Monthly Archives: October 2011

10.31.11
by

The gap between you and “them”

First,  a math story problem:

Person A makes $25,000 per year from his job. Person B has $250,000 in investments.

Person A receives a 5-percent raise. Person B’s stocks increase 10 percent in value. At the end of the year, A is now making $26,250 per year, and B’s investments have increased in value to $275,000.

Question: Who is better off?

Answer: It depends whom you ask. A has less disposable income than B, but now has more than he had a year ago. B’s investment increase means the companies in which B owns stock had a sufficiently successful year for its stock to increase in price.

That story problem describes reality in a free enterprise society — rich people make more money because, well, they’re rich, and they have more ways to improve their financial fortunes.

Even if you reduce B’s gain to 5 percent, the gap still increases. Whereas B is worth $225,000 more than A at the beginning, B is worth $236,250 more than A a year later. In other words, simple math says that the gap between the “rich” and the “poor” will almost always increase. The only way to reduce the gap is to restrict B’s gain so that A’s income increases more than B’s does.

Question: Do we really want to do that? Consider who the “rich” are, according to Fool Me Never:

Let’s personalize this. My parents would fall into the “rich” category. My dad went to college, got good grades, got a job and climbed the corporate ladder, basically from the bottom. He was able to make enough to support my mom and me, pay off the house and cars, all while saving for retirement and a vacation here and there. He was able to do this while keeping a comfortable lifestyle, but truth be damned if you’ll see my mother carrying a purse costing more than 20 bucks, or my dad trading in his 10-year-old vehicle. Like I said, they live comfortably, but hardly the glitz and glamor, little dog-carrying and cognac-sipping extravagance that Obama would like you to believe. Also, like most families, mine has also taken a hit by the economy, forcing them to cut back on labor and completely pull out of the market. This is a very common reality among upper-middle class Americans. They spent and saved their money wisely like any NORMAL, RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE. But under Obama, they have gone from being considered the upper-middle class, to the “evil rich,” ruling class… the Bourgeoisie. …

According to the IRS, tax filers with $200,000 or more in Adjusted Gross Income, the “rich” in America made up about three percent of all tax filers in 2008. They earned 30 percent of all income and paid 52 percent of all income taxes, paying an average tax bill of $123,264. The average income tax bill for the handful of Americans who earned more than one million per year was a whopping $780,039.

On the other hand, individuals making less than $200,000 paid an average of $5,734 (2.8% or less) while those making less than $50,000 paid an average of $1,796 (3.5% or less).

A large percentage of the “rich” in America are also small business owners. According the Heritage Foundation, 65 percent of all married couples with incomes above $250,000 and 50 percent of all individuals with incomes above $200,000 report business income. In Obama’s words, these “small businesses are the heart of the American economy. They’re responsible for half of all private sector jobs—and they created roughly 70 percent of all new jobs in the past decade. So small businesses are not only job generators, they’re also at the heart of the American Dream.”

However, they’re the targets of Obama’s new taxes. Estimates from the Tax Foundation show that nearly 40 percent of the estimated tax revenue generated by raising the top two marginal tax rates will come from small business income.

We know that Occupy Wall Street and its socialist sister protests are opposed to 0.1 percent of U.S. companies, whose stock, by the way, are owned by half of U.S. households. (If Forbes.com’s Bruce Upbin‘s list of 147 Companies That Control Everything is accurate, then some enterprising financial advisor should put together a mutual fund of those 147 companies.) Try to punish those 0.1 percent for their success, and  you are guaranteed to punish millions — literally millions — of more companies.

Or perhaps you won’t punish them at all. Consider this graphic:

The most noticeable growth in the gap comes between the early 1990s and 2000. In 1993, remember, Congress increased taxes on the “rich” to 39.6 percent and also increased gas taxes. Since 2000, over the decade the gap remained reasonably flat.

Then look at the beginning of the graphic. Growth in the gap between 1967 and 1980 was not as much as growth in the gap between 1980 and the late 1980s. But ask yourself this question: In which period were we better off? During the 1970s, when we had inflation followed by hyperinflation and high unemployment? (Remember the term “misery index”?) Or in the 1980s, when money tightened and we had two rounds of tax cuts?

