Reads from a long weekend

One of my favorite things about long weekends is the chance to relax and read. Often this means getting through a good chunk of the current book I’m reading (currently The Best and The Brightest), but I also read some journalism pieces that I otherwise don’t take time to read. The staff here at Amalgamation has always striven to pass along what it considers to be good journalism, so I offer the following as recent examples thereof:

• In Web Age, Library Job Gets Update (NYT, 2.16.09) Explains how school librarians do more than just manage the library’s physical collection.
• The No Stats All-Star (NYT, 2.15.09) Details Shane Battier’s almost astonishing value-added, and the Houston Rockets’ approach to valuing players.
• Being There (NYT, 2.15.09) A look at the art – if it can be called that – of Facebook status updates.
• In Gingrich Mold, a New Voice for G.O.P. Resistance (NYT, 2.15.09) Eric Cantor is the force behind the House Republicans’ strategy and tactics under the new Administration.
• Do We Need a New Internet? (NYT, 2.15.09) A not-too-long piece about the possibility of a new internet that increases security, in part by restricting access.
• The End of Alone (Boston Globe, 2.8.09) A think-piece on the benefit – and difficulty – of disconnecting in an increasingly connected world. [DAP to the great Arts & Letters Daily website.]
• How to Save Your Newspaper (Time, 2.5.09) An interesting – but I think flawed – idea about micro-charging for newspapers and articles, trying to build on the iTunes model.
• The Big Fix (NYT, 2.1.09) David Leonhardt’s excellent long piece on the immediate and long-term economic challenges facing President Obama. [Leonhardt is the one Times columnist that I read every single time he writes. He's eminently reasonable, and makes economics readable for non-economists.]
• Kitchen Savant (GQ, February 2009) Interesting long piece on Chicago chef Michael Carlson, his big night in October 2007, and his journey since.
• Can Larry Summers Save the Economy? (Time, 1.29.09) Examines Obama’s powerful economic advisor, and how he sees the economic recovery.
• Inside an Afghan Battle Gone Wrong (Thomas Ricks’ blog, 1.28.09 – 2.2.09) An absolutely superb series of posts from the Washington Post’s top defense reporter looking into a particularly disastrous battle in Afghanistan. [Ricks also wrote Fiasco, which is a truly great book about the military in Iraq from 2003-2005. I've yet to read his new one - The Gamble - but I can imagine it's equally excellent.]
• Bush’s finest moment on Iraq: SOFA, not the Surge (Marc Lynch’s blog, 1.18.09) A compelling argument which makes the case implied in the post’s title.
• A Higher Calling (NYT, 12.21.08 ) Long piece on Philip Seymour Hoffman. A must-read.
• Rhee Tackles Classroom Challenge (Time, 11.26.08 ) A look at DC Chancellor of Education Michelle Rhee and the debate over education reform.

You’ll notice that most of these are from the New York Times. That’s the main reason I subscribe: the journalism is great, and I thoroughly enjoy reading it. Most of the longer pieces come from the Times Sunday Magazine, which is always worth perusing.

Resolved

As we begin the last year of the aughts, I figured I’d jot down some of my resolutions for the coming year. Most of them are pretty run-of-the-mill, and I actually want to succeed. I could resolve to lose and keep off 30 pounds this year, but the handful of people who keep up with this blog (when it’s being kept up) know that I’m simply too fond of food and too apathetic about exercise to reach that goal. So, here goes. Maybe I’ll take stock when the year is done to see which of these resolutions – if any – were actually achieved.

