Issues Schmissues

Why issues are giving way to image.

I opened the Obama home page last night before the debate and found - surprise! - a fundraising drive. The Obama campaign has always been a grassroots one. They had recorded some 890,000 donors since the start of the campaign, and they were pushing toward one million. I'd considered donating for Obama before, but something about pushing for the one million mark was even more compelling. By the time I noticed the free T-shirt at the bottom of the page, I was pulling out my wallet.

Switching gears, my boss is naturally drawn to new toys and gadgets. One night, we were talking about motorcycles; the next day, he showed up to work on a brand new bike. Some months later, we were talking about the new MacBook Air and had to convince him not to buy it just because it was new and shiny.

These two stories aren't as disjointed as they seem on the surface. Today, image is king, and that transcends the world of gadgets and toys. Barack Obama has built a campaign founded on his image rather than his issues, and it's proven to be successful. A major criticism of the campaign has been that Obama is nothing more than pretty words and speeches. Many of his supporters can't name many of his policies beyond "change." Yet none of this has had a particular effect on his poll standings. In fact, it may be helpful to him. Obama has an image of a man in touch with the people. He's one of us. Hillary, by contrast, is seen as a Washington elitist. Spouting off facts and information isn't going to help her improve. She's not up against Obama's record of experience, but his image, and she's fighting a losing battle.

Case in point - I chose to make my donation last night because the campaign was shooting for one million donors. That's nothing more than an arbitrary number. The one millionth donor isn't any more important than the one before him, or the one after him. And yet I donated. I got caught up in the image and the feeling of the thing rather than the logic of it. I was doing the exact same thing as my boss who bought a motorcycle because it seemed cool. Donating for Obama last night was cool.

Lest we think this is a new innovation in politics, let's turn back the clock to 2000. Image was what killed the Gore campaign. If the election was on nothing more than issues and experience, Al Gore would have won in a blowout. He was vastly more experienced and knowledgeable on the issues. He was completely comfortable talking facts during the debates and his speeches. And yet, that same confidence was what did him in. His image was nerdy. People didn't want a brainiac in the Oval Office, even though history shows us that America would have turned out completely different had Gore been elected. Instead, America voted for George W. Bush, the candidate who polls consistently showed they'd rather sit down and have a beer with. Issues were nothing. They were actually less than nothing - a mastery of the issues was a liability for Gore.

This is part of the reason Obama is polling so well right now. He's an exciting, energetic candidate who people are naturally drawn to. The issues...well, we can worry about those later. For now, he looks and sounds cool, and that's why he's attracting voters in droves. We may be in for a rude awakening as to his actual governing ability come November, but then again, his image may be powerful enough to blind us to that, too.

Plugged In

How multitasking actually reduces efficiency.



I stepped into a crosswalk yesterday only to nearly be run over by a car. The driver wasn't paying attention when the light turned green and assumed she could make a right turn without checking the crosswalk. She saw us and hit the brakes, but decided to plow along anyway. I caught a glimpse of her as she drove by and noticed she was - you guessed it - talking on a cell phone.

This isn't an uncommon story these days. Drivers talking on the phone are a dime a dozen. Rants against cell phone drivers are every bit as common. While evidence of the dangers of driving while talking on the phone is ubiquitous - a study done by the University of Utah shows that drivers on cell phones are as dangerous as drunk drivers, and 48 countries have partial or total bans on cell phone usage while driving - many cell phone users, when confronted with the issue, will tell you that they can drive "just fine" while on the phone.

This should be cause for alarm for every driver on the road. I don't know about you, but when I'm on the road, I'd prefer to be surrounded by drivers giving all of their attention to the task at hand rather than sixty or seventy percent. And lest you think that this is another crusade against cell phones, I assert that any distraction in the car is dangerous. This includes putting on makeup, flipping through CD booklets, shaving, or even changing your clothes in the car. (I wish I was making that last one up.) We have a motivation to accomplish as many things as possible in the smallest amount of time in our society, all in the name of "efficiency." When you stop and break it down, though, you find that quicker isn't always better.

Multitasking started as a corporate buzzword some time ago, but has since entered the common parlance. Younger people especially tend to fall into this trend with the advent of handheld electronics. It's not unheard of to see a high school student reading a textbook while listening to an iPod, watching TV, and texting a friend on their phone. When scolded for not doing their homework, the teen will insist, "I am doing my homework. Just because you can't do more than one thing at once doesn't mean I can't." Yet that same student will find that it takes them two hours to finish reading a ten page section of text. (You'll also go on to find that they'll complain that they never have enough time to finish their homework.) While multitasking may make a person feel as though they are getting more done, studies have shown that their efficiency drops substantially. Simply put, you might be able to get more tasks finished, but you might only do them seventy percent as well as you would have normally.

