would have gone elsewhere.

So if the minimum wage goes up, will prices increase? Yes, they probably will go up a bit, but nothing comparable to the increase in wages. Will companies demand more output from their employees? Yes, just like always! And will companies fire their higher wage employees? Not at all. Commenter bck453 is just an idiot.

In the end, bck453 claims to be for an incremental approach to slowly raise the minimum wage to $15 over the next ten years so as to not shock the economy. There is some sense to this. But raising wages either will cause low wage workers to lose their jobs or it won’t. It turns out, it won’t. But bck453 is as confused about how the economy works as he is about whether or not he is for raising the minimum wage. Unfortunately, his thinking on the subject is the most common that I run across.