Disappointing Krugman column

I know he doesn't like Obama. He wanted Edwards and now he's resigned himself to Hillary. And I respect that, as I respect everyone's opinions on the best presidential candidate. But today's column was just a little too dirty and undignified for him - I was a bit shocked. Read for yourself; here are my comments:

The biggest problem I had with this column was that, wouldn’t it have made more sense to demonstrate moving away from hate by examining both sides? Instead, he attacks Obama supporters (not even the candidate, but the supporters) without even speculating on Clinton’s troops. Yes, the Clintons are a dynastic political force and Obama (at least up to this point, though now I’m not so sure) was the underdog – of course the pundits are going to pounce on her. But that’s the media, not the people. Also, the comparison of Obama’s “personality cult” to George W. Bush’s was pretty insulting and a low blow for Krug. Obama is not a Republican and he's not manipulating a specific religious group in order to get elected. In fact, as far as I can see he's not going out of his way to appeal to any specific group (yes, he does have a stronger pull with young people and African-Americans - but that's partially because he is younger and he is half-African - he hasn't been actively trying to reach those groups, the way HC has with Hispanics, women, etc.). Considering the two Democratic candidates have very similar stances on most of the issues and are neck-and-neck in the race, why is Obama the only one with the "personality cult"?

Then Krugman says, “For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.”

Wouldn’t the same apply to his Obama remarks? Is he actually claiming that there is no "hero worship" in the Clinton campaign? Was it just me, or was the entire column innately hypocritical? I adore Krugman and economically/socially, we get along pretty well. But this leads me to think he’s taking this race too personally and letting it affect the quality of his work, which is a bit disappointing. I know he wants us to vote on the issues, and I agree of course, but health care is pretty much the only issue he brings up! If he truly thought Obama was unfit for the presidency, you’d think he’d prove it using more than his health care plan (because let’s face it, those plans have to make it through the House and the Senate, plus somehow integrate with the current health care system – they’re not going to look anything like their current state by the time they're enacted – plus, it’s not the most important issue to most Americans – Iraq and the economy are – but he never mentions them). I’m just disappointed that’s all – I know we’re young and idealistic, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t examined the issues and I find the insinuation offensive. Krugman’s going to need to back up his story a bit more to persuade me. And the fact that he hasn’t yet, is a BIG disappointment. I’d expect more from an intellectual, particularly an economist.


Follow-up from original post:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/on-race-cards-and-all-that/

This clarifies his position brought up in my last post and eases my mind... somewhat. I still don't think he explains fully why he believes there is a "personality cult" surrounding Obama whereas his positions are nearly identical to Hillary's. I think Krugman should have kept his criticisms of the media and his criticism of "Obama supporters" separate. I agree with him in the above-posted link, I think the media has blown a lot of the Clinton stuff out of proportion. But considering the Clintons' knowledge of the media's propensity to do so, and yesterday's announcement of Hillary's staff shake-up - it just makes her campaign look poorly run.

This troubles me though: "Folks, you’ve been played like a fiddle by people in the media who just plain hate the Clintons. They tried to take Hillary down over her clothes, her voice, her tears. When none of that worked, they invented a race war. There are some perfectly good arguments against Hillary — Iraq, the presence of people like Mark Penn, the big-money Dems in her circle. But this really is Al-Gore-says-he-invented-the-Internet stuff. And it’s deeply depressing to see so many progressives fall for it."

First of all, thanks for the patronizing tone, Krugman - that was necessary. Secondly, he has absolutely no proof that the media's portrayal of the Clintons has had an effect on the public - unless, of course, you count votes in the primaries and poll results. But why couldn't those results be reflective of Obama support based on the issues and his vision for the future? Why does Krugman assume the American people (the ones who support Obama, at least) have been duped? Why couldn't it be a result of those "perfectly good arguments" listed above? Who says progressives have fallen for the media's line? (Unless he's counting the people e-mailing him as progressives, which may or may not be true - but I'm guessing a lot of those who wrote him didn't give as much time and thought to their responses as he gave to his - which, yes, is their fault, but who is he addressing here?)

But back to the original column, two final things that just irked me:

1. "I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody." Proof? Please? Again, I think this is Krugman mixing up Obama supporters and the media (and who really knows who they support - they're just trying to sell papers or whatever).

2. "I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election." This has happened. In many forms, but most notably at the Los Angeles debate - where the two candidates not only profressed their support and admiration for each other, but refused to deny the possibility of an Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama ticket. I think this whole "venom" thing is a cheap shot at Obama supporters, when Krugman's real problem is with the media's coverage of the race. That, and his potential disappointment at picking the loser...twice.

What if world leaders were subjected to roasts?

World Leaders Gather To Roast Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

GENEVA—"Ahmadinejad? I can't even say it, let alone write it on a Black Ops memo." President Bush jested during the roast of Iran's controversial leader.

“Also speaking at the event were Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, Japanese prime minister Yasuo Fukuda, and longtime foreign policy adviser and roast favorite Henry Kissinger, who spent the majority of his speech making sexual overtures to French president Nicolas Sarkozy's bride, model Carla Bruni. Although Bruni was seated in the audience, Kissinger politely offered her a seat on his face so he could get a better look at the only place a French leader has successfully invaded since Lombardy.”

Thank you Herbert!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Great column, really hits the mark. Thoughts? What's the big idea? (I've got one, but I'll share it at another time.)

Note: I've now blogged more in 2008 thus far than in all of 2007. Hooray for one New Year's Resolution kept.

Do you know what this could do to reducing waste?!?!

Sometimes there are very exciting prospects for a pretty mundane idea.

Grit as amenity

This story intrigued me. I know many people for whom "grit", that is, living a rougher sort of life in a rougher sort of place, is a very attractive option to have. A former co-worker couldn't get used to the gentleness of San Francisco, and made a move back to the East Coast - I think he lives in Brooklyn or the Bronx now. But more and more, I feel I'm running into these sorts of people, particularly in my age cohort. I've even had similar tendencies - when I go back to Philly, I revel in the grime, the mean streets, the stone faces. It's charming, in a way. This article really hit home when talking about gentrification:

'Robert Gross, an executive vice president at Prudential Douglas Elliman, sees the area as attracting "someone who still seeks some semblance of the grit that makes New York New York."

