Blogs

Joaquin Phoenix Gets All Fawcetty On Letterman

| Thu Feb. 12, 2009 3:35 AM EST
Joaquin Phoenix went on Letterman Wednesday night, ostensibly to promote his new movie Two Lovers, but it was his combative, monosyllabic appearance that made news. The Walk the Line actor seemed to get perturbed that the audience didn't take his hip-hop career seriously, just about got in a fight with Paul Shaffer, and stuck his gum to Dave's desk, in addition to being all shades-and-beardy. Honestly, I try to reserve my Riff postings for actual, somewhat serious arts and culture news (and French techno tunes I think are awesome), but this really must be seen to be believed. Is he doing a shoot-the-moon, Andy Kaufman bit, or is he just trying to burn up his feathers and nest so he can emerge anew? Only time, and the new J-Pho album, will tell.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Site Update

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 8:37 PM EST
NEW SITE....This is it: our new site is now up and running.  Hooray!  However, there are almost certainly still some bugs in the system, so please be patient for the next couple of days as we work out the kinks and improve the performance.  If you find a bug, or have any kind of complaint, email it to:
web-feedback@motherjones.com
A note on comments: in order to reduce comment spam, we've installed a captcha app that asks you to type in a word in order to verify that you're actually a human being.  If you register a username, however, you don't need to do this.  If you don't want to register, you should feel free to comment regardless, but if you're a regular it's probably worth your while to register.

Welcome to the new site!

The Textbook Ripoff

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 8:21 PM EST | Scheduled to publish Wed Feb. 11, 2009 6:20 PM EST
THE TEXTBOOK RIPOFF....Andrew Gelman:

I received a free copy in the mail of an introductory statistics textbook; I guess the publisher wants me to adopt it for my courses....I showed the book to Yu-Sung and he said: Wow, it's pretty fancy. I bet it costs $150. I didn't believe him, but we checked on Amazon and lo! it really does retail for that much. What the....? I asked around and, indeed, it's commonplace for students to pay well over $100 for introductory textbooks.

Andrew wants to know why textbooks are so expensive. Henry Farrell too. Add me to the list. I've heard various explanations for the skyrocketing cost of textbooks. They're bigger these days. They use more color. They include CDs and multimedia bells and whistles. Etc. But here's a data point. I only have one of my college textbooks still in my possession, but I just got it off the shelf to see if it had a price in it. It did: $17.25. That was in 1976, and adjusted for inflation it comes to $64 in today's dollars. So what does it currently cost on Amazon? Answer: $132. It is, as near as I can tell, the exact same book. Same binding, same number of pages, same charming lack of color. In fact, browsing through it, it looks as if it's being printed from the same plates as it was in 1976. This, then, is obviously a book that ought to be cheaper today than it was three decades ago. The costs of production have long since been paid back, there's a ton of competition from the used book market since the book hasn't changed in 30 years, and I imagine that author royalties are the same as ever. For reference, a similar size commercial hardback would run about $40 these days. So what is the deal? Why are textbooks such a ripoff?

Chart of the Day - 2.11.2009

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 5:04 PM EST | Scheduled to publish Wed Feb. 11, 2009 2:49 PM EST
CHART OF THE DAY.... This is from Brad Setser. Chinese exports are down 17.5%, but imports are down a stunning 43%:

What worries me the most? The possibility that the sharp y/y fall in imports doesn’t just reflect a fall in imported components or a fall in commodity prices, but rather a major deceleration in China’s domestic economy....At a time when the world is short demand, China seems to be subtracting from global demand not adding to it. The best solution: an absolutely enormous domestic stimulus in China.

A massive stimulus in the United States is probably necessary, but it's still a dicey proposition since we're running a big trade deficit and need to curtail our domestic consumption in the long run. But China is running a big trade surplus, which makes it unproblematic for them to increase domestic consumption, and their economic growth last quarter was perilously close to zero. They're the ones who really need to stimulate their economy. If the Chinese economy tanks, the rest of the world will get dragged down even further with it.

Middle East Update

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 5:00 PM EST | Scheduled to publish Wed Feb. 11, 2009 1:54 PM EST
MIDDLE EAST UPDATE....It's hard to have even a shred of hope left these days for some kind of solution to the Israeli-Palestine dispute, and the combination of Hamas's rise following the Gaza war and Likud/Yisrael Beiteinu's rise in yesterday's Israeli election is just one more nail in the coffin. At this point, to have any kind of optimism at all, you would need to either have supernatural faith in Barack Obama's negotiating powers or else be the world's most fervent fan of "only Nixon can go to China" geopolitics. Aside from that, it's difficult to see even the possibility of moving forward.

For more, check out Ezra Klein here and Stephen Walt here. But don't bother if you're hoping to be reassured. That's just not in the cards right now.

Wall Street CEOs: Putting Shareholders Before Taxpayers

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 4:07 PM EST

During Wednesday's hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, Citigroup chief executive Vikram Pandit offered a curious mea culpa in response to criticism triggered by his firm's plan to buy a new corporate jet after receiving $45 billion in bailout money:

We did not adjust quickly enough to this new world, and I take personal responsibility for that mistake. In the end, I canceled delivery. We need to do a better job of acknowledging and embracing the new realities.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Bailout Question: Is This the Time for Mass Movements or Expert Opinion?

