tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83907147745022751392024-02-18T22:16:59.442-05:00The PicklePolitics, Pop Culture, Attempted Slang CoinageLuvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.comBlogger317125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-37759224679498879002010-06-29T11:06:00.004-04:002010-06-29T11:42:00.022-04:00Where Is My Fox News?On a roadtrip last week from Portland, OR to Las Veges, NV, I stopped for the night in a Motel 6 in Redding, CA. The following conversation was overheard by someone in my party. It occurred in the lobby of the Motel 6 between a customer and the front desk person:<br /><br /><blockquote>Customer: Hi. There are two things you need to help me with. (Spreads out map of Redding). Show me where I can find a McDonalds...and show me where I can find a Wal-mart.<br /><br />Front desk: I can show you where you can find a McDonalds INSIDE a Wal-mart.<br /><br />Customer: Okay, fine. And one more thing: I've got a little piece of advice for you. Not everyone who stays here is as liberal as you people in California. There is no Fox News on your TV. I suggest you do something about that. I mean, is there no Fox News at any Motel 6?</blockquote><br /><br />A couple of things struck me about this rather humorous conversation. First, it suggests that, given the customer's political framework for the conversation, going to Wal-mart and McDonalds might be, at least in part, a political act, and not only about low prices. I'm sure we are all familiar with NOT going to Wal-mart as a political act, but it may be that the opposite is also a practiced phenomenon. <br /><br />The second is that it is a good example of how segregated the world has become in terms of where we get our information. And of how that information is so often politically biased. It is an oft talked about phenomenon that, sadly, I find hard to refute: people tend to want their ideas and attitudes re-enforced rather than questioned, and they go out of their way to make sure they expose themselves exclusively to information sources that parrot their already-hardened attitudes. And I don't think this holds true only for conservatives. It's not too hard to imagine a liberal having a similar conversation in, say, Texas. "Not everyone is as conservative as you people in Texas. The only news channel you have in this motel is Fox News. I suggest you carry another news channel."Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15714749524584480947noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-43435955841895555412010-06-10T12:56:00.003-04:002010-06-10T13:32:32.841-04:00Who Would Be a Better Progressive President?Progressives are still pissed at Obama. Scratch that: by the looks of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/10/lincoln/index.html">this post by Glenn Greenwald</a>, they are lately even MORE pissed at Obama. After passing health care. After passing financial reform. After passing a very unpopular stimulus that saved jobs and helped stave off a great depression. After doing some very smart things in the foreign policy arena, including hitting the re-set button with Russia and trying in good faith to stand up to Israeli settlements (and, yes, failing miserably; but he deserves credit for effort). After nominating two highly competent women to the supreme court. I could go on. <br /><br />But rather than try to defend Obama by arguing over his record, which can get tiresome, I'd like to ask a simple question of those liberals who are unsatisfied with Obama: who, in the great pantheon of American politicians, WOULD satisfy you? And I don't want to hear about some hypothetical/mythical politician constructed from scratch, or rather constructed from a progressive policy wish-list. This is not the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/">"Weird Science."</a> I want to hear a name of a real human being. Who, as president, would be better for progressives--and for the country--than Obama? I'll even allow retired politicians to qualify. Who would be better?<br /><br />Hillary Clinton? Bill "triangulation" Clinton? Al Gore? John Edwards? John Edwards before we found out he was an adulterer? Dennis "I believe in UFOs" Kucinich? Nancy Pelosi? Howard Dean?<br /><br />Who?Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15714749524584480947noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-24479235728321640042010-06-03T15:36:00.003-04:002010-06-04T17:15:39.807-04:00Gaza Flotilla LinkIf you want to read something smart about the Gaza flotilla incident, read <a href="http://www.progressiverealist.org/blogpost/blockade-gaza">this</a>.<br /><br />And <a href="http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=0e7994932b5c293ad6e9e40d8&id=13b19deef6&e=2d2584b865">this</a>.Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15714749524584480947noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-1526485504254101412010-05-17T20:37:00.002-04:002010-05-17T20:54:57.475-04:00Gall TalkI find it more than a little galling that corporatists/free marketeers have, throughout the financial crisis, justified bailouts by appealing to the too-high social cost (unemployment) of sticking to free market principles. Probably someone who finds it more galling than I do comes from a community decimated by the social costs associated with sticking to principle in the war on drugs. Oh, unrelated note - one out of nine African-American men aged 20-29 is behind bars right now, one out of three young black men can expect to be behind bars at some point in their life, and "as incarceration rates exploded between 1970 and 2007, the proportion of US-born black women aged 30-44 who were married plunged from 62% to 33%." From that Marxist rag <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15867956">The Economist</a>.Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-42476297690764229642010-05-04T14:06:00.003-04:002010-05-04T16:24:18.187-04:00Some Vexations on Illegal ImmigrationJust want to vomit out a few thoughts on illegal immigration, the first of which is that, in this debate, it's hard for me to take seriously someone who is completely unvexed. It's vexing as hell - how can you find your way to an extreme position through all those vexes?