"Change"

So I've been listening to back episodes of Jon Stewart and Colbert while I've been working and something really struck me when I got to about 11:15 in this Colbert episode.

Colbert is talking about all the statements about how "the GOP is the party of change in this election", and it made me think: that's REALLY saying something if the Republicans are trying to claim Obama's slogan.

They're also saying "Obama isn't really a 'change'" - and that's expected. It's expected that your opponents will try to debunk your own slogan. But they've been trying to adopt it. Kind of interesting.

Most interesting label put on Sarah Pallin yet...

George Meyerson has called Sarah Pallin's style "maternalized Nixonism". I really like that - it's catchy.

Meyerson does a great job distinguishing between Reaganesque Republicanism and Nixonian Republicanism, and argues that the convention has been all Nixon.

On Pallin in general: I don't think this "teenage mother" stuff should matter. And I'm convinced that nobody else does either. It's a little disturbing that the McCain campaign is trying to paint the media as ganging up on Pallin. He's able to do this by lumping together tabloid-style sources that talk about Trig being Pallin's grandson together with major news media who are legitimately questioning her qualifications and reformist credentials. So when someone asks "have you vetted her?" McCain get's all huffy and pretends they were implying something about her daughter, when really it's a very legitimate question.

Anyway - I think she's a very odd choice, but not a bad one necessarily. They're putting her up as a superlative, just like Obama. A "first woman" to match the Dems' "first black man". But of all the women to chose, Pallin seems to be a funny choice. She's no Hillary, in other words (I'm saying this and I didn't even LIKE Hillary that much). So it's all a little strange.

Jon Stewart has a really funny piece on this, where he's looking at people's criticism of Hillary and others a couple months ago and their reaction to Pallin now and how it's contradictory (this part of the show starts at around 10:45).

Fresh, Juicy Numbers!

OK, so there's a contingent of economists out there that salivate over the monthly release of some statistic or index by the federal government. I am usually not in this crowd. Nevertheless, two important statistics have come out on the cusp of this particular summer that I thought merited mention.

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the most recent unemployment data. No surprise - we hit a five year high for unemployment: 6.1%. Paul Krugman has an interesting, quizzical perspective on this figure in his blog this morning. To summarize: 6.1% is bad, but for some reason we're still not in a recession... as Krugman says, the economy is being "ground down" rather than crashing - and this may be what recessions start to look like in the relatively inflation-free early twenty first century.

The second bit of data is the annual Census release of the poverty figures. The Post reports that these figures show an unchanged poverty rate from last year - hanging at 12.5% (no statistically significant difference from last year's 12.3%). Median incomes have climbed slightly. The big story out of these Census numbers surrounds health insurance. The number of people without health insurance has declined by 1 million since last year, from 47 million to 45.7 million. This is unlikely to deflate the momentum behind national health care, but hopefully it will at least moderate some of the positions and move the emphasis away from "coverage" per se, and onto costs - which I think is the real problem.

New Work on the Panic of 1819

So I've been inspired by my brother's lit-review style blog posts to publicize some new research on a seemingly trivial topic that actually has quite a bit of importance in the field of economics: the panic of 1819.

1819 is memorialized by economic historians as the first modern boom-bust cycle experienced in America. Unlike previous depressions, which were clearly attributable to events such as wartime blockades or specific disastrous policy decisions, 1819 seemed to come out of nowhere - a confluence of causes that did not emerge from a single source. This "natural" emergence of crisis was a rude awakening for Americans (who always like to hold someone accountable for problems... we're too damn optimistic to accept the idea that life just sucks sometimes), and it marked the beginning of a new era of economic volatility and state management of the national economy.

For a long time, the panic of 1819 was realtively neglected. It was actually the Austrian School of economics that first brought substantial attention to 1819. Murray Rothbard's book "The Panic of 1819" is probably the most important book written on the crisis, and it is conveniently provided in it's entirety as a pdf by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an excellent scholarly community based in Auburn, Alabama, and dedicated to the propogation of Austrian economics. Rothbard takes a unique, and thoroughly Austrian approach to 1819: his investigation is primarily concerned with the policy reactions to the crisis, rather than the causes of the crisis itself. From what I've read of the preface and conclusion, Rothbard is quite even handed with the monetary expansionists who clamored for the suspension of specie payment in the early 1820s. Nevertheless, it's clear that he sides with then President Monroe, who resisted the expansionist pressure and relied on tight monetary policy.

