The Quiet Corner Café.

Talk about anything.

"Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

Palintalk. Is that going to work?

McCain, too, is a memoirist.

We keep talking about "Dreams From My Father." What about "Faith of My Fathers"?

His 1999 memoir, “Faith of My Fathers,” for the first time put his prison camp ordeal at the center of his public persona. In its pages, he recalled the experience as much more than a trial: a turning point from glory-seeking flyboy to responsible patriot, the final resolution of a rebellion against his father’s expectations, and the origin of a drive “to serve a cause” larger than himself....

[Co-author Mark] Salter, taking a little literary license, assembled from Mr. McCain’s recollections a neat narrative that he had never before articulated. It became a best seller, a television movie and the first of five successful McCain-Salter volumes. And on the eve of Mr. McCain’s 2000 Republican primary run, its story line reshaped his political identity. In interviews and speeches, Mr. McCain has increasingly described his life in the book’s language and themes, and never more so than during his current campaign, which has turned back to the story of “Faith of My Fathers” for everything from its first television commercial to his speech at the Republican convention.

Politics was imitating art, said Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown who has studied Mr. McCain’s career and memoir. “It is almost as if McCain had described himself as a literary character,” Professor Wayne said, “and then he tried to be that person in real life.”

Lots more at the link, especially about McCain's interest in literary characters, like the hero of “Of Human Bondage” (whose "final realization could fit almost as well near the conclusion of Mr. McCain’s memoir: 'It might be that to surrender to happiness was to accept defeat, but it was a defeat better than many victories'") and Marlon Brando ("Friends say Mr. McCain likes to imitate Brando erupting in rage: 'You scum-sucking pig!'")

AND: Strange -- isn't it? -- that both candidates wrote a memoir with the word "father/s" in the title. Is there something about a struggle to come to terms with his father that drives a man to the top position? If only Mitt Romney's dad had given him more trouble!

America proven frivolous.

At least as far as movies are concerned:

Warner Bros.’ Leonardo DiCaprio-Russell Crowe starrer “Body of Lies” and Universal’s “The Express” were sacked at the weekend box office as moviegoers once again resisted Middle Eastern terrorist pics and sports dramas.

Instead, Disney holdover “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” stayed at No. 1 in its second sesh, declining a slim 40% to an estimated $17.5 million from 3,218, while Sony Screen Gems’ horror title “Quarantine” came from behind to place No. 2 in its opening, grossing an estimated $14.2 million from 2,461 runs, according to Rentrak....

Ridley Scott’s big-budget “Body of Lies,” about a conflicted CIA agent tracking terrorists in the Middle East, grossed an estimated $13.1 million from 2,710 to come in a disappointing No. 3. Many thought the pic, sold as an actioner, would win the sesh based on its star power alone.

Or do you think it's decidedly not frivolous of us to eschew serious messages from Hollywood and use movie-going mainly as a lightweight escape? (That's basically the insight achieved by the protagonist in "Sullivan's Travels.") One thing is obvious: People do not want dramas about the Middle East.

"This is the swamp in which Obama operated...."

The NY Post says we shouldn't just mistrust Ayers for his past; we should mistrust him for his present:

Ayers' work funding radical "education" groups in Chicago came just in the last 12 years. And he teamed up directly with Obama on that....

"Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead, CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers," such as ACORN.

Ayers seemed to envision schools as "sites of resistance" and for teaching kids to oppose "oppression," with a focus on America's evil and racist past - and an eye toward "social transformation."

This is the swamp in which Obama operated....

I'd like to see the details of these proposals. And "seemed to envision" is awfully weaselly. What is wrong with a foundation that chooses to fund creative proposals for teaching kids to analyze the problems of racism in American history and rejects mundane proposals to drill math and science?

"They reacted with casual glances when Jackie Kennedy came down the mountain to window-shop."

Life in Thurmont.

Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize for economics.

Interesting... to see such a prominent political commentator win.

Mr. Krugman received the award for his work on international trade and economic geography. In particular, the prize committee lauded his work for “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity.” He has developed models that explain observed patterns of trade between countries, as well as what goods are produced where and why. Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange different kinds of goods with each other; Mr. Krugman’s theories have explained why worldwide trade is dominated by a few countries that are similar to each other, and why some countries might import the same kinds of goods that it exports.

ADDED: I haven't blogged Krugman too much over the years -- click the "Krugman" tag -- but the oldest post is about this entertaining confrontation with Bill O'Reilly, back in August 2004. Those were pre-YouTube days. How satisfying to be able to dig this up so easily:



AND: One of many quotes from that clip that made me laugh: "You are the most un-objective person on the face of the earth."