• I will re-connect with the Body of Christ. 2008 was a year of spiritual apathy for me. I didn’t go to church very regularly. I didn’t spent much time in the Word. My prayer life was an exercise in going through the motions. I just wasn’t engaged. But in those rare instances when I was engaged, I was reminded of what a blessing – and a necessity – it is to be connected to the Body of Christ. I need to get back to that, starting with going to church on a more consistent basis.
• I will spend less time on TV/internet, and more time engaging in ‘real-world’ activities. I’ve developed some pretty bad TV and internet habits. Namely, I spend most of my time using these two media. And most of the time, I’m just randomly channel or website surfing. And I continually (I mean at a pretty embarrassing frequency) check the same handful of websites. This means less time to do other things that are much more fulfilling: spending quality relationship-building time with my wife, reading, going out with friends, exercising, playing guitar, etc. Practically, this means I will try to only watch TV when I plan to watch a specific show and use the internet – and visit the same handful of websites – less frequently. And I’ll use the spare time to do the things that are more fulfilling.
• I will exercise at least twice-per-week. This includes both cardio and weights, over 30 minutes each session. I’m probably setting the bar a bit low here, but I’d be kidding myself if I aimed for more than this to start with. I’m a believer in the Dr. Leo Marvin approach. And who knows, maybe I’ll build up to more by the end of the year.
• I will eat less overall, but more real food.  My diet right now is pretty bad. I eat more tortilla chips, pizza, ice cream, and PBJ than I care to admit. There’s nothing wrong with these things in moderation, but I’m beyond moderation. Oh, and I drink too much coffee. Way too much. And I just take in too much food. So, I’m going to try to simply eat less food. And the food that I do eat will be healthier for me.
• I will give more and consume less. I’m a consumer. I eat a lot. I pine after gadgets a lot (and often buy them eventually). This costs a lot of money, which in turn means less money is available for giving. That’s not to say that my wife and I don’t give. We do. We are just much less intentional about it than we should be. So I’m going to spend less time seeking out the latest-and-greatest gadgets (I already have a Kindle and an iPod touch anyway), and try really, really hard to buy only those things that I need. We don’t have much space for extra stuff in our place, anyway. And my wife and I will sit down and choose some ways that we can be more intentional – and hopefully more generous – in our giving.
• I will put things in their place right away. It’s just easier. And it will make my wife happy. And our house can start to look like a worthy candidate for Clean Sweep at times.

I could definitely make a longer list, but (a) you would probably get bored and (b) I’ve done huge, vague lists in the past without much success. Feel free to leave any of your 2009 resolutions in the comments.

Happy New Year!

Market uncertainty

I had planned to write a long post about the bailout (which I’ve still included below the jump), but I figured instead I’d post some links to people much smarter than I am:

• Marginal Revolution: Is a Potential Bailout Making Things Worse?
• Marginal Revolution: Where is the Credit Crisis?
• Anne O. Krueger: Why We Need to Act Now
• Three Economists in the WSJ: Let’s Get the Bank Rescue Right
• Greg Mankiw: A Defense of the Paulson Plan
• Megan McArdle: Why we need a bailout, even if not this bailout
• Megan McArdle: What I think about the bailout plans
• Megan McArdle: How do we know something bad is going to happen?

If you’re interested in some of my (once again long) thoughts, they’re below. (NB: I haven’t read all of the above articles/posts, so my views may change)

Harsh Criticism 101

Part of me really enjoys reading a review in which the subject gets absolutely skewered. To my mind, it’s especially impressive when a critic has such command of the English language that s/he needs only one paragraph to dismantle someone or something so completely in only one paragraph. I find myself almost stunned at such viciousness, but also quite impressed.

Yesterday, I encountered such a paragraph in a review of “Nights In Rodanthe” by Manohla Dargis:

It’s no wonder the faithful continue to forsake the movies, given junky embarrassments like “Nights in Rodanthe.” There’s no joy and not even much cruel laughter to be had from the spectacle of sympathetic actors — Richard Gere,Diane Lane, Viola Davis, James Franco — mouthing some of the most pitiful, platitudinous, risible dialogue in recent memory, particularly if you were suckered into watching this movie specifically because of its performers. Even those with a high tolerance for melodramatic drivel, who have stuck by Sandra Bullockthrough thick, thin and her changing smile, or found themselves sniffling at “The Notebook” yet again because, well, Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams should be together, will find “Rodanthe” insulting, an assault on their already perilously weakened romantic hearts.

Wow. Game, set, and match. Remind me to avoid Ms. Dargis’ acid pen.

My wife and I may eventually watch (and will likely enjoy) this movie. Nevertheless, one has to appreciate Ms. Dargis’ ability to concisely – but completely – eviscerate her subject.

Decisionmaking

Sometimes, one can find parallels in unexpected places. To wit, the video at the following link (sorry, couldn’t find a YouTube version) reminds me of how the powers that be are handling the financial crisis by shortening the time horizens. I love The Office.

The powers that be (Dwight) try to convince the taxpayers (Andy) of the need to act quickly on risky assets (the Xterra).

If we’re drawing parallels, it’s heartening that Dwight ultimately flips the Xterra for a profit.

Update: The Office episode “Money” contains too many salient quotes to count.

