The Corporation (Achbar & Abbott) -- B

If I were a benovolent despot, I'd decree that every college student must take at least two classes in economics and two in critical theory before graduation. In that world, you're sure to have less fucking Hummers on the road -- and also more leftist documentaries that evince at least a basic understanding of market economics.

The Corporation, the most provocative and visually impressive of the leftist docs currently out, achieves exactly what it sets out to achieve: it offers up a comprehensive leftist critique of corporations. As you can expect, the movie's most potent when its criticisms are on target, such as when it details ecological damage done from the "externalizing" of corporate costs, aided immeasurably by the interviews with born-again eco-CEO Roy Anderson. Also, there's eyeopening stuff on Monsanto and the Fox News story detailing the public health dangers of the bovine hormone put out by that company. Environmental and public health hazards, dangers of media concentration, and the pervasiveness of advertising and marketing to create demand for useless products -- those are all trenchant critiques of the Age of Multinational Corporations.

The doc also wants to be a description of the role and effect of corporations on contemporary life, and in that it's far less successful. For all the interviews with "the other side", The Corporation can't come to terms with a simple truth that capitalism, for all its ills, is the most effective and efficient form of production and distribution we have, creating wealth and improving standards of living across the globe. It doesn't begin to acknowlege that often times market-based solutions are often the most effective way of dealing with certain external cost problems. It poses the "commons" as some sort of collective utopia without acknowledging the very real problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons". And that for all its romanticization of the "people", consumer choice and shareholder pressure remain the best and most effective ways of holding corporations accountable.

Most egregious is the discussion of the corporation as a "legal person", which the film uses as an organizing conceit. As a legal matter, that designation is made for the purposes of standing, with legal rights somewhat different from that of individuals. As an economic judgment, every industrialized nation has decided -- rightly, in my view -- that a form of business that limits liability to individual shareholders promotes capital investment and increases growth. For example, if you invest $5,000 in Unocal stock, you won't lose your house if Unocal goes under. You'll only lose your $5,000. If you risk the shirt on your back, you probably wouldn't invest. Such basic economic principles are ignored at the service of nonsensical radical rhetoric, which ends up weakening the movie's points.

The film diagnosed the problem correctly: that economics has trumped politics, concentrating power on corporations that are not accountable to citizens directly. But that's as much a political problem -- politicians need for corporate campaign money to maintain power, the "people" have trouble organizing due to collective action problems and information failure -- as it is a problem of corporate malevolence. I wish the film addressed the real problem with more rigor, instead of just romanticizing "the people". On the other hand, there are few movies that are even willing to tackle this problem, and even a half-successful thinkpiece like The Corporation is much appreciated.

Kerry as Barak?

Tired of all the comparisons made between the 2004 election and (take your pick):

(a) the 1980 race, when a beleaguered incumbent president lost decisively as the undecided all broke to the challenger in the last few days;

(b) the 1992 race, when an Iraq-conquering president named Bush was defeated by a Democrat assaulting his poor economic stewardship;

(c) the 1972 race, when the incumbent Republican war president won in a landslide by appealing to the nationalistic, socially conservative Silent Majority; or

(d) the 1988 race, when an aggressive Bush campaign successfully tarred a Massachusetts liberal as out of touch with the mainstream?

Leave it to the New Republic to start comparing the Kerry-Bush race to elections in other countries. They print two articles. (Subscription required to read the articles.) The pessimistic one draws a parallel between Kerry and the hapless, charisma-challenged Neil Kinnock, who squandered Labour's advantage on the issues and couldn't withstand the negative attacks from John Major in the 1991 British elections. The more persuasive article argues that Kerry's playing Ehud Barak to Bush's Bibi Netanyahu. Barak was the war hero whose biography-intensive compaign hardened Labor's dovish image; Bibi is a reflexively hawkish wingnut who's loathed by the center-left. Though the Israeli electorate was closely divided in 1999 and polls fairly close for most of the race, Barak pulled away at the end and whipped Bibi by a 56-44 margin.

If you're interested with historical comparisons, check out the Barak-Kerry article. I haven't seen a better case for a historical parallel. Then again, maybe such comparisons are fundamentally flawed.

Also, I keep running into folks who remain skeptical that Kerry's in a strong position. Don't take my word for it. Check out what Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato, two of the most respected election analysts in Washington, say about the state of the race. And these guys aren't Democratic shills.

Added for all my Costco-loving buds: A Brooksian piece on Kerryesque Costco v. Bushian Wal-Mart. The piece is better than it sounds.