Jim Pethokoukis asks a few inconvenient questions about the gap:

Just think for a second: If inequality had really exploded during the past 30 to 40 years, why did American politics simultaneously move rightward toward a greater embrace of free-market capitalism? Shouldn’t just the opposite have happened as beleaguered workers united and demanded a vastly expanded social safety net and sharply higher taxes on the rich? What happened to presidents Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry? Even Barack Obama ran for president as a market friendly, third-way technocrat.

Nope, the story doesn’t hold together because the financial facts don’t support it. …

In a 2009 paper, Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon found the supposed sharp rise in American inequality to be “exaggerated both in magnitude and timing.” Here is the conundrum: Family income is supposed to rise right along with productivity. But median real household income—as reported by the Census Bureau—grew just 0.49 percent per year between 1979 and 2007 even as worker productivity grew four times faster at 1.95 percent per year. The wide gap between the two measures, if accurate, would suggest wealthy households rather than middle-class families grabbed most of the income gains from faster productivity.

But Gordon explained that this “compares apples with oranges, and then oranges with bananas.” When various statistical quirks are harmonized between the two economic measures, Gordon found middle-class income growth to be much faster and the “conceptually consistent gap between income and productivity growth is only 0.16 percent per year.” That’s barely one‐tenth of the original gap of 1.46 percent. In other words, income gains were shared fairly equally. …

A pair of studies from 2007 and 2008 conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis supports Gordon. Researchers examined why the Census Bureau reported median household income stagnated from 1976 to 2006, growing by only 18 percent. In contrast, data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed income per person was up 80 percent. Like Gordon, they found apples-to-oranges issues such as different ways of measuring prices and household size. But in the end, they concluded that “after adjusting the Census data for these three issues, inflation-adjusted median household income for most household types is seen to have increased by 44 percent to 62 percent from 1976 to 2006.” In addition, research shows that median hourly wages (including fringe benefits) rose by 28 percent from 1975 to 2005.

Set all the numbers aside for a moment. If you’ve lived through the past four decades, does it really seem like America is no better off today? It doesn’t to Jason Furman, the deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council. Here is Furman back in 2006: “Remember when even upper-middle class families worried about staying on a long distance call for too long? When flying was an expensive luxury? When only a minority of the population had central air conditioning, dishwashers, and color televisions? When no one had DVD players, iPods, or digital cameras? And when most Americans owned a car that broke down frequently, guzzled fuel, spewed foul smelling pollution, and didn’t have any of the now virtually standard items like air conditioning or tape/CD players?”

No doubt the past few years have been terrible. But the past few decades have been pretty good—for everybody.

James Wigderson channels his inner Santayana:

So many in the Madison protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement (with its local components) like to indulge in the fantasy that there is some great conspiracy at work to keep them economically oppressed. It’s as if they really believe that somewhere the Koch brothers, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or even some “neoconservative” cabal are meeting right now to figure out how to make gender studies majors take out more student loans.

Some of the protesters have even rediscovered anti-Semitism, a sign that they may be running out of scapegoats so they’re resorting to the worst forms of the mob mentality.

It would probably never occur to them that control of their existence is largely in their hands. If it did, the thought of taking personal responsibility has obviously caused them to lose their senses.

A common theme is that the protesters are against “capitalism,” as if there is some alternative. They might as well be opposed to gravity. We see how well that works for the coyote as he chases the road runner.

Unfortunately for the Occupy movement, so much of this has all been heard before. Where it was actually put into practice, there was nothing but misery, economic collapse, political oppression, and in some cases mass murder. We have the whole of human history to draw upon as lessons but somehow these children believe that they can force a different outcome. …

This really is not surprising when you consider how much of the current protest movement is built upon nostalgia for the 1960s. They forget that Woodstock was a drug-filled sanitary nightmare that almost was a human disaster if it wasn’t for the assistance of the very “system” they were supposedly against.

The Occupy _____ types like to blame banks. Banks, remember, were the biggest donors to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, and donated more to Democrats than Republicans. Democrats’ being on the side of the Occupy ____ types proves that politicians have no shame.

Here’s a really inconvenient question: What is going to change after Occupy _____? (Particularly given the aforementioned Obama donations.) Is punishing (as in increasing the taxes of) the wealthy going to make things better for the non-wealthy? Or is more government revenue going into the same rathole into which goes the trillions of our tax dollars now? As Pethokoukis says, “America needs an informed debate on how the American middle class can prosper in the future the way it has in the past—even if it is ideologically inconvenient for … liberals.”