A new and long-awaited book on the panic of 1819 has been published by Dr. Clyde Haulman, professor and former chair in the economics department at the College of William and Mary. Haulman's book, "Virginia and the Panic of 1819", emphasizes the origins of the crisis, with particular emphasis on Virginia. He highlights two factors that make Virginia's experience: (1.) the agricultural boom the state experienced as a result of the strong demand for food following the Napoleonic Wars, and (2.) the pivotal role that Virginia played in early westward expansion, and the land speculation that came with it. High commodity prices and land speculation created a formidable bubble that hit the Commonwealth hard when it popped in 1819.

One last note on Virginia and westward expansion. I think this is a facet of American history that few people know about but that is very very important. Did you know, for example, that Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, and not Illinois? And that Lincoln's father was not born in Kentucky - he was a Virginian in the early 1800's? Can you imagine how history would have been different if Lincoln's father had stayed in Virginia - if Lincoln was a partisan for the Old Dominion? In her book, "Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison, and the Decline of Virginia", Susan Dunn emphasizes this period as a huge "brain drain" on the Commonwealth. As elder statesmen such as Monroe and Madison resisted reform into the 1820s and 1830s, Virginia's best and brightest struck out for Kentucky and the Ohio country, leaving the Commonwealth in the hands of less qualified statesmen. It took a huge toll on the Virginian polity and economy.

Vernon Parington's monumental work "Main Currents in American Thought" puts a slightly rosier spin on this development. He calls Virginia "the mother of the agrarian West" (read: "the mother of the reformers and populists of what we now call the Midwest"). He also speaks of the "Virginia Renaissance", but acknowledges the slip from what he calls "middle class ideals" to "plantation ideals" during this period. Nevertheless, Parington is far more severe with South Carolina; he contrasts "Virginia humanitarianism" in the Virginia expansion into the Ohio country with "Carolina imperialism" and South Carolinians' expansion into Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

Now that I've used two paragraphs to diverge from the panic of 1819, I think it's time to end this post. Suffice it to say that westward expansion was going on long before cowboys and gold miners - and Virginia played a huge role in this process. In doing so, it reshaped itself (probably for the worse), and reshaped the nation (probably for the better). Congratulations on your new book Clyde! I've been waiting for this since I heard you were working on it my sophomore year!

Rally for the Republic

Clips from Ron Paul's "Rally for the Republic" in Minneapolis.

I like these strains in American politics. I think they're very important. I also think that if we downplayed the two-party system, a lot of the things that Ron Paul is concerned about wouldn't be an issue.

H.P. Lovecraft

So while we were at the beach, we played a game that my future brother in law had, called "Arkham Horror", a cooperative board/role playing game based on the horror stories of H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft wrote short stories in the early twentieth century about otherwordly horrors and monsters that the protagonists would have to defeat (although they often failed). Central to Lovecraft's stories was the theme of the horror that would overcome humans if they really comprehended how alien and dangerous the universe is. Anyway, I'm really excited to read some of his short stories. Sounds like a very pessimistic, futuristic, existential Edgar Allen Poe. There was one neat quote on his Wikipedia page that I thought I'd share:

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age."

Heady stuff... and a not altogether unreasonable assessment of where science untempered by ethics may bring us some day. I'm excited to read more, but thought this was all very interesting and worth posting.

In other horror news, I saw "Sweeny Todd" (with Johnny Depp, that creepy lady from Fight Club, and Sacha Cohen, aka Borat) the other day. It's the story of the "demon barber of Fleet Street", a man who was robbed of his wife and daughter and takes revenge on unsuspecting customers. Very bloody. Very whimsical. Very Tim Burton.

I don't know, the whole aesthetic of these scary stories and ghost stories is very appealing to me right now. It's because of the advent of Autumn or something , I don't know.

