I got the following information from an article in Popular Mechanics, The Animal Kingdom’s Top Marathoners. It lists the six fastest long distance running species. What I find most interesting is the comparison between the speed of these animals in the short and long distance categories. For the animals that run long distances at the same speed humans do, their short distance speeds blow us away. When it comes to short distance running, we kind of suck—even Usain Bolt.

The reason this is interesting is that our ability to run long distances quickly is how we’ve survived the last million years or so. We can barely catch any animal in the short distance, but we can chase down just about any animal over the course of a day. We tend to think of human survival depending upon our being smart. But we’ve survived as much because we can sweat as anything else.

[1] The article provides a speed of 20 mph for long distance sled dog speeds. Looking elsewhere, this number seems to be wrong and so I put down 10 mph. It is also difficult to know which numbers to use for the short distance speed. Greyhounds can run up to 45 mph, but sled dogs can’t. With humans, we present the fastest short distance runner and the fastest long distance runner. The best short-distance runners are large and the best long-distance runners are small. So to be consistent I put the Greyhound speed in there.

There are certain men who define different kinds of ideals of male beauty. Cary Grant and George Clooney are one kind. Another kind of ideal is represented by Antonio Banderas. In addition to being just plain gorgeous, he has a quiet confidence that is irresistible. Like most people, I first noticed him in Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, and I’ve come to like him more since then. So I generally enjoy watching any movie that he is in, as long as it doesn’t go out of its way to annoy me. And so it was with some hope that I sat down to watch The Mask of Zorro.

The Mask of Zorro is a superhero film. But unlike most films in that genre, it is actually quite good. The opening fight sequence sets the mood for the whole film. It shows that while Zorro fights for the people, the people also fight for Zorro. Repeatedly, we see that Zorro would be killed if this or that peasant hadn’t prevented it. So his most important trait is the love and commitment of the people he defends. This is just the opposite of most superheroes, where the people are just bystanders. What is particularly bad about this portrayal is that if the superhero turned on the people, there is nothing that could be done. With Zorro, he simply wouldn’t be a superhero if he turned against the people.

In addition to getting to stare at the handsome Mr. Banderas for two hours, we also get to watch the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones. In fact, I had forgotten just what a beautiful woman she is. Those two actors light up the screen when they are together. In particular, there are two very sexy scenes: one a very provocative dance and the other a playful sword fight. Of course, none of this is very serious, which is the best part of the film: it doesn’t take itself very seriously.

While watching The Mask of Zorro, I was really struck by how much it felt like the Pirates of the Caribbean films. I brushed this off as having to do with all the sword play. There are parts of the film that hearken back to Samurai films as well. But when the film was over, I saw there was more than just this that connected the films. Both were written by the screenwriting team Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio. Although I don’t think of them as great screenwriters, they create wonderful, fun films. What’s more: they have a good sense of humor. One thing I hate in action films are the “clever” comments by the hero. Example: as the hero pushes the bad guy off a roof, he says, “Drop in on somebody else!” Pathetic. Elliott and Rossio don’t do that much. Instead, they provide genuinely funny bits and dialog. And this is seen throughout The Mask of Zorro. It is a funny and often silly film.

In addition to the plot, the film is beautiful to look up. The director, Martin Campbell, is mostly known for directing standard (uninteresting) action films. But he manages to do a good job here. Each shot is pretty enough that you want to climb into it. All the departments are working at peak form: costumes, sets, crowd control, lighting. Unlike most two plus hour long films, I wasn’t bored at all. I wanted it to continue on and on.

When it comes to straight Hollywood entertainment, you can’t do better than The Mask of Zorro. I highly recommend watching it if you are looking for a fun action film that will appeal to both woman and men.

Afterword

Yes, in this article, I am being an ombudsman. And there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is with ombudsmen thinking that they are art critics.