<br /><br />Let's start with the extreme "lefty" position, one which I'd rather call the "super forgiving" position because this debate doesn't split awfully neatly into right vs left. The super-forgiving position is characterized by rejection of all interdiction efforts and heavy reliance on the "illegal immigrants do jobs Americans don't want to do" argument. The most nagging vexation about this position is that, while there's no explicitly categorical rejection of interdiction efforts, the rejection is functionally categorical, and it really seems like a lot of its proponents don't want to enforce laws prohibiting illegal immigration at all. Take, for example, arguments about fence-building. A border fence may be stupid and costly, but I don't think it's on its face cruel or morally wrong. (Though it may remind us of things that are cruel and morally wrong.) The implication of making such arguments is that we <span style="font-style:italic;">ought</span> not to do anything about illegal immigration -- also one of the implications of the "do the jobs Americans won't do" argument. This one holds no water for me at all; unquestionably, illegal immigration lowers the wages for these jobs by increasing the labor supply (and exacerbatingly increasing the supply of "shadow labor" enabling wages to be even lower). A final vexation that doesn't get a lot of play is the fairness vexation -- doesn't get a lot of play because the aggrieved group are legal immigrants, not famous for their franchise. It was brought to my attention by my legal immigrant parents, who jumped through many hoops to immigrate, and who would love to have our family members join them here, but they (the family members) have been rejected many times by our very complicated immigration system. Naturally they (the parents) are nonplussed about the circumvention of that system.<br /><br />There's really only one vexation about the extreme hardline position, but it's a blockbuster: it's simply coded racism. This is not even taking into account arguments that are explicitly racist, although there are plenty of those, and the line is blurred by the "take our country back" sentiment. Rather I'm talking about instances when hardliners make appeals to nominally innocuous things like law enforcement and safety, but there's a scent of racism because some of the arguments are hokey and you start to suspect it's just about not wanting to see as many Mexicans. Take, for example, John McCain's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/john-mccains-strange-clai_n_544559.html">claim</a> that illegal immigrants are "intentionally causing traffic accidents on the freeway" and that "Arizona residents are not safe." The only people endangered by illegal immigration are illegal immigrants. McCain's engaging in demagoguery of the worst kind and the mongering of many bad things. And frankly the coding on this racism is shit. <br /><br />The arguments of both extremes tend to be made in bad faith, though for me, the hardline position tends to be made in worse faith. Vexing, very vexing. Lindsey Graham's decision not to contribute to his party's implosion over the issue strikes me as totally defensible, but it's not like it's a cakewalk for Democrats either.Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-58429079190857172912010-04-30T13:10:00.001-04:002010-04-30T13:10:58.891-04:00Thank goodness there's always an election somewhere in the worldWe all know that it’s a hotly contested election that really gets The Pickle motivated, so I thought I’d take the opportunity of an unusually exciting campaign in the UK to get Pickle Nation up to my ankle-deep understanding of what to look for next week. Based heavily on a brain-picking conversation with my brit friends Max and Sophie, at least one of whom is a political reporter, as well as close attention to the Times, and my serendipitous watching of yesterday’s 3rd and final debate between the three major party candidates – Gordon Brown for Labour, David Cameron for the Conservatives, and Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats – here’s how I handicap it. <br /><br />First and foremost, Gordon Brown has the Mark of Cain on his forehead. This much is clear. It takes about 8 words of listening to Nick Clegg to understand what all the fuss is about – he makes me feel like the dad in “An Education.” His core message seems to be the right one: Hey all you people who wish it was viable to vote Lib Dem? This is your chance. He’s right. It’s also hard to argue that David Cameron and the Tories aren’t up to the challenge of governing; you may not like what they stand for, but Brown’s distasteful fear-mongering about how it’s risky to go with anyone other than the party in power does more to undermine that case against Clegg – the Lib Dems actually might not know how it all works – than to infect Cameron. You know how I hate to pile on, and I think Gordon Brown might be an excellent prime minister, but how can you not want to take a break from that guy?<br /><br />Second, as it has been explained to me, just based on how each party’s voters are distributed, the Conservatives will win more seats than their share of the national vote, Labour will win about the same seats as their share, and the Lib Dems will be under-represented. So if they all get the same share of the national popular vote, no one will have an outright majority, but the Tories will have the most seats. It seems clear that Tories are going to get the most votes nationwide, and there is some possibility that they will get an outright majority, though my sense is that it’s a slim chance. I would also bet that the Lib Dems will get the second most votes (though that’s up in the air), but probably win fewer seats than Labour.<br /><br />If the Conservatives get an outright majority, we’re done: David Cameron is the PM. It will be interesting to see what happens after that – how coalitions shift, now that the Lib Dems have proven a healthy measure of viability – but I’m badly out of my depth there.<br /><br />If the Conservatives don’t get an outright majority this is where it gets interesting. Two things you have to know. First, Labour, as the party in power, is constitutionally entitled to the first chance at forming a government. Second, what the Liberal Democrats really want – need, in fact – is for the UK to switch from a system of single-member districts to one of proportional representation, so that Britain’s left-leaning majority will no longer have to countenance a Conservative government as the price of voting their conscience by voting Lib Dem. This is also the nightmare scenario for the Conservatives, who would be badly frozen out for a very long time if the process were to be changed in that way.<br /><br />This will be Labour’s price of power, if, as is looking increasingly likely, they are roughly tied with or behind the Lib Dems in the final result. Labour will have to offer a national referendum on election reform to bring the Lib Dems into a governing coalition. But the question for Clegg is this: after telling British voters that the power is in their hands, what would it mean to hand the premiership back to Gordon Brown by political fiat after the country votes to throw him out? Would they be better off claiming “will of the people” to deny Labour another run, and trying to build on this cycle’s success for next time?