The Magnificent Orson Welles

Orson WellesOn this day back in 1856, Sigmund Freud was born. I’m not a huge fan of the man, but there is no doubting his importance. And silent film legend Rudolph Valentino was born in 1895. He died at the age of 31 due to complications from appendicitis. In many ways, I think that’s not a bad age to die at. Leave them wanting more. I often think that would have been a good career move for me. Regardless, it worked well for Valentino, although I’m sure he would have preferred to live longer. His life was good.

The great Willie Mays is 82 today. Singer-songwriters Jimmie Dale Gilmore and Bob Seger are both 68. I doubt Seger still has “the fire down below”—if he ever did. Spineless war monger Tony Blair is 60. I still maintain that if Blair had not gone along with the Iraq War, Bush could not have done it. So I blame Blair almost as much as I do Bush. One half of They Might Be Giants, John Flansburgh is 53.[1] And George Clooney is 52.

Before getting to the day’s winner, there are a couple of important events today. The Hindenburg exploded over New Jersey on this day back in 1937. To this day, no one is certain what happened. I’ve always focused on the fact that it was filled with hydrogen, which is explosive around, you know, oxygen. Regardless of what went wrong, there would have been no explosion if it used helium. So why didn’t they use helium? The same reason that people usually die pointlessly: profits. Helium was much more expensive than hydrogen. People come and go, but profits are something a company always has! And speaking of which, three years later to the day, John Steinbeck was given the Pulitzer Prize for The Grapes of Wrath.

But the day belongs to the great film innovator Orson Welles, who was born on this day back 1915. You can’t have read me for long without knowing my fondness for Welles. But that doesn’t mean I’m one of these guys who thinks he was some sort of a god. The truth is that I pretty much go along with Simon Callow who says that Welles was primarily interested in experimenting on film. But that doesn’t mean that Welles was not also a great storyteller. But I will allow that we might have gotten more storytelling from him if he hadn’t been such a master of the art. Here is a little bit of my writing about him:

Falstaff “Railed Against Our Person”?

Rotten Tomatoes for Orson Welles

The Other Side of the Wind

The Magnificent Ambersons

Happy birthday Orson Welles!

Afterword

This is the only cover I ever remember They Might Be Giants doing. It is perfect for them:


[1] Interesting coincidence: In the film They Might Be Giants, Mr. Small thinks that he is Rudolph Velentino.

Republicans Don’t Care About Debt

Paul KrugmanI always look forward to Mondays and Fridays because Paul Krugman has a column on those days. Even after all these years of reading him, he still has much to offer about what is going on in the world. And this morning, he put together a number of pieces about why our economy is in the mess that it is in. This probably won’t come as a shock to readers of this blog, but it is still edifying.

He offered up a great way to think about government debt. If you look at the ten presidents who served from World War II up until Obama, only three left office with more debt than they entered with. Who were those three? Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr, of course! And what do they have in common? They are modern Republicans: people who don’t want to make the government a meaner, leaner fighting machine. They want to destroy it. Remember the Grover Norquist quote, “Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub”? That’s what they want.

Or at least, that’s what they claim to want. The truth is that they are just children. When they aren’t in power, they don’t want the government to do anything. When they are in power, they want the government to do all kinds of things (mostly for the rich) and they don’t want the government to pay for it. Krugman sums up this philosophy as it now stands:

The funny thing is that right now these same hard-line conservatives declare that we must not run deficits in times of economic crisis. Why? Because, they say, politicians won’t do the right thing and pay down the debt in good times. And who are these irresponsible politicians they’re talking about? Why, themselves.

Krugman doesn’t really get into this, but there is another issue. The conservatives use budget deficits as a cudgel. A balanced budget, of course, depends upon two things: spending and income. They are always for cutting income—while in power or not. But they are only for decreasing spending when they are not in power because of… the budget deficit! This all goes back to my last article: conservatives don’t believe in economics or any other science, except in as much as it justifies them doing what they were going to do anyway.

It’s all shameful. The question is whether the people will ever figure it out. I fear that by 2016, the people will think, “The Democrats have had their go; it’s time to let the Republicans try.” And I know what we will get: huge tax cuts and a ballooning deficit. And we’ll likely also have a vice-president to assure us that deficits don’t matter. At least until a Democrat is president again.