A Few New Wineries

So I've been in the Outer Banks for the last week, but on the way we attended a few tastings at some wineries that I wanted to share.

The first was a return visit to the Williamsbug Winery, where our wedding reception was held. Williamsburg has a great selection of wines at very good prices. It was startling for us to go there and remember that a high quality, Virginia winery has bottles for sale at $7, $8, and $9. I think Williamsburg is especially notable for some wonderful blends and table wines. "Two Shilling Red" is still one of my favorite reds, and we got some "Governor's White" as a nice, crisp, fruity white to have at the beach. These are all on the lower end of the price range, but taste great. Kate and I picked up a Henings Statute Cabernet Sauvingon - named after the 1769 law passed by the House of Burgesses, authorizing 100 acres of public land in Williamsburg to be used for growing grapes for wine. We've been really attracted to the Cabernet's lately, and I think you'll notice that throughout the post.

The next stop was Sanctuary Vineyards, in Currituck County, NC. Sanctuary was a real treat, because they also had wines from two other North Carolina wineries (Martin's Vineyards and Moonrise Bay) for tasting and purchase. These two wineries are located on Knott's Island, which we would have had to take a ferry to get to.

The wines at Sanctuary were classic North Carolina - with the muscadine grape front and center. Muscadine wines are a singular experience, scoffed at by European wine aficionados who think that only dry wines should be taken seriously, and ignored by California vinters who are secretly just jealous that they can't grow the grape. The Muscadine grape thrives in the hot, humid climate of the Carolinas. The wine-maker (who also gave us our tasting) at Sanctuary told me that they won't grow north of Norfolk, VA. Another interesting factoid is that the Muscadine grape is a grape that is native to America, like the Norton grape. If it is growing at all in Europe (which seems doubtful), it is because it was transported there from the United States. These wines are exceptionally sweet, but they have an interesting honey/tangy sweetness to them. There is no way to confuse a muscadine wine with a sweet Riesling or Petit Manseng. It's very hard to describe for me, but its hard to forget after you've tried one. Normally I don't like wines that are too sweet either, but I do like fruity wines, and I had to appreciate these for their uniqueness. However, we didn't pick up any Muscadines here. There was a Cabernet we liked, and two different red blends (one was called "Atlantis", and the other "Coastal Collage").

After a couple days at the beach, we visited Native Vine Cellars and Tasting Room, which was just off of Caratoke Highway, which runs down the Outer Banks. Native Vine also provided tastes of wines from all of North Carolina. Some of the most impressive wines came from Biltmore Estates, the winery on the Vanderbilt property in western North Carolina. These were classic wines: a lusciously buttery Chardonnay; a dry, surprisingly smooth Cabernet; a fruitful, peppery Syrah. Excellent, excellent fines wines. These were clearly not the products of a small, start-up winery.

We did end up buying a Muscadine wine at Native Vines, specifically a Scuppernong wine. I'm no expert in the Muscadine family of grapes yet, so I couldn't tell you the difference between a Scuppernong and another type of grape, but this particular white was delicious and sweet - with enough fruitiness so that the sweetness wasn't overpowering. An interesting bit of trivia is that the oldest continuously producing grape vine in the world is actually a Scuppernong vine, growing at the site of the oldest (non-continuously existing) English settlement in North America: Roanoke Island, North Carolina (a picture of this vine heads this post). We learned that from our tasting, but from the Scuppernong Wikipedia page I also came across a nice little poem dedicated to the grape:

"The winter will be short, the summer long,

The autumn amber-hued, sunny and hot,

Tasting of cider and of scuppernong;"

by Elinor Wylie

There were also several fruit wines at this tasting: Blackberry, Strawberry, Peach, and Raspberry. Now, once again - while I like fruity wines made from grapes, I'm usually not too big a fan of deserty fruit wines. The same holds here - we didn't end up getting any of these. But lets face it - a glass full of blackberries is incredible to drink, however you cut it. It just wasn't what made it into our collection.