<br /><br />As far as I can tell, that’s the drama. Stand by for an update after a bunch of British people set me straight…Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-83415069164367359112010-04-23T14:27:00.004-04:002010-04-23T15:10:15.586-04:00Who Needs Liberries?This morning I woke up with the intention to visit the recently constructed Silverlake branch of the LA public library. Well, intention frustrated: there's a big fat lock on the door. For a moment, I thought "Arbor Day already?" but no - as of last week, the city's libraries are open only for half-days on Fridays owing to our gaping budget shortfall. <br /><br />Obviously, we need to cut things from the budget. No-brainers, like laying off some but not all of the city-employed <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/la-officials-detail-citys-first-group-of-layoffs.html">calligraphers</a>, are few and far between, and they're fairly niggling cuts. Our city calligraphy budget was only a million dollars per year. There are also no-brainers, or near-no-brainers, on the other side of the necessity spectrum - yesterday, Mayor Villaraigosa affirmed his commitment not to cut non-civilian police or fire personnel. <br /><br />But where on this spectrum do libraries lie? I think I'm not alone when I say closer to calligraphers than firemen - but just barely. Access to libraries does seem to be one of those luxurious civil rights, but a right nonetheless, and important for democracy, especially now that public libraries are increasingly becoming internet access providers for the most disadvantaged members of our society (and more especially because public libraries are often the first stop in a job search, and who needs them more during an economic downturn).<br /><br />The reduction in hours is slim and doesn't seem to be a serious threat to democracy. But technology is changing the role of public libraries more than this temporary budget crisis will, and as this role shifts permanently from "warehouse of information that everybody needs" to "access point to information for people who don't have access at home," it seems like there will be more pressure to limit public funds spent on libraries.Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-43357818367262262552010-04-20T15:27:00.004-04:002010-04-20T15:37:18.992-04:00Boston Taco Crawl, 4.10.10Winging my way across the country from Massachusetts (where I used to marvel at how angry - really angry - my Texan friend in college used to get at the Border Cafe's salsa, until I lived in Texas myself) to California (easy to find good Mexican food), I thought I'd take the opportunity to write-up the results of this past Saturday's Boston Taco Crawl, an event that had some beautiful beginner's luck, featuring bikes, sun, beer, and at least three tacos that were delicious by any standard, but on which we (me, Stacy, Annie, and Carter made all the stops; four others made some of the stops) will shortly improve.<br /><br />The first stop - and the unanimous winner, even controlling for hunger - was <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS268&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=taqueria+cancun+boston&fb=1&gl=us&hq=taqueria+cancun&hnear=boston&cid=6633839303960095777">Taqueria Cancun</a>, right by the Maverick stop on the blue line (the bikes waited patiently by city hall).<span style=""> </span>Carne Asada.<span style=""> </span>It was simple - just beef, cilantro, onions, and a little self-administered salsa - probably no other taco we ate had as few ingredients.<span style=""> </span>This was where we were first introduced to Carter's taco rubric, featuring the question, "When you smell this taco, how badly do you NEED to eat it."<span style=""> </span>Badly.<span style=""> </span>Points for serving cans of Tecate.<span style=""> </span>I actually got a little shorted on meat, but that did not seem to be the universal experience.<br /><br />Taco number two was just efing terrible.<span style=""> </span>For years, I've been hearing about the burrito lady in the gas station on Cambridge Street by the Charles MGH T stop.<span style=""> </span>Certainly going to the back of a gas station convenience store is a promising start, and since they didn't sell beer, we innovated our way to a winning setting, eating tacos and putting down a 6-pack, creatively hidden by mittens/cozies, on a couple of benches by the water.<span style=""> </span>Unfortunately, Annie has the best review of our Carnitas: "At best, a vehicle for beer; at worst, a cat food sandwich."<span style=""> </span>Stay away.<br /><br />Taco number three, after the longest bike ride of the day, led to civil strife for the first and only time.<span style=""> </span><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS268&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=taco+loco+somerville&fb=1&gl=us&hq=taco+loco&hnear=somerville&cid=8329365662751822555">Taco Loco</a>, in Sullivan Square, is a place to which I would go back - everything looks delicious.<span style=""> </span>For me, though, the steak in our steak tacos just played too small a role.<span style=""> </span>This was the opposite approach to Taqueria Cancun - this taco was a massive mixture of wet ingredients.<span style=""> </span>Tasty ingredients, though, and while Stacy and I were underwhelmed by the featuring of so much guac and sour cream, Carter and Annie really enjoyed it.<span style=""> </span>We also threw in some plantains on the side, which were delicious.<br /><br />Fourth was the by now well renowned <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS268&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=tacos+lupita+somerville&fb=1&gl=us&hq=tacos+lupita&hnear=somerville&cid=11376044302547748625">Tacos Lupita</a>, at the wedge of Elm and Somerville in Somerville.<span style=""> </span>These people do a mean Al Pastor.<span style=""> </span>Stacy was appropriately focused on the density of taste in those pink, crispy bits of pork.<span style=""> </span>Also, like Taqueria Cancun, a spare taco, with delicious salsa, especially the green one.<span style=""> </span>Stacy says she’ll ask for no tomatoes next time.<span style=""> </span>She’s not wrong.<br /><br />Next up was a late-breaking addition, which was on the list as "The one to the left of the Independent in Union Square," as described by my friend Allison the night before - she raved about it.<span style=""> </span>It was later revealed to be <a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/el-potro-somerville">El Potro</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mart%C3%ADn_del_Potro">no relation</a>). <span style=""> </span>Orders were split between fish and steak, and both were fantastic - I think the fish actually got the slight edge.<span style=""> </span>With a different horse painted on every chair, it was a very colorful setting.<span style=""> </span>Even more beer points than Taqueria Cancun, because though they didn't serve beer, they let us bring it in, and by that point we were ready to be waited on.<span style=""> </span>Carter ate two, which, at this point in the crawl, was impressive.<span style=""> </span>I ate half of Annie's.<br /><br />Finally, after almost 6 hours, we reached <a href="http://olecito.net/">Olecito</a>, an old favorite.<span style=""> </span>This is the little taco stand cousin of Ole, in Inman.<span style=""> </span>I've long been partial - whenever I'm in that area around a meal time, I stop in for a Carnitas and a Shrimp.