'Yet the prevailing thesis is that grit is not so easily found in the East Village as it once was. As with other New York neighborhoods, development has ushered in safer streets, and with them the suspicion that something has been lost.'

It reminds me a bit of this song, by LCD Soundsystem (much more effective with the actual music):

New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down

Like a rat in a cage
Pulling minimum wage
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down

New York, you're safer
And you're wasting my time
Our records all show
You are filthy but fine

But they shuttered your stores
When you opened the doors
To the cops who were bored
Once they'd run out of crime

New York, you're perfect
Don't please don't change a thing
Your mild billionaire mayor's
Now convinced he's a king

So the boring collect
I mean all disrespect
In the neighborhood bars
I'd once dreamt I would drink

New York, I Love You
But you're freaking me out
There's a ton of the twist
But we're fresh out of shout

Like a death in the hall
That you hear through your wall
New York, I Love You
But you're freaking me out

New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down
New York, I Love You
But you're bringing me down

Like a death of the heart
Jesus, where do I start?
But you're still the one pool
Where I'd happily drown
And oh..

Take me off your mailing list
For kids that think it still exists
Yes, for those who think it still exists

Maybe I'm wrong
And maybe you're right
Maybe I'm wrong
And maybe you're right
Maybe you're right
Maybe I'm wrong
And just maybe you're right
And Oh..

Maybe mother told you true
And they're always be something there for you
And you'll never be alone
But maybe she's wrong
And maybe I'm right
And just maybe she's wrong
Maybe she's wrong
And maybe I'm right
And if so, is there?

'tis the season for terrible movies

Excerpt from the San Francisco Chronicles New Flicks newsletter: "The Hottie and the Nottie:
Paris Hilton's acting strengths (her sensitivity to dialogue? Her approach to character development?) are put to the test in this best-friends comedy about a glamorous bachelorette who beats back the lustful guys while keeping protective watch over her less-attractive friend (Christine Lakin). Rated PG-13. "

This sounds too horrible.

One more interesting column

David Brooks's examination of the election divided by educational attainment lines.

Krugman on Recession

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html?th&emc=th

Today's Krugman column is excellent. I've held this view for awhile now and I'm sure you've gathered that I think we're headed straight for a recession, and not a mild one. This helps explain why - which leads me to my second point, the candidates need to start talking more about the economy. Unfortunately, we are in a period where we need a leader who understands all of the forces in play. But, I think we're also going to need to question our own behavior, particularly as consumers. I read another article today alleging that Wal-Mart gift card holders are using the cards for necessities, NECESSITIES! Typically, gift cards would be used for iPods, dvds, etc. Retailers apparently had their worst January in 40 years. And this is all small beans compared to the China problem. Seriously, everyone should be educated about at least the basics of our economy and what it is going through now. And our next leader is going to need a good sense of what's happening with the economy and some VERY good advisors.

FAIL

Apparently, there are a few failure blogs out there. Here's a sampling, but if you're bored, I'd recommend checking out Shipment of Fail and The FAIL Blog sometime. Just a little harmless Schadenfreude on a foggy Friday.

And my favorite...

Sad, a little evil, but true. =)

Patriots' Season Perfect For Rest Of Nation

FOXBOROUGH, MA—As the once-invincible, still-insufferable Patriots attempt to come to grips with their 17-14 Super Bowl loss to the Giants, the death of their dream to go undefeated, and the possible end of their dynasty, almost every other...

Phenomenal time waster

Play now.

You know what really steams my clams?

Books written to propel the idea that it is ok, even desirable, for a girl or woman to be a brat or bitch. And actually this applies to movies, television, all forms of media. Sometimes the information contained within is valuable, but as consumers, we have spoken and the only way to make it big is to appeal to the desier of today's females to be... well, Paris Hilton. Or a number of other "great role model" celebrities. I first became disgusted when I read a couple paragraphs out of the New York Times bestseller Skinny Bitch. My sister bought the book after Christmas, in hopes of getting healthier. And the information inside is good. But the presentation seeks out the absolute worst in today's pop culture. In case you're unfamiliar, here are some excerpts, courtesy of Amazon. Why couldn't it provide the information in a "tough talk" manner without pigeon-holing women into this stereotype of wanting to be a "skinny bitch"? I'm not a terribly sensitive person, but I do find the whole concept to be offensive.

My hatred of this genre (can I call it that?) was re-inflamed this morning when I got my email from Borders. Apparently there's a series for teens, in which the 9th book (it made it to nine!) is called Bratfest at Tiffany's (don't even get me started on the name...) aimed at middle school students that encourages girls to be total and complete brats (and many other nasty names). Here's a truly awful excerpt courtesy of Borders. Now, one of the many, many things I find troubling about this trend is the fact that middle school is a terrible time no matter what. It's just an awkward, horrific age. Add to that, literature (if one can call it that) supporting the idea that pretty, popular people should be ruthless and dominant in the grand social world of your average middle school. The inkling, I'm sure, was there before - but now these girls, and ultimately I'm sure this affects the boys too, are actually finding reinforcement for their selfish and petty behavior. I haven't read these books, and I can safely warrant that I never will, but I'm making an educated guess that the end doesn't include some heart-warming lesson about how it's best to be kind, tolerant, open-minded, sensitive, etc. And that is what I believe our children need now, more than ever. These "brats" seem to almost follow the lead of our current administration - establish your dominance, do whatever you feel, and screw anyone who doesn't agree - you're fabulous, so who cares? I see more and more of these sort of publications every day. Fascination with the worst in people seems to run rampant. I don't think it's hard to see that we have quite a degree of moral decay going on in this country (note that it was during a time when the "family values" party was in control that the bulk of this happened, at least from my point of view). Why do we play into the idea that terrible people are somehow "cool"? Does anyone have any insight? I sure don't. My classmates may have varying views, but for the most part, I felt like the admired parties in our school were generally the good students, sometimes athletes, and overall nice people. What was your experience? And I'd love to hear any thoughts you may have on this trend.

