Read and Digest Jew (RS is the Jew btw)

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

David G. Klein

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

Backpost.

So the bar trip has actually begun and is in full swing. Besides enjoying the adventure and relaxation that accompanies each day, I find myself startled by how long I’m going to be living out of this single suitcase…and how much can happen in 7 days…as well as how friggin’ long 50 more days abroad is going to be. Of course, it will all come screeching to a halt soon enough, as I begin my career as a corporate attorney in New York…so I’m going to enjoy it while I can…

Thus far, I am still on the European leg of the trip: We flew into Zurich and spent our days wandering the old cobblestone streets, drinking large large beers with each and every meal (and between meals), and basically wandered the streets, cathedrals, and museums of the city for 8 hours a day, punctuated only by episodes of South Park, The Office, the Olympics, and large quantities of alcohol. I would offer some in-depth analysis of how I feel about the astounding efficiency of modern European cities when compared to their American counterparts, as well as what a shame it is that America’s reigning perspective of “America is the best, thus no one can do anything better” prevents us from experimentation or *gasp* learning from other cultures…but instead I will offer a much more important conclusion I reached about Europe: Beautiful girls date very substandard men in Europe. That’s all. Tons of hotties paired up with an equal number of “really?s”

After three days in Zurich, we had initially planned a trip to Northern Italy. We were going to hit Milan, Genoa, make a few day trips, and manage to shunt our way down to Florence/Tuscany before making our way back to Geneva for our respective flights out. However, after being informed that Milan fucking blows by ILYIWWMWBJ, and realizing that I have very little interested in Milan except to see where those delicious little cookies come from, and/or witness twig thin model/hags wearing clothes that I don’t comprehend with my fashion illiterate mind,…we managed to settle on scrapping everything and instead bought overnight tickets to Rome…a prospect which actually excited me.

At the moment then, I am on my way to Florence…sitting next to a B.O. machine of epic proportions who seems to fancy himself quite the handsome young devil. I disliked him immediately. And his eyes-too-close-together compatriot who continued to wear his sunglasses inside the train because…well he just looked cooler.

And now, just for the sake of keeping things up to date, I'm in a hostel in Geneva preparing to go to Istanbul...where I will begin a 17 day jaunt at 11 pm tonight. Whoo hoo! (Ohmygodit'sonlybeen10daysandi'mexhausted)

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.

Has nothing to do with this post.

So the short of it is that even though I have written a few updates on my laptop, I never have wireless, so I can never get online and post it. Maybe I'll do so later...though who knows...

Currently I'm sitting in an internet cafe in Florence, passing the time for my train to Geneva, where I will catch my flight to Istanbul via some other European city. More importantly, I'm eyeing a refrigeratorful of beer...pondering whether time moves faster or slower when I'm drunk mid-day.

My Current Interest in Politics:

Zero.

The Journey Begins...

After an 8 hour overnight flight in which I did not sleep a wink, I arrived in Zurich with TK at 7:00 am to kick off this whirlwind world tour. Having watched both 21 and Shrek the Third on the airplane while sweating and growing grime all over my body, I was entirely ready to just get to the hotel room, nap, and wash, shave, brush, lather, and clean myself off. That being my greatest desire, we arrived at the hotel at 7:30 am with instructions that we could not check in until 2 pm. Thus, TK and I set off on a random walk for the next 8 hours in a city where people speak much less English than I had remembered...resulting in free bike rentals and 4 hours of riding along the Zurichsee (Lake Zurich) and swerving incredibly recklessly through complicated traffic patterns and little children...as well as doing random restaurant and museum stops.

Total Beers since Leaving NYC: 7

Oh. And George Foreman sat down across from me in the Charlotte Airport. Good stuff.

Spain Basketball and Yay!

I can't actually tell who is super into the Olympics this year, except for Jeff, but if you haven't been watching, it has been a great year to pay attention...sorta like last year's NFL season. Apart from all of the Michael Phelps craziness, China-U.S. Rivalry, and crazy-interesting thoughts you can have about world politics and systems of human governance while watching a group of prepubescent girls flip across a tiny little beam...it has just been fantastic to watch what humans are capable of achieving and seeing the limits of the human body and spirit tested. Of course, it's equally fantastic that the entire world manages to come together and spend time and money promoting human achievements in this manner. With all of the existential crises facing humanity, stupid political bullshit we discuss, and other matters we wring our hands over and whatnot, I LOVE that the whole world thinks it's a good idea to see how far we can throw a 16 pound ball.

Anyway, Spain's basketball team is annoying. If you haven't been following the Olympics, this is a FULL PAGE advertisement they took out in a Spanish newspaper.

