The Post-Talent Age

On Saturday night around 2:30 I left a bar in Park Slope and since I didn't want to fall asleep during the potentially long subway ride ahead of me, I grabbed a paper from the rack near the door of the bar. It turned out to be a Village Voice from mid-December. Here I thought they spontaneously combusted after about 8 days, and the good folks in Brooklyn manage to keep them circulating for over a month. God bless. So I managed to wade into an article about a writer complaining about blogs. All too appropriately, this blogger will say the article itself wasn't very good, but that there were some wonderful quotes way at the end that nicely verbalize some of my own thoughts:

1. "The state of publishing is such that you can get all these great things, but people don't talk about the work. They talk about you. There used to be serious critics and an audience. . . . Now, the audience is also in the critic business."
2. "The Internet's returned us all to these sort of 19th century critics who are trying to judge us by our voice, who are trying to hear the way our soul comes through."

And now the big ones:

3. "We have created a sort of post-talent age."
4. "It's commercial realism as opposed to intellectual realism."

I'm not so much interested or qualified to analyze how this all specifically relates to publishing--that's just the medium the article concerned itself with--but I think it does a great job generally describing the current state of artistic creation, and the public's reception of it.
The internet lately has allowed anyone to presume himself an expert on anything. Look at me, even. What do I know about film? I took one class in college about it, but other than that my only qualifications are that I'm very interested in film and therefore that I pay close attention to certain aspects of it. But I could be a hack. Anybody writing or critiquing anything online could be a hack. And that's why if you're responsible you must question the writer/reviewer, as well as his reviews. Since this type of ad hominem argumentation necessarily can't lead to any greater insight, what we're left with is simple questions and simpler answers: a dead-end for many intellectual pursuits.
And when your intellectual pursuits lead to a dead-end, you might just easily choose to quit trying. You might aim lower, you might leave the vacuum open for lesser lights. This is how I view the comment about this being a "post-talent age."
I used to spend time thinking about the idea of post-modernism as it applies to all fields of art. I was and still am fascinated by the idea of somehow transcending time or context, or by representing something just a bit further, if you'll allow me a sloppy bit of metaphysics. I used to wonder where could anyone ever go after post-modernism? Was "post-modern" simply a catch-all to describe everything happening now? And therefore, does that mean that artistically we'd arrived at a bleak point with no room to continue to grow, or does it mean that we'd managed to rise above labels and consequently to have limitless possibilities?
Enterprising artists (remember I'm talking about all fields of art here, not just painters or sculptors or whatever your mental image of an artist defaults to) pushed the envelope so much as to distract people from what was beautiful or talented and of course brought into question just what those things were. This was all very interesting, but I think it may have ominously succeeded in removing talent from the equation.
If reality TV "stars" can be more popular than any infinite amount of fine actors, then what good is acting?
If pop stars can be more or less created and sold as images, and if people who already have an image but no musical talent can find success as "musicians," then what's the point in refining a person's musical craft?
If a writer can produce something great, only to have it ignored by the media and attacked and undermined by a faceless internet presence, while all it would take is the opinion of one person (Oprah) to guarantee success, then why strive toward something bigger and better?
If a truly innovative filmmaker toils in obscurity and can't find funding, but a 15 year old can become famous for a 3:00 YouTube clip, then why focus your energy on anything more than what will have mass appeal?

I think it's great that people can now use the internet to express themselves, and that it gives a voice to just about anyone who wants one, but there are consequences.
Say you are in a room that has three microphones with 100 people, and five of those people are unquestioned geniuses. In the past, just a few of those 100 people would decide by some process who to allow to speak (assuming of course that the goal is for the smartest person to have the mic), but those few people would be largely successful in discovering those smart people. Let's say that command of the three mics would rotate amongst a group of 7-8 people, with 4 of those geniuses being accounted for, while one remains in the shadows. What you'd have is little difficulty in hearing the speakers (since there are only 3 mics to talk over each other), and relatively good representation of intelligence. Over time, those 4 geniuses would command people's attention better than the 3-4 hacks who slipped into the group of speakers but some failing on the part of the deciders.
Now let's imagine that you're in the same room with the same 100 people and five geniuses, only this time there are 50 very-slightly-quieter microphones than the original three, plus the original three. And assume that the group who decide who to let speak isn't 100% concerned with finding the smartest people. What you'd end up with is 53 people talking at once, and an almost random allocation of intelligence handling those microphones.
That might be an unnecessarily tedious analogy, but it's generally close to where we are now. It's almost as if no one knows who's worth a damn anymore. Worse, it's not entirely certain whether or not anyone cares who's worth a damn. This is where the final quote from above seems most relevant: "It's commercial realism as opposed to intellectual realism."
If you reread those four quotes at the top, maybe you will agree with me that the first two represent an advance in our culture, while the last two most definitely represent a collapse. Whether or not the two sets of quotes can exist as mutually exclusive is a bigger debate than I'm ready to tackle here. In fact, how society might go about fostering an environment that allows for #1 and 2, while keeping #3 and 4 to a minimum would be one of the more interesting artistic arguments to follow in our contemporary world. Personally, I could live without #1 and 2 if it meant the elimination of #3 and 4, though you have to admit the latter present us with some extremely interesting if unsavory scenarios.

Hamsgiving 2009

A Tragicomedy, in Five Acts

Dramatis Personae:
Lord Folg
Dave
Prince Drew
Devon
Fool
Sir Hudik
Hamsgiving Witch
Chad
He Who Shall Not Be Named
King (not an actual King)
BigFoot
Lady BigFoot
Sevendust
Lady Folg
Rosencrantz
Guildenstern
Frogs
Assorted Fans and Attendents


Act One, Scene One -- Park Slope McDonalds
Enter Lord Folg and Dave
DAVE: I can't wait to eat meat.
FOLG: Me too.
DAVE: Hey how do you order the nuggets and it's cheaper than when I do?
FOLG: Because McDs is stupid and lets you buy 5 four-piece nuggets for $1 each, while charging $6-something for a twenty-piece.
DAVE: You're so wonderful, Lord Folg. I'm only going to eat 12 though.
FOLG: Rubbish!
Exeunt

Act One, Scene Two -- The Pig Castle
[Flourish] Enter Sir Hudik, Lord Folg, and Dave
SIR HUDIK: Sorry I'm such a loser. Welcome to the Pig Castle. We have Rock Band.
DAVE: Yeah!
FOLG: I've got a deep fryer. And ribs and gin. Please bring me Mtn Dew.
SIR HUDIK: Haven't got any yet. I'm going to the store to get stuff. Mind the Castle.
Exit Hudik
DAVE: Rock Band!
FOLG: Ok Dick, let's do this then.
DAVE: God, you're terrible at this.
FOLG: No shit, you were there when I had to leave the room because I couldn't clap straight, right?
Enter Chad and Lady Chad
CHAD: Sweet. Rock Band.
LADY CHAD: Sorry Chad is such a loser. We have a Jive Turkey.
CHAD: Damn, Folg, you fucking suck at that.
FOLG: Yeah, I'm done. Have fun. I can't even hit the drum things, let alone the right ones at the right time. Where's my Mtn Dew.
DAVE: He wasn't even trying with the kick drum.
Exeunt

Act One, Scene Three -- location as before
Enter BigFoot, Lady BigFoot, and Attendants
DAVE: Hey! I'm a rockstar!
CHAD: This game should have dance moves.
BIGFOOT: Have a look at this thick-ass slab bacon. I'm gonna cook it now. Why the hell is the grill not going yet?
FOLG: Mini-fail. Hudik is coming back and we're going to have a fire under the grill so everything stays warm. It's kinda genius. I'm going to go clean it off to get ready.
Exit FOLG
BIGFOOT (aside): Man, I wish I were more like Lord Folg.
Enter Prince Drew and Devon
PRINCE: Ham's here. Give us an hour and it will make love to your mouths.
DAVE: Do you have the shirts?
DEVON: Yeah, I need to iron them on here still though.
DAVE: Yes! That's almost as cool as Rock Band.
CHAD: Easy there.
Enter Sir Hudik
SIR HUDIK: Assholes. It's fucking cold. Who wants sausage and meatballs?
BIGFOOT: This bacon is delicious.
Enter Fool
CHAD: Hey you actually brought something, that's weird.
FOOL: Fuck yourself. Get a load of what's in this bag.
All follow Fool into kitchen
DAVE: It's two headless frogs! Look how big they are!
BIGFOOT: What's in the other bag?
FOOL: Feast your eyes on these three.
PRINCE: Damnit, they're alive!
ALL: Fuckin-a.
FOOL: I'm putting them in the bathtub.
Exit Fool
DAVE: That's the greatest thing I've ever seen.
CHAD: I think that's a Hamsgiving miracle.
SIR HUDIK: Not for long they won't be.
Exeunt

Act Two, Scene One -- Outside the Pig Castle
Enter Lord Folg, Sir Hudik, Fool, and Dave
DAVE: She said we shouldn't burn treated wood.
FOLG: Fuck it, we'll let it burn off, let's fill it up. How do you think we'll kill the frogs?
Enter Prince Drew and Chad
FOOL: I watched the Chinese guys in the back of the store do it. Just behead them and skin them.
PRINCE: Just cut their heads off in one solid whack.
CHAD: Those things don't have a separate head.
FOLG: You are a jackass.
FOOL: No, I mean, it will be nothing. How freaking awesome am I?
SIR HUDIK: Yeah, this sounds really well thought-out.
Enter Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
GUILDENSTERN: We'll take the frogs to Englad and see that they're killed properly.
CHAD: Who the hell are these dillweeds?
ROSENCRANTZ: Eh.
Exit Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
PRINCE: I'll do it no problem. Just cut off their heads, how hard is it?
SIR HUDIK: We'll see you do it then. What's that smell?
FOLG: Just poisonous gas. When it burns off we'll cook over it. Where is my Mtn Dew?
SIR HUDIK: Yeah, I forgot.
FOLG: How in the fuck am I supposed to celebrate Hamsgiving without Mtn Dew? You may as well stick a veggie dog in my mouth with this shit.
FOOL: Some of those veggie dogs they make are pretty good.
Exeunt