Mile High

Firstly, this is hilarious. Secondly, do you think they made it with the intent of ratifying every stereotype about San Francisco? Thirdly, this actually comes on television out here. Usually around the time Futurama is on Comedy Central. Cracks me up every single time.

Privacy

Led Zeppelin Bumper Stickers Now Probable Cause For Vehicular Search In 13 States

SPRINGFIELD, IL-Illinois became the 13th state to recognize classic-rock-related auto decorations as grounds for waiver of a warrant.

I was researching privacy rights today and came upon this oldie but goodie from The Onion. The satirical article was connected with this real case. I plan to write more about privacy in the future, as it is a subject about which I have very strong feelings. Do you? If so, share them (but only if you want).

Super Tuesday Follow-up

So, I doubt anyone was terribly surprised at the results. And, as much as I wanted hard evidence of a sea change in American politics, the Obama campaign could certainly benefit from their "viable underdog" position in the coming months. Finally, I'm glad it's not over for Barack - that was my biggest fear and America did well to keep his campaign afloat. That being said, I'm still not pleased that "Hil-dog" is on top. However, unlike many I have spoken with, I'm not a huge Hillary hater. I prefer Obama, certainly. But considering the noxious atmosphere of American politics since 2000, I think nearly any change (*confession: I feel much more comfortable saying that given Romney's performance yesterday) would be beneficial. I guess I'm just arguing for open-mindedness. I read some disturbing things on both sides of the Hillary debate (she has an almost uncanny ability to spark passionate extremism regarding her character) today. This column from Stanley Fish in the New York Times details how crazy some of the claims about Hillary are, and I agree that some of the "haters" have gotten out of control. On the other side, a rumor is circulating that Chelsea Clinton forwarded this rant from feminist Robin Morgan called "Goodbye to All That (#2)" around to friends. I read most of this rant, and while some points are valid, most of it is anger-driven nonsense. So on either side, this extremism is ridiculous, but I suppose I can understand it. But as far as analysis of the vast majority of the American population, I guess I'm still a little perplexed by their support. Hillary supposedly carries women (not a huge surprise), Latinos and the elderly. Besides feminism which I get, I'm curious as to the basis for these votes. Anyone have some insight? Have a link to an article that provides some insight? Anything? Just trying to understand the dynamics here...

The Shepherd's Dog

This album, by Iron & Wine, is excellent. It has taken a couple months to really sink in, but The Shepherd's Dog is a great album. One thing I noticed, however, is that often times the prettiness of the music distracts from the content of the lyrics. This is not a problem I typically run into, if one can even call it a "problem." Both are excellent (music and lyrics), but I've had scattered revelations regarding the lyrical content (whereas I noticed the beauty of the music straight away). Basically, once every couple of weeks since I popped the album onto my iPod, a song will come on shuffle at exactly the right time - a time when I can truly listen to the words. Today that song was "Innocent Bones". I've posted the lyrics below, but I just wanted to recommmend the album to any lover of beautiful music out there.

Innocent Bones

Cain got a milk-eyed mule from the auction
Abel got a telephone
And even the last of the blue-eyed babies know
That the burning man is the color of the end of day
And how every tongue that gets bit always has another word to say

Cain bought a blade from some witch at the window
Abel bought a bag of weed
And even the last of the brown-eyed babies see
That the cartoon king has a tattoo of a bleeding heart
There ain’t a penthouse Christian wants the pain of the scab, but they all want the scar
How every mouth sings of what it’s without so we all sing of love
And how it ain’t one dog who’s good at fucking and denying who he’s thinking of

Cain heard a cat tumble limp off the rooftop
Abel heard his papa pray
And even the last of the black-eyed babies say
That every saint has a chair you can borrow and a church to sell
That the wind blows cold across the back of the master and the kitchen help
There’s a big pile of innocent bones still holding up the garden wall
And it was always the broken hand we learned to lean on after all
How God knows if Christ came back he would find us in a poker game
After finding out the drugs were all free but they won't let you out the door again

Change

From The Onion

Alternative Energy

Some of you may have noticed, but I'm a bit progressive. I'm particularly passionate about progress in the environmental sphere. Americans need to start adopting alternative forms of energy sooner, rather than later, and we need to let go of some old hang-ups in order to do so. I still need to do more research on nuclear power, but it seems like a reasonable (though certainly not the ideal) option. However, wind farms are something I'd definitely like to see more of. Many of the major arguments against building more wind farms are based on NIMBY ("not in my backyard") politics - basically, people think they are ugly. I disagree. Take a look at the above (which is available for purchase through the New York Times) and below, then compare with the coal plants below. Oh and don't forget this. What would you rather look at? What would you rather breathe?

As a follow-up, you can affect the way you, and people in your local area, get their energy in two ways - from the supply side and the demand side. From the supply side, one can stay politically savvy, write your senators and congresspeople, and vote for clean and alternative energy initiatives. From the demand side, you can send the message that this is what the people want by exercising your power as a consumer. Many energy companies give you the option of getting a percentage of your energy consumption from renewable sources only. It typically is slightly to moderately more expensive. I know my grandparents in New Jersey are doing this and many other states have similar options. If you really want to get involved, then there are many, many non-profit organizations seeking to help the environment. http://www.1sky.org/ is one of my favorites.

Super Tuesday!

I voted! I'm sure you can all figure out for whom. So excited to see tonight (tomorrow?) which one of our candidates takes home the most delegates. Speaking of the candidates, however, take a look at this collage by the New York Times. There is no way that picture of Mitt Romney was not meant to make him look like an evil overlord. Haha, the first time I scanned this, I actually did a double take. Happy...happy...happy...holy crap that man wants to kill me!