The shock is that this level of efficiency is acceptable in society. We find ourselves sacrificing quality of work in favor of convenience. This isn't limited to the corporate world. We find people insisting that they are listening to their spouse talk about their day while reading the newspaper or watching TV. We find children say they are listening to their parents while chatting with their friends online. It's the great irony of the information age that gadgets designed to increase our capability actually limit them.

After three years, my Pandora station is finally awesome.

And, despite my better judgment, I think it was worth it.

So, a few years ago, I discovered Pandora. I'm not sure how I did it. I think it was a friend of mine emailing me. I loved it. Previous to that I was using LaunchCast, and it was really crappy. It didn't help that I was listening to primarily crappy music at the time, too (everyone has a Linkin Park phase, I'm just the only one man enough to admit it). Nonetheless, LaunchCast was crap, and there were too many commercials, and you could only listen to a certain number of songs a month, if I'm not mistaken.

Then Pandora helped me see the light of streamcasting. It was beautiful. Just one problem: the same thing as happened on LaunchCast was happening here--I only liked about half the songs that played. I learned of the thumb up and the thumb down, and sometimes I'd listen just to my station just to get more nuances of my preferences in there. It also was amazing because as my tastes were changing, so was my station. Then I knew it had come: it was time to start a new station with just my standard tastes (and a few curveballs thrown in there for fun). That was about a year and a half into my Pandora experience, and in that time, I've gradually shaved my "songs-I-hate" ratio down to a manageable 8% (I made that number up). I actually listen to my station for fun now, not just out of a duty to create something of it.

It's great! I'm stoked!

That might mean bad things for all of you who are just starting out, though. Remember to write your congressman and tell them to support the rights of internet radio.

My Pandora station can be found here.

Did Hillary Throw in the Towel?

The results of the Texas debate.

Hillary Clinton has publicly staked her political fortunes on the results of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Having lost eleven straight contests, she was under pressure to perform well in this debate to re-energize her campaign. And instead of coming up big with her back to the wall, she seemed to shrink from the task.

Clinton's strategy to stop the Obamamentum has changed over the last few weeks. During the days leading up to Super Tuesday, she tried being friendly and polite, worrying that voters would be turned off by negativity. When that didn't work, she turned up the venom in the Wisconsin contest, accusing Obama of hiding from voters and being unwilling to engage in a debate. That didn't work, either. With two make-or-break states coming up, advisers have recommended a "scorched earth" policy for Clinton, ratcheting up criticism to as-yet-unseen levels. It doesn't seem like she went for it. She was presented time and time again with opportunities to attack Obama, and time and time again she opted to make the debate about issues. She presented the facts about her platform - ably, mind you - and tried to let them speak for themselves.

The problem is that the Democratic race is no longer about issues. For all intents and purposes, Obama and Clinton don't have many significant differences in policy. Either of them would accomplish similar things if elected. The fact is, however, that America is no longer voting based on issues. They're voting on electability. Obama has the momentum, he has the money, and he has the delegates. Now that the Republican race is (effectively) wrapped up, the Democrats want someone to unite around. It looks more and more like they're gravitating toward Obama. Clinton seemed to get a sense of that as the debate went on. Obama responded impressively to her cry of "let's get real" by saying that "the implication is that...the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," earning applause from the audience. She responded with a jab at the recent charges of his plagiarism, saying "lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches isn't change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox." The comment actually drew boos from the audience, and seemed to catch her off guard.

The real stunner that made it seem as though Clinton was effectively conceding the race came at the end of the debate. While answering a question about a time in her life when she had been tested, she said that she was "honored to be here with Barack Obama." She went on to say that "whatever happens, we're going to be fine." Those words sounded ominously familiar - John Edwards used them in his concession speech on January 30. Clinton may or may not have been intending that same effect when using them, but the comparison is apt. It's unlikely she'll still be in the race after Texas and Ohio. It's possible that she wanted her campaign to go out gracefully rather than shrill and grating.

The Best and Worst of Reality Television

Can Reality Television actually be any good?