What beastie?

"I used to feel that I spent too much of my time in my pajamas doing nothing..."

"... and I’d think 'in the time that I don't spend writing, I could raise a family of five.' In a lot of ways, being a writer is lonely and alienating. You hear about the work ethic of people like Joyce Carol Oates and John Updike and you think 'well, God bless them, but I don’t know how they do it.' Most of the rest of us just wind up watching Oprah. I was roaming the neighborhood every day, lingering at the dog run with my dog. It was really bad. I just wasn’t doing enough, and I feel like law school sort of gave me my voice back. When you have a lot to do, you get a lot done. At least that’s how it’s been for me."

That's Elizabeth Wurtzel trying to give a believable answer to the question why she went from the life of a writer into the big law firm lawyer's life. So you think, with all my free time I could be raising 5 kids, so.... I'll go to law school and work in a big law firm?

Actually, I understand the logic. When you are purely a writer, you are hanging around the house a lot. You can feel very odd and at loose ends. If the house is empty, you may think, I could be raising kids what with all the time I spend loafing and moping, but that doesn't mean you want to raise kids (who you must know will be demanding during your creative spurts as well as your down time). It just means, it's a weird way to live, on your own at home. Maybe what you need is not other human beings in the house, but to get out of the house, to have a life that has more to do with interacting with adults and affecting the network of adult activities. Law is the perfect entree.

And a writer needs something to write about. You may venture out into that complex world of adult enterprises and eventually bring it all back home, where you can write again. We were just talking about the way Bill Ayers signed up as a merchant seaman, thinking he'd gather the material he to write a great novel. Was Ayers thinking about Herman Melville? Joseph Conrad? Was Wurtzel thinking about Scott Turow?

Calm down at The Pink Rose Tea Room

There now.



Feel better?

An old person expressing anger about race is entirely different from a young person raging about the government.

Glenn Reynolds thinks the MSM is over-reporting the supposed rage of McCain crowds:

So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers' bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it's a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It's nice of McCain to try to tamp that down... but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here?...

The Angry Left has gotten away with all sorts of beyond-the-pale behavior throughout the Bush Administration. The double standards involved -- particularly on the part of the press -- are what are feeding this anger... So while asking for McCain supporters to chill a bit, can we also ask the press to start doing its job rather than openly shilling for a Democratic victory?

I agree about the media bias, but let's consider whether there may be some reason to tolerate more anger from the left than the right, especially if the lefties in question are young and the righties are old.

We're genetically programmed to weather the crying and tantrums of children. Teenagers sulk and shout, and we may grow impatient, but we understand the condition. We may well remember feeling the same way. Teenagers and young adults may annoy us, but we're not appalled. We think we can continue to speak calm reason and they will come around some day. But an angry older person sets off an alarm. Something is wrong here. Either there really is a problem or this person is unhinged. It gets our attention.

Now, I know there are old lefties too. Believe me, I know. I live in Madison. But I don't see these people yelling and screaming. I see world-weariness, bemusement, cynicism, and other age-appropriate manifestations of dissatisfaction. That may not be too pretty, but it's not notable. It's not interesting. If these old lefties went to a campaign event and yelled at a candidate irrationally, wouldn't we see it in the news?

Another distinction is the target of the rage. Rage against government -- short of true threats of imminent violence -- is a familiar American tradition going back to colonial days. In its best forms, it's useful and healthy, encouraging evidence that we are not supine. What is disturbing is rage against private citizens, especially against racial and ethnic minorities. There's nothing good there. There's no bracing, salutary form of racism.

In short, an old person expressing anger about race is entirely different from a young person raging about the government. Different treatment is appropriate.

The question remains, of course, whether we're getting accurate reports of angry old racists. I doubt it.

IN THE COMMENTS: People are reminding me of various angry un-young lefties: Olbermann, Kos, Hamsher, Code Pink ladies. I agree that those people rant angrily, but they aren't indulging in "assassination fantasies." But, okay. I don't mean to say there aren't any old angry lefties, only that anger is more disturbing coming from an older person.



(Line that stood out: "Banks are going bust.")

At the last debate, Obama spoke at the 9th grade level and McCain spoke at the 7th grade level.

To make those word clouds of Obama and McCain's speech at the last debate, I had to edit the transcript to produce a separate text for each man's words. As you can see in the previous post, I was testing my own writing with Flesch Reading Ease Score calculator. This gave me the idea to compare McCain and Obama, for what it's worth.

Obama's speech came out at the 8.74 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, with a Flesch Reading Ease Level of 66.88 (higher is easier, and 60-69 is considered "Standard"). McCain's speech came out at the 7.02 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, with a Flesch Reading Ease Level of 70.63 (70-79 is
"Fairly Easy").

