Heartache With Hard Work

New Hope – Blink-182
Fake Empire – The National

There’s a good debate going on between some political bloggers about Star Wars. I say ‘good debate’ with reservations, though, because it implies that there are legitimately contestable opinions here. Which is not exactly the case here. Kevin Drum lays out as convincing an argument as can be made for Jedi as the best film, but ultimately falls short. The problem is that the Ewoks are not nearly as inoffensive or skippable as he implies. And the whole Endor plot is really pretty much a black hole. It’s the background against which the very good scene with Luke, the Emperor, and Vader can take place. But that’s it. Really, Jedi is two very good sequences in the middle of 90 minutes of a decent movie.

Still, nice effort. The far crazier position is Seth Masket’s claim that Revenge of the Sith is better than Jedi. I mean, sure, Sith is the best of the new trilogy. But that’s like saying that a blow to the head is better than pancreatic cancer or a wolverine attack. That is a slight exaggeration–Sith is actually a modestly successful film. But come on. It still has many of the lumbering incoherencies of the other two prequels. Plot elements layered upon plot elements with absolutely no reason to care. Not to mention a lack of explanation for those elements. Which weirdly makes it both way too long and way too short. Who in the world is Grievous, why does the film open with him considering he’s never been mentioned before, and why is this of interest? There are stupid action scenes (though none as aggressively stupid as the video-game crawl from Attack of the Clones), annoying references back to the original series (hey look! Chewbacca.  And he’s carrying Yoda.  LOLZ), but none as aggressively ridiculous as the idea that Vader built C-3PO.

Ultimately, though, there are two overwhelming flaws. First, the scenes with Anakin and Padme are just gut-wrenchingly terrible. Second, the whole premise of the prequel series was the anticipation of watching the emergence of Vader. Of him tracking down the Jedi and killing them. That’s what was supposed to make this cool. Instead, the Jedi are basically all killed in ten minutes or less. And it’s mostly done by drones!  And, um, haven’t we seen countless examples of the Jedi deflecting laser fire with ease?  WTF changed?  Ugh.

The decisive element in the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin involves Obi-Wan stating that he has the ‘higher ground.’ Double ugh.

‘Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo.’  Triple ugh

Finally, ‘noooooooooo!’

A new study says the Oprah Book Club doesn’t cause more book sales. To which I respond: who cares? Why are book sales a relevant measurement of our literary culture? In general, I would rather people read one Anna Karenina than read 10 romance novels. Anna Karenina is a singular and monumental literary achievement, with deep insights into character, humanity, faith, and sorrow. Dime-a-dozen romance or mystery or science fiction or whatever-genre novels are, by definition, not.

Which is not to say I have a problem with reading genre-fiction. Genre fiction is great! I read a lot of SF and enjoy it plenty. The point, though, is that when there is an opportunity cost it’s almost always good if people supplement their genre fiction with ‘classics’ of the sort that Oprah promotes. Unless you’re in the business of selling books, I’m not sure why you should care how much generic product is moving off the shelves. It seems far more important that people get genuine value out of what they’re reading. The Oprah Book Club doesn’t guarantee that by any means, but very likely helps for a lot of people. And that’s awesome.

I also don’t like the subtle infantilism that accompanies many of the reports on this subject. For example, from Brad Plumer:

Oprah could argue that she got America reading more difficult and more rewarding titles, if somewhat fewer books overall. Of course, that’s assuming people were actually making their way all the way through “Anna Karenina”…

Or Kevin Drum:

While millions of Oprah fans were pretending to slog their way through Faulkner and Tolstoy, they were too drained to read their usual light fare. So the beach reading genres suffered. And if my cynical view is correct, the net effect was to reduce the total amount of reading among America’s households. We read less crap, but probably didn’t make up for it by actually reading the doorstops endorsed by Oprah. Most of us probably plowed our way through a chapter or two, then slowed down to a page here and there, and finally gave up in exhaustion. But I admit that this is a dim view. Perhaps Garthwaite’s next paper should tackle the question of whether people who bought Oprah’s recommended books actually read them.

I’m sure this is the case with plenty of people. But that’s the nature of taking on projects in all forms. Anna Karenina is not a doorstop; it’s a beautiful book that happens to be quite long. Love in the Time of Cholera, another book cited by Plumer is not even very long. I read it in one or two days and it was every bit as engaging as your standard ‘page-turner.’ We’re not talking about Finnegan’s Wake here. I’m sure many people who otherwise would never have even made the attempt discovered that these are not impenetrable literary texts, and had a wonderful reading experience.