Reality Television has burst onto the scene and has made television viewing like a trip to the zoo. People in their cages showing off and little to no need for writers and composition. So why did Reality TV become so popular? I mean we don't go to the zoo that often do we? But yet, being able to sit on your couch and watch humans in a zoo is somehow attractive to us. Reality Television has been around as early as 1948 when Candid Camera came onto the scene. A show in which weird things happened to regular people who were being filmed without their knowledge. After that a couple of shows appeared here and there including the widely popular COPS. But then the one which really changed the landscape of Reality TV and made way for the blow-up we have today is that of MTV's long running series "The Real World". The premise of which is to throw seven strangers into a house and see what they do with their lives. This simple yet riveting look into people's lives has spanned 19 seasons and has had twice that in spin off content. But it was such shows as Survivor and American Idol which really threw the the reality world into a frenzy and has created almost any type of show imaginable. So now that Reality Television is here and will probably be here for a while, what if any of the shows are actually worth watching and which should you when having the option between the show and the plague should you choose the plague? Well here's my picks on that. Note, I really don't watch that much reality tv, and many of these I have only seen once.

Good: American Idol (America's Got Talent, Last Comic Standing).

I don't actually watch American Idol, but I have watched the recent seasons of America's Got Talent and Last Comic Standing. The thing that is good about these shows and a couple more which could be considered like it, is it's truly a show which takes on a stand that the fans make the talent. The judges of course choose from the hopefuls but ultimately it's the mass public's decision on who will be the winner. That in itself, the ability to have an audience make lives is a very interesting concept. American Idol as I said I don't watch due to the fact that I'm not much for singers. America's Got Talent however can show america that such a thing as ventriloquism is something America still wants to see. Don't believe me? Go to youtube and type in Terry Fator. He was the winner of this year's competition and the only person I've ever voted for on one of these shows. Last Comic Standing is Stand Up Comedy and once the finals start, the judges go away and you get to vote just based on performance.

Bad: The Moment of Truth

This show is just a new one that came out within a couple of weeks of writing this article. Contestants are asked a series of questions hooked up to a polygraph machine. This part is not shown, but then the contestant is put in front of his family, his friends and the world, and wins money based on how many truthful answers he gives. The higher up in money the more deviant the questions. For instance one such question asked of a man, "Have you ever thought of cheating on your wife?" Now he's stuck. Only if he hasn't thought of it will his marriage not be ruined. For if he has, he can say yes, and move on, or no and it will reveal to be yes. Of course in terms of this show the one saving grace is that the contestants do know what they are getting into. So if they ruin their lives for money, they knew the possibility was there in the first place.

Good: Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew

This is a new reality show done by Dr. Drew Pinsky. A show in which celebrities with drug and alcohol addictions are filmed in the rehab process. This show is not for the faint of heart, as it is real people coming off addictions and showing what happens when they turn sour. What is good about the show is it is showing the real trouble that addictions do cause, and it makes you the audience cheer for these people in whom you would not normally cheer for, because they are going through very real and human problems. It is perhaps in my estimation, the best thing to have come out of reality television, in that it is a deterrent to using drugs and alcohol.

Worst: The X Effect

MTV has brought on a slew of awful reality tv, from Next, to Date My Mom to Parental Control and lastly to the worst reality television show ever. The X Effect. Imagine if you will that you dated some girl (Replace genders if appropriate) and you had a nice sexual relationship but for whatever reason you decided to break up. A couple of months later you started dating this other girl and found out that your ex-girlfriend also found a new boyfriend. Then one day due to one of these four people contacting MTV about being in some sort of reality tv program, MTV invites the four of you to have a weekend with the four of you at some really nice resort. When you get there the person in charge takes you and your ex-girlfriend into the resort but says your current lovers are going to a different part of the complex. You and your ex are ushered into the building and left alone to do whatever you want for two days. After two days of being with your ex, getting massages and hanging out in the pool, lots of alcohol and all that your current loves are brought back and you find out that they were put in a private bungalow and were able to watch and listen to your every move. Hope you were faithful in such temptation. So now you have to decide, do you want to stay with your current love, or go back to your ex? But choose carefully cause if you choose your ex but she doesn't you, well then you don't get either one. Wow. Sucks to be you. MTV just ruined your relationships! This is the most awful excuse for a television show. Somehow they decide it's okay to ruin people's lives by putting them in tempting situations. It's even worse then you might think, they put the two in a suite with only one bed, they give them opportunities to do chocolate massages on each other and lick it off. This is the ultimate drivel of reality television, but alas, people watch it, and people like it, and it'll forever be on television. 

So here's to hoping you and your significant other, don't find yourself on the wrong side of "reality television".

