Off-the-Record Republicans

Today, US Senator Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, announced that he will object to Joe Biden's Electoral College win in the joint session of Congress on January 6 because he's "concerned about the integrity of this election."

How many Republican lawsuits which were "concerned" about this have been thrown out of how many courts, because of an utter lack of evidence to back the claim that this election was stolen from Donald Trump? Claiming that Biden stole the election is like claiming that Hillary did something wrong regarding Benghazi: it's not just ridiculous, it's monotonous already. Can't the Republicans think up some new scam?

But even most of the Republican morons who couldn't stop beating the Benghazi dead horse still said, early in 2016, that Donald Trump was a grifter and a fraud who succeeded in politics by stirring up racism and belief in stupid conspiracy theories. On the subject of Donald Trump, they spoke like sane human beings, until Trump became the apparent 2016 Republican nominee. Then they all shut up, except for the ones who started to extravagantly praise the same grifter they had been denouncing the day before.

Countless times since then, Republicans have been quoted off the record as saying that they know how horrible Trump is. In some cases it's not so hard to guess who these off-the-record Republicans are: you just match up what they said to a reporter off the record in 2018 with what they said to a cheering campaign crowd in 2015. Or maybe Chris Christie and Ted Cruz sincerely changed their minds and now truly, deeply admire Donald Trump. Yes. That's probably it.

How many others have been publicly supporting Trump while they privately despise him? Will we ever know? Does that group of thoroughly-dishonest, two-faced, party-over-country hypocrites include Mitch McConnell? Mike Pence? Josh Hawley?

MRR beharrt darauf, dass Brecht kein ECHTER schottischer Kommie gewesen!

Als amerikanischer Germanist hatte ich seit Jahrzehnten viel von der "Literarischen Quartett" gehoert, aber bis vor einigen Tagen keine einzige Folge gesehen, bis mir endlich einfiel: ach ja, of course, YouTube. Seitdem habe ich vielleicht eineinhalb dutzenden Folgen gesehen. "Das Literarische Quartett" gefaellt mir mehr, als ich erwartet hatte, was vieles damit zu tun hat, dass mir MRR als Fernsehpersoenlichkeit mehr gefaellt, als ich erwartet haette. Bis vor einigen Tagen hatte ich niemals seine Stimme gehoert, nur etliches von ihm gelesen, was mich nur maessig interessiert hatte. Vielleicht liegt es an mir, und ich bin ein besserer Leser als damals. Vielleicht war MRR im Reden und Debattieren hoeher begabt als im Schreiben.

Wie dem auch sei, die Serie war ganz MRRs Show, und eher selten, in dem was ich bisher geschaut habe, sagt er etwas, was mir bloed vorkommt: fuer Literaturkritik, bei mir, ein sehr hoher Masstab.  Aber etwas irritierte mich: dass er jede Folge mit dem Brecht-Zitat "Wir sehen betroffen den Vorhang zu und all Fragen offen" endet, welch am Ende des Stueckes Der gute Mensch von Sezuan steht. Irritierend, neugierig machend, weil ich schon wusste, Dass MRR antikommunistisch eingestellt wurde, so wie sein konservative Heimat, die FAZ. 

Dann aber sagte MRR etwas, was mich so ueberrascht, dass ich kaum die eignen Ohre traute: er sagte, Brecht sei kein Kommunist gewesen.

Aber ich googelte diese bizarre Behauptung, und doch, MRR hat sie wiederholt gemacht, nicht nur im "Literarischen Quartett" sondern auch in dem Fersehen-Duett, das er mit Peter Voss gemacht hat: "Lauter schwierige Patienten," dessen erste Folge ganz Brecht gewidmet wurde. Da sagte MRR nicht nur, dass er Brecht fuer den besten deutschen Schriftsteller des 20. Jahrhunderts hielt. Er sagte auch:

"Ich bin ueberzeugt, dass Brecht kein Kommunist war und überhaupt kein politischer Mensch."

Dass Brecht der beste deutsche Schreiber des 20. Jahrhundetes war, darueber kann man durchaus diskutieren, die Behauptung ist, wie ich finde, gar nicht weithergeholt. 