Conservative Apologia Economics

Glenn HubbardAdam Davidson wrote an article last Thursday that tries to find common ground between economists Larry Summers and Glenn Hubbard. For those of you who don’t know it, Summers is a Democrat who was Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton. Hubbard is a Republican who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush Jr. Davidson was very unhappy to find that the two men didn’t share any common ground.

This morning, Jonathan Chait wrote about this article. He argued that the problem was that conservative economists, while wishing to make the world a better place, were also interested in reducing the size of government as an end in itself. Liberals may want a bigger government for practical reasons but they don’t want a bigger government because they think it is necessarily better to have one. Chait is right about this, but I think he is being far to easy on the likes of Glenn Hubbard.

My experience with economic conservatives is that they think that a smaller government will be better for everyone, but even if it isn’t, they still think it is best. Chait would have us believe that the good of everyone trumps (or is at least equal to) the philosophical commitment to small government. But he’s wrong. And it is very clear from this line in the Davidson article, “Hubbard told me that a favorite book in high school was Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, a 1944 treatise against big government that remains a sacred text among conservatives, including Paul Ryan.”

There are several problems here. First, The Road to Serfdom is not really a economic book and Hayek is not really an economist. It is very much like the conservatives’ Communist Manifesto. The economics in it have been repudiated, but conservatives hang on to it because it tells them what they want to hear. That’s understandable for a true believer like Paul Ryan. But how is it that a very smart and erudite economist like Glenn Hubbard still holds on to it? The answer I fear is that at this point, Hubbard only does economics as a form of conservative apologia.

On the other side of this divide, we have Larry Summers. According to Davidson, he’s an economic liberal. But that just isn’t true. For example, he’s a big believer is a “strong dollar” policy, which is just a way to hurt workers and prop up the wealth of the rich. But even apart from that, if the conservative position is the Hayekian filled thought of Hubbard, then the liberal side should be the Marxist filled thought of Paul Sweezy. Summers really is in the middle. His position is the data-driven compromise—at least as he see it. Hubbard’s is the ideology-driven extremist position.

And this is why there is no common ground. In other words, Davidson is trading in more false equivalence. And this is one of the primary problems with our media system: it treats extremists on one side as though they were just as reasonable as moderates on the other. And then it asks the question, “Why can’t they just get along?” Yeah, I wonder.

Afterword

Here is a good example of who Glenn Hubbard has become (I don’t doubt he was a good scientist early on in his career). This is from Inside Job:

Crickett: My First BBQ!

Crickett, makers of toys that celebrate American traditions, introduces My First BBQ. It’s never too young to start your children on the path of patriotic family values! Don’t let the government take away your right to choose how to amuse your kids. Let your gut be your guide.

My First BBQ

Michael Palin

Michael PalinOn this day back in 1813, Soren Kierkegaard was born. Then, exactly 5 years later, Karl Marx was born. I have much to say about both of these men, but I’m just not up for it. And especially, I’m not up for choosing which of them deserves to win the day, so I decided to give it to neither of them. You know when a person is important: they never referred to themselves by a single name but now we do. Also: Tammy Wynette was born in 1942. I didn’t even know she was dead. Apparently, she had a lot of health problems.

But the day belongs to Michael Palin who is 70 years old today. Here is a little bit of “Tomkinson’s Schooldays” from the series he did with Terry Jones, Ripping Yarns. The opening has a wonderful introduction to the story with Palin playing a grand and serious actor who cannot remember his lines. It is very funny and very Palin:

Happy birthday Michael Palin!

Afterword

Now I’m going back to bed.