I'm not concerned whether it's "racist" or "offensive." Instead, I just find it to be another example of idiocy from a bunch of stupid jackass Steves. (Stefanos?) Enjoy the arsenic lo mein the Chinese government's gonna feed you, Pau. (You have a stupid name.)

In other news, I leave the country in 5 days...and I just received a copy of the textbook I wrote the China chapter for and he kept my chapter in completely original condition! WHOO HOO!!!! I'm published, bitch! (although still not with any credit)

Coolest Olympics Ever.

If you were anything like me and somehow ended up watching all the swimming and gymnastics events Sunday Night, the Men's 4 x 100 relay was the COOLEST THING EVER. If watched it and picked up all the commentary, history, and context, you probably yelled "Oh My God" and jumped out of your seat too...Damn...that shit was amazing.

Close second? Yao Ming's opening Three-Pointer. (Yes, I started watching the Olympics at 10 am and stopped at midnight, with some Die Hard and Parenthood thrown in the middle. Incidentally, Parenthood is also one of the greatest movies of all time.)

Karate Kid III.

That movie rules. Two of my favorite lines:

Terry Silver to John Kreese after Daniel-san is getting his ass kicked: Look over at the slope. Isn’t that perfect?

Background yelling while Daniel-san is writhing on the mat: Where’s your little jap teacher now?

That's all. I don't feel like posting right now...I'm just sitting at home watching TV on my parents' new 67 inch flatscreen...just wrapped up Die Hard 4, and now on to something else.

Things I am.

An asshole.

Who had the audacity to think I wasn't an asshole.

And continued to be an asshole.

While calling other people assholes.

The worst kind of asshole.

(don't ask. just accept.)

The Explainer: Why Revolving Doors Save Energy.

Sometimes Slate's "The Explainer" explains random interesting shit...Here's one:

Right now, it's 71 degrees Fahrenheit in the Lantern's Manhattan office and 87 degrees outside. It takes a lot of electricity to cool this entire office building by 16 degrees—but it would take even more if people didn't use the two large revolving doors between the building lobby and the hot sidewalk outside.

Generally speaking, air flows in and out of a building because of differences in air pressure. (In the winter, heated air rises toward the top of a building, and—as long as there are any openings on the ground floor—cold air rushes in to replace it. The opposite happens in the summer, with the cold air flowing out the front doors.) Regular foot traffic in a large office building can result in air leaks of up to 30,000 cubic feet per minute.

How big a difference can using a revolving door make? In 2006, a team of graduate students at MIT conducted an analysis of door use in one building on campus, E25, where they found just 23 percent of visitors used the revolving doors. According to their calculations, the swinging door allowed as much as eight times more air to pass through the building than the revolving door. Applying average Boston weather to their equations, the MIT team found that if everyone used the revolving doors, it would save more than 75,000 kilowatt-hours of energy—about 1.5 percent of the total required to heat and cool the building—and prevent 14.6 tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted.* (By way of comparison, the EPA says an average American vehicle emits about six tons of carbon dioxide over a year.) The gains are also big enough that they could easily cover the energy needed to power an automatic revolving door like this one, which has a 250-watt motor.

Bill Kristol.

For some reason I previously had him in my mind as one of those principled, thinking conservatives. I mean, I thought he was one of those folks I disagreed with, but could respectfully disagree with...

But every time I read an editorial by him in the NYTimes, I can't help but think that he's 1) a moron, and 2) not very interesting at all as an editorialist. But I feel like he's actually not stupid...but just writes terrible, infantile columns. Is it just me?

No matter how much they beg...

Never...ever...let them eat after midnight.

After playing with a butterfly paperclip and a rubberband this afternoon while studying wills, I reflected back on one of the greatest movies of the 80s...



Awwww yeah.

HA!!!!!

So this is one of the few times while reading an article that I actually started laughing out loud by myself. This article, Why I Hate Michael Chang, from Slate.com is HILARIOUS. I highly highly suggest you read it...although I wonder if it's funny to non-Chinese people (or more specifically, people who aren't...me.) Here's some of it...

When Chang stalled in the rankings, unable to get over the final hump, he attempted to transform himself from a grinder to a power player. To great fanfare, he had his racket company, Prince, design a stick that was one inch longer than the industry standard. It improved his serving angle but also reminded everyone that Chinese guys had to compensate for genetic shortcomings besides our height. Where did Prince add that inch of length? To the shaft, naturally.

...

As a junior player, I insisted on being as un-Chang-like as possible, hitting one-handed backhands and rushing the net. It worked: Unlike Michael Chang, I lost a lot. My coaches pleaded with me to put two hands on my backhand, stay on the baseline, and stop trying to hit fancy shots. But as long as kids at local tournaments would tell me that I looked like Chang (it had been Bruce Lee, before) or assume I knew him personally (I did not), I refused. The expectations weren't just from white people. When my parents' friends learned that I liked tennis, they invariably said something like, "Wah, maybe you can be the next Chang Depei!" They always used his Chinese name: "cultivated virtue," roughly.