Dass Brecht kein Kommunist war, das ist absoluter, undiskutabler Bloedsinn. Vielleicht war er doch der beste deutsche Schrifsteller des 20. Jahrhundertes. Und vielleicht war er auch der allerkommunistischer. Sehr, sehr kommunistisch war er, seit den 20er Jahren.

 

MRR, Antikommunist, war mit der peinlichen Tatsache konfrontiert, dass dieser Schriftsteller, den er so hoch schaetzte wie sehr wenige sonst, Kommunist war. Erzkommunist sogar. Einer, dem so eine Peinlichkeit bevorsteht, haette einige intelligenten Wahlen. Er haette sich entscheiden koennen, dass nicht alles in dem Kommunismus schlecht sein koennte, denn Brecht war drin, mitten drin. Er haette sich sagen koennte, gewiss mit erheblichem Schmerz, dass dieser Schriststeller, dessen Schaffen er tief libte, trotzdem in vielem ignorant or viellecht sogar boes war. 

Aber nein, MRR entschied sich, etwas zu leugnen, das ihm ganz klar vor Augen stand. Er beging den "No true Scotsman" Fehler. 

Zwei Schotten sitzen auf einem Bank im Park. Der erste sieht, wie die Schlagzeile auf der Hauptseite der Zeiting, die der zweite liest, von einem horriblen Verbrechen berichtet, und sagt, "Kein Schotter haette sowas getan. Nie und nimmer!" Der andere erwidert: "Der Taeter ist festgenommen worden, der ist doch Schotte." "Nein! -- Und wie heisst dieser angebliche Schotte?" "Robert Roy Burns MacGregor VI." "Der sechste sogar!" murmelt der ganz betruebte Patriot vor sich hin; aber nur ein Augenblick lang, bevor er sich in dem Unsinn rettet: "Naja, dass mag so sein, aber kein ECHTER Schotter haette sowas getan! Nie und nimmer!" No true Scotrsman.

Und ich? Bin ich denn ein Kommunist, oder was solll das ganze? Nein, ich bin ambivalent. Wenn Du saemtliche Ausgange Deines Staats verrammeln muesst, um vorzukommen, dass Dir Dein ganzes Volk nicht weglaeuft, sieht das nicht schmeichelhaft fuer Dich aus. 

Andererseits ist Kapitlismus auch sehr haesslich, und Kommunismus, der Rest, der davon bleibt, ist immer noch der schaerfste und teffendeste Kritiker der Makel des Kapitalismus. 

Und so bin ich weder kommunistisch noch kapitalistisch sondern postmodern. Noch viel mehr Fragen ganz weit offen, als bei der treue Kommunist Brecht.

The Ford Mustang Mach-E

If you follow this blog closely, you may already have noticed that I hate SUV's and crossovers. I hate it that the electric Volkswagen ID-3, a hatchback with exterior dimensions very similar to the Golf, which is getting rave reviews in Europe, is not being imported to the US. Instead, we have to wait for the ID-4 crossover, because everybody knows that Murrkins love SUV's and crossovers.

Do we really love them? Or has Detroit just been exceptionally successful in shoving millions of station wagons down our throats and convincing us that they're these new things called crossovers?

If you follow EV headlines, you already know that this vehicle,

 

which Ford calls the Mustang Mach-E, will be for sale very soon. I believe the reviewers who say it's an extremely impressive SUV-crossover. But it makes no sense to me to call a crossover a Mustang. Chevrolet could design and build a pickup which was 10 times better than any other pickup anyone had ever seen. Now, that would be one impressive pickup. And it would be really stupid for Chevrolet to call it a Corvette. 

To me, whatever this is, it's not a Mustang. If it was a true electric Mustang, it'd be a coupe or a convertible with a back seat too small for people, and an overall uncompromising focus on performance which would make the car reviewers forget all about those V-8 Mustangs they love so much. The reviewers are saying that they hope the V-8 Mustangs will continue to be built, while Mach-E can be a Mustang for more mature drivers. But "Mustang for the more mature driver" is a contradiction in terms. If an older driver is driving a Mustang, he should be having a mid-life crisis, look ridiculous and be having a wonderful time, not carpooling with 6 other people or hauling a refrigerator.