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 3:45 PM EST

Nate Silver takes one side:

I'm sorry, but somewhere between 99.9% and 99.999999% of us are severely underqualified to be making policy recommendations on [the financial industry bailout]. And I'm certainly in the majority on this one... This is neither the time nor the place for mass movements -- this is the time for expert opinion. Once the experts (and I'm not one of them) have reached some kind of a consensus about what the best course of action is (and they haven't yet), then figure out who is impeding that action for political or other disingenuous reasons and tackle them -- do whatever you can to remove them from the playing field.

And David Sirota takes the other:

The big flaw in [Silver's] rationale, of course, is the entire concept of "expert opinion." What exactly is "expert opinion?" That term usually refers to the Very Serious People the Establishment and Media Say Are Experts - that is, people like the Wall Street CEOs in front of Congress and people like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner - all who had direct hands in destroying the economy. Silver - incredibly - would have us simply wait for this "expert opinion" to tell us what to do, without any regard for the fact that this "expert opinion" is exactly what got us into the situation we're in.

I think both Silver and Sirota are right, and wrong.

The Latest Obama Hope Poster News

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 2:31 PM EST
It's been a busy couple of days on the Shepard Fairey iconic Obama Hope poster (IOHP) front. Some quick updates:

• Shepard Fairey got arrested in Boston. Yawn. Just the cost of doing business when you're a radical street artist sticking it to the Man.

• Mannie Garcia, the photographer who took the photo that Fairey used in the IOHP says he owns the image, not the Associated Press. And he doesn't care that Fairey used it. Garcia: "This is not just some artist who ripped something off. It’s more unique and more complicated than that. This is about the 44th President of the United States. I am not going to do anything to subvert this presidency.” Whoa—if Obama's success really does rest on the fate of this poster, we really are in trouble.

• And now Fairey is suing the AP. Fairey's lawyers say the IOHP was not a rip-off but rather a “stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that created powerful new meaning."

The Small But Meaningful Victories of the Open Gov't World

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 2:06 PM EST

I know what you're looking for on your lunch break: an update on Senate disclosure parity! The Sunlight Foundation reports that Sen. Russ Feingold's years-long, seemingly quixotic quest to cajole the Senate into filing campaign fundraising reports the same way as the House -- electronically and directly to the FEC -- may soon come to fruition. Feingold is expected to re-introduce S.223 in the next few weeks and enlarged Democratic majorities mean the greatest chance for passage yet. See Sunlight for more.

San Francisco Rejects American Apparel: Has the Fight Against Chain Stores Gone Too Far?

| Wed Feb. 11, 2009 1:51 PM EST

Last week, activists from the hippest street in San Francisco's uber-hip Mission neighborhood—where skinny pants and a shrunken American Apparel sweatshirt are like Polos and Dockers in Nantucket—successfully defeated American Apparel's application to open a store there. The backlash has been swift. Not less than three San Francisco Chronicle columnists weighed in, noting that American Apparel would have filled one of Valencia Street's 27 vacant storefronts with 15 employees earning $12 to $14 and hour plus healthcare—and during a recession! "American Apparel is lucky," sneered columnist Caille Millner. "What a burden it would be to have a store in a magical place with such nasty elves."

The elf in question is Chicken John Rinaldi, a performance artist, boat-maker, and 2007 San Francisco mayoral candidate (he got 2,500 votes) whose recent blog post inspired some 200 people to flood a planning commission meeting and buzz-saw the store's permit application like high school disciplinarians tackling an overgrown handlebar mustache. I spoke with Chicken John this morning as he was driving home from his art studio in Winters, California, (he can no longer afford to work in San Francisco) with his equally vocal best friend, Dammit the Amazing Wonder Dog.

 

Mother Jones:What happened?

Chicken John: We explained to American Apparel in no uncertian terms [that the store would never get approved], and I called their guy on the phone, and the guy was like this indignant fucker, like, "Yeah, we'll see. What you got?" And I was like, "Are you fucking kidding me? I eat guys like you for breakfast." [See American Apparel's response at bottom]

MJ: Clearly, a lot of people in the Mission oppose American Apparel coming in.

CJ: Let's not use the term "American Apparel" anymore. Let's use "Formula Retail." There's a lot of people in the Mission who oppose formula retail on Valencia Street. No one's saying that we oppose formula retail in the Mission. We just oppose it on eight blocks on Valencia Street. You want to put America Apparel [one block over] on Mission Street? I think that's a great idea.

MJ: What's wrong with Valencia Street in particular?

CJ: You want to put a chain store on the only eight blocks in America that don't have a chain store? If you can't see why that's wrong and bathed in vileness, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Like if you can't see that it's the last place that doesn't have a fucking Starbucks on it. Have you been to the rest of the country? It's out of control. There is no coffeeshop anymore. There is no diner.

MJ: There are other places in the city that don't have any chains.

CJ: Name one.

MJ: Hayes Valley has a rule against chains as well. But if you look at Hayes Valley, it's also full of stores selling $10,000 coats. Isn't that the issue, as opposed to whether the hipsters in the Mission, who already shop at American Apparel, are gonna have an America Apparel next to them or not?