Act Two, Scene Two -- The Folg Castle
Enter Lady Folg and Attendant
ATTENDANT: The meat for your Hamsgiving dish, m'lady.
LADY FOLG (aside): I'thanks. Should that they are sim'larly mistook.
ATTENDANT: How shall you prepare?
LADY FOLG: With love, (aside) and deceit.
ATTENDANT: Methinks we'll be a winner with this dish.
LADY FOLG: Indeed. (Aside) If there be a prize for the best
Vegetarian dish at this party,
Then the fake meats in this fine casserole
Shall easily prevail, uncontested.
Exeunt

Act Two, Scene Three -- Inside the Pig Castle
Enter Dave, Prince Drew, He Who Shall Not Be Named, and King (Not An Actual King)
DAVE: Look who it is, and they've got a giant bottle of Jack!
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED: I'll tell you what. I tell a lot of people what.
KING (NOT AN ACTUAL KING): Who wants to drink?
DAVE: We have live frogs, check em out in the bathroom.
ALL: Sweet.
Enter Hamsgiving Witch
WITCH: Hey guys where's all the meat?
PRINCE: You mean currently living or currently dead? Cause we've got both.
KING (NOT AN ACTUAL KING): That's some nice toad. Let's have a Rock Band sing-off, bitch.
WITCH: Where are the live animals?
DAVE: Shower.
WITCH: You're kidding me.
Exit Hamsgiving Witch
Enter Lord Folg
FOLG: Do any of you assholes have my Mtn Dew?
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED: Hey........hey.............I bet you wish you had some Mtn Dew.......................No, actually I don't have any. Sorry.
Enter Hamsgiving Witch
WITCH: Good god, there are three giant frogs in my shower.
DAVE: Let's eat some meat.
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED: You know, no one is going to get most of the stuff you're saying right now.
FOLG: Shhh. I don't care.
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED: Just don't say my name anymore.
Exeunt

Act Two, Scene Four -- Outside the Pig Castle
Enter Sevendust
SEVENDUST: Goddamnit, what is that horrible smell? Do I hear glass bottles over there? What.................that son of a bitch called my ho a ho. I'm gonna kick his ass.
Exit

Act Three, Scene One -- Pig Castle Shower
Enter Frogs
FIRST FROG: Man, aint this some shit.
SECOND FROG: That fuckin fool think he's gonna kill us.
FIRST FROG: Goddamn Chinaman already got those two.
THIRD FROG: I'm kinda scared.
FIRST FROG: Fuck you, you little bitch! Don't watch your ass, I'll fucking eat you.
SECOND FROG: I ate a dude's leg once. It was pretty good, actually. Didn't care for the sauce.
THIRD FROG: Leave me alone!
Exeunt

Act Four, Scene One -- Inside the Pig Castle
Enter Lady Folg, Attendant, Sir Hudik, Chad, and Prince Drew
LADY FOLG: Hello Everyone! I have some goodies.
SIR HUDIK: Awesome. We're getting quite a lot of all of a sudden. Like four different kinds of meatballs already.
PRINCE: That ham was delicious.
SIR HUDIK: What are you going to eat? We haven't got any veggie-friendly stuff of course.
LADY FOLG: Oh, I brought some simple fish for myself.
Nothing vegetarian. I'm keeping
To the dead beasts rule, good thing I eat fish.
This other dish is for you guys. Don't worry,
It's made of nothing but meat. (Aside) Ha-ha-ha!
Enter Lord Folg
FOLG: What did you bring babe? I'm about to start my ribs. You bring me Mtn Dew?
LADY FOLG: No, sorry.
Enter Dave
DAVE: I've got your damn Mtn Dew. And real wood. Let's start forgetting stuff. It's packed in here.
FOLG: It's about time. Speaking of that, let's get some of these rookies a meat sweats shot.
Exeunt

Act Four, Scene Two
Enter King (Not An Actual King), Dave, Prince Drew, Devon, and Lord Folg
DEVON: Tshirts ready in a minute.
DAVE: Yeah!
DEVON: Oh shit. I fucked it up. Wow.
DAVE: Ha! It's backwards! She ironed it on, so it's backwards!
FOLG: What! That's freaking hilarious!
PRINCE: Well I still think it looks good.
DAVE: I'm wearing mine for sure.
FOLG: Write FAIL on mine. That's perfect.
KING (NOT AN ACTUAL KING): Hamsgiving Fail! Woo!
PRINCE: Damn, you've been drinking out of that whiskey bottle an awful lot, there bud.
KING (NOT AN ACTUAL KING): Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man!
DAVE: Perfect.
Exeunt

Act Four, Scene Three -- On the Road to the Pig Castle
Enter Hamsgiving Witch and Attendant
WITCH: Fucking idiots. No way I was going to let them butcher these frogs.
ATTENDANT: I thought they were going to cut them?
WITCH: With what? No way our knives could do the job. I'd let them do it if they could kill them humanely.
ATTENDANT:.............uh.........but they're frogs.
WITCH: They'll find a good home at the pet store.
ATTENDANT: Sure they will.
WITCH: What did you say?
ATTENDANT: Um, I said "Sure they will."
WITCH: But you said it sarcasitcally.
ATTENDANT: No, Ms Witch. You are right, as always. (Aside) Damnit, I should remember to signal for an aside before I say stuff like that.
Exeunt

Act Four, Scene Four -- Outside the Pig Castle
Enter Lord Folg
FOLG: Why in the hell did I burn these ribs so bad? I'm a freaking idiot. Too much gin.
Enter Fool, Sir Hudik, and Dave
DAVE: Somebody took the frogs!
FOOL: They're not in the shower!
FOLG: What happened? The dead ones too?
SIR HUDIK: No the dead ones are still there. Live ones disappeared.
DAVE: This will ruin Hamsgiving!
SIR HUDIK: Have you gotten drunk and gorged on meat all day?
DAVE: Yeah.
SIR HUDIK: Then I think you'll be fine.
FOOL: We don't have anything live now.
DAVE: There is a totally awesome pig made out of sausage, bacon, and a foot long hot dog, though. And a chicken stuffed with about eight different meats.
SIR HUDIK: And a person dressed up as a sausage.
DAVE: And King is passed out like a dead person from all the Jack.
FOLG: He wins the Sean Smith Memorial Award.
DAVE: Let's go do some meat sweats and forget about the frogs.
FOLG: We still have a deep fryer so we can eat the dead ones at least.
FOOL: But I wanted to kill a frog!
SIR HUDIK: Dude you were starting to turn white a couple hours ago just thinking about it.
FOOL: Nuh-uh!
Exeunt

Act Five, Scene One -- Inside the Pig Castle
Enter Lady Folg and Lord Folg
LADY FOLG: So did you like my meat today?
FOLG: Yeah, sure. Had a few too many beans I think.
LADY FOLG: It was good though?
FOLG: Why?
LADY FOLG: Shhh. It was all veggie meat substitute.
FOLG: (horror)
LADY FOLG: Heeheehee.
Lord Folg thinks about stabbing Lady Folg with a used rib bone, and then killing himself with it, but vomits all over the place instead.
Exeunt

Act Five, Scene Two -- Inside the Pig Castle
Enter Chad, Dave, Prince Drew, He Who Shall Not Be Named, and Lord Folg
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED: (laughing)
CHAD: Should we try to wake up King?
DAVE: Good luck, he's out cold.
PRINCE: That was a lot of fucking pork.
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED: (giggles)
FOLG: Too bad King drank all the whiskey, I'm in the mood for another meat sweats.
CHAD: Dickhead.
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED: (laughs)
Exeunt

Act Five, Scene Three -- Outside the Pig Castle
Enter Sir Hudik, Dave, and Lord Folg
FOLG: Hey let's throw some shit around and yell!
SIR HUDIK: Why?
FOLG: Cause we're hammered and invented a holiday!
DAVE: Meat rage!
Enter Sevendust
SEVENDUST: You motherfuckers! Shut the hell up! It's 11PM on a Saturday, you should be in bed thinking about lame-ass late-90s metal bands!
SIR HUDIK: Whoa!
SEVENDUST: I'm gonna kick you asses! Meet me in front of the house!
Exit Sevendust
FOLG: No, I don't think so.
DAVE: Let's go drink some more of the vodka chili.
Exeunt

The End

this is how people turn into republicans

I haven't watched any real movies lately, so let's talk about something else, like old Tommo. You remember him from the joke a couple weeks ago. What a great guy. No, I'm just saying that cause that's what you're supposed to say. No one ever says, "Gee, that Steve, what a flaming dick he is." Back to Tom, though. He's no flaming dick, but he is certainly flaming. One little-known thing I know about Tom and will share with you today is that he is really interested in an internet footprint.
Other news, I'm 28 years old and pretending to be a receptionist for the day. Since that's not my real job, it almost feels like I'm a 21 year old temping or something. Helps to keep a man grounded, gives him an opportunity to see things as they once were, because things change. For instance, I am voraciously soaking up net-knowledge as I plan my honeymoon for this August. That right there is a basic and major change. But as I look around and research places to stay (we've almost certainly settled on spending our 9-night vacation around the Yucatan Peninsula. Nice beaches, nice resorts, jungles, ancient ruins, relatively unspoiled or un-tourist-ed islands, all fairly cheap: sounded like a winner to me), a heretofore unknown thought has guided my decision-making. I'm concerned about safety, specifically the safety of my precious future bride. I think this terrifying reaction is called responsibility. The concern not merely for oneself, but for others. It's what parents do naturally on behalf of kids, and I think it's a prerequsite for a mature relationship.
The question here is how does this affect the rest of my actions? Is this strong-even-if-sometimes-irrational approach to situations something that you can turn on and off? Will I be "grown-up" when planning something involving Sara, while turning into a careless follower when doing anything else? I'd hope that the answer to this last question remains yes, at least for a little while longer. I enjoy the freedom of not being responsible for anyone, often includng myself, but the alternative is sort of a right of passage for people around my age. I guess what I'm saying is I hope this transition for me is a nebulous one.

