Libeskind and the Freedom Tower

We can officially assume now, I think, that Daniel Libeskind and the Freedom

Tower are barely connected any more, let alone in any kind of one-designed-the-other

relationship. My guess is that when all is said and done, the name and the location

– at the north-west corner of the World Trade Center site – will

be Libeskind; the rest will be David Childs.

In the time since my last WTC

update, a number of crucial court decisions have gone against Larry Silverstein,

the leasholder of the original towers. They were insured for about $3.5 billion,

but Silverstein spent untold millions of dollars in a desperate attempt to get

double the amount that the towers were insured for, saying that he should be

paid out in full for each of the two attacks. In the end, he failed, and now

he simply doesn’t have the money to start building the spiral of skyscrapers

that Libeskind imagined in his site plan. I’m sure that Normal Foster, Fumihiko

Maki and Jean Nouvel – the architects slated to design the other office

towers – still have some kind of contract going, but if I were them, I

wouldn’t be holding my breath.

What that means is that the Freedom Tower is going to be a self-standing landmark

for the foreseeable future, much more than a single element in a much larger

scheme. There will be lots of interesting stuff going on at ground level, of

course, but as far as the skyline is concerned, the Freedom Tower is pretty

much the beginning and the end of what’s going to rise at the WTC site.

As a consequence, it makes little sense for Childs to compromise his own vision

overmuch in the service of a greater unity which might well never happen. (Even

if the other office towers do get built, there’s no guarantee that their architects

will pay any more obeisance to the Libeskind master plan than Childs has done.)

So the sloping roof is likely to go, the height of the tower is likely to increase

from Libeskind’s symbolic 1,776 feet to the CAA’s maximum allowable 2,000 feet,

and the spire could well be jettisoned entirely.

I haven’t seen any new designs which make me say this. But I have seen the

news

reports, and it’s clear that Libeskind and Silverstein are barely on speaking

terms any more. Libeskind wants $800,000 for his work on the Freedom Tower;

Silverstein has offered $125,000 and clearly has no interest maintaining a good

working relationship with the avant-garde architect.

The difference seems to come down, at heart, to the question of whether the

Freedom Tower is an integral part of the site plan, on which, there is no doubt,

Libeskind has done a lot of work. Silverstein says that it’s his building, he’s

got his own architect, and that insofar as Libeskind did work on the tower as

part of the master plan, he was compensated for it out of his $2.25 million

fee from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.

Both the New York

Post and Miss

Representation are pretty dismissive of Libeskind’s claims, which are backed

up with no time sheets or other documentation. But I can kind of see where Libeskind

is coming from: any officially-designated "collaborating architect"

would feel he was owed something substantial from the building he was collaborating

on, especially when that building was probably the single most important skyscraper

to be built in many decades. Ultimately, however, I imagine that history will

treat Libeskind’s contributions to the Freedom Tower as even less important

than Philip Johnson’s contributions to the Seagram Building: Johnson is much

more famous for designing the Four Seasons restaurant on the inside than he

is for designing the building itself. Maybe Libeskind should angle for the gig

as lead architect on the new Windows on the World.

Posted in Culture | 4 Comments

Postrel responds

Virginia Postrel has responded

to my post of last week,

on the subject of her take on federal highway spending. Basically, she doesn’t

believe the numbers being bandied around Washington on the subject of how many

jobs are created when roads are built. Here’s the heart of her argument:

This story is supposedly about net new jobs, not merely leaving

people in other industries unemployed in order to hire the politically favored.

The money has to come from somewhere, and if you’re simply moving it around,

some folks are going to lose their jobs.

Essentially, she seems to be saying, spending money is a zero-sum game, and

every $1 billion spent on building roads is $1 billion not spent building factories,

say, or something else entirely. In order to find the number of net new jobs

created by a road-building program, you need to subtract the number of jobs

that the same amount of money would create elsewhere.

I don’t buy it. Remember, this is federal government expenditure, and it’s

not the federal government’s job to build factories. If a new factory is a good

economic proposition, then the private sector can raise the funds to build it

– interest rates are still low, if not as low as they were a few months

ago. The choice, here, is not between public investment and private investment:

it’s between the government building roads and the government not building roads.

Let’s suppose that no new roads are built, or no new roads beyond the $256

billion that everyone seems to be OK with. This would be a great outcome: it

would reduce government pork-barrel spending, reduce the deficit, save the environment

from the impact of road-building projects, and reduce the total number of cars

on the road at any given time. But it would also, quite clearly, reduce the

number of jobs created by federal road-building projects, and also reduce the

total number of jobs in the economy.

To see why, you just need to ask yourself where the extra money would come

from. As a federal expenditure, the funds would come out of the federal budget,

and the budget deficit would thereby be that much larger – no one’s proposing

any tax hikes to pay for all this. The marginal spending on roads will be financed

by federal borrowing. And who lends money to the federal government? Asian central

banks, to a large degree, and other investors who are much more interested in

safety than they are in total return. It is simply not the case that those Asian

central banks, deprived of being able to invest their money in Treasury bills,

would fund venture-capital projects instead.

Now, there is a small "crowding-out" effect, as economists like to

put it. As US government borrowing goes up, interest rates do too. (The Wall

Street Journal and other right-wingers dispute even this, I might add.) The

higher that interest rates go, the less likely that borrowing money is a prudent

way of funding a business. And so some businesses which can only expand with

very low interest rates might be hurt if federal spending continues to rise.

But there is certainly no credit crunch in the US economy: pretty much anybody

who wants to borrow money still can. Federal road building doesn’t stop anybody

from pursuing their own economically productive activities: indeed, at the margin,

it probably facilitates the business plans of people who need more or better

roads in order to succeed, like those who want to build factories in rural areas

off the present highway system.

In other words, I see no evidence that federal expenditure automatically reduces

jobs in areas far removed from where the money is being spent, as Postrel implies.

If the US economy was closed, and the budget deficit weren’t largely funded

from abroad, I might be more persuadable. And if there was some kind of limit

to wealth creation – if the total size of the economy were somehow capped,

and the money for road-building came out of the pockets of US citizens and businesses

– then I would also be more likely to agree. But it’s not today’s Americans

who are paying for these roads, it’s tomorrow’s. Today’s Americans simply see

the budget deficit increase, along with their chances of getting work building

a new highway.

Quickly addressing Postrel’s other points: I have no idea what she means when

she says that "construction workers are pretty fully employed". Does

she mean that a very large proportion of people who work in construction are

working in construction? Seems tautological to me. I’m sure that if the government

spent more money on road building, then more construction workers would be created.

And as for diminishing returns, I have no idea. But road-building is usually

a very local industry; if the first $1 billion is spent in North Carolina and

the 300th $1 billion is spent in Alaska, I should imagine that the returns,

in terms of jobs created, won’t have diminished all that much. But that’s a

question for Arthur Jacoby, the man in charge of creating the input-output models,

and not for me.

Posted in Finance | 4 Comments

For Some, the Blogging Never Stops

TO celebrate four years of of writing about blogs, Kevin McKenna, the editor

of the New York Times Circuits section, and his deputy, Henry Fountain, recently

spent a week working

wirelessly from Bryant Park. Early on the morning of their fourth day dodging

pigeon droppings, Mr. McKenna saw his deputy get up and wander over to the lions

guarding the New York Public Library. He stayed there for a long time.

"I didn’t get any IMs from him for more than five minutes, so I wondered

what was going on," Mr. McKenna said. When he finally walked around the

library to find out, he found his deputy seated with his laptop balanced on

his knees, his head balanced on his laptop. "It’s desperate," Mr.

McKenna recalls Mr. Fountain saying. "I can’t think of a single new angle

for a blogging story!"

Writing about blogs is a pastime for many, even a livelihood for a few. For

some, it becomes an obsession. Such people often feel compelled to commission

new pieces several times daily and feel anxious if they don’t keep up. As they

spend more time hunkered over their computers, they neglect family, friends

and jobs. They try to come up with story ideas at home, at work and on the road.

They beg openly or sometimes, like Mr. Fountain, quietly so as not to call attention

to their despair.

Sometimes, too, the realization that no one is reading sets in. A few parts

of the New York Times have millions of readers, but never have so many freelance

journalists written so much to be read by so few. By Jupiter Research’s estimate,

only 4 of the New York Times’s online users read stories about blogs.

Where some editors might label themselves merely ardent, Mr. Fountain is more

realistic. "I wouldn’t call it dedicated, I would call it a problem,"

he said. "If this were beer, I’d be an alcoholic."

Mr. Fountain described the rush he gets from what he called "the fix"

provided by seeing one of his ideas appear in print. "The pleasure response

is twofold," he said. "You can have instant gratification; you’re

going to hear about something really good or bad instantly. You know what bloggers

are like. And if I feel like I’ve commissioned something good, it’s enjoyable

to go back and read it. Sadly, that hasn’t happened much recently."

Jeff Jarvis, president of Advance.net, a company that builds Web sites for

newspapers and magazines, and a blogging enthusiast, defended the fact that

he is quoted in every single article about blogging ever written. "The

addictive part is not so much extreme narcissism," Mr. Jarvis said. "It’s

that you’re involved in a conversation. You have a connection to people through

the blog."

The constant search for blog stories is what led Alan Krauss, a staff editor

at the Times, to commission to the point of near-despair. Hounded by his boss,

Mr. Rothfuss, 27, asked for 750 words that focused on technical topics. "I

was trying to record all thoughts and speculations I deemed interesting,"

he said. "The obsession came from trying to capture as much as possible

of the good stuff in the blogosphere in as high fidelity as possible."

Eventually, Mr McKenna recalled, he reached rock bottom: he sent

a photographer all the way to Key West just to take a photo of a blogger.

Still, he does not rule out running even more articles about blogs someday.

Maybe even next week.

Posted in Humour | 14 Comments

Postrel, highways and jobs

One of the great things about blogs written by professional journalists is

that they often contain a lot more information than gets printed. Newspaper

columns, by their very nature, have to be a certain length and accessible to

a wide audience. Blog entries, on the other hand, can provide lots of extra

information which didn’t make it into the paper. Daniel Radosh

regularly regales us with things which got cut from articles of his in print;

when Dan Drezner wrote his Foreign

Affairs piece on outsourcing, he blogged

all his sources.

Virginia Postrel is completely different. She has a column in the New York

Times, and generally gives us much more information there than she does into

her blog entries, which she uses basically for expressing opinions.

Recently, Postrel has devoted both her NYT column and many blog posts to the

subject of federal highway funding. We first heard about it in this

post, entitled "Gullible Reporter Alert", in which she excoriated

the AP’s Jim Abrams for printing nothing more than "propaganda" on

the subject of road-building. The article

was certainly one-sided, and seemed to accept as an article of faith that spending

more money on US motorways is a Very Good Thing. But Postrel didn’t really fisk

it: she just complained that Abrams didn’t provide any sourcing for the claim

that 47,500 jobs are created for every $1 billion invested in federal highway

and transit programs. Then, she told us to wait for her own article on the subject,

forthcoming in the New York Times.

Right on schedule, the

article arrived. It was headlined "Does Highway Spending Really Pay

Off?" and it asked how much economic benefit the US actually receives from

this expenditure. Based on an article in The Journal of Urban Economics, Postrel

claimed that the rate of return on infrastructure investment has fallen from

15% in the 1970s to less than 5% today.

It’s a good argument, and a good column: it provides ammunition for fiscal

hawks on both sides of the political spectrum who hate to see government spending

spiralling out of control even as the Bush administration continues to push

further tax cuts.

It doesn’t, however, say anything at all about jobs.

But Postrel was on a roll at this point, and soon published an email she received

from a reader, bringing up that jobs number once again. The anonymous correspondent

cited an even more anonymous "expert" at the Congressional Research

Office, saying that "the figure was basically a garbage number that was

cooked up for a DOT study in the mid-90s".

Then, yesterday, Postrel got an email from Arthur Jacoby, the alleged number-cooker.

She blogged it,

she said, "in the interests of fairness": not, one notes, in the interests

of actually getting to the bottom of the jobs question. Jacoby attached a Word

document which is precisely the source for the 47,500 jobs figure Postrel

was complaining that Abrams didn’t provide. It makes for interesting reading,

and breaks the jobs down quite explicitly: in the first round, 12,453 jobs are

created in the highway construction sector, along with 7,132 jobs in equipment

and materials supplying industries. Then, in the second round, 6,939 jobs are

created "because of the additional demand for inputs needed to expand output

in industries that supply highway construction materials". Finally, in

the third round, 21,052 jobs are created, reflecting "producer’s

response to an increase in consumer demand for all types of goods and services".

Of the 47,576 total jobs created, then, a good 44% are connected to highway

construction only in the most peripheral way. And, of course, all of these figure

come from a computer program – something called the JOBMOD income and

employment estimation model – which, like all economic models, will have

internal weaknesses and may or may not reflect what actually happens in the

real world particularly well.

But Postrel’s response to Jacoby’s email is fascinating: she doesn’t really

respond to anything he says at all. Rather, she snarks that "taxpayers

paid experts to come up with the calculation" – er, yes, Virginia,

would you rather that they hadn’t? and continues with this gem:

But it still doesn’t pass the smell test. Federal construction jobs pay more

than $20,000 each, and this isn’t the Great Depression; most people hired

would be doing something else if they weren’t building government roads.

$20,000, for those of you who are a bit weak on mathematics, is $1 billion

divided by 50,000 jobs, and it’s an utterly disingenuous figure. The fact that

Postrel printed it at all makes me doubt everything else she writes: it’s pure

rhetoric, with a "la la la I can’t hear you" relationship to the facts

that Jacoby provided.

For one thing, Jacoby makes it clear that the $1 billion is not really $1 billion

at all: by the time that state matching funds are added in, total government

expenditures are $1.25 billion. Then, the number of jobs created directly when

that $1.25 billion is spent on building roads is not 50,000, it’s 19,585. So

if you’re going to do any division here, try dividing $1.25 billion by 19,585:

the result is about $64,000. Which is much closer to how much jobs cost these

days, and which does "pass the smell test".

Moreover, Jacoby is surely right to include more than just the first-tier jobs

in his calculations. After all, if I’m spending billions of dollars on equipment

and materials, it stands to reason that demand – and jobs – will

be created in the industries which supply those materials. The third-tier jobs,

which are far more trickle-down, we might argue about, but (a) Postrel doesn’t;

and (b) they’re surely non-zero, in any case.

Postrel, however, doesn’t buy any of this. Rather, her "most people hired

would otherwise be doing something else" argument seems to imply that there

can never be any job creation in an economy with a relatively low unemployment

rate. If I’m hired by a construction company because they got a government contract

to build a road, has my job been created? Not if you’re Virginia Postrel, it

hasn’t: if I’d otherwise be flipping burgers or designing software, then my

job laying tarmac somehow doesn’t count.

What’s more, there seems to be an implication in Postrel’s argument that every

job created building roads means one less burger flipper or software developer

elsewhere in the economy. Let’s say that I stop flipping burgers and start laying

tarmac when the government contract hits town. OK, if you’re just looking at

me, I had one job before and I have one job now, so employment hasn’t gone up.

But when McBurgers hires my kid sister to replace me – and it surely will,

given the $1 billion boost my local economy has just received – total

employment has, in fact, gone up.

Postrel doesn’t stop there, however. Check out her very next sentence:

Keep in mind that these job projections are not based on the assumption

that highway spending is investment that increases productivity. (Her emphasis.)

This is just hilarious. The implication, to those people who haven’t been following

the story on her blog over the past couple of weeks, is that the "highway

spending increases productivity" argument is better than the "highway

spending creates jobs" argument. She neglects to mention, of course, that

she’s just written an article in the New York Times comprehensively destroying

the "highway spending increases productivity" argument, while she

hasn’t, up until this point, addressed the quite obvious "highway spending

creates jobs" argument at all.

So how does she do it? Any ten-year-old can see that if the government comes

into town and gives thousands of people jobs building roads, then, well, jobs

are being created. Only an economist could possibly disagree:

They assume that the spending is jacking up employment directly through the

hiring of construction workers and indirectly through their spending. That

Keynesian story only works if you assume lots of slack in the system.

It certainly looks here that Postrel is characterising "jacking up employment

directly through the hiring of construction workers" as a "Keynesian

story". Of course, it isn’t at all. If I open one of Postrel’s beloved

nail salons, and hire half a dozen manicurists, then I have a feeling she would

agree I’ve just created six jobs. She wouldn’t tell me that those jobs are a

Keynesian story which only exist if there’s some mysteriously-defined "slack

in the system" (I think she means unemployment, but it’s far from clear).

When the government hires people, on the other hand, or gives money to construction

companies who hire people, then suddenly the spending is "Keynsian"

and therefore suspect. Yes, it’s possible to argue about how much of a stimulus

general government expenditure really gives to an economy and to the employment

numbers. But you can’t simply say that government spending never creates jobs

in both the public and private sectors: just look at the economy of the Washington

DC conurbation, where Postrel lives.

At this point, I feel I ought to say that, as an opponent of government pork

in general, I think that Postrel is right about the highways bill. What’s more,

I particularly dislike federal roads spending, because it hides the real cost

of America’s car culture and does enormous damage to the environment. I daresay

that spending $1 billion on the arts, say, would create even more jobs, with

much less collateral damage.