10.31.11
by

Presty the DJ for Oct. 31

Today in 1963, Ed Sullivan was at Heathrow Airport in London just as the Beatles deplaned to a crowd of screaming fans and a mob of journalists and photographers.

Intrigued, Sullivan decided to investigate getting the Beatles onto his show.

Today in 1964, Ray Charles was arrested at Logan Airport in Boston and charged with heroin. Charles was sentenced to one year probation after he kicked the horse.

The number one British album today in 1970 was “Motown Chartbusters Volume 4,” clearly not British …

… while the number one U.S. album was “Led Zeppelin III,” clearly not American:

That same day, Michelle Phillips married Dennis Hopper. The marriage lasted eight days.

The number British album in 1987 was Fleetwood Mac’s “Tango in the Night”:

Birthdays begin with Russ Ballard of Argent and his own writing career:

Bob Siebenberg plays drums for Supertramp:

Larry Mullen plays drums for U2:

Annabella Luin of Bow Wow Wow:

Finally, what day is today?

10.30.11
by

Presty the DJ for Oct. 30

The number one album and single today in 1971:

A low, low moment in rock history: Today in 1978, NBC-TV broadcast “Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park”:

(The entire movie, believe it or don’t, can be viewed on YouTube.)

Birthdays start with Eddie Holland, part of the Motown Holland–Dozier–Holland writing team:

Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane/Starship:

Otis Williams of the Temptations:

Timothy B. Schmit of the Eagles:

10.29.11
by

Presty the DJ for Oct. 29

The number one song today in 1966:

Today in 1983, Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” spent its 491st week on the charts, surpassing the previous record set by Johnny Mathis’ “Johnny’s Greatest Hits.” “Dark Side of the Moon” finally departed the charts in October 1988, after 741 weeks on the charts.

The number one song today in 1988:

Today in 2003, research at the University of Cincinnati discovered the “earworm” — songs get stuck in listeners’ heads by creating a “brain itch” that can only be “scratched” by repeating a song.  Which helps explain such songs as …

Birthdays begin with Neal Hefti, known for two TV shows:

Denny Laine played guitar for the early Moody Blues and Wings:

Robbie van Leeuwen played guitar for the Shocking Blue:

Peter Green was part of the first iteration of Fleetwood Mac:

Pete Timmons of the Cowboy Junkies:

One death of note: Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band, killed in a motorcycle crash today in 1971:

10.28.11
by

It’s the message, not the messenger

American Thinker has a debate over Steve Jobs‘ effect on culture.

First, Matt Patterson:

It is only by comparison to other luminaries of today that Jobs has appeared to be such a Goliath.  By historical standards, Steve Jobs is a poor excuse for a genius.

This is not to take away from his considerable entrepreneurial accomplishments and marketing innovations — certainly, Jobs can be counted among the greatest CEOs of the post-War era.  And before the legions of Apple fans get ready to flog me with their wrath, let me say — I am a fan.  A Mac was my first computer, as have been all my subsequent computers.  I’m writing this column with the assistance of my iPad, in fact, which I love.  There is no question that Jobs and Apple have made it easier and sexier to enjoy our “content.”

But that, in fact, is the tremendous downside of the Jobs-led digital revolution: the downgrading of all of the world’s knowledge, art, literature into the single all-encompassing category of “content.”

Is it any coincidence that the squeezing of both the average inconsequential tweet and Bach’s masterpieces into the single, amorphous umbrella “content” has gone hand-in-hand with the steep decline in the quality of new content being produced?  I don’t think so.

Think about it: the more ways we have to enjoy our content — HD, Blu-ray, DVD, iPod, iPhone, laptop, desktop, satellite TV, the “cloud” — the less enjoyable it is.  Sure, you can carry any movie with you in your pocket, but how good can it look on a 3-inch screen?  Sure, you have your music with you wherever you go these days, but how good can it sound competing with the din of the street traffic or train that suffuses your morning commute?

Music especially these days is a pale shadow of its former self.  Modern albums are small and tinny-sounding, mixed atrociously, and why not?   Bands have no incentive to make dynamic music, because each song is just going to be compressed (which shaves off the high and low ends) and deposited along with thousands of tunes onto an iPhone or other portable device.  Then, if it is lucky enough to actually make it onto a playlist, it will likely be sampled, but briefly before being skipped over for the next track or interrupted by an incoming call or text.