While we're on the subject of change, Hamsgiving is tomorrow and I can't promise a liveblog as in past years. For one, it will be frigid (sub-20degrees, just like we'd always intended for the holiday. I seem to recall it being unseasonably warm last year) and so I won't be as apt to be jotting in a notebook, and for two I don't know how easy any access to a computer will be. I shall go prepared though and will do my best. I look forward to it.

I thought Milk was nothing really special. Naturally, a nice job by Sean Penn (actually Emile Hirsch might have been his equal, though in a much smaller role) and the filmmakers generally but nothing resonated and it felt like I've seen this type of film and especially this type of acting job before. The intensity and call-to-arms nature of the story (Sara: "I am going to make you be a gay rights activist") propels it to a definitely good film, but I can't say you really need to spend $12.50 to see this unless you are really looking forward to it (which is what I am for Revolutionary Road, thanks to seeing its preview prior to Milk).

Now, what I've really come to write about today is sports. Specifically, college football, which would seem a timely subject as its national championship game is to be played tonight.
It's taken 28 years for me to be able to say this, but I really am done with the bowl system. I get virtually nothing out of the bowls anymore. Ohio State just played a close, exciting game against Texas a few days ago, and I never really felt like what I was watching mattered. I haven't watched very many other bowl games this year, because they don't matter either. And even if they did, how seriously should we take them if the teams competing have gone usually at least 5 weeks since last playing, after having spent the previous 3 months playing games no more than two weeks apart.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The whole bowl system is a ridiculously out-of-date relic, and the fact that everyone forces today's college football into a structure built 50, 60, 70-plus years ago is absurd. Roads we use today are much bigger and smoother than those used in 1925. The technology of cars and the complexity of the advanced transportation systems demanded it. In 1940 it was a big deal for a Big Ten and its fan base to win a bid to the Rose Bowl. It gave midwesterners a chance to travel to warm southern California, and it gave warm southern California an injection of tourism that it may not have always enjoyed. From the team's perspective, it allowed two very disparate but powerful football regions to pit their best teams against one another in glorified exhibition games (remember the long layoff between games, then multiply that by great magnitudes to reflect that teams didn't practice as ubiquitously as they do now). Remember now that the sport itself was still rather young back then and so the notion of exhibition games was not at all silly. They needed to get their product out in front of people however possible, and so grandly scheduled (New Year's Day) games featuring presumably the best teams was good for business.
Does any of that last paragraph sound remotely relevant to college football today? No. Teams travel across the country multiple times per year anyway. They don't truly get the time off between late November and January 1 either, so the 5+ week gap between games is contrived. I don't need to tell you that air travel is now commonplace so people will travel to warm southern California, sometimes just on a whim, and certainly whether their favorite team is going there or not. TV has given the sport a spotlight every weekend through the season, and the aforementioned big inter-sectional matchups through the fall command at least as much attention as bowl games ever did.
Assuming you follow reason you agree with me now, that there is no need for bowl games to exist in 2009 as they once did. So then what's the point? The way I see it, the only thing bowls really achieve today is to stand in the way of a playoff, something that would both make sense and have consequence.
I won't get into the endless debate about the pros and cons of a playoff, especially the financial aspect of the argument, but I will say that, from a competitive standpoint, a playoff is really the only solution. If you are one who feels that it would diminish the importance of the regular season (something I disagree with, and something I feel could easily be mitigated by structuring the playoff properly), then just choose your champion at the end of the regular season. Or, if you absolutely must, run the BCS like they do now and select just two teams to play for the title. But don't do it in conjunction with any bowl, and don't do it 5 weeks later. Remember that the current setup technically is a playoff, simply a two-team playoff. Everything else is consolation. Consolation that loses value and interest every year. This year, I think it lost me. Tradition for its own sake is preposterous.

Film (and Theater!) Review

That's right, I said a theater review, absolutely foreign territory for me.
But first, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the movie I saw with Sara on my first-ever Christmas Day away from any family and in NYC. First, the 6:00 showing sold out completely and only through dumb luck did I bump into a guy willing to unload two tickets for $20 (that's a $5 discount) because his friend "got sick." So that won me the privilege of not waiting in the ticket line but waiting at the end of a massive entrance line. Evidently lots and lots of people wanted to see this film. We were only going because it was playing at the closest theater at the right time.
I read a book a few years ago called The Confessions of Max Tivoli, which features as its protagonist a man born to an old body who then gets younger as he ages. Perhaps for this reason I wasn't as enthralled by the story as I may otherwise have been, seeing as how that is a very interesting and specific plot. But I was very underwhelmed by this film. The people involved are all proficient enough and the film is attractive enough, but in my opinion it's definitely not worth its 165 minutes and whatever it cost to make. The reason for this is the story and the inattention to detail.
Maybe the producers thought that the simple aging story was fascinating enough and chose not to accentuate it. Maybe they were worried about adding to the length. Maybe they just failed miserably. In the above referenced book, a central struggle is that of the character pining after a woman his age but not his appearance. There is the constant disconnect between a young soul inside an old body (and later, to a lesser extent, an old soul in a young body). This is emotionally compelling. In the film, the character seems usually to be born simply an old man in both soul and body. When he falls in love with the girl, we don't appreciate any of the tragedy of his condition. Instead the whole film seems to be a mere succession of events that ends up being almost boring. Also, in the book, since the character lives backward, he is necessarily aware of exactly when he will die, which gives much space for the author to consider the devastating human effect such knowledge causes. The film never mentions this and actually is forced to spend almost no time covering the end of Benjamin's life because they've already decided that he will recede into infancy and therefore have no ability to complexly think about his own existence.
The other serious issue I had with the film was it very loose attention to details, specifically plot details. I've already mentioned that the film starts with a baby with a frail old man's body. They don't consistently show us whether his soul is old or young. We see him desiring to play with kids and zealously listening to a bedtime story, but he's otherwise always playing the part of an old man unfazed by the world around him (you can almost conspiratorily wonder whether the filmmakers realized their "young" Benjamin was too blandly old and so forced in a couple of anecdotes). Getting back to my point, since the baby grows like a normal person, only reversing in appearance, you would then expect the small baby that looks like an old man to end his life as a near-fully-grown old man that looks like a baby. Instead, what we get is a progressively younger Benjamin who decreases in size back to an infant. This might seem hard to follow or like a small detail, but it bothered me and it's not the only example. There were somewhat liberal references to Benjamin's age and/or the date, so simple math would allow you to fill in the gaps. More often than not, they didn't match up. Again, I know this film is just a fantasy tale, and you're supposed to give allowances, but these transgressions were too much for me.
Before I finish telling about how I didn't like this film and how it's only average at best, I will mention that there is a very nice emotional scene at the end when Cate Blanchett is holding the dying baby Benjamin and she says how he gave her knowing look. Those moments of connected emotion were unfortunately far too rare.

Now, the moment you've been waiting for: the review of "Pal Joey" (I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to quote or italicize that), my first ever Broadway show (yeah, I succeeded in living in this city for 5.5 years without seeing one). Actually, I don't have much of an idea what I'm talking about regarding theater, and my response to the show was similarly sparse, so I won't say much. Sorry.
For some reason, I wasn't completely prepared for how long it was. Start to finish, including the intermission, it was 2.5 hours. The chairs appeared cushioned enough (you don't sit in a reclinable movie-theater style chair at these theaters, but instead a simple stationary chair), but were far too close together and ended up being the source of quite a bit of discomfort. The show itself wasn't boring, but still I was counting down the songs during act two on account of the chairs. The theater was also extremely hot and almost foggy. I'm not sure where the mustiness came from but it was another unexpectedly uncomfortable twist.
As for the show itself, I think it would not be classified with your stereotypical Broadway shows, because it had a somewhat compelling story that moved forward more through plot than through song. None of the songs were very memorable for me, though few were painful either. I was able to bear them without struggle, though during the intermission, I made a point of counting the upcoming songs in the program so I knew how to pace myself through act two's 12 numbers (act one contained 13 songs).
Not being a lavish song-and-dance show, the dances didn't really inspire much comment. They were certainly entertaining. Actually, that's a good simple word to use about the whole production: entertaining. I guess that's as high a compliment as a Broadway show usually requires. Also, I'm not sure if it was due to the subject matter of "Pal Joey" or if it's common to all Broadway, but I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of dancer ogling that is possible, and at nicely consistent intervals.
I agree with Sara's assessment of the actors: Stockard Channing is a fine stage performer but her singing is distractingly sub-par. There was one song where she was forced to alternate verses with another actor, and her inabilites were put on unfortunate display. The male lead was actually a late fill-in because the "name" guy (oddly I can't remember his name) was forced to leave at the last minute. He was extremely competent on all fronts. From my perch in the rear mezzanine, he appeared young too, so maybe he'll get around a bit in the future. The third large part was played by Martha Plimpton, whom most people my age know primarily for her work in Goonies. She was right in her element here, which is a definite compliment as her part was that of a nightclub singer, so any inadequacies would be terribly glaring.
To wrap this up: no, I don't think I'd return by my own motivation to Broadway for a musical after having seen this one. I have other motivations now though, and the sheer joy Sara derived from this experience, coupled with what I can best describe as ambivalently pleasant acceptance of the medium, will surely lead to more appearances.