Sick and Laughing

Oliver ReedI swear I am getting worse. In addition, I think I’m taking too much cold medicine. The combination of the nighttime cold & flu and the cough medicine has made it so I can’t quite walk straight. Nonetheless, the cough goes on and the nose drips like the bathroom faucet. In order to get though this, I’m watching comedy. And generally, I’ve found them very funny. So in what follows, keep in mind what Jim Hogshire wrote about taking a cup of Robitussin. “At four o’clock in the morning I woke up suddenly and remembered that I had to go to Kinko’s copy shop and that I had to shave off about a week’s worth of stubble from my face. These ideas were very clear to me. That may seem normal, but the fact was that I had a reptilian brain. My whole way of thinking and perceiving had changed. I had full control over my motor functions, but I felt ungainly. I was detached from my body, as if I were on laughing gas.” He continued, “While I was shaving I ‘thought’ that for all I knew I was hacking my face to pieces. Since I didn’t see any blood or feel any pain I didn’t worry about it. Had I looked down and seen that I had grown another limb, I wouldn’t have been surprised at all; I would have just used it.” That’s about right.

Yesterday, I watched a stand-up special of Todd Glass. He is what I have come to think of as an “angry comedian.” He’s mad about the way life is. In general, these are not my favorite comics. But there is something so sweet about him that it is almost impossible not to love him. And he gets wonderfully sidetracked. Here he is going three stories deep without even trying:

Then I watched Galaxy Quest. This film has a special place in my heart. As you probably know, the film is a parody of Star Trek and its fan phenomenon. At one point, in the early days of the internet, if you searched for my name, it would take you to the Star Trek FAQ. Apparently, I had helped out the writers of it, but for the life of me, I can’t remember what I did. And yes, I have been to a Star Trek convention: twice. I would normally not have done such a thing, but my first wife was way into the show. Really. I’m not just saying that to avoid looking bad. And I can prove it: I have gone to comic book conventions all by myself. So there you go.

As a result of this, I think Galaxy Quest is hilarious. And even though I had seen it before, I laughed a great deal. Afterwards, I looked the movie up on Wikipedia. It included quotes from people who have been in the series. Now I’m mostly only interested in the original series. The later series are not as playful. So I was naturally pulled to a quote from William Shatner, “I thought it was very funny, and I thought the audience that they portrayed was totally real, but the actors that they were pretending to be were totally unrecognizable. Certainly I don’t know what Tim Allen was doing. He seemed to be the head of a group of actors, and for the life of me I was trying to understand who he was imitating.” You gotta love that guy!

Finally, I put on the 1973 version of The Three Musketeers. I had remembered liking the film when I was a kid. And I suspect that at the time, it was really funny. But I found all the pratfalls forced and rarely funny. In particular, Raquel Welch plays an accident prone wench, but because of the way it is directed, it just doesn’t work for me. It is all too much in long shot. I suspect that it would work a lot better on the big screen. Regardless, it is hard not to love Oliver Reed as Athos. What’s more, I learned that he was banned from the state of Georgia because of his drunken escapades. My hero!

Anyway, that’s my life. I feel marginally better, but my cough is worse than ever. Time for more medicine.

Niall Ferguson’s Gay Keynes Moment

Niall FergusonA funny thing happened on the way through the question and answer session of the Tenth Annual Altegris Conference in Carlsbad. Niall Ferguson claimed that John Maynard Keynes was all wrong about economics. But he said it in a most inappropriate way. Let me back up a bit, because I know most people have no context for this.

I’ve written quite a lot about Niall Ferguson. He’s a historian who has got a lot of attention over the years providing ignorant economic analysis that conservatives really want to hear. In particular, he claimed for years that hyperinflation was just around the corner. He eventually admitted that he was wrong. But since then, he’s become a standard conservative hack. In the run up to last year’s election, he wrote a highly publicized attack on Obama that that was riddled with falsehoods and was more generally just deceptive. We expect better from Harvard professors, but now that Ferguson is getting $50,000 a pop for speeches to the 1%, that is who he represents.

Needless to say, Ferguson believes that all we have to do is cut government spending to the bone and it will be Morning in America. I’m not going to go into all that is wrong with this; I’ve written enough about it elsewhere on this site. The main thing to understand is that Ferguson (like most conservatives) simply believes in cutting the government and so he disregards Keynes. He has no cogent arguments against Keynes.

So he took on one of Keynes’ most quotable lines, “Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.” Keynes was attacking economists of the time whose only advice about the Depression was that, “In the long run it will be okay.” Tom Kostigen reported that Ferguson said that while we might not be alive, our children and grandchildren would be. This, of course, totally misses the point Keynes was making. But it got worse. He said that Keynes didn’t care about future generations. Because he didn’t have children. Because he was gay.