Do I think that the government should increase employment? Yes. Do I think

the government should do that directly, by spending money on programmes which

are labour-intensive? No. But does spending money on labour-intensive projects

create jobs? Of course. To think otherwise is to be blinded by idealism.

PS Virginia, if you’re reading this, can you please date your individual blog

entries? They’re timestamped on the main blog page, but not on the permalinks.

UPDATE: Postrel has responded

to this, and I’ve responded right back.

Posted in Finance | Comments Off on Postrel, highways and jobs

Housing bubbles

Is the New York (indeed, the US) housing bubble going to burst? A look at the

situation in the UK would suggest that it isn’t. Interest rates have already

started rising

there – but a new

report says that 25 or 50 basis points here or there is going to make no

difference, and that rates will have to double before the mania is

controlled.

What’s going on? The average UK house price is now increasing

at a rate of £1,100 a week: that’s $2,000, near enough. Capital

gains on housing are generally tax-free, which means that a worker would have

to be earning a six-figure salary – in pounds

sterling – just to match the amount that the average homeowner is

making from just sitting in their property as it appreciates.

It’s worth remembering, too, that all these numbers are UK averages: insert

whatever insane multiplier you like to get the equivalent numbers for London.

But to take Tony Blair’s old

house as an example, the PM sold in 1997, when he moved to Downing Street,

for £615,000; it’s now back on the market, listed at £1.69 million.

In other words, if he’d retired instead of becoming prime minister, he’d’ve

made £1.08 million – just under $2 million – from owning a

six-bedroom in Islington. That’s more than he’s made as PM.

The bubble is being driven, it would seem, by people known in the UK as "buy-to-let

investors" – basically, individuals who buy houses not in order to

live in them, but rather to rent them out. Historically, this market has behaved

rather like a bond market: given a set rental income and a set mortgage rate,

it’s easy to calculate how much a house should be worth. More recently, however,

buy-to-let investors have been behaving more like equity investors, who treat

rental income more like a welcome stock dividend than as the main reason for

buying the asset in the first place.

Whenever there’s a housing bubble, prices always rise faster than rents. We’re

seeing that in New York: it’s been a long time since you could cover mortgage

and maintenance costs by renting a place out. The UK is the same way, but the

buyers don’t care: even if they have to pay some of the mortgage costs themselves,

they’re making so much money in capital appreciation that it doesn’t matter.

This kind of thing isn’t really happening in the US to nearly the same extent.

The housing market is something touted in late-night get-rich-quick schemes

on the television, not a respectable way to build a nest egg. But consider a

student who’s just graduating from NYU. If that student, or her parents, had

bought a place four years ago and sold it now, there’s a good chance that the

profit could cover not only the mortgage and maintenance costs, but tuition

fees as well. If you start off rich enough, it would seem, you can essentially

go to college in New York for nothing these days.

Just like any other asset bubble, the longer this kind of unsustainable situation

goes on, the more people pile in, trying to get rich quick. It’s easy: buy a

$1 million apartment today, with $100,000 down and a 90% mortgage at 6%. Watch

it go up by 75% in two years, and sell it for $1.75 million in two years’ time.

You’ve spent $108,000 on mortgage costs, say another $24,000 in maintenance

costs, and a bunch more in legal fees – say $150,000 all in all. Your

total investment: $250,000, including down-payment and costs. Your total return:

$1.75 million minus $900,000 in mortgage equals $850,000. Net profit: $600,000,

or $300,000 a year: call it $25,000 a month. Oh, and you spent nothing on rent

the entire time. Sound attractive?

Of course, you’d make even more if the mortgage were smaller and you paid more

of the upfront cost in cash. So you take your $600,000 and use it as the down

payment on somewhere else – and so the cycle continues. Even if you allow

yourself $100,000 a year for living expenses, you can rapidly make millions

by flipping properties in a bubble economy.

This sort of behaviour is quite common in the UK; it’s barely even beginning

here in the US. Very few Americans buy property in order to become rich; most

still do it for the old-fashioned reason of needing somewhere to live. The frenzy

of apartment-buyers in Manhattan is not a slathering horde of speculators falling

over themselves to get a piece of the property-market action: rather, it’s a

bunch of stressed-out professionals desperately trying to find somewhere they

can afford to buy.

Look at those UK base rates again. They’re at 4.25%, compared to just 1% in

the US. Even if we get 325 basis points of tightening, we’ll only be at the

same place that the UK is now, and the UK’s rates are clearly well below the

level needed to decelerate house-price inflation. In other words, don’t count

on the Fed to precipitate a housing-market correction.

Sooner or later, of course, property prices will come down: they can’t keep

on running away from rental incomes indefinitely. But they’re a bit like the

US current-account deficit: unsustainable in the long term, but showing no sign

of decreasing any time soon. So long as the economy continues to expand, my

guess is that people will continue to feel comfortable putting their money into

bricks and mortar – and increasingly, they’ll be doing so as an investment.

After all, we’re four years on from the dot-com crash, and property is the only

asset class which has done very well in good years and bad.

So, what would I do in this market? Buying property is very expensive –

and, in the long term, I believe, it could prove to be extremely painful. Does

anybody remember negative

equity? Maybe the best thing to do would be to start a new blog, devoted

to the excesses of the New York property market. That should be bound to do

well. I’m not good at coming up with names, but curbed.com has a nice ring to

it. I haven’t checked it out, though: maybe someone else has got there before

me?

Posted in Finance | 5 Comments

Ethics lapse at Time Inc

The blogosphere is all atwitter

this afternoon about an article

Greg Lindsay wrote about Nick Denton, and Denton’s response.

Blogfight! If you want to see Lindsay’s response to Denton (and me), it’s below.

The name-calling is fun: Denton calls Lindsay an "obsessed and confused"

"gossip columnist", and gets off this zinger: "Greg Lindsay is

about as reliable as a journalist who turns to an Iraqi exile for intelligence

on Saddam’s hidden nukes." (Funny: I have a suspicion that being compared

to Judith Miller might not strike Lindsay as all that much of an insult.)

More interesting to me, however, is the email from Denton which Lindsay reproduces

at the top of page 2 of his article:

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Nick Denton
Greg Lindsay
Calacanis
Tue,13 Apr 2004 11:16:27 -0400

Hey, Greg — not sure whether you’re still doing your business-of-blogging story. But here’s a possible peg.

[Jason] Calacanis has commitments for $4M from Mark Cuban and an Israeli investor, possibly Yossi Vardi. You didn’t hear it from me.

Like I told you, Calacanis is a much better business story than I am.

Nick

"You didn’t hear it from me"? It doesn’t get much more off-the-record

than that, and Denton confirms that "Yes, Lindsay reprinted an off-the-record

email without permission." Lindsay, on the other hand, says that he "did

not extend any off-the-record privileges to" Denton, and therefore is not

bound by any unilateral declaration of confidentiality.

But it’s not just Lindsay who reprinted that email, either: It’s Business 2.0

magazine, published by the Fortune group of Time Inc. This is a big-time magazine,

with a rate base of 550,000, and a page rate of $53,000. It’s not a scrappy

zine, and it surely considers itself bound by all normal conventions of journalistic

ethics.

So what made this high-profile national magazine decide to print an explicitly

off-the-record communication from a pretty important person in the new-media

universe? The whole article is mildly antagonistic towards Denton, but this

looks like a gratuitous attempt to break up whatever rapprochement he and Calacanis

might have been moving towards. (Calacanis even went so far as to say that the

two were friends, at the New York Bloggers event

earlier this month.)

Worse, however, printing this email must surely do some serious damage to Lindsay,

Business 2.0, and Time Inc generally, regarding their treatment of sources.

Email is the number one method of communicating these days, and I’m sure that

Business 2.0 reporters get off-the-record emails on a constant basis. As of

now, any of their sources who pick up the June issue of the magazine will come

to the eminently reasonable conclusion that the editors have no problem with

reprinting such emails.

Will the flow of tips into Business 2.0 slow as a result of this article appearing?

I don’t know, but it seems entirely possible. The email from Denton to Lindsay

was not particularly newsworthy in and of itself, and didn’t even add much to

the rest of the story: it could have been left out at very little detriment

to the article. But Lindsay and his editors decided to keep it in, maybe in

juvenile retaliation for not getting the long interview with Denton they’d been

hoping for.

If I was running the Fortune group at Time Inc, I’d be asking some extremely

pointed questions of Josh Quittner, the editor of Business 2.0, right now. What

are your rules for printing off-the-record emails? When, if ever, is it appropriate?

And what on earth made it appropriate in this instance?

Denton seems more concerned about broader errors within the piece, and, not

knowing the truth, I have no idea whether he or Lindsay is right on that front.

But journalists make mistakes the whole time, and if Denton wouldn’t speak to

him, one can understand why Lindsay might run with revenue estimates from someone

else. Ethical lapses are worse, however, and redound not only on the writer

but also on the magazine and its publisher. Maybe Denton doesn’t care: he’s

been accused of worse himself.

But Time Inc really should.

UPDATE: Greg Lindsay writes:

My editors and I have a reason and a reasoning for running Nick’s email.

The backstory to this, which Nick, of course, is not going to mention, is that

he was actively hostile to this story throughout most of the process, stonewalling

for weeks before relenting, unbidden, only a few days before deadline.

Nick was approached about this story in late March, at which time he unequivocally

refused to work with me, despite the fact that it was pitched as a positive

story. (And while Nick might rant at length about it on his site, even he admits

on his blog that I make him "out to be more cunning than I am — but that’s

kind of flattering." Which it was meant to be.)

But Nick said no. And furthermore, he flatly refused to grant me access to his

writers and vowed to obstruct my access to his friends and figures in his past.

That was fine. My editors and I resolved to write around him — all this meant

was that he couldn’t spin us — and I didn’t speak to Nick while reporting most

of this story.

Then, out of the blue, Nick sent the email that appears in the story.

The reason we published it: This story was about how "Nick ticks,"

to paraphrase the headline. His decision to send that email after freezing me

out was indicative of Nick’s business tactics and media manipulation. You or

he or anyone can claim I’m just bitter that he wouldn’t talk to me, but plenty

of his embittered "associates" did, and sending that email reflected

a cunning that I heard about at length while reporting this story. He was trying

to take the heat off himself while potentially queering his competitor’s deal.

I know for a fact that he spread that information around — in fact, I wasn’t

even the first person who asked Jason about it at Bloggercon. That was actually

Rick Bruner, who Nick knows from their Budapest days. And I don’t know what

this talk is about a "rapprochement" between Nick and Jason. I know

that Jason genuinely likes Nick, but their relationship is a one-way street

when it comes to respect.

The reasoning behind our decision to publish it: Nick was not a source at the

time he sent that email. He was an openly hostile subject whom I was not in

communication with. I did not extend any off-the-record privileges to him —

he simply assumed I would be delighted to do so in an attempt to curry favor.

I did later extend that privilege to him, and I’m not about to reprint our later

emails, phone conversations, etc. But you’re implying that I, my editors, and

Henry Luce violated a source agreement with him. We didn’t, because I made no

such agreement regarding that email. He can’t have it both ways.

I could go on — this whole notion that I’m bitter because Choire Sicha repeatedly

called me a metrosexual is absurd. It was a joke, people. And Nick’s ravings

that Josh Quittner and I are bitter because we missed out on the boom are hysterical

too, Josh and I agree. Two points though: I assume the truth about Gawker Media

and Kinja will appear in an upcoming issue of Wired, since Nick’s friend and

business partner Chris Anderson assigned a lengthy piece on Nick as well. Those

relationships will be disclosed, I’m certain, but still. And I think it’s funny

that Nick grandstands to the NY Times that he and Wonkette are practically beyond

good and evil but he’s miffed about this.

Sincerely,

Greg Lindsay

Posted in Media | 1 Comment

Timeless art

Is there such a thing as timeless beauty? I’m a fan of built-in

obsolescence in art, but at the same time many great artistic creations

can and have retained all their power and beauty for centuries. Look at Piero

della Francesca, say, or Johann Sebastian Bach, or, even further back, the pyramids

of Egypt.

When it comes to modern art, there are two very distinct strands, which take

very different views of timelessness. The first approach, increasingly popular

these days, is to follow the Tate Modern approach, and have exhibitions full

of superficially improbable juxtapositions, in an attempt to get people to see

new things in familiar pieces. The second approach is that found at Dia:Beacon,

a museum and foundation dedicated to permanent exhibitions and the proposition

that great art needs no curatorial interference, and should rather be left untouched

for posterity.

Personally, while I couldn’t live wholly on the high seriousness of Dia, I

love going up there and seeing some of the greatest art ever made in its optimal

surroundings. Wonderfully, since I was there last the Sol Lewitt area has been

improved immeasurably with a second enormous wall drawing, and it’s a magnificent

sight to behold. And if you need a reason to visit now, as opposed to any time

in the next couple of decades, here‘s

a really good one: a temporary Agnes Martin show, with some very rare early

works from the late 1950s.

Agnes Martin has always been a bit of a curious fish: the same generation as

the Abstract Expressionists, she emerged on the art scene in her late 40s, along

with artists a generation younger such as Ellsworth Kelly and Donald Judd. She’s

similar to both groups, but has never really been a part of either of them,

and indeed has lived a semi-mystical life in New Mexico for the past 35 years,

painting maybe 12 or 15 trademark square canvases per year, and sending them

off to Pace in New York to get sold.

In fact, Martin has a new show

up at 57th Street right now, of paintings dated 2002 and 2003 – in other

words, entirely since she turned 90. Some of them recall the early works at

Dia, with Martin finally jettisoning her lines and grids, and returning to more

geometric forms. But all of them are large squares: whether the sides are 60

inches or 70, Martin has found her medium and she is sticking to it.

For all her consistency, however, there’s no doubt that Martin was doing her

best work in the mid-60s. One of the problems with Dia:Beacon is that it’s necessarily

weighted towards the most recent work of artists like Martin and Robert Ryman

– Martin donated some paintings to the museum, but of course they’re not

the 60s paintings which she sold long ago.

This exhibition, then, is a very welcome opportunity to see the paintings which

Martin is most famous for, in a small show which nevertheless exhibits them

to their very best effect. Martin hasn’t had a retrospective in over a decade:

her paintings are often very fragile, and their owners are loath to lend them

out. Here, however, the 1964 masterpieces "The Beach" and "The

Peach" are proudly displayed, both now effectively part of the Dia permanent

collection. They’re shown as the culmination of a few years’ worth of experimentation,

during which Martin pared down her artistic vocabulary so as to emphasise only

the subtlest and most beautiful of lines, colours and grids.

Meanwhile, timeless painting of a very different nature is up at GBE (Modern),

Gavin Brown’s lovely new space in the West Village. He’s got a wonderful Elizabeth

Peyton show up now, and everybody should really make their way to Greenwich

and Leroy to check it out. Peyton is being shown alongside David Hockney at

the Whitney Biennial at the moment, and you can see why: her beautiful paintings

of youths recall Hockney’s own tenderest work. I can’t think of anybody who

can paint in such a heartbreaking manner, and I’m quite sure that she’s one

of the few artists you can guarantee will still be collected centuries from

now.

On the other hand, fashions do change, and even the strongest artistic achievements

can fall foul of aesthetic winds blowing in the wrong direction. I had the great

good fortune to eat at La Caravelle today, just a week before it shutters

for good on May 22. I had never been before, and I’m extremely glad I went:

I doubt I’ll experience another meal like it ever again in North America. The

dining room was light and beautifully decorated, without any of the stuffiness

of many formal restaurants. The food was of the absolutely highest order: my

softshell crab starter simply melted in the mouth, and came with a pile of other

flavours. I have no idea what they were, but I could have eaten that dish all

day. I’m one of those people who generally says that only the Chinese really

know how to cook softshells, but La Caravelle had the best I’ve ever tasted.

But the fashion in restaurants these days, of course, is more towards trendiness:

people care less about the food and more about the crowd, the design, the cocktails.

The patrons of La Caravelle were definitely of a certain age: I’d say there

were more facelifts than there were people under 40. And it’s hard to see how

the restaurant could attract a younger crowd without betraying all its finest

principles of proper French haute cuisine. So it is destined to close, along

with Lutèce and La Côte Basque, evidence of how the very best art

can lose its cachet.

In France, at least, such cuisine lives on, and maybe La Tour D’Argent or some

other restaurant in Paris will serve as a kind of culinary equivalent of Dia:Beacon

– a place where you can always be sure to find the cleanest, purest expression

of its own kind of art. Meanwhile, the crowds will flock to Spice Market or

Tate Modern, picking and choosing whatever they desire that day. I just hope

there’s room for both approaches; in painting, food, or any other art form.

Posted in Culture | Comments Off on Timeless art

Beleaguered editors

I readily admit that I live in an anglophone bubble, but I think it’s probably

fair to say that Piers Morgan is the highest-profile newspaper editor in the

world. Make that was the highest-profile newspaper editor in the world:

He has now been fired, and escorted out of the building without even having

the oppportunity to say goodbye to his own staff, for refusing

to apologise for running faked photographs purporting to show UK soldiers

abusing prisoners.