Still, for my gameness, she owes me a little now. (Which is odd, because she claimed that I owed her a movie after the discomfort that attended her viewing of The Wrestler, which was my pick and something she would never have seen alone. (Disclaimer--she thought The Wrestler was great too, just a little to hard to watch.) So she was going to get to choose any movie for us to jointly see in the theater regardless of my tastes and I'd be forced to go, except her everlasting girl-ness took over and she decided to force me to watch two movies on TV instead. I lost about 2 hours from my life in this deal, but gained $25. No, my life is not worth more than $12.50/hr, so I call this a win. Anyway, the two movies ended up being White Christmas, which I didn't even watch all of, and Love, Actually. I won't waste too many keystrokes on it, but I just want to say what a truly horrible movie the latter is. I was fully expecting chick-flick crap, but this thing was so bad I was laughing at it. It was so bad I googled the people involved in making it and can you believe my astonishment to learn that its writer/director is fairly well-respected. Unbelievable.)

Film Reviews

For a Christmas special, I'm bringing a long-dormant film review. I've seen two in theaters lately: Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler. I'll start with the former.
SM is a fun movie to watch. It's got just the right amount of comedy (regular enough so that the last laugh is still fresh in your mind when the next one hits, but not so much that you feel like you're just watching a "comedy") and just the right amount of suspense (so you are always wanting to know what's happening next, as in a good page-turning book). It almost goes too far in the schmaltzy department, and as I saw it, there were some acting deficiencies, but in some ways, that's the point.
This movie is very Indian-centric, from the very numerous and specific details of poor Indian life to the heavily accented speakers, to the liberal use of what must be Indian slang. As such, it can't help but to deal with Western assumptions regarding the well-known Bollywood movies. As with the ending, when all the characters spontaneously launched into an aggressively choreographed dance number, at times the director Danny Boyle chose to directly embrace the Indian movie-stereotype. I think this was a smart choice, as it had the effect of recalling the artistically bankrupt Bollywood films as an easy way to make clear that SM is anything but.
The story of Slumdog Millionaire is perfect, basically. Use the structure of a foreign version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" as a frame for flashbacks telling the story of a person's life, all while borrowing the constant escalation of suspense that's endemic of the show. Even during the movie I caught myself thinking, "Jeez this is a great idea for a storyline." And there's not much more to say about it: a great idea is a great idea.
Unfortunately, the actors responsible for bringing the great story to life didn't quite equal their material, with one very notable exception. First, I want to make clear that this was a very nicely done movie, so the acting being a detriment isn't as harsh as it would be if we were talking about a Martin Lawrence movie. Nonetheless, the lead male actor, in a role that was ripe for the taking, was pretty underwhelming. Passable and often likable, but underwhelming. I can't even say as much about the adult lead female role or the adult brother, both of whom were very close to being distractingly eptless.
Now, let's get to the exception: Anil Kapoor, Bollywood veteran. He plays the Regis Philbin role as game show host and dominates every scene just exactly as much as you'd want him to. Midway through the movie, I found my laughing just at his intoxicatingly flamboyant pronunciation of the word "millionaire," as well as silently hoping he'd be in every scene. I'll call it a Roberto Benigni performance, after Benigni's comic but appropriate dominance of Down By Law. He doesn't distract from the story or the other characters, but he steals every scene. I was impressed. Even if Mr Kapoor is no Brando, he is sure a professional actor.
Bottom line on this movie: well-done, time well spent. It won't probably win any awards but it doesn't need to.

Now, after taking longer than I expected with that, let me get to the reason I decided to write today: The Wrestler. It's been 3 days now since I've seen it, and it's effect on me is actually still growing. Leaving the theater, I felt moved by it: physically and emotionally, but its overall impact as a piece of art hadn't fully sunk in. It's that brilliantly subtle (and let me say for the record that "brilliantly subtle" is something for which I have a weakness). I'm going to go ahead and say that in these past three days, The Wrestler has for me transformed from simply "good 2008 film," to "hopefully an Oscar-winning film," to simply "great film regardless of year."
If you're going to see this film, please do yourself a favor and spend thirty minutes googling its star, Mickey Rourke. His personal story and the story within the film are impossibly tied together. I can't imagine having a full appreciation for his work here without knowing much beforehand about him.
So how about Mickey Rourke? I've done myself the favor of steering mostly clear of this stuff, but he's been getting some good press lately. Of course, it's easy for people to get carried away with that, so you never know. I purposefully chose not to too closely analyze Rourke while watching, so I would get a better feel for the film as a whole and not have any preconceived notions about what I was seeing or not seeing with him. Well, let me report that after some consideration, he's as good as advertised.
Not all great acting performances were created alike. Some are like Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood. Others are like Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris. Mickey Rourke here is definitely not at all like the former, though perhaps not quite so much like the latter. He obviously carries this film but he doesn't knock you over the head about it. He's subtle. He's real. He's exactly what's required to be perfect for The Wrestler.
The scene where he's working at the deli for the first time--and enjoying it (there is another, more ominous one)-- is so good and so simple and so perfect that it almost tricked me into thinking it was just an average effort in just an average scene. (Does that even make sense? I don't know. I'll lazily say you just have to see it to understand.) The scene when he's playing Nintendo with the kid, the ones early on where he's getting ready for a match, the ones with his daughter that were almost begging to be overacted, and the wonderful speech before his last match--practically every scene is the best scene. That's exactly why it's easy to simply appreciate the performance in real time but wonder at it as it sinks in afterward.
I can't help but wonder what it was like on the set of this film, with Rourke lumbering around being amazing. Was it lighthearted and fun, so as to cut the emotional tension of the film, or was it incredibly intense, so as not to disrupt the possibly Method techniques of the star or the definitely meta dynamics of same? If you're the director do you treat Rourke like a pitcher working on a no-hitter (silence and distance), or like a guy who just hit a walk-off homer (enthusiasm and loud positive reinforcement). Whatever Darren Aronofsky did, it worked.
The most interesting thing about this acting job is: where could Mickey Rourke possibly go from here? does he start getting intense parts again? (Cause you know he could never honestly do anything at all light at this point.) Or should he just suffer a tragic death or retirement, so this role can be raised up and our memory of it never tampered? (I say no. The possibilities are too endlessly interesting that I selfishly want to see what happens.)
Back to the film as a whole now. It's lazy and cliche to say it's shot in a documentary-style, but if I were to say that, you would know exactly what to expect. The fact is that it is not shot that way; it is clearly a staged production. It's the lighting (lack thereof) and the settings (Jersey shitlands) that make it so gritty. I think this is a good time to mention that these were choices made by Aronofsky that--like whatever his approach to Rourke was--worked beautifully for this film. They don't result in pretty cinematography or fancy directorial stamps, and they don't probably result in lavish accolades, but they go a long way to making a great film. So good work to him. (Disclaimer: I am a sucker for a lot of those big director moves and camerawork. It's nice to take time acknowledge that it doesn't have to be that way to be effective.)
The last thing I'd like to mention is the ending. (Spoilers, obviously.) A film like this one needed to have a good ending. We got a nice snapshot of a time in the character's life, so the story didn't necessarily need to be wrapped up neatly or anything, but the film itself needed to go out on a high note. As with the other things I've talked about, here The Wrestler was superb.
The film is about a man struggling to move on with his life, about a wrestler trying to learn that it's ok not to be a wrestler anymore, to accept that his essence is directly harmful to himself. (This is interesting of course, and lends itself perfectly to a film.) Randy the Ram has some success in this endeavor: strangely enjoying his deli clerk job, making progress with his dancer-lady, finally connecting with his daughter, doing coke and banging a young ho (he, kidding on that last one); but of course he cracks and is forced to heed the siren call of himself. He's a wrestler. He's a failure. He's a deadbeat. If his heart explodes, then so be it, cause if he can't be hmself then what sense is there in being.
When he steps in the ring at the end, post-heart attack, the sense of doom is palpable. This is why his speech just prior is so incredible and oddly triumphant. And all the horrible things we've been forced to see inside the ring leading up to this final match set the stage wonderfully. That there is no real brutality is of no consequence, because we are constantly expecting it. It's almost hold-your-breath uncomfortable.
I think a lot of people will view the ending as sad, when Randy appears in the onset of another heart attack but still climbs the top ropes and launches himself off in his trademark "Ram Jam," but I feel very differently. As I hinted before, I think it's great that Randy has tried to change himself, but ultimately realized he is who he is. To quote my most favorite movie of the last several years: "You can't change what's coming." If he's going to go out, he's going out on his own terms doing what he loves to do. Standing on the top ropes hearing the cheers of the crowd, he very literally and figuratively went out on top. Good for him. And good for The Wrestler. A perfect ending to a great film.

Dom Tussel walks into a bordello. Madame says to him, "I bet you're thinking about getting some poontang." Dom says, "No, I am getting some poontang. I'm thinking about meat."

1. Ok. It was a long time coming this year, but I'm finally and legitimately excited for the OSU-Michigan game tomorrow. Michigan's pathetic 3-8 is still not enough to taint what is the most anticipated football game for me every year The only exceptions to this would be if the Steelers were playing in the AFC Championship game or of course the Super Bowl. All other games of any level or importance would be secondary, even, believe it or not, an OSU national title game appearance (though I'm sure this opinion is colored by semi-recent events). So it will be fun tomorrow, and I'm semi-confident that the game might itself be interesting for quite a while, or at least long enough to give Michigan a victory against the historically-high 20.5 point spread.
After our game at noon, what I think might be the biggest game of the year is at 8:00 with Texas Tech and Oklahoma. TT is good and all, but I think a lot of people are forgetting how ridiculous Oklahoma is. I think they're going to put the hurt on Texas Tech, and I think they ought to get into the title game over Texas, even though they lost head-to-head.
This is a small digression, but this would be a great year for a playoff, maybe the best yet. I'm fairly certain there will be no major unbeatens (sorry Alabama), and at least 6-8 legitimately good teams to duke it out, in order of quality: Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, Penn State. Add to that potentially-undefeated Utah and you've got a nice playoff lineup (first-round games: OU-Utah, Florida-Penn St, USC-TT, Texas-Bama. Excellent).

