The Best. (Part 1, a Quickie)

Hands down the best song so far this year:

Jay-Z on iLike - Get updates inside iTunes

And, though it's I've only listened to it three times, this is a serious contender for best album.

Caitlin is the Best Part.

Amazing Marsheen from Shan Raoufi on Vimeo.

The Day After.

Charles.

This is what wonderful is.

It's a Good Day to Die.

Sarah Palin and the Language of TV.

Even well into the digital age, TV still dictates the popular cultural in our country. For all the CBS's growth on the internet, its website only attracts a million visitors a day. Enough to put it in the top 50 sites out there, but far fewer than the 23 million viewers CSI attracts each week.

This is a relatively mundane point, because for most of our lives TV dictated each of our roles in society through generalities and drab dictations of the national zeitgeist. Each and every sitcom is engineered and group-tested into oblivion so it will grab hold of the largest audience. These facts are hardly hidden, because this is how TV shines. TV's orders from the mount are to present us with the most overarching view of America possible in 21 minutes or less. Which is quite amazing, see, because in effect TV shows us not only how America sees itself, but also what we are as a nation.

To those who prefer to find this in books, TV's endless rehashing of common plots, characters, and themes seems to only lead to a dulling of the senses and a life of McDonald's Pies and Big Gulps. Books rely on far more investment in original, cohesive thought to be successful, but by definition originality and cohesion cannot be found in the blue haze's formulaic seas.

Television's appeal lies in its lack of rhetoric, in its insistence on feelings and its control of them. I'll say that again: TV disdains rhetoric, it speaks in pure emotion. Why else would Fonzi be a common household name today if not for his patterned nostalgia? Or, why on hulu.com is the Family Guy consistently in the top five, if not for its rapidfire demands for laughter? Each and every sitcom, drama, or comedy on TV succeeds to some extent by capitalizing on our feelings, and the more successful each becomes in the weekly ratings, the harder it is to quantify or atomize into distinct parts. Which in turn leads to a national feeling of déjà vu, for we've all felt these feelings before, so TV becomes roundly criticized as nonsensical, repetitive dreck.

These criticisms turn out empty though, precisely because they are searching for gerunds in an idiom that TV cannot speak. We may not know TV's precise point at any given time, but hot damn, we sure as hell can feel it.

Which brings us to Gov. Palin, specifically to her shining moment in the debates, and her feckless and inconsiderate use of the English language:

Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration.

Unless Gov. Palin meant to attack Biden with the securities trading term "preference," a sting to obtuse for basically anyone to pick up on, these sentences might as well be gibberish. But, see, what they convey or feel, is a hope for the future, "forgive those who trespass." And she continues:

Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad that you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?

Palin's jump to that last sentence exposes a way of thinking that rarely pauses for clarity (wait did she just threaten Biden's wife?), but instead barrels through points for effect (she's a fan of teachers!). TV's basic formula plays well under these conditions; if a scene doesn't work it is cut with little to no concern for narrative cohesion. What matters in both instances is the impact of what's felt (God exists, He's on our side, He wants us to win), what's said is hardly the point. Tally ho:

I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

And so, her painful paragraph ends with the most heartfelt bunch of feeling a politician can hope for, a family with kids, under God. Palin goes ones step further and emotes into existence a room full of concentrating young Americans, real Americans. Ones she can feel for, the nation follows along, and that's terrifying.

What is Kansas For?

Anyone?

Have a Looksy: the Fed Rate.

A head scratcher at the time, but ponder this:

"While there are many policy considerations that arise as a consequence of the rapidly expanding global financial system, the most important is the necessity of maintaining stability in the prices of goods and services and confidence in domestic financial markets," he said. "Failure to do so is apt to exact far greater consequences as a result of cross-border capital movements than those which might have prevailed a generation ago."(1995-Doubts Voiced By Greenspan On a Rate Cut)

While you stare at this (click to enlarge):

See that blip between 1985 and 1990 that's the S&L crisis, which caused 700 of those shops to close. But you can see the point I'm trying to make here, starting in 1995 the slope of the Down Jones industrial average starts accelerating. That is the change between 2 points on that graph is less than the next 2 points, until about 2005, but then the slope starts accelerating again.