<span style=""> </span>Here, at the end of a long day, we sat at the little table they provide in the driveway, drinking another beer, and despite our fullness, managing to enjoy this neat trick they pull off - the sauce is incredibly buttery, and just makes the Shrimp taco so rich and meaty and tasty.<span style=""> </span>Carter thought we could get margaritas there, and had been talking about it since probably 4 pm, so I think he left a little bitter.<br /><br />Plenty of ground to explore for next time - more East Boston, Dorchester, and from Fenway to points west...</p> <!--EndFragment-->Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-46233022857403988012010-03-27T16:41:00.002-04:002010-03-27T17:02:21.270-04:00Post PostpartisanFirst, a little throat-clearing. Don't call it a resuscitation. Okay, do. Apologies for The Pickle's lack of pulse. It's just that there hasn't been much going on in the political world.<br /><br />Second, a quick and dirty thought about Obama's post-partisanship. Promises of PP were part of what garnered support from independents, and for much of the past year, moderates pointed to these promises in an effort to keep progressives from rocking the boat. Ultimately, the story goes, Obama threw PP aside after a year wasted on chasing down Republican support that would never come. My little thought is this - perhaps the administration should pitch PP policymaking in the larger context, ie in the context of the President's entire agenda. Within the context of one specific issue, chances are it's hard to pursue policy that's "post partisan" when the parties want things that are mutually exclusive. If you're setting out to universalize health care, there's no way Republicans ever come on board. But if the context is broadened, Obama can point to policies in other areas where traditionally Republican ideas are being taken very seriously (specifically in education) (and in a great way, in my opinion). <br /><br />Third, a quick little point to undermine the second point. The cost-savings component of HCR was totally traditional Republican turf, so while it's true they'd never come around on universal coverage, this at least was a bone that should have enticed them. You know, if intransigence wasn't their top policy priority.<br /><br />Fourth, most alliterative post ever. Look at all them P's!Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-45167740648724855042010-01-30T20:09:00.001-05:002010-01-30T20:10:32.396-05:00The first day of calming downI got angry at President Obama when I found out that Scott Brown had won the MA Senate race, but not <span style="font-style: italic;">because</span> Scott Brown had won the MA Senate race. I was away for most of the campaign, but by all accounts Martha Coakley and Scott Brown lost and won that race, respectively, all on their own. But I was nevertheless annoyed at Obama, because he didn’t find a way to get us this damn health care bill in a year with 60 senators. And all of a sudden we didn’t have 60 senators anymore, and the window was at least a little bit smaller, and we didn’t have anything to show for it.<br /><br />I have since tempered, though – and of course Barack knew I would – for a couple of reasons, two of which I submit here.<br /><br />One, I like the new tone. I liked it when he called out the GOP a bit in the State of the Union, and I liked it more when I watched <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvwEjxDtwWs">this</a> today: Obama taking it to the House GOP caucus on their turf. It won’t work – he’s not going to get Republican votes in the house for jack – but I just can’t believe that we’ve allowed 60 to become the new 50 without making the Republicans pay any political price. The last time the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate was 1979, and though I suspect that no one thought that enough Americans were stupid enough in 1979 to ask this question, so there are no data for historical comparison, what if we polled “How many votes does it take to pass legislation out of the United States Senate?” Gut check – what percentage of Americans today would say that the answer is 60? No, if this is the way things are going to go, then Obama should spread a bunch of quicksand on the floor of the Senate, and then make those 41 Senators stand in it until they get out or get sucked all the way in.<br /><br />Second, the fact that we are not there on health care and nowhere on climate (and oh boy, are we nowhere on climate) is really, it’s important to remember, the opposition’s talking point. In fact, a lot has happened this year, and it was nice to get a reminder from Friend-of-The-Pickle Parisa that the Obama administration is still turning the ship of state in a wide arc. Witness this <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/28/831513/-Obama-Backs-Up-Civil-Rights-Words-in-SOTU-With-Action">tidbit</a> about the game face that the Civil Rights Division at DOJ has on.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-64070768973562057322010-01-25T14:30:00.004-05:002010-01-25T15:29:01.356-05:00Reform: Back to the Drawing BoardHere's an interesting, fun, pie-in-the-sky idea for electoral reform: redrawing state lines such that states all have more or less the same population (5.6 million, based on the 280 million figure from the 2000 census). <br /><br /><a href="http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/">www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/</a><br /><br />Missouri seems to be the only state that's more or less intact.Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-58859424156692668172010-01-20T13:37:00.002-05:002010-01-20T14:05:45.446-05:00Ezra Klein on Obama's AnniversaryKlein's <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/obama_at_year_one_the_end_of_t.html#more">analysis</a> of Obama's first year in office is right on the money. <br /><br />That there is a wide gulf between Obama the Candidate and Obama the President is middle-aged news. Of course, the constraints of campaigning are far different that the constraints of governing. For one, there's the Constitution. For another, particularly with regard to security issues, the stakes are higher and information is better. But with regard to financial regulation, climate change, and health care, Obama's adoption of an "insider" governing style is puzzling, given that the strengths/lessons of the campaign, the reasons Obama beat Clinton and then McCain, were 1) control of the narrative, and 2) running an end-around the traditional communications apparatus/establishment to make direct contact with voters. My guess is that the administration has judged that the electorate would be exhausted by that approach, but in rejecting it has committed the cardinal sin of not dancing with the one that brung it. Governing is different from campaigning, but it's still politics, right?Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-78557639854057919062010-01-07T22:19:00.003-05:002010-01-07T22:33:37.760-05:00Coinage: Hipster GarbageMy friend, Dave Bennet, posted on Facebook the following update: "Where the Wild Things Are. Boo. Hipster Garbage."