The Mirror staff blame

mysterious "faceless American shareholders" for the ouster, but even

without elaborate conspiracy theories, it is clear that Morgan, for all his

ethical misjudgments, was very popular in his own newsroom. The people clamoring

for his head were in Westminster, not so much in the media or the public.

In the UK, hacks misbehave the whole time, and their worst punishment is usually

ridicule in the pages of Private Eye, rather than righteous defenestration.

In the US, on the other hand, editors should be much more afraid when newspapers

attack them than when politicians do. It was media hounding, more than anything

else, which resulted in the firing of New York Times editor Howell Raines, and

now the New

York Times and LA

Times have both rushed to print today with stories saying that Graydon Carter,

the editor of Vanity Fair, might be a little too cozy with Hollywood; more such

stories seem sure to follow. The articles are pretty weak – one of the

reasons that readers like Vanity Fair is precisely because it oozes

insiderism – but the defenses of Carter’s apologists are weaker.

Kurt Andersen, Carter’s co-founder at Spy, says in the LA Times piece that

"the obligations of a reporter for the Los Angeles Times or New York Times

are different from an editor at a magazine or other media entity," before

sensibly deciding not to dig himself any further into that particular hole,

and declining to elaborate.

Jack Shafer, in Slate, on the other hand, makes an attempt at a full-fledged

defense, saying that what Carter did was not so different from the actions

of Jann Wenner at Rolling Stone or Tina Brown at Talk. But there’s a crucial

difference: Carter is a hired editor, not a proprietor. Journalistic ethics,

in real life, do not apply to publishers: if Piers Morgan had owned

the Mirror, rather than merely editing it, he would have been untouchable. The

distinction that Shafer elides is that Wenner is being accused of abusing his

position for personal benefit, rather than for the benefit of the magazine

or its owners.

And Shafer also buries the most damaging accusation so far down that you’d

barely notice it. Here’s his take on what Carter’s accused of:

The two newspapers compile similar dossiers on Carter’s extracurricular adventures

in the movie business: He’s produced pictures (The Kid Stays in the Picture;

9/11, a CBS documentary), worked as a paid consultant (Brian Grazer’s A Beautiful

Mind), partnered with screenwriter Mitch Glazer to pitch (unsuccessfully)

a movie based on a Vanity Fair story, acted (the Alfie remake), and built

friendships with Hollywood notables (Barry Diller, Jim Wiatt, Grazer again).

Do you see the smoking gun? No? Well, it’s that bit about "worked as a

paid consultant". Long after A Beautiful Mind was produced and distributed

to critical acclaim, Carter started saying that he deserved some kind of reward

for suggesting that the Vanity Fair article on which the movie was based should

be turned into a film in the first place. And so it came to pass:18 months after

the film came out, Carter got his $100,000. No-one was paying Carter to consult:

he basically demanded cash from a successful Hollywood film producer, who knew

better than to say no.

It seems corrupt on its face: a powerful magazine editor (the most powerful

magazine editor in Hollywood, in fact) essentially extorting money from film

producers. But Carter runs an extremely profitable book, and he’s likely to

keep his job, along with its hefty 7-figure salary, for the time being. Unless

much more along these lines starts trickling out, of course.

Posted in Media | Comments Off on Beleaguered editors

Hoolie

It is, as the title suggests, blowing an absolute hoolie outside and I fear

I have been over-romanticising Antarctica in my latest scrawls. I have not seen

the sun for a week. I have been outside, for more than five minutes, three times

only. I have been lifted off my feet, fallen on my face, clung onto a handline

for fear of never seeing a building again and have turned all the instruments

in my lab off until the storm passes.

It is currently blowing 37 knots outside from the east. The average windspeed

dropped to 27 knots Saturday morning and went as high as 59 last week. Gusts

of 70 knots were not uncommon. To those of you unfamiliar with nautical miles,

think ordinary miles per hour. That’s a lot of air to go past your face. And

a lot of snow being carried in the air. The building rocks and sways as though

it were a ship, water gurgles in sinks and toilets, unidentified swinging things

swing against the legs throughout the night. In my windowless pitroom, I hear

the gale through the ventilation system and know there’s no point hurrying to

get out of bed.

This is a storm. This is the kind of storm you might have seen in films. It’s

all true. Handlines connect buildings to buildings, interspersed by poles roughly

10 metres apart. When you leave the building, you grab a handline. Within a

minute or two, turn around and you can see nothing of the place you just left

except perhaps, if you’re lucky, a foggy suggestion of light coming from the

normally piercingly bright search lights. Half way between buildings, look around

and there is nothing in all directions. It’s white but there’s no sun so it’s

not even white. It’s just opaque, in every direction. I wonder if this is at

all like being partially sighted. As you get closer to things, they come into

focus, but generally you survive according to your knowledge of the layout,

your memory of any route.

When people come inside, they are flushed and exhausted. Every speck of skin

must be covered to protect against the wind but it’s not that cold (only -10C

right now) so you’re sweating as well. The cold days are the clear ones. Last

Tuesday was a classic example. It was cold, it was beautiful, clear and bright.

I got minor frostnip and cold burns on my arms – and yes, I was suitably

dressed. Around 5pm, my colleague and I were trying to align a light beam emitted

from the lab, projected 4km across the ice-shelf to a mirror, reflected back,

focussed into a telescope and ultimately an optical fibre connected to a spectrometer

which gives us an image. The conditions were perfect and we saw a lovely spot

of light. Then it went. Completely. Within 15 minutes the clouds and snow had

arrived, wind picked up and pressure was plummetting. We packed our bags and

left the lab ASAP.

I wasn’t able to return until Saturday, and that was in a 28 knot blow, to

check on the state of the lab. It was fine but the walk out there was hard going.

Perfectly safe (accompanied) but a bit of a slog. Took a good half hour. The

return was quicker though as the wind was behind us!

I love this weather, it’s howling outside and shaking inside. People still go to work but you don’t go outside for fun. I’m not worried for anyone’s safety as the general base procedure is designed exactly for weather like this. We sign in and out, we wear radios, we check up on each other and take ropes anywhere where there isn’t a handline. We’re all fine, part of me is loving it. But you wouldn’t want to be down here with an idiot.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Globalisation’s commandments

Lance Knobel lists today Martin Wolf’s "ten

commandments of globalisation," saying that "they make great good

sense." I disagree:

1. The market economy is the only arrangement capable of generating sustained

increases in prosperity, providing the underpinnings of liberal democracy and

giving individual human beings the opportunity to strive for what they desire

in life.

This sounds very grand, but on closer inspection turns out to be unfalsifiable,

and therefore meaningless. Just think of what a counterexample would look like:

clearly, you can’t simply come up with a market economy which has not

generated sustained increases in prosperity, since Wolf is simply saying it’s

a necessary, not a sufficient, condition. So you need to find a country which

has generated sustained increases in prosperity and yet is not a market

economy. My suspicion is that Wolf leaves "market economy" so vaguely

defined that he can throw any potential counterexample (China, say) into that

pot. Crucially, given the subject at hand, a "market economy" does

not need to be particularly open to trade and foreign investment.

We can ignore the next three commandments, because they say nothing of substance

whatsoever, and move on to

5. The World Trade Organisation has been enormously successful. But it

has already strayed too far from its primary function of promoting trade liberalisation.

The arguments for a single undertaking binding all members also need to be reconsidered,

since that brings into the negotiations a large number of small countries with

negligible impact on world trade.

Do you see how Wolf has shifted, here? He starts off talking about "generating

sustained increases in prosperity", but halfway through his list he’s already

talking about creating a club of large, rich nations which can and should set

all the rules of the game itself. If that were to happen, of course, the overwhelming

temptation would be and is to rig the system so that the small, poor countries,

which presently have "negligible impact on world trade", will remain

that way.

Remember Cancun? It was an important rebellion about precisely this way of

working. For too long, GATT/WTO negotiations have essentially comprised the

US and the EU hammering something out behind closed doors, then emerging and

telling the southern nations to sign on the dotted line, thank you very much.

So countries like Brazil and Ghana are forced to sign on to stringent rules

applying to intellectual property, pharmaceuticals, financial services and other

things the north sells to the south, while the northern countries continue merrily

doing whatever they like with respect to agriculture, steel, textiles or anything

the south sells to the north. Wolf wants a return to precisely this way of doing

things: let’s hope he fails, for the poor countries’ sake.

6. The case for regimes covering investment and global competition is strong.

But such regimes do not need to be imposed on all the world’s countries.

It would be better to create regimes that include fewer countries, but contain

higher standards.

This is just a different way of getting to the same place. Once again, the

rich northern countries will set the rules – now with added Higher Standards!

– and the poor southern countries will be faced with a stark choice: join

the northerners on their own terms, or be left out altogether.

7. It is in the long-term interest of countries to integrate into global

financial markets. But they need to understand the need for an appropriate exchange

rate regime, often a floating rate, and a sound and well-regulated financial

system.

Translation: if you want to know what a country should do in terms of its financial

system, first ask Citigroup what it wants you to do, and then just do that.

Note what Wolf isn’t saying here: that some countries (those with fixed

exchange rates, say, or less-than-ironclad financial systems) shouldn’t integrate

into global financial markets. Argentina, for instance, has an extremely weak

banking system, but I’m sure that Wolf would love to see it reintegrate itself

into the international financial markets. Rather, Wolf is simply creating a

list of what countries need to do in order to become good globalisationists:

integrate this, float that, strengthen the other. That way, if and when the

integration fails, he can simply point to some other weakness in the country’s

financial system, and tell them it’s their fault for not doing everything he

told them to do.

8. In the absence of a global lender of last resort, it is necessary to

accept standstills and renegotiation of sovereign debt. A particularly strong

case can be made for developing ways to write off ‘odious debt’

– debt contracted by politically illegitimate regimes.

This is hilarious, coming as it does after Wolf’s mini-homage to financial

markets and sound financial systems. Financial markets in general, and cross-border

lending specifically, only work insofar as the lenders can be sure they’re going

to get their money back. What’s more, it’s the domestic financial sector which

is inevitably the hardest hit if any country declares a standstill, which is

a euphemism for a moratorium on any debt payments. This whole commandment would

be a hell of a lot more convincing if Wolf could point to any country where

a standstill and formal debt renegotiation actually worked. Most of the time,

the market-based solutions seen in places like Ecuador and Uruguay have worked

perfectly well – much better, indeed, than the interminable debt negotiations

we saw in the 1980s, which were ended only with the intervention of the US government

in the form of the Brady Plan.

As for odious debt, it seems to me to be a weird and somewhat invidious form

of imposing an embargo ex post. If the US, say, wants to ban its companies

from building hospitals in another country, then that’s all well and good. But

if those hospitals are built, then the company building them should be entitled

to its money, even if the president of the country in question is an unpleasant

person.

9. Official development assistance is very far indeed from a guarantee

of successful development. But the sums now provided are so small, a mere 0.22

per cent of the gross domestic product of the donor countries in 2001, that

more should help, if used wisely. Aid should go to countries with sound policy

regimes, but it should never be large enough to free a government from the need

to raise most of its money from its own people.

10. Countries should normally be allowed to learn from their own mistakes,

even if that means that some make no progress. But the global community also

needs the capacity and will to intervene effectively where states fail altogether.

So, we should help out countries who are on the right path – the ones

with "sound policy regimes". What does that mean? Argentina, for instance,

has admirable fiscal and monetary policies, but I doubt Wolf would consider

it an example of a country with a sound policy regime. If countries fall off

the One True Path, then aid should dry up, and they should "learn from

their own mistakes", up until the point at which they "fail altogether",

at which point "the global community" should "intervene effectively".

What constitutes such failure? Just in my own Latin American beat, I can think

that at various points over the past few years, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia,

Argentina, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti could all have been considered

to have "failed altogether", with Paraguay permanently hovering on

the cusp. Which of these should learn from their mistakes, and which should

be intervened? Such decisions are necessarily and always political in nature,

and it seems a bit disingenuous to lump them under the general theme of globalisation.

In aggregate, it seems that Wolf’s idea of globalisation is basically a benign

global dictatorship of the north, wherein developing countries, if they know

what’s good for them, nod and smile and do whatever they’re told, in return

for crumbs from the rich man’s table, and a certain amount of (ahem) "protection".

In other words, it’s precisely the sort of thing which gave globalisation such

a bad name to begin with. Surely we can do better than this.

Posted in Finance | Comments Off on Globalisation’s commandments

The New York Times magazine

It is with no small degree of sadness that I have to report the death of the

New York Times magazine. When I first arrived in New York, it was a vibrant

and interesting book, and its editor, Adam Moss, was justly held in very high

esteem. Moss was then bumped upstairs to an ill-defined role in NYT management,

however, and the magazine suffered; he then left the Times altogether to go

edit New York, and the magazine has now withered and died altogether.

Superficially, it hasn’t changed. Moss oversaw excellent cover design: strong

and simple, safe in the knowlege that he didn’t need to shift copies at the

newsstand – and to this day the magazine is probably as close as any US

publication comes to the legendary Esquire

covers of the 60s and 70s. The problem is that the magazine’s ego is writing

checks its body can’t cash: the inside of the book simply doesn’t deliver what

the outside promises.

Take this week’s cover

story, on "The Tug of the Newfangled Slot Machines". It’s well

teased on the cover: "Neither TiVo nor the Xbox nor your Wi-Fi-ed laptop

is remaking American culture the way this thing is." But the article itself

never mentions TiVo or WiFi, and talks about video games only in passing; in

fact, it doesn’t really address the effect of slot machines on American culture

at all.

Instead, what we get is the author, Gary Rivlin, spending 8,000 words wandering

around a company which makes slot machines, marvelling at how rich, clever and

happy the people there are, and how poor, dumb and unhappy their customers are.

At the end of it, we’ve learned essentially nothing that we didn’t know already,

and we wonder, in fact, whether Rivlin really has a clue what he’s talking about.

For one thing, he seems very uncomfortable around numbers. Here’s Rivlin trying

to explain how big the business is:

In its 14-year lifetime, ”Madden N.F.L. Football,” from Electronic Arts,

has made roughly $1 billion, making it one of the most successful home video

games ever produced. ”Wheel of Fortune,” by contrast, takes in

more than a billion dollars each year. … Every day in the United States,

slot machines take in, on average, more than $1 billion in wagers.

Most of that money will be paid back to players, but so great is the ”hold”

from slot machines that collectively the games gross more annually

than McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Starbucks combined. All told, North

American casinos took in $30 billion from slots in 2003 — an amount

that dwarfs the $9 billion in tickets sold in North American movie theaters

that year. (Emphasis added.)

We simply have to take it on trust here that Rivlin is comparing like with

like, since there’s no objective way of telling what he means with phrases like

"takes in". In fact, the one thing we can be sure of is that he means

at least two different things by the phrase, and possibly three. The first,

I think, is profits from "Wheel of Fortune", although it’s far from

clear whether he’s talking about profits for the casinos or profits for IGT,

the manufacturer of the machine. After all, Electronic Arts keeps all its own

profits, while IGT has to share the profits from its games with the casinos,

and in fact might not keep any of the profits at all, preferring to simply manufacture

and sell the machines rather than attempt to peel off its own percentage.

Next occurrence, "take in" refers to total amount wagered, and is

contrasted to the games’ "gross", which is left undefined, but is

probably the same as what "take in" referred to the first time around.

Finally, "take in" refers to some metric or other at casinos, which

may or may not constitute the total amount of money that slot machines "take

in" in total, since Rivlin never addresses the question of slot machines

outside casinos, and whether he’s including them in his calculations

or not.

A bit further on, we find this astonishing passage:

The company has been so profitable during Kaminkow’s tenure that if you bought

$10,000 worth of stock in I.G.T. and Microsoft in the month of his arrival,

January 1999, the I.G.T. shares would be worth more than $70,000 today and

the Microsoft shares about $6,000.

This is a crazy comparison. IGT has a market cap of $13 billion and a profit

margin of 18.52%. Microsoft has a market cap of $278 billion and a profit margin

of 20.78%. Stock price, as we all know, is only marginally connected to profitability,

and Rivlin’s comparison seems deliberately designed to make IGT seem a lot more

successful than it actually is.

But it’s clear that Rivlin doesn’t really like dealing with numbers, as we

can tell when he sits down at a slot machine himself:

The showroom machine had 8,000 credits on it — $400. It wasn’t my money,

so I played the maximum of $2.25 per spin. … At first I seemed to be winning,

gathering credits on every second or third spin. But after about 15 minutes,

I was down nearly 7,000 credits. I was winning the virtual equivalent of 15

or 20 nickels every time I scored — but I was spending more than twice that

with every spin. After 45 minutes, I was down below 5,000 credits. If I were

playing for real money, I would have lost more than $150.

This only makes any sense at all if by "down nearly 7,000 credits"

Rivlin means not that he had lost nearly 7,000 credits, but that he had nearly

7,000 credits remaining. The fact that he uses "credits" interchangeably

with "nickels" only serves to confuse things even more.