Now, of course, speaking is different from writing. You edit writing, and you get to think about whether you want to be expansive and sesquipedalian or whether you want to adhere to Strunk & White rules like "Omit needless words" and "Avoid fancy words." Speaking is harder to control. You may find yourself babbling or losing your place and wondering how am I ever going to bring this sentence in for a landing, and you don't get to go back and break it up into separate sentences and cut the filler. So the seemingly higher level of speech that tests at a higher level does not necessarily represent higher brain power. Nor can we say that the man speaking at the lower level has a lower capacity for complex thoughts. He may be applying a fine intelligence to composing his sentences well.

So, as I said... for what it's worth.

***

Now, I remember that CNN reported the testing of the VP debate transcript:

Grade level: Biden, 7.8; Palin, 9.5 (Newspapers are typically written to a sixth-grade reading level.)...

Ease of reading: Biden, 66.7... versus 62.4 for Palin.

ADDED: Voir Dire has a table comparing Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin... and Kennedy and Nixon. I think it shows that candidates today are more attuned to communication and soundbites and less to displaying intelligence.

Jack Cashill's strange notion that Bill Ayers wrote "Dreams From My Father."

This Andy McCarthy post convinced me to read Jack Cashill's (long) argument that maybe Bill Ayers wrote "Dreams From My Father." I'd noticed Cashill's piece the other day, but rejected the notion out of hand. I mean, of course, there's a good chance that Obama had a ghostwriter -- effusion about "that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books" falls flat -- but why on earth would anyone imagine the ghostwriter was Ayers? It's Ayers-o-mania gone wild.

Cashill's first point is that "Dreams From My Father" is just too damned good to have been written by someone who had not previously demonstrated literary promise. (Cashill dishes up a college-era poem -- about apes! -- that Obama himself calls "very bad.") This, of course, only goes to the issue of whether Obama had a ghostwriter (or a strong editor).

I read "Dreams From My Father" -- that is, I listened to Obama read it -- and I didn't think it was so brilliantly written. It had a creative-writing-class feeling to it that often made me feel a little embarrassed for the novice writer. There were so many times when the leaves or the sky were expressing his feelings and so forth. It was good, but earnest.

So where does Ayers come in? Cashill says "Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career." That is, Ayers was there at exactly the time when Obama had been failing to produce the manuscript he contracted to write. Again, that's not much.

The most interesting part of Cashill's analysis compares the literary style of "Dreams" and the Ayers memoir "Fugitive Days" and notes a lack of similarity between "Dreams" and Obama's second book "The Audacity of Hope."

Ayers and Obama have a good deal in common. In the way of background, both grew up in comfortable white households and have struggled to find an identity as righteous black men ever since. Just as Obama resisted "the pure and heady breeze of privilege" to which he was exposed as a child, Ayers too resisted "white skin privilege" or at least tried to....

Tellingly, Ayers, like Obama, began his career as a self-described "community organizer," Ayers in inner-city Cleveland, Obama in inner-city Chicago. In short, Ayers was fully capable of crawling inside Obama's head and relating in superior prose what the Dreams' author calls a "rage at the white world [that] needed no object."

Indeed, in Dreams, it is on the subject of black rage that Obama writes most eloquently. Phrases like "full of inarticulate resentments," "unruly maleness," "unadorned insistence on respect" and "withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage" lace the book.

In Fugitive Days, "rage" rules and in high style as well. Ayers tells of how his "rage got started" and how it evolved into an "uncontrollable rage -- fierce frenzy of fire and lava."

Listening to "Dreams," what I heard was the sound of elite education, the way professors present race and gender issues. I wondered -- prompted by Obama's own new foreword to his book -- why he didn't tell us much more about his mother and why the father who contributed almost nothing to his life got to be the central figure in the story. My theory was that Obama was echoing professors and determined to produce a book about race. As he highlighted everything that had to do with race, I never trusted him to be telling us what his life really felt like to him at the time. The most honest admission in the book, to my ear, was the confession that he spent a huge chunk of his formative years watching TV sitcoms with his (white) grandfather.

Cashill puts some stock in quantitative analysis:

The "Fugitive Days" excerpt scores a 54 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level [in the Flesch Reading Ease Score]. The "Dreams'" excerpt scores a 54.8 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level. Scores can range from 0 to 121, so hitting a nearly exact score matters.

A more reliable data-driven way to prove authorship goes under the rubric "cusum analysis" or QSUM. This analysis begins with the measurement of sentence length, a significant and telling variable. To compare the two books, I selected thirty-sentence sequences from Dreams and Fugitive Days, each of which relates the author's entry into the world of "community organizing."