<br /><br />I had always wanted a pithy phrase to describe my antipathy towards Wes Anderson movies, and there it was! Hipster Garbage!<br /><br />What, exactly, qualifies something as hipster garbage, of course, should vary from person to person, but I sense that everyone has a clear concept of what it means. It need not even be particularly negative. Some things that are clearly hipster garbage may have real value (for example, The Royal Tannebaums.) <br /><br />My best (working) definition is: <br />Hipster Garbage (n.): a work of popular culture that displays some or all of the following characteristics: it is pointless, boring, and technically impossible. Yet hipsters think it is genius. <br /><br />Wes Anderson is my quintessential hipster garbage auteur. Who are your favorite creators of hipster garbage? Bands? Movies? Books?Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15714749524584480947noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-87751360193089727552010-01-05T10:21:00.002-05:002010-01-05T10:46:52.676-05:00What? Slang? Yes.Time to dust off the ol' "slang coinage" label - we have a doozy from Friend of Pickle MR, who refers to smartphones as "wonder killers." Granted, not a Pickle original, but it's excellent, and MR's mom apparently uses "Dundos" for Dunkin' Donuts, which is my top slang integration into the vernacular priority.Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-21774616274813121852009-12-21T20:48:00.002-05:002009-12-21T21:43:48.958-05:00A Palpable HitJust in time for the holidays, a little departure from our normal programming: <br /><br />A few days ago, I was hit by a car as I was walking crossing the street (I'm totally fine). A friend and I had stepped out at around 10:45pm, and though this mostly residential street is mostly empty, we are on the crosswalk and wait for a "walk" sign. Out of the corner of my eye, I see a Toyota Forerunner enter the intersection and start to turn left. I think, "This guy is really waiting for the last second to start braking -- oh shit, he's not!" He's headed right for us. My friend jumps forward with alacrity. I jump backward with ineffectiveness, and he gets me at about 8-10 miles per hour. Not really that hard. I land on my feet (though I do get some Pinkberry on my jacket). I bang on the hood and let loose a stream of oaths. The driver has stopped but doesn't seem to register what has happened. In fact, he starts to take off, and I angrily fumble for my phone to take a picture. But then he pulls over and gets out of the car. I'm still fuming as he walks over to us when I see that he's shaking like a leaf. He doesn't speak a lick of English, just Spanish, and he's extremely sorry, thanking God that I'm okay and offering to take me to the hospital. I explain angrily that I'm not hurt, but it was just lucky, and... I'm sputtering at this point, partly because my Spanish is a shadow of its former self, but mostly because the driver is starting to cry. "No licensia," he keeps repeating. He had been driving from his first job to his second job, again thanks God that I'm all right, and at this point, I can no longer keep up the hardass act - I tell him to calm down.<br /><br />Suddenly, a man comes running up. "I saw the whole thing! You drove right into him! Do you even speak English, buddy?" He asks if we've called the cops yet. The driver's eyes widen and he starts repeating "No licensia" again. The witness has heard enough. "No license? He's either got a DUI or he's illegal, either way you gotta call the cops." It turns out the witness is an ex-cop. At this point, the driver is weeping, begging us not to call the cops. "They'll deport me, I have two little kids." I turn to my friend, who's a lawyer, and ask her what she thinks we should do. What can we do? Neither of us wants to call the cops. I really think I'm fine, and the small chance of me later developing something doesn't seem to stack up against the great chance of the driver getting deported. "Okay, I don't think I'm hurt, so..." We decide to just get the driver's information. The ex-cop looks at us with disgust. He came over thinking he was being a good samaritan and now these bleeding heart yuppies are making HIM the asshole? We get his information too - he hands us his card, shaking his head. Once he leaves, I tell the driver that he "should not to sleep during to drive" but that I'm not calling the cops. He's too rattled to feel relief, and he takes off.<br /><br />Avoiding this kind of situation is precisely the motivation behind efforts to license all drivers, regardless of legal status. And actually, the LAPD has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to legal status - it was just reconfirmed by new LAPD chief Charlie Beck today - but that's more geared towards witnesses of crimes rather than people alleged to have committed them.Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-6176035242103041212009-12-03T23:48:00.000-05:002009-12-03T23:49:18.385-05:00Mike Capuano for Massachusetts SenateI’ve decided to vote for Congressman Mike Capuano in this Tuesday’s Democratic primary to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, and briefly, here’s why:<br /><br />There are four candidates in the race: Capuano, Attorney General Martha Coakley, Bain alum and Celtics co-owner Steve Pagliuca, and City-Year founder Alan Khazei. Survivor Massachusetts Senate:<br /><br />Pagliuca is the first to go. He lost me when I started seeing his ads during Celtics games a month ago, which suggests he ever had me, which he didn’t. Grainy photos of men in suits handing off cash-filled briefcases, with voiceovers demagoging against Wall Street greed. No thanks.<br /><br />My opening bid was “I’ll give Khazei every chance to win my vote.” But I’m not the only one with whom he never caught on. In a short special election, it’s hard to make a grassroots campaign work; there’s little time for a movement. I think if he were really special, he could have caught fire. And the Globe did endorse him, which is remarkable. And we do elect Senators for 6 years, so it’s permissible to grow into the job. But from what I’ve heard, I just don’t think the guy has a realistic idea of how to be a Senator. The idea isn’t to be a mini Barack Obama. The idea is to be a mini Ted Kennedy.<br /><br />The seat doesn’t belong to Ted Kennedy, but the fact that it’s Kennedy we’re replacing reminds us of some of the criteria for being a good Senator, and I think Capuano meets more of them than does Coakley.<br /><br />He understands the legislative process better than she does – she could learn, but he seems more suited to being a legislator than she is. He seems to be an effective hybrid; fiercely principled and passionate on the one hand, but a deal-maker on the other. To the extent that he’s put the Kennedy comparison at the center of his campaign, that’s the comparison he’s making, and I buy it. Coakley, on the other hand, seems well-suited to being an AG; she’s clearly fierce, smart, and confident. But I suspect she’d be frustrated by the legislative process, and by the inanity of what is often the world’s most inane building.