Here’s the text of the exchange in the clip, via OfficeQuotes.net:

Dwight: [kicks the car] Unh! Scratch.
Andy: That’s a racing stripe.
Dwight: Uh, bumper’s sagging.
Andy: Mmm, I doubt that very much.
Dwight: This car’s crap. I will buy it for next to nothing.
Andy: How next to?
Dwight: Well, here are your options: you can sell it for parts, drive it off a cliff… you can donate it to a person that you’d like to see die in a car crash, or, you can sell it to me, and I’ll use it as I would a wagon on my farm. It will be towed by a donkey.
Andy: I have to pick one of those?
Dwight: Yes.
Andy: Can you go over those options again?
Dwight: You know what? You knock $1500 of the price right now, and I will take it off your hands. It’s gotta be now.
Andy: Well I have the, the blue book value…
Dwight: Seal the deal. Let’s do it. Let’s do this thing. Three, two, one–
Andy: Can I think about it?
Dwight: Five, four, three, two…
Andy: Let me think about it–
Dwight: Now. Now. Now.
Andy: Let me think about it–
Dwight: Say it. Do it. Now.
Andy: I’m thinking about it–
Dwight: Do it now.
Andy: Thinking–
Dwight: Do it. Shake my hand. You will sell me this car. Shake my hand.
Andy: Yeah. All right!

My thoughts on the financial crisis

A good friend from Bethel had a thoughtful and thought-provoking note about the financial crisis on his Facebook page. In it, he argued that this is not time to bail financial firms out, especially those that participated in the bad practices that led to the crisis, if there’s going to be no help to ordinary taxpayers who are struggling. (I’m not doing the note justice, but that’s the one sentence gist of it). I sat down to write a response, and out came the longer-than-expected thoughts that are pasted below. I’ve modified them a bit, but I figured I’d post them here to get reactions from you all. Twitter’s not really conducive to this kind of thing. Take these thoughts for what they’re worth – I can’t claim to be an expert.

Just a note: I’ve been reading a lot about this stuff on Marginal Revolution, Megan McCardle, Matthew Yglesias, and Paul Krugman lately. Not to mention David Leonhardt, among others, at the New York Times. They make a lot of good arguments, and some not so good. Nevertheless, they’ve put out some very timely, comprehensible analysis.

–

I agree that this is an opportunity for the market to correct itself, probably with some ruthless results. One of the things that I think has gotten a bit lost in this whole ordeal is that it takes a lender and a borrower to engage in bad lending practice. By this I mean that individuals had to make poor decisions in accepting ARMs, et. al. for which they had no realistic shot of paying over the long term. That’s not to say that large financial firms aren’t culpable – they are. They should have known that by offering these questionable debt instruments, then chopping them up and sending them to market, they were (1) abusing their position of holding the keys to the American dream and (2) putting their faith in some pretty shaky “assets”.

Fundamentally, I think this is a crisis driven by the American psyche, both in terms of the American dream and Americans’ spending/debt habits. For generations, the American dream has been to own property. This is not intrinsically a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing when a person and her/his family has property to call their own. We also live in a society in which credit is king. This is also not intrinsically bad. I’m really glad that I got a loan from my bank to get a car a year ago. When approached and used properly (ie, when it’s not going to break the budget), credit is a very useful financing tool.

The problem comes when one relies too much on credit, or uses credit in financially unhealthy ways, as I believe our society does, on the whole. It’s easy to justify purchases if the credit is available, even if a person can’t afford it; I’ve been there. When one mixes the American dream of owning property with an unhealthy reliance on credit, it becomes a recipe for the financial crisis we’re currently in. People were so interested in achieving the American dream that they were willing to forgo financial prudence and go for the dream. It was short term “gain” without a whole lot of thought to the long term consequences. Again, part of this is attributable to what was surely “predatory” lending in the sense that lenders, knowing their borrowers would probably be unable to keep up if rates went up, still encouraged borrowers to buy the house or re-finance the mortgage. Irresponsible lenders should be held accountable.

So this is where the bailout comes in. How does the US Government responsibly stabilize the financial system in such a way that changes the incentive structure toward safer, better decision making and lending while at the same time protecting ordinary Americans and holding those whose firms have engaged in detrimental, irresponsible practices? All that without stifling the financial innovation that drives the market forward and satisfies the growing international capital market. This is a tall order.