Before we leave Native Vine, I also want mention a beer that I got there. I asked the winemaker what of the many North Carolina beers he carried he would suggest, and eventually I settled on Fest Beer from Weeping Radish Farm Brewery, in Jarvisburg North Carolina (just north of Sanctuary Vineyard). This beer was really great - it was a hoppy ale with a really full malty/yeast character to it. It almost tasted a little sour from the yeast - but I mean that in a good way. It was interesting. I'm trying to think of a beer that it's comparable to so I can communicate that better - I'll update this if I think of one.

We went out for drinks after dinner on Wednesday night to the Outer Banks Brew Station, in Kill Devil Hills. I got a sampler of four of their beers - I liked the Mutiny Pale Ale best, but I also liked the Olsch (their signature Pilsner). They had an interesting oatmeal stout too - and I also like their wheat ale. The wheat ale reminded me a lot of Sam Adam's Summer Ale. It didn't have the lemon zest of the summer ale, but the wheat flavor was relatively muted much like that classic Sam Adams brew, which I appreciated.

FINALLY - on the return trip, after stopping for lunch in Colonial Williamsburg, we went to the brand new New Kent Winery, off of interstate 64, right before you hit Richmond. This place is younger than my new niece Sophia (although obviously it has been gestating a little longer than she has). You heard it first here - New Kent will be a powerhouse in the Virginia wine industry. These guys were on the mark. First of all, they had a gorgeous tasting room and winery, "built from materials reclaimed from buildings and structures well over a century old", according to their website. Their wines reminded me more of the wines from the Williamsburg Winery or Biltmore Estates, rather than the other wineries we've tasted that opened in the last decade or so. They produce only six wines right now - all of which we tried. The Chardonnay and Chardonnay Reserve (2004) were smooth and buttery - like a good Chardonnay should be. The Vidal Blanc was a little sweet for my tastes, but it wasn't overpowering. It tasted just like a Riesling, and had that crisp, green apple taste at the front that made it more drinkable than other wines of that sweetness. The Merlot was good, but not exceptional. I was very impressed with the Meritage (a Meritage is a blend - basically an American Bordeaux, because the damned French wouldn't let us use that word... just like they won't let us use "Champagne" anymore). Strong, bold, smooth - fruit forward. And finally, their "White Norton". It looks like a rose, but oh no - don't be fooled by its appearance. When the taster described it as a "bold, lighter wine" I didn't have very high hopes. Everyone that makes a rose wants to try to tell you that it's "bolder" than other roses... and who can blame them? You don't want to just make another white wine that has a pink color to it. Usually, in my mind, they fail to live up to their talk. This was different. The Norton grapes, which are big, flavorful, earthy grapes, really gave it a grape-jam kick. It was also surprisingly peppery - sort of like a Cabernet. This taste doesn't stand out as much for Nortons, which made the White Norton notable. Most of all, I think this rose had body - it coated your mouth and really hammered back at the white bread we offered with the tasting. It is not just a sipping/brunch wine. It can stand up to a lot of substantial food.

WOW - that was a marathon post. It must seem like we went on a wine tour rather than a beach vacation. But that brings me to the final point that I want to make: if you live in a wine growing region, get outside and do some wine tastings. As glamorous as these excursions were, they cost five bucks a pop in most cases (Sanctuary was free), and didn't take up too much of our beach time. We came home with six free wine glasses on top of that. It supports small, local businesses and it also contributes to an industry that is millenia old, and that has been practiced on these shores since settlements first started sprouting up. You aren't throwing away money on some stupid item that's mass produced in China, or some pop sensation that we won't even remember a year from now. In a year, the reserve Cabernet we picked up might still be in our wine rack, and it will be even better than when we got it. The simple Two Shilling Red or Governor's White of Williamsburg Winery will never go out of style because they're classic blends for that establishment, and for us because they were featured at our wedding reception.

And if you have the time, money, and inclination I also encourage you to start a wine collection. Think of it as an investment - these wines are an appreciating asset because they get better with time. Even if they're not a wine that's meant to age - and you only open it a month or two later, they appreciate in value simply because when you pop that cork you relive the memory of visiting that winery, or the first time you tried that wine (if you didn't get it from a winery).