<br /><br />And then there’s just the matter of their politics: Coakley is a good Democrat; Capuano is a Liberal. His leadership on Darfur is meaningful to me. He has won me over by talking about unemployment as a true crisis that must, as a moral matter, be tackled my spending public money on underfunded jobs programs. When he talks about 10% unemployment, you get the sense of a Congressman who knows what he’s doing there. And though I would hope our next Senator would vote for the health care reform bill in whatever form it is likely to take, and I trust that he will, from the north or south side of the Capitol, he has convinced me that now is the time to stand up against the Stupak amendment. This, of course, is a position that Capuano and Coakley share. A position they don’t share is the one she expressed by leading the campaign against Massachusetts’ recent successful ballot measure to decriminalize possession of a small amount of marijuana. Even if those were Massachusetts’ values, which they aren’t, they wouldn’t be our priorities.<br /><br />So that’s my vote: Because I think he’s to her left, but probably more importantly because I think he’ll simply be more effective at making American laws better than they otherwise would be, which ultimately is the job of a Senator, and we’ll leave the hope and whatnot to the President, I’m voting for Mike Capuano.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-65425069139122348082009-12-01T20:47:00.002-05:002009-12-01T21:13:59.304-05:00Obama Speech ReactionThe good news from tonight's speech is that Obama seems serious about wanting to get out of Afghanistan. I actually believe him. He recognizes that the costs are too high for an open-ended commitment. In short: he is a "reluctant warrior."<br /><br />Looking at the situation in Afghanistan today, he has judged that the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal today would be unacceptable. He is hoping that an Afghanistan surge will provide America the opportunity to leave without everything going to hell in a hand basket in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't really buy this line of thinking--the fear of a resurgent Taliban/Al Qaeda threatening the United States I think is overblown. <br /><br />But I do understand why making a decision to leave now is so unpalatable, especially when we have a new team of military leaders who have a new strategy that they say will work. Pulling the plug even before they have an opportunity to succeed, and risking pulling the plug and then potentially watching things fall apart, would be a very difficult thing to do. The right thing to do, perhaps, but very difficult.<br /><br />Of course, the new strategy probably won't work, and that is where the bad news come in. If and when the Afghan surge doesn't work, what speech will Obama make in 2011 when we are supposed to be bringing the troops home? If the situation does not improve, does Obama have the guts to pull out in 2011 and, in essence, admit defeat? Perhaps. But I wouldn't bet on it.Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15714749524584480947noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-78808274782398545892009-11-18T16:42:00.003-05:002009-11-18T17:08:15.814-05:00In Defense of Obama--AgainIn a <a href="http://thepickle-blog.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-defense-of-obama.html">past post</a> I expressed bafflement at the left-wing disillusionment with Obama. These days, I’m not only baffled, I’m getting upset. There is an emerging narrative in left-leaning circles that Obama is spineless, in league with big corporations (particularly Wall St.), and afraid to stand up to the war hawks. This attitude would be forgivable if it had any relation to the truth. But it doesn’t. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">THE ECONOMY</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">False narrative</span>: <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/bernanke-no-jobs-for-you.php">Obama and Bernanke don’t care enough about jobs and are overly worried about the deficit.</a> We need a second “jobs” stimulus and an explicit policy of higher inflation to get us out of this economic slump. We can’t worry about deficits right now until America gets back to work.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Reality</span>: after the first stimulus successfully stopped the economic meltdown (success for Obama!), now is, in fact, the right time to start worrying about our debt. Sustainable job growth in America depends on the re-balancing of the world economy: Americans need to save more, consume less, and make more stuff that the world wants to buy, while the Chinese needs to buy less of our debt and consume more of our goods. This transition will run smoothly only if the Chinese agree to devalue their currency in relation to the dollar. But the Chinese will do this only if they believe America is serious about cutting back on its debt. That’s the bargain. If the Chinese lose faith in our ability to cut our debt, there are only two possible outcomes: a Chinese-American trade war (instigated by the U.S. because the Chinese will refuse to devalue their currently) or a U.S. dollar currency crisis (instigated by the Chinese who will stop buying our bonds). Both of these would be disastrous for the world economy. <br /><br />Also, inflation as an explicit policy prescription is totally insane: inflation punishes most the one group of people we should be most eager to help—that is, middle class savers. And it is most kind on those who know how to handle money, who also happen to be the same folks liberals want most to punish--that is, Wall St. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">REGULATION</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />False narrative</span>: Obama bailed out the banks and now is too chicken to regulate their bonuses. The financial regulatory package making its way through Congress will be watered down so much as to be virtually worthless. Even the Democrats are in bed with Wall St.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Reality</span>: Barney Frank, who is leading the charge against bonuses and fighting very hard for more financial regulation, is a rock star. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMcWjyCIoI">Watch how Ed Shultz</a>, a proud member of the putting-Obama’s-feet-to-the-fire club, doesn’t listen to a word Frank says about what he and Congress is doing about bonuses. <a href="http://www.house.gov/frank/speeches/2009/07-27-09-national-press-club.pdf">Read this Barney Frank speech</a>, which lays out his plans for financial regulation. He may not get everything he wants in the end, but there is no doubting his determination and the soundness of his thinking. Regulation will happen.