I don’t actually blame Rivlin for all of this: he’s a newspaper reporter, and

it’s the job of the editors at the magazine to make sure that his reporting

– which seems to be very extensive – is then turned into a smart,

clear, illuminating magazine article. They clearly failed, and in fact I wonder

if they even really tried.

And the photography in the magazine is going the same way as the prose. This

week’s issue is heavy on the gays, featuring a Q&A

with a transgendered biologist, as well as a long

article about the lawyers who fought for gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Here are the photos of the three; the one in the middle actually takes up a

full page of the magazine.

I can understand how many New York media types would like to send a message

that gays, lesbians and transgendered people can be perfectly normal and boring,

but I really don’t think that’s any excuse for photography as dull and unimaginative

as this. If it wasn’t for a rather good portrait

of New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, the magazine would be at serious risk

of losing its hard-earned reputation as a venue for top-notch photojournalism.

In general, it’s clear that the New York Times magazine needs a good kick up

the keister. Its editor, Gerald Marzorati, needs to start getting seriously

Tina on his mollycoddled employees, tearing up features which don’t cut the

mustard, telling photographers to go back and do better, and generally not accepting

second-rate material any more. This is the one section of the New York Times

which has long lead times and can be expected to be uniformly good. At the moment,

however, it’s uniformly mediocre. Must do better.

Posted in Media | 3 Comments

Sundown

I’ve experienced a new dawn today. Seriously – my own Spring has sprung.

I’m so relieved. Yesterday, the sun set for the last time until August and I

think, in retrospect, that I have been feeling a bit down lately. Not depressed

but definitely apprehensive.

May-the-first: a date whispered amongst friends for a few weeks, a day we have

ritual and ceremony, a day we will party, the day when Winter truly begins.

This is what defines the overwintering antarctic experience at Halley. From

here on it will get colder and darker. The sun will set for the last time in

105 days.

Last week I was on night duty on the Laws platform. It was great – I’m

a night owl anyway, and having the space and peace of an empty base was a delight.

We overlapped in mornings and evenings, I was part of the activity but somehow

an observer, an onlooker, a step slightly to the outside of the community bubble.

The main purpose of nightshift is to be on-call. To be alert, awake, sober

and There, should any emergencies arise or, more hopefully, to prevent emergencies

arising. There’s also a little bit of cleaning and washing to be done as well

as weather observations sent to the Met Office at 3am and 6am to help forecasting

models. My favourite job, however, was bread-making. It’s ironic that I have

to come to the end of the world to appreciate simple joys in life that we can

have anywhere. Making bread for your 17 compatriots is a contribution, a service,

a nice thing to do, but also something that will be remembered, however the

bread turns out. Thankfully for me, the only criterion for passable bread seems

to be its toastability in the morning.

So the for last week of sun, I was asleep. When I woke up it was dark, when

I went to sleep it was dark. Really pitch black dark. The sun was to set at

the end of this week and I thought I had missed it forever. I started thinking

about the sun, and how much I have enjoyed watching it circle my head. The summer

days, perpetual light, circling, circling, so bright you need to wear shades

at midnight. The first sunsets, skimming the horizon, beautiful reds at 2am

if you’re still awake for them. The segregation of night and day, our first

planet, first star, the moon, auroras and the milky way. But days still light

and bright. New atmospheric phenomena with each progression of the cycle. Mirages,

sundogs, fogbows, sun pillars. I will miss the sun. I’ll miss it a lot. I tried

to convince myself that the moon and stars and darkness will hold new mysteries

and wonders but that elation, that joy you feel when you see fresh sunlight,

I can’t believe they can fulfill this role.

This is the onset of darkness, of winter, of temperatures too cold to enjoy

being outside when we have to create our own entertainment to keep spirits high.

May will be ok, and June, as this is still the run up to midwinter: Festivities

on Ice. But what about after that? July, August? What will we do then when the

novelty has worn off, fresh food will have run out and there will be no new

visitors until December? Did I not think about this before coming here?

I woke up today refreshed for the first time after shifting my body clock back

to days. A lovely lazy Sunday feeling on base. People sitting around the table

after a traditional Sunday brunch fry-up, laughing and cringing at photos from

the night before. It’s light outside. Folk on melt-tank duty get togged up to

go digging. Someone looks out of the window and says there’s a great sunset

happening. He’s right. I go outside to take some photos and go for a walk. It’s

beautiful. The sun might have set, but it’s shining a stunning red light up

onto the clouds with all its energy and they’re reflecting that light back down

on us. A red pillar of light on the horizon, held there for hours. The sun hasn’t

gone. The sun hasn’t gone! There is still light, there is still laughter, there

are still beautiful sights to behold. It’s gonna be ok. It’s going to be better

than ok, it’s going to be glorious.

I come inside for a cup of tea and see that my sprouted mung beans have gone

nuts. They’ve grown leaves and roots and stalks and everything. They’re huge!

Where can all this matter have come from? Just from a little dry bean, some

water and some light. There is life after sunset. Lots of life.

Posted in Rhian in Antarctica | 2 Comments

A waste of valuable space

The front page of the Sunday New York Times is probably the most valuable journalistic

real estate in the world. It’s where the Times puts its biggest investigative

pieces, in the knowledge that people are much more likely to have the time and

inclination to read long-form journalism on a Sunday than they are on other

days.

Tomorrow, the Times is putting violins on its front page, in a story headlined

"A

Violin’s Value, and What to Pay the I.R.S. Fiddler". It carries no

fewer than three different bylines, including that of David Cay Johnston, the

newspaper’s tax-dodge expert. It even has a juicy news hook: Herbert Axelrod,

who sold a collection of strings valued at $50 million to the New Jersey Symphony

Orchestra, has now fled to Cuba, just before he was going to be indicted on

federal tax fraud charges.

The story, however, is a complete and utter mess. The journalists’ investigations

clearly turned up nothing: there’s actually no news at all in the whole piece.

What we’re left with is essentially three different feature stories, all of

which are painfully incomplete, stitched together into a Frankenstein’s monster

of a front-page article.

First of all, of course, there’s the Axelrod story. Apparently the tax fraud

charges are "related to the sale of his publishing company," but we

never learn anything about that. This piece is much more interested in his donations

of string instruments, and how he may or may not have inflated their valuations

for tax purposes. The donation we learn the most about is the one to the New

Jersey Symphony, which paid $18 million for its 30 rare instruments from the

17th and 18th centuries. If Axelrod valued the strings at $50 million for tax

purposes, then he could claim what the Times calls "a big tax deduction"

on the difference. How big, however, we’re never told.

Then there’s a parallel story, about a previous Axelrod donation of four Stradivaris

to the Smithsonian. Apparently that, too, was valued at $50 million, despite

the fact that my own quick web search comes up with no records of any string

instrument ever selling for more than $3.5 million. That’s a factoid you won’t

find in the article either: there’s no speculation at all about how much the

Smithsonian Strads are worth, and in fact only the vaguest hand-waving when

it comes to the true value of the instruments in New Jersey.

Encompassing both of these stories is a broader one about donations which carry

inflated valuations for tax purposes. Apparently the chairman of the Senate

Finance Committee is unhappy about the status quo, as is the person who reported

Axelrod’s donations to the IRS and hasn’t received the $2.5 million reward he

thinks he’s owed.

But the IRS didn’t comment for the story, and the only hard number that the

reporters could come up with in order to help indicate the scope of the problem

is that "about one in 11 reward claims is paid by the IRS," which

apparently decreases any incentive to report suspicious activity. Since most

reward claims are surely unrelated to overinflated donation valuations, however,

the relevance of that statistic must be pretty low.

Then, to mess up matters even further, a completely different story is interwoven

among the tax-fraud stories, all about how rare violins nearly always go up

in value over time and how that "is leading players to consider newly made

ones". Again, we get no hard numbers: no indication of what top violins

are actually selling for these days, no idea of how fast violin prices are rising.

Everything is anecdotal, and the piece ends with the story of "Christian

Tetzlaff, 38, a German violinist regarded as one of the best of the younger

generation of players," who used to play a Strad and now plays a Greiner

violin built in 2001. This, of course, is completely irrelevant to the Axelrod

and tax-fraud stories, but seems to have been thrown in just for the hell of

it.

Reading the article is an exercise in frustration: it piques your interest

with one story, then moves on to another, and another, and another, and never

really cleans up on any of them. It’s like reading a sentence where successive

parenthetical comments keep on being opened up but never closed. What it is

doing on the front page of the New York Times? I have no idea, but my suspicion

is that a front-page editor somewhere had the bright idea that if you amalgamated

three or four mediocre stories, you could get one really good one. Well, a good

friend of mine is a front-page editor elsewhere, and I’d like to show this article

to him as a prime example of how that simply doesn’t work.

Posted in Media | 1 Comment

Conductors under attack

First Simon

Rattle, and now James

Levine: it’s been a bad week for hugely-admired conductors being sniped

at in the press, all the more so for me personally, since these are both at

the very top of my list of favourite living maestros. So what gives?

The attack on Rattle has been led by Axel Brüggemann, who wrote an article

for Welt am Sonntag headlined "Simon von Rattle". The basic thesis

seems to be that Rattle, despite starting off wonderfully, is now lapsing into

the authoritarian excesses of his feared-and-revered predecessor Herbert von

Karajan. The famous marriage between Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic seems

to have hit a rocky patch, according to Brüggemann, who says in his wonderfully

German way that "while Rattle romps expressively on the podium, the Philharmonic

musicians sometimes tend to play as inconsequentially as if they were a wife

reaching to the fridge to get out a beer for her husband".

The Guardian article also notes that the Rattle/Berlin Proms last year were

"underwhelming" and "bland", while his Idomeneo at Glyndebourne

also received mixed reviews. That said, he seems to be fighting back with the

scheduling for this year’s Proms: Beethoven’s Ninth on the Sunday, followed

by Messiaen’s magnificent Éclairs sur l’Au-delà… on

the Monday – the kind of piece which would have brought Karajan out in

a cold sweat.

But it’s certainly possible that the Berlin Philharmonic, despite loving Rattle

as a guest conductor for many years before he took over as music director, is

now having institutional second thoughts. Perhaps the two are more suited for

a torrid affair than for a decades-long marriage. (And the relationship could

conceivably last that long: Rattle is only 48, after all, and conductors are

legendarily long-lived.)

While conductors do often get better with age, after all, it’s only natural

to expect the more mercurial conductors, like Rattle, to have some problems

with consistency. And while Rattle did wonders with the City of Birmingham Symphony

Orchestra, he was not burdened at the time with the sky-high expectations that

accompanied him to Berlin, nor with the institutional inertia of a band as heavy

and storied as the Berlin Phil.

My guess is that if Rattle is having some difficulties right now – and

really I have little reason to believe that he is – he will not only overcome

them, but turn the experience to his advantage. Something of a prodigy, his

rise in the music world has been steady and largely obstacle-free, and as horn

player Howard Howard (really) says of James Levine, "personal hardship

tends to make more of an artist – I think you hear the difference between

someone who has had a happy, secure life and someone who has had some misery."

I’m less sanguine about Levine, however. I’m glad I saw him quite a lot when

I first moved to New York seven years ago, because thinking back to more recent

performances, I’ve not felt the same kind of fire. And the complaints certainly

have the ring of truth about them: that, conducting sitting down, he gradually

slumps, over the course of long operas to the point at which players at the

back of the pit can’t even see the baton any more – which, in any case,

he barely bothers to move.

To say that "my major communication tool always is my eyes" is all

well and good, but that’s true of Rattle as well, and he certainly uses his

hands to great effect the whole time. I’m actually a fan of minimalist conductors

who don’t jump up and down and get all excited, but the one thing they all have

in common is that they beat time very clearly. Levine seems to be using his

orchestra’s depth of experience as a crutch which allows him to put minimal

physical energy into his performances, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

Rattle and Levine both, of course, are greatly praised by the managers of their

orchestras, but such praise can become self-defeating when you have the managing

director of the Boston Symphony say that Levine’s "energy level is still

way beyond the norm". That’s clearly not true: for one thing, he conducts

even the shortest programmes sitting down. In general, praise only means something

when it’s conceivable that the person doing the praising could conceivably say

anything else, and that doesn’t seem to be the case with respect to the people

quoted in these articles.

Now that Levine’s contract has been extended to 2011, in fact, I’m a little

bit worried about the future of the Met Orchestra – probably the best

orchestra in the USA. Valery Gergiev has been getting decidedly mixed reviews

of late: it seems he might have the same strain of Russian hubris that afflicts

people like Yuri Bashmet, who start believing their own hype to the point at

which they think they’re above things like rehearsals and preparatory work.

If neither Levine nor Gergiev is performing at the height of his abilities,

there’s certainly a risk that the Met Orchestra will start a long, slow decline

into complacency.

Posted in Culture | Comments Off on Conductors under attack

Crappy financial journalism

A couple of news stories today piqued my interest with unsourced statements

about financial markets which didn’t make a lot of sense to me. First of all

there was a column by Ed Dravo

in Slate, which said that

When an asset manager begins to beat his peers by a large margin, pension

trustees actually withdraw money from the hot-performing manager.

Individual investors, by contrast, pour their money into those same asset

managers. History shows today’s high-performing funds are tomorrow’s laggards,

so individual investors are choosing investments that are likely to disappoint.

I agree that individual investors tend to put their money into hot-performing

funds, but that’s about all I agree with. Is there any evidence at all that

if pension trustees are lucky or smart enough to find an asset manager who starts

doing really well, they then take their money away from him? I can just about

imagine a situation where no one manager is allowed more than a certain percentage

of total assets, and that if he’s doing really well, he might start exceeding

that percentage and triggering withdrawals. But I can’t imagine that trustees,

having found a successful manager, will then give up on him just as he starts

outperforming.

Furthermore, I really don’t think that "history shows today’s high-performing

funds are tomorrow’s laggards". When a rather obnoxious man at Citibank

tried to sell me some mutual funds once, based on their outperformance, I actually

spent quite a bit of time researching this issue. Companies like Morningstar

generally group funds into quintiles: the top 20%, the next 20%, and so on.

And there is in fact a certain amount of correlation between past performance

and future performance. Not a lot, but a little. Funds in the bottom quintile

will tend to underperform in the future, funds in the fourth quintile will underperform

but not quite as badly, and funds in the top three quintiles are all roughly

equally likely to outperform in the future.

This is actually the opposite of what Dravo is implying, which is that funds

in the top quintile are the most likely to underperform in future – and

I certainly found no evidence of that. I know there’s a lot of sleaziness among

financial advisors, but I don’t think that so many of them would push funds

based on their Morningstar ratings if past performance was actually negatively

correlated to future performance.

If you were to be charitable, you might say that financial markets are cyclical,

and if one asset class has done well for a while (technology stocks, say, or

emerging-market bonds, or small-cap manufacturers) then it stands to reason

that it might slow down in future and some other asset class – invested

in by some other mutual fund – will be the new place to be. But that’s

not what Dravo was saying, and in any case you’re just as likely to move from

today’s high-performing asset class to tomorrow’s low-performing asset class

as you are to make the perfect leap from outperformer to outperformer just as

the former has stopped rising and the latter has just started. Rather than try

to execute that kind of acrobatic act, better you just stick with what’s working,

I think – even Dravo, later on, points out that people who trade more,

lose more.

Meanwhile, the BBC picks up on the

story of Google’s IPO:

Dutch auctions and other supposedly open IPO forms are blamed for the extraordinary

price swings seen in the early days after some high-profile flotations.

Some analysts say they also tend to underprice shares, leading to insufficient

returns for the issuer.

This is the point at which Jon Stewart, of The Daily Show, would rub his eyes

in a comical manner and do one of his patented "wha????" expressions.

Dutch auctions, of course, are designed precisely to avoid extraordinary

price swings in the aftermarket – people pay exactly what they want to

pay, without investment banks second-guessing them or trying to underprice the

shares so that there are lots of juicy immediate profits for their favoured

clients.

And while some Wall Street types do have an argument that Dutch auctions overprice

shares (see the quote from the FT on this

blog), I have yet to see any reason why they should underprice

them. After all, the stock market is essentially one big continuous Dutch auction:

sellers sell their stock to the person who will pay them the highest price.

And the stock market seems to work a lot more efficiently than IPOs normally

do.

Think about it for a minute: if institutional investors are willing to pay

more than retail investors, then the institutions will end up owning most of

the shares, at a reasonable market price. If, on the other hand, retail investors

are willing to pay more than institutional investors, then most of the Google

shares will end up in individual hands, and when those people come to sell,

they might have to take a loss in the secondary market. In other words, the

IPO would have been overpriced, not underpriced. It really is hard to imagine

how a Dutch auction could underprice shares – or even to think of what

kind of "analyst" would ever say such a thing.

Now I’m willing to admit that I might be wrong here – would anybody like

to come to the defense either of Mr Dravo or of the BBC?

Posted in Media | 8 Comments

Japan

After spending two and a half weeks wandering around Japan, I am, naturally,

an acknowledged expert on all things Japanese. Not. All the same, working the

"fresh pair of eyes" principle to its bones, I’ve decided to list

here some of the things which struck me about the country. Anybody who actually

knows what they’re talking about is more than welcome to correct me in the comments.