For the record, during my days of varsity tennis (Yep), I bought that exact Michael Chang Prince extra-long racquet for $200 bucks. And yes, that's basically what it's like to be Chinese in this country...extraordinarily stupid things spoken with such unassuming genuineness. (Bruce Lee was indeed a constant figure of reference in my daily life. As an uncle. Which white kids eat up like candy until you inform them that gullible is written on the ceiling. Don't look.)

And as the article suggests, Michael Chang definitely DID become sort bizarre iconic figure in our lives. Thinking back though, it is KINDA crazy. In that tournament, he trashed a young Pete Sampras in straight sets then went onto defeat fuckin' Ivan Lendl in his prime, and THEN beat Stefan Edberg in the finals, becoming the first American to win the French Open in 34 years. And he was 17. What the fuck was I doing at 17? Yes, playing guitar in Euphoria on a ratty stage in Spartanburg.

I just checked this out on Wikipedia, and damn...this is quite an impressive feat:

Everything seemed to be going to form when Lendl comfortably took the first two sets 6–4, 6–4 and then broke Chang's serve in the opening game of the third set. But Chang broke back immediately and went on to claim the third set 6–3. Part way through the fourth set, Chang experienced a severe attack of leg cramps. Fighting to stay in the match, Chang resorted to some novel tactics. For a period, he began taking all speed out of the match by playing "moon balls", causing Lendl, who was known to be one of the calmest players, to lose his rhythm. He began to swear at the umpire and the crowd, especially after losing a key point in the fifth set when Chang shocked him by delivering an under-arm serve. Chang later explained, "I was trying to break his concentration. I would do anything to stay out there." (That underhanded serve achieved cult status among amateurs and, at least in Chang's hometown area of Southern California, it was not unheard of to see juniors emulate the swing in desperation while trying to come back from behind in a match during the 1990s.)

Barely able to stand, and screaming with pain after many of his shots, Chang continued to battle on. Despite being on the verge of physical breakdown, he fought his way to a 5–3 lead in the fifth set with two match points on Lendl's serve. Aiming to break Lendl's concentration one more time, Chang stood well inside the baseline, almost at the T-line in the centre of the court while waiting to receive Lendl's serve (normally an almost suicidal position when facing an opponent's serve). The tactic worked as Lendl produced a double-fault to give Chang the victory, 4–6, 4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3 in four hours and 37 minutes. Chang sank to his knees and broke down in tears at the conclusion of the match. Seven days later, he became the youngest male champion in Grand Slam history.

For those of you who inexplicably made it this far, here's some footage: Seriously though, read the article...it'll somehow teach you a lot about me.

Respectful Requests.

1) That the term "Slugfest" be forever expunged from human vocabulary, unless used synonymously with the phrases "Shitshow" or "Hell." For example, "Man, have you seen Gigli? What a Slugfest."

Or

Person 1: What do you mean Good Eats is a good show? That show fuckin' SUCKS man.
Person 2: [Glaring] A slugfest awaits you.

2) Propagators and accomplices of bar examinations die in a fire.



Pictured below, although it may not look like it to the uninitiated, is a work of art. Rajma, Dahi, Green Mango Pickle, and Basmati Rice. (For the whites: Dahi is a kidney bean "curry," a north Indian traditional dish, and Dahi is yogurt or "curd" in South India.) And yes, you can, and often do mix them all together. And it's fantastic. (Props to ILYIAWWMWBJ for making this for me.)


And yes, it's sitting atop my Bar Bri schedule.

heh heh. The Google.

I dunno if you're familiar with "The Google," but if you're not, take a look at this YouTube clip, which is 20 seconds long. Just suck it up. I can't help laughing, and I actually don't hate Bush in that moment...I just find him amusing. Well, at least until I realize that we've made him the most powerful human being on earth. Hm.



And, just to add to that, if you haven't yet learned that John McCain doesn't know how to use the computer, here's a clip of that admission. (He also notes that his favorite movie is !Viva Zapata! (1952)).



And the real point? The Onion:

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—The popular search engine Google announced plans Friday to launch a new site, TheGoogle.com, to appeal to older adults not able to navigate the original website's single text field and two clearly marked buttons.

"The Google will have all the same information currently found on regular Google, but with the added features of not stealing your credit-card numbers or giving your computer all kinds of viruses," said Rick Tillich, The Google project director. "All you have to do to turn the website on is put the little blinking line thing in the cyberspace window at the top of the screen, type 'thegoogle.com,' and press 'return'—although it will also recognize http.wwwthegoogle.com, google.aol, and 'THEGOOGLE' typed into a Word document."