Another one of my favorite things about San Francisco

SPECIALTY'S COOKIES

Not only are these butter-laden beauties sublimely delicious - but you can make sure to get them fresh out of the oven thanks to the wonders of information technology.

Super Bowl

I'm pretty pleased with the result, but very pleased with the drama at the end of the game. I think that's the most important thing - that it's not a boring game. I was also happy to hear that Paul was watching across the pond - I knew everyone in my country would be watching, but I hadn't anticipated that. But I was somewhat disappointed with the commercials. Granted, I was cooking simultaneously, so I may have missed some good ones - any recommendations?

I was a fan of Ferrell's Bud Light ads - but that's pretty much a given, the man is hilarious.

Both inspiring and cheesy.

I just can't help liking this man. Vote for him in your respective primaries.

Also, Scarlett Johansson is too stunning. I have such a woman-crush.

Musicians whose awesomeness is not reflected in the amount of attention they get

Jens Lekman
Animal Collective
Ray LaMontagne
Andrew Bird
Band of Horses
Patrick Wolf

Do yourself a favor and check these artists out!

We Must All Do Our Part To Preserve This Climate Of Fear

"Not so very long ago, we winced every time we saw someone with facial hair or a backpack. Average people were terrified of opening their mail for fear of getting a face full of anthrax. Those were perhaps our country's greatest days. Yet that once-phobic spirit that defined our times is drastically changing.

Today, people are making eye contact with strangers on the street. They are whistling on subway platforms, strolling down sidewalks, and generally behaving as if they do not feel they could be killed at any moment. Children can be seen running playfully in public parks, their parents smiling and watching idly from afar when they should be obsessing over an unseen child abductor who will snatch and rape their babies first chance they get. It breaks my heart to see the land I love fall into such a state of non-panic.

My God, what have we become?"

I don't even know where to begin.

The Puppy Bowl

Now, I'm all for pet adoption, particularly as a replacement for euthanasia, but c'mon! This is a little absurd. Plus, who the heck watches this?

A few new bands I'm digging

The Earlies
Vampire Weekend
Bat for Lashes
Menomena (ok so not really new, but new to me!)
Beirut (same)

Democratic Debate

This is supposed to be a good one so I hope to catch as much of it as possible. And while I know CNN has to reach as many viewers nationwide as possible, since this one was set in Los Angeles, I was hoping to catch more of it. But alas, it begins at 8 pm EST (5 pm here in San Francisco) and I don't get home from work until after 6:30 pm. This has plagued me throughout the campaign thus far and I have not been able to catch more than a few minutes of debating. I always read about it the next day, but it lacks the pizzazz of a live, televised debate. Sigh. I guess just file this post under "random bitching".

Talk about setting the standards high...

Jakob Dylan Still Not Convinced Father A Better Songwriter

Sweet! (literally)

Dunkin' Donuts brewing West Coast expansion plans

"Company officials said in recent months they plan to expand to 15,000 locations by 2020. They would not return calls for comment, but commercial real estate brokers in California's East Bay area contend Dunkin' Donuts is ready for its deep-fried manifest destiny."



Despite what this announcement will eventually do to my health, I'm very pleased.

Another rate cut?!

Note to self: blog later about how much Bernanke sucks.

The Atlantic

Now that http://www.theatlantic.com/ is free, I'm enjoying this magazine a lot on my way to and from work. I noticed today that I really like their photography, as well. Unfortunately, I couldn't (quickly) find the photographer to credit - but here's a photo-summary of today's politics, stolen from The Atlantic:

C'mon 01.20.09!!!

Additionally, everyone should read this article. It rationally explains why every one of us should be terrified of China. I'd love to hear any thoughts on this.

Crude humor.

This made me laugh even without the sound.

Depressed Candidate Runs Attack Ad About Self

"Mitt Romney says he's a candidate for change. He says he's a candidate Americans can finally trust," begins the self-destructive television spot, narrated by Romney himself. "But in 2004, this so-called Washington outsider approved nearly four separate tax hikes. And do you know why he did that? Because he's a big fat disappointment, that's why."

"Ugh," the television spot continues. "I'm going back to bed."

Obama

So eloquent!

“The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor, young versus old, and it’s not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future.”

-South Carolina, January 26

Why I hate the two party system

I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard the phrases "I don't want to waste my vote" and "But I want to vote for a viable candidate" in the past few months, but it has been A LOT. In addition to weighing the merits and potential flaws in each candidate's plan for the future and rationalizing one's own viewpoints on the many issues we have facing ourselves during this election, Americans must also gamble with each candidate's place within their respective party and how that might play out in a national election against the other party's candidates.

Additionally, the candidates must weigh their own views of what is right for America against their party's positions, and though they may often match up, I find it hard to believe they always do. The candidates must also prove their loyalty to the party (rather than Americans) in a number of situations. They waste our time during debates praising the other candidates in their party, when they could be discussing the issues. In a recent political discussion with my mother, I realized how narrow the focus of these debates, in addition to all other forms of media, were. Clearly, Americans need to prioritize the issues and time is limited. But I would have to do some research to tell you the candidates' stances on anything other than the war, the economy and healthcare. Obviously, those are all very important issues, but they're not the only ones we're facing (in addition, we're subjected to candidates squabbling about nuances in their plans, rather than telling us why theirs will work). This leads me to my next point: the money game.

Bob Dylan called political parties "social clubs in drag disguise", but it seems in this day and age, they are more like corporations in drag disguise (particularly applicable to Mr. Guiliani). In goes money, out comes political favors. So much time is spent procuring donations in order to run, and with those donations comes a certain obligation to the donor (no way to tell exactly what, but I hardly believe there are no strings attached, even if there are not supposed to be), that Americans don't get the kind of attention from the candidates they deserve, leading to an absence of information. While this has improved greatly with the increased incorporation of internet platforms into political campaigns, I feel that it is in debate-like situations that we can witness the fervor (or lack thereof), personality (or lack thereof), and reactions of the candidates to opposition best. Plus, it seems that the public still gets a lot of its information from television.