So, in no particular order:

Japanese men could be the best-dressed men in the world. Remember

when you found out that Paul Smith had, like, 400 stores in Japan and couldn’t

send enough of his clothes there? And when you thought that was just one of

those weird things like David Hasselhoff being big in Germany? Wrong. It’s because

Japanese men are incredibly well dressed. Hop on the Tokyo underground, and

most of the men will be wearing suits, and nearly all those will be super-nattily

dressed, with impeccably tailored shirts, ties, and suits. From afar, it’s easy

to stereotype the gaggle of Japanese businessmen in their identical dark suits;

look a bit closer, and you’ll find they’re not nearly as dull as you might think.

In fact, more broadly, average is much better in Japan than it is anywhere

else. Yes, Japan is an expensive country, especially if you’re spending

depreciated

dollars: a t-shirt at Aizu Wakamatsu castle, for instance, can cost ¥7,200.

But, most of the time, you still get value for your money. The cheapest lunch

in town might be a ¥750 bowl of noodles, but what noodles they’ll be! And

although the fruit is insanely expensive, it’s also insanely delicious. Also,

lunch dishes are enormous, surprisingly enough. I was expecting tiny portions

of everything in Japan, but the ramen and the sake, for starters, come in huge

portions: three sake cups, and you’re definitely drunk. (Coffee is an exception:

if you want much of it, you have to go to Starbucks.) Nevertheless, there doesn’t

seem to be any concept of "bargain basement" or "cheap and nasty"

in Japan: if they’re going to do something, they’re going to do it right, and

charge accordingly.

For instance, not only does everybody have a mobile phone, but everybody

has a cameraphone. And uses it. I’ve already blogged

the sight of thousands of people celebrating the cherry blossoms in Ueno Park

by taking photos of them with their cameraphones, but it wasn’t just in Tokyo.

Everywhere you go in the country, people are taking photos of each other with

their phones, or else simply capturing the tourist sights. Conventional cameras

are barely to be seen any more.

I rented a mobile phone

for while I was in Japan, and the experience was wonderfully smooth and easy:

I got the number in advance, it was waiting for me in Tokyo, it worked everywhere

(even on the Tokyo subway) – such a contrast from the nightmares I always

have when I try to use my pay-as-you-go phone in England.

Even though mobile phones are ubiquitous, however, you never hear them

ring. Phones are clearly made for messaging other people first and

foremost: the vast majority of phone use is people staring down at their handsets,

either reading or tapping out a message. It’s much less common to see someone

walking down the street talking on their phone. In fact, I’ve heard

(and have no idea whether or not it’s true) that in some circles it’s considered

rude to call someone out of the blue: the done thing is to message them first,

asking if now might be a convenient time to ring them.

That said, the Japanese will message the whole time. In fact, personal computers

are much less common in Japan than they are in the west precisely because they’re

not needed for the killer app of email. I swear I saw one guy riding his bicycle,

messaging a friend with one hand, and holding an umbrella over his head with

the other. How he was steering I’m still not entirely sure.

It’s worth noting here that in Japan, bicycles are a bit like mobile

phones: familiar objects used in a unique manner. For one thing, they’re

ridden on the sidewalk, rather than the road. Which is great for cars, who don’t

need to worry about running over cyclists, but not so great for pedestrians.

Personally, if I moved to Japan and bought a bicycle, I’d go doolally crawling

down the sidewalk at about a third of my natural speed, dodging peds. But the

Japanese seem to consider a bike to be something which naturally goes at maybe

half or a third of the speed of the average bike in New York.

The vast majority of bikes, too, are crappy old things, which are so inherently

undesirable that they’re either left out on the street completely unlocked,

or else are secured with only the flimsiest of locks which wouldn’t deter any

self-respecting bicycle thief for a second. Seeing dozens of bikes lined up

outside a subway station with nary a lock between them is to feel automatic

nostalgia for the white bicycles experiment in Amsterdam in the 60s.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese seem uniquely willing

to pay insane prices for certain items. The difference in handbag costs

between Tokyo and Paris or Milan is well known, and probably explains why Prada’s

second global

epicenter was built in the fashionable Aoyama district. But there are fashionistas

all over the world who will shell out large sums for Prada gear. What I’m talking

about are the ¥11,000 musk melons in the food courts of all the big Tokyo

department stores, which look to the naked eye for all the world like your common-or-garden

cantaloupe. Or the ¥400,000 per person that salarymen spend on geisha-hosted

evenings in Kyoto. Or the ¥1 million bowl that I saw for sale in a ceramics

shop in Kanazawa: very simple, maybe four inches high, brand new, with a nice

white glaze. The sort of thing where if you saw it at a flea market you’d pay

a couple of bucks for it, and if you were told it was made by a famous Japanese

ceramicist you might think it was worth a couple of hundred.

The really crazy thing is that most of this stuff, even at the very high end,

is paid for in cash. The Japanese are famous for the amount of cash that they

carry on them, as well as for their honesty: stories are legion of wallets containing

seven-figure sums (in yen, but still) being left on the train and returned,

with all cash intact, to their owners at the lost and found. More generally,

Japan is surely the safest place I’ve ever been. I didn’t think

twice about leaving my bags – even containing passports and stuff –

in unlocked rooms, especially after seeing all those unlocked bicycles on the

street in Tokyo. And when one of the people we met explained that she used to

live in Sao Paulo but wouldn’t go back there because it was too dangerous, I

understood completely. While I generally scoff at such an attitude in westerners,

there really is a huge gulf between safety and security in Japan and Brazil

– one which most Japanese people might well feel problems trying to bridge.

Talking of culture gaps, I made the compulsory Lost In Translation pilgramage

to the Park Hyatt Tokyo to have a Suntory

whisky, and it turns out that the 17-year-old Hibiki – the one Bill

Murray shills in the film – is surprsingly excellent. In fact, I’ll go

as far as to say that this particular Japanese whisky is the best blended

whisky I’ve ever tasted. Caveat: I’m not a great fan of blended whisky,

and haven’t tasted all that much of it. In any case, the 17-year-old is not

even anywhere near the top of the range: in fact, it’s at the bottom of the

Hibiki ladder, and I assume that the 30-year-old, at ¥80,000 a bottle, is

significantly better. (The 35-year-old, at ¥1 million a bottle, I assume

is some kind of collector’s item.) Of course, I’m pretty sure I’m never going

to find out: even the 17-year-old was ¥2,300 a glass at the Park Hyatt.

If you want to see a real waste of money, however, all you need to

do is go travelling around the country by shinkansen – the fabled bullet

train. For while most Japanese architecture is pretty samey, the train

stations, even in minor, off-the-beaten-track cities, are ridiculously over-the-top.

I’m sure it’s all part of the various economic stimulus programmes that successive

Japanese governments have embarked upon over the years, combined with pork-barrel

spending on important political constituencies. But the result is that Japan

has reinvented the art of turning the local train station into the proud heart

of any city – something I had thought a relic of the Victorian era. Kyoto

station is a minor city unto itself, and Niigata station is easily the grandest

thing for miles around. In Tokyo, not much can be done to the old train station,

a rather charming brick building opposite the Imperial Palace, but they have

built the absolutely stunning Tokyo

International Forum right next door.

But in a way it’s easy to see why this should be the case: the Japanese

are justly proud of their trains. The shinkansen, with its slogan "Ambitious

Japan", is something any country would love. Just look at the numbers:

the Acela Express does the 190 miles between Boston and New York in 205 minutes,

while the Eurostar does the 213 miles between Paris and London in 195 minutes.

The shinkansen does the 229 miles between Tokyo and Kyoto in 142 minutes. It’s

an incredibly smooth, silent (at least for those inside the train) and efficient

ride, on tracks dedicated to bullet trains and bullet trains only. On a lot

of the trains, passengers sit five across – something I haven’t seen on

any other trains – in seats which rotate in seconds to face the opposite

direction, meaning that there’s no laborious turning of trains around at termini,

and no one ever needs to face backwards while travelling.

And once you get off the shinkansen main line, the lower-level trains are just

as efficient, and some are even more comfortable. The basic seats in the "Sonic"

class trains in Kyushu, for instance, put the first-class accommodations anywhere

else to shame. What’s more, you don’t need to worry about missing your stop,

since the trains literally run like clockwork: I actually set my watch by our

arrival at a station once. Just get off the train at whatever time it’s due

to arrive at your destination, and you’ll be in the right place. It’s not just

the trains, either: there was no trouble catching the 12:45 train from Aso after

taking a bus to the station which was scheduled to arrive at 12:40. Everything

in Japan, it seems, runs like clockwork.

Japan’s trains are so well run, in fact, that there are even private

train lines all over the country which, I assume, make a decent profit

for their owners. It’s a bit of a pain if you’re travelling on a Japan Rail

pass, but it’s still very impressive: I assumed that any system as large as

Japan’s trains must lose an absolute fortune every year. If private owners can

compete, however, then maybe not.

The rail system in Japan does wonders for national productivity, and they’re

still building it out: the latest stretch of shinkansen track, in southern Kyushu,

has only just opened. Other sources of national pride, however, can only be

a drain on productivity. One of the most obvious is rice. Wherever you go

in Japan, no matter how valuable the land, you’re never very far from a rice

paddy. The rice is farmed at huge expense: even with 490%

tariffs on imported rice, US producers (not even, say, Indonesians) can

still sell their product at prices 20% cheaper than medium-grade Japanese rice

and half that of top-grade Japanese rice.

Rice is, of course, the true staple of Japanese cuisine, and the Japanese can

taste subtleties I’m sure most of us would never dream existed. But the amount

of effort which goes in to the crop is truly astounding, for negligible economic

benefit.

One of the more interesting sources of Japanese pride is how expensive the

country is: as I understand it, a staple of Japanese television programmes is

people touring the rest of the world and marvelling at how cheap everything

is. The fact that things cost much more in Japan than they do elsewhere

does not seem to indicate inefficiency so much as national superiority.

By far the most unproductive source of Japanese national pride, however, is

not rice, but kanji. In fact, Japanese orthography in general is a complete

nightmare, where certain words can be "spelled" in any one

of half a dozen different ways, using three different scripts – four,

if you include romaji, the transliteration of Japanese words into our alphabet.

Japanese kids learn 500 different kanji characters per year, every year they’re

in school, and then, if they’re keen, go on to learn even more after they graduate.

As Jack Halpern says,

"because of the large number of orthographic variants and easily confused

homophones, the Japanese writing system is an order of magnitude more complex

than any other major language, including Chinese."

What this means in practice is vast amounts of effort within the Japanese educational

system being put towards learning something of steadily diminishing use. New

kanji, as I understand it, are not being coined, and most new words are simply

borrowed from the English or some other foreign language and written down in

a more-or-less unpredictable way in katakana, one of those three scripts. Yet

despite the fact that people use less and less kanji, as references to mobile

phones outnumber references to whatever it was that Chinese people cared about

a millennium or so ago, everybody in Japan still needs to go through the laborious

and mind-numbing process of learning an entire ideographic system.

In fact, once you start looking for them, anachronisms are everywhere

in Japan, and I’m not talking about the geishas in Kyoto, although

they do still exist. Street addresses, for example, don’t exist: rather than

naming streets, the Japanese name blocks and districts, and even people who

have lived in a city all their lives normally need to ask for directions a couple

of times at the nearest police box before they can find a new place. And there’s

the rather disconcerting (to put it mildly) way in which large numbers of Japanese

women – including some youngsters in their 20s – seem to engineer

their lower limbs so that they walk in an extremely artificial knock-kneed fashion.

They’re incapable of running, but it seems to be considered attractive.

Independent women seem to have a hard time of things in general in Japan: chauvinism

runs rampant everywhere you look. The sheer number of hostess bars

in any major city boggles the mind: far from being the seedy kind of places

they’d be in the west, they seem to be the natural place for a group of salarymen

to go after work. (But not their female colleagues, of course.) The average

man’s idea of an ideal woman is far more subservient than in the west, it would

seem, and I was told that if a Japanese woman is serious about having a career,

she must basically give up any hope of ever finding a husband – just because

very few Japanese men in Japan would ever consider marrying such a person. Some

Japanese men who lived abroad for some time might, but they’re, well, abroad.

Even in 21st century youth culture, the cute-schoolgirl look and its variants

seems to remain by far the most popular look among girls, while miniskirts are

shorter in Japan, on average, than I’ve seen anywhere else – and not in

a postmodern "empowering" way, either.

But at least there are looks for young people in Japan. Urban

tribes are alive and well in major Japanese cities, despite having pretty

much died out in the west. The Japanese are the true heirs of the mods and the

rockers, the punks and the hillbillies. The kids in western cities are depressingly

similar most of the time, dressing to all intents and purposes alike, and no

new fashion tribe has emerged in over two decades. In Japan, however, youthful

self-identification through sartorial extremism is alive and well.

Maybe it’s because society as a whole presents more to rebel against in Japan.

When the Sex Pistols released "God Save The Queen", it was a revolutionary

and shocking act. Nowadays, we live in a much more anything-goes culture, and

the world is basically being run by people who turned 18 somewhere between 1968

and 1977. They’re not going to be too shocked by seeing a man walk down the

street wearing lots of makeup. In Japan, on the other hand, society

as a whole remains extremely homogenous, and not-standing-out is a

very important part of being Japanese. One of the reasons I think that kanji

is going to stay around for a long time yet is precisely because it helps serve

the purpose of keeping the gaijin out of Japanese society – and one thing

that seems to be usual among foreigners who spend a lot of time in Japan is

a feeling that they’re never really going to be welcomed into society.

Travelling around the country, too, you see a lot of bus tours and other groups

of people – much more than you would in the west. I had thought that the

buses full of Japanese tourists in Paris and London were a function of the language

barrier, and the fact that these people were at the mercy of their tour guides

to get them around and get them food and accommodation. Not so: such tours are

equally common domestically. You also notice that there aren’t big houses on

the hills or other forms of architectural ostentation: with the exception of

those train stations, most buildings in Japan are extremely similar. And just

look at the reception

that the Japanese hostages in Iraq got when they returned home: worse, it would

seem, than being kidnapped in the first place. They stood out, and so they should

be censured.

Certainly, in the cities, things are changing: they have to. But they’re changing

slowly, and in the countryside, it’s still not uncommon to find public baths

where women are barred from entering if they have any tattoos. Outside the tourist

centers, things are certainly not geared up for tourists: I banged my head more

times than I could possibly count, and in the countryside we gaijin got our

fair share of stares from the local children. The thing which I never understood,

however, was the deal with slippers. I’m fine with leaving

my shoes at the door – but after doing that, I was inevitably presented

with a minuscule pair of slippers to walk about in indoors. Maybe it’s a bit

like chopsticks and you pick it up after a while, but I simply couldn’t do it:

my feet were far too big, and the slippers were very uncomfortable. But if I

tried just walking around in my socks, I got very disapproving stares and got

pointed to a pair of slippers. Are socks just as rude as shoes? Or did these

people think that they were protecting my feet from the cold floor?

And if Japanese customs make little sense, they’re nothing compared to the

western customs – real and imaginary – which have been imported

into the country. Japanese coffee shops, for instance, primarily the ubiquitous

Mister Donut, have taken to heart the idea that they should serve only cream

and no milk for people who want some dairy in their morning coffee. It’s an

annoying custom in the west, and it’s even weirder to find it in Japan. Even

more bizarre is the fact that you have to make reservations to eat at

KFC on Christmas Day in Japan, on the grounds that it’s so popular.

Apparently the Japanese think that westerners all eat fried chicken on Christmas

Day, so that’s what they do – in droves – themselves.

And while we’re on the subject of food and drink, I think it’s worth mentioning

that in rural Japan, the tap water is absolutely delicious

– the best tap water I’ve ever tasted. I missed switching to Volvic once

my water bottle of Aizu Tadaka tap water ran out, and the city of Kanazawa has

parlayed the quality of its water into a stranglehold on the country’s gold

leaf market. Meanwhile, in Beppu, a small town with lots of hot springs in Kyushu,

they even have water taps on the train station platform so that you can have

a last taste before heading out. The guidebook calls Beppu the Las Vegas of

onsens (spas), but this is the only real similarity I saw – analagous

to the slot machines in the departure lounges at Las Vegas airport.

The flipside of the tapwater situation can be found in Tokyo, however, where

it’s undrinkably disgusting. Yet the bottled-water phenomenon hasn’t taken off

in Tokyo to nearly the same degree as it has in the US: it’s available, but

not in large quantities, and normally only in the form of French imports, weirdly

enough.

Actually, there is another similarity between Beppu and Vegas, although it’s

a similarity that Beppu shares with the rest of the country. The neon signs,

just about anywhere you go in Japan, are of astonishingly high quality. And

more generally, the whole country is permanently brand spanking new.

Things which might get replaced every five years in the west are replaced every

two years in Japan – not only neon signs, but cars, too. The second-hand

car market is almost nonexistent, and if your car has any kind of dents or scratches,

you’ll probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. Japan leads the

world in gadgetry, I think, largely because the Japanese will happily upgrade

to the latest and greatest model at the drop of a feather – and pay through

the nose for the privilege. Go to Akihabara in Tokyo, and the sheer quantity

of electronics available – from cellphone attachments to monoblock tube

amplifiers – is staggering.