Little Talks – Of Monsters and Men

If there’s one thing I need right now, it’s a dark, weird, Icelandic musical romp with big horns and an energetic chorus.  Fortunately, here is Of Monsters and Men, ready to provide just that.

This is one of those songs that sounds like it was recorded while stomping through the forest.  The quiet bits call to mind a dark, moonlight night and tender touches of fingertips.  And then the loud part comes in and you realize that you’re surrounded by some sort of Icelandic forest band, ready to melt back into the night when the quiet parts return.

(hat-tip to Music For Kids Who Can’t Read Good, who describes this as the Magnetic Zero’s “Home” but without the kitsch – which seems absolutely right).

They’re big in Iceland, apparently, but will be releasing their record in the US very soon. So stay tuned.

Probably ten times in the last couple days I’ve heard variations on the following argument: “the delegate count is what we really ought to be focusing on.  Narrative shouldn’t really matter.” Usually this is accompanied by claims that we shouldn’t focus so much on Michigan, given that Romney is going to win a winner-takes-all contest in Arizona. There is a sense in which this is true.  If there is a protracted campaign, ultimately only delegates matter.  And it’s also true that a 500-vote victory and a 500-vote loss are almost indistinguishable in a proportional state.

So it’s silly if a narrow victory gives a candidate momentum which a narrow loss would crush.

That said, it is 100% reasonable that people will focus on Michigan tonight.  It’s a close vote for one thing, so there’s an actual story.  But even more importantly, Michigan is the place where it is still possible for the seemingly inevitable (Romney wins) result can be disrupted.  Because let’s face facts, Romney is still the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

People seem to think the proper analogy here is Obama/Clinton where narrative turned out to matter very little and delegate math mattered a lot.  And I guess it could still turn out that way.  But there really is still not a lot of evidence to think that’s the situation.  The reason why narrative is a perfectly legitimate thing to focus on in covering the race right now is that Santorum is dancing on a tightrope and will have to sustain it in order to pose a real threat.  He has to continue convincing people that he’s a real candidate to win the nomination or the whole thing will turn into a damp squib.

Here’s a poll on the favorability ratings for the 50 states. Which leads me to wonder: is there any state worse than Delaware? I have a hard time coming up with an argument for anywhere else. What do the rest of us get out of Delaware? We get about five miles of I-95, and for the privilege of driving on this road we have to fork over about six bucks. We also get lax banking regulations that mean every financial institution in the country operates out of Delaware (thanks federalism!). That’s about it. Joe Biden, I guess.

At least some of the other terrible states give us a smug sense of self-satisfaction. ‘Sure our state has problems but at least it’s not Mississippi.’ West Virginia has some beautiful geography, as does Utah. New Jersey doesn’t have a lot going for it, but a lot of actual people come from there. How many people have you ever met from Delaware?

Other questions: how did Tennessee end up as the second most popular state? How is Oregon in the top 10 while Washington is in the bottom half? What’s the difference?

And finally, Florida is in the top 10? That is perhaps the most insane thing about the whole poll. Florida is awful. Not quite Delaware-bad but really quite close. C’mon America.

High – Feeder

This article from Slate (I know, easy target, but still) is almost a perfect example of how the form in which you pose a question reveals far more than the answer you try to provide.

It asks why marijuana legalization remains a political non-starter despite increasingly strong support for it from an increasingly large portion of the country. One theory:

That may be partly a function of congressional demographics and partly a matter of incentives. Even if 50 percent of the public supports legalization, a pro-pot bill will never pass the Senate if those people are concentrated on the coasts. There’s also the fact that potheads tend to be less likely to vote than senior citizens, who came of age in the pre-hippie era and have never inhaled. If legalization opponents are willing to back up their conviction at the ballot box, there’s a lot of risk and little reward for a congressman to assume the marijuana mantle.

Right. The only people who support marijuana legalization are ‘potheads’ who, of course, can’t possibly remember to get up and vote. The context for the article is Obama’s recent Google+ townhall:

Potheads had high hopes for President Obama’s Google+ hangout on Monday. The Web superpower had invited citizens to submit questions for the president via YouTube, and it encouraged people to vote on the questions they’d like Obama to answer in a live video chat. The results: 18 of the 20 most popular questions were about marijuana policy.

