A few good reads

AKA Stuff I learned on the Internet today. Except we’ve got a few days here. Thus, new title.

Theme of the day: explanatory journalism and glimpses into foreign cultures and hidden worlds:

1. A must-read if you’re interested in the collapse of the banking system (and you should all be interested in the collapse of the banking system) is this story about a mathematical formula. It’s the formula that helped bankers justify building the massive market for credit-default swaps and other odd financial instruments – instruments that helped cause the fiscal implosion.
2. Relatedly, check out this guest op-ed column in the NY Times about Alexander Hamilton, Canada’s banking system and what our banking system may look like in the future.
3. You’ve probably heard about the energy policy called cap and trade, but if you’re like me, you weren’t quite sure what it was. Never fear – Mother Jones is here! This great article explains cap and trade and outlines some of its benefits and potential pitfalls.
4. Captivating videos via BoingBoing: Bali in 1910 and London around the same time. Alone, they’re fascinating enough, but the dichotomy is incredible.
5. From GlobalPost, Love in the Time of the Taliban. Published on Valentine’s Day, it’s the story of four Afghan couples who found and lost loves in ways quite different than American standards would deem… standard. We would deem them human and touching and a bit comical, though, and they are definitely worth a read.
6. The life of an African tradesman in China – and there are a growing number of them there – and the life of a Chinese good in Africa. Both are fascinating on their own, but together provide a multifaceted look at global interconnectedness.
7. Finally, in defense of newspapers and (especially) beat reporters, David Simon, creator of The Wire and a former cops reporter for the Baltimore Sun, wrote this wrenching piece about what the decline in gritty, pushy, in-depth reporting means for the public and for government accountability.

By the way, is The Biggest Loser always two hours long? The length of a feature film? The time it takes elite marathoners to run almost 26 miles? I sat down to watch it, and ended up sitting for longer than I had intended.

Does anyone else find this ironic? It’s a show meant to inspire people to get off their fat asses, start taking care of themselves and maybe lose some weight, and yet it also runs longer than other reality programs, encouraging two times the ass-sitting and, arguably, a bit of snacking, too.

The Biggest Loser, you are not so self aware. And you’re quite boring to boot. I will not be tuning in next week.