The only part of that which is true is that he didn’t have children. His wife did suffer a spontaneous abortion, however. Regardless, Ferguson is not an idiot. He quickly put out an unqualified apology. I don’t particularly care one way or another. On the one hand, I know what it is like to get excited and say something that I don’t mean. On the other, I know that Ferguson is an elitist and that is its own kind of bigotry.

What I think is important here is how a supposedly serious academic stoops to character assassination rather than argument. And that is typical of the conservative economic movement. I understand that we all have our list of thinkers who we trust. I am inclined to believe something that Paul Krugman says and inclined to be skeptical about something Ferguson says. But that doesn’t mean I stop thinking: sometimes I disagree with Krugman; sometimes I agree with Ferguson. Ferguson admitted defeat on the inflation argument he was having with Krugman. But that didn’t cause any rethinking of his economic model. And that was because he doesn’t have an economic model. Like most conservatives, he has certain ideas about how society should be run, and he shoehorns all economic information into that.

And that is the lesson of Ferguson’s “Gay Keynes” moment.

Update (6 May 2013 9:21)

According to various sources, Keynes was gay. So I was wrong about that, not that it matters. However, it is generally true that any homosexual behavior tends to cause someone to be labeled as strictly homosexual. Human sexuality is far more complex than that. As Woof says in Hair, “Well, I wouldn’t kick Mick Jagger out of my bed, but uh, I’m not a homosexual, no.”

Getting Soft with Bartolomeo Cristofori

Bartolomeo CristoforiOn this day back in 1852, the model for Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Alice Liddell was born. And Audrey Hepburn was born in 1929.

Criminal or glorious leader (I tend to think the two are the same), Hosni Mubarak is 85 today. Jazz bassist Ron Carter and surf guitarist Dick Dale are both 76. Climate change denier George Will is 72. Star of The Visitor Richard Jenkins is 66. And Will Arnett is 43.

But the day belongs to Bartolomeo Cristofori, who was born in 1655. I know: you have never heard of him. Perhaps you are aware of Bartolomeo Beretta, the gun manufacturer. Or Bartolomeo Bosco, the great magician. Or one of the many painters. Bartolomeo is a common name! Our Bartolomeo is the musical instrument maker who invented the piano. Please forgive me while I explain why this matters.

Before the piano, there were mainly two kinds of keyboard instruments. Everyone knows the harpsichord. It has a very distinctive sound that is good for accompaniment of other instruments. But it is much harder to play expressively because of the nature of its mechanism: strings are plucked. As a result of this, there is more resistance when you hit a key. It lacks control. Here is a nice bit of harpsichord using a bit of Domenico Scarlatti. Note the lack of expression, even though it is played by a master:

The second instrument is the clavichord. It is more like the piano in that the strings are stuck. The problem is that unlike a piano, the striking mechanism stays in contact with the strings. So while the clavichord is perhaps as expressive as the piano, it is not loud enough for a large audience. Here is an excellent example of the attributes of the clavichord using a little Bach. Note the dynamic range:

So what Cristofori discovered was a way to hit the strings and then release. If you’ve ever looking into a piano while it was playing, you will see that the hammers act very much like someone playing a xylophone. Of course, it took many improvements after Cristofori to make the piano a truly useful instrument. But he did create what we would recognize as a piano today. And just listen to this performance of Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 17 with all baroque instruments:

And it is all thanks for Cristofori.

Happy birthday Bartolomeo Cristofori!

Afterword

I’m still very sick. I will try to write more, but it is hard to concentrate.

It’s a James Brown World

James BrownOn this day in 1469, the great Niccolo Machiavelli was born. The Hundred and One Dalmatians author Dodie Smith was born in 1896. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was born in 1898. Bing Crosby, who for some reason I just hate, was born in 1903. Femme fatale from The Maltese Falcon, Mary Astor was born in 1906. And magician Doug Henning was born in 1947.

Pete Seeger is 94 today! Physicist Steven Weinberg is 80. Singer Frankie Valli is 79. TV pitchman Ron Popeil is 78. The younger of the evil Koch duo, David Koch is 73. And comedy writer Ben Elton is 54.