That's what a bubble looks like, but how does Greenspan factor in here? First a word about what his job was. The fed controls the federal funds rate which sets the interest rate for funds banks can lend to each other. The fed sets this rate by requiring banks to have a certain amount of cash reserves at the fed in the form of Government securities -- which are basically numbers on a balances sheet that the government says are worth what it says. If, after the closing bell, Bank A doesn't have enough reserves it must find another Bank willing to lend money to it so it can bolster its government securities holdings. By controlling the supply of these securities, the Government effectively controls the target rate of these loans. Keynes dictated that when times are tough and economic activity is low the Fed buys a whole bunch of these securities from banks and the banks can then throw that money around. This raises inflation a bit but also opens the sphincters on Wall Street and releases a flow of trading, which, hopefully busies up the economy. When times are chill the fed is supposed to start selling these securities to banks which raises the fed funds rate.¹

All of which can make you a bit batty to think about: rather than just saying the rate is x and holding banks to it, the Fed pilots the boat by effectively locking the tiller and trying to control the wind. Greenspan and Milton Friedman's Neo-Classical nabobs at the fed in 1995, though, were all like "fucks to that, we care about inflation first and foremost, not controlling growth in a cyclical way," and set the federal funds rate at a stable level. Now, pause for a second, Keynesian economics offers a pretty straightforward way to predict what the rate's going to be at any point in time. If the economy's bad (and inflation's under control) it's safe to say it will be pretty low, and if the economy's alright it's safe to say that the rate will be relatively high. Ideally, in this system the rate is predictable, and banks like predictability, because it gives them a base income, and therefore a base to plan all their other bets around. This is called hedging, and for us nerds gives a root for "Hedging your bets".

If the fed funds rate is stable, however, and there is no way of knowing whether or not it will change, banks will lose their collective shit and start looking for safer bets to bolster their base. And out of Greenspan's backwards diction:

"While there are many policy considerations that arise as a consequence of the rapidly expanding global financial system, the most important is the necessity of maintaining stability in the prices of goods and services and confidence in domestic financial markets"

We start to see what he was thinking. Basically he removed a stable bet and forced banks to invest outside of Government -- on top of it all, the dude absolutely hated economic models and formulae -- by inserting a healthy goddamn dose of randomness and whimsy into a historically predictable vehicle. Here we go:

See 1994 to about 2001? Flat. So where do banks look? What has been, historically a pretty solid bet? What changes rates basically inline with the economy, the way the fed funds rate is supposed to? Ummm:

And, goodbye empire.

---

1. I may be wrong about all this. I received a C+ in economics 101 in college. Not bad for the librul arts! Return.

For more reading about further economic fantods see:

• Cityphilia
• As Credit Crisis Spiraled, Alarm Led to Action
• What's in a Number?

Second Best Woody Allen Movie of the Year

Dailies are looking good, and while Javier’s idea to add a massive Martian invasion scene complete with a thousand costumed extras and elaborate flying saucers is not a very good one, I will shoot it to make him happy and cut it in the editing room.

Vicky Christina Barcelona, as you may have heard, is the second best Woody Allen movie of the year, and that means its excellent. The roar of the armchair critics (read: my friends) is already beginning to creep from the lowlands of Bushwick to the magnificent crags of Clinton Hill, so I'll qualify that a bit: while the characters in VCB are as narcissistic, self involved, and selfish as we all are in real life, something's missing, something, say, the -icide suffix and that most divine of adjectives, visceral.

Cassandra's Dream, all three -icides and both forms included, powerfully throws one's stomach into a never ending sink -- are these people? Are these people I like? Are these people me? Am I a criminal? -- until the only answer left is, yes, yes, I am. I am alone and a maniac. Which is precisely what's missing in VCB.

Perhaps one day we'll see Javier Bardem add ETicide to the list in Barcelona. I only hope Allen is at the wheel.

Whew! What a Week.

We're gunna have a new president, it's going to be great!

In other news, I'm tired and I think this song changed my life:

2222

Reason 2222 why Brazil is a place I want to move to: Gilberto Gil has a whole chunk of his music online. For the uninitiated, start with Tropicália ou Panis et Circensis (give batmakumba a whirl), and move to Aquele abraço. Once you have just try and tell me your life isn't any better.

Devourer of Worlds

Sweet. It looks like we all have 8 days to live.

Spoilers TK

Spoiled.

It's about damn time that someone bucked the trend, one of the worst on the internet in my opinion, of being careful about spoilers: Movie Review: 'The Happening' (side note: we should have more genius headlines like this where I work).