For my money (pardon the pun), if the government is going to bail out financial institutions with taxpayer money, it should get an equity stake in those financial institutions. If not, the government is just buying up risky assets, likely for prices well above market value, without much incentive for the bailed out firms to shape up and without much promise for positive returns on those assets. (Paul Krugman has been making a lot of sense all week – krugman.blogs.nytimes.com). Yes, this smacks of socialism, but I think you have to get the incentives right in order for the system to be fundamentally changed. I’m glad to see that there seems to have been some oversight added to the bill – the first iteration was astonishing in its request that we, the American public, just trust the Treasury Secretary, whoever s/he may be, that s/he knows best. It may also be worthwhile to give the Treasury Department a first tranche of funds, with the understanding that more will be available if they’re needed. This crisis may not cost $700 billion all else being equal, but if you make that much available, there’s a good chance the Government will spend it. The Government shouldn’t be rewarding firms who made the bad decisions that put us here.

Unfortunately, this still leaves unresolved the question of how to help people who are genuinely struggling. Frankly, I don’t know the answer. I’m not sure that’s what this bailout should be asked to do. Further, I think borrowers should be held accountable for bad borrowing decisions to some extent. Perhaps this is built into the idea of banks working to refinance homes/mortgages based on their fair market value – borrowers would certainly lose money in that case. I also think there’s some merit in the idea of a second stimulus package (although this just throws into sharper relief the notion that continued or additional tax cuts and government spending in other areas are becoming nearly untenable if we want to improve fiscal stability).

Perhaps the best thing about this crisis, if it can be put that way, is that Americans are (or should be) reexamining their financial habits. Perhaps this crisis will cause some to give a second thought to whether they can afford the new house, even though prices are currently low. Then again, if this bill goes through without much additional scrutiny and thoughtfulness, we may end up in the same place about 10 years from now, with nobody any the wiser and many people economically worse off.

H-O-R-S-E Smackdown

Some average guy won a chance to play H-O-R-S-E with LeBron James. Here’s the video:

DAP: Marginal Revolution

Simmering Below the Border

Of all the articles I read in this mornings newspaper, one really surprised me. The article in question is a reported article about the toll drug violence is taking throughout Mexico. Given that I ostensibly follow international events, It’s a bit embarassing to admit that I hadn’t paid much attention to this story previously; I see a variation on the theme most days in the international section of the paper, but have given them little attention. Today, a lazy day in the middle of a three-day weekend, I decided that I had the time (and sufficient interest) to read about the situation. What I read was pretty striking.

In all, 2,682 people have been killed in the drug war this year, including elderly bystanders, schoolchildren and pregnant women, according to a tally by a newspaper, El Universal.

Perhaps, when compared on a per capita basis to per capita homicide numbers in the United States or elsewhere, this figure isn’t an outlier. But it’s shocking nonetheless. This means that, by El Universal’s arithmetic, 11 people are killed per day in this drug war throughout the country. Although the article isn’t entirely clear, it seems as though this drug war only adds to normal criminal activity throughout Mexico. As a result, people are having to alter their lifestyles substantially, from additional security guards to dining habits.

Manuel, a businessman in his early 40s who lives in Tijuana, avoids restaurants in the city, particularly those that serve food from Sinaloa, which has produced more top cartel leaders than any other state. His father is from Sinaloa and he loves the shrimp tamales and other offerings from the region, but he fears that there is a bigger chance that he might encounter thugs at restaurants that feature that food.

“Seafood is what they serve and it’s the best,” he said, refusing to provide his last name because of the fear that his words might come back to haunt him. “But I’d rather eat at home. How can I take my wife and my children to a restaurant when I don’t know who the people are around? What happens if something goes wrong?”

Perhaps people just north of the US-Mexico border are more keenly aware of this situation, but it’s flown a bit under the radar in this part of the country. It looks like both Sen. McCain (here, with the Mexican President) and Sen. Obama (here, here, here)* have discussed US-Mexico cooperation on anti-drug measures. And apparently there’s something called the Merida Initiative, which both candidates have supported, in which the U.S. Government provides assistance to Mexico and a number of other Central American countries and cooperates on security, anti-drug trafficking measures, and anti-money laundering measures. It’s a bit spendy, but it pales in comparison to our overall (military and civilian) spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This seems, to me, to be a step in the right direction. Mexico is right across the border, meaning a higher probability of the conflict spilling over. It will be interesting to see if, and how, this issue comes up over the next two months.