"Fugitive Days" averaged 23.13 words a sentence. "Dreams" averaged 23.36 words a sentence. By contrast, the memoir section of [Cashill's own memoir] "Sucker Punch" averaged 15 words a sentence.

Interestingly, the 30-sentence sequence that I pulled from Obama's conventional political tract, Audacity of Hope, averages more than 29 words a sentence and clocks in with a 9th grade reading level, three levels below the earlier cited passages from "Dreams" and "Fugitive Days." The differential in the Audacity numbers should not surprise. By the time it was published in 2006, Obama was a public figure of some wealth, one who could afford editors and ghost writers.

When I first read that, I asked my son John (by IM):

do you think it's significant that Obama's first book is measured as written at the 12th grade level but his second book is at the 9th grade level?

I'm not suggesting that he got dumber or anything

it's about the issue of ghostwriting

I think if he wrote it all himself both books would be at the same level

John said:

maybe he had more desire to simplify the book that involved policy, and took more liberties with the more novel-like book.

Yes, that's the answer, of course. In "Dreams," Obama was trying to be literary, trying to impress elite readers with language, descriptions, and insight. And "Audacity" is trying to spell out policy for everyone.

I downloaded a Flesch Reading Ease Score calculator and put a lot of my blog text through it -- just my writing, no quoted stuff -- and then did a few my law review articles. The blog is written at the 9th grade level and all the articles were at the 11th grade level. The same person, writing for different purposes, writes at different grade levels.

The most interesting part of Cashill's analysis has to do with seafaring imagery. Ayers worked at sea for a time. "'I'd thought that when I signed on that I might write an American novel about a young man at sea,' says Ayers in his memoir, Fugitive Days, 'but I didn't have it in me.'" Though Ayers didn't write that seafaring novel, he brought a lot of seafaring imagery to Fugitive Days, Cashill shows. Then, oddly, there's a lot of seafaring imagery in "Dreams."

Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone. "The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed," he writes in a typical passage. Both also make conspicuous use of the word "flutter."

Not surprisingly, Ayers uses "ship" as a metaphor with some frequency. Early in the book he tells us that his mother is "the captain of her own ship," not a substantial one either but "a ragged thing with fatal leaks" launched into a "sea of carelessness."

Obama too finds himself "feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship." He also makes a metaphorical reference to "a tranquil sea." More intriguing is Obama's use of the word "ragged" as an adjective as in the highly poetic "ragged air" or "ragged laughter."

Both books use "storms" and "horizons" both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an "unbounded horizon," and Obama writes of "boundless prairie storms" and poetic horizons-"violet horizon," "eastern horizon," "western horizon."

Ayers often speaks of "currents" and "pockets of calm" as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in "a menacing calm" or "against the current" or "into the current." The metaphorical use of the word "tangled" might also derive from one's nautical adventures. Ayers writes of his "tangled love affairs" and Obama of his "tangled arguments."

Mere confirmation bias? Or is Cashill onto something?

The Givhan of HuffPo is pretty sure her Women's Studies professor vomits whenever she sees Sarah Palin.

Karin Tanabe, who seems to be the Givhan of HuffPo -- which is nothing like the Mull of Kintyre -- takes a 2-week old Robin Givhan column -- which she quotes but doesn't link to -- and trashes of Sarah Palin's style.

Because it wasn't enough for Givhan to credit Palin with showing that "a woman can step onto the national political stage without having to manipulate her wardrobe into some torturous costume calibrated to make her look authoritative but not threatening, feminine but not sexy, serious but not dour."

Palin must be mocked.

Tanabe writes:

The point is, Sarah Palin and her hockey mom's, grandpa's and second cousins, don't want her to be authoritative.

It's funny when the Givhan of HuffPo falls prey to the grocer's apostrophe, is it not? Modeling haughtiness, she takes a pratfall.

Her bad highlights and her layers of puffy bangs scream "don't mind me, I've been filing my nails in a log cabin for the last decade and didn't know the bouffant was now reserved for burlesque dancers and women who think Vogue is a devilish jig invented by Madonna (cue giggle)." I'm pretty sure my college feminist literature professor is vomiting every time she sees bouffant Barbie. Don't worry Professor Hart, I am too.

Is that that what Women's Studies teaches these days -- inane snobbery? And when did throwing up become the preferred form of elite expression?

Spewing.

At the MMoCA.



An explanation of the art -- which I'm not very interested in -- is here.

The Featherweight Café.

Where everything is light and airy. If your concerns are ponderous or morose, I must direct you back to The Willow Lounge.