For the longest time now, I've been wary of movie/book reviews where the author intentionally resists spoiling the work for his readers. This practice not only capitulates to the audience -- as an editor of Time once said, "Keep the dog food where the dog is" -- it also presupposes the plot summary found in the worst examples of criticism. In both outcomes the critic is failing to do his job: the point of criticism is not to convey the plot or action in a work but rather to discuss the importance of the themes and messages in the work itself. The best criticism goes a step further and connects the art with it's context. Take for example this Manohla Dargis review of Children of Men:

Based in broad outline on the 1992 dystopian novel by P. D. James about a world suffering from global infertility — and written with a nod to Orwell by Mr. Cuarón and his writing partner Timothy J. Sexton along with David Arata, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby — “Children of Men” pictures a world that looks a lot like our own, but darker, grimmer and more frighteningly, violently precarious. It imagines a world drained of hope and defined by terror in which bombs regularly explode in cafes crowded with men and women on their way to work. It imagines the unthinkable: What if instead of containing Iraq, the world has become Iraq, a universal battleground of military control, security zones, refugee camps and warring tribal identities?

Do you see what's happening there? There's no plot discussion, just themes and connections. Two of the best modern examples of these practices are Ed Rothstein's "Connections" columns and William Safire's "On Language" but both of those are hardly pure criticism. Perhaps more germane -- and older -- is Sam Johnson's Rambler series. However, my favorite example of good criticism comes from James Agee, in a review of that bender of a movie "The Lost Weekend":

I understand that liquor interish: innerish: intereshtsh are rather worried about this film. Thash tough.

I suppose this unfortunate trend against spoiling the ending of a movie arises out of the class who writes these reviews: journalists. The very nature of the journalistic pathos hinges on the practice of reporting the truth, and summaries are nothing but truthful. In addition, the hesitancy to refrain from discussing the ending and thus the movie, arises out of a kind of narcissism, and most likely stems from the increased voice readers have on the web. I didn't think I'd end on that note when I started, but the review of 'The Happening', while not among the ones I'll count great, is at least a step in the right direction. (I also have no desire to see 'The Happening'. Though I'm no fan of Mr. Night, due to masochistic urges I've seen all of his previous films, probably because I thought it was funny, but after Lady in the Water I don't have enough time left in my life to see another.)

Newer Noise?

I'm back after a bit of a hiatus. I'm hoping to put up something a bit more substantial soonish, but for now just a few uncontrolled thoughts on the state of music:

I just came back from a show featuring these guys: Wild Birds and Peace Drums, and I couldn't help but think what a sorry state popular music is in. See, Wild Birds and their ilk have forgotten that a fundamental part of music is experimentation, and pushing limits. It's not enough to grab a drummer and a mbira, and go to town. What we need, what we're crying for, is a newport festival, and the revolution of the plugged in guitar, we need two turntables and mile-high speakers, we need angular chords and blaring saxaphones. We need enthusiasm!

Stay tuned. We'll get back on track here soon. Back to more a bit more measured commentary, but with enthusiasm!

Keith Gessen Gives Up the Ghost.

In the newest edition of Titlepage.tv -- the always awkward new project from Daniel Menaker -- Keith Gessen describes his current book All the Sad Young Literary Men. Ever since I picked it up at a book grab at work, I've suspected that it's only the writings of a cowardly narcissist wondering why girls just can't understand him. In an act against the trend of literary memoirs, Gessen hid in his shallow and one-dimensional characters rather than collecting a list of personal essays. Maybe he thought fictionalizing himself and the cadre of n+1 editors would put a little gravitas in his gut, but a slip on Titlepage.tv, above, proves his Fall Out Boy listening inner self is as shallow as expected. Grow a pair, son, and we'll talk in the future.

An aside: congrats to Menaker for having none of it, and looking over his glasses at this shell of a man.

All You Have to Do Is Throw Money, Throw Money.

The end times.

Bear Sterns finally decided to offer the hat to the highest bidder after homeowners called their bluff. As always, the CJR posted the best roundup of the fall of the suspenders-and-cigars firm's newspaper coverage:

As far as government bailouts go, this one could be worse. We’re glad to see the government did not bailout Bear Stearns shareholders, who are already issuing “howls of protests,” the WSJ reports. The paper quotes one employee (Bear Stearns’ employees own one-third of the firm’s shares) who doesn’t get it:

“I’ve got to think we can get more in a liquidation, I’m not selling my shares, this price is dramatically less than the book value Alan Schwartz told us the company is worth,” said a midlevel Bear Stearns executive. “The building is worth $8 a share.”