–

* There’s a lot more policy/issue information on Sen. Obama’s website than on Sen. McCain’s. This certainly doesn’t mean he’s a better candidate or a better thinker, but it does make it easier to discern what he might do or where his thinking lies.

An interesting, if slightly odd pick

John McCain announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate for the 2008 presidential election today. It’s a bold pick; I’ve seen some really positive feedback. There also seem to be some questions. She’s a Washington outsider, young, a woman, a reformer, a strong Evangelical Christian, solidly Conservative on the issues, a ‘regular’ person, and seems like an all-around good person. This makes her a compelling VP candidate. Frankly, the fact that she’s a woman makes her compelling. She seems, initially, to be very popular among the Conservative base, which is something the McCain campaign needs – some Conservatives are still unsure about him. Perhaps most importantly for the McCain campaign, it dominated the news cycle a day after Barack Obama’s historic and highly-watched (if not quite post-partisan) acceptance speech. To their credit, the McCain campaign is managing the airwaves and media cycle pretty well.

As a counterpoint to Joe Biden, I think Palin’s an interesting pick. She certainly doesn’t match his experience, but she seems able/willing to campaign energetically.* And, it’s going to be hard for him to attack too vigorously. But does she give McCain the boost he’ll need to beat Obama? Does she galvanize the base enough? Does she bring in enough independent/undecided voters? I’m not entirely convinced she does. Even some Conservatives seem baffled by the pick. Some of her strong points listed above could also be seen by independent/undecided voters as liabilities.

First, there’s her outsider reputation. The McCain campaign’s key attack point against Obama is/was his lack of experience. I think that line of argumentation has less bite now. She’s got executive experience, yes, but she has less foreign policy experience than even Obama. She’s does have 12 years of executive experience (more, I might add, than any of the boys in the race), but 10 of those years were spent as mayor of a small (population 8,500) Alaskan town. (see update below)

Second, she’s a woman. (This is not, in itself, a ‘liability’ just so we’re clear – a woman is as qualified as a man for this position) What I mean is that the conventional wisdom, or at least part of the logic behind the pick, is that she’ll bring along some of Hillary Clinton’s former supporters who feel that Obama ran a campaign underpinned with sexism. This could very well happen, but I don’t think it will happen en masse, or even in the kinds of numbers that McCain needs. I think a lot of Clinton supporters still hold out hope that she will have a chance in the future, and wouldn’t necessarily feel the need to defect just so a woman can get into the VP slot. Then again, I’ve been surprised by the depth of resentment toward the real or perceived sexism in the campaign thus far. Beyond that, many Clinton supporters are quite liberal, generally pro-homosexual rights, and pro-choice; Palin is clearly none of those things.** Perhaps she’ll galvanize more Conservative women to come to the polls, but my sense is that Conservative women generally vote in pretty high numbers.

Finally, one thing that I’ve not seen discussed much – whether for lack of information or implicit strength on the issue – is Palin’s credentials on economics and business. This is something of a blind spot for McCain, something he, himself, has admitted in the past.*** In the current economic situation across the country, a lack of familiarity with economics among both candidates on the ticket – if Ms. Palin has such a lack of familiarity – could be a liability.

To be perfectly honest, I find the pick interesting, but a bit curious. As a currently undecided voter, she doesn’t really get me any more excited for the McCain ticket, for which I’m not entirely excited. Admittedly, I’m probably not the desired demographic, but I can’t be the only one who finds this pick a bit strange.

At any rate, this is going to be a fascinating two months.

UPDATE: It looks as though Palin has shorter executive experience than I previously thought. She was mayor of Wasilla, AK from 1996-2002, and has been governor since 2006, a total of 8 years. She was chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003-2004.

–

* The VP has historically played the attack dog role – will Palin play that role? The question comes not because she’s a woman, but because I’m just not sure what her campaigning style is.

** Please, oh please, let’s not have what amounts to another referendum on abortion/homosexuality issues.

*** The New York Times Magazine had a superb (and long) article last Sunday about how Barack Obama’s economic philosophy is a bit mixed, too.

Play Ball!

I’m a sucker for Carrell and Colbert. But even if one isn’t, this is truly awesome: Steve and Stephen impromptu singing the national anthem.

[DAP: Office Tally]

Real dialogue? Let’s hope so.

Sen. McCain raised the idea of joint town hall meetings with Sen. Obama, you say?