2. There has been a minor controversy online regarding a guy trying to use shady means to prove his theory that Obama was elected because the media covered the race unfairly. First, know that the guy at the center of this, John Ziegler, used to be a conservative talk-radio host, which really is about all you need to know about him. This guy cooked up a survey to show that Obama voters absorbed slanderous news about McCain/Palin better than about Obama/Biden, and that this obviously means that the liberal media played up the Republicans' faults while obscuring the Democrats'. Never mind that Obama is black and therefore belongs to a minority group that hasn't ever been portrayed remotely fairly by any form of media, or the fact that it would take some impressive kind of conspiracy in 2008 to effectively filter info.
Anyhow, I'm not as interested in that part of the debate. I'd like to look at a couple examples of why Ziegler/conservatives are angry about the media's treatment of the election, as found through his survey. People were much more likely to know that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter and received $150,000 worth of clothes than they were to know about Obama's (out of context and misquoted) comment about the coal industry or Biden's past plagiarism. To any observer, partisan or not, this should come as no surprise. Even accepting Ziegler's general assumption--that this is because the media focused on the former stories and ignored the latter--should not be at all debatable. He--we--everyone, unfortunately--is assuming the media is operating with any kind of journalistic standards in mind, that the media is concerned with reporting honest stories and presenting honest pertinent information. Maybe it's archaic, but the major TV and radio networks are subject to federal oversight because they were originally intended to be responsible guardians of the public's information absorption. This has gone by the wayside, and is only really ever expected out of PBS anymore.
Instead, what we have now in almost all media outlets (and throughout all entertainment in fact) is a constant pandering to a least-common-denominator. The media doesn't give us what we ought to know, they give us what they think we want to know. We're interested in trivial scandal and personal details about politicians, cause lord knows those are the things that affect a person's governance (sometimes I know, they do, but you know what I mean).
I've criticized news and entertainment industries about this stuff before but so many people seem unfazed by this that it bears repeating. Our culture is different now, and not for the better. I don't care that Sarah Palin's daughter doesn't use contraception, I don't care that Eliot Spitzer sees prostitutes, I don't care that Bill Clinton got a hummer in the White House. I care that it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people, I care that U.S. leaders don't need to adhere to the same standards we hold to the rest of the world, I care that this country isn't remotely solvent.

3. The other day, I received an email from my good friend David Plouffe asking me for money again. (A reminder, Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager.) It was more or less your standard request for donation, this time to help fund the transition effort, except I noticed a couple lines that hint at something I find--at the risk of sounding naive--wholly remarkable and admirable:

For the first time, transition efforts won't be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs -- which means we'll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.

First, the theme is the same as always, the same as it was since the day Obama rejected public financing and instead decided to raise all his money on his own. Through these constant emails from them, the campaign has been consistently proud of this fact. Although it sets a dangerous precedent toward ever-escalating money spent on political campaigns, I'm inclined to agree with their pride. Why not be supported quite literally from your supporters, and not some taxpayer funds or professional lobbyists? I know my ignorance on this forces such simplicity, but it makes sense. Again, I'd be worried about the path this could lead us down, but in this moment, I like it.
The much more interesting part of the quoted paragraph, though, is this: "building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people."
Obama has found himself in a difficult position after managing to somewhat transcend some of the usual politics in the eyes of millions of people. It's a corny cliche word here, but he's given hope that he might be different or run things differently than we're used to. In this task, and given these expectations, he will of course fail. He's a politician after all. He might represent better things to people but in the end he's one of them.
Nonetheless, if there is one thing that I've sorta noticed about how Obama and his people have gone about things, it's that he seems to genuinely be making an effort at transparency and accountability. Of course, after 8 horribly secretive Bush years, this is politically fruitful, but it seems more of an institutional mandate for the future from the future Prez himself, rather than a comment on the past. I'm too lazy to provide specific examples here from his campaign or the last couple weeks, but I'm happy to say that it seems to me at least that he's trying to deliver on a pretty important bit of promise that his victory represents. So good for him. But don't fuck it up.

The Big Republican Problem

This ought to be the last political post for a while, or at least the last one focused mainly on politics. They're fun in doses, and I'm sure I will have had my fill soon enough.

During the last several weeks as I've habitually politics-loaded, I've tried to make sure I get a little of both sides. The problem with internet surfing for legit but opinionated information is that similar-minded sites tend to link to each other but not as much to dissenting ones. To get around this, you have to follow a link where a liberal is making fun of what a conservative is saying, and then once at the other site, to browse around rather than simply read what was linked. For your information, one site that's dedicated to conservative thinking (and no I'm not using that phrase ironically. I think it's terribly stupid when liberals (or any group that might ever drift toward elitism) act like it's impossible to find extremely intelligent arguments from the other side. No one has a monopoly on good ideas.) which I have found to contain plenty of smart, readable content is nextright.com. There are many others but my laziness has limited me mostly to revisiting this one.
Anyhow, in reading some of these Republican sites, I can't help but notice some of the comments to articles. As with any site, the comments are on another planet than the articles, quality-wise, but since I don't have as many righty friends anymore, and I don't see many here in Manhattan, it can be slightly if curiously informative. Being from Eastern Ohio, and raised in a somewhat culturally conservative household, I have some experience with both sides of the political debate. Of course over time I have tended to the left in my own thinking but I can certainly respect and often agree with either side.
Now, there are a lot of conservatives lamenting their performance Tuesday, for good reason, but there may be even more (the more ambitious or enthusiastic at least) that are attempting to lay out how to regain traction and eventually return to national power. Many of the excuses/ideas offered are reasonable, but I've found that my own personal feeling regarding the biggest Republican problem has gone laregly unmentioned.
Somewhere along the line (I'll leave others to decide when exactly), Republicans made a decision that, sure, it's ok if a large portion of our base consists of bigoted, ignorant, uninformed, and homogenous individuals. By letting too many of these types of voters run amok as a big chunk of their base, the Republicans took up residence on the wrong side of history. By consistently doing this, they ensured that no matter what else happened in the present, sooner or later, they were going to fall. I talked about this is my gay marriage post a few back, but it's a guarantee that fairness and virtue will win out in this country in the long run (And let's pause here to note that no matter the flaws of the country or its people, this fact stands high as evidence of its true greatness).
You could probably trace today's versions of the Democratic and Republican parties directly to the civil rights era, when Lyndon Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act changed the south from a Democratic stronghold to the Republican one it has remained to this day. Starting there, they fell behind (in many cases, to say they "fell behind" is very generous, more descriptive to say they "vigorously opposed.") on racism, abortion, guns, the environment, anything science-related, homosexuality, and pretty much any other progressive social/cultural issue. They took the easy road and pandered to the ignorances, fears, and insecurities of the present, somehow not noticing that the supporters of intolerance would shrink as the years went on and people naturally became more accepting of others' differences. They somehow didn't notice that the national share of white males was diminishing every year as this country continued it's centuries-old tradition of receiving immigrants in high numbers (I don't have a source handy, but it's estimated that in the not-too-distant future, there will be no more majority race).
Of course, not all Republicans favor oppression and intolerance. Most of the leaders of the party and a great percentage of its members nationwide are personally appalled at that behavior. But too many of their base is not, and because it's "the base," Republican leaders have gone to great lengths not to alienate it.
The Democrats are imminently capable of screwing up their current majority (also let's not overlook the poorly educated sections of their party) and they might sometimes consider themselves lucky to have stumbled into their preferred socially progressive positions, but assuming they steer the ship reasonably enough, I predict that the Republicans as we know them will never become a majority national party again until they've accepted this as ground zero and simply cast off their lot of ignorant fools. In consecutive national elections, this base has proven utterly futile, so what good is it to them? They need to rework the party from the bottom up. If their various strategists and thinkers can't see that their uneducated and intolerant base is nothing but a huge albatross, then they don't deserve the status as anything more than a minor third-party. Let their factions form their own parties: the Racist Party, the Homophobic Party, the Creationist Party, the Guns Don't Kill People I Kill People Party. What would be left of the Republicans would be absolutely certain to peel off lots of the not-yet-entrenched newly moderate part of the Democratic party. If they were somehow able to commit to their policy issues in any kind of big-tent way, they would probably stand a great chance to defeat the Democrats again.
But this kind of eschewing of their embarrassing base would take time and result in many failures in the near future, so they are sure not to heed it. It's the easy way out, and it's what got them into this mess 40-some years ago.

Finally, from a personal standpoint, can you imagine this country with the various intolerant groups having been marginalized politically? I'd say that's as close as a large society like the US could get to eutopia.

This is slightly unfair for its generalism, but do you want to see where racism lives in America?
Take a look at what is my favorite election map so far (it's my favorite for two reasons, just one of which is racism). Click on "Voting Shifts" on the left, and just leave the "Compare to" button over 2004 for simplicity, and because the farther back you go the more and larger political variables you encounter. That is one ridiculously blue map. It shows how each county voted as compared to 2004. Things to remember when looking at the map:
1. Nationally, the number was red +2 in 2004, blue +6 in 2008, so on average those counties should be 8% redder in 2004 (or bluer in 2008).
2. Campaigning and thus exposure to both sides is hugely disproportionate to the battleground states, so those should have smaller swings.
3. Many states overall flipped red to blue in 08: VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, IA, NM, CO, NV, so these states should include bluer counties than other states on average.
4. Indiana and Arizona contain home-state advantages to consider. This is why Arizona holds 8 of the 10 counties to go more red in the entire Mountain and Pacific time zones, and also why Indiana is the bluest state on the whole map.