Dream Log: Sequel to 'Last Temptation of Christ'

I dreamed that a sequel to Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ was being filmed. (During the dream I didn't know why anyone could've have wanted to film a sequel to Last Temptation of Christ, but as soon as I woke up I remembered that there are rumours that Mel Gibson plans to film a sequel to The Passion of the Christ. That alone, the fact that there are rumours, could very well cause a sequel to Last Temptation to be made in real life. Hollywood monkey-see, Hollywood monkey-do.) In the dream, Martin Scorsese was not associated with the remake and was on public record as having disparaged the whole enterprise. Nobody anywhere near the film industry expected this movie to be any good. But there was a lot of debate about whether it was going to be a huge financial success.

I was hired to play a small part in the movie. I was so far out of the loop that I had no idea what the plot of the movie was going to be like. I was on location out in the remote desert in Arizona, but I had not even been given the script for my part yet, let alone a copy of the entire screenplay. I didn't even know my character's name, whether I was playing Zebedee, or Peasant #2, or what. All I knew for certain was that while I was here on location, I was making a huge amount of money, from my perspective. From Hollywood's perspective, I was making scale. For those of you who don't know what scale is, I was making $3,488 a week, plus $1,005 a day for one, two or three days in addition to a week. Plus a location per diem which I didn't need because between free hotel room service, and craft services, which is what they call the superb caterers who provide meals on film sets, I didn't have any idea what I could spend my money on.

Many others in the cast and crew seemed to be in a situation similar to mine: no idea what, if anything, was going on with the movie, but making more money than they were used to. From a purely capitalistic viewpoint, for us it was a brilliant arrangement. From an artistic point of view it was very frustrating. 

Our production had taken over a nice hotel in the desert. Other than the hotel, there was literally no man-made structure for miles around. I wondered why people came to this hotel if they weren't making a desert-themed movie. Off-road racing, perhaps? There was a group of young actors and actresses, in their 20's, I guessed, who got very restless out here in the middle of nowhere, and snuck out at night and drove to the nearest bar, miles away, to spend that per diem. One early morning, they could be seen on hotel security-camera footage, sneaking back into their hotel rooms through the windows. One of the women in this group was particularly beautiful, even compared to other young actresses, so beautiful that she was striking even on hotel security camera footage when she was horribly drunk and falling clumsily through an open hotel window. 

For some reason, this security camera footage was being passed around the cast and crew via our phones and other mobile devices. Most of us seemed to agree about two things: 1) these young people didn't have to try to hide the fact that they were going out nights looking for fun. It didn't bother anyone. And 2) that beautiful young woman most likely would have a fairly good acting career based on looks alone. And if she could actually also act, she could become a superstar. She was Jennifer Lawrence-level beautiful -- so beautiful that it actually sort of hurts.

 I woke up before learning anything at all about my part, and before seeing anything which resembled actual film production.

The US Automotive Market From a Global Perspective

Before Tesla, there were only 3 major American automakers: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. Apart from some very small companies, every other automobile manufacturer in the US had either gone out of business or been bought up by one of the Big Three. And even Chrysler had been owned for a while by Daimler-Benz, turning the American Big Three into a Big Two. Chrysler is an independent, American-based entity again, and the Big Two became the Big Three again. 

The inability of any other corporation to challenge the Big Three led many to predict that Tesla wouldn't last, and some, although fewer, are still predicting that Tesla will either go broke or be bought out by one of the Big Three. Also, many people give other new American automakers such as Rivian, Bollinger and Lucid little chance of surviving. Some disagree, saying that EV's have changed the game, as demonstrated by Tesla. To that, some reply that the game is still making automobiles and that it hasn't changed all that much, despire Tesla having made a huge splash.

If we change our focus from the US to the global automotive industry, suddenly things are much more complex: there are currently more than 50 different countries who each have their own indigenous automobile brands. I'm not talking about all of the countries where automobiles are manufactured, because a company based in one country will very often have manufacturing plants based in other countries. If we count every country where there is an automobile factory, the count goes well up into three figures. No, what I mean is that more than 50 different countries have their own independent companies making their own separate brands of automobiles.

