On this day in 1623, the great physicist (and much, much more) Blaise Pascal was born. In particular, he did a lot of work in fluid flow and invented the hydraulic press and the syringe. In addition to all of his work in science and mathematics, he was also quite an interesting theologian. Unlike Newton, his ideas are still of some interest. (Actually, I’m not sure that Newton’s theological ideas were ever of any interest.)

The Czech composer Johann Stamitz was born in 1717. During his lifetime, he was better known as a violinist. But his output as a composer was large. It’s always interesting to see how much people produced during this time. I think it was due to the fact that they didn’t have much else to do to entertain themselves. Someday, I’ll write about that in more depth. Anyway, Stamitz had two sons who were both at least as important as he was in terms of composition. Still, his music is very appealing. I would call his music Baroque, but he was certainly picking up on some of the stuff that would become classical. Here is the Ensemble Settecento performing the Andante from his Symphony in E-flat Major:

And then there is Alfredo Catalani who was born in 1854. Although he didn’t even live to be 40 due to tuberculosis, he wrote some extremely beautiful operas. He has sadly been all but forgotten. If you like opera at all, however, you will love the following 4 minutes of Renee Fleming performing “Ebben! Ne Andro Lontana” from Catalani’s most famous opera (that is occasionally performed), La Wally:

Moe Howard of The Three Stooges was born in 1897. When I was a kid, I hated the Stooges. But now I can appreciate the art. When I was young, the violence seemed far too realistic. Now it seems artful, almost like dance. It’s very impressive stuff. Film critic Pauline Kael was born in 1919. And musician Nick Drake was born in 1948. He is one of my very favorite musicians. Here is a video made for his song “Day Is Done”:

Author Salman Rushdie is 66. Ann Wilson of Heart is 63. Kathleen Turner is 59. And yet another blond conservative woman, Laura Ingraham is 49.

But in my long tradition of giving the day to personal crushes, this day belongs to Gena Rowlands who is 83 today. She is a great actor and the widow of one of my favorite filmmakers, John Cassavetes. Here is American Music Club’s Gena Rowlands song, “What Holds the World Together” (the wind that blows through Gena Rowlands’ hair):

Happy birthday Gena Rowlands!

When I was a kid growing up during the Cold War, there was one thing that most disturbed me. It was the same thing that disturbed everyone. Political systems, economic systems, those are important, but they aren’t personal. What was personal was how the power of the state was used to pit children against their families. The truth is, I don’t know how true that was. It could have all been propaganda. But the idea that one should love the state more than one’s family is typical of totalitarian governments.[1]

What has amazed me over the years is how conservatives do the same thing. I remember Reagan (it might have been Bush) praising a young girl for turning in her parents who were supposedly dealing cocaine. Because, you know, filial love should always be trumped by arbitrary drug laws. When I first read about that, I was horrified. But even more horrific was the fact that there was no push back in the mainstream press. It was as though the whole country had turned commie: yes Virginia, you really should honor the state ideology more than your parents.

Yesterday, I saw another example of this. George Republican Representative Phil Gingrey spoke on the floor of the House. He was arguing in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. It appears that children are getting the wrong ideas about gender roles, so he suggested that our schools should step in:

Where do children get their ideas about gender roles? I assume from their parents. But regardless, Gingrey doesn’t want to teach children; he wants to indoctrinate them. The funny thing is that if men really are better at some things than women are, then in general, they will end up doing them. The whole push is to tell little boys that they really ought to be playing with guns and throw those teddy bears away. But that shows a shocking lack of confidence in the validity of their position.

The main issue, however, is that conservatives like Gingrey are not against big government. They are only against big government in as much as it affects businesses. When it comes to individuals, they not only want a big government, they want an intrusive government. And that’s why I say that the Republican Party has become proto-fascist. They aren’t all the way there, but there are lots of green shoots. They want to enforce a limited range of religious beliefs. They want individuals to do what is best for the collective. They believe in crony capitalism. They are jingoistic in the extreme. They are nationalistic. They don’t like non-white races. Remember: hating the Jews was not a fundamental part of fascism (though it was of Nazism). I don’t see huge differences between the Republican Party and other explicitly fascist parties around the world today. And Gingrey is a great example of this.

[1] Jesus asked the same thing of his followers. Belief Net provides a good overview of some of Jesus’ anti-family sayings.

For a long time, I said nothing. I hid my true feelings. I resisted the impulse to scream, “Doesn’t the Washington Post hire copy editors?!” Or even decent IT professionals, because the problem that most bugs me is more a technical problem than a grammar problem. And it is the kind of thing that ought to bother everyone because it is really obvious.