Will Ferrell's Anti-Bush Ad

Will Ferrell stars in this hilarious anti-Bush ad sponsored by America Coming Together, the most important and active of the 527 groups supporting the Democrats (they're gonna key the get out the vote operation). If you want to give money this election cycle, there is no bigger bang for your buck.

Alaskan Summer

Last Thursday afternoon wasn't the ideal time to go off-line. John Kerry was about to make the "speech of his life", my man Wes Clark was set to make a rousing appearance, baseball's trading deadline loomed, and Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle was about to open. It would've been a time to log some serious websurfing hours.

On second thought, last weekend might've been the best time to disconnect -- and that I did, dropping myself deep in the heart of red state Alaska to meet up with two of my closest friends, Mumon and WD, the latter of whom is now living happily in Anchorage.

Alaska itself is humbling. The vast expanse of mountains and trees, framed by water -- nature on a grand scale -- made me feel like a Lalliputian. The trip was fantastic, and it was less about the usual wildlife tour than getting a droplet of the local Alaskan experience: fishing, hiking, climbing, camping, drinking. However metrosexual you happen to be, it's best to summon the He-man (or She-ra) buried within you, because that encyclopedic knowledge of chianti and Verdi won't help you jack squat in skinning a rabbit. The folks I met lived life intensely in the outdoors but were totally unassuming; cool folks very much comfortable in their skin.

Favorite part of the trip: Catching a salmon, gutting it out with my bare hands, and finally eating freshly-cooked fish with the most deliciously fresh salmon roe sushi I've ever had, roe that came from the gut of a fish we had caught.


Reeling in a big red one (that's me in orange)

Also, Seward's Folly, like many smaller states, stands in stark contrast to California in its vocal political expression. As we traversed through residential Anchorage, seemingly every house has a sign hoisted on its lawn supporting a candidate in the hotly contested senate battle between Democratic governor Tony Knowles and incumbent Republican Lisa Murkurski. It's cool to see that people care.

Weekend stress: Nomar and Kerry

So Alaska was all fun and games, right? Not quite. Catching a bit of SportsCenter (on mute) in a bar on Saturday night, I found out that No-mah, a man so iconic among Red Sox devotees that idolatry of the fidgety shortstop is regularly lampooned on SNL, has been traded, apparently for a glazed donut and yesterday's coffee. Though not entirely unexpected, the trade still left me traumatized, which not even knocking off a few burly Alaskan dudes at the pool table could assuage. Then, on Monday, I caught the USA Today headline: Kerry receives no post-convention bounce in the new poll, and actually lost ground to Bush. I spent much of my 9 mile hike that day brooding over this strange turn.

Now, I hadn't seen Kerry's speech, and only read the text in the NY Times on Friday. The text was awful, full of convoluted Kerryisms and no real punch. Not knowing the general reception of the speech, I had feared the worst: Kerry whiffed on Thursday.

Reading all the week's news after the fact was comforting (and provides more perspective than incessant daily news munching). Kerry's speech seemed well-received; he delivered those clunky lines quickly and forcefully. For another thing, bounce or no bounce, the fundamentals remain strongly in his favor, as polling guru James Zogby points out. And he did shore up his soft support and made a stronger pitch to the undecideds, as Ruy Texeira showed. So it's still Kerry's race to lose. By my count, Kerry's got 237 safe or leaning electoral votes to Bush's 168. Kerry can win basically just by poaching either Ohio or Florida, while Bush really needs to run the table.

And with the release of the anemic job growth numbers today, Bush is really in bad shape. Whenever he touts the economy, from now until the RNC, the news stories will point out that the economy's lost a lot of steam. Then, immediately after the RNC, another jobs report will be issued. If the September job report is sub-100,000, it'll take some crazy Al Qaeda plot to get the Chimp re-elected. Couldn't shake the stress, but at least JFK remains in solid shape.

As for Nomar, maybe he was so disgruntled he had to go. But it's still sad to see your favorite player traded. He's been in decline since the wrist injury suffered in 2001, and is playing horribly on the field this season (last in zone rating and defensive efficiency) and so I understand the baseball decision. I just wished Epstein picked up Matt Clement for him.

Q. Why is "Web" capitalized?

Only in the last weekend (while reading a very informative article in the New Yorker about Al Qaeda's internet operations and its role in the Madrid bombings on the plane) did I notice this strange journalistic practice: "w" of web site is capitalized, as in "Web site". Perusing the LA Times and the NY Times later on confirmed this practice, and I can't make sense of it. Is "Web" still considered a proper noun, a shorthand for "World Wide Web"? Seems to me the language so ingrained now into 21st century English that it should be in lower case.

