Coinage: Hipster Garbage

My friend, Dave Bennet, posted on Facebook the following update: "Where the Wild Things Are. Boo. Hipster Garbage."

I had always wanted a pithy phrase to describe my antipathy towards Wes Anderson movies, and there it was! Hipster Garbage!

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.)

My best (working) definition is:
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.

Wes Anderson is my quintessential hipster garbage auteur. Who are your favorite creators of hipster garbage? Bands? Movies? Books?

What? 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.

A Palpable Hit

Just in time for the holidays, a little departure from our normal programming:

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.

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.

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.

Mike Capuano for Massachusetts Senate

I’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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obama Speech Reaction

The 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."

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.

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.

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.

In Defense of Obama--Again

In a past post 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.

THE ECONOMY

False narrative: Obama and Bernanke don’t care enough about jobs and are overly worried about the deficit. 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.

Reality: 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.

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.

REGULATION

False narrative: 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.

Reality: Barney Frank, who is leading the charge against bonuses and fighting very hard for more financial regulation, is a rock star. Watch how Ed Shultz, 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. Read this Barney Frank speech, 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.

HEALTH CARE

False narrative: 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.

Reality: 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.

AFGHANISTAN

False narrative: Obama is escalating the war and is too chicken to stand up to the warmongers.

Reality: 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. Obama is increasingly worried 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.


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.

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.

An Illustration of why we need an overhaul of national health care policy

Adapted from an email I sent to a friend yesterday:

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.

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.

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.

Sour Grapes

Friend of The Pickle Justin King called my attention to this column, by Joe Posnanski, which is an oldie but goodie: the Yankees buy championships.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

New York makes us stop and think

I 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?

I think it probably does. If he didn't have a jagriblion dollars, he wouldn't be the mayor...

Friedman is Right for Once

Holy mackerel! Thomas Friedman actually wrote something sensible in this don't-escalate-in-Afghanistan column. More than sensible, actually. A must read. (If only he had had this attitude leading up to the war in Iraq...)

Money quote:

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.”

Thank You, Scientist

So, 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?

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.

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.

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.

The Pickle series entitled "Treating people like people." Voting Rights Edition

Many 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.”

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.

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.

Recently, some cities have allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections. It’s a movement we should all pay attention to and encourage.