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">HEALTH CARE</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">False narrative</span>: Obama failed to step up to the plate when we needed him, he compromised away the public option because of pressure from corporations, and now the bill will only enrich insurance companies and won’t even insure everyone in America. The bill may be so bad, we might be better off with the status quo.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Reality</span>: the public option is decidedly not dead yet, Obama is in favor of said public option, and regardless of whether or not a public option is in the final bill, the reform will be a big step forward when compared with the status quo. At the least there will be no more penalties for pre-existing conditions and many more people will get coverage, with insurance for lower income folks subsidized by increased taxes on upper income folks. It won’t be a dream bill, but getting a dream bill was always pie-in-the-sky.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">AFGHANISTAN</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />False narrative</span>: Obama is escalating the war and is too chicken to stand up to the warmongers.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Reality</span>: despite painting himself into a corner with his hawkish talk on Afghanistan leading up to the election in 2008, Obama, I believe, is trying to wriggle his way out of this growing quagmire. He rejected all of the options for escalation, with explicit instructions to include a clear “end-game” in all future proposals. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15cost.html">Obama is increasingly worried</a> about the cost of an open-ended, never-ending war in Afghanistan. The reality in Afghanistan is grim, but Obama is thinking clearly about the issue and should be commended for that. <br /><br /><br />I admit that on the issues of cap-and-trade and Israel-Palestine Obama does look to have genuinely failed us. That said, it’s clear that on both those issues Obama’s heart is in the right place. If he gets a second term there is hope for the future on these tough issues, too. Patience, my friends, patience.<br /> <br />In a future post I will speculate on why liberals are so pissed at Obama when it seems so obvious (to me, at least) that we should be happy with him.Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15714749524584480947noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-58283099905059266802009-11-12T12:04:00.002-05:002009-11-12T12:12:29.951-05:00An Illustration of why we need an overhaul of national health care policyAdapted from an email I sent to a friend yesterday:<br /><br />I’m in a class this semester called “Writing and Reporting on Politics and Policy.” The thrust of the class is that each of us has picked a beat to cover for the semester, and mine is the city government of my hometown: Newton, MA.<br /><br />Here’s the most interesting thing I’ve found: The city's costs have been increasing and will continue increasing at about 5.5% per year, and its revenues have been increasing at about 3.5% per year. Municipalities in MA are prohibited from having deficits, so they've kept the budget balanced by cutting city staff, deferring needed capital maintenance and investment, and not funding long-term pension liabilities. As a result, the city has a skeleton crew in city hall, a $300 million backlog of capital expenditure (ie roads and schools and fire-stations) and a $400 million unfunded pension liability. If the city were to start making incremental, responsible investment in capital and pension fund, there would be cumulative deficits of $174 million over the next 5 years, on a budget of $262 million for this fiscal year.<br /><br />Here's the punchline: It’s all health care. The whole structural gap - growth in uses exceeding growth in sources - comes from health care. The city's health care costs have grown at 9.4% per year for the past 10 years. Together with the health care portion of pension benefits, it now makes up 20% of the city budget. If the cost of health care had grown at the same rate as revenues over that 10-year period, the city wouldn't have this structural gap at all. The increasing cost of health care has ripped the city's budget to shreds.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-79597255860735280352009-11-07T16:49:00.000-05:002009-11-07T16:50:58.049-05:00Sour GrapesFriend of The Pickle Justin King called my attention to <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/05/yankees.payroll/index.html">this column</a>, by Joe Posnanski, which is an oldie but goodie: the Yankees buy championships.<br /><br />One of his main points is that baseball is better at hiding competitive imbalance than are other sports. Whereas in football it’s not uncommon for a great team to win more than 90% of its games, and in basketball a great team can win over 80% of the time, the best baseball teams only win around 65%. The best winning percentages in the last 100 years of pro football, basketball, and baseball are, respectively, 100%, 88%, and 72%.<br /><br />Which naturally made me wonder why, and I developed a little theory that I think isn’t bad, and perhaps is of some interest: The outcome of a baseball game is determined by fewer events.<br /><br />Each of the three sports can be thought of as a sequence of zero-sum events, in which each team is doing to try to do something to help it win the game, and that better teams are better at doing. In football, the event is a play from scrimmage. In basketball, it’s an offensive possession, and, ultimately in most cases, a shot. In baseball, it’s a plate-appearance.<br /><br />When two evenly-matched teams play each other in any sport, what we mean by “evenly-matched” is that, on average, each team will prevail in each of those individual events roughly an even number of times. Perfect example: The 2008 Wimbledon Final, in which Nadal won 209 points, and Federer won 204. The greater the disparity between the two teams, the greater the probability that the better team will prevail in any given trial.<br /><br />And here’s the rub: For a given probability that the better team will prevail in any given trial, the probability that team will win the whole game is higher the greater the number of trials. And there are fewer trials in baseball than there are in other sports.<br /><br />In football, each team runs about 70 plays from scrimmage. In basketball, each team has the ball about 100 times. But in baseball, the average game sees each team send about 40 players to the plate.<br /><br />It’s just a shorter game. There are fewer random trials of an event with probability p. And that means that it’s less unusual for a bad team to beat a good one.<br /><br />That, and the fact that there are Zach Greinkes on Kansas City Royalses. And I hate the Yankees. And thank you, Peter, for taking me to my first ever world series game.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-36332011487026302512009-11-04T00:10:00.003-05:002009-11-04T00:42:09.365-05:00New York makes us stop and thinkI would have voted for Bloomberg today if I lived in New York. But let me ask this question: When a gajillionaire spends a brajilion dollars to get re-elected for an election-law-alteration-enabled third term, yet he still only wins by 5 percentage points, does that mean the democratic thing would have been to wave goodbye? Does it mean he shouldn't be there?