The building may be worth $8 a share but the rest of the company is worth negative dollars a share, dude.

Turns out they were to busy playing bridge while their firm went to the poor house. Which brings us to the levity of the situation, the red portion in the chart above shows the difference in Bear Stern's stock price from last friday to this morning, and really drives home how dire the situation is. Basically, Bear Sterns went looking for buyers, found one in the historically philanthropic J.P. Morgan and sold for mere pennies (or $2 a share). Its scarier than this everyday story, though, because the fed threw $30 Billion at the merger to leverage debt effectively in the process nationalizing the risk. J.P. Morgan will win big in this deal because the risk is placed on the taxpayers -- the Fed's loan will most likely never be paid -- and it gets at the least a very prime piece of commercial real estate. And as we dig deeper we see a Fed bailout broadcasting a message of laziness about inflation, a message arguing for a company asleep at the wheel, and one too big to fail. Worst of all, the already stretched taxpayer, facing increased threat of foreclosure, just saved the fuckers who financed their debt in the first place.

Movie Tuesday.

Stylish long hair.

Over the weekend I saw two surprisingly great movies, and since I loved them so much I feel we should start a tradition you and I. We'll call it "Movie Tuesday". When I see a good one, I'll jot a few notes about it, and you, good reader, will use the comments section to dissect my purple prose. Sound fun? Here goes:

The first and most spectacular movie I saw this weekend was Gus Van Sandt's skateboard epic Paranoid Park. I won't try to review the whole movie here, just the most breathtaking bit. Needless to say, the story follows a young skateboarder who has committed the most heinous of crimes. Shortly after the act, in an effort to clean himself of the filth -- and guilt -- of the trainyards, he steps into a shower with his head hung in order to hide. As the water flows through his long hair, it collects the individual strands into streams of water running into separate shifting rivers of weight. The soundtrack, at this point, paints an audio collage of natural sounds of birds chirping and wind rushing through leaves. Slowly Van Sandt stops down the camera, the image darkens, and we hear more industrial and more unsettling sounds. At this point the rivulets become something sinister, a viper coat weighing down our young skateboarder. Near the end of the scene he has become a monster quite ephemeral and clearly unnatural, and at least a bit of our sympathy disappears and is quickly replaced by a feeling of revulsion, a sense of shock and awe at the terrifying apparition on screen.

Skateboarding culture as a whole exists in a state of constant exploration and gives its practitioners a sense of ultimate freedom. These urban reclaimers champion the hidden spaces of our devolving urban decay. In past years and centuries, explorers discovered unknown regions of the globe, now these modern day Aguirres find places where people have already been and constructed, but enjoy those most will never see. The very next scene repeats the themes of the shower scene and shows these youngsters gliding up and down a concrete drain tube in a state of bliss, but the camera reverses the shot and we see that the tube is enclosed in on both sides. Effectively, these men underground are less than explorers or heroes: they are trapped by the very freedom they champion. They have a complete inability to flee and escape from civilization's sewers. Spectacular.

The second of the two, Be Kind, Rewind wasn't so much a movie as it was an argument for movies. It follows two mentally challenged video store clerks -- actually everyone in the movie seems a little dim -- and, after one erases the store's entire library after a tragic accident with a power transformer, their attempts at abridging and remaking the movies we know and love. Chock full of references from 2001 to Ernest Goes to Jail, its a heartfelt appeal for the importance of movies, and since I'm such a sucker for shots of an audience lit solely by the flickering shutter of a projector, it had me in sentimental silly tears over the beauty of pretty much any series of moving pictures. Sappy, funny, silly and with a shred of a storyline, Be Kind, Rewind reminds us how completely awesome movies can be, especially ones made on a sunny summer afternoon.

Pop-Tarts is German for Little Iced Pastry O' Germany.

A short heads up: This article at the New York Review of Books by Nicholson Baker explores the hilarity of Wikipedia and I guarantee you will laugh until your sides ache. Way to go NYRB! Not so stuffy after all! (Don't worry, I'm working on something a bit more substantial, but I thought I'd tide all 4 -- or is it three? Hi mom! -- of you over until I've finished.)

Macbeth and Cardassians.