Next, Thomas Lifson:

Matt seems to blame Steve Jobs for the vulgarization of popular culture, and because Jobs made so much in the way of information/data/content/media available and accessible to so many, he did indeed vulgarize us, at least in the original intent of the term.  But, for that matter, so did Guttenberg with his printing press.

We forget that Guttenberg’s invention was not greeted with universal praise. The original project was making the Bible more accessible, but in the end print has been the vehicle for Larry Flynt and worse. Unquestionably, the average quality of literature was far higher in the era of illuminated manuscripts than it is today.  But making the printed word cheap enough that everyone potentially has access was worth it.

So it is with Jobs, who brought digital media to  the pockets, purses, and briefcases of the world, and made its use intuitive — not a skill to be mastered after study of manuals.  He has enhanced accessibility, which has an upside and a downside.  Matt well outlines the principal downside: more pap is being consumed than ever before.  But on the upside, I have Vivaldi and other masters available on my iPhone, and could read Plato’s Republic on my iPad, if I buy one.  And so could you, for whatever elevated interests you might have. …

His genius was in imagining the possibilities for entirely new kinds of products, and in putting the user first, so that intuition could guide the novice into using the device.  With the iPod he reimagined the music industry, bringing a vast library to the listener’s fingertips, and collecting a nice commission each time a piece of music is sold.  The iPhone (and its smartphone imitators) has brought vast information capabilities to us no matter where we roam.  The ultimate impact of the iPad remains to be seen, but friends who have them enthuse about their utility.

I am reconciled that technology has an upside and a downside.  There’s no putting the technology genie back into the bottle, at least until a civilization collapses.

The comments, which devolved into the usual Mac-vs.-PC war, did not really address Patterson’s complaint that easing the ability to publish cheapens quality. As Lifson countered, the blame lies not with Jobs but with Guttenburg if you buy that argument. (Or whoever figured out how to draw stick figures on the sides of caves.)

And I don’t buy even that argument. William Shakespeare threw in violence and sex to get the commoner crowds at the Globe Theater to buy tickets. Patterson commits the error of the carpenter’s blaming his tools. If people watch reality TV and the “sport” of poker, that is the fault of the culture, not the medium.

10.28.11
by

Offensive defense

Bleacher Report gives a provocative headline to an item from the Green Bay Press–Gazette’s Pete Dougherty:

Does Green Bay Even Need a Defense?

Green Bay not only needs a defense; the Packers have a defense. It is not, however, according to Daugherty, a very good defense, but it wasn’t a very good defense at this time last year either:

The Packers grew into a top defense in 2010 for many reasons, most importantly because several players emerged as key performers as the season went on.

The main question as the Packers hit their bye is whether the same thing will happen this year. It’s also worth asking whether their defense will need to be as good to win another Super Bowl, considering they have possibly the best offense in the league.

As a starting point, it must be noted that for all the yards the Packers have allowed, in important ways their defense is performing about as it did through seven games in 2010. This year’s Packers rank substantially worse in yards allowed (No. 27, to No. 18 last year), passing yards allowed (No. 31 to No. 14) and sacks percentage (No. 17 to No. 6), but they’re better in points allowed (No. 9 to No. 12), red-zone defense (No. 7 to No. 16) and interceptions (No. 4 to No. 6).

The only truly important stat in that paragraph is points, and, again, the Packers are better than they were a year ago. Passing yardage can be misleading because, if a team is behind, it is more likely to pass than run. Teams that are ahead all the time thus will face more passing, particularly of the prevent-defense dink-and-dunk variety.

I figured this out from high school football – specifically the 2003 Ripon Tigers, which gave up 15.2 yards and 258.8 yards per game. That sounds good but not great, but that’s because of their offensive statistics — 45.2 points and 454.9 yards per game — and, by the way, their record, 14–0. More significant than a team’s points per game, either on offense or defense, is the margin (offensive points minus defensive points) per game.

Here is proof from a six- or seven-game sample: The only undefeated team is the Packers, which are also number one in margin — 32.9 offensive points per game, 20.1 defensive points per game, for a difference of 12.8 points per game. The next four in margin per game are Baltimore, which is 4–2; San Francisco, which is 5–1; New Orleans, which is 5–2; and New England, which is 5–1. All of those teams are leading their divisions except for Baltimore, which is a half-game back of Pittsburgh.