And in general, the Japanese seem to have a very strong propensity

towards spending money – which is a subtly different thing from

the fact that there are lots of expensive things in the country. Everywhere

you go, for instance, you’re met with admission fees – ¥700 to get

into this little museum, ¥600 for a look around that castle. The pride and

joy of Kanazawa is its huge and gorgeous central garden, and yet locals can’t

go for a walk there whenever they like: it’s ¥350 to get in every time you

want a look around. Even the peace museum in Hiroshima charges a nominal ¥50

admission, which can barely cover the cost of collecting it. It’s as though

there’s some kind of shame or loss of stature to being free – major free

attractions like Tate Britain, or even Central Park, for that matter, don’t

seem to exist in Japan.

Of course, the most typical way of spending money is to do so in a

vending machine. We bought wishes from one, at a temple, food tickets

from many (rather than ordering your food directly, you pay for a food ticket

at a vending machine, and give that too the waitress, so she never handles the

cash), and even paid for one hotel room at a vending machine which took ¥10,000

bills and spat out a ¥1,000 bill in change.

And if vending machines are everywhere in Japan, so are disembodied

voices telling you everything you might conceivably want to know, and then some.

There are loudspeakers on the street, in trains, in buses – even in gondolas.

A voice, usually female, never seems to stop talking: where you are, what’s

coming up, fun facts and figures – actually, I have no idea what she was

saying most of the time, since I don’t speak Japanese. But the Japanese don’t

seem to have any problem screening it out: it’s just another information flow

which can be optionally accessed whenever you feel the need.

This kind of invasive and ubiquitous technology extends even to the very landscape

in Japan – at one point, I even wondered if the Japanese really

have any conception of natural beauty. Every last square inch of Japan

has been built on or cultivated in some way, and one of the walks we took up

a mountain was paved the whole way, much of it with actual stairs. In the cities,

the gardens are prized for their artificiality, and there are actually very

few English-style parks which are simply open space. There’s certainly a certain

amount of cognitive disconnect involved in standing on the top of a mountain,

looking at a beautiful smoking volcano, and hearing jingles from the strip mall

which was built to accommodate all the tourists who have come to look at (not

climb, mind) the mountain you’re standing on top of. In the thin mountain air,

sound can travel an astonishingly long way.

If I take away one abiding memory of my trip to Japan, however, it will be

of the people, and the many wonderful experiences I had both interacting with

them and just watching them. I think everybody who’s been to Japan has stories

of Japanese people going above and beyond what any other person would normally

do in order to help you out and make your visit as wonderful as possible –

I’m no exception. Helpfulness and friendliness at an extremely high

level is definitely the rule rather than the exception, and the country

as a whole is a pleasure to travel in.

It’s also interesting watching small children in Japan: they seem to be happier

than the kids anywhere else I’ve been in the world. The kids always

seem to be running around with enormous grins on their faces, benignly

overseen by their mother and/or grandmother. I was told that children are spoiled

rotten in their preschool years precisely because of the insane amount of discipline

and hard work which is thrust upon them once they enter the educational system,

but these kids didn’t seem spoiled rotten – just happy. Maybe it’s something

to do with the fact that most of them grow up with parents and grandparents

in the same house, I have no idea. Certainly it’s another thing which makes

travelling in Japan a very happy experience.

So weird, yes, and slightly alien, but a wonderful place to visit. If you haven’t

been, and you have some spare money (it’s certainly not cheap), I can highly

recommend Japan. Get away from the Tokyo-Kyoto-Nara tourist route, too: my best

memories are of places like Kanazawa and Kyushu. And the language barrier really

isn’t all that much of a problem: for one thing, most restaurants in

the country seem to have plastic food out front, complete with prices.

Just point to what you want, or pick something at random: it’s bound to be delicious!

Posted in Culture | 5 Comments

Immensity

I do love it here. It’s so vast, so expansive, never-ending. We were talking about

Space earlier, and going to the moon (was it a hoax, wasn’t it? The first time I’ve

not found myself surrounded by die-hard conspiracy theorists in a long time, on any

issue that is), and the various Apollo missions and living on a space station. I

wouldn’t do it: I have no desire to live in a bubble in space with three other people.

But people say Antarctica is the closest thing we can get to it – that it’s all a test

for living conditions on Mars, that Halley is more remote in the winter than the Mir

space station. There is no way out.

This conversation happened in a dark room,

just before dinner, during our first long power cut and our generator mechanic away on

his pre-winter trip. After just 10 minutes you could feel the building getting

colder. It’s not often that we reflect on our remoteness, that we are in fact living in a

box on stilts on a moving ice shelf with a no-get-out clause until December. It’s good

to be reminded every now and then. But it was nice when the lights returned as well.

Anyway, it was a bit like Space today, the immensity. The evening so huge. The moon

set to the west, a glowing fiery red sliver, blurry to look at, shaking in the

indefinite horizon. Such a tiny sliver of a perfect crescent moon, but more on its back

than we’re used to, and bright, bright fiery red. I’ve said all these words before I

know, but that’s what it was. And the night sky this evening, an aurora smoking its

way across the sky, green above the buildings, wisping eastwards, curling up at its

edge to meet the milky way. Where does the aurora stop and the milky way begin? The

milky way! Our galaxy. Scorpio scorpioning his way across the sky. So many, so so

many thousands of stars, so many they look like a bright white cloud in the sky. We’re

on the edge of this disc of stars. And there, to the edge of the disc, are two more

puffs of clouds, stars, Magellanic Clouds, two more galaxies. So clear, so

unbelievable. So huge. Immense.

The sun rises late now, about 10am. I wake up and it’s dark outside, dark with a

bright crescent moon and stars. Then, around eight or nine, reds and oranges appear

above the horizon to the east, glowing colours above the snow, the announcement of

light to come. A wide stripe of red rainbow on the horizon. Hours later, the sun

itself starts to peek up. The horizon on fire, weird atmospherics mean you can’t

distinguish between ice and sky. Sometimes ice, sometimes sky, no, that’s a mirage, that’s a

wavy wavy line of smoke along the horizon, and there is a fireball emerging, flat

and slow, to the east. So slow, you see the sun moving horizontally more than

vertically. When I go outside to dig melt tank at 9am, the horizon is red with a brighter

fiery region. When we finish digging at 9:30, the fireball has emerged, squashed,

wavy, working her way onwards, upwards, around the circumference we are at the centre

of. When I leave the Simpson platform at 10:15 (where I picked up a sledge for

manhauling gas cylinders back later in the day), the sun is almost risen, much further

around than before, and the sky light. By the time I reach my lab at 10:30, the sun has

risen, just. The world is light and daytime has begun, at last. Only a couple more

weeks before it doesn’t rise at all.

During the day, we’ve had the most amazing sights as well. Sundogs! Halos! Rainbows

and fogbows! Diamond dust in the sky. Immediately above, below and to the sides of

the sun are bright patches: a sun dog. If the fog comes in, you can see this is

in fact a halo all around the sun. And when the fog clears, you see the halo as a rainbow.

One day, walking between science platforms, I saw a double rainbow halo, both

circling around the sun. Sometimes the brightness doesn’t fade between the sun in the

middle and the bright spot below,- this is a sun pillar and you have to shade your eyes.

I have some photos; I’ll put them up when Felix gets back from Japan, but I want

you to imagine it first anyway. I’d seen photos before as well but you forget that it

fills the whole sky, the entire sky. And so bright! And so cold! The cold, now that

is reaching new extremes now as well!

The difference between thirty above and thirty below is noticeable (yes, NY readers, we’re

talking centigrade!). This evening, staring at the sky, it was below minus forty. And

it’s just getting colder. By default I wear three hats – the outer one a ‘mad

bomber’ made of dead rabbit and I have no qualms about it. If the hats don’t cover

your ears, they go white and then blister. Fingertips regularly lose feeling, and

when you come inside again, the pain is incredible as they warm up. Swinging arms like

a windmill, throwing all that warm blood to your extremities, works a treat.

Balaclavas are suddenly fashionable again. Well, maybe not fashionable but who gives a

shit about fashion when it’s below forty out there? We all look the same anyway.

Still

days at -30 are seasons warmer than windy ones at -20 though. Nose tips, ear lobes,

toes, fingers, we were not designed for this climate! And whatever you do, don’t

touch metal with your bare hands.

But it’s glorious cold. As I said, a place of extremes, immensity, vastness, it all

makes sense. It’s bonkers. It’s great. It’s a million times better than living on

the moon.

Posted in Rhian in Antarctica | 3 Comments

Holiday

A few years ago, my mum and I went to Africa. The desert, and the ocean, have called

her for years. I guess Antarctica is the perfect cross between both. Anyway, we

found ourselves being driven across the desert in a minivan, through safari landscape,

around Namibia. It was a great trip, a great experience, and I learnt a lot then not

only about the place but also about travelling. She was desperate to get behind the

steering wheel, to drive across the desert, to feel the land beneath the tyres, to

have some control over the journey. At the time, I was quite happy looking at the

world go by through the window but it must be said that I did a lot of daydreaming as

well.

I think I now understand. Driving across sastrugi in a linked up skidoo pair,

watching the rope connecting me to my partner up front, focussing on not tipping, not

going too fast or slow, not daydreaming. Rapidly snapping out of daydreams when the

rope gets caught up beneath me — it keeps you alert. On one level, you see less — you

can’t sit back and gaze about in wonder, take it all in. On another level, it keeps

you focussed, it brings you closer to the landscape, you have to read the ground,

follow the patterns wind makes in the ice, second guess the effect it will have on your

skidoo. Put both feet down when Big Sastrugi approaches, rev before hills, swerve

out of the way of the rope on downhill slopes, watch your partner, the ice, your

ropes, the sledge. It forces you to interact with the scenery.

Travelling out to the campsite was quite hard work. My goggles fogged up, my feet

were cold, the tip of my nose and a small patch of cheek were exposed to the air,

tingling, it was uncomfortable. On the way back, nine days later, we flew. The scenery

was like the moon and sandunes, vertically smaller but never-ending in the

horizontal. A black and white landscape, a landscape of shadows, colour superimposed like

early techniclolour movies: a red tarp over the sledge in front of me, reflected pale

red on the snow, yellow skidoos, the stripes on my companions’ crash helmet.

Everywhere else, blacks and whites and in-betweens. Crazy atmospherics make mirages and

hazes on the horizon. Features come and go and you lose all concept of perspective.

Immense, continuous. Desert, ice.

We were meant to go away for four or five days, to explore crevasses, wonder at the

Hinge Zone, see Antarctica. The day we left was crisp, cold and clear. So was the

day we returned. All the others were white, windy and wild. We drank a lot of tea,

talked a lot of shit, saw a lot of orange from the walls of the tent. Days were not

very distinguishable from each other,- ah yes, the day we drank tea in your tent first

and then in ours.. no, that was the day we played scrabble, not cards, no it wasn’t

it was the day you told us your life story. It was fantastic. I love camping at the

worst of times but this was serious luxury camping. More luxurious than car camping

even! We had two pyramid tents (two people per tent) that you can kneel up in

comfortably and enough food and fuel to last us for two months should the need arise. A

primus stove, a tilly lamp, a chimney, all inside the tent! Hanging above our heads are

all our clothes, drying, and we each sleep in a down sleeping bag on a fleece liner

on a sheepskin rug on a therm-a-rest on a foam pad on a wooden board and eat bacon

every day! After day four we ran out of alcohol but substituted the stimulant using a

precious combination of dark chocolate, coffee and tent fever, probably with a

little carbon monoxide thrown in for good measure. Spirits remained high, I talked

continually and they didn’t kill me, they talked continually and I didn’t kill them, it

was great! Sometimes, perhaps when the wind picked up in the middle of the night, or

you had to fight your way outside in the storm for a pee, you might suddenly reflect

on how isolated it actually was, how much could go wrong, how no-one would come and

get you. But not once did I feel unsafe.

Everything was either ice or steam. Burns from cold and burns from hot. Snow-melt

for water, anything on the floor frozen solid. There is no in-between. I came back

grinning from ear to ear, relaxed, refreshed, totally reanalysed and ready for the

world! One day we did actually manage to explore a crevasse nearby. Totally bizarre,-

the ice is flat, we drove over it with four skidoos. And there, where the crossed

flags are, yup, there, jump up and down as hard as you can. Harder, more, okay, a

little to the left maybe. Kaboom, left leg in all the way “I’ve found it” he climbs out

grinning. Tunneling through this little entrance (all roped up of course), the ice

opens out to a huge blue chapel of light. Like discovering the underwater world, or

galaxies, there is another realm here you might never know existed. Next time, after

winter, I might see some more of these but I don’t mind if I don’t: it’s just good

to know it’s out there.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Out of Blog AutoReply

This website is going to be very quiet for most of the month of April, as Felix

Salmon goes on holiday to Japan. Sorry about that. Also, for blogspam reasons,

I’m not letting anybody comment on this website while I’m away.

If you need to get in touch with me, my normal email inbox is likely to fill

up very quickly, so use japan@felixsalmon.com

instead.

I’m also going to leave you something to keep you busy while I’m gone: I give

you the synopsis, you tell me what the opera is. This is for real, and not an

April’s Fool. The person with the first right answer (by email, trackback, snail

mail, whatever) gets a lunch at a restaurant of their choosing. It might take

a while for us both to be in the same city, but I promise I will pay up eventually.

ACT I

The Old General bemoans his unrequited love for the Princess, who is in love

with the Young General. He knows that because the Young General is not of

noble blood, the two will never be able to marry.

The King and Queen enter, in the wake of a magnificent victory by the Young

General. The King offers the Young General a reward. The Young General in

response reveals his love for the Princess. Upon being denied, the Young General

plots revenge.

ACT II

The Young General and the Princess decide to elope to his fortress, but are

interrupted by the Imperial Guard, and have to fight. During the battle, they

manage to escape and reach the fortress.

ACT III

The Old General turns up at the fortress. The Young General trusts him, but

the Princess doesn’t. The Young General reveals his plans for revenge to the

Old General, who immediately leaks them to the Royal Army. Betrayed, the Young

General is doomed, and he and his beloved Princess commit suicide by poison.

Good luck – I warn you, it’s not easy!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Out of Blog AutoReply

Amanda Hesser

"Poor Amanda Hesser" has got to be in my Top Five list of Food-Related

Things I Never Thought I’d Say, along with "Ken Friedman’s music policy

is beloved

of both the New York Times and Charlie Rose" and "soy products can

replicate to an uncanny degree the experience of eating meat" (from this

month’s Atlantic).

I still don’t think anything of soy products. They make my teeth want to vomit.

But I can certainly second Eric Asimov’s rave

review of the Spotted Pig, while remaining surprised that he also saw fit

to write an entire separate article on Ken’s prowess with an iPod and a volume

knob.

And watching various bloggers pile on to Amanda Hesser today, I have to admit

to feeling a certain amount of sympathy for the author of "Cooking for

Mr. Latte: A Food Lover’s Courtship, with Recipes". (How anybody can even

get past the title of that book

without their teeth wanting to vomit, I have no idea.)

The line about teeth and vomit, in case you’re not hooked in to the New York

blogosphere, comes from Eurotrash, who eviscerated

Hesser’s latest restaurant review

today, calling it an "unspeakable piece of codswallop" before getting

really nasty. It’s something of a baptism of fire for Hesser, who recently

took over the job of chief New York Times restaurant reviewer – a very

powerful position with a legendary expense account.

It’s not just Eurotrash, either. Gawker snarked

at Hesser before linking

to Eurotrash, and Lockhart Steele inserted his own stiletto into Hesser as well,

starting off a restaurant review with a sly

parody of her opening sentences. Clearly, Hesser has an uncanny ability

to rub people up the wrong way.

And making fun of Hesser is almost comically easy. "Howard Stern and a

girlfriend amble by. You are in a James Bond movie, a high-end bar in Bangkok,

a Vong to the 10th power." Rarely can Howard Stern have reminded people

of James Bond, but I suppose that food writers’ minds move in mysterious ways.

Mysterious enough, at least, to cow Hesser’s editor into leaving in that "Vong

to the 10th power" line, despite its evident meaninglessness. Maybe it’s

what you get if you raise Vong to the 5th power and then square it by mentioning

the headwaiter’s t-shirt twice.

Still, it’s clear what’s going on here, and there’s a clue, actually, in the

fact, noted on Gawker, that Hesser is far from anonymous when she goes to these

places. Historically, restaurant reviews have been just like any other kind

of review: someone who knows what they’re talking about telling the rest of

us how good or bad the thing in question is. A great review can make a restaurant,

as New Yorkers decide en masse to try it out; it can even change food culture

more generally, as when Asian restaurants started receiving four-star reviews,

placing them on an equal footing with the grand old temples of French gastronomy.

Rarely, however, have the New York Times’s restaurant reviews been remotely

interesting to read. By far the most important thing about them was the number

of stars at the bottom: will Le Bernadin keep its fourth star, or, like Chanterelle,

will it get downgraded from four to three? That sort of thing. The list

of four-star restaurants is short indeed (just five, at the moment), and the

first time that Hesser fiddles with it, she will attract huge amounts of attention.