Tillich added that he hopes the site will soon replace Yahoo Internet Website.com as the most popular search engine for users over 55.

No, Fuck YOU! I AM studying.

Christopher Hitchens is Hilarious.

If you don't know who Chris Hitchens is, he's an intellectual or writer of sorts who contributes quite frequently to Slate.com, and most recently wrote God is Not Great, which I find to be one of the more amusing book titles in recent years. You can try to categorize him, but I find it exceedingly difficult to put any useful labels on him except to say that he's clearly intelligent, scathing, and (probably not delibrately) funny.

His most recent piece in Slate is a one-pager, and reads like a blogpost. The title? How Blind Salamanders Make Nonsense of Creationists' Claims. That's funny.

Here are some snippets that tend to illustrate his funniness:

• The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent)...

• Hold it right there, says Ann Coulter in her ridiculous book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. "The interesting question is not: How did a primitive eye become a complex eye? The interesting question is: How did the 'light-sensitive cells' come to exist in the first place?"

• It's only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.

OK, so it's not like...laugh out loud funny when presented this way...because to so casually and with utter certainty call all creationists utter morons in a national publication is amusing to me. Even with the Ann Coulter comment, he's not really saying anything substantive about the book, but he just thought he'd toss in "ridiculous." Funny.

I have also decided, after noticing his observation, that I will not use the phrase "Intelligent Design" anymore. Any suggestions for replacements? Poof!-Lifeists? Whizbang Worldism? Claymanism? WutzSaientz? It's Not True Because I Don't Like It...ism?

But seriously, Creationists? Please stop this nonsense. If we're not expected to believe in your God, then let's not pretend we're supposed to believe in anything else resembling ONLY religion.

UM.

HOLY SHIT. Did I just get duped into some sort of illusion trick, or is Senuti the single greatest program of ALL TIME!? Did it just singlehandedly disembowel any DRM?

Am I able to just plug in OTHER people's iPods into my computer and upload any of their music?

P.S. Hsien and anyone else....Should I read the Watchmen graphic novel? I stumbled across the trailer on Hsien's blog and it turns out there's just this intense, fanatical following...how long is it? Is it the type of thing I would give a shit about?

Sweet (i)Tunes Man....

So, I spent the last two days reloading my iTunes with a vengeance, meaning I went through ALL of my 3 or 4 enormobinders of CDs and various spindles, loading them into my iTunes piece by piece...and it has been quite a pleasure.

On my previous library, I was slightly more selective with what CDs I really thought I would listen to...but not this time: Hell no! This time with feeling!

Thus, my iTunes library now (sometimes inexplicably) contains:

• Metallica - Master of Puppets, Ride the Lightning (oh yeah!)
  
• Glenn Gould playing Bach's Goldberg Variations (both versions, 1955 and 1981)
• 33 separate cds of Bjork material (albums, singles, b-sides, live releases)
• 5 System of a Down Albums.
• Squarepusher and Aphex Twin
• At least 15 albums friends have given me that I still haven't listened to (Band of Horses, S, Panda and Angel, The Black Heart Procession, Coco Rosie, Out Hud, Magnetic Fields??)
• Hum. Yes, HUM. Fuckin' HUM!
  
• All my old recently left behind Beatles albums, although somehow I've lost Revolver. Fuck.
• And tons and tons of Smashing Pumpkins B-Sides, many of which totally outrock anything I've heard in years.
  
• CDs from my bands in high school and college in all their permutations (Euphoria: albums 1,2, 3. Makeshift: Demo. Underscore: Album) (It turns out that my perception was correct the whole time - because we did, in fact, fucking rock!)
  

And everyone suck it, Yes I am doing this instead of studying for the bar.

And this week's bounty:


Cucumbers
Beets and Beets Greens
Carrots
Spring Onions
Zucchini
Green Beans

The Cucumbers were sliced and eaten raw with lemon juice and chaat masala (SOOO GOOD.)

First Product: Stir-Fried Green Beans and Onions with Crispy Fried Thick-Cut Bacon.

Baked Zucchini Sticks with Sour Cream and "Awesome" Dip (sour cream, garlic salt, onion powder, Lipton onion soup mix, ground parmagiana reggiano, cheddar, scallions)

HAHAHAHA.

I really want to see The Dark Knight. I mean, like, I REALLY want to see it.

The funny part? Apparently Katie Holmes turned this movie down to make "Mad Money." Hahahahaha. Yes. Funny.
Admit it. That's funny. (I watched the first hour of it in San Francisco...don't ask why or how. Just laugh.)

This morning.

When I woke up this morning in inexplicable agony, I thought I must have ruptured my spleen or appendix. No matter what it was, it definitely felt like internal bleeding.

Nope. Apparently that's what Gas feels like. I had no idea gas sucked that bad.