That number might seem very high to some Americans, because most of those countries have never tried to import cars to the US. From the 1980's to the present, the only countries who have imported cars to the US in large numbers have been Japan, Germany, France, Italy, South Korea, the UK, Sweden, Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic and the former Yugoslavia. In the 1980's both Yugo from the former Yugoslavia and Hyundai from South Korea began importing automobiles into the US. At first, both brands, while undercutting every other automaker in the the US in price, were also very inferior in the quality of their products. Yugo disappeared again from the US market, while Hyundai improved its product quality to an amazing degree in a remarkably short time and are now thriving in the US along with their South Korean subsidiary KIA.

China's enormous automotive sector will very soon be trying to make a go of it in the US, with three brands importing cars: XPeng, Nio and Kandi. The US imports from these companies will be electric only. And other Chinese brands will be following, most likely importing EV's only. 

It seems that the whole wide world is in love with crossovers and SUV's. I'm not. But apparently the whole world is. In India, wealthier customers have been buying the same cars as wealthy people elsewhere: Rolls Royces, Mercedes, BMW's, Jaguars and so forth. They've been buying the same electric SUV's, The Jaguar I-Pace and the Audi e-tron. But there's a brand-new all-Indian electric SUV, the Tata Nexon EV, 

 

and the Indian automotive press is going more than a little bit nuts over it. Reviewers say it's just as good as the I-Pace and the e-tron, some say it's better. There's obviously a lot of Indian patriotic pride here over a domestic product which can stand comparison with the finest luxury SUV's in the world, but there's obviously also a very special new vehicle here. 

And although I haven't heard anyone else say anything about it, I have wondered whether Tata might bring the Nexon EV to the US, as the first Indian attempt to enter the US automotive market.

"Range Anxiety"? Range Insanity is What it Is!

Every single review of an EV talks about its range, a lot. And whether an EV can go 100 miles on a single charge, or 200, or 300, or 400, or more, the reviewer -- who is typically an EV enthusiast, not a hater! -- will almost always say that the range is not enough, that EV's need to be able to go still further between recharges before the mainstream public will dare to buy them. Don't wanna be stranded out there somewhere where they've never heard of electricity! However, almost no reviews of ICE vehicles mention how far they can go on a tank of gas or diesel. You know why? C'mon, you know why! Let's all sing it together in 5-part harmony: BECAUSE IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER VERY MUCH! I mention that those EV reviews ALMOST always complain that the EV's range is not enough, that we need more, more, more! But it's only almost always, because now and then an unusually sensible reviewer will point out some relevant information such as that the average daily commute in the car-crazy, wide-open-spaces US is about 25 miles. 

But let's act as if this issue were really important, and do what very few do: point out how far various ICE vehicles can go on a tank of fuel. 

The coveted 2011 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport, 

 

$2 million or so if you can find one for sale, has a big gas tank: 26.4 gallons. However, its EPA city rating is 7 miles per gallon. That comes out to 184.8 miles. If an EV were released in 2020 costing $100,000 or more which got less than 200 miles on a charge, there would be widespread rioting. Fortunately they all get well over 200 miles, some more than twice that. Keep in mind, 7 miles per gallon is the EPA rating for the Veyron. The EPA rating entails fairly sedate driving habits. If you really opened it up, the Veyron would presumably get a lot less than 7 miles per gallon. A Car & Driver review of the Veyron said that if you drove it at its 264 mph top speed continuously, its tires, over $40,000 for a set of 4, would be used up in about 15 minutes, or 65 miles, but that was okay, because it would use a full, 26.4 gallon tank of gas in about 10 minutes, or 45 miles, but that too was okay because there's no place on Earth where you could safely drive at 264 mph for that long. 26.4 gallons in 45 miles is about 1.7 mph. If you drive a Veyron very sedately, that $40,000 set of tires might last as long as 1000 miles. I was bent double with laughter for a while at the thought of someone buying a Veyron and then driving it sedately. You might as well just keep it in plastic shrink wrap like a collectible toy, which is pretty much what it is. By the way, when you change the tires you have to change the wheels too, and that's another $60,000 or more.