So, absorbing all that, what does the map tell us, besides the obvious and instant fact that the Democrat did much better this time? Or, given the 8 point swing from 2004, plus the more inclusive nature of this campaign's advertising, leaving us to expect a generally bluer map all over, what would be the reason for the clustered deep red on the map?
John McCain received his greatest disparity of support over what Bush received primarily in one congruent area of the country centered over Arkansas but running from East Texas and Oklahoma across Tennessee and up into Eastern Kentucky and far western Virginia and West Virginia. The national vote (from D perspective) went from -2 to +6, but Arkansas managed to go from -10 to -20. Softening the national swing because Arkansas is a deep Republican state, we still should have expected something more like -6 for the Democrat this time, not -20, and that is a huge difference.
Outside of this corridor of increased Rep support, look at one of the blue flip states, Ohio. As I said before, we might expect some of the margins in this massive battleground state to be smaller than nationally; however, the vote there almost exactly mirrored the national in 04 and 08: -2 and +4. So why did 13 of its 88 counties vote more red in this election? Those 13 mostly reside in southern or eastern parts of the state.
I think it's clear that there is one possible answer to all of these questions, the one I mentioned at the beginning: racism. It's always controversial to accuse people of racism but sometimes the truth is hard, and problems will never be overcome if they are kept hidden. (I'm obliged to say that I'm no expert on local politics of the Ozarks, so there might be some mitigating factor that causes the region to buck the national trend. My perhaps lazy conclusion just seems fairly likely. At the very least, it's a large part of the whole answer.)

The other striking thing about the map is how it illustrates the comprehensive nature of Obama's performance relative to Kerry. As per my usual, I'll use numbers: 22 states saw every single one of their counties with increased Democratic numbers. Four more had all but one county, and three additional had only two counties show Republican increases. 29 out of 50 states had two of fewer counties give more support to Republicans. That's amazing. It wasn't just pockets of strength that gave the Democrats the edge, it was across the board. That would be ominous news for Republicans. They better hope that most Americans view Obama as a transcendent figure and crossed idealogical lines just to vote for him personally, rather than his party.

Some notes on voting this morning, but first a couple follow-ups to my last post:

1. I read my post again, and I notice it seems naive, almost precious. What can I say, the guy does that to you. I do not rescind anything.
2. I would be seriously remiss to mention my Obama-vote without placing it in the context of my life with Sara. She is as intense a supporter of her home state/home city-man as any I've encountered. She's such a staunch liberal/Democrat that she gets physically upset when watching anyone from the Bush administration speak. Democrats could nominate Karl Marx and she might question his moderacy.
Anyway, when I said I was researching the candidates last night, I was doing this (at least initially) while sitting on the couch next to her. She asked me what I was up to, and I said I was deciding who I was going to vote for. She said "For President?" and I said "Yeah." The utter disappointment/horror across her face as she said "You're not voting for Obama?" was striking. I followed with my standard reminder of my no D/R position, but even though she has heard this screed before, it did not serve to placate her much. Shortly after she left and went to bed I resumed my skull session in earnest. I think had it not been for her bluntly honest reaction to my intents I might not have come to my relative epiphany regarding what I see as the true and transcendent nature of Obama's candidacy. I mean, I've known all along from a historical standpoint that this is really a big deal, but it hadn't much trickled down to me personally.
I don't think that we will always vote for the same people--far from it--but in certain special cases, I think it's important to note the inevitability, spawned by our closeness, of our one mind.

3. Voter turnout, particularly among blacks and youths, has been a point of discussion throughout this campaign. But I'd like to state from eyewitness report (albeit a pathetically small sample sized-report) of my experiences voting this morning, the turnout this year could be spectacularly large, so much to cause potentially big problems in some states. I've never taken more than 3-5 minutes total to vote in any NYC election, including for governor and for mayor. Of course these are far less attended than a presidential election, but a respectable 30% of the electorate voted in the 2005 mayoral election, which is roughly half of what's expected to be something near 60% turnout nationally in this year's contest. Anyhow, it took me almost 90 minutes to get through the line this morning, and I arrived at 7:50AM. The line was distinctly longer when I left. Also, in NY this year there is only one ballot proposal, and no other race above the US Congress-level. Of the perhaps 8 races in NYC this year, plus the proposal, it couldn't take even a complete dunce more than 30 seconds to finish voting (an assumption I can confirm from my time standing in the long but fast-moving line).
So I'm going to predict that turnout for this election blows away the expectations, which is clearly a good thing in general but a bad one specifically:
4. There are going to be big problems in some swing states, problems that will invariably end up in courts, something that will do huge damage to what would otherwise surely turn into an easy and triumphant night for Obama. I'm not suggesting something like 2000 where it's December before we can confirm a winner, but turnout will overwhelm polling places to the point that perhaps we will finally get some reform on the matter. How there is not some tiny temporary % tax increase initiated to upgrade voting systems on a comprehensive scale is borderline criminal. The machines we at least still use in NYC, with their pathetic punchcard results, would barely be suitable in a third-world country.
5. It's really just about time we declared Election Day a national holiday and got the day off work. I say this not lazily, but more as a way of reforming the polling place voting experience. Of perhaps 20 people working my location this morning, maybe 6 were remotely competent. This is unsurpising because who would take time off to volunteer to work the polls? A memory from my childhood is tagging along with my parents when they voted and spending maybe 30 minutes there with my grandmother, who worked the polls every year. That's right, a 4 year old was playing inside the polling place while his aggressively and menacingly Republican (75 year old) grandmother acted as gatekeeper to democracy. Today there was a man with one eye (one bad eye, he was in charge of reading people's cards to ensure they were where they should be. I saw he squint and lean in to try to read a card given to him. He struggled for 4 seconds before realizing he was reading the back--blank--side of the card.), two women too obese to stand up, and several people unable to direct as many as ten people into two lines.
If everyone had the day off, you would get intelligent and competent people volunteering. I would even make it mandatory of poll workers to attend two rehearsal sessions: one to organize the team and space, and another to do a full walk-through. This stuff need not be difficult. Lord knows it's important enough to devote some energy to trying to get right.

A Different Kind of Obama Voter

Many of you know that I've boycotted the Democratic and Republican parties because I feel that there should be more than two parties in this country, and that the repressive nature of the current two-party system leads to uninspiring (at best) or whore-to-party (at worst) candidates. This has led to a series of elections only interesting for their closeness; the candidates themselves have always seemed so unimportant or ultimately indistinguishable.
In the last NY gubernatorial election, I voted for a member of The Rent Is Too Damn High Party. I did this without fear of consequence.(1) In 2006 I spread my various votes around the spectrum of Third Parties: one for the Socialists, one for the Greens, one for the Libertarians, one for the Constitutionists. It felt good to make a choice for something other than the status quo. It felt good to support other voices, even if the candidates themselves were not truly qualified for the task with which my vote would charge. Unfortunately, none of the third parties ever had any chance to win and so my votes were merely symbolic, and therefore not as irresponsible as they might otherwise be.
So now I found myself today with what seemed like a more serious choice for president, though not really serious for the normal reasons. Last night, I was doing my final familiarizations with the third party candidates appearing on the ballot(2): Roger Calero (Socialist Worker's), Gloria La Riva (Socialism & Liberation), Cynthia McKinney (Green), Bob Barr (Libertarian), and Ralph Nader (Independent).
At this time, I found myself eliminating candidates(3) and was left with only Nader as a realistic choice. Now, it's not like I have anything against Nader, but I had to stop and consider what I was debating in my head: Nader over Obama. What was I doing? On the one hand we have an actual independent with a strong record, and on the other we have a Democrat, and a pretty classic one at that. But while Obama is still in my mind "just a Democrat," he's also something more than that. He's something we haven't seen in presidential elections in many years. He's someone that people really truly connect to and respond to, not just a product of partisan hype and enthusiasm, or so it seems to me. I am truly interested and excited to see what he might do as President, how he might lead. He seems to transcend the simple politics of at least the last 40+ years, and for that reason alone it's exciting to see how the country will react to him.
I've got nothing really against John McCain. He's a largely inoffensive candidate. Reminds me a lot of John Kerry actually, and GWBush in 2000, and any number of candidates before him. He's someone I'd never vote for. In a race with two of him, I'd surely have gone with Nader. But there aren't two of him. There's a guy who seems just different enough to me, so my vote this morning went outside of my tendencies and to him.(4) Godspeed sir.


1. No, Eliot Spitzer resigning in the wake of a sex scandal does not count as a consequence. Not even close.
2. I've never seriously considered casting a write-in vote, for a couple of reasons. First, I've never felt so strongly about a person to so definitively cast a vote "for" that person. Second, my votes have been more about dissenting from the current system than specifically identifying with a marginal sector of it.
3. Calero--not even born in the US. Come on, people.
La Riva--interestng, but not my cup of tea.
McKinney--kindof a joke, almost certainly in it only for the exposure. In other words, no better than Ds or Rs.
Barr--I don't mind Libertarians but this is not the right guy. He led the impeachment effort of Clinton. No, that wasn't at all partisan. Also, it was because he banged someone and lied. I'm what you'd call a cultural liberal, like a crazy-far-left kind, so indignation at Clinton's action is confusing to me.
The guy who I might have considered had he been on the ballot was Ron Paul but even there we miss on several of the issues. Of course he's also just a Republican, but I respect the defiantly outsider stance.
4. Just for the record, I didn't officially vote for a Democrat. In New York state, third parties are allowed to nominate candidates from the two major parties and still get their party's name on the ballot. This year, McCain was nominated by the Conservative and Independence Parties, as well as the Republicans. Obama was nominated by the Working Families Party in addition to the Democrats. I checked Obama's name in the Working Familes column. So there.

Forgive me if you've seen this before, but since I'm on a little civil rights tangent today, here is some of the Tao of BB King:

"Water from the white fountain didn't taste any better than from the black fountain."

How good is that? Not only is this quote one of my all-time favorites, but it's also--for better or worse--more or less a perfect simplification of how I approach life. So what if someone feels like he is better than you? So what if you're getting a bit of a raw deal? Are things ok? If so, what else really matters?
If you need $10 and by chance you find two $10 bills on the sidewalk, then some jackass comes by almost instantly and steals one of them from you, hey, great, you've got the $10 you needed now. And that's enough. $20 might be better but come on, now you've got what you needed.
You give me water and I will drink it. If you are doing it hatefully or ignorantly to try to make a point, well too bad for you that's your problem not mine. Maybe it's weak or nonconfrontational but it is what it is and I'm not losing sleep over it. I know I'm the better man and I don't have to prove it to you. So good luck with those ignorant presumptions of yours.