<br /><br />I think it probably does. If he didn't have a jagriblion dollars, he wouldn't be the mayor...Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-36394224616708488392009-10-28T09:07:00.003-04:002009-10-28T09:13:24.977-04:00Friedman is Right for OnceHoly mackerel! Thomas Friedman actually wrote something sensible in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opinion/28friedman.html?adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1256734858-cwXsPwLEtaP8tR5oGikkpg">this don't-escalate-in-Afghanistan column</a>. More than sensible, actually. A must read. (If only he had had this attitude leading up to the war in Iraq...)<br /><br />Money quote: <br /><br /><blockquote>The message: “People do not change when we tell them they should,” said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. “They change when they tell themselves they must.”</blockquote>Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15714749524584480947noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-81960227968220390752009-10-24T17:48:00.003-04:002009-10-24T18:30:03.601-04:00Thank You, ScientistSo, H1N1 is officially a national emergency, and vaccine production is not where it should be. Count as unworried Bill Maher, who, on his show last week told a flabbergasted Bill Frist that people should not take the vaccine because it is net harmful. In fact, the questioning of the scientific establishment by what I'll call populist lay "science" seems to be an, er, epidemic. (Examples include the linkage of other vaccines to autism and most notably the denial of global warming and evolution.) What is the proper role of the lay person when it comes to science? <br /><br />In my opinion, it's one of complete deferral on scientific matters. However, the laity has an important part to play with respect to evaluating the social impacts of science. This part is especially important when enthusiasm might lead scientists to sweep larger social considerations under the rug. For example, lay worries about the potential moral pitfalls of human gene therapy strike me as valid and legitimate. I also think it's appropriate for laypersons to weigh in on economic considerations relating to science, particularly if it's government science we're talking about. Most of us would consider cost-benefit objections to, for example, a manned mission to Mars, to be legitimate (regardless of whether they're right or wrong). We should also criticize and question scientists if claims they offer are scientific really aren't. A great example of this is overutilization in the health care system; it is legitimate to worry that the amount of care prescribed by a physician is motivated by profit rather than expertise. <br /><br />But the fact of the matter is most of us don't have enough expertise to evaluate the actual science of vaccines (less so global warming, and less less so evolution). In fact, it seems that the lay questioning of these theories can often be traced to some other ideological commitment - skepticism (bordering on paranoia) of the drug establishment on Maher's part or Christian doctrine on the part of evolution doubters. <br /><br />I suppose I am granting scientists almost priest-like status. Bad when that's combined with the fact that the scientific establishment has, in the past, believed things that are just plumb crazy. But the operative word is "almost." Science contains within it the self-limiting safety valves of verifiability and falsifiability, unlike religion. Science is prepared to be wrong.Luvhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16878562268897146035noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-46129055052663899802009-10-13T23:18:00.001-04:002009-10-13T23:20:25.818-04:00The Pickle series entitled "Treating people like people." Voting Rights EditionMany people – and I was one of them until two days ago – don’t know that non-citizens for the most part had the right to vote in this country until the middle of the 19th century. I discovered this while reading for a class I have this semester at the Kennedy School, called “Reasoning for History.”<br /><br />That only citizens can vote is an orthodoxy that is rarely questioned. Question it, though, and it is at least apparent that it should be questioned. My neighbor is a permanent legal resident whose kids go to the Cambridge public schools. Shouldn’t she be allowed to vote for the school committee? I try to imagine an argument for why she shouldn’t, and I suddenly remember the debate I bellicosely and ungracefully got into a few years ago with a Republican friend of a friend at a bar in Washington about why DC should or should not have representation in Congress. I dared him to answer the question, and he took a deep breath, and then began “DC was never intended to be…” and seconds later I had to be peeled off the ceiling.<br /><br />My permanent-resident neighbor is only the least ambiguous on an increasingly ambiguous spiral staircase of cases asking who should be allowed to vote in what elections. But her case is really unambiguous; there is no standard by which she is not a fully interested member of our community who should be allowed to have a say in how she is governed.<br /><br />Recently, some cities have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections. It’s a movement we should all pay attention to and encourage.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390714774502275139.post-44571998896817944852009-10-12T16:42:00.002-04:002009-11-12T12:15:37.127-05:00A great choice by the Nobel CommitteeCharitably, giving the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for the reasons it was given was naively aspirational and politically stupid. But the Nobel Committee redeemed itself a teeny tiny bit today (though I imagine it’s a different Nobel Committee) by giving the economics prize to one of my intellectual and academic heroes, Elinor Ostrom.<br /><br />Ostrom, a political science professor at Indiana University, is the author of <span style="font-style: italic;">Governing the Commons</span>, a book I first read in college, and then re-read a few years ago. Her work was the first to encourage me to think deeply about what the “commons problem” nature of climate change means for the parameters of the problem and the hope of solving it. It is still the book that influences me most when I think about a bit of climate policy and ask the question “Is this going to help? Is this going to work?”<br /><br />Of note, Ostrom is also the first woman to win the economics prize, and the fifth woman to win a Nobel this year, which is a record for a single year. So congratulations to Elinor Ostrom, who bent the arc of history a bit today, and whose life’s work may yet bend it quite a bit more.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09323770484967500329noreply@blogger.com0