Everyone knows Patrick Stewart is god's gift to acting. His performance on the Star Trek episode "Chain of Command" should prove that to anyone who's seen it. It certainly opened my eyes to the wonders of spectacularly delicious acting as a kid. So it's disappointing that Director Rupert Goold places Patrick Stewart in a largely static Macbeth in it's current run at the BAM.

Goold's take summons the muses of soviet fascist imagery, and jungle camouflaged british actors revolving around Stewart's Macbeth to illuminate his frantic mind. This Macbeth is an AK carrying counterinsurgent in the mold of Mussolini, but terrified of the actual act of treason and murder. It's an interesting take, but its insistence on video art to animate the characters is distracting: largely the actors hit their marks and stick while video projections inject dynamics and tension to the play. Goold has stated that he's taken inspiration from 70s horror flicks, yet he probably hasn't seen much more than their trailers. Every scene, and most apallingly his no wave take on the weyward sister's "Double, Double" speech, is punctuated and fractured like a trailer for the Saw series. This hamfisted approach, in the 2000s no less, is a silly trick to up tension in an overwhelmingly complex introspective work, full of soliloquy and secrecy. It's far past time to throw this cheap cliche out with the baby:

For three hours, Goold's videos play and repeat and it's increasingly frustrating to watch such a misreading of horror. Horror films aren't as slapdash as most think; good ones strive to make the familiar unfamiliar by creating a plausible but off setting. Macbeth does neither. It's set in what looks like a dirty hospital -- you know the aesthetic: dirty tiles, operating tables-- which hardly anyone has ever visited, except in shlocky stupid horror films. The best horror films (Martin, Last House on the Left, Dawn of the Dead) take a familiar setting, the homefront, a mall, a small town, and inject a twist of social commentary to unset the ground, to make a slightly different reality: it's not just flashy lights, blood, and screaming.

(Also, note to the Times: don't send correspondents to galas to get drunk).

Racketeering.

No matter how attractive it is, uttering "And so it begins" is hardly ever warranted. Take Hillary Clinton for example: its hard to say her campaign's dismissal of party rules from running in Michigan and Florida to the recent run on the superdelegates is a strategy wholly unforeseen. But it would be nice just for once to not be prescient:

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.

Unfortunately, Senator Clinton's campaign aides are right; the democratic races in caucus states, even in this heated political season, are attended far less than those in primary states, and even more frustrating, often these races are thrice removed from the popular vote. In Washington, for example, the caucus on Feb. 9th only served to elect delegates to a district caucus held on May 17th at which point the actual Convention delegates are elected. This sort of tiered voting is a far cry from true popular vote democracy, and therefore lowers the quality of the results, which is a hard pill to swallow. However, as you can see in the table in my previous post below, Obama cleaned up in recent primary races, races run in true democratic fashion (as true as could be hoped at this stage at least).

The other tough pill that her campaign is selling is the question of the Michigan and Florida primaries, both of which Clinton won by ignoring the party's ban on campaigning in each state by doing just that (and by keeping her name on the ballot in Michigan). Michigan is a red herring, for she was the only popular candidate on the ballot, and a choice of one, practically -- Mike Gravel et. al really don't count, is a non choice: if you can only vote Hussein, he'll win. But, Florida is unfortunately not. Any argument for democracy must be based on widespread voter enfranchisement, to argue that Florida can not count because they at the state level broke arbitrary rules is disingenuous to the whole democratic experiment. This is a completely infruriating conclusion. In the end, it will come down to, in a framed debate, a matter of allowing votes from neither or both states, and the argument on those terms is over before it started.

Thugs and 'Cuz Written in Urdu.

One of the shining beacons of New Media Journalism is the New York Times. Since their redesign the amount of new offerings in the form of video and specials, like the way they've been handling Campaign '08, are inspiring especially due to the amount of creativity they've been bringing to the table. One of my favorite recent packages is this wildly entertaining video on two rival Urdu language newspapers in Queens. What's most astounding about it however, is its synergy with the print piece. Rather than following the written story closely, the video branches off towards one of the editor's smoking habits, and the other's perfectly encapsulated relationship with his son. The print article adds a bit of color not in the video: the editor's son is a Chomsky quoting upstart who is wary of his father's close, yet troubled, relationship with his rival working in the building just next door. Having a bit of experience in both of these forms, print and video, it's a pretty amazing accomplishment to have one form not directly echo the other, but add to it.