But the day belongs to The Godfather of Soul, James Brown, who was born on this day back in 1933. I don’t know that much about him, but his music has been profoundly important to me. Let’s just listen to him with Bobby Byrd doing several songs on Italian TV in 1971:

Happy birthday James Brown!

Economic Crime Kills

Going PostalI’ve been sick and so I’ve been re-watching some movies. Last night, I put on Terry Pratchett’s Going Postal. At one point, Mr. Pump says that Moist Von Lipwig has killed many people. Lipwig counters that he never even drew a sword. Pump responds, “You have stolen, embezzled, and swindled. You have ruined businesses and destroyed lives. When banks fail, it’s not bankers who starve. In a thousand small ways, you have hastened the deaths of many. You did not know them. You did not see them bleed. But you snatched bread from their mouths.”

There is a conservative reading of this, of course. It’s the old “get tough on the criminals” line. But that isn’t what Terry Pratchett is saying. The whole of Going Postal is a radical critique of free market idolatry. The point is this: economic crime kills. But in our system, we don’t talk about that. We pretend that physical and economic harm are different. If a criminal tied a victim to a chair and let him starve to death, that would be considered murder. If the same criminal merely prevented a victim from having a job so he could buy food, that would not be considered murder. (See my article Property Rights for a discussion of the myth of freedom in a modern economy.)

We know that poor people have much lower life expectancies than rich people. In the upper half of the income distribution, people live about 5 years longer than people in the lower half. This means that our economic system hastens the deaths of many. When a venture capitalist fires hundreds of manufacturing workers, he lowers the life expectancies of those workers. Let’s suppose he does that to 1,200 workers and takes an average of one month of life away from each. That’s a hundred years of life. That’s a lot more life than your average murder takes away from his victim. Yet we don’t even see what the venture capitalist does as a crime, much less punish him for it.

I realize it is more complicated than this. And I am not calling for a communist revolution. In fact, I am actually a big proponent of a market system. My problem is not with the venture capitalist. He is just doing what society tells him to. The problem is the society itself. We live in a rich nation. If we wanted to, we could provide everyone with a base level of support. There is no reason why Americans need to feel insecure about their futures. But it’s a choice. And the choice that we’ve made is to allow some to become insanely rich while others live under the eaves of the downtown library.

And where might that money come from? I’ve written about this a lot because I think the most important issue we face as a country is economic inequality. The explosion of inequality is the direct and indirect result of government policy. According to the Economic Policy Institute, in the years from 1917-1981, the bottom 90% of income earners received 69% of the gains from productivity increases. In the years 1981-2012, the bottom 90% of income earners received 4% of the gains from productivity increases.

An indication of this can be seen in CEO compensation data from Bloomberg. In 1950, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies made 20 times what the average employee at their firm made. (Average, not minimum.) By 1980, the number had risen to 42. Today, it is 204. This is not all about taxes. There are plenty of other ways that the government over the last 60 years has made owners rich at the expense of the poor. One of the most important is the way that Reagan basically abolished all labor law and allowed unions to be all but destroyed in the private economy. (And Democrats have done nothing but help that along since then.)

Economic crime kills. Legal economic activity kills. The government should do something about that. But as income inequality has skyrocketed, the government has only become more beholden to the rich. It is far more interested in seeing to it that the rich can transfer their wealth to their kids without paying taxes than that the poor can live with a modicum of dignity.


Data were taken from The Young Turks May Day video.

Hurricane Katrina Looting?

George W. BushThis is a remarkable catch by Melissa Harris-Perry on The Rachel Maddow Show tonight. Apparently, one of the scenarios you can play at the George W. Bush Presidential Library in their “decision room” is Hurricane Katrina. But it isn’t about helping the drowning and starving people. It is about whether to send in troops to the stop the looting.

This is about what I expect from a presidential library. It has only been in the past couple of years that the Nixon library has been anything close to truthful about Watergate. Eventually, the new Bush library will tell the truth. But as long as he’s alive, it will be all lies and apologia. Because we can’t hurt Bush’s feelings. He’s rich and powerful. We only disregard the feelings of the poor and weak.