When a 1970 Dodge Challenger was new, there were no EPA mileage tests. Owners report about 8 miles to the gallon for one of those gems in peak tune. The car has an 18 gallon gas tank. That works out to 144 miles. And of course, if you let a ICE car go a little, it'll get worse mileage than when it's running perfectly. Is the 1970 Dodge Challenger being constantly abused for its lack of driving range? Are its owners warned never to dare trying to drive one from LA to Vegas? Not to my knowledge.

The 1967 Chevrolet Camaro also has an 18 gallon gas tank. At its official 5.4 miles per gallon, it has a range of under 100 miles -- and less if you floor it, of course. Just as with the Bugatti, just as with all ICE vehicles and all EV's, you get less than the standard range if you drive 'em hard.

The Hodinkee John Mayer G-Shock

Hodinkee, the nearest thing I've found to a horological periodical I can take seriously, narrowly beating out Time + Tide, put a post on Facebook with a huge headline about an upcoming release of a collaboration between John Mayer, G-Shock and Hodinkee. It's not even a link to a story about the new John Mayer G-Shock. Just a huge banner headline saying that it's coming soon.

My G-Shock cost under $50 on Amazon back in May. I'm pleased with it, although most days I wear a mechanical, or 2 mechanicals, one on each wrist. An expensive G-Shock (by which I mean, priced between $200 and many thousands) seems to me to be a contradiction of what a G-Shock is: superior basic function and no frills. It seems silly, like a solid gold Seiko 5 or a $200,000 deluxe Volkswagen Bug. 

John Mayer? A disappointment to me, but it's not his fault that such big expectations were set upon him. A disappointment MUSICALLY. As any kind of horological expert, he's not a disappointment, he's a joke. Or maybe not even a joke, but just a punchline. 

Hodinkee? Easier for me to take seriously when they're not involved in this sort of thing. 

But I have to remember that it's a mistake to take anything to do with watches too seriously. For about 40 years, quartz watches -- such as the G-Shock -- have been more accurate than mechanical watches. But we watch fanciers fancy mechanical watches almost all of the time. The biggest exception being the G-Shock, a very popular option among military special forces. 

 

But most of us who buy G-Shocks are just pretending to be commandos. (Do even commandos still actually need any sort of watches, or is that need now covered by phones and other computers, as it is with the rest of us? I have no idea.) The way that most people who buy diver's watches, which are mostly mechanical and can be extremely expensive, never go diving, and the way that most people who wear pilot's watches are not pilots -- and so forth. It's a big game which is all in our heads, the same way that most people who own Porsches which can go 200mph never drive them as fast as 100mph. The same way that very, very many things are just games in our heads.

It's all very, very silly, this business with watches. Whenever I forget that, I become even sillier.

The Master Took Everything

I'd been trying to remember what novel it was I'd read, which novel I was reminded of by Elon Musk and his fans, in which the protagonist, a follower, a hero-worshipper, breaks down and sobs toward the end of the story, an old man who has wasted his life serving someone who didn't deserve it. 1984? No, that wasn't it, although Winston Smith weeping as he loves Big Brother at last is a similar scene, a similarly heartbreaking catastrophic defeat. Today I remembered: it was The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro. I read it not long after the movie came out in 1993. And I was struck above all by that scene near the end, and I have always felt that I was taught an important lesson there, not to give myself away to those who are not worthy.

I remembered the lesson always, and the image of the old man crying because the Master had taken everything from him, although I forgot for a while which book it was from. So what does this have to do with EV's? Well, I think about Elon Musk's fans. Tesla owners, Tesla shareholders. I also think about Trump's fans. Trump and Musk, and other narcissistic sociopaths, only take, they don't give back. I feel sorry for those who waste their lives giving to unworthy heroes, expecting rewards which they will not receive.

 

Over and over again, we hear people who've been cast aside by Trump, from chumps who'd paid for Trump University all the way up to former Cabinet members. After they had served him loyally, extremely loyally, but not extremely enough. They express their surprise, and we are surprised, wondering how they could have failed to noticed the thousands of similar cases which preceded their own. We're astonished that they could have been surprised.

 

The difference between Musk and Trump is that Musk is a little bit more clever, a little bit less obvious in his predatory behavior. But only a little bit.