Enough with the Ignorance Already, People

I've been inadvertently reading a lot of political election-related content online the last couple days. It's pretty easy to ride the wave of web info in this particular subject, and I've got to say I haven't stopped myself. Something that caught my attention was California's Proposition 8. It's a proposed ban on gay marriage in the state, something doubly important because California is one of only three(1) states that actually currently recognizes gay couples.
Many states have put gay marriage bans to a vote in the last few elections, so that on its own is not noteworthy. But the current polling on the issue that calls the proposal's chances a toss-up is, especially when you consider that California has the fifth-highest percentage of same-sex households in the nation, as well as the ninth-highest score on a liberal-conservative Likert scale (meaning it's the ninth-most liberal). So what we have is quite clearly a very liberal state, and beyond that, in fact a very progressive state, which has been traditionally gay-friendly so that it's population is made up of a high number of gays, but that is still about a 50-50 shot to outright ban gay marriage in less than two weeks.
I find this slightly amazing. But I find the culture that allows Prop 8 to be a toss-up and not a clear failure endlessly more amazing.
What is a gay person? What is so fundamentally different about a gay person that should disqualify him or her from being married? What is it inside a seemingly rational person that prompts him from deciding that a gay person is so different that he should be disqualified from marriage?
A gay person is not an animal. He is not a monster or a devil. He is not an infidel worthy of assassination.
I try pretty hard to understand both sides of any issue. I mean I can empathize very well and I try always to give the benefit of the doubt. But the continued prejudice against homosexuals in this country--LEGAL prejudice--is just embarrassing. There is no argument, there is no appropriate opposing viewpoint. If you oppose gay rights today it is just like if you had favored slavery in 1850. People who oppose gay rights have to know that they are on the wrong side of history, that opposition to equal rights has, in the long run, been defeated every single time in the history of this country. You can fight it all you want today--and you might be able to prey on certain fears or ignorances--but you will lose in the end. I guarantee you will lose because you have nothing to stand on but hate. Were the US a fascist country, then the ultimate resolution of this issue might be in doubt, but fortunately for us, it is not.
I don't know how many times I can say this or how many times I can be utterly disappointed in the American people and especially those in power who allow these things to happen. There is simply no excuse.

I understand now of course that banning gay marriage is a more specific issue than general gay rights, that there are narrow factors at play, that it can be more of a political issue than a civil one.(2) But I know that this is about more than specific laws or political procedures. It's about fairness and the freedom to live in this country as a human being. It took a war, but eventually no one worried about whether or not it was prudent before ratifying the 13th amendment to the constitution (3), they just did it because it was right. It's a shame we had to effect such a serious course of action as a constitutional amendment, but that speaks more to the sorry state of a large minority of the American population at the time that was ,as we all know, on the wrong side of history.
Unfortunately since close to half of the people in the largest and usually one of the most progressive states in the country still seems to oppose equality for homosexuals, maybe we'll eventually need to draft another amendment.
I'd rather that we as Americans woke up and stopped being so goddamned ignorant.


1. I'm counting Connecticut even though it hasn't taken effect there yet.
2. So let's talk about them briefly. You could argue that gay marriage should be banned because god wants marriage to be one man and one woman. Fine. Make it a church issue. Let dumbfuck preachers decide who they want to join in holy matrimony. But then you'd have to eliminate the tax breaks for married couples cause that would be 1) unfair and obviously discriminatory, and 2) a clear violation of the constitution's separation of church and state. If you get rid of the federal tax breaks and simply make marriage a religious ceremony (as it should be), then I think over time, the idea of "marriage" would rightfully lose some of its perceived luster, as more and more people in this country seem to be making the inevitable drift away from organized religion. Back to the point though. Putting the power in the hands of the churches would clearly have the effect of legalizing gay marriage because the whole reason these ballot initiatives are always for a BAN on gay marriage is that some churches have already stepped up and begun marrying homosexuals in some states. And as much as I like to find flaws with religion in general, it's adherents are not all bad of course, and their overall mission is to spread good, so definitely some preachers and churches actually support equality and happiness and love for all. Good for them. Welcome to modern civilization. Or to the ideals of their friend Jesus.
3. Abolition of slavery, of course.

1. I feel like shit. I'm sick of getting sick at the same time every year. Whoever heard of seasonal allergies unrelated to pollen? Bullshit. Worst part is, this was the year that I finally resolved to get my first-ever flu shot. Then, about two weeks ago, I got an email from the HR director at work announcing free flu shots given right here at my office--in three weeks, or next Friday. So I first thought, gee that's kinda late for a flu shot. Then I thought, yeah but it's free. So I saved myself maybe $20 and here I am sick. I know it's after the fact, but I don't know what's more pathetic: that I'm so cheap that I refused to spend $20 on something like this, or that I'm so cheap that even now I actually think that not spending the $20 was the right call. At least I'm leaving work early today. Going to go home at taking a fucking nap. On a Friday evening. Middle-age here I come.
2. Did you know that there are only five political parties even on the ballot in enough states to plausibly win the presidential election? That's exactly what I'd like to see change. For posterity, the three non-major parties are: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Notice that I had to say "on the ballot in enough states." This is interesting as the United States and Switzerland are the only two countries that do not have national standards of ballot access for federal elections. Laws for ballot access within each state are complex and diverse to say the least. The state of New York has slightly easier standards than some states (they allow something called electoral fusion, look it up but it basically amounts to riding the coattails of the major parties), so there are eight non-major parties on the ballot for President in NY state: Independence, Conservative, Working Families, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation, Green, Libertarian, and Populist. Seems like a lot of choices, doesn't it? Seems like we're on the right track? Only kinda. The first two I listed have nominated McCain, and the third has nominated Obama. This is the electoral fusion at work. What it amounts to is a total of seven names on the ballot for President in NY state, probably not much better than average nationally.
3. The "Independence" Party I mentioned just a moment ago? They are actually just the NY chapter of the National Independence Party of America, which could easily be misunderstood as simply the Independent Party. There is also an Independent American Party, which was founded in 1998. I, as a true independent and unaffiliated voter, find this rather deceitful.
4. We were arguing about geographical recognition of cities last night, spurred by my frequent general claim that I am from "close to Pittsburgh." It was stated that this might be somewhat disingenuous because I am of course not from Pittsburgh, but moreso because what guarantee is it that anyone who wouldn't be expected to know where Steubenville is would know where Pittsburgh is? To draw that arbitrary line of geographic recognition seemed obvious to me but is it really? How do people understand placement of national cities? Do they picture their state first then the city's position within? Or do they generally ascribe the city to a specific region and leave it at that? The city that caused me to wonder about all this was Chicago. Everyone knows Chicago, and they know it's in Illinois and the Midwest, but what does all that mean to someone not from there? Most people could think about it and know that Chicago is on a lake, but there are five Great Lakes of course. If someone had a map with state boundaries drawn, I'm confident they could point to Chicago, but without the state lines, probably not. So I think those state lines are pretty damned important. At any rate, I wonder what's the biggest city that you couldn't find within 50 miles on a blank map? For me (using Wikipedia), it would be somewhere in the 30s, with Tuscon, Oklahoma City, Fresno and/or Long Beach. But as always, I feel like my abilities in here are higher than most.
5. Now for fun, here are my NFL picks (listed first) that I'm tracking. Special picks asterisked. Incidentally, I'm not as confident in these picks in general as past weeks. In fact, if I were betting for real I wouldn't choose more than 3 games I don't think.
KC +8.5 vs TEN under 35.5
SD* pickem at BUF over 44.5*
PIT -9.5 at CIN over 35*
MIA -3 vs BAL under 36.5
DAL -7 at STL over 44
CHI -3 vs MIN over 37.5
NO* +3 at CAR over 44.5
NYG* -10.5 vs SF under 45.5
HOU -8.5 vs DET under 47
OAK +3 vs NYJ under 41
CLE +7.5 at WAS over 42
GB +1 vs IND over 46.5
SEA +10.5 at TB under 38
DEN +3 at NE over 47.5*
6. Finally, I really dislike the Boston Red Sox. And I'm still confident in the Rays. James Shields is a tough motha.

Yes, There Are Other Options

Let's stay mostly topical today. Politics. Elections. Votes. If you know me, maybe you know that after the 2004 election I enacted a boycott against both of the two major parties in the US, vowing never to vote for a member of either one again.(1) The reasons for this boycott, or more specifically for this extreme distaste for the major parties that precipitated their boycott, are somewhat lengthy and complex, such that I'd rather not partake in the argument now. Another time, I promise. Suffice to say that I'd much prefer a political environment where many different ideas or platforms have room to be taken seriously, and where people don't have to compromise their beliefs in order to fit into one party or the other.
Of course what I'm talking about is being elected, since any person can support any other person or belief, but it's a very different thing to have actually hope that their candidate has a chance to get elected. A member of a third party could never get elected to national office in this country as it's currently operated. The two major parties are simply too rich and powerful, suffocating any possibility for another voice. The only option is to change the election system.
The US currently uses a plurality voting system(2), which just means that the most votes win, no many how small a percentage that person has. I encourage you to read up on it yourself, but trust me that this system inevitably leads to the two-party system. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this problem: negative votes. It's called a balanced plurality system and it's actively and thoughtfully proposed by someone named Donald Kronos.(3)
If we can vote for someone, why can't we vote against someone? It's so simple and obvious. More importantly, it much more accurately reflects a voter's intent, which is really the whole point of getting off your ass and voting in the first place.
Take 2004 for instance. Many people did not like George Bush. Many. Many people also did not like John Kerry, but were forced to vote for him as their only chance to speak their opinion about Mr Bush. So in this particular election, you could say that a lot of independent voters cast votes for the Democrat when really they were just voting against the Republican. After time this dissatisfaction would manifest itself in more varied parties winning more and more votes, until ideally anyone would have a chance.(4)
A side thought on this: imagine the possible effects of negative voting if it were enacted for the first time in 2004. Presumably Bush would have had almost as many negative votes as positive--totaling millions of each--while Kerry would have likely garnered slightly more positive than negative, though with ridiculously fewer votes in both column. Let's play with this example:
In 2004, a total of 121,069,054 votes were cast for either Bush or Kerry, 62,040,610 for Bush, 59,028,444. Let's assume that of Bush's 62M, 38M were actually "pro" votes, while 12M were "anti" -Kerry votes, with 12M belonging to independent or 3rd-party sympathizers drawn in by the close race. Similarly, we'll assume that of Kerry's 59M, 9M were pro votes while 40M were anti-Bush, with 10M others. This is very rough, but it covers the national consensus somewhat at least. What we're left with is Bush at -2,000,000, Kerry at -3,000,000, and 22,000,000 votes that would have been spread around amongst the smaller party candidates. The highest-polling of these was Ralph Nader at close to half a million votes. But that's positive votes, so theoretically he would be our winner, depending on how those 22,000,000 people decided to cast their ballots. Amazing.
This is no personal reflection on everyone's favorite consumer advocate(5), but that result sounds better to me.