OK - I'm going to stop here, but I'm serious about this. Support the place that you call home - there are wineries all over the country. Support these farmer-manufacturers and the winery tradition. Don't forfeit your tastes to what is in vogue in the south of France right now. If you're in Virginia - try to fall in love with the Norton, or the Muscadine if you're south of here. Learn to appreciate our own wine heritage.

Alex Jones... interesting... intelligent... paranoid

So I discovered the typhoon of paranoia that is Alex Jones yesterday, and I had to share. Jones runs a radio show/website/news nexus called "Info Wars" out of Austin, TX. He primarily writes and speaks about "New World Order" plans for world domination, the establishment of a police state, and a variety of Ron Paul stuff (the gold standard, tainted food, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.). So I kinda approach him like a Ron Paul on steroids - I'm totally with him on a lot of basic stuff... but he goes a little over the edge with it. For example - I totally buy the idea that the Bush administration deliberately twisted the evidence to start a war in Iraq... but the idea that they orchestrated 9/11 (which Jones and others on his show suggest), is obviously ludicrous.

Its the same way that I approach a lot of alien/UFO research that's out there, or the Templar stuff. They make really interesting points that we don't have good answers for (UFO people in particular), but they mix in a lot of unfounded assertions in there as well. So you just can't join the list serve -you can't even order their book... its just too out-there to touch. But I do enjoy tuning in and listening to a You Tube post every once in a while.

I also think someone out there needs to be suspicious and digging this stuff up. Its important to know that if Alex Jones ever uncovered a document that was credible, he might actually get the word out.

Speaking of credible documents... Ron Suskind has provided evidence that the CIA was directed by the White House to forge letters that (1.) connected Mohammed Atta to Iraq, and (2.) suggested that Iraq was buying uranium. In other words, this isn't just "bad intelligence"... this was "forged intelligence". Big deal - if this came out a year or two ago they might even be talking about impeachment... its awfully late, so I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen now, but this is still a big deal (and more credible than Alex Jones's pronouncements, I'm guessing).

Some are contesting this... perhaps we'll get more info in the future.

Veepstakes

So the BBC is reporting that Obama's VP selection will come within hours. This is smart - it would be crazy for him to miss a day or two of press. Now, all the online news sources will have it on the front page all day, nightly news will have it tonight, and the print news sources will still have to print it front page tomorrow morning, even if the news is "old" by then. Then the convention starts and Obama will get coverage all over again.

Anyway - the other thing the BBC reports is that he says he has chosen someone who will help him to strengthen the economy. That almost certainly means no Biden, which is interesting. Probably safe too - Biden has a lot of baggage. It could definitely mean a Kaine selection. Bacon's Rebellion had a post up today talking about how Obama's economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee (I saw him speak at the Urban Institute) considers Virginia to be a model for modern economic development - a pro-market, pro-business state with a government that is still willing to make strategic investments (except for infrastructure now, it seems). That bodes well too.

But someone like Hillary Clinton - who would also strengthen him on the economy - is also not ruled out by this new announcement. I don't think she's got a snowball's chance in hell, but there has been chatter about her lately, so I have to bring it up.

The other front runner is Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. I don't know much about him, but I looked at some of his background and he has no record that I can tell on the economy.

I think this little tidbit that Obama announced makes Kaine significantly more likely as the VP choice, especially because it will be today.

The Washington Post reports that Obama has no campaign events today - nothing until his appearance in Springfield, Illinois tomorrow where he says he will appear for the first time with his VP. That means Obama spends 48 hours in Virginia, takes a much deserved Friday rest before announcing his VP and then appearing in Illinois with him or her. No visiting Indiana or Delaware in the interim. Interesting...

By the way - I checked Kaine's schedule. Unfortunately I didn't find any clues like "Appearing in Springfield Illinois with Obama"... oh well :)

Well, I've said this before folks. If this happens that means Kaine in the White House, and Webb and Warner both in the Senate. What a boon for Virginia!!!!

I should really work on and write that "Job Flows and Unemployment in the Upper Tidewater" paper... give the Obama team some more insights into Virginia's economy.

Short Meeting with Kaine

Obama had a 15 minute meeting with Kaine in Richmond today... good or bad for his prospects? The Post seems to think bad. Who the hell knows - we'll find out soon.