Why Wrestling Vol. 1

"Is Wrestling real or is Wrestling fake?" has been a question asked by almost every person who comes upon the sport of Professional Wrestling. In my nearly 18 years of following the sport, I can't give you exact percentages, but I can answer the question with one word. Both. Wrestling is real, and it's fake. But then most would ask, "why we should even care?" Well, wrestling is here, and it's infiltrated our modern society, it's dug roots into all forms of media and even other arenas such as family life and politics. It's here, and if you get past the initial disregard for it, it is interesting as well. So now I present to you, my first in a couple of installments on "Why Wrestling?"

Volume 1 -- The Fans

Many who read this column will remember their younger years when they watched a program of wrestling and saw the "Immortal" Hulk Hogan as he strode into the ring wearing his trademark Red and Yellow, his theme song blaring "I'm a real American, fight for the rights of every man." As kids we looked at him and we saw a hero. Someone who went into the ring and defeated bad guys. Those same people who remember that, also remember when they realized Wrestling was fake. Someone had told us that the punching wasn't real, that all they did was air kick. All those kids hated Wrestling from then on and still hate wrestling to this day because "Wrestling is Fake". But a select few slipped through the cracks, and still enjoyed it, and became fans into their teenage and adult years. The casual fan would watch the program and enjoy getting riled up as the bad guy berated your home town, and then the good guy came out and beat him up. Thus showing the bad guy he had no idea the kind of awesome people you'd find in City of State. But then there were the smarter fans, the ones who infiltrated the internet when it came onto the scene, and made themselves a part of the industry. They made and broke wrestlers, promoters and ideas which were being used in the industry. I've found myself becoming a part of that latter group.

When I look at wrestling as a whole, I don't just see the two hour programs you watch on television, I see everything else that goes on, the backstage stuff, the writing, the promotion and the ways in which people come and go like a light switch. many have called Wrestling a soap opera for guys. Yes, that is an accurate description to a point, however wrestling has something in which no other type of media has, the ability in which the fans have to change the landscape of the drama. For kids it was the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, the books in which you were presented with a situation and you could choose in which way to go. Wrestling has this ability more so then any other fan based media forms. Let's take some examples. First off the man I mentioned before, Hulk Hogan. Hulk Hogan came onto the scene of wrestling long before he became famous. Did you know that before he adopted Hulk Hogan he had been known as "The Super Destroyer" and "Terry Boulder"? Not many people do, because he wasn't famous. He had to take his time like anyone else. But in Wrestlemania III Hulk Hogan became a star when he body slammed Andre the Giant. The fans erupted. The fans told promoters that this was who they wanted to see. The fans made the difference for Hulk. Without the fans he wouldn't have gone anywhere. This was the greatness of the now defunct company WCW in a later incident--they took the ultimate hero and turned him into a villain, garnering people to flock in droves to spit on the ground Hulk walked on. For Hulk had betrayed America. The fans propelled him to super-stardom and now you can see him everywhere. Everyone knows his name.

One other example is one which the world at large has not heard of: the case of Mike Mizanin. Mike first appeared on the tenth season of MTV's The Real World. He would talk on the show of his desires to be a professional wrestler and how he even had a personality made called "The Miz". The fans wanted to see that so Mike went to the WWE and eventually became a wrestler on their show. However, even with his loyal MTV fans, most didn't trickle over to wrestling. Mike was fading into obscurity. That is until the WWE put a poll up on their website of who was to challenge for the ECW title against then champion CM Punk. What no one but the hardcore fans would know is that WWE corporate had plans to take the title from fan favorite CM Punk and give it to John Morrison. They expected the fans to vote for John Morrison. They put three men on the poll, Morrison, another big contender, and the fading into obscurity Miz. Well the fans knew that a vote for anyone but the Miz would be a vote against Punk. Because of this The Miz won the poll in a landslide decision. The fans fought back. They said they still wanted CM Punk to be champion, so they chose someone whom they knew the WWE would not allow to become champion. The one who benefited from all of this? The Miz. He suddenly was able to make a name for himself because from what the WWE saw, apparently the fans liked The Miz. Now he's a middle to top name in the company.

So in this we see, yes, for the most part, Wrestling is scripted, score one for fake. However, the fans have somewhat of a say in the outcome. Score one for Real.

Is Wrestling Real or Fake?

Real -- 1
Fake -- 1

Stay Tuned for Volume 2.

The Economics of the NBA

Why NBA trades are so much more common than other sports.

Since February 1, five major, blockbuster-type trades have been finalized in the NBA. Big names like Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, Shawn Marion, Mike Bibby, Jason Kidd, Devon Harris, Ben Wallace, and Wally Szczerbiak have dominated the headlines as nearly an entire conference was shaken up. (Okay, so Szczerbiak isn't just a big name. I just wanted an excuse to write the name "Szczerbiak". Heh. Szczerbiak.) Mid-season trades seem to be the norm in the NBA; last year around this time, Allen Iverson headed to Denver in the middle of a blizzard that shut the city down for a week.


So why do these trades seem to happen so much more often in the NBA than in other professional sports leagues? Trades happen in football, but aren't common. The same is true for baseball. Is there something about the format of the NBA that makes it more conducive to trades than other leagues? Or is it just something about the game itself?

Actually, there are elements of both. Let's look at the setup of the league first. While it's not the only league to have a salary cap (the NFL has one as well), the unique setup of the NBA's cap makes trades commonplace. In the NFL, teams have the ability to waive players' rights, essentially removing them (and their salaries) from the team. NBA teams can't just waive players; if they want to cut a player from their roster, they have to buy out the rest of their contract. This isn't entirely uncommon (the New Jersey Nets actually planned to do this with Jerry Stackhouse as part of the Jason Kidd trade), but it's expensive. Most teams are hesitant to buy out a player if they aren't going to get anything in return. That means the most profitable way for a team to get rid of a player and avoid salary cap trouble is to trade them. Under this system, players in the last year of their contract are especially attractive. When players' contracts expire at the end of the season, they leave room under the salary cap for teams to sign new players. Without the option of waiving players, trading for expiring contracts is the only way some teams have of shaking up personnel.

The setup of NBA teams lends to more trading as well. NBA teams have between twelve and fifteen players filling five positions on the court. Five positions don't allow for very much specialization. Major League Baseball, by contrast, has nine positions, which rises to as many as thirteen when you allow for different pitching positions. The NFL has dozens. It's much more difficult to find a good outside linebacker than to find a power forward, for the simple reason that a higher percentage of NBA players are power forwards than NFL players are outside linebackers. Even supposed franchise players can be moved relatively quickly in the NBA. Players like O'Neal and Gasol were considered untouchable at the start of the season, but were traded within a week of each other. Yet you would never see a trade for players like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Specialization keeps teams together in baseball and football. The relative lack of it keeps things fluid in the NBA.

The lack of continuity has actually been good for the sport. The NBA has suffered from image problems over the last decade (essentially since the retirement of Michael Jordan), and big trades do a lot to generate excitement. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: when was the last time you heard about Tim Donaghy or Stephen Jackson's strip club confrontation? Big names moving around keep fans interested and the game exciting. Fluidity like this may be part of what makes basketball the most popular sport in America.

Photo by Alex Brandon (AP)

The Impeding Recession

How film is dressed to depress in Summer '08.

Go through the list, everyone. It looks like this is going to be one long, dark summer of the sequels. Most of the nuclear-level franchises of the early '00s are done or not producing this summer--which means you get The Mummy and Harold and Kumar as your big names in repeat offenders. Oh yeah, and Indiana Jones and Narnia. That might be okay, but Narnia can only really get old (if not in this installment, in the next), and I'm not convinced that Lucas can actually perform in our day and age. Let us never speak of the Episodes in this publication again. Thank all that's holy he's only executive producing this.

For non-sequel offerings, we also have horror remakes. Dawn of the Dead and Prom Night. Hooray. Also, lots and lots of crappy teen- and college-age drama, including museless variations on the theme of "someone broke my heart" and/or "sexual tension resolves into a fulfilling relationship".

There's a bright spot to the season, and it's mid and late June. Perhaps Shyamalan's tense apocalypse The Happening will hearken back to the glory days, and one can only be excited for the two animated gems emerging: WALL-E from the eminently non-disappointing Pixar, and Miyazaki's Ponyo on a Cliff. Also, Get Smart. After proving his chops on the otherwise bland Dan in Real Life, Steve Carell seems a natural choice for Maxwell Smart, and Anne Hathaway as 99 is another intriguing casting selection.

The rest of the summer is sad, though, with the possible exceptions of Iron Man, Dark Knight, a new X-Files movie, and something in which Jackie Chan is a drunken immortal. Possible.

For your ease, the following is a list of what one can reasonably be expected to do with the films of this spring and summer:

Absolutely must see:

• none

Probably actually watch in the real theater:

• WALL-E
• Ponyo on a Cliff
• Get Smart
• Dark Knight
• Iron Man
• The Happening
  

Maybe watch, probably in the discount theater:

• Indiana Jones
• X-Files
• Narnia

Perhaps be shocked that they're not awful:

• Speed Racer
• Hancock
• The Forbidden Kingdom

Pass:

• everything else

Think they're especially eye-gouge-worthy:

• Hulk (yes, again. They don't get it.)
• Hellboy 2
• Kung Fu Panda
• You Don't Mess With the Zohan (Adam Sandler as a Mossad agent turned hairdresser)
• Space Chimps
• Dragonball (that is a live-action imagining of the manga/anime series!
  

A final note: there are no "thinkies" this time around. Sorry about that. I know they were all the rage a few years ago, but apparently the intelligence-pessimists took over again. There may be one exception, and we'll see how it is pulled off: Blindness, based on the novel by Portuguese author José Saramago, may in fact be awesome. I'm kind of concerned that Mark Ruffalo is the lead, but it might well be intelligent.

Otherwise, I may just go into estivation.

Obamamentum

Does Hillary have a chance to stop Obama anymore?

Last night's wins in Wisconsin in Hawaii marked Barack Obama's tenth and eleventh straight primary wins since Super Tuesday. What's more, each of them came by double-digit margins - CNN has Obama winning by 17 points in Wisconsin and 52 points in Hawaii. Clinton's campaign maintains that while Obama's recent streak of wins has been impressive, she'll have the last laugh when Texas and Ohio come through for her on March 4. Obama's people have countered by saying she'll need at least double-digit wins in both states to make a dent in his now-sizable delegate lead.

It looks like they may be right. Delegate counts depend on the source you use, but most have the gap between 80 to 100 delegates. Texas has 228 delegates up for grabs, while Ohio has 161. Democratic primaries split up the delegates proportionally, but not by the overall vote. Instead, delegates are determined by the vote in each state senatorial district. The average district in Texas has four delegates. The cutoffs for the delegates are a little complicated. Obviously, if Hillary and Obama split the vote 50-50, each would receive two delegates. For one of them to take a third delegate, however, they need to end up with 63% of the vote. That's not just a double-digit margin of victory, that's over 25 points. We'd need to see a blowout for there to be any substantial change in how delegates are apportioned. That's why Clinton has stayed so close in the delegate count despite losing eleven consecutive contests. (You can simulate results of the primary and see how delegates are allocated here.)

That means that the districts most likely to make a difference are the ones that have an odd number of delegates, since one candidate has to come out at least a delegate ahead. Even a slim margin of victory (51-49, say) is enough to give the winner an extra delegate. Eleven of Texas' 31 districts have an odd number of delegates, so even if Clinton takes the state by a double-digit margin, she's only likely to move eleven delegates closer. She'll need a landslide victory to make up the ground she's lost so far.

That's not to say that Hillary is completely washed up. A couple of key victories could rejuvenate voters' enthusiasm for her, and it would certainly make a strong case for superdelegates to back her. It does mean, however, that she's going to need more support than the 50-48 edge she has in Texas right now to make up ground on Obama.

Hasta la Vista, Fidel

What Castro's departure means for your weekend.

After nearly fifty years heading the Communist Party of Cuba, Fidel Castro announced in a letter today that he would no longer "aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief." The news came as no surprise; Castro, 81, hadn't been seen in public since he went in for abdominal surgery in July 2006, and his brother Raúl has been acting in his place since that time. What was unexpected was Castro's voluntary decision to step down. Many world leaders in similar situations have only relinquished power on their death or at gunpoint. Castro's move, while not unprecedented, was certainly unexpected, and leaves open to debate the question of what will happen next in Cuba.

That doesn't mean, however, that you should start investing in Havana cigars. Castro's departure isn't likely to usher in a new age of democracy and tolerance in Cuba. Raúl was instrumental in suppressing revolution in Cuba, ordering executions and purges as recently as 1996. A Cuba led by Raúl Castro will likely have the same human rights record as the current one, if not slightly more oppressive. While the political climate isn't likely to thaw, however, the economic climate could change. Raúl has expressed concerns about the economic state of the country and wants to bring Cuba into the modern world. Cuba doesn't have the necessary resources to pull that off on its own, though. Where will he turn for aid?

Conventional wisdom would dictate that Raúl would look to the United States for that aid, though he wouldn't do so until after the November elections. He has spoken out against Bush several times since taking power in 2006, calling him "crazy" and "a common braggart." Yet he has been open to the idea of opening diplomatic relations with Washington in an effort to air out their grievances and come to an understanding. This would suggest that Raúl would be more receptive to an Obama government than any of the other major candidates. Obama has said that as president, he would be willing to open relations with nations considered as enemies to America, and Cuba certainly fits the bill. But the subject of Cuba is still a touchy one. Floridians aren't keen on the idea of easing restrictions on Cuba, since it opens the floodgates of refugees to their shores. Neither he nor Hillary Clinton are likely to openly support the idea of easing restrictions on Cuba at the cost of losing a swing state like Florida. Yet Obama is open to the idea of incremental reforms, possibly going further after discussions with Raúl Castro. If nothing else, the situation makes the already-interesting Democratic race even more tantalizing.

What of Fidel, though? His health is failing, but his mind remains alert and sharp. In his letter, he said that his only wish was to "fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas." He plans to continue to write under the title of "Reflections of Comrade Fidel" in Granma, the Cuban equivalent of Pravda. His influence will still be considerable. Castro has been the embodiment of the Cuban revolution for the last fifty years. He will officially only write pieces as opinion, but in Cuba, Castro's opinion is as good as policy. (Picture George Washington retiring but still writing regular dispatches about how he thought the government was doing.)

Essentially, the situation will change in Cuba, but it won't be a dramatic change. We may have to wait until both Castros are out of power before we see any changes with any lasting impact. Those Cuban cigars may be a while yet in coming.

It's Deja Vu All Over Again

Why 2008 could be just like 2004.

Near-nominee and Kennedy heir apparent Barack Obama has been riding a wave of popularity. He's come back from double-digit deficits in national polls to winning eight straight primary and caucus states. No longer the underdog in the Democratic race, he looks like a solid bet to win the nomination, although still not untouchable. (InTrade contracts for an Obama nomination are at 70.5, compared to just over 20 a month and a half ago.) The man's on a roll. Just ask any of his supporters.

So why is all this a bad thing? The problem is that all of this shares some uncanny similarities to John Kerry's 2004 run for the White House, which ended in defeat. Kerry was running a distant third in the polls until the Iowa caucuses, where he scored a dramatic come from behind win. That win propelled him to front-runner standing, prompting a landslide victory on Super Tuesday and the party nomination. Obama is following the same path, albeit with a few more twists and turns. Even if he doesn't win Texas or Ohio, if he stays close with Hillary, it will probably be enough to secure him the nomination, something that seemed impossible as recently as two months ago.

So what, you might ask. You'd be right to be skeptical; after all, plenty of candidates have won the presidency despite initial setbacks. (Just ask Harry Truman.) The similarities go quite a bit deeper, though, and the ones likely to come up soon are the most ominous. Kerry spent his whole campaign dogged by criticism about policy. Skeptics said he spent too much time on rhetoric (specifically anti-Iraq rhetoric) and not enough time saying what he intended to do if elected. Countless times in speeches and debates, he dismissed the claim by saying that if voters wanted to know what he stood for, they could visit his website to see specifics, none of which could be shared publicly due to time constraints. It got to the point that the phrase "I have a plan, and that plan can be found on my website" was commonplace among my friends and I in 2004.

Sound familiar? Obama has excelled at silver-tongued rhetoric so far. People from both parties leave his rallies in tears. His now famous music video, "Yes We Can", brings the rhetoric to the YouTube generation. People love it. But it won't be long before he will be asked to deliver specifics for his plan. Supporters are quick to point out that he's already doing this; he described a recent speech in Wisconsin as "a little more detailed, a little longer, with not as many applause lines." Sounds good, but at a forum at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an Obama staffer dodged questions about the specifics of the senator's research and science plan by referring attendees to the campaign website, saying readers could see how often they "really get into the weeds on an issue." Sounds like echoes of 2004 to me.

Perhaps even more ominously, Obama's and Kerry's opponents are strikingly similar. Kerry ran against George W. Bush, whose approval ratings had been steadily droppings since 9/11. A theme of "Anybody But Bush" ran through the campaign, and yet Kerry was unable to capitalize on it. Could Obama share the same fate? Anti-Bush sentiments run even higher now than they did in 2004, and yet, curiously, Republicans have decided to nominate John McCain, a candidate who inspires revulsion from the party base. If ever there was a year Democrats were destined to win the White House, it's this one. Yet they couldn't do it in 2004, and they may not be able to in 2008 for the same reasons.

Kerry, like many other Democrats, staked a lot of hope on the youth vote. Efforts to rock the vote attracted a lot of attention in the months before the election, yet paid off little. Obama seems to be energizing youth in America like no other candidate in history. Will they help carry him to the presidency, or will they discard him like an outdated 1GB iPod Nano? It's hard to say at this point, but history certainly gives us pause.