The Italian composer Tommaso Traetta was born on this day way back in 1727. Vincent van Gogh was born in 1853. I’m fond enough of him, but I really don’t understand his stature among art collectors. Could it be as simple as, “Pretty colors!”? There are remarkable aspects of his painting. I especially like how he deals with light and shadow. But I find him wanting in terms of design. However, it is always a pleasure to see his actual paintings, as I did recently at the Getty Center.

Warren Beatty is 76 today. Fine but overrated guitarist Eric Clapton is 68. Robbie Coltrane is 63. And that is enough of a reason to present his brilliant performance of “The Stone Golem”:

Alaska Senator Mark Begich is 51. Normally, I don’t mention politicians, but Begich has a great idea for Social Security reform—real reform, not benefit cuts. MC Hammer is also 51. The thing about Mr. Hammer is that I really don’t know who he is. I’ve listened to a few of his songs and they were well done, but I’d never heard them before. Oh well. Tracy Chapman is 49. Most of my friends have an attitude towards her, but I rather like her work. Piers Morgan doesn’t even deserve mention. And beautiful Israeli actress Mili Avital is 41.

With all my mixed feelings about van Gogh, you may still be wondering, “Who beats him as birthday champ today?” The answer is every Kafka fan’s favorite painter: Francisco Goya. He was born on this date back in 1746. Now there’s an artist who understood design! But the reason I’m so fond of his work is that he painted interesting subjects like Courtyard with Lunatics above.

Happy birthday old man! Here’s Tommaso Traetta’s Overture in D-Major to celebrate:

I just looked at the voting roles of the Defense of Marriage Act. There were only 14 Senators and 67 Representatives who voted against it. Of those 81 members of Congress who voted against the bill, only one was a Republican. And that man, Steve Gunderson, is gay.

Gunderson is an old fashioned conservative with some policy positions that are not terrible. For example, he wanted to reduce military spending. Of course, that was in 1992 when we supposedly had the end of the cold war and a lot of people were in favor of that. But mostly, he was a status quo kind of conservative, wanting to give more to those with much and less to those with little. And he was hardcore anti-choice. It is also of some interest that his vote against DOMA was after he had been outed. So who knows how he would have voted before.

The main thing of interest here is that this is yet another example that shows that Republicans may be worse than they’ve ever been, but they’ve always been bad. Over 16 years ago, the only Republican who was willing to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act was himself gay. Thus, just as with Rob Portman today, the only Republican who was willing to stand up for minority rights was he who was a member of that very minority group.

The Republican Party should be ashamed. But they aren’t. They just shamble along muttering their talking points about freedom and justice, apparently unaware of (or at least carefree regarding) the big world around them. They really don’t care about the country. Their sole interest is doing right by themselves and those close to them. And in that regard, they are highly successful. As of 2015, they will probably control both houses of Congress.

I weep for our country.

I’ve know for a while that Obama just isn’t that into me. Actually, I’ve known that pretty much from the start. Liberalism in the United States is in a death spiral. We nominate moderates to be president in the hopes that they will get elected. When they do manage to get elected, they govern like moderates or even conservatives. They give us NAFTA, welfare “reform,” and Republican healthcare laws. And while they’re in power, the conservatives scream, “Socialist!” So next time when we nominate a Democrat for president, he or she will be even more conservative. Where did my country go? It was hijacked by conservatives cloaked in liberal talking points.

People wonder why Obama negotiates with himself and gives so much away to the Republicans. Here’s the dirty not so secret: that’s what he believes. Sure, he believes in a more egalitarian economy, but only if it can be done without much government interference, and only around the edges. I’m sure when he looks at the graph of income distribution that Americans think would be right, he’s horrified. You mean the people think I shouldn’t have made $2 million on my last book? The horror, Mr. President!

The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that Obama is hell bent on giving the country Chained-CPI. This is new way of calculating the consumer price index. It will affect Americans in two ways. First, it will be a substantial cut in the amount of Social Security retirees receive over the course of their lives. Second, it will allow the government raise income taxes by gradually pushing people into higher tax brackets. Note: this is from an administration that defined middle class as anyone making less than $400,000 per year.