But then you get to the television, and it becomes a ratings game. Moderators direct more questions toward the media's view of the most viable candidates and at times, the stage turns into a bad episode of some reality television show - each player competes for attention. It all plays into the transformation of politics into business. The Democratic Party advertises their brand. The GOP advertises their brand. Obama advertises the Obama Corporation, endorsed by the Democratic brand. Same for Hillary, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee, etc. to their respectives parties/brands. And in a sense, that IS just politics. But what I have a real problem with is that top layer - the two brands.

Americans comprise one of the most diverse populations in the world - in terms of income, race, ethnicity, religion, you name it. How can we possibly be divided into two groups? How can we possibly be expected, every four years, to choose from only two (and in the past few elections, not very good) candidates? How can those two people possibly represent the lot of us? And instead of coming in with a clean slate, every election the new president walks in with a whole lot of baggage. Not only from the donors, but from the party, and all of the party's interests. And because this game has been going on for so long, there are a lot of interests to take into account.

So this is where you ask, but if we introduce more parties, won't the elected party represent an even smaller group of us? Well, even though we pride ourselves on being the ultimate champions of democracy, we are not the only democratic country in the world. European elections (at least the ones I've read about) tend to result in the formation of a coalition of moderates that represent a much greater portion of the population than either of America's parties (the Grand Coalition in Germany, for example, represented more than 70% of the vote in the last federal election). Meanwhile in America, we've reached a devastating degree of polarization. I read about the Republican Party and their views, and I do not relate with the majority of their views AT ALL. I cannot even understand the logic of some of them. And I'm usually very good at seeing both sides. This frightens me. What frightens me even more is the number of Americans who DO agree with the Republican Party.

Now, this isn't a rant to try and turn everyone into Democrats - I don't agree with many of their views as well. It is the realization that we've reached a point where, politically, it would seem that half of the country does not trust the other half, and vice-versa. But in my personal experience, I trust most of the people I meet, Republican or Democrat, and think they generally are good people. Now, I'm an optimist, but I can be skeptical - and even with my skeptic cap on, I still observed that most of the people I met in my day-to-day were filled with good intentions. I suppose you could argue that perhaps it's because I live in a city of liberals (this is San Francisco, after all) - but it's true even when I visit my parents in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania - and that's a very conservative area. So why are these good people aligned with a party loaded with bad policies and armed with fear? I believe it's the political party money machine and the mindset that goes along with the two party system.

By using the media to manipulate the public into believing issues like abortion or gay marriage are critical to the future of this country and using faith to trap voters into a catch-22 (vote for us or you're betraying your lord!), the Republican Party has succeeded in alienating much of the country - and that's going to stick for awhile. Despite my own views, I know that faith is very important to many Americans, but I do not feel it should be important in the political arena - at least not to the degree that it has been during the past seven years. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that was why we had the separation of church and state.

I'm not just picking on the Republicans, the Democrats engage in similar marketing, though maybe not in such an obvious way. The two parties push their aggregated piles of money into separating the country into two distinct piles through marketing to, rather than engaging with, the American public, then convincing them that voting for one of two people is the only way to make your vote count. (In the meantime, which voters do you think have all the power? The independents.) Both parties more or less have the stats and although we may see a 1964 type election this year because of the immensity of the failures of the Bush administration, they know generally that those who claim to belong to their party will vote for their candidate. The people are loyal to their brands. Both the media and the government have capitalized on Americans' laziness and unwillingness to truly think for themselves, and have narrowed the presidential race to a Pepsi v. Coke debate. And until the public learns that maybe they'd prefer a Fresca now and then, or a Sprite, or a Barq's (damn, I'm thirsty!), we'll most likely be stuck with a choice between the candidate I don't agree with at all and the candidate I kind of agree with sometimes.

In summary, two things need to happen. One - we get rid of the need for money in order to run for president. We're moving toward it - and once more, I find myself grateful for the internet - but old habits die hard. The only way to truly change the way elections operate is to change our consumer behavior - the political parties, like a good business, will respond to change. If we change the way we get our information (to something free - like the internet), and remove the filters through which we get it (pundits, targeted ads, orchestrated debates), and don't let the old methods of playing the political game have any influence over our decisions (note: be skeptical of everything! vote based on the candidates' past actions like their voting record! vote based on the viability, not of the candidate to win the party's nomination, but of their plans for the future! does it sound like a hare-brained scheme meant only to appeal to a certain class of voters - it probably is!) then the whole system could have the freedom to change. We could learn about more than just the candidates for two parties. The American people are very fluid in opinions. The parties change slowly. Their inhabitants are addicted to the status quo for their survival. They spend a lot of time and money making sure that we believe their way is the only way, but it's not. This is America - anything is possible!

Secondly, and this one may be even harder, we need to start thinking for ourselves. Like I argued, two parties cannot possibly represent 100% of America. And the longer we let this go on, the more entrenched the system becomes. The more interests each party gathers. The more eggs Americans put in one of two baskets. What would be so wrong with multiple parties? I believe more Americans would feel properly represented, and although a coalition of the middle would still have differences, I feel that they would agree on the important things. I see more of America agreeing on the big things these days, and just arguing over the petty stuff. So you may ask what if the vote was split between two extremes, rather than the moderates? Wouldn't they just constantly argue in the Senate and House? I suppose so, but how is that different from what we have now?

I think a lot of America's problems stem from our addiction to the status quo. We used to be at the economic forefront of the world, but I see our economy stagnating. Americans fuel economic growth, it seems, not through innovation, but through rapid consumption and greed. The idea that it would be patriotic to spend your way out of the last recession was perhaps the worst I've ever heard. Yeah, it made economic sense at the time - but look what it led to. Innovation of the real, quality-of-life-improving variety seems to have vanished. In short, our resistance to change is ruining us. America made its largest leaps forward in eras of political uprising and active debate. I think if we start with this area of our national interest, the spirit of change and entrepreneurship America used to be famous for (we were an economic miracle!) would flow to other areas, including social progression and resumed economic superiority.