Those five teams are all near the top of the NFL in offensive points per game — New Orleans is first, Green Bay second, New England is fourth, San Francisco is fifth and Baltimore is eighth. The defensive points per game rankings are different: Baltimore is first, San Francisco is second, Green Bay is 10th, New England is 15th and New Orleans is 17th.

Less than half a season isn’t a large sample, and this could be one of those statistical measures that reveals itself only at the end of a season, not in the middle. But judging from this half-season, it seems that, in the NFL, offense is indeed more important than defense, and that there is a more of a correlation to a team’s success in margin rather than in offense or defense.

Dougherty adds:

Of the most commonly cited statistics for judging a defense, total yards might be least telling. The one that matters most, aside from points, probably is opponent’s passer rating.

There, the Packers aren’t as good as they were seven games into 2010, when opposing quarterbacks had a rating of only 72.6. But at 79.3 this year, they still rank a notable No. 9 in the league.

“The formula for us right now is, as long as our quarterback continues to play the way he is, and if we can keep our (opponent’s) quarterback rating down into the 70s,” defensive coordinator Dom Capers said this week. “Aaron (Rodgers) right now is (125.7 points). That’s a pretty good differential. So I think that’s a winning formula.”

Just for comparison, Rodgers’ passer rating last year after seven games was 89.0, a 16.4-point differential from opponents, and the Packers were 4-3. This year, with a 46.4-point differential, they’re 7-0. …

For now, though, the Packers are giving up big yards but winning with turnovers and red-zone stops. There’s reason to wonder whether that eventually will bite them against a good team in a big game. Or maybe they’ll just outscore their defensive shortcomings when the games count most.

How important are turnovers and red-zone stops? Say a team gets the ball on its 20 and takes it to the opponent’s 10-yard line, where it then throws an end-zone interception. (Sound familiar, Kyle Orton?) Your defense has given up 70 yards, but more importantly, zero points, while adding one to its turnover margin and decreasing its red-zone scoring percentage.

Games are not decided by yards; they are decided by points, though obviously yards lead to points. We’ll see if the Packers can continue to emulate the 1983 Washington Redskins, which got to their second Super Bowl despite losing to Green Bay 48–47 and having a pass defense that called itself the “Pearl Harbor Crew.”

 

10.28.11
by

Presty the DJ for Oct. 28

Today in 1956, Elvis Presley made his second appearance on CBS-TV’s Ed Sullivan Show, with Sullivan presenting Presley a gold record for …

One year later, Presley’s appearance at the Pan Pacific Auditorium in Los Angeles prompted police to tell Presley he was not allowed to wiggle his hips onstage. The next night’s performance was filmed by the LAPD vice squad.

One year later, Buddy Holly filmed ABC-TV’s “American Bandstand”:

It would be Holly’s last TV appearance.

Today in 1964, the T.A.M.I. show began in Santa Monica, Calif., emceed by Jan and Dean:

The number one album today in 1967 was “The Supremes: Greatest Hits”:

In 1972, something called the United States Council for World Affairs selected this as its official theme song (which is ironic given the Roger Daltrey vs. Pete Townshend fights over the years):

The number one album today in 1989 was Janet Jackson’s “Rhythm Nation 1814″:

Birthdays begin with Charlie Daniels:

Randy Newman:

Wayne Fontana:

Tommy Dolbeck played drums for the Michael Stanley Band:

10.27.11
by

Ya think?

The original headline for this piece was going to be from one of my favorite guilty-pleasure movies, “Desperado,” in which a meeting takes place in a Catholic church confessional:

EL MARIACHI (Antonio Banderas): Bless me father, for I have just killed quite a few men.

BUSCEMI (Steve Buscemi): No shit.

(I should apologize for the foul language, but (1) I’m just quoting from the movie and (2) we already lowered the bar through the blog’s first example of nudity earlier this week.)

The reason I would choose either of those headlines is because of this Wisconsin Reporter item, headlined “Some worry state entering reprisal by recall”:

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin and the liberal political action committee United Wisconsin next month plan to launch a petition drive to force Walker to stand for election — only a year into Walker’s four-year term. They’ll need to collect more than 540,000 valid signatures.