VP Thought

So Obama's VP selection sounds like it's iminent... but perhaps could wait until as late as the weekend. Of course I'm pulling for Kaine, but would also be happy with Biden.

I had another thought today... what about a surprise selection of Wesley Clark? Nobody is talking about him anymore, but everyone was very impressed with him previously. He would bring the foreign policy experience that Biden offers, but without the "old politics" sort of baggage that Biden would bring to this ostensibly post-partisan campaign.

Plus he's an old white man - which would reassure some people.

Not sure if this is even on the radar, but Clark is one of those guys I forget about and then happen to see him on TV again and remember how great he is.

Interaction effects

Interesting new post in a really uncreatively named blog ("Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science") that I found recently on interaction effects. The author is critiquing a post by Jeremy Freese that essentially cautions against over-interpretation of interactions.

I think the point the author makes is obvious - you never want to go fishing for significant terms and stake your claim on whatever pops up out of the hundreds of regressions that you run. Of course this applies as readily to interaction effects as it does to anything else included in the model. But I think the author misses a major point that Freese makes - and that is understanding when to expect insignificant interaction effects. Freese suggests that when the categories you are interacting involve very small groups, the risk of pulling out spurious effects increases dramatically. This is because any single sub-group member with an unusual outcome can skew the effect much more easily.

I also find it interesting that they're only talking about interaction effects as a method of sub-group analysis. I've always been most interested in interactions of two continuous variables, rather than a dichotomous and a dummy variable - looking at a sort of cross-effect. I know if you want to look at the difference of an effect between men and women or blacks and whites, that's just not appropriate - but I imagine that the significance of these interactions is substantially more reliable.

We're working on a report for the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation right now, that not only has a host of interactions - but also has interactions in a two stage model. Now that is REALLY tough to get your head around. You'd think it would be easy - just an extension of a one-stage model... not really.

Samuelson on China

Robert Samuelson has a great op-ed out today on what we should really worry about when it comes to China. He argues that concerns that the Chinese economy will surpass ours are silly - there is no possible way they can't surpass us, and they'll probably do it by the 2020's. That doesn't mean that Chinese per capita income will exceed that of the U.S. - we will probably lead there indefinitely.

More importantly, though, China risks destabilizing the global economy, rather than dominating it. Samuelson parades the usual suspects: trade, oil, and exchange rates. For the most part, I think he's dead on. He's a little timid when it comes to trade - pointing out that the ones China hurts most with its trade policies are other low-cost labor economies that can't compete with the Chinese. I'm not so sure they're the only victims, but OK.

He also highlights the risk posed by Chinese energy consumption - and that's the important thing to consider. The rise in oil prices in the last couple years hasn't really been a symptom of decreased supply (although my understanding is that we're flat-lining) - its that demand has been propelled by developing countries - particularly China. Now I agree with those who are calling for safe offshore drilling - there's no reason we shouldn't benefit from higher oil prices by producing more ourselves. But that alone is not the solution to the problem. If China's demand for energy shows no sign of quitting, we can't just beat them at their own game - we need to get into other energy markets that are not threatened by this increase in demand. I'm personally intrigued by the prospects of wind farming in the U.S., and the so-called Pickens Plan.

Samuelson also brings up China's currency reserves which have developed over years of aggressive exporting. He only really raises the issue of the Chinese buying up U.S. companies and a nationalistic U.S. response... I find it odd that he doesn't highlight the possibility of currency instability in general caused by China's massive reserves and our massive debt. Samuelson raises the prospect of a "resource war" (to which I'm forced to respond "sure - what's new?"), but he doesn't even consider the possibility of a "debt war". Could that ever happen? Let's say McCain is elected and we dig in deeper in Iraq and Afghanistan while cutting taxes and not doing much of anything about Social Security or Medicare - and lets say this current slump lasts a little longer than we expected. Suppose we start to have trouble paying off our debt - and some coalition of lending nations demands our compliance with a strict payment plan... and we refuse. The value of the dollar drops even farther than it has over the last couple months, and the Chinese reserves begin to evaporate. If the U.S. is sufficiently weakened, could there be a debt war, where the Chinese insist on a part in the management of the most valuable asset they own - a sizable chunk of the U.S. government? Probably unlikely. China is more likely to implode than explode on the world scene. But the risks involved in the U.S. national debt can't be stressed enough. And I'm a fan of both Hamilton and Keynes - I think there are very valuable uses for a government debt... but even then, you can go too far.

Finally - I was absolutely shocked by a statistic that Samuelson cited. Apparently, 17 million people a year move from the country to the cities in China. Urbanization is progressing at break-neck pace. 17 million! That's like a new New York City popping up in China every single year. That is absolutely unbelievable!

Rick Warren and the Candidates

Just listened to the first part of Rick Warren's forum - where he interviewed/questioned Obama and McCain. The first part was Obama. It was really good - I was impressed with both Obama, and also Warren. Warren put to rest all fears that the forum would be inappropriate, or that he would be a demagogue, etc. He asked the regular questions you'd expect him to, but then he also asked some questions that were very personal to him. It was great, because they were questions that won't ever be asked by anyone else - so it was good to hear him ask them.

Here's the link for the first of six videos for the Obama interview. You can follow each subsequent part from there. Obama made a few good jokes... I'm already 3 minutes into McCain, and he's already made two bad jokes. But that's ok! Humor isn't everything :)

.... update

So it's interesting - McCain's style is very different from Obama's here. Obama was conversational, detailed, and "long-winded". Not in a bad way - he just gave more of an essay. McCain was much quicker and forceful with his answers. I guess it sounded more like a traditional debate response for him than for Obama. And that's not bad either. For one thing, it was easier to figure out what McCain's answer was! It will be interesting to see how both those responses play. McCain's is more accessible, but I felt like I didn't hear anything new. You had to pay a little more attention to Obama, but he had some really great, sincere things to say.

... update 2

GAAAAH I thought I was over blogging about South Ossetia. So McCain just finished talking about that. He's so manipulative in how he talks about it. For example: "there's an oil pipeline that goes across Georgia that up until now was not controlled by the Russians, and energy, my friends, is a tremendous lever that the Russians are using against the Europeans"

On one hand this is true - up until now the pipeline was not controlled by the Russians. However, the pipeline is STILL not controlled by the Russians... go figure. And nice mention of Russia playing hardball with Europe's supply of oil. Too bad to date they've been playing hardball with other pipelines that don't even go through Georgia!

He also cites villages being burned in South Ossetia and people being killed... never mind that its the Georgians that are doing the killings inside South Ossetia. Good Lord! I was liking this forum for awhile...

... more South Ossetia

OK - so now there are claims that the Russians violated the ceasefire (crossing the border, not actual shooting from what I've heard). Dan Froomkin reports (although I didn't read the whole article) that Bush responded by agreeing to send in aid. This is potentially an explosive situation, again, if an accident were to occur. If something happened to our military while they were distributing aid we could get much more involved than we are now. And Saakasvili is bitching that this isn't enough.

BBC reports a little more detail on breaking the ceasefire... sounds like its unclear whether they are still trying to stabilize Gori, or moving toward Tbilisi or what. Some reports of looting, but not confirmed and who knows how bad this is.

I imagine if they are doing anything other than stabilizing the area, we'll find out soon.

So the "accidental war" possibility is rearing its ugly head again. I can't emphasize enough how bad this would be. We can have arguments about whether Russia was justified or not - but there is a huge difference between an unjustified Russia and a Russia that needs to be met by the U.S. military.

WaPost blogging on Russia

OK, I understand if you think Russia was unjustified in its attack on Georgian troops in South Ossetia. I respect that opinion, although I disagree with it.

But the national security blogger at the Washington Post is writing as if Russia unilaterally invaded Georgia without any provocation. The moderator's post DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE WORDS "South Ossetia" or "Abkhazia". I was absolutely dumbfounded.

Anyway - feel free to tear them a new one. This is ridiculous.

Even people I have had disagreements with - such as my brother, who has posted on this blog - have an understanding that this has been a protracted conflict with a history of violence between Georgia and separatistist regions with strong ties to Russia. Not sure what the disconnect is at the Washington Post.