Also, the Times's blogs are completely spectacular. From Nizza's, the Lede focussing on off-beat news (where a recent post covered how a oil platform was evacuated because of a dream), to Errol Morris's Zoom which includes pie-graphs, faked photographs, and dissertation length articles on the problems of photography, it's a wonder that people would read anywhere else on the web (that's a little far but still...). One of the most fascinating discussions you'll see (anywhere on the web), and I'm a little late on the trigger, is this discussion on the Freakonomics blog where an author sat down with a group of actual reformed criminals and watched The Wire to judge the show's accuracy. They call these viewings "Thugs and 'Cuz," 'Cuz' being the author. Over the course of the series you'll find them making great observations over Bunk's guilty conscience and finding fault with Prop Joe's great failing. It's a must read.

Clinton Hill Chill.

JUST SAYIN'!

Waterboarding Afghanis.

Bobby Gates.

Lede: Super Tuesday is a good day to drop news you want ignored. Fact: and what a good news day it was. Double Fact: Journalism is easy! Start with a lede like that and your story will practically write itself, and so here we are.

In the first bit of bad news, CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged the US's use of waterboarding on al-Qaeda suspects since 9/11. Of course, Attorney General Mukasey quickly fired back with the time-honored argument that waterboarding is less than torture, in fact it's a bit like having a fresh shower (that's a bit unfair of me but humor is humor). According to Hayden's testimony before congress, the CIA is allowed to use waterboarding if it has the consent of the "of the President and legal approval of the Attorney-General."

What we're seeing here is a CIA director shifting blame to the Attorney General's office and using the "just following orders" defense while the Attorney General is saying yes, in extreme circumstances it can and should be legal and not be investigated. Only, perhaps that's not the only story we should be following. Any debate on the use of waterboarding hinges on the right of "enemy combatants" and whether they can and should be held by the US government, and whether the US can hold them indefinitely. Both waterboarding and holding "enemy combatants" are beyond the charter of the US Army, which congress is trying to get the CIA to follow on these two issues. I've gone and buried the lede.

The second bit comes from Afghanistan. In a completely dismissal of unilateralism, Condeleeza Rice is jetting around the world trying to gain combat support for our troops in Afghanistan. Currently in Kabul, Rice demanded that NATO partners support the US's crumbling venture in Afghanistan by sending in combat troops. Of course, the NATO response was basically "No fucking way." The pretext for all this was Robert Gates' quarterback sneak last week against NATO for not "providing troops prepared to 'fight and die' against the Taliban." Although the were asking for a relatively low number of troops, 7500 spread over many governments, it certainly seems that NATO is making the best call here; both in their own interests, and in the interest of the project in Afghanistan. What Afghanistan really needs, and by extension what Iraq really needs, is a force dedicated to building infrastructure in these war torn countries. The US can take care of rounding up the Taliban, hell, we've already done it twice. (Well once it was to give them weapons...)

And all of this in a week when an internet new money success story finally started acting like big slow old money....

Straw Polls and Armchair Analysis.

I've been wondering exactly what the two party's turnout has been, and finding a drought of journalism on the story -- on a national scale; there are many like this -- so, I decided to boot up the good old Excel and spend a bit crunching some numbers. Call it an experiment in Computer Assisted Journalism, I hear it's all the rage. The New York Times out of all of the leading websites -- CNN, The Washington Post, etc. -- has the most efficient web interface for this. Their Primary schedule categorizes the format of each state's election format, whether a primary or a caucus, and because of the trouble with counting voter turnout in caucuses -- see the brouhaha over Nevada's -- I did not include them in my totals.

So far it looks like the Democrats are leading by a considerable margin in pure voter turnout. According to my numbers they have seen close to 14 million participate in the primaries, while the Republicans are lagging at only around 9 million. This is a heartening result, and of course is entirely unscientific; for example, in California, a heavily democratic state, the total Democratic turnout was close to 2 million more than the Republicans managed to poll which skews these partial results heavily. If we ignore california entirely so as to remove some bias, the split is closer 6 million for the republicans to 8 for the Democrats. The numbers for each state are below:

State	Democratic Turnout	Republican Turnout	Margin
New Hampshire	287,322	238,548	48,774
South Carolina	532,227	431,196	101,031
Alabama	542,511	567,291	24,780
Arizona	376,926	451,641	74,715
Arkansas	287,025	209,543	77,482
California	4,059,713	2,323,663	1,736,050
Connecticut	353,515	151,212	202,303
Deleware	96,341	50,237	46,104
Georgia	1,054,799	960,351	94,448
Massachussetts	1,254,537	497,531	757,006
Missouri	823,503	589,289	234,214
New Jersey	1,115,188	558,201	556,987
New York	1,747,978	606,479	1,141,499
Oklahoma	417,096	333,602	83,494
Tennessee	618,723	549,515	69,208
Utah	124,307	284,790	160,483
Totals	13,691,711	8,803,089	4,888,622

Of course, this is a big hay bale of analysis because these primaries were completely separate: neither party was in contest with the other, so the votes are skewed by statistical anomalies too complex to fathom (some Republicans could've voted in the far more media centric Democratic race for kicks). It's still an interesting bit to figure out.