Democrats and organized labor are livid about the Walker-led Act 10, which reformed collective bargaining for most unionized public employees.

Some in Democratic leadership have suggested Walker won’t be the only Republican to face a recall threat; they say some GOP senators could be targeted.

Some see it as a reprisal by recall.

“I would classify it as type of warfare,” said Joe Heim, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. “To me, there’s got to be some rational sense at some point.”

While he said he can understand the anger of Democrats and union members over Walker’s policies, Heim said he is no fan of easy recalls.

“Recalls should be like impeachments; they should be for high crimes, malfeasance and corruption. They should be used minimally,” Heim said.

This is by far the most disingenous comment:

Jim Camery is a bit conflicted, but he said he’s adamant that he wants Walker out for what he calls the governor’s “egregious” policies.

Camery, chairman of the Pierce County Democratic Party, said he goes back and forth on whether the recall system is a good tool. He said he believes it will be a breeze to get the 540,000 signatures to recall the governor, or 25 percent of the total vote in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

The Democrat said he knows it could all be “tit-for-tat,” that Republicans could champion recall causes when they are in the minority. But, he said, he’s hopeful the current spate of election challenges doesn’t lead to a continuous recall campaign.

You have to be Cleopatra, the queen of denial, to believe that Republicans will not work to recall a Democratic governor in the unlikely event Walker loses a recall election, or if Democrats take control of the state Senate through another recall campaign. The Recallarama of earlier this year shows that, as Camery predicts, you can get enough signatures, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to win a recall election.

We have now arrived at the most toxic political atmosphere in the history of this state. Democrats and their apparatchiks didn’t like the Nov. 2 election results — for which blame they should look in the mirror at their capital punishment-level incompetence — and now want to hold taxpayers hostage for their electoral temper tantrum. And this over taking a small step to move control of state finances to where it belongs — with taxpayers, not government employees.

Remember, Democrats, that Newton’s Third Law of Motion does not apply. For every political action, there is a bigger and opposite reaction. And I couldn’t hazard a guess as to what that might be.

10.27.11
by

The daddy party and the prodigal brother party

A decade or so ago, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews used the terms “the mommy party” and “the daddy party” to describe the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.

That context helps you understand this observation by the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto:

Here’s ABC News, reporting on the speech the president gave in Fog City: “At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.”

Oh no! Horror of horrors! Obama is the only thing standing between us and having to rely on ourselves! And do you know what they call people who rely on themselves?

Adults.

Oddly, the White House website doesn’t have the text of this speech, but here’s a passage from ABC: “The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own. If you get sick, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford college, you’re on your own. If you don’t like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you’re on your own. That’s not the America I believe in. It’s not the America you believe in.”

Obama explicitly rejects the American ethos of self-reliance. He sees dependence on government not as an evil, if sometimes a necessary one, but as a goal to be pursued. It reminded us of Peggy Noonan‘s observation last week that there’s something not fully adult about the president himself: “Sorry to do archetypes, but a nation in trouble probably wants a fatherly, or motherly, figure at the top. What America has right now is a bright, lost older brother. It misses Dad.”

10.27.11
by

Presty the DJ for Oct. 27

Four days before Halloween was the world premiere of the more recognizable version of Modest Mussorgsky’s ”Night on Bald Mountain”:

The song was an appropriate theme for the Friday-bad-horror-flick-show “The Inferno” on WMTV in Madison:

Britain’s number one song today in 1957:

The number one song today in 1963 was the Four Tops’ only number one:

The number one song today in 1973:

Today in 1975, Time and Newsweek demonstrated journalistic groupthink when they chose the same cover story on a then-obscure musician, Bruce Springsteen:

The number one British album today in 1990 was Paul Simon’s “The Rhythm of the Saints”:

Presenting, in order, the Best British Group and Worst Female Singer in the 1991 Smash Hits Poll:

The small list of birthdays starts with Byron Allred, who played keyboards for the Steve Miller Band:

Simon Le  Bon of Duran Duran …

Peter Dodd played guitar for the Thompson Twins:

Scott Weiland of the Stone Temple Pilots:

Finally, today in 1980, Steve Took, a former member of T Rex, choked to death on a cherry pit. He choked to death because the magic mushrooms he had taken numbed all sensation in his throat.