Look, the underlying point is obviously correct. Legalization is the sort of thing where the strong advocates are smaller in number than the strong opponents – and, as a general matter, the middle of the country is going to tend to want to support the SORT of people who oppose more than the other side.

But that’s also tautological. If you think about marijuana legalization as a basically fringe policy supported by a small group of fervent advocates who basically just want to get high, then of course it’s going to have an image problem.

Really the point I want to make here is that political commentary is far too concerned with treating voters as embodiments of pure self-interest. Who wants drug legalization? People who do drugs. Who think Medicare should be supported? Old people. Who supports low taxes for the wealthy? The wealthy. Who supports affirmative action? Minorities.

Of course all of those things are mostly true. Those blocks are far more likely to support the policy than others. But there is a lot of room for people to actually consider what they think is good policy for the nation as a whole. And there ought to be more of it. Our political conversations would be improved if we consistently reminded ourselves of this, and didn’t denigrate (even implicitly or through tone) the idea that people might think beyond their personal interests.

The article in question clearly understands this. One of the concluding paragraphs says:

And for all the efforts of groups like LEAP, there’s still the Cheech and Chong factor. One of the RAND paper’s authors, psychologist and U.C.–Berkeley law professor Robert MacCoun, argued that pot’s place in pop culture makes it hard for even generally supportive people to take the issue seriously. (As a marijuana policy researcher, MacCoun says, he can’t grab a snack at a party without someone joking about the munchies.) That sets marijuana legalization apart from other socially liberal causes, such as gay marriage, with which an impassioned moral appeal can resonate deeply even with those inclined to oppose it.

All of which makes it frustrating that the hook needs to be ‘lol, potheads are obsessed with legalization.’

Thunder Road (acoustic) – Bruce Springsteen

Some odds and ends:

– My home state is just about to legalize gay marriage. The crucial vote was in the Senate, where the 25th vote necessary to ensure passage eventually came from my the senator from my hometown, Mary Haugen. Good for her and good for Washington! Remember when people used to say that the only support for marriage equality came from ‘unelected judges’? I’m glad that trope is on the way out.

– Hey look, Romney’s going to be the nominee. Who could have guessed it? Newt Gingrich was never going to win in a million years, nor was Rick Santorum. Once Pawlenty dropped out and Perry revealed himself to be dumber than a bag of Yukon Gold potatoes, this was pretty much inevitable.

– The Planned Parenthood/Komen Foundation hullabaloo was depressing and then tremendously encouraging. The orchestrated campaign over the last few years to systematically discredit Planned Parenthood is terrible. They provide a wide range of very important health services for people who would not otherwise have access to them. In terms of return-for-investment, there are few better places to donate than them. The outcry which erupted this week – forcing Komen to very quickly walk back their new policy, and resulting in a mass of donations to PP – is a very good demonstration of people power at work. It’s easy to overstate the importance of stuff like this (and the SOPA protests), so some caution is warranted, but it’s still awesome.

– I won the 2011 online Dominion tournament. That’s pretty cool.

– Just got my tickets to go see Bruce Springsteen in April. Super excited. And, I’m seeing Jeff Mangum in April, too. It’s going to be a great month.

Today, in incredibly frustrating false equivalencies:

Here’s an uninhibited insult that the professional “life” and “choice” agitators can listen to for free: If these groups cared as much about the issue as they claim, and didn’t have such strong financial incentives to avoid consensus and compromise, they’d cancel the carnivals and get to work on the one thing everybody agrees would be worthwhile — reducing unwanted pregnancies.

If the “life” marchers really wanted fewer abortions, they would stop throwing obstacles in the way of birth control and make sure it’s cheaply provided as part of preventive care and not blocked by “conscience clauses.” By resisting easy birth control, and by opposing comprehensive sex education, they’re essentially increasing abortion rates.

If the “choice” rally participants really wanted to preserve legal abortion, they’d be wise to drop the sky-is-falling warnings about Roe and to acknowledge that the other side, and most Americans, have legitimate concerns. Not every compromise means a slippery slope to the back alley.

So, both sides are to blame. On the ‘life’ side, you have people actively working against the reduction of unwanted pregnancies and increasing the number of abortions in the US. On the ‘choice’ side, you have people who do not always say nice things.