But the fact is that these reviews don’t always make for great copy. That’s

fine if they’re simply service journalism: a reporter going out and basically

telling you which restaurants to go to. But check out William Grimes’s rave

review of Alain Ducasse: after mentioning the $300 truffle menu, available

to anybody who walks in the door, he then spends most of the rest of the review

talking about dishes from "a tasting menu offered in the chef’s room, a

small private room just off the kitchen that regular customers can book".

These include one pastry dish which includes not only four huge black truffles,

but also "large coins of black truffle" in addition. The proportion

of New York Times readers which will ever so much as see this dish,

let alone afford it, is so tiny that they can’t possibly provide the main reason

for writing about it.

And now that the Times is branching out, trying to position itself as a national

newspaper, service journalism is even less useful for its readers. Restaurant

reviews have to do more than just help people decide if they want to try the

new place that just opened up around the corner: they have to be interesting

to a much broader cross-section of the national population.

This is something that UK newspapers have struggled with for years. They’re

based in London, but are distributed nationally, and it’s very unlikely that

a schoolteacher in south Wales really cares much about the quality of the coffee

at the latest trendy bistro in Clapham. So they’ve turned restaurant reviewing

into something of a spectator sport, helped on their way by novelist Will Self.

Self more or less started the ball rolling on the phenomenon of the modern

British restaurant review. There’s the lethal take-down, since perfected by

AA Gill, where a restaurant is simply demolished with choice epithets. That

hasn’t made it to the US yet (one Vanity Fair review by Gill notwithstanding),

and is certainly unlikely to appear in the New York Times any time soon.

But Self also realised that if his readers weren’t going to eat at the restaurant

in question, he didn’t need to go into much, if any, detail when it came to

the food. He could write 1,500-word reviews whose sole description of the food

was "nice"; and, since he’s a talented chap, he could do so in a wickedly

entertaining way. Now, Hesser’s not going to go down that path: most of her

review is, indeed, about the food. But she’s following in Self’s footsteps in

a different way: she’s trying to sparkle up her prose a little, so that the

review is more than a list of dishes with a star-rating at the end.

At this point, it’s worth noting Adam Moss’s comment

in the New York Observer today, when he talks about a long tradition of mobility

between magazines, newspapers "and things in between". Moss used to

edit the New York Times magazine, before being promoted to an ill-defined "features

czar" role overseeing the fluffier content in the newspaper, including

the Dining Out section. Moss is a magazine guy, and the advertising-driven extra

sections of the New York Times are very much in that grey area between newspaper

and magazine journalism. They’re feature-driven, rarely break news, and often

read much more like magazine pieces than like old-fashioned reported stories.

And what Hesser is doing in this review is definitely close to magazine journalism.

She writes in the second person, present tense: "A maître d’hôtel

with carefully rumpled hair wearing a "Late Night With David Letterman"

T-shirt and a sports coat takes your name at the door." If this appeared

in the Metro section, an editor would have jumped on that, turning it into "took

diners’ names" instead. Third person, past tense, objective, reported.

The food editor at the New York Times is Sam Sifton, who certainly understands

the need to sex up service journalism. He arrived at the newspaper from New

York magazine, but he started out at the New York Press, writing annoying first-person-plural

reviews which always referred to oysters as "bivalves" on second mention.

The Press’s reviews were closer in spirit to Will Self than the New York Times:

they were anecdotal, often touched only glancingly on the food, and served to

showcase the author’s writing chops more than they served to help people decide

where to have their Wednesday-night meal. I’m sure that when he sent Hesser

to Spice Market, Sifton told her to come back with something evocative of the

scene, rather than an objective, just-the-facts-ma’am report.

I think it’s a bit unfair, then, to go after Hesser for spending the first

part of her review not talking about the food. "What’s the fucking food

like?" asks Eurotrash: "Nice? Who fucking knows?" Well, we do,

after a while: Hesser spends quite a few column inches on it. But especially

when you’re reviewing a hot new Meatpacking District restaurant, the general

scene is at least as important as the quality of the food.

Still, Eurotrash does have a point: the writing simply isn’t very good. A large

chunk of the review basically consists of little more than concatenations of

ingredients – here’s one passage, verbatim.

…fat tapioca pearls loom large. They are simmered with Thai chilies, Sichuan

peppercorns, cinnamon and chipotle, then paired with slivers of raw tuna in

a cool coconut broth sharpened with kaffir lime. The dish is eaten with a

spoon.

Fried squid is piled atop a salad of papaya, water chestnut and cashews. Sweet

shrimp fritters are dotted with crunchy bits of long bean and tempered by

a relish of peanut and cucumber cut into minuscule cubes.

Thai chicken wings are lined up on a plate, coated in a hot, sticky sauce,

fragrant with chilies, soy, lime and fish sauce…

I count 21 ingredients there, in six sentences. The mind simply can’t process

all that information: it’s hard to imagine what just a couple of things taste

like, let alone a long list like this. And the whole thing is in a stultifying

passive voice: pearls "are simmered", the dish "is eaten",

squid "is pulled", fritters "are dotted", wings "are

lined up". Nobody does any of this: it just magically happens.

Eleven year-olds are taught that "the dish is eaten with a spoon"

is horrible English, but somehow, again, star writers (and Hesser is certainly

one of them) can get away with that sort of thing.

Hesser’s review, coincidentally enough, was printed on the same day that New

York media types were emailing each other the full 20,000-word text of Howell

Raines’s forthcoming Atlantic article.

In it, he talks about how he wanted to "strip away the New York parochialism"

of the paper; he also says that back of the book in general was underfunded

and unimaginative.

Raines is long gone, thank god. Reading his article, you start by thinking

"what an arsehole", then think "Christ what an arsehole",

and then just throw up your hands when you come across insufferably pompous

and self-serving drivel like this (you’ll forgive me for digressing a bit from

the restaurant beat, here):

I worked alongside James B. "Scotty" Reston in Washington, and

came to know him well as an avuncular figure who was as tough as goat guts

in his analysis of staff weaknesses. When a correspondent who had clerked

for Scotty and later boasted of their closeness left the paper to protest

a reassignment, Scotty dropped by my office. I was then the Washington editor,

and I assumed he was going to chide me for not giving the fellow the prestige

beat he thought he deserved. Instead Scotty blew out a cloud of pipe smoke

and said, He never had it, did he? At its highest levels the Times operates

by that kind of brutal managerial shorthand.

My favourite bit, though, is when Jodi Kantor is hired to take over a section

of the Sunday paper: "Arts & Leisure readers definitely knew there

was a new sheriff in town when Jodi beat New York’s hip publications to the

punch with a lead story on the rock group White Stripes."

I guess I’m saying that Hesser is a bit like Kantor: a talented journalist

who somehow persuades stodgier, older editors that she’s doing amazing stuff

even when she’s doing nothing special. I’m sure that Hesser focus-grouped well:

she’s popular among the kind of wealthy female demographic that advertisers

adore. Go check out the cover of her book, here,

and tell me if you can ever imagine a male walking out of a bookstore with it.

What I think happened is that the editors of the New York Times wanted a restaurant

reviewer who would (a) be advertiser- and women-friendly, just like their star

columnist Nigella Lawson; and (b) have a more discursive style than New York

Times readers might expect. A foodie Selena Roberts, basically. It helped that

Hesser had name recognition: Raines complains that the paper has "not had

a dominating national voice in any area of cultural coverage since Frank Rich

retired as theater critic", over 10 years ago. Parachuting Hesser in from

the world of best-sellerdom could help punch up the food section somewhat.

Now that Hesser’s in place, she’s got a certain amount of tenure, and pretty

soon, I hope, she’s going to relax a little. She doesn’t have the writing chops

to pull a Will Self, even if the Times would allow such a thing. She started

by showing off:

One-name restaurants took hold with a vengeance five years ago, after Babbo

was a hit. Then followed Otto, Ilo, Tappo, Beppe, Gonzo, Pazo, Pico and Crispo.

And, of course, Bread, Butter, Salt, Good, Taste, Fresh, Supper, Grocery,

Canteen, Commune, District, Town, Craft and — how could New York be

complete without it? — Therapy.

And she’ll probably have to let off a little more steam ("order a Pattaya

if you are feeling the need for discipline") before she settles into a

voice of her own.What she really needs is a good editor, who can trim the excesses

and tell Hesser that she should start bringing more of herself to her reviews.

It was the autobiographical elements which made her previous columns such a

success.

Hesser knows this, actually: in an interview

last year, she said that "when you are writing personally, people, negatively

and positively, make these connections and relate, because they have experienced

these things in their own lives and feel strongly about them."

Then again, in the same interview, she actually said she didn’t want the job

she now has. Maybe it’s just not going to work out:

The natural path that people try to follow at the Times is they become a

reporter and eventually a critic. I never wanted to be a critic. I love eating

and love dining, but I love cooking at home and being at home. I find that

I have done stories where I have to go out four nights a week or to two or

three restaurants a night. It’s kind of grueling and unpleasant. You get jaded.

You find yourself being super critical about what really is just a meal. There

is definitely a foodie culture that’s very competitive, and there are people

who really just love going out every night. You know, good for them. I don’t

want to do it myself… I realized shortly after I arrived at the Times that

I would like to eventually write about wine. Although, I still love writing

about food. I knew that I didn’t want to become a restaurant reviewer.

Tell us, Amanda! Why did you take this gig? Do you feel under pressure to deliver

something you’re not sure you want to be doing? ‘Cos that could explain the

missteps.

Posted in Restaurants | 20 Comments

Buying and selling bonds

Back in February 2001, Deutsche Bank was very bearish on a major US telecommunications

company. In a credit review, the bank’s analyst said that "per concerns/trends

summarized above, [the company] will be downgraded,"adding that "we

seek a cap at the current level. Risk appetite reduced."

Three months later, Deutsche Bank was very bullish on a major US telecommunications

company. It was lead manager on a record-breaking $12 billion bond deal, talking

up the credit in markets around the world. If you were to ask Deutsche Bank

whether risk appetite for this credit was a good idea, they would respond with

a resounding yes.

You can see this punchline coming a mile off. That’s right, we’re talking about

the same company here: WorldCom. If you were cynical, you might even say that

Deutsche Bank had a double interest in selling WorldCom’s nuclear-waste bonds

to as many investors as possible: not only did its fees go up as the deal got

bigger, but its own loans to the company, which matured long before the bonds

did, would be easily refinanced with the fresh billions pouring in from unsuspecting

investors.

And it’s not just Deutsche Bank, either: JP Morgan, Citigroup and Bank of America

are all in substantially the same boat, according to a New York Times article

today. So, should you ever trust them again when they try to sell you bonds

from major borrowers like WorldCom or Argentina? Unfortunately, you have very

little choice. Since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, all the major bond

underwriters (the investment banks, as were) are also major lenders (the commercial

banks, as were). Citibank merged with Salomon Brothers, Chase bought JP Morgan,

Deutsche Bank bought Bankers Trust.

Chances are, then, that if you’re buying a bond from a broker-dealer, that

institution probably also has a lending relationship with the issuer. In fact,

the securities houses are very proud of this fact: they call it "one-stop

shopping" or the suchlike, and quite openly buy bond mandates with large

loans. In the case of WorldCom, an $800 million loan commitment from Citigroup

directly resulted in a lead-manager position on the bond issue and a $20 million

fee. Quid pro quo.

Meanwhile, Citigroup will have been regaling WorldCom with its prowess at "distribution".

Since they bought Smith Barney, they will have said, they have access to an

enormous number of stockbrokers who could deliver the retail investors

that WorldCom desperately needed in order to diversify its investor base.

Once more in English? Basically, we’ve got millions of suckers who’ll put their

money wherever we tell them to. These aren’t sophisticated institutional investors

who do their own credit analysis before buying a bond, they’re little guys with

savings accounts who trust their broker to ensure that their fixed-income investments

are relatively safe. (If they wanted risk, they’d be buying stocks.) Meanwhile,

as the new guys are coming in, the bank itself is getting out.

With regard to emerging-market sovereign debt in particular, I’ve made

the case (PDF file) that retail investors (that’s you and me) should simply

not be allowed to buy individual bond issues: if they want exposure to the asset

class, they should buy mutual or index funds instead. I’m hesitant to extend

that case to domestic bond issues like that of WorldCom, but most of the arguments

apply.

In any case, this should be a lesson to any individual investors out there:

yes, you should always have a certain amount of your portfolio in fixed income.

But picking bonds is not like picking stocks: you’re extremely unlikely to outperform

the pros, even if you get lucky. And, as we’ve learned again today, you’d be

foolish to trust your broker. So buy funds instead.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Igloos, hot-tubs and jingly janglies

I had the longest bath of my life last night: eight hours in a steaming hot

tub, to make up for all the baths I haven’t had in the past six months and won’t

have in the next year. It was glorious. The hot, hot water, thirty degrees on

my skin. The frozen hair, the beer, the wine, the rum and coke slushies. Outside,

the temperature dropped steadily from about minus twentysomething to minus thirtysomething

with windchill. It was cold.

We figured we’d last minutes out there on our own, wearing not very much, soaking

wet. I managed to get outside, go for a pee and jump back in again within one

minute and my toes were colder than I can possibly describe. My feet are raw

today, a combination of the long, long soak and the freezer burn from occasional

necessary jaunts onto the icy, sticky snow.

The party started around 5:30pm with a women’s hour for the two of us. Oh,

the luxury! Floating around in the melt-tank, we haven’t felt water like that

on our skin since. October? It ended around half one in the morning, a blurry

memory: a mixture of steam from the tub, ice in the air, the sharp wake-up call

of an antarctic blow and the hazy feeling you get after drinking all afternoon

on christmas day. At its busiest, we packed twelve people into this five foot

cube of warmth.

Photo by Frank Swinton

Why the celebration? It’s the end of the summer, the base is being winterised,

the summer residence in particular is being shut down, emptied, drained… and

as a final reminder of the chaos that it was, the space it now is, our ownership

of this corner of the ice shelf, we make a jacuzzi in their melt-tank, bubbles

and all. Because we can. A final celebration of warmth: crank up the heat and

jump in!

This evening we had a party to welcome the winter. I may be the only person

here to see these as rituals, spontaneous as they both were, but the analogies

are obvious once you start thinking about it. It’s dark, it’s cold, we’re tired

from the last night’s festivities.

Where do we go? To the igloo that’s just been finished of course! The opening

night: the final block was placed but hours ago. There is a beautiful, pale

blue glow, seemingly from nowhere, as you approach in the poor vis. It even

looks like an igloo! Round, with a tunnel entrance. It’s huge inside! We built

it.

Photo by Jeff Cohen

It started as an afternoon jolly last Saturday ("I know", said Simon,

"why don’t we build an igloo tomorrow afternoon if the weather’s good?")

and turned into a week-long epic. Watching the technique developing as the week

progressed, learning from mistakes. What began as a chaotic expression of creativity

with snow turned into an art and science of igloo building. The pit from which

the snow blocks were carved, the shaping of them with a saw, their placement,

spiralling around the circle, the snow mortar that stuck them together. Hold

the blocks in place, however precarious the angle, toss snowballs at them, gently,

hold them for a couple of minutes, and watch them freeze. A couple of hours

later they are set like concrete,- what amazing building material snow is! And

now, this evening, we have had ten people in there reading poetry by the light

of a tilly lamp. Let the winter begin!

Night and day. I’ve been feeling lately that this is a fairly ordinary place

to be after all. I’ve been struggling with the predictability of night and day.

Of sun in the day and the moon and stars at night. So strange, after so long.

I hadn’t expected it. Gradually, of course, the days get shorter and the nights

get longer, the sun drops below the horizon for progressively longer stretches.

Of course – that’s what happens everywhere else in the world, isn’t it

obvious that it would happen here as well? I had expected something different.

I expected to move from 24 hours of sunlight to 24 hours of darkness via 24

hours of dusk I guess, gradually deepening in colour. I had abstracted myself

completely from the rest of the Earth system, this thing I’m meant to be studying.

I go to work, manhauling my solutions, bottles, boxes, clothes, lunch, on a

pulk sledge. I work in a lab fixing, plumbing, fitting, hammering, building,

tightening, checking, tuning, optimising, troubleshooting. I go home. Yesterday

I came home by kite – well, by hanging onto Stephane who was hanging onto

a kite. Both on skis. We all eat dinner together. I sit in the lounge and read

for a while. We have a few drinks in the bar. Last week, the chef was away so

we took it in turns to cook. It was a highlight, at the time as exciting and

memorable as igloo building. This is my life: if you do anything for long enough

it begins to feel normal. I guess ‘normal’ is just a reference to your usual

existence?

I’m writing like I’m beginning to go a little mad. I’m not (going mad) –

I’m just writing as the things come out. It’s all a mess, a jumble, it’s all

so obvious and easy until you realise that it’s actually very different from

everyone else’s experience at home. When you’re sat in a hot tub with lots of

people you don’t actually know that well, surrounded by a very cold place where

you can die very quickly, having a laugh… and then you realise that the only

thing that is holding this place together is a massive social restraint. And

what would happen should you dare to suggest that that restraint was loosened

a little? We all came here to live, to experience, to do something different

– but we all must conform as well to make sure we don’t go mad.