All it would take for this to happen is a simultaneous rejection of the status quo. We would have time to really research candidates, rather than perform the guessing game of party politics and weigh your real opinions against viability. The only way I feel to really achieve this is to vote for independent candidates, or those of other parties. However, I'd only support doing this if they really represent your view. Basically, everyone would just have to block out the media and the idea of making sure your vote "counts". I have a feeling if everyone did this honestly, your vote really would count in a much larger and more positive way, both in terms of the way you feel about your participation in the democratic process and in terms of the future of our nation.

What do you think?

Holy. Crap.

Ok, so I heard all of the Tom Cruise scientology video hype last week, but today was the first time I actually had to watch it. Ok, there was no exaggeration. It's nuts. Completely and utterly scary.

Fortunately, and in record time, someone has parodied it.

"Teeth" Movie Review

This review of the horror comedy "Teeth" was pretty funny and piqued my interest in the film, although I don't know if I'll actually shell out the clams to go see it, or wait for Netflix.

The advisory at the bottom was probably my favorite part:

Advisory: We really can't say this too many times. This film contains sex, profanity and adult themes - none of which you'll really notice because of all the severed genitalia flopping around. "Teeth" may be the worst first-date movie ever, and that includes the porno that Robert De Niro escorted Cybill Shepherd to in "Taxi Driver."

A somewhat productive use of hatred

This invention amuses me greatly. Thanks, Morford.

In other news, the Jamie T song "So Lonely Was The Ballad" makes me smile.

Bill Clinton: 'Screw It, I'm Running For President'

"Clinton also noted that, if elected, the timing would be perfect for his family, as his wife has recently expressed a desire to move back to the D.C. area."

I'm Not There

First off, the casting for this film was spot-on. High points: Cate Blanchett acted her bloody ass off - it was superb. David Cross as Allen Ginsberg (albeit a small part) was magnificent. Marcus Carl Franklin (below) did an amazing job as well.


The movie in general - FANTASTIC. It was moving, creative, beautiful to watch, excellent soundtrack, obviously. I don't want to give too much away, but it helps to know about Bob Dylan's life. There are a lot of elements of his biography that aren't fully explained, but if you know about him, you'll get it. A bit hard to follow, but overall, pure magic.

You Can Call Me Al cover (thanks Chris)

My new favorite music blog

Just stumbled upon this blog called Cafe Eclectica Music while looking for top track listings for 2007 so I can use an iTunes gift card (for full albums, I do cds - so old-fashioned!). Haven't done too much surfing around, but it seems awesome so far! Let me know what you think.

Bruce Springsteen and the economy

"I got a job working construction for the Johnstown Company,
But lately there ain't been much work on account of the economy.
Now all them things that seemed so important,
Well mister they vanished right into the air.
Now I just act like I don't remember;
Mary acts like she don't care."


So... recession?

Music, music, music

Who wants to go to Coachella this year?

Heath Ledger

Man, it's almost embarassing how fast celebrity news travels. Between the time a coworker sent this around (which I believe was almost immediately after it was released) and now (roughly an hour or so later), I received the news from at least 5 other sources. There was a similar experience last year with Anna Nicole Smith.

Now, I'm not a huge celebrity person, but I have to say it made me a little sad. I just saw him over the weekend in I'm Not There, which I'll be posting a review of shortly (preview: "It was amazing!"). I also thought he was magnificent in Brokeback Mountain. I guess I'd feel similarly about anyone who died so young, with so much promise.

I read some of the comments on this site - a summary of the most truthful: "We were all expecting this from Britney Spears, but Heath?"

He's supposed to be really good as the Joker in the upcoming Batman movie.

I haven't even watched this yet, but I love the headline with that picture

As Obese Population Rises, More Candidates Courting The Fat Vote

Cruel fate strikes again.

Jens Lekman is coming to town. And once again, I will not be in San Francisco, but rather in Las Vegas for March Madness (I'll be there March 21-23 - everyone's invited!). Why does he only show up when I'm gone?

One more small note regarding one of my biggest pet peeves. I received an order from Amazon today and I am just appalled at the number of stickers put directly on cd cases. First of all, I've already purchased the cd online... the stickers have no sway over me - why are they there? I don't care if the cd contains x, x and x great songs. I don't care if it's a best bargain or one of rock's greatest instrumental albums. Clearly, I already know about all of this as I have purchased said album. Secondly, why on the cd case? Why not outside of the already superfluous plastic wrapping? Apparently, the manufacturers/distributors want to make sure that you know FOREVER that there was once a sticker there, because those little blights never seem to come off clean. STOP THE MADNESS AMAZON! Seriously, stop.

How did I miss this?

Ha! Between this monstrosity (who is campaigning in the big states of California and Florida as we speak), and three different winners of three different states, the GOP is so screwed.

Something to think about...

Report: Someone Totally Doing It Somewhere Right Now

CHICAGO-From a statistical perspective, it stands to reason that at least two out of all the people on Earth are totally going at it. Like, as we speak.

"The number of people being felt up right now is astronomical."

What to do with bonus money?

I think I'm going to start buying art again. Music-centered art. I cannot afford this piece or this piece, but if someone really wants to buy it for me, I'll let you. If anyone knows of a great artist or place to buy, in particular, classic rock era artwork - please let me know. Thanks!

Gloria Steinem Column

I'm sure many of you have already seen this, but just in case, this is a great column regarding gender barriers. Obviously, it's centered around Hillary Clinton, but Steinem makes a lot of good points that can be applicable to many areas of life.

Women Are Never Front-Runners

Extremely vulgar, but he's got some points.

I Got What America Needs Right Here

Sometimes I'm a little stupid, maybe, a little slow in the head, so I'm wondering if you can help me get something straight....

"Have you ever broke a Puerto Rican dude's arm for sweatpant money?"

Ridiculous.

Ron Paul fascinates me.