More on South Ossetia

I'm really starting to worry about this situation.

Recent reports suggest that Russian troops are pushing beyond South Ossetia, into central Georgia - perhaps towards the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. I think it's notable that the first city to be seiged outside of South Ossetia is Gori, which lies between Ossetia and Tbilisi - not Ossetia and Abkhazia - Georgia's other breakaway republic.

It seems like Medvedev is preparing to defend against an assault from or prepare for an attack on Tbilisi, rather than solidify his advances into the separatist regions. That's disconcerting for two reasons -

1. It would mean that this really is an invasion of Georgia, rather than a crackdown on Georgian interference in the breakaway republics, and

2. The U.S. is currently transporting Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia to fight the Russians.

So Russia is invading Georgia proper, and the U.S. military is going to be in Georgia too... bringing Georgian troops so that they can fight Russian troops. Is it just me, or is this a recipe for disaster??? Why the hell are we getting involved in this??? What if there's a stray bomb that kills American troops helping the Georgians out? How many options is Bush really going to have to respond to something like that? And even if it doesn't come to that, what will Medvedev and Putin think? How are they going to interpret us transporting Georgian troops to the battlefield?

I don't know if this will mean war with Russia. Even I have enough faith in Bush and Medvedev and Putin to think that this is probably a slim possibility. But why are we toying with it? Why can't the Georgians transport their own damned troops. I know they've provided a bunch of troops in Iraq, but who cares! We're the United States of America - we're not obligated to play chauffeur to a Central Asian republic that sent 2,000 soldiers to Iraq. I applaud their enthusiasm, but I hardly think it qualifies them to ask anything of us.

I don't know for sure if the Russian move on South Ossetia is justified or not. My impression is that there is substantial justification for what Russia is doing in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. That does not justify an invasion of Georgia. The United States needs to think straight on this conflict and not treat Russia like another Hitler in the Sudetenland - we need to treat them like the Greaet Power that they are. And maybe they overstepped their bounds here, but we can't just blunder our way into this war - we need to proceed cautiously.

We also need to remember that Russia has something in South Ossetia that we never had in Iraq - an actual smoking gun. Whoever started it several iterations back, the fact is Georgia moved troops against South Ossetia on August 7th. I know this was disputed at first, but it seems to be reported universally now. I don't want to see Saakashvili fall, and I don't want to see a Russian occupation of Georgia. But tell me - how the hell is that different from what we did in Iraq? It's different for one reason - in Georgia, Saakashvili made the first move and Russia responded. In Iraq we made the first move and Saddam responded. I would rather watch Russia take Georgia than get the U.S. into a direct conflict with Russia over a standard of international relations that we can't even hold ourselves to. If we try to do that, we're going to have egg on our face - I guarantee.

Call for Papers

Urban Affairs Association, Spring 2009 in Chicago

Southern Sociological Society, Spring 2009 in New Orleans

Chinese Wine

An interesting Slate article on the demand for and supply of wine in China.

In other news:

We opened a Merlot from Prince Michel yesterday - a confidence booster for Kate's job interview today. Very smooth merlot.

About a week ago we also opened a Viognier from La Grange. It was a 2007 - very good year for Virginia wines. Viogniers are on the sweeter side - "grapefruits and honeysuckle" is what you usually hear, but I tasted some pineappley notes in this as well. Definitely a honey quality to it, too.

In beer news, about a week ago I got a six-pack of Gold Ale from Clipper City Brewing Company, based in Baltimore. A pretty standard ale - very malty. Not too dark or heavy. I like their McHenry Ale better.

China Data

So as I often do, I was trolling the internet for interesting data sources today, and came across China's national statistics site. They are surprisingly up front with a lot of statistics going back over a decade. I was really impressed and interested. Not sure how accurate the stats are - that probably merits a little investigation - but they have neat stuff.

I'm especially interested in data they have on "scienitifc research institutions", number of staff at these institutions, funding of the institutions, and % government expenditures on the institutions for each province each year since 1995. I'm kind of curious to see how balanced their investment in science and technology is - because a criticism often leveled against China is that it does not balance development between the country and the urban areas. I wonder if that holds true in science and tech too.