Kerry's image as a "flip-flopper" helped hurry along his political demise. (Doubters need look no further than the recent departure of Mitt Romney from the political scene.) Obama has avoided that characterization so far, but he could be in for a major pitfall. Other than the ethereal concept of "hope," Obama has built his campaign on the fact that he opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, a fact most voters are aware of. You can be sure that McCain will bring up the fact that Obama has voted to continue funding for the war since his election to the Senate. It's a tenuous connection, admittedly, but it's one that is sure to come up if Obama secures the nomination. The label "flip-flopper" has become the new "liberal," a word almost guaranteed to sink any presidential ambitions. Don't be surprised if accusations of "idealism" give way to "flip-floppery" in a few months.

After two consecutive November defeats, the Democrats - and particularly Obama supporters - have high hope for 2008. They may be in for a rude awakening come November 4.

The Content Rush

From a service-based economy to a content-based one?

I just watched Juno. The comedic coming-of-age and carrying-to-term story of a 16-year-old girl with a razor wit focuses around two driving forces: the touching story of Juno's trials, and one-liners. You might have to think about it as a teenage Garden State for the YouTube generation. By that I mean I'm using way too many buzzwords. Let's break it down, y'all:

This film is amazing. In essence, a string of well-crafted jokes sitting in the bed of an interesting plot. Its influences are obvious (the awkwardness-comedy of Wes Anderson and Jared Hess, 90's high-school dramas like TV's Freaks and Geeks, a little bit of School of Rock, and fast, verbally-driven comedy that reaches back into ancient times, but has also produced such shining moments as The Thin Man, the works of Groucho Marx, and M*A*S*H). Yes, we love the characters, and a million reviews have touched Juno with the Midas's finger of "real characters", but I'm talking about the jokes. There are lots of them, and some scenes seem to be made for the lines that are going to come out of them. In other words, besides characters, Juno sells us Content.

Content is a proto-buzzword on the Web 2.0 now, meaning: stuff you watch or listen to. Homestar Runner puts out content every week (I know the meme has passed, and it's all about the webcomics now, but H*R was magic for me, and still is), iTunes sells content at a buck a pop, and YouTube funds everything by giving free user-made (or, more often, ripped) content and selling ubiquitous (unless you have the firefox plugin) advertising. More and more, content is something that isn't produced by people with prerequisites--Diablo Cody, writer of Juno, was not trained in screenwriting, and the Chapmans weren't even familiar with Flash when they first drew their terrific athlete.

What does this mean? You can create content. I can create content. If either one of us is lucky, our content, whether it be art, comic strips, music, punditry, commentary, video, screenplay, instruction, education, fiction, or Other, will sell in some way, perhaps to a producer/director, to advertising, merchandising, donations, or on an online store.

What does this mean? A gold rush. The net is in the process of being inundated with new people trying to sell new stuff in new ways. Unfortunately, the majority of internet content is, well, crap. Comic strips without punchlines, terrible home videos, faulty information bases, and links deadened by the thud of the dollar.

Solutions. Stop producing crap and advertising it as gold. If you go through archives of webcomics, you'll find that the first year or so of them are poorly done. So, as you're beginning, don't try to oversell. There's a refining process that needs to happen first. Stop trying to "go big or go home". Maybe you are going to only have a small audience. Do you want to keep producing? I think the answer is yes. If your production of this media costs you less in time than the peanuts you're making in advertising, keep going. Maybe you'll make it big. Maybe you'll just have an enjoyable hobby that gets you a couple extra bucks. Stop copying jokes, visuals, etc. The joy of content is that it's fresh. Really new stuff is the best selling, and contributes to the community. If you're going to make a cultural reference, record a cover, or reveal your influences, do it in a tasteful and interesting way. Don't waste our precious little attention span bandwidth on something we've already seen and heard. That said, the situation or circumstance surrounding new content is only marginally important, and most people won't mind if you reuse a setting if you have something new to say in it.

I'm such a freaking expert about content 'cause I've produced so much of it! (This is sarcastic!) Note, this is an observation, a suggestion for everyone's benefit. Disregard it at the risk of proving me wrong.

Word.

This...is...the closest thing any of us are getting to a webzine anytime soon: I tried to do some HTML and crap, but turns out I'm also writing a Masters' Thesis etc. so this is what we're getting. Welcome to a daily dose of opinions you probably don't agree with. Yay!