I thoroughly enjoyed his speech last night in New Hampshire and felt a bit remiss that I hadn't caught more of them. Here's one for all of you:

Great quote

I'm a big fan of quotations. This one made me smile and nod today.

"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."
--Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

"So ya... thought ya... might like to... go to the show."

In my quest to unite music and film, the musical genre inevitably came up. However, not in the traditional sense (although my sister did kindly give me Cabaret for Christmas, although I suspect the gift was self-serving - see below). Each year, my parents typically pick a band in the classic rock genre, one that they know I like. Then for Christmas, I get a spattering of their best albums (in my parents' opinions - this naturally works out for them as well). Last year it was The Beatles. This year it was Pink Floyd.

My last obsession was Bob Dylan, with a brief dip into Leonard Cohen (I plan to revisit both of these artists later). I knew I needed something different, something that would offset Dylan's folkiness. Pink Floyd turned out to be just the ticket.

In one of many trips during break to Best Buy (I come from a family of compulsive gift card users - most are spent by New Year's), I picked up The Wall. I had already received the album from my parents and given it several thorough listenings. I knew I had to see this film.

I had heard things. I knew Pink Floyd's music. Believe me, I thought I was prepared for whatever trip this film would take me on.

I was wrong.

I don't want to give anything away, but it was far more... well, trippy is the only word I can think of right now, than I expected. But I loved every moment. A few warnings - it's dark, in fact, very very dark. It's explicit - do not watch with children. Roger Waters was actually unhappy with the final product (thank you Wikipedia) because he felt the main character (Pink, a rock star played by Bob Geldof) was unsympathetic. I didn't find him entirely so, but I suppose they could've upped the sympathy quotient some. Final warning - it IS confusing. Most of the metaphors are pretty straightforward, but without traditional dialogue and a timeline that jumps fairly frequently - you can lose your way. I'd suggest watching at a time when you won't be interrupted or distracted. And please, let me know what you think!



Final story re: my sister Katie. I'm much more into music than either of my other sisters - although Becky is progressing. Since Katie typically has no real opinions about music, I rarely ask what she's into. A couple of weeks ago, we were talking on the phone about possible Christmas presents. I thought I might send her to a concert, so I asked what bands etc. she was into these days. Her response: "Actually, I'm into musicals." Not a total surprise, but still, hilariously delivered by my 17-year-old sister. While I'd selfishly love to share folk and indie and rock music with her, she does bring me much joy when she breaks out into Fiddler on the Roof song and dance in the middle of Macys.

The Fog

This photograph was taken by my grandfather during his recent visit to the Bay Area. We were in Sausalito, facing the city. This is one of the many reasons I love San Francisco.

The Extras Christmas Special / Series Finale...

...totally warmed my heart last night. Not as funny as the regular episodes, it still was pretty clear that "Andy Millman" found the project of integrity he was looking for. Bravo.

Apparently everything my mother told me was true, or she's manufacturing signs

Christmas Gift

Please somebody buy me this. Just kidding, I'll ask me ma. ;-)

Josh Ritter...

...does a great cover of "The River" available for download here. Treat yourself.

Romney is insane

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

WHAT?!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!

Music Documentaries

Music documentaries may be my favorite new film genre, if they qualify as one (they do, right?). Maybe I've just been lucky, but Netflix has fed my mailbox some quality stuff recently. Here's a list:

I'm Your Man: Leonard Cohen (brought me to tears)
No Direction Home: Bob Dylan (made me wish for the sixties, just like in The Bends)
Standing in the Shadows of Motown (made me shake my rump)
Bob Dylan: Don't Look Back (made me slightly angry, as the director definitely made BD look kind of like an arse, but the scene with Bob Dylan playing "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" to Donovan made it all worth it)

And of course, the eternal

The Last Waltz (I can't say enough)


I'm going to continue to pursue this path, I believe, so if anyone has any suggestions - bring 'em on. And to the rest of you - these are all highly recommended by me - get some!

Break up Songs

Now, I don't break up very often, so I don't really have any practical use for this list, but I like to fantasize about potential situations, and be prepared, should it come up. That may be the worst sentence ever (I need to do some serious cutbacks on my clauses), but I will persevere. My lovely Olivia sent me Leonard Cohen's Songs of Love and Hate album (it's pure gold!!!). During my first listen, one song grabbed my attention so fiercely that I pretty much couldn't listen to anything else for the rest of the night. It was the first song I'd heard by Cohen where he sounds legitimately pissed off. It's fabulous, and now, it's my favorite break up song ever. I am actually excited to use it someday in the distant future. So here's my short list for best break up songs - PLEASE feel free to comment if you have a favorite or two, as well. Someday, I may have use for it - but until then, we can daydream, right?

"Diamonds in the Mine" Leonard Cohen
"I'm Waking Up to Us" Belle and Sebastian
"4th Time Around" Bob Dylan
"Must I Paint You a Picture" Billy Bragg

Doing Good

Is it just me, or does everyone feel more charitable around Christmas? It's somewhat ironic, because it's usually the time of year when I have the least amount of extra cash, but I can't help myself. Bloody good-will-toward-all-mankind just comes streaming out of me. Well, this year, I had a special outlet for my philanthropic leanings because my friend Deanna is doing something even more amazing and donating her time/body/willpower to raise money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. She'll be running in the Rome Marathon and is undertaking some pretty intense training right now. If any of you are searching for a good cause - here is Deanna's web page with a link to donate online. Happy holidays, folks!

Bands I like, and should get more of their past albums

Iron & Wine
The Books
Elliott Smith (I should get all of his albums)
The White Stripes
Pink Floyd (any recommendations for great early albums?)
M. Ward
Tegan and Sara

I don't even have the words.

I wish this were a cartoon, ripped out of a newspaper or from some clever chap on the internet, but no, it's a coloring book. For kids. Put out by the Catholic Church. To combat sexual abuse. And it's 100% for real (unless April Fool's Day came very early this year). I'm honestly speechless.