Anyone have an explanation for this strange grammar rule?

Stars of Past and Future

A stirring political oration, the kind that moblizes your fellow citizen to action, is, according to Thucydides and Aristotle, the highest achievement of politics. Now, 2,500 years after the Athenians gave birth to democracy, the most powerful nation on earth would rather watch guys eat centipedes on TV than hear soaring panegyric from esteemed politicians.

Actually that's an unfair way of putting it, because it is hard to blame folks for ignoring party nominating conventions. Due to modern reforms, a party determines its nominee months before the convention. A modern convention has none of the backroom deal cutting and floor fights that make for good drama. Instead, national conventions have become a lavish exercise in marketing and branding, designed mainly to provide 2 minute sound bites on "Good Morning America" for those 32 narcissistic, lazy "swing voters" that this election will apparently be decided by. It's a wholly prefab event, generating no real news.

That said, a national convention is still the forum where a party can communicate most directly to citizens. As such, these quaint gatherings are still vitally important. And a powerful speech at a convention, even one that doesn't do more than lay out some vague, broadly accepted principles, is still good for the soul in that it affirms, if only temporarily, that politics can be a higher calling, not just for the orator, but for the listeners roused into action.

The Past

It's been a long time since I was genuinely excited by a political candidate, by someone who will move me to drop everything and work tirelessly to get him elected. The last one was, in fact, Bill Clinton in '92. Despite his flaws and squandered promise, he remains for me the most compelling public figure of our era, the only man I might line up 2 to 3 hours to shake hands with (but not 6 or 7, which is the length of wait to get his book signed). His speech on Monday night showed again why he's an epochal political figure.

Clinton's the only speaker I've ever heard who can make economic numbers and factoids sing. He's got a unique gift of spouting off a litany of facts, figures, and wonkish proposals without sounding boring. Unlike nearly every other public figure, he'll got six or seven different pitches in one speech: conversational one minute, a preacher the next, combative when need be, good-humored throughout.

Substantively, Clinton's genius is framing the debate and making the case for Democratic policies: he'll identify where the country needs to go, how to get there, and what's been done so far, using those facts and figures to support the case. We're moving closer and closer towards an interconnected and interdependent world, Clinton states, and the Democrats have the right vision and the right policies for that world. Thus far, Kerry hasn't been able to approach this kind of winning rhetorical framework. Let's hope he can articulate a Democratic vision that makes sense on Thursday.

The Future

Delivering the DNC's keynote address amid a tsunami of hype, Obama actually surpassed the sky-high expectations party activists have set for him. But his speech is very different from Clinton's. Where Clinton argues, persuades, and coaxes with overwhelming self-confidence befitting his stature, Obama tells stories and paints pictures with graceful self-possession. His speech tells an evocative story of Democratic America, a land of opportunity, which is paradoxically an united America. Obama provides the thematic backbone to Clinton's meat. His speech crescendos with this wonderful passage:

John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope.

I’m not talking about blind optimism here - the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs. The hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores. The hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta. The hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds. The hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Among great Democratic speakers, Obama's easy eloquence -- his smoothly impassioned speaking style -- is more like Mario Cuomo's than either Clinton or Jesse Jackson's full-throated preachy wordplay. It's a terrifically appealing speaking style, and I remain convinced this guy has the best shot of becoming our first black president.

Clinton, as the pundits keep saying, is a rock star. Now Obama is one, too.

The Present

As for Thursday, I know Kery will try to somehow stake his leadership qualities on his badass Vietnam experience. I really hope he'll do more than that. Clinton correctly diagnosed the world as heading irretrievably more interdependent; the role of government is guide us through these times of rapid change, encouraging growth but cushioning those left behind. What's Kerry's vision? Will he finally be able to boil his Iraq votes/plans down to something digestible to every day people?

Lastly, Clinton, along with Gore and Carter, laid a theme that must be repeated again and again: good leadership requires not only strength but wisdom. The GOP has cleverly defined Bush's blind stubborness and aggression as the avatars of leadership. But "decisiveness" and "resolve" aren't necessaily the traits I'm looking for when a captain is leading the ship down the cliff. Kerry task is to redefine leadership as a combination of decisiveness and intelligence, of making the right choice. He needs to make it a choice between Goliath and Solomon.