But I will be silent no longer. When the Washington Post was free, that was one thing. But now that they are charging $9.99 for 4 weeks, they ought to be able to get it together.

Here is a typical Wonk Blog error:

That closing quote at the beginning of the sentence happens in most articles. But surprisingly, not consistently. I don’t know why it is, but there ought to be a simple solution, especially at this cost. But that isn’t the only kind of problem. There are all kinds of problems. Here is a similar one:

But at least that single quote is opening. Thank God for small favors.

At the beginning of the IRS scandal, I was really angry when the White House forced the resignation of IRS chief Steven T. Miller. Even at that time, it was well known that Miller was not in charge when the scandal was going on. It was Shirley Sherrod all over again. Our current president has no tolerance for even a whiff of scandal and there is no end to the number of people he will roll over on in order to keep himself safe. It’s pathetic. I know that I am a pretty bad follower and have little regard for leaders. But the one thing I do respect in a leader is loyalty and Obama again and again shows he is far more interested in systemic protection than justice or mercy for those working under him.

I’ve been thinking about this for the last few days. To start with, there was the claim by Holly Paz that the term “tea party” was not used to indicate a conservative political organization but any political organization. That could just be her perspective, especially given that she works in Washington and thus had relatively little contact with the Cleveland office. Then there was the revelation from Elijah Cummings’ release of all the hearing testimony that indicated that the IRS put similar groups together so that they would be consistent in their findings. All of this indicates that there isn’t even a scandal here.

Most of the media are only interested in this case as far as it may lead to the White House. Those on the right are screaming about how the White House must have been pushing the IRS to go after Obama’s enemies. Those on the left are screaming just as loudly that the White House had nothing to do with it and that it was entirely an internal IRS scandal. But no one seems particularly interested in asking the most basic question, “Was there any scandal at all?” It’s looking more and more like Norm Scheiber may have been overstating the scandal when he wrote:

It might be even less than that. I doubt we will ever get to the bottom of it, though. As it becomes clear that this supposed scandal doesn’t reach to the White House, both sides will lose interest. But the Republicans will need to save face, so they will use the opportunity to vilify the IRS. The Democrats won’t push back because it doesn’t really touch them. In the end, it will be another turquoise socks controversy: no real evidence of wrong doing, but enough allegations that people assume something nefarious must have been going on.

More important to me is the fact that the whole nation can’t take the time to figure out what is really happening. This is an issue that I commonly deal with in talking to individuals about politics. People (conservatives especially but hardly exclusively) are forever getting angry about this or that outrage. But in almost all cases, the real situation is far more complex. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real outrages, but it never hurts to slow down and find out a little more about the situation. Like in this case: would it really have hurt the country to wait and see if the IRS scandal was real before freaking out? Would it have hurt to allow Steven T. Miller to serve out his term? These are not life-and-death issues. We have time to figure out the truth.

As I’ve reported before, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has an odd signature. Essentially, it is just a bunch of circles. When he was nominated Treasury Secretary, there was much discussion about how horrible his signature would look on our currency. Given that we have a pyramid topped with an eye on our cash, I hardly see how Lew’s curious signature could bring down its aesthetic quality. In my opinion, our cash is quite ugly. Whenever I go outside the country, I am struck by how much more attractive (And harder to counterfeit!) almost any other currency is. But I will allow that ours is getting better.

For those who do not remember Jack Lew’s signature, here it is:

But that was then. Jack Lew has changed his signature. And guess what? Now people are complaining about the new signature! The Huffington Post commented, “Now it’s not only indecipherable, but boring too!” And they document a number of others who are none too impressed. Here it is:

For the record, I think this is a great new signature. It is still charming without being nearly as ostentatious. What’s more, it is not indecipherable at all. Lew’s full name is Jacob Joseph Lew. I clearly see the J-J-L. As for the rest, who cares? My signature is no more accurate—it is basically F-[squiggle]-M-[squiggle]. But what’s more interesting is that the man just can’t catch a break. Most people’s signatures really do look dreadful. Both of Lew’s signatures are pretty and distinctive. What more must a signature be?

On this day in 1511, the Italian sculptor and architect Bartolomeo Ammannati was born. I think his sculptures are beautiful but they aren’t held in high regard because he so much copied Michelangelo. But if you are going to copy someone, copy the best. Anyway, I really like Michelangelo, so it makes sense that I would like Ammannati. It doesn’t much matter that he wasn’t innovative. He was considered a far better architect during his life.