(1) Technically, this boycott was broken when I voted for the "Republican" Michael Bloomberg for mayor of New York in 2005. Mr Bloomberg switching to Independent in 2007 merely made official what was quite obvious for the duration of his public life as a "Republican." I say I keep my honor.
(2) Go ahead and wikipedia that, I did when I was curious about different electoral processes. You would be amazed at how many different ways there are to choose a government. Not just half-baked systems either, as many countries (democracies of course, big ones too--Germany) use completely different systems than we do.
(3) See his full blog for multiple variations on the balanced plurality theme. He has a three-step proposal: negative votes, multi-stage voting, and split votes, but I prefer the first and simplest of those described on its own here.
(4) Lookup "feedback" to understand this differently. Basically, the results of one election will directly influence the voting behavior in the next, and so on. This results in the consolidation of power in two major parties. It's why the Democrats, and not some third party, are now in power after general dissatisfaction with the Republicans the last few years, and why the Republicans took power in 1994 after the Democrats were turned out, and on and on through history.
(5) Sometimes you just have to love the guy though: when asked about possibly spoiling a Democratic victory in 2008: "Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form." Couldn't agree more.

Once more into the breach

But now with trepidation.
Ok so I thinking of falling off the wagon again. Or falling on or whatever. I participated in an NFL picks minipool with a couple friends two weeks ago and did fairly well. So well that I'm rueing not having made actual online wagers on the games. So well that I'm wanting to open up an account and have a go at online gambling again. Actually, if you know me even a tiny bit, you know that it doesn't take much to effect these desires.
As I am a few years older and some dollars lighter thanks to my last foray into online gambling, I approach this attempt more conservatively and certainly more analytically (or at least I'm going to give the impression of the latter). In this vein, I've decided to pick every game both on point spreads and over/unders, in order to get a true feel for my prognosticating powers. Picking every game is key because when gambling online for real I will usually only select 5-6 wagers per week, the ones I'm presumably most confident in, while the others I'll leave for the suckers to pick. The problem is that unless you are truly excellent are picking games, your judgement on what's most certain will be just as random as your overall picks. The other reason for selecting every game is to expand the sample size and to eliminate having the memory of only a couple nice victories overshadow several losses. This selective memory I believe is my achilles heel as a sports gambler, and truly the mark of a potentially dangerous gambler. So I'm approaching this from a hopefully humble and pragmatic fashion. (Also, for my own curiosity and vanity, I'm going to specially designate 6 games each week as confident picks, to simulate games that I would actually bet on were the exercise done for real. This will allow me to track my overall acumen while getting a feel for whether or not my confidence is lucky or actually a product of some positive trend.
Results so far:
Week5:
14-8 overall (2 pushes)
5-5 Against the spread
9-3 over/unders
Week 6:
16-12 overall
10-4 ATS
6-8 O/U
5-1 in Special Picks

So we've got a bit to work with so far. 30-20 overall, 15-9 ATS, 15-11 O/U. Assuming a standard $22 bet on each wager gives me a +$160 overall, split into +$102 for ATS and +$58 O/U. My 5-1 special picks from Week 6 would have netted me $78 in profit.
These obviously are good results overall, but still erratic when you notice my strong suit switched from ATS wagers one week to O/Us the next. And of course the 83% success rate on special picks far outpaces my 60% mark overall, meaning that it real terms I would have won lots of money this week but would surely have to expect to come back to earth some in the coming weeks. The big positive news is that, for now, "back to earth" is still a 60% success rate.
It should be noted that given the standard vig ($22 bet only wins you $20 profit on a win, whereas a $22 bet loses you the full $22 on a loss), you must win at least 52.38% of the time to break even. So if I'm not doing at least that well, I shouldn't be playing.
I'll be checking back in periodically with updates on my performance. I promise it will be cleaner and more concise. Not like anyone cares. Well, after I start winning big and turning into a big shot and picking up bar tabs, then some sonsabitches will care.

*To look at my Week 6 results even closer, my ATS bets won by a total of 122 pts for an average victory margin of +8.7. My 10 wins were by an average +15.6 pts, while my 4 losses were by an average -8.5 pts. This is good and indicates that my wins weren't simply due to luck or close calls.

Get Real: Two Points on Election 2008

Gee, this is two straight posts about politics. You'd think there was an election going on or something.
1. As it seems more likely that Obama will win (see #2), it's interesting to view his candidacy and campaign and compare it to the past couple elections. Please now note the seeming superficial absurdity of comparing GWBush to Obama, with all the attendant automatic shock involved therein.
- Democrats now hate that part of why Bush beat Gore in 2000 was the simple and irresponsible fact that many people voted for him based on the fact that he seemed like a more personable guy (The infamous "who would you rather have a beer with" approach to voting, which seemed like a benign enough idea in fall 2000 as both the economy and the twin towers were still riding fairly high).
So, how is election 2008 going? Not like I am a perfect national bellweather, but it seems pretty obvious that a large chunk of Obama's advantage right now could be attributed to the fact that most of America finds him to simply be more personable and generally attractive.
The most instructive way to react to this analysis is not to revel in the hypocrisy of any Obama-supporting Democrat who complains about how dumb Americans vote not on issues but on superficialities, but instead to realize simply that most presidential elections are won by the more attractive candidate, and to accept that in the current climate that's just the way it is (not that that makes it right).
- Probably the other major reason Obama is ahead at the moment is due to his huge financial advantage. It's almost a waste of time to mention that the oil-rich Bush family and the well-known Republican money machine contributed mightily to GW's two victories.
I'd like to think that with the almost infinite expansiveness of media lately, this $=win effect has become more and more important. Elections have always been about money, but naturally as the amount of money required simply to compete increases exponentially, so too does it's importance as a single end-all issue.

2. Using info I've absorbed partially through the excellent site http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (warning: the editorial content is admittedly slanted), I can't help but see how this election could more and more likely turn into an electoral college rout, even though such a result would seem impossible given the tightness of recent presidential elections. I'm not saying now that McCain has no chance, but that if Obama wins as is currently expected, it could end up a much wider margin than expected.
Let's break it down a little:
Obama looks very safe in 16 states worth a total of 197 EC votes (the Northeast: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Marland, Deleware, and DC; the Pacific: California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii; plus his home state of Illinois and the corn capital of Iowa (McCain is strangely stubborn against biofuels)).
McCain is very safe in 16 states worth a total of 134 EC votes (the South: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma; and the Great Plains: Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming; plus his home state of Arizona and Palin's home state of Alaska).
197 - 134 doesn't look terribly bad but to that we can add all the 10 states that are clearly favoring Obama right now (New Hampshire 4, plus the Big Ten: Pennsylvania 21, Michigan 17, Wisconsin 10, and Minnesota 10; plus "battleground" states of Florida 27, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, New Mexico 5, and Nevada 5). This adds a huge 121 EC votes to make it 318-134. Note that this also puts Obama well over the 270 needed to win, and we've only included states where he is currently in very good shape; there are still 86 votes unaccounted for.
If we give McCain three states he clearly leads in (Montana 3, North Dakota 3, and South Dakota 3), that only moves it to 318-143, with only six states left (Ohio 20, Indiana 11, North Carolina 15, Missouri 11, West Virginia 5, and Georgia 15).
For the purposes of this exercise, and because it's still almost four weeks to go, we are going to take some liberties. But if you look at the polls and give Obama wins in all the states we've already given him, then it becomes very easy to give Obama Ohio and Indiana. It's also not hard at all to assume that if he maintains a strong lead into November, that McCain's status will have deteriorated in many of these tight states, so that we can go ahead and turn current close Obama leads in Missouri and North Carolina into wins. It might end up closer than currently but go ahead and let McCain keep West Virginia.
This changes the total to 375-148, with only Georgia not counted. I think you would agree that 375-148 would be considered a pretty big victory, important insomuch that it would allow Obama and the Democrats to actually declare something close to an actual mandate, which is usually not much more than posturing but would have some credence considering a black man had won such support and in the process knocked off many states that had been recently locked in as Republican.
Let's turn for a second finally to Georgia. Georgia is a Deep South state. It would be big big news for a Democrat to win there, not to mention a black Democrat. But if Obama's national numbers mostly hold til election day, it's a real possibility.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html
This is a good and interesting synopsis. He might need to gain a point or two generally but support of blacks and a higher-than-usual turnout (indicative of his superior organization possible through his vast budget) could actually push him over the top. It's something worth watching as a barometer for how some extremely important beneath-the-surface issues will play out all around the country.
Unless something big happens to change the course of the election, I think everything is going to start cascading for Obama and lead him to a huge victory. The likability factor will keep him ahead in the polls and his massive funding advantage will turn all these little things in his favor. In the end, he probably won't even need both advantage, just one or the other would suffice.