That is seriously the point being made in a major national newspaper.

Let’s cover this one more time. On one side you have people who are irrationally committed to an absolute agenda, with zero good-faith interest in actually taking steps to reduce the number of abortions. On the other side, we have people who ought to stop treating their opposition as if they were irrationally committed to an absolute agenda, with zero good-faith interest in actually taking steps to reduce the number of abortions.

Look, I get it, you like the muddy compromise in the middle. And it’s absolutely true that a plurality of Americans probably agree. Which is why the pro-choice position has already committed to that middle ground. Where are the reproductive rights activists taking to the streets in favor repealing the Hyde Amendment? Where are the people pushing Freedom of Choice Amendments? They are (unfortunately, in my opinion) on the periphery.

The ‘debate’ we’ve currently got is among extreme anti-abortion people, moderate anti-abortion people, and moderate pro-choice people. And standing amidst them is the pundit class who loves nothing more than to complain about all the yelling.

No Children – The Mountain Goats

I’m puzzled by the ‘new’ Gingrich allegations. Okay, I tell a small lie. I’m not really puzzled—more irritated.

We already knew that Gingrich had a long-running affair with a staffer, who he eventually married after divorcing his second wife. This has been known for a long time. The new information we’re getting is this: after his wife found out about the affair, Gingrich told her he wasn’t going to stop the affair, but would continue the marriage if it could be open.

Why exactly is this a stunning new problem exactly? The premise here seems to be that affairs are just a garden-variety kind of moral defect while the desire for an open marriage reveals some glaring character flaw. But that is just insane. Open marriages are not intrinsically bad; plenty of people make them work, and very happily, too. The problem with Gingrich is the ultimatum—let me sleep with this woman or we’re getting divorced—because it demonstrates a coercive relationship. But we already KNEW that.

The only thing I can see in this story is a reaffirmation of a cultural stereotype that anyone who doesn’t want to be monogamous is by definition a moral monster. Seriously, the only new information is the words ‘open marriage.’ Who cares?

I don’t like to defend Gingrich, but this is a non-story. And to the extent that it is a story, it’s a story about the strange value system of the general electorate. Not surprisingly, Dan Savage has a pretty good take on this:

So… Newt Swingrich got a huge round of applause from a GOP debate audience packed with God-fearin’, traditional-marriage-lovin’, gay-marriage-hatin’ social conservatives… for insisting that he cheated on his second ex-wife for six years like a good Christian. He did not ask his second ex-wife for an open marriage. An honest open relationship was never on the table. Newt and Callista’s adulterous relationship was grounded in lies and deceit and betrayal from the start and Newt never wavered from that path. Newt never tried to negotiate an agreement—not even a retroactive one—that would have allowed him to sleep around and remain married. Newt did not ask his most recent ex-wife for an open marriage and he won’t ask any of his future ex-wives for an open marriage.

Because that would be wrong.

Nothing Happens; Twice – Celestial

I don’t always predict well (as Senator Coakley of Massachusetts and Nominee Pawlenty can confirm), but I do a pretty good job predicting Republican primaries. I insisted in 2007 that John McCain (even when he looked dead and buried) was going to win. I spent most of the last year (as soon as Pawlenty dropped out) insisting that it pretty much had to be Romney. And actually, I never bought into the idea that McCain stood a chance against Bush in 2000, either.

In reading reports about the raee right now, there is this problem where reporters need to keep insisting that it’s still really a race. And over the past few months, as each of the flavors-of-the-month have popped out of the GOP clown car, reporters have felt obliged to take it seriously. ‘Yes’ they would say, ‘each of the previous candidates who rose to the top fell off quickly, but here’s the reason to think this guy might be different.’

The case for Santorum amounted to: ‘he peaked at just the right time’ or ‘his ground game in Iowa was the key.’ This is just silly, though. No one can plausibly argue that Santorum’s campaign ARRANGED to gain 18 points in the polls in the week prior to the caucuses. Are we to believe that Iowa’s voters are so stupid that they always secretly wanted Santorum because he did some nice retail politics but just forgot to mention him when being polled?

Santorum is not going to win the nomination because he’s a terrible candidate. This was true 12 months ago, 6 months ago, 1 month ago, and last week. And it will remain true in the future.

His peak happened to coincide with an election, but it faded just like all the others. And it really had nothing to do with Iowa in particular.