The Baroque opera composer Antonio de Literes was born in 1673. One doesn’t much hear Baroque opera these days, but I don’t much understand it. It is wonderfully varied. The following video is a good example of his work. It is from a lyric-drama, Acis y Galatea. The song is “Confiado Jilguerillo”:

French neoclassical painter Joseph-Marie Vien was born 1716. I’m very fond of his work. Illustrator James Montgomery Flagg, famous for the Uncle Sam recruiting poster, was born in 1877. The great lyricist Sammy Cahn was born in 1913. Actor E.G. Marshall was born in 1914. And our president’s father, Barack Obama, Sr was born in 1936.

Perhaps the greatest songwriter of the 20th century, Paul McCartney is 71. I don’t much like him as a performer and I am quite tired of his work. But he is a towering figure in songwriting. I rather like John Lennon, but he wasn’t half the songwriter McCartney was. Let me just mention a couple of truly great tunes: “Yesterday” (very likely the greatest pop song ever written), “Penny Lane,” and “Lady Madonna.” But I really could go on and on and on. He also wrote by far the best John Lennon tribute song:

Two childhood crushes Carol Kane and Isabella Rossellini are both 61. And singer Misia is 57.

The day, however, belongs to movie critic Roger Ebert who was born on this day in 1942 (the same day as McCartney). As everyone knows, I am not keen on movie critics. And there is much to complain about with Ebert. But he did know film and he loved it. And when you get right down to it, the biggest problem with critics is that they don’t love the art form. In a better time, Ebert might have been really great. If he had had time to spend with the films and not do all those horrible “one off” reviews. Still, his reviews were always interesting to read. His knowledge of film history helped. But even more important: he was a really good writer. He is missed.

Happy birthday Roger Ebert!

As you have probably heard, Michael Hastings died this morning in a car crash. Rolling Stone has a good obituary for him that you ought to read. I noticed that last November I wrote what could have stood as it’s own obituary in an article, Michael Hastings Ruining Journalism… Again. “I really like Michael Hastings. Like most people, I learned about him when he published his explosive The Runaway General in Rolling Stone. I didn’t give the article itself that much thought. A reporter had a good scoop. It was the reaction to the article that made me take notice of him. It seemed you couldn’t turn the page of a magazine without being confronted with another journalist explaining why Hastings’ article was a bad thing. Never again would the disgraced Stanley McChrystal trust him.”

Of course, that wasn’t what I most liked about him. I continued, “My opinion of Hastings went even higher when he appeared on Up with Chris Hayes in August and dismantled Josh Barro’s fascist argument against Julian Assange. Even more than Jeremy Scahill, Hastings seems determined to get at the truth regardless (or perhaps because) of powerful interests.”

Here he is in that exchange saying what ought to be understood by all journalists, “My job is not to help the US government fulfill their diplomatic objectives.”

And here he is on CNN with the evil idiot Piers Morgan:

Hastings’ death is a great loss to journalism. It shouldn’t be. He should have been typical. He was anything but. And now he’s not even around as an example of how the job should be done.

Rush Limbaugh asked a very good question: if immigration reform is so great for Republicans, why are Democrats in favor of it. And Jonathan Chait provided an answer: because Democrats will still get more credit for it than Republicans. And if it fails, Democrats have to be in the position to say that it wasn’t their fault. Chait is correct, but I think there is a more important point: Democrats agree with the policy.

This is the fundamental problem with the Republican Party. It has become nothing but an opposition party. Its ideology basically comes down to: whatever the Democrats are against. The Democratic Party still maintains a traditional approach to policy: they would be thrilled if the Republicans agreed with them on anything. In fact, just look at Obamacare. That was a big push by the Democrats to create a bill that would appeal to the Republicans. The Democrats want to find common ground because there are actual things they want to do. The whole Republican position is that there will be no common ground. The few things they seem to believe in are placed so far outside normal debate as to be safe. Somehow, I feel that if the Democrats decided that the Estate Tax should be repealed, the Republicans would say that we needed to provide a tax credit to rich people when they die.

Let’s think about immigration. Most of the people who are living in America illegally sacrificed a great deal to come here. Many of them risked their lives. In fact, a great many people have died trying to get to this country. Who in their right mind thinks they do this so they can get on welfare? If conservatives were honest, they would admit that the kind of people who come here illegally are exactly the kind of people we want in this country. These are people who really value what this country stands for and what it has to offer. I understand that we don’t want to incentivize people coming here illegally. But that isn’t the argument that conservatives make against providing a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million people who are here illegally. Instead, the argument is: they broke the law! Yeah, they broke the law because they love this country. Isn’t that worth something?

So why are Republicans against immigration reform? Part of it is just bigotry. The base and to a lesser extent the elite of the party don’t like immigrants—and that includes legal immigrants. This is all part of the narrative that America was founded by white Christians. Somehow, the less white and less Christian we become, the less authentic we are. This is the basis of the hatred of diversity. You’ll note that there is no complaint about Canadian immigration, even though at many times in the past there were much greater economic opportunities in America. But they are all white and they all speak English. Well, almost all.