We won’t go to the South Pole en masse although we’ll talk about it for the

rest of the year, there won’t be mass orgies, although you out there will keep

asking and falsely assuming, there will always be food and heat and electricity

and people will go to work and there will become a routine that feels normal

and right because this isn’t an intentional community designed to explore the

boundaries of human interaction, it’s a scientific research base peopled by

those whose job skills suited.

The next day, after hot-tubs and igloos, we were practicing survival skills

outside in preparation for winter trips. Wrap up warm, real warm, find a harness

and your gear, and meet us outside, I was told. So I did. The last pair had

just finished as I arrived so I was led to the rope, given various jingly janglies

and told to go: up the rope with a jumar and then abseil down, just to check

you remember what you’re doing. I didn’t think I could remember a thing. We

were trained on this during three days in Derbyshire last September, tied to

lots of safety ropes and thoroughly supervised. But it came back surprisingly

quickly. Up and down. Next time I do this will be in a crevasse, on my winter

trip, in a week’s time. So I guess it’s not that normal after all, being here.

I like it, I like it a lot, even if there’s nothing to reference ourselves against.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Irwin at the Guggenheim

It’s Art Week in New York – a bit like Fashion Week, only bitchier. The

Whitney Biennial‘s just opened, the

Armory Show is upon us,

and -scope is setting up shop on 9th

Avenue. The upshot is that there’s more new art on show this weekend than any

human being could hope to comprehend: the only rational response, and one which

is certainly going to be adopted by most of the international art-world types

who are arriving in Gotham by the 747-load on an hourly basis, is to get exceedingly

drunk.

If they have a little bit of spare time, however, I would actually recommend

that they go to yet another art

show. It’s called Singular Forms (Sometimes Repeated), and it’s

on at the Guggenheim. My friend Geoff went to see it a few days ago, and immediately

sent me a disgusted email: the words "quite an abomination" stood

out among his grudging props for the Turrell.

I can see why he says that. The wall texts are dreadful: dull artspeak at its

most banal. I gave up reading them halfway through the first one, when I reached

the phrase "this exhibition posits". And the actual art is of highly

variable quality, mainly because the cash-strapped Guggenheim basically cobbled

the entire show out of its permanent collection. As a result, Frank Stella,

one of the godfathers of minimalism, is represented by a rather incoherent early

black painting, rather than by one of the great stripe paintings which more

or less formed the historical basis for this entire show.

What’s more, the Guggenheim’s desire to give us a chronological survey results

in virtually everybody being represented by only one or two pieces. As a result,

we learn almost nothing about individual artists, and are subtly encouraged

to sign on to the "once you’ve seen one

you’ve seen them all" mindset. Someone like Joseph Kosuth fares particularly

badly: with only a single fair-to-middling work in the show, his importance

and inventiveness completely disappears, and he comes across as little more

than a copycat jokester.

Neither novices nor experts, then, are likely to learn much from this exhibition,

and it certainly won’t change anybody’s mind about minimalist and conceptualist

art. And yet, I still reckon this show is well worth seeing, for a handful of

individual pieces.

Firstly, there are some familiar artists who are interestingly tweaked in the

context of the Frank Lloyd Wright spiral. Dan Flavin has a small sausage-chain

of fluorescent lights running out and down along the floor, which looks fantastic.

And a big Carl Andre floor piece is probably the best I’ve ever seen. All his

floor works make you hyperaware of your own physicality and weight while you’re

standing on them: that’s what makes them great. But when the floor is tilted

and curved in the way the Guggenheim’s is, that feeling is only enhanced. It’s

almost impossible to describe without resorting to hyperbole: you feel almost

as if you’re taking off, defying gravity, peforming twisting and looping stunts

in space. Just by standing still. Or, to put it another way, stepping off the

piece feels much the same as stepping off a fast-moving people-mover in an airport

– which is quite impressive considering that the Andre isn’t moving at

all.

More importantly, however, the Guggenheim is showing some major works by major

artists who don’t get exhibited nearly enough in the normal course of events

at contemporary art museums. The first is Brice Marden, who’s represented by

a series of his signature encaustic monochromes. These are lusciously gorgeous

pieces, in deep and subtle colours, which put the lie to anybody who says minimalism

is soulless. All the contemporary art experts I know revere Marden, but for

some reason I rarely see his work exhibited in museums, and these are a real

treat.

Best of all is a mind-blowing installation by Robert Irwin. It’s called Soft

Wall, and it was originally installed at the Pace Gallery in 1974, but

I doubt it could have looked better then than it does here. Irwin’s had an amazing

career, and I would highly recommend anybody who likes either art or biographies

to buy Lawrence Weschler’s masterful book-length study

of him, Seeing Is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees. That book

was written in 1983, however, and since then Irwin has gone downhills rather,

doing things like designing the car park for Dia:Beacon.

The piece in the Guggenheim dates to when Irwin was doing his very best work,

with light and scrims and exquisite subtlety. Irwin has done something which

seems very simple: he’s taken one of the Guggenheim’s rectangular galleries,

painted it white, put a white scrim in front of one of the walls, and added

a white line running horizontally around the top of the gallery near the ceiling.

That’s it, really. But just walking into that room changes the whole nature

of the way you perceive your surroundings, and the way you perceive yourself

perceiving your surroundings. Not only that, but you’re also filled with the

utter certainty that this is one of the most beautiful things you’ve ever seen.

I really can’t recommend it highly enough.

I should also note that Irwin’s work is just about the most unphotographable

art there is: no photo of any of his gallery pieces can possibly do it justice.

But just to add insult to injury, the photo

on the Guggenheim website is of a different scrim piece entirely. Don’t judge

by that: go and see for yourself!

If you want to saunter past the Sol LeWitts, then, feel free: his wall pieces

really don’t work all that well in the rotunda’s niches. If you don’t want to

walk all the way to the top of the spiral to admire thousands of Damien Hirst’s

dead houseflies, that’s fine too. I would simply urge anybody who’s in town

for some serious Art this week to make sure they check out the Robert Irwin

piece at the Guggenheim. I can’t imagine that anything at the Whitney, the Armory

Show or Scope is even going to come close – although I’m keeping my fingers

crossed.

Posted in Culture | 2 Comments

Really Silly Syndicators

Those of us who subscribe to the brand-new Slate RSS

feed got an update this evening: a new story had been added to the website.

Now Slate doesn’t actually put the content of its stories into its RSS feed,

but does give us the headline and the standfirst. The headline, this evening,

was "Vox Populi", and the standfirst was "Lying down the rabbit

hole." In other words, the RSS feed was no use at all. If you wanted to

have the vaguest notion what on earth the story was about, you had to click

through from your RSS reader to the website.

Slate celebrated the launch of its feed with a long

article extolling the virtues of RSS, but it’s clear that the powers that

be at the magazine still don’t get it.

In fact, for all the wars between different flavours of RSS (I have no idea

what the substantive difference is between 0.9x, 1.0, 2.0, and Atom, and I have

no desire to find out), the biggest problem with it is not the technology itself,

but rather the way that most websites use it.

Every so often, an RSS feed is actually better than the website: NewYorkish

is a prime example. It breaks in my browser, with the middle column overlapping

the main text, but it looks wonderful in my RSS reader. Much more frequently,

however, it’s the other way around.

For starters, most bloggers who don’t feel comfortable messing around in the

engine room, as it were, simply go with the default settings in Movable Type

or TypePad. For reasons I’ve never been able to work out, the default setting

normally gives you little more than the headline and the first 20 words, rather

than the whole piece. Back in June, Lance Knobel guilt-tripped

me into making sure everything I wrote made it into the RSS feed, quoting with

approval a fellow blogger saying that "I get annoyed with sites that don’t

provide a full RSS feed and insist on offering snippets or headlines only."

But since then, the situation has only got worse. Gawker Media, for instance,

has horrible RSS feeds, which never include images, links to other sites, or

more than a tiny bit of text. ArtsJournal is even worse, providing nothing but

a headline. And although the New York Times RSS feeds

are excellent, good luck finding them from the nytimes.com homepage: they’re

all hosted somewhere else entirely.

In general, going down my list of feeds, the bad is much more common than the

good. I limit myself to 39 feeds at any one time: beyond that I can’t see them

all at once in my aggregator, and in any case beyond that I’d never have time

to get any work done at all. Of the 39, just 18 – Low

Culture, MemeFirst, Davos

Newbies, felixsalmon.com, Charles

Stewart, The Trademark Blog,

greg.org, Gothamist

(a recent development: thank you!), Below

14th, Lockhart Steele, Bookslut,

TMFTML, Anil

Dash and his Daily Links, BuzzMachine,

NewYorkish, Best

Week Ever, and Belle de Jour

– have full RSS feeds which duplicate the content on the website. And

TMFTML’s links often don’t work from the RSS reader, for some reason.

I’m not going to name-and-shame the bloggers who don’t serve nice pretty RSS

feeds (Choire), because there are

so many who don’t serve any kind of RSS at all. The ones on blogspot we can

excuse, but the likes of Andrew

Sullivan, Josh Marshall

and Daniel Radosh – not to mention Drudge

– really should get with the program.

Then there are the corporate blogs – the ones which are meant to drive

traffic to the sites on which they’re hosted. Some, like The

Kicker, serve crappy RSS (although to be fair, The Kicker’s RSS feed is

no crappier than that of Elizabeth Spiers personally),

but most have no RSS at all. The

Corner, Best of the Web Today,

Altercation, Etc

– none of these blogs seems to have realised that an RSS feed would increase,

not decrease, their total traffic. In this category, too, you should include

Romenesko, which, one

would think, would be pretty much ideal for subscribing to.

The main reason not to put all your content into your RSS feed, of course,

is if you’re keen that your readers view the advertisements on your website.

It’s a bit like the old debate about newspapers putting their content online:

they were worried that the website would cannibalise their paper sales, and

now they’re worried that the RSS feed will cannibalise their website. I’m not

convinced, but I do see the argument, and therefore I don’t have a problem with

news organisations like the New York Times and the BBC which provide good, regularly-updated

RSS feeds which give you the top headlines and a one-line summary of the story.

When that kind of attitude spreads to webzines like Slate, however, I get worried.

Slate’s RSS feed not only doesn’t provide the full content of the stories: it

doesn’t even provide the same amount of information that’s in the site’s table

of contents. There’s a story with the headline "Vox Populi"? Um, great.

Now tell me who wrote it, and I might be interested.

Slate is all about its franchises: Chatterbox, Ballot Box, Webhead, Dear Prudence.

If something new is up on the site by Lithwick or Kinsley or Shafer, I’ll want

to read it. But the RSS feed, unlike the table of contents, tells me neither

the department in which the story is located, nor the name of the author. All

I’m left with is a headline, which means almost nothing. Why build up franchises

only to ignore their very existence when you move to an RSS feed? Even the main

image on the Slate homepage ensures that every story it mentions also comes

with the name of the author.

RSS, I believe, has been around since 1999, yet remains something known only

to a tiny minority of internet users. So long as the biggest and most important

websites continue to treat their RSS subscribers with such disdain, this state

of affairs is likely to continue. Really, I see little point in trying to fix

whatever minor problems there may or may not be with RSS itself. Unless and

until content providers actually bother to use what it’s capable of right now,

it’s going to remain something used only by the blogosphere’s nerdier types.

Posted in Culture | 16 Comments

Kerry’s flip-flops

So. It’s Bush v Kerry, and the battle lines have already been clearly drawn:

flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal vs strong leader with moral clarity. And

for all that Kerry might be leading in the polls at the moment, I agree with

the collective opinion of the bettors on Tradesports:

Bush still has something like a 62% chance of winning the election.

The liberal press has done a pretty solid job of glossing Kerry’s about-faces.

Michael Grunwald has a long table

of them in Slate, while David Halbfinger has a front-page

story in today’s New York Times on the same subject. The general gist seems

to be that Kerry is weak, indecisive: an all-things-to-all-people candidate.

George Bush has already been making hay along those lines. "Senator Kerry

has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue,"

he said after the Democratic nomination had been secured. Even earlier, he’d

described the Democratic field as "for tax cuts and against them. For NAFTA

and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. In favour

of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that’s just one senator from Massachusetts."

In the New York Times article, the defenses of Kerry partisans are pretty weak:

Some aides and close associates say Mr. Kerry’s fluidity is the mark of an

intellectual who grasps the subtleties of issues, inhabits their nuances and

revels in the deliberative process. "He doesn’t fit into any neat pigeon

holes," said Mr. Kerry’s younger brother, Cameron, his closest adviser.

"He’s complex. So what?"

And the story ends with an utterly self-defeating quote from Jonathan Winer,

a former Kerry aide:

"Between the moral clarity, black and white, good and evil of George

Bush that distorts and gets reality wrong, and someone who quotes a French

philosopher, André Gide, saying, `Don’t try to understand me too much,’

I’d let Americans decide which in the end is closer to what they need in a

president."

Um, right, Mr Winer. George Bush is going to paint

himself as a war president, a strong leader who fights on the side of good

(and of God, natch) against the "evildoers". Will Americans really

rather elect someone who quotes a French philosopher? Er, no.

When you actually look at the list of Kerry’s flip-flops, however, it’s slightly

more difficult to get annoyed at them.

On affirmative action and education reform, Kerry started off tacking against

the Democratic Party, before being pulled back in to the liberal mainstream.

This doesn’t really worry me: a president’s positions on such things don’t really

matter too much, and if a Republican-controlled Congress should pass a sensible

bill on either issue, the chances are that Kerry is going to be able to see

the other party’s point. In that he’s in stark contrast to Bush, who, for all

his rhetoric about being a "uniter, not a divider", has never seen

a Democratic policy he didn’t hate.

On mandatory minimum sentences and welfare reform, Kerry moved the other way:

he started off liberal and then triangulated. In that, he was simply following

the path of intelligent left-wingers everywhere, as exemplified by Bill Clinton

and Tony Blair. Kerry has been a politician since the Vietnam war, and anybody

who has exactly the same opinions now that they had 30 years ago should, in

my view, be disqualified from ever running for office. The Clinton/Blair Third

Way hasn’t had much press recently, but it remains the only realistic way for

a Democrat to get elected president.

On the issue of the death penalty for terrorists, the New York Times actually

makes a convincing case that his reason for opposing it (that no one would extradite

terrorists to the US) doesn’t really apply any more: the US has proved itself

pretty adept at getting its hands on terrorists other nations have captured.

Which leaves, in terms of the Slate list, at least, economic policy: gas taxation,

double taxation of dividends, and trade. These are issues where the president

has a lot of clout, and we want someone who’s getting it right. The bedrock

of the Third Way was that the leftist parties in the US and the UK had become

more fiscally responsible than the right-wing parties who had traditionally

held that ground: Clinton balanced the budget, while Blair’s first bill in Parliament

gave independence to the Bank of England. Robert Rubin set the standard for

finance ministers around the world, with Gordon Brown coming in a close second.

The trade issue is the most worrisome. Kerry seems to have caught a nasty

strain of protectionism from his potential running-mate John Edwards –

one which is only reinforced by the logic of triangulation. If you want to move

from Democratic orthodoxy towards the Bush administration on such issues, you

need to shift to the left by quite a large amount.

Double taxation of dividends doesn’t worry me at all: it’s one thing saying

that it ought to be abolished in theory, at the corporate level; it’s another

thing entirely voting for a hugely fiscally irresponsible tax bill which abolishes

it at the personal level, creating all manner of stupid tax inefficiencies and

contradictions.

But the gasoline tax issue is yet another case where fiscal responsibility

has been triangulated away. The Bush administration has been so fiscally insane

that it’s a no-brainer for the Democrats to run as fiscal conservatives. But

when it comes to the grey zone between rhetoric and policies, I’m having an

increasingly hard time believing that Kerry will be nearly as hawkish as he

needs to be.

A registered Democrat, then, is likely to look at the list of Kerry flip-flops

and not feel particularly aggrieved by them. Even Republicans won’t see little

to hate there. But on the issue of flip-flopping in general, it’s clear that

Kerry is a politician in the Clintonian vein, who worries all sides of an issue

to death before making up his mind. Bush is the opposite: he just barges ahead

regardless of the intricacies or subtleties in any situation. And in terms of

electoral politics, that might not be such a bad thing. After the midterm elections,

I wrote that

What we saw yesterday was a vote for leadership in uncertain times. Bush

might not be the sharpest tack in the drawer, but he makes decisions, sticks

to them, and is unapologetic about them. As far as he’s concerned, he knows

what’s best for the country, and he’s going to do it. That is what’s behind

the unprecedented mid-term success for the party in the White House. And so

long as times remain uncertain (which they surely will if the US invades Iraq)

the same calculus will apply in 2004.

Well, the US invaded Iraq, as we all know, and I stand by what I wrote back

then. There are lots of reasons why it makes sense to have a rather more sophisticated

president, but I don’t think that those reasons are compelling to swing voters.

Americans, I fear, will always prefer Rambo to Rimbaud.

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments