SCORNING THE WISDOM OF THE CROWD:

Why Keynes Was Wrong (Warren Meyer, 07.29.10, Forbes)

Rather than attempting to make investment easier, almost all government stimulus efforts to date have focused on trying to better optimize how and where investment capital is deployed. The core assumption behind all of these programs is that a few people in government can invest money more productively than the private entities from whom the government took the money.

This is frankly an absurd assumption, something I know from my own experience of trying to make just these sorts of capital allocation decisions, though on a much smaller scale. In various corporate strategic planning and marketing roles, I was in the position for years of helping to make investment decisions in some of America's largest and best-managed corporations.

These corporations were smart enough to know that a small corporate staff did not have the information to identify and rank investment choices in their myriad of different divisions. Instead, the corporate office acted as a sort of bank, where front-line managers who had detailed knowledge of individual markets came to the corporation via the planning process and proposed investments. Through my years in this process, I was always convinced we were sub-optimizing, that these divisions if spun off and in control of their own destiny likely would have made better decisions. If smart business people couldn't make confident capital-allocation decisions for a $20 billion business, how can a few career government staffers do better for a $16 trillion economy?

In their hubris, however, the Congress and this administration believe they can do what even the most successful corporations can't. They take money away from individuals and businesses, either in the form of taxes or borrowing that squeezes out private capital, and claim to invest that money better than would have those individuals, despite much worse information and inferior performance incentives. The stimulus bill is an obvious example, but we see this phenomenon all over the country. The bailout of GM effectively poured taxpayer money into an entity that private investors had determined was no longer worthy of investment. Here in the Phoenix area, taxpayers of various municipalities have been asked to subsidize a new shopping mall for $97.4 million, cover a years-worth of our pro hockey team's operating losses for up to $25 million, and throw money at absolutely anyone who whispers the word “solar.”

To every one of the supporters of these government projects who claim to have created some number of jobs, I encourage the reader to ask a simple question--who was using the money before the government diverted it, and how many jobs were they creating?

BAKED IN THE CAKE:

Why the Dems will lose Congress (MICHAEL BARONE, July 31, 2010, NY Post)

[T]ake a look at the generic ballot question: Which party's candidate will you vote for in elections to the House? The current realclearpolitics.com average shows Republicans ahead by 45 percent to 41 percent. Ten of this month's 15 opinion polls asking the question had Republicans ahead; Democrats led in four (twice by 1 percent), and one poll showed a tie.

Keep in mind that the generic ballot question historically has tended to under-predict Republican performance in off-year elections. Gallup has been asking the question since 1950 and has shown Republicans leading only in two cycles, 1994 and 2002, and then by less than the 7 and 5 points by which they won the popular vote for the House in those years.

So the Republicans' current lead in the generic ballot question suggests they may be on the brink of doing better than in any election since 1946, when they won a 245-188 margin in the House -- larger than any they've held ever since.

Another metric is daunting for Democrats. Polls in House races almost always show incumbents ahead of challengers, because incumbent members of Congress are usually much better known than their opponents. An incumbent running below 50 percent is considered potentially in trouble; an incumbent running behind a challenger is considered in deep doo-doo.

SOME OF US WERE JUST AHEAD OF OUR TIME:

Clive Thompson on the Death of the Phone Call (Clive Thompson, July 28, 2010, Wired)

My phone bills are shrinking. Not, unfortunately, in cost. I mean they’re getting shorter. I recently found an old bill from a decade ago; it was fully 15 pages long, because back then I was making a ton of calls—about 20 long-distance ones a day. Today my bills are a meager two or three pages, at most.

Odds are this has happened to you, too. According to Nielsen, the average number of mobile phone calls we make is dropping every year, after hitting a peak in 2007. And our calls are getting shorter: In 2005 they averaged three minutes in length; now they’re almost half that.

We’re moving, in other words, toward a fascinating cultural transition: the death of the telephone call. This shift is particularly stark among the young. Some college students I know go days without talking into their smartphones at all. I was recently hanging out with a twentysomething entrepreneur who fumbled around for 30 seconds trying to find the option that actually let him dial someone.

This generation doesn’t make phone calls, because everyone is in constant, lightweight contact in so many other ways: texting, chatting, and social-network messaging. And we don’t just have more options than we used to. We have better ones: These new forms of communication have exposed the fact that the voice call is badly designed. It deserves to die.

The Wife often tells the spawn that I her husband was the worst long-distance boyfriend ever. Now we have definitive proof that it was the phone's fault--a loathsome device.

THANKS, WIKILEAKS:

Cameron's terror remark may stall Zardari,s UK visit (PTI, Jul 31, 2010)

British PM David Cameron’s warning to Pakistan to stop promoting the “export of terror” appears to have cast a shadow on bilateral ties, with the foreign office in Islamabad even debating the possibility of asking President Asif Ali Zardari to call off an upcoming visit to London.

Cameron said on Wednesday that Pakistan should not have ties with groups that promote the export of terror to Afghanistan or India.

Following an angry reaction from Islamabad, Cameron defended his remarks, saying that it was “important to speak frankly” and that while Pakistan had “made progress... we need them to do more” to tackle terrorism.

They won't deserve the credit, but the Anglosphere's war on Pakistan will be laid at Wikileak's door step.

Coca-Cola-Brined Fried Chicken: One Southern chef's sweet, fried homage to a New Orlean's culinary institution (Chef John Currence, 7/30/10, Esquire)

Ingredients

* 12 chicken thighs (skin on)
* Peanut oil and lard, for frying

Brining Mix:

* 1 qt Coca-Cola
* 1 tsp Liquid Smoke (optional)
* 2 1/2 tbsp Worcestershire sauce
* 1 tbsp Tabasco
* 3 tbsp ground black pepper
* 3 tbsp coarse salt

Batter:

* 1 egg
* 3/4 cup peanut oil

Dry Mix (well combined):

* 2 tsp baking powder
* 2 tbsp coarse salt
* 4 tsp ground black pepper
* 1 tbsp cayenne pepper
* 1 tbsp onion powder
* 1 tbsp garlic powder
* 2 1/2 cups flour

Instructions

Rinse chicken, drain, and set aside. Blend together brining mix until salt dissolves. Place chicken in brine in a large covered bowl and marinate, refrigerated, for 4 hours.

Whisk egg well in a stainless-steel bowl and add peanut oil and 21/2 cups water. Add in dry mix, whisking slowly so batter doesn't clump.

To prepare chicken: Fill a large cast-iron skillet halfway with equal amounts peanut oil and lard. Slowly bring temperature to 375 degrees. (Use a candy thermometer.) While oil is heating, remove chicken from brine and place in a colander in sink. Once chicken has drained, pat dry with paper towels (a critical step) and season with salt and pepper.

Dip chicken in batter and place (carefully) in hot oil. Adjust heat, as the chicken will bring the oil temperature down dramatically — you want it back up to just above 350 degrees. Turn chicken regularly using tongs to prevent burning. After 8 or 9 minutes, remove a piece, prick it to the bone with a fork, and mash it. If the juices run clear, it's done. Continue cooking if necessary.

THE DRIVER'S SEAT:

Minister encourages companies to pay skilled migrants a welcome bonus: As German companies face a shortage of skilled labor, Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle announced plans for a recruitment drive and suggested businesses start appealing to migrant workers' wallets. (Die Welte, 7/30/10)

German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle encouraged companies to offer skilled foreign workers a special check should they choose to relocate to Germany.

"The issue of how to finally make Germany attractive to skilled migrants is at the top of my agenda," he told the German business daily Handelsblatt on Friday.

JUST AS WE HAVE TO CATCH UP TO THATCHER'S SS REFORMS...

Iain Duncan Smith announces reforms to 'antiquated' benefits system: The biggest overhaul of the country's now-''antiquated'' benefits system in decades has been unveiled by the Government. (Daily Telegraph, 30 Jul 2010)

He set out a series of options aimed at ensuring that people would see the value of moving from benefit to work through simplifying the existing tax and benefits system.

Mr Duncan Smith said he wants to unify the disparate elements that form the benefits structure as well as rectifying the ''illogical'' position of benefits paying more than work.

Options included combining elements of the current income-related benefits and tax credit systems, bringing out-of-work and in-work support together in a single system, and supplementing monthly household earnings through credit payments reflecting circumstances such as children, housing and disability.

Mr Duncan Smith told a conference in east London that five million people are on out-of-work benefits, with a ''staggering'' 1.4 million on benefits for nine or more of the last 10 years, while the UK has one of the highest rates of workless households.

One in six children will grow up in a workless household, said the minister, adding that up to three generations of the same family are now growing up with no work in their lives.

''The benefits system has created pockets of worklessness, where idleness has become institutionalised. The welfare budget is spiralling out of control, up from £63 billion in 1996-97 to £87 billion in 2009-10, although the actual increase was £61 billion in the last 10 years.

''The key must be to break the cycle of dependency. We must make sure that work pays, even for the poorest.''

...they have to catch up on Clinton/Gingrich Welfare Reforms. And we're all just catching up to General Pinochet.

THAT'S IT, NOW THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR:

Is al-Qaeda racist?: Barack Obama's race may have added significance in the terror group's warped worldview. (Michael Mumisa - 30 July 2010, New Statesman)

On 13 July 2010, Barack Obama gave an interview to the South African Broadcast in which he attacked al-Qaeda and its supporters' disregard for African life. The White House went on to describe al-Qaeda as 'racist' and for treating black Africans like 'cannon fodder' . Right-wing commentators have since been on a war path accusing Obama for getting angry only when the victims of terrorism are black . His supporters have been at pains to explain that his statement was part of a discussion on Islam in Africa and that his critics are mischievously interpreting it out of its original context.

Whatever Obama's original intention was, he touched on a sensitive topic within Muslim communities which Muslim scholars, particularly in Africa, have been expressing since the August 7, 1998 al-Qaeda bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Al-Qaeda and its supporters have successfully been able to justify their violence not only by manipulating theology but also on the basis of what many in Africa believe are racist readings of certain narrations (known in Arabic as 'ahadith') attributed to the Prophet of Islam. Since Obama's election such 'Prophetic narrations' have been widely circulated, discussed, and commented upon on Arabic websites and forums supportive of al-Qaeda.

Such narrations have become part of al-Qaeda's eschatology, an end-times theology in which Obama's presidency is seen and presented as a fulfilment of a prophecy about the rise of 'an evil black African political power.' According to one of the narrations, a 'skinny legged', 'big eared', black African from Abyssinia leading a powerful army will destroy the Ka'bah (Muslim holy sanctuary at Mecca) while prospecting for Gold! In their original Arabic the narrations mention 'skinny legs' and 'big ears'.

It's one thing to be anti-Semitic, Christophobic, and anti-Shi'a, but racism? That's beyond the Pale (so to speak).

MEANWHILE, THE EPL'S PITCHERS AND CATCHERS HAVE ALREADY REPORTED:

Slicing up the Red Sox's boring pie (Bill Simmons, 7/30/10, ESPN.com)

THE TIME OF THE GAMES: 55 PERCENT

The biggie. The hammer. The killer.

There are two separate issues here. The first: Nobody wants to spend 3½ hours watching anything on television. Not even porn. The second: It's not that fun to spend 30-45 minutes driving to a game, paying for parking, parking, waiting in line to get in, finding your seat ... and then, spend the next three-plus hours watching people play baseball ... and then, leave, find your car and drive home. That's potentially a five-hour commitment. Ludicrous.

By the way, have you ever looked around during a baseball game these days? It's 35,000 people texting or writing/reading e-mails while they wait for something to happen. BlackBerrys and cell phones were either the best or the worst thing that ever happened to baseball. I can't decide. When an incoming text is more exciting than a baseball at-bat, something has gone horribly wrong.

Back in 2002, I wrote a column worrying about baseball and that games were too long. It's much worse now. I tried to tell my father this, and he didn't believe me. Fortunately, baseballreference.com has the times of every baseball game played. I went back and examined the times of games of my most memorable Red Sox seasons (1975, 1978, 1986, 1999, 2004, 2007) along with 2002 (when we first worried that games were becoming too slow) and 2010 (through 101 games). Check this out; it's incredible.

1975 Red Sox
2 hours or less -- 12 games
2:01-2:30 -- 62
2:31-3:00 -- 63
3:01-4:00 -- 18 (4 extra innings)
More than 4 -- 2 (both extras)

(Note: Twelve games that ended in less than two hours!!!!!! Are you kidding me? And 137 of the 162 games ended in less than three hours.)

1978 Red Sox
2 or less -- 1
2:01-2:30 -- 57
2:31-3:00 -- 72
3:01-4:00 -- 27 (11 extras)
More than 4 -- 5 (all extras)

(Note: Still a steady concentration of games between two and three hours -- 129 of the 162. Totally acceptable.)

1986 Red Sox
2 or less -- 1 (6 IP)
2:01-2:30 -- 30
2:31-3:00 -- 71
3:01-4:00 -- 58 (9 extra innings)
More than 4 -- 2 (2 extras)

(Note: A subtle shift. Sixty games creeped over three hours, although it's possible Wade Boggs -- who took about 28 pitches every at-bat -- was singlehandedly responsible.)

1999 Red Sox
2 or less -- 1
2:01-2:30 -- 18
2:31-3:00 -- 92
3:01-4:00 -- 49 (6 extra)
More than 4 -- 2 (both extra)

(Note: Not much different than 1986; 102 games ended in three hours or less. By the way, it's flawed to say these numbers reflect baseball as a whole. The DH slows things down in the American League, you might have more hitters who milk pitch counts in a specific year and some pitchers work faster or slower than others. The slowest Red Sox pitcher ever was Jeff Gray. He made Jonathan Papelbon look like a quicker draw than Rick Pitino. If you had an entire bullpen of Papelbons and Grays, that's skewing your number obviously.)

2002 Red Sox
2 or less -- 1
2:01-2:30 -- 29
2:31-3:00 -- 82
3:01-4:00 -- 45 (6 extra)
More than 4 -- 5 (5 extra)

(Note: Our best pace since 1975 ... and this was the year we were complaining that games were too long! I'd like to thank Tim Wakefield, the fastest Red Sox pitcher of my lifetime other than Reggie Cleveland, for spiking the fast numbers. He always pitched like he had a 9:30 dinner reservation and didn't want to be late. God bless him.)

2004 Red Sox
2 or less -- 0
2:01-2:30 -- 14
2:31-3:00 -- 81
3:01-4:00 -- 61 (6 extra)
More than 4 -- 5 (5 extra)

(Note: Still cruising along. Nothing really changed from 1978 to 2004, in case you didn't notice.)

2007 Red Sox
2 or less -- 0
2:01-2:30 -- 11
2:31-3:00 -- 48
3:01-4:00 -- 97 (5 extra)
More than 4 -- 6 (2 extra)

(Note: Uh-oh. One-hundred three of 162 games dragging past three hours??? Call it the Tipping Point ... as in, "I'm tipping over because I just fell asleep." I blame the recent frenzy of milking pitch counts, the constant preening between pitches and more frequent pitching changes. Yes, I look forward to those arguments being struck down by an angry blogger within the next 48 hours.)

2010 Red Sox (101 games)
2 or less -- 0
2:01-2:30 -- 1
2:31-3:00 -- 41
3:01-4:00 -- 53 (7 extra)
More than 4 -- 6 (4 extra)

(Shaking my head.)

What a nightmare. I'm the same guy who once created the 150-Minute Rule for all movies, sporting events, concerts, even sex -- if you edge past 150 minutes for anything, you better have a really good reason. The 2010 Boston Red Sox have played one game in four months that ended in less than 150 minutes.

I'll write that again: The 2010 Boston Red Sox have played one game in four months that ended in less than 150 minutes.

Nearly 60 percent of the Red Sox's games have dragged past three hours. Twenty-four of their games have gone 3:30 or longer (nearly 25 percent). And no, it's not just them: Fifty-eight percent of 2010 Yankees games have extended past three hours. When these two meandering monoliths collide, look out: This year's snoozefests clocked in at 3:46, 3:48, 3:21, 3:01, 3:56, 3:05, 3:47 and 4:09 (a nine-inning game!). Are those baseball games or Boston Marathon times?

Meanwhile, National League games move significantly faster: Every NL team has played at least 50 percent of its 2010 games in less than three hours, led by St. Louis, who cranked out 71 of its 102 games in less than three hours. That tells me the following things:

1. We need to dump the DH. Like, right now. It's stupid, anyway.

2. We're only a few other tweaks away from getting these games to a manageable time. What about giving managers six timeouts during a game in which they can cross the baseline, and that's it? What about a 15-second pitch-clock? What about giving hitters three seconds to leave the batter's box, or it's another strike? (Unless you've tipped a ball off your foot, caught something in your eye or desperately need to adjust your boys.) What about two minutes between half-innings for commercials, then the next hitter has to be standing in the batter's box at 2:01?

Look, we could throw out unrealistic suggestions like "no baserunner can take a lead past a defined line within 7 feet of the base" (to eliminate pickoff throws); "every batter needs to bring a second bat to the on-deck circle" (in case he breaks the first one); "relievers don't get to warm up;" "catchers can visit the mound only once per inning;" "we wire the area around the home plate and electrocute batters any time they step out to adjust their elbow pads or their crotch;" and even "let's eliminate the ninth inning all together and just play eight." But really, just the four tweaks from the previous paragraph would save 30-35 minutes per game. Easily.

The most damning fact about these interminably long games? They pushed some die-hard fans toward English Premier League and World Cup games mainly because we knew those games would end in less than two hours.

Ideally, baseball's popularity would completely collapse so that you could afford to go to a game with your kids again and there wouldn't be enough ad time to fill three hours.

FRIENDS?:

Curbing Your Enthusiasm (PAUL KRUGMAN, 7/30/10, NY Times)

Mr. Obama rode into office on a vast wave of progressive enthusiasm. This enthusiasm was bound to be followed by disappointment, and not just because the president was always more centrist and conventional than his fervent supporters imagined. Given the facts of politics, and above all the difficulty of getting anything done in the face of lock step Republican opposition, he wasn’t going to be the transformational figure some envisioned. [...]

What explains Mr. Obama’s consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is? Does he fear that his enemies would use any support for progressive people or ideas as an excuse to denounce him as a left-wing extremist? Well, as you may have noticed, they don’t need such excuses: He’s been portrayed as a socialist because he enacted Mitt Romney’s health-care plan, as a virulent foe of business because he’s been known to mention that corporations sometimes behave badly. [...]

O.K., I don’t really know what’s going on. But I worry that Mr. Obama is still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship, while his aides dislike the idea of having to deal with strong, independent voices. And the end result of this game-playing is an administration that seems determined to alienate its friends.

Is there any evidence anywhere for the notion that Mr. Obama has friends?

THE OTHER THING THEY DID WELL...:

Sherlock: The Baker Street sleuth's latest incarnation impresses Sophie Elmhirst. (Sophie Elmhirst, 7/30/10, New Statesman)

In many ways the updating of his story to a modern setting worked well. That Holmes would be a serial texter makes total sense, as does Watson being a military doctor injured in Afghanistan who suffers from phantom limb syndrome and various psychosomatic disorders. It's as if they've gone through the manual for 21st-century signifiers: inappropriate war in the Middle East, check; ineffective psychotherapy, check; references to the destructive social conservatism of the Daily Mail, check.

The best bit of this "Look how modern we've made it!" stuff was the gay undertones. On Marr, Cumberbatch and Freeman talked about how there had always been theories about the precise nature of the relationship between Holmes and Watson, and how they'd drawn on that in their portrayals. So there I was, eagerly awaiting a subtle, downplayed enactment of unspecified sexuality, but instead, about ten minutes in, got Watson insisting to a landlady that he and Holmes weren't going to share a room and then, about ten minutes after that, saying with a look of blind panic on his face, "I am not his date!" to a waiter who had implied otherwise. As if that wasn't enough, Watson then told Holmes that it was "all fine" whether he was gay or not. Oh, for ambiguity.

Aside from the in-your-face elements - yes, they live at 221b Baker Street - it was fine Sunday-night entertainment: a rollicking serial-killer plot plus laughs and excellent acting.

...was to use Sherlock's lack of empathy to give him a Larry Davidesque cutting edge in his interactions with other people.