But there is another important aspect to resistance to immigration reform—although admittedly, not nearly as important as bigotry. Republicans have often been more than willing to ignore their base if the business community wanted something enough. And they surely do want immigration reform—especially this bill that has all kinds of goodies for them. None of that can really trump the imperative that they are against anything the Democrats are for.

Rush Limbaugh is right to ask what immigration reform gets the Republicans. As I’ve argued a lot, Latinos hate the Republican Party for far more than their stand on immigration. In fact, that isn’t even the primary issue. Immigration is the least that Republicans can do for the Latino community and at best they will do it only grudgingly. People aren’t stupid; they know when you hate them; and they don’t like that. So what does immigration reform get Republicans given they are unwilling to do anything else? Damned little.

Hope is not a good environmental plan. For years I hoped that James Lovelock was right and that the earth is its own kind of super-organism that wouldn’t allow itself to be perturbed by a little radiative forcing this way or that. But that hope came to nothing as the earth most clearly got hotter and hotter. The conservative approach to environmental problems is always the same: technology will save us. That isn’t completely loony. Technology usually does help. But just letting the free market take care of the environment is a recipe for disaster. Conservatives seem blind to the fact that the biggest part of past solutions to environmental problems has been governmental regulations. The truth is that the conservative plan for the future is hope: the hope that it will all work itself out.

Other than a few apiologist, the plan for the great drop in bee populations has been hope. And we really need a better plan. Whole Foods has put out the following image comparing our produce offerings today with what they would look like if bees went extinct. But even it underestimates the problem. It only shows first order effects. And that’s frightening enough:

The only thing that could make this worse is if we learned that colony collapse disorder is caused by something that the rich make a lot of money from. Because if that’s the case, we are doomed.

Everybody’s been writing about Alan Krueger‘s talk at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Who is Krueger? The original drummer of the Jimi Hendrix Experience? The guy who wrote “Wild Thing”? A rock historian? No, no, and no. He is the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers—the kind of person who often gives talks at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

The talk was titled “The Land of Hope and Dreams: Rock and Roll, Economics, and Rebuilding the Middle Class.” Neil Irwin was the first person I saw report on this and he focused on the most shocking bits of data about income inequality in the music industry. In 1982, the top 1% of musicians earned 26% of all concert revenue. In 2003, it had increased to 56%—more than double! So as bad as our economic inequality is generally, it is even worse in the music business. That probably doesn’t come as a big surprise, but why it is so is hardly obvious.

Based upon work by a couple of sociologists, it turns out that our tribal instincts make music much more of a winner-take-all market than would be indicated by artists’ actual appeal. Put bluntly: people are much more interested in music that they know is popular. I know this from my own experiences. Whenever I spend time with people who listen to what is more or less “Top 40” radio, I am struck by how generic and uninteresting the music is. It seems that it is popular because it is popular. I don’t say this as a snob. There is plenty of music I don’t personally enjoy that I still think is great. I think I am in a position to distinguish between music I don’t like and music that has all the creativity of a GM assembly line.

Dean Baker added to this discussion by noting how the ever increasing copyright length adds to inequality. Marketing new artists is an expensive endeavor. It is much cheaper to just re-release yet another version of an old band. As a result, the money just keeps flowing to Paul McCartney and Peter Frampton—both of whom are already wealthy. Baker also noted the extra profits that certain artists made as people switched from vinyl to CDs to MP3s and then, of course, back to vinyl. No one need buy “The Man from San Sebastian” more than once.

E.J. Dionne focused his attention on Krueger’s point about the luck that is involved in being successful in the music business. And of course, it is as about as true of the economy generally. Dionne wrote:

And that gets to Krueger’s main point that we need to grow the economy from the middle out. We’ve spent the last 35 years growing the economy from the top down. Unfortunately, what has happened is that the economy has grown and those at the top are the only ones who have benefited. The real problem is that the rich can take care of themselves. Even if the government enacts laws designed to take money away from the rich, they have the ability to protect themselves. But when the government enacts laws designed to give money to the rich, there is no counter balance. The middle class are in no position to protect themselves. And that leaves us where we are today.

It is good to know that Obama has people like Alan Krueger around him. I still don’t expect much. Recent history indicates that under Republican administrations, income inequality gets much worse. Then, under Democrats, it gets slightly better or at least only marginally worse. Countering the last 35 years of dysfunction is going to take a lot more than incremental improvements. I suspect Krueger knows that. But whether he has the strength of conviction is hard to say. Regardless, I know that Obama doesn’t.