I [McCain] propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible, and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details. I suggest we agree to participate in at least ten town halls once a week with the first on June 11 or 12 in New York City at Federal Hall until the week before the Democratic Convention begins at locations to be determined by our campaigns.

And Sen. Obama said he’d be interested (though not quite so soon)?

“I look forward to, you know, having more than just the three traditional debates that we’ve seen in recent presidential contests,” [Obama] said.

No moderators? Both candidates explaining their policy views and proposals to the public? I hope I’m not the only one who thinks that this could be really, really great. Not only does it allow the voting public to see these candidates in a more informal (and arguably more substantive) environment but – shock of all shocks – the candidates would actually be able to regularly talk with each other instead of at (which mostly means past) each other.

Now, one might argue that this format favors McCain. He is clearly stronger in this type of setting than he is when giving set speeches; his fine-but-flat speech on Tuesday was a good example. Obama is clearly inspiring and effective in delivering set speeches, but he hasn’t always been the greatest in a debate setting. But a town hall meeting is (hopefully) different from a moderated debate. I get the sense that, once one gives Obama the chance to elaborate on his views, he does so with nuance and articulation (in the same way that McCain generally does).  Both of these men are smart and articulate, and both are capable of defending their policy views in a nuanced way in a public setting. I don’t think this format inherently favors either one of them.

As someone for whom this race is currently a toss-up, I really want to see what each of these men brings to the table. If both men are interested in truly moving past some of the partisan rancor that has enveloped American politics over the last quarter century, I think this would be an excellent place to start.

‘The Hobbit’ has a director

It’s Guillermo del Toro, according to the New Zealand Herald.

Del Toro directed Pan’s Labyrinth, which was a beautiful film in all aspects. I think he’ll bring even more visual richness to Middle Earth than Peter Jackson did. A fine choice, indeed.

[Hat tip: PTWSTSTS]

Cellular Revolution

One of the reasons I continue to subscribe to the New York Times (by Kindle now) is the glut of excellent long form journalism. This is why I subscribe to The New Yorker, too.* Finding the time to read long articles is a trick sometimes, but they’re almost always worth it.**

I had occasion, over the weekend, to read such an article: “Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty?” The basic premise of the article is that cellphones are making life all over the world more efficient, and will continue to do so. But while we in the developed world have largely taken the benefits of cellphones for granted, people in the developing world are using these little devices as in some incredibly innovative ways, including mobile banking, commerce, news, and rallies. One of the most intriguing notions the article raises is that cellphones represent a “fixed identity point” in an increasingly fluid world.

Some of the best quotes of the article are after the jump, but you really should read the whole thing yourself. Here’s perhaps my favorite quote:

Nokia’s temporary design studio sat in a rented two-room concrete hut at the intersection of two busy dirt lanes, across from a woman selling chunks of watermelon and peeled lemons and next to a large water tank labeled “Church of God.” There was a sheet of fabric strung up in front, with neat painted lettering that read: “Your Dream Phone. Share it with the world.” … One Liberian refugee wanted to outfit a phone with a land-mine detector so that he could more safely return to his home village. In the Dharavi slum of Mumbai, people sketched phones that could forecast the weather since they had no access to TV or radio. Muslims wanted G.P.S. devices to orient their prayers toward Mecca. Someone else drew a phone shaped like a water bottle, explaining that it could store precious drinking water and also float on the monsoon waters. In Jacarèzinho, a bustling favela in Rio, one designer drew a phone with an air-quality monitor. Several women sketched phones that would monitor cheating boyfriends and husbands. Another designed a “peace button” that would halt gunfire in the neighborhood with a single touch.

You should also check out the website of Jan Chipchase, a Nokia researcher and the human subject of the article. It looks pretty interesting.

Making sense of the mess

If you’ve been wondering what the heck’s going on in “the markets,” apparently you’re not alone:

I’m here to urge you not to feel sheepish. This may not be entirely comforting, but your confusion is shared by many people who are in the middle of the crisis.

This entirely un-comforting though comes from today’s “Economic Scene” by David Leonhardt, the New York Times economic columnist who writes clear, readable columns about economics every single Wednesday.

Leonhardt lays out what’s happening in pretty clear English – at least the clearest that I’ve come across thus far. I’m not going to try to summarize here because Leonhart is much smarter and more articulate than I. But I encourage you to read the whole article.