It's almost crafted for ridicule. Note the overly attractive "angels". The eager look on young Billy's face. And the creepy over-the-shoulder wave (and in my head, he also winks) from our mustachioed priest. I mean, seriously?

Family Photos

I love old pictures. Found this one, which is just hilarious. We were living in Texas at the time. That's my grandfather on the left with Casper's legs, my grandmother on his right, me cheesing it up on her neck, my mom with some ridiculous sunglasses, Becky with the puss on, and my dad grinning like a fool in his infamous Salem Hope Creek t-shirt. I found out later that Bruce Willis also worked there, but before my dad got there, which is just kind of an odd coincidence.

Anyway, just a little glimpse into my past.

Victory!

I found Irn-Bru in San Francisco. I'm so happy. And on a sugar rush.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Just click on the image to see a full size one.

Optimism

My friend the pessimist thinks I'm optimistic
because I seem to believe in the next good thing.
But I see rueful shadows almost everywhere.
When the sun rises I think of collisions and AK-47s.
It's my mother's fault, who praised and loved me,
sent me into the dreadful world as if
it would tell me a story I'd understand. The fact is
optimism is the enemy of happiness.
I've learned to live for the next good thing
because lifelong friends write good-bye letters,
because regret follows every timidity.
I'm glad I know that all great romances are fleshed
with failure. I'll take a day of bitterness and rain
to placate the gods, to get it over with.
My mother told me I could be a great pianist
because I had long fingers. My fingers are small.
It's my mother's fault, every undeserved sweetness.

-Stephen Dunn


Thoughts?

Musical Utopia

So I've been lucky enough to stumble upon a series of musical attainments that have improved my quality of life by like 200%. Haha, side note: I love making up random statistics.

These have been my favorite songs as of late and I'm passing them on with my highest of recommendations:

"A Postcard to Nina" Jens Lekman
"First We Take Manhattan" Leonard Cohen
"John Allyn Smith Sails" Okkervil River
"L'excessive" Carla Bruni
"So Long Marianne" Leonard Cohen
"Plus Ones" Okkervil River
"Midnight Special" Lead Belly
"And I Remember Every Kiss" Jens Lekman
"Dance Me Til The End of Love" Leonard Cohen

Addendum to last post

http://www.jacksonpollock.org/

I can almost feel my productivity plummeting...

www.gracenote.com/map

Amount of Advertising Directly Linked to Film's Crappiness

I have no proof, but I've been suspecting a connection for awhile now. My latest bit o' evidence: Bee Movie.

Purely based on this (and the virtually non-stop promotion on NBC), I'm guessing that honey did not just get funny. And the reviewers generally agree with me:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bee_movie/

Now obviously there will "bee" exceptions (haha sorry I couldn't help it!), but I've been through this enough that, when I start feeling deluged by movie advertisements, I'm pretty sure it's nothing I want to see. Thoughts?

Krugman and I on statistics

November 2, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Prostates and Prejudices
By PAUL KRUGMAN

“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”

It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.

Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.

Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates — the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.

You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.

So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.

Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.

As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.

At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”

Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.

But here’s what I don’t understand: Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?

For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate says or does something that reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.

Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.

But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.

Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.

By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.

To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.

And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.

The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.

And now, for Krugman analysis. He's spot-on and cleverly comments on a relatively new phenomenon - the conservative media! (Not that this hasn't been covered by anyone else before, Krugman just beautifully links it into a commentary on Guiliani's use of statistics - I mean, The Colbert Report is an entire satirical series dedicated to the exploitation of the conservative media.) After years of berating the "liberal media", I think many of the tables have turned. Look at our previously beloved CNN - now practically a slightly tamer version of Fox News, providing equal coverage of Britney Spears and Iraq. Sigh.

Now to address the meat of the article. While I'm not sure if this was his intention, for me, the column spoke to the need to apply the standards to which we hold Wall Street (in theory, at least) to politics. I don't think many people have really made the connection, but capitalism and democracy are intimately linked. A lot of the procedures and standards used in business would greatly enhance the political environment. For example, the business-like mindset can be quite effective with respect to judging politicians. For example, if a CEO invested millions of shareholder money based on poor statistics, a la Guiliani prostate, there would be SUCH an outcry and the CEO would most likely be asked to resign or do it on his own accord. Yet, in essence, the American people are shareholders (or more accurately, stakeholders) in the United States government - and we have kept quiet through hundreds of these statistical mishaps. You'd think with so many resources at their fingertips, the adminstration could at least get the numbers correct. And I'm not convinced that they can't, but rather they don't want to. Correct statistics mean truth, and in many cases, particularly recently, the truth is not so politically friendly.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think that by holding candidates to CEO standards we are seeking solely to secure our economic well-being, but also, and more importantly, our values / morality / reputation as a nation (part of which includes the character of our leaders, not our strong suit as of late and a dangerous trend to continue). The stakes are higher, but the standards are lower. Why? Which ultimately, is Krugman's final question as well: "By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani's false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren't being treated that way." He provides no answer as to why, but rather let's the reader fill in the blanks. Answer: The GOP is clearly manipulative and needs smear campaigns, false statistics, and the like to stand a chance. Like a senator caught in an airport bathroom, it's a desperate situation.

Robert Johnson

I've been meaning to get his album for awhile - King of the Delta Blues Singers - although it can hardly be called his album, it's just what Columbia could rustle up in 1961. Even still, it's phenomenal. And illuminating. It's unreal how much he clearly influenced so many of my favorite artists (Bob Dylan and Led Zeppelin are the two that immediately spring to mind). Even The Lemon Song's infamous "squeeze [me baby], 'till the juice runs down my leg" was pulled from Johnson (who's original lyric in Traveling Riverside Blues was "squeeze my lemon, 'till the juice runs down my leg" - still pretty racy, if you ask me).

I am going to highly recommend this to anyone who is seriously into music - recommend, also known as code for "purchase this immediately even if you have to rob little old ladies to do so". Afterwards, report back. I'd be very interested in what everyone else thinks - esp. if you're into blues.