Oh, The Gray Lady.

On the train to work today I read this surprisingly vapid story in The Times. On the frontpage. Above the fold. The basic assumption of this decidedly human interest story is that the credit crunch will bestow upon those Americans who "have proved staggeringly resourceful at finding new ways to spend money" a new found faith in saving money. At the outset we're treated to the popular history of American's love for easy money and fine dining:

"In the 1950s and ’60s, as credit cards grew in popularity In the 1950s and ’60s, as credit cards grew in popularity, many began dining out when the mood struck or buying new television sets on the installment plan rather than waiting for payday."

That Americans have been using credit cards, and credit as a whole, with ever increasing frequency is as strong a fact as global warming, but to attribute this phenomenon to increased consumption of television sets or fine dining is irresponsible. Any undergraduate economics major could tell the reporter that the credit crunch revolves around the increased use of credit as a sort of plastic safety net. During these "freewheeling days of credit and risk" Americans watched their real buying power and salaries stagnate as inflation went up while credit increasingly filled the void. Instead of investigating the hard evidence, The Times, editors and all, thought it apt to interview one Elena Gamble of Elk City (I'll quote it all because it's gold):

Not long ago, Elena Gamble would have looked at the Cadillac parked across the street from her modest home in Elk City, Okla., and felt a twinge of jealousy.

“We live in a small town, and everybody looks at your clothes and what you drive and where you have your hair done,” said Ms. Gamble, who earns about $2,600 a month as a grievance counselor at a local prison.

Now, she and her husband — a prison guard who brings home $2,000 a month — are grappling with $10,000 in high-interest debt. They no longer go to the movies or out to eat, except occasionally to McDonald’s. They quit their Internet service. Their car was repossessed. “What we say now is, ‘If we can’t afford it, we can’t buy it,’ ” Ms. Gamble said.

And when she looks across the street at that Cadillac, her envy has been replaced by pity for the neighbor on the hook.

I wonder if their neighbor is really "on the hook". I have no idea who they are, and the article bases this conclusion on Elena's interview. Is it too much to ask that a Times' reporter go across the street and ask the neighbor, "Excuse me are you able to make payments on your car?" Certainly not the journalistic integrity I expect from the gray lady.

Lawrence Lessig on Barack Obama.

Lawrence Lessig, the ardent supporter of electronic rights, has a post up on his blog about why his support for Obama is based around moral courage and integrity of character. While this tack usually is less than convincing, and actually has more than a hint of boomerism, Lessig throws together a convincing argument for Barack.

He finds fault with Bill Clinton on character issues, especially on his change of face regarding supporting gays in the military. Being Lessig, of course, he holds Hillary to task over privacy rights and the Iraq war. The video's high point for me is it's use of the wayback machine to expose a bit of the strongarm tactics of the swiftboating currently aimed at Barack's opposition to the war, and his analyses of Barack's statement on republican ideas which Hillary's campaign, in a Rovean moment, mutated into an endorsement for Republicans. You can find his video, really just a narrated power point presentation, but as good an argument as any on moral issues, at his blog.

A Little Off the Top.

I'm diving in. Over the course of at least the next year I hope to write 250 words a day on the topics most important in my mind. Promises such as these often have the unfortunate side effect of being unfulfilled, but I hope to at least start writing a bit more. Most of the posts will unfortunately be like this one, long-winded, pedantic, didactic, and full of faulty logic because this blog (perhaps the worst new word in the english language) is for practice writing, a digital update of the whiteboard, or perhaps a digital logbook. I hope at the end of a week my writing has improved noticeably, and that near the end of a month I'm writing more clearly and concisely, and have removed some of my literary crutches. Maybe, even, we'll throw in a little experimentation.

So, on with the show. It seems I've already broken rule number one, but, hey, I'm still learning how to bend my leg.