Before, Chained-CPI was a bargaining chip for the administration. But now, Obama plans to put it in his budget due out next week. The inclusion in the budget “would be aimed at breathing new life into bipartisan talks on reaching a deficit-reduction deal.” On its surface, this makes absolutely no sense. It implies that he has apparently learned nothing negotiating with the Republicans for the last four years. After all, he has done the best when he’s taken a strong position with them. Whenever he’s negotiated with himself, it has been disastrous.

This is why I am convinced that this is not what’s going on. Instead, it is that Obama wants to cut Social Security benefits. He wants to raise taxes on the middle class. Obama, just like Mitt Romney, is a man who is above all else, looking out for the interests of his own class. And that class includes Mitt Romney; it does not include you. He’s just not that into you.

Please contact the White House. Maybe there’s hope.

Afterword

My letter to the president this morning:

Have you heard about Alaska Representative Don Young? People are having a lot of fun with him today because he said, “My father had a ranch; we used to have 50–60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes. It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine.” Oh so much to unpack here! But the focus of most of the discussion (as usual) is about trivial stuff.

Trivial Stuff

First, the racial slur. It was insensitive and idiotic, but not important. Jonathan Chait had the best response, “Also, dude: ‘Wetback’ is not the preferred nomenclature.” That is a reference to The Big Lebowski. Here’s the scene—just 21 seconds long:

This got me wondering where the term “wetback” comes from. I had always thought that it referred to all Mexicans or Latinos, which for most Americans are the same thing. It turns out that “wetback” refers to people who came to the the United States illegally by crossing the Rio Grande. The word was first used in 1929. My question: why focus on their backs? After all, the Rio Grande is a “large river,” so I would figure their whole bodies would be wet. “Wetfeet” I can see. And for those of you who think that the “back” doesn’t refer to physical backs? If they were referred to as “wetbacks” after they returned to Mexico, that would make some sense. Otherwise, I’m not buying it.

Important Stuff

Young’s broader point is valid, although it is clear from the original interview that he doesn’t have a clue what to do about it or that anything can be done about it. In a world in which more and more production is automated, how are we to employ everyone so that there will be people who can buy all the crap that machines make? I have some ideas about this, but I’m no economist. The problem is that most economists don’t treat the issue seriously.

Traditionally, it has been the case that when people were put out of work due to technological innovation, the increased productivity rippled through the economy leading to better jobs for everyone. And that’s true under the right conditions. Those right conditions are an economy in which workers share in the benefits of productivity gains. Unfortunately, that only happens in economies where workers have the power to force capitalists to share. And in modern America, the government pretty much forbids that.

Dean Baker spends a lot of time countering people who say that our aging population will bankrupt us because there are fewer and fewer workers supporting each retired person. He notes (rightly) that with productivity gains, we will have no problems. But there is a caveat: the productivity gains must be shared by workers. For roughly the last 40 years, this has not been the case. And so we might have a problem with our aging population in the future.

There are two resolutions to this problem, both of which Republicans hate. We can strengthen labor law and enforcement, and allow workers to get their rightful share of what they produce. Or we can tax the rich. There are no other solutions. Those two “webacks” on Young’s father’s farm who are now doing the work of 60? You can bet they aren’t making 30 times what they did when Don Young was a kid. In fact, they almost certainly aren’t even making twice what they did. And that, more than the automation itself, is the real problem.

And it is certainly a bigger problem than an unfortunate racially charged moniker.

It’s another one of those days. While looking at lists of birthdays, I’ve noticed that if a name is listed from the 18th century, then that person really did something. If they are listed from the late 20th century, they are probably just a soccer player. This goes along with our celebrity culture. Now that we have nine million cable channels, we have had to lower our expectation of what a celebrity is. It used to be that you had to actually, you know, do something. Now, being the ex-girl friend of the bass player of a band that had a song briefly dip into the top 40 in Luxembourg is enough to get you harassed by the folks of TMZ.