GOT A LITTLE LIST:

McMahon Campaign Hits Grimm For Taking "Jewish Money" (David Freedlander, July 29, 2010, NY Observer)

Mike Grimm, a G.O.P challenger for Mike McMahon's Congressional seat, took in over $200,000 in his last filing.

But in an effort to show that Grimm lacks support among voters in the district, which covers Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, the McMahon campaign compiled a list of Jewish donors to Grimm and provided it to The Politicker.

The file, labeled "Grimm Jewish Money Q2," for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home.

"Where is Grimm's money coming from," said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon's campaign spokeman. "There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees."

WELL, SOMEONE MUST HAVE BEEN HAPPY WHEN THE JOURNOLIST STORY BROKE:

Rubicon's Paranoia TV (Jace Lacob, 7/30/10, Daily Beast)

In the first episode, a four-leaf clover, acting as a symbol of a hidden fourth branch of the government, turns up as a clue in a series of crossword puzzles in major newspapers around the world. Its appearance causes a wealthy man to promptly kill himself in response, leaving behind a widow (Miranda Richardson) with too many questions.

“Everything is public property but there are still things which are incredibly hidden and incredibly private but then you find that maybe they’re not and they’ve been on show the whole time,” said Richardson regarding the situation in which her character, the appropriately named Katherine Rhumor, finds herself.

Just how Katherine’s story connects to Will’s investigation remains a tantalizing puzzle to be solved, much like the onslaught of information that has to be deciphered, analyzed, and assessed each day by the API staffers.

“Can you trust the immediacy of that information,” said Dale, speaking to The Daily Beast from the show’s New York set. “The idea that you can turn on cable news right now and get information right away should make you ask, who’s putting out the press releases, who’s giving you the real story? Someone orchestrates these things. There are men in rooms who sit down and decide what is our main story today and what is going to be our spin on it?”

WOULDN'T IT BE MORE SURPRISING IF YOU FOUND SOMEONE WHO TAKES THE UR SERIOUSLY?:

Reporting From Pakistan (Walter Russell Mead, 7/30/10, American Interest)

The news broke in the US on Sunday; it only hit here on Tuesday, possibly because the issues are so sensitive that some media figures decided to wait to test official reaction before committing themselves. On Tuesday the story made all the front pages. The Nation, a feisty and often anti-American newspaper that sees spooks in every corner and seems to believe that much of the world has nothing better to do than endlessly plot against Pakistan, has already figured it out: the leaks were a clever ploy by the ruthlessly cunning Obama administration to discredit Pakistan. Commented The Nation:

“’Something is not right here,’” one expert said, adding that WikiLeaks could not have done it without a wink and a nod by some elements in the administration wanting to keep Pakistan under pressure.”

All the news outlets are giving plenty of space to indignant denials by Pakistani authorities that the leaks point to anything real. Denunciations of the leaks by American officials play especially well; in addition to covering the ISI’s indignant denial that there is any factual basis for the reports, The Dawn carries three separate stories about American officials denouncing, downplaying and vowing to hunt down the leakers.

One thing I’ve learned here that has been a surprise: virtually all Pakistanis are operating on the assumption that the United States plans to cut and run in Afghanistan.

THERE IS NO RUSSIA:

Islamists Gain Upper Hand in Russian Republic (Matthias Schepp , 7/30/10, Der Spiegel)

Close to 9 million people live in the autonomous republics of Russia's northern Caucasus. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, each of these republics, particularly Chechnya, has been plagued by terrorism and war. But nowhere is the situation today as explosive as it is in Dagestan. This desperately poor strip of land on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, which is smaller than the US state of West Virginia, is home to several dozen ethnic groups that are bitterly at odds over government posts and grazing land, while an Islamist insurgency wages a war against Moscow and Dagestan's Russian-controlled government.

The resistance against the military campaigns of Czarist troops began in Dagestan more than 150 years ago. Russia needed a force of more than 300,000 to finally subjugate the region after a war than raged for about 30 years. The spirit of resistance continues to shape the republic today. Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, chaos prevails in Dagestan, primarily because of the activities of radical Islamists. The Caucasus republic has become almost ungovernable.