On this day in 1867, Cy Young was born. He spent the last 43 years of his life farming and generally being poor. A lot of people look back at this time and think, “That’s the way it should be!” Unfortunately, that’s the wrong way to think about it. I’m as much against winner-take-all markets as anyone. But Young did so poorly because the players did not share in the money that they were helping to produce. That is the plight of the American worker. At least in modern professional sports, that isn’t a problem.

Also born today in 1878, was Albert Von Tilzer, writer of “Take Me Out to the Ball Game.” Philip Ahn, Master Kan on Kung Fu, was born in 1905.

Eric Idle is 70 today. The supremely overrated Vangelis is also 70. Terry Jacks, destroyer of all that is good, is 69. Bud Cort is 65 so he won’t be making any more movies. And Brendan Gleeson, the Irish actor who plays the guy with the mechanical eye in the Harry Potter films, is 58.

Thomas Coram was born on this day back in 1668. Who? He was a sea captain who made a fortune in the New World. I’m sure he had his bad side, but he wasn’t a slave trader, so there’s that. And once he got all rich, he founded the Foundling Hospital in London. It was basically a home for orphans and quite a successful one. According to Wikipedia, “As a philanthropist Coram was appalled by the many abandoned, homeless children living in the streets of London. On 17 October 1739 he obtained a Royal Charter granted by George II establishing a ‘hospital for the maintenance and education of exposed and deserted young children.'” It was operating in this capacity until the 1950s and works for the betterment of children to this day.

And this begs the question, “What the hell are you doing with your life?!” But at least we can all wish Coram a happy birthday.

Yesterday, The Miami Herald reported, Lawmaker Complains About Getting Out of Speeding Ticket; Trooper Fired. This one is hard for me to take sides on: an entitled legislator and a cop. Let’s discuss, shall we?

Representative Charles McBurney was screaming down Interstate 10 at almost 90 miles per hour with his special legislator license plate. The woman in the car with him was his wife—unusual for a Republican, but these things do happen. According to McBurney there was no way he was going that fast because he had set his cruise control at only 5 miles over the speed limit. Note: this is one of the most common excuses people give when caught speeding. I figure when people notice their cars have cruise control, they think, “Great! Now I can tell cops I was using cruise control when they pull me over!”

Apparently, in Florida, there is an unwritten but faithfully taught rule that cops don’t give tickets out to legislators. But there is an actually written law that says they have to. Regardless, young Trooper Charles Swindle decided to let Representative McBurney off with a warning. He did, however, ding him for a $10 fine for not displaying his insurance information. And that’s where all the trouble started.

McBurney, Complete and Total Dick™ that he is, wrote to the chief of the Highway Patrol, “I am concerned that as Trooper Swindle acted in such fashion to me, that he would do so to any law-abiding citizen of our state.” There are a couple of problems here. Cops are encouraged to use their discretion in giving out tickets. So there is nothing particularly wrong with this. But more disturbing: McBurney’s problem is not that he wasn’t given a ticket; it is that he was given a warning even though he just knows that he couldn’t have been driving that fast because [insert favor lame excuse for speeding here].

Of course, McBurney is wrong to think that Tropper Swindle (Love that name!) would just go around being nice to normal people. McBurney was only the first state legislator who who he let off. Later that same day, he let off Representative Mike Clelland for going (Again!) almost 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. But Clelland is a Democrat and thus didn’t complain like a hurt boy on the grammar school playground.

I’ll admit that Tropper Swindle is kind of a dick—but he dickishness is all institutional. There is no indication that he is otherwise anything but a reasonable guy. McBurney, however, is a great example of Everything That Is Wrong With Our Society™. If there was a coveted Frankly Curious Dick of the Day award, McBurney would get it! But there isn’t, so he gets what you generally deserves: nothing.

Update (28 March 2013 2:56 pm)

Speaking of a Complete and Total Dick™, I just found this Politico article, ‘Rude’ Lawmaker Louie Gohmert Pulls Rank on Cops Over Parking Ticket. Go ahead and read the article. Gohmert really thinks he is above the law. Amazing but not shocking, because, hey, it’s Louie Gohmert.