Published with Blogger-droid v1.3.4.
June 15, 2010
Comeuppance
I just received the most extraordinary email. A reader went through a bunch of my posts and corrected many of my (plentiful) grammatical errors. After three years of minutely examining the same sorts of things from students, this feels like justice being served up to me. But in fact, I welcome the critique, because it is only with critique that improvement is possible.
Labels:
Writing
June 11, 2010
June 9, 2010
If Prop 14 Had Been In Effect Yesterday
The top overall vote-getters for Governor yesterday were:
So under the old rules, Brown and Whitman are their party's nominees and will face off against each other in November. Same result under the new Prop. 14 rules. How about for Lieutenant Governor?
Once again, same result under the old rules and the new. For Attorney General:
Much closer, to be sure, but again, same result -- the top two vote-getters are a Democrat and a Republican. This is a little bit instructive. Had 20,000 Cooley voters (all Republicans, because this was a closed-primary election) chosen Eastman instead, the results would have been:
This would have produced a runoff between two Republicans. But, this presumably is not how it would have gone down even if Eastman had been marginally more popular than he was -- because in a jungle primary, there would be independents voting for whatever candidate they wanted, enlarging the pool of voters, and there would be crossover voters; it's likely that some Democrats from Los Angeles would have voted for the relatively popular Steve Cooley, for instance, siphoning votes off from some other Democrats, maybe even from Harris. We can't know for sure, because this election was an old rules election.
But the point is, the evidence suggests that the new rules aren't going to look that different from the old rules. With the exception of there not being any minor parties at all on the November runoff election ballot.
So under the old rules, Brown and Whitman are their party's nominees and will face off against each other in November. Same result under the new Prop. 14 rules. How about for Lieutenant Governor?
Once again, same result under the old rules and the new. For Attorney General:
| Steve Cooley | ||
| Kamala D. Harris | ||
| John Eastman | ||
| Tom Harman | ||
| Alberto Torrico | ||
| Chris Kelly | ||
| Ted W. Lieu | ||
| Rocky Delgadillo | ||
| Pedro Nava |
Much closer, to be sure, but again, same result -- the top two vote-getters are a Democrat and a Republican. This is a little bit instructive. Had 20,000 Cooley voters (all Republicans, because this was a closed-primary election) chosen Eastman instead, the results would have been:
| Steve Cooley | ||
| John Eastman | ||
| Kamala D. Harris | ||
| Tom Harman | ||
| Alberto Torrico | ||
| Chris Kelly | ||
| Ted W. Lieu | ||
| Rocky Delgadillo | ||
| Pedro Nava |
This would have produced a runoff between two Republicans. But, this presumably is not how it would have gone down even if Eastman had been marginally more popular than he was -- because in a jungle primary, there would be independents voting for whatever candidate they wanted, enlarging the pool of voters, and there would be crossover voters; it's likely that some Democrats from Los Angeles would have voted for the relatively popular Steve Cooley, for instance, siphoning votes off from some other Democrats, maybe even from Harris. We can't know for sure, because this election was an old rules election.
But the point is, the evidence suggests that the new rules aren't going to look that different from the old rules. With the exception of there not being any minor parties at all on the November runoff election ballot.
Labels:
2010 Election,
California,
Domestic Politics
Pete Rose Corked His Bat Too
When I was a kid, I began to really enjoy baseball by following the 1981 Milwaukee Brewers, and then Pete Rose's pursuit of Ty Cobb's hit record; Rose would have been one of my first baseball heroes and his fall from grace after it was revealed that he bet on (and against) his own team was one of my first personal doses of real-world cynicism. (I've written elsewhere about how my father spared me the cynicism of losing faith in the President of the United States after asking why he was resigning.) I can remember listening to the game where he broke Cobb's record on the radio.
So now it appears Pete Rose used a corked bat while chasing Ty Cobb's record. Does it really matter? Charlie Hustle's reputation is already lower than a West Virginia coal mine not just for betting against his own team but for lying about it afterwards for decades; he has already been banned from baseball forever; and he's been exposed a tax cheat to boot. When Rose tried to argue that steroid use makes a mockery of baseball, everyone just laughed because it was kind of like Ted Kennedy lecturing someone on sexual harassment. So why not add a corked bat to the list of reasons to shake your head in sadness about a guy who ought to be enjoying a great retirement as one of the greatest players ever who instead gets to wear a scarlet badge of disgrace.
And there is still no reason to believe that anyone on the '81 Brewers had played dirty. Cecil Cooper, Paul Molitor, Robin Yount, and Rollie Fingers are still my boyhood baseball heroes. I can still remember watching on TV as the crowd back at County Stadium cheered for the Royals to send out their best pitcher against the home team, so that Milwaukee could feel like it earned the right to play off against the Yankees. And yes, my heart broke when Reggie Jackson hit his monster in gave five, but that, at least, was an honest baseball heartbreak. And I was made into a Dodger fan for life by the team that beat those Yankees in the World Series that followed.
So now it appears Pete Rose used a corked bat while chasing Ty Cobb's record. Does it really matter? Charlie Hustle's reputation is already lower than a West Virginia coal mine not just for betting against his own team but for lying about it afterwards for decades; he has already been banned from baseball forever; and he's been exposed a tax cheat to boot. When Rose tried to argue that steroid use makes a mockery of baseball, everyone just laughed because it was kind of like Ted Kennedy lecturing someone on sexual harassment. So why not add a corked bat to the list of reasons to shake your head in sadness about a guy who ought to be enjoying a great retirement as one of the greatest players ever who instead gets to wear a scarlet badge of disgrace.
And there is still no reason to believe that anyone on the '81 Brewers had played dirty. Cecil Cooper, Paul Molitor, Robin Yount, and Rollie Fingers are still my boyhood baseball heroes. I can still remember watching on TV as the crowd back at County Stadium cheered for the Royals to send out their best pitcher against the home team, so that Milwaukee could feel like it earned the right to play off against the Yankees. And yes, my heart broke when Reggie Jackson hit his monster in gave five, but that, at least, was an honest baseball heartbreak. And I was made into a Dodger fan for life by the team that beat those Yankees in the World Series that followed.
Labels:
Sports
Within A Degree
Rank the following world cities, from the furthest north to the furthest south:
New York City, United States
Madrid, Spain
Istanbul, Turkey
Beijing, China
Answer: New York is 40° 42’ 52” north. Madrid is 40° 25’ north. Istanbul is 41° 0’ 19” north. Beijing is 39° 54’ 16” north. So the correct order is: Istanbul, New York, Madrid, Beijing.
Now, rank the following U.S. cities, from the furthest east to the furthest west:
New Orleans, Louisiana
Jackson, Mississippi
Memphis, Tennessee
St. Louis, Missouri
Answer: New Orleans is 90° 4’ 14” west. Jackson is 90° 11’ 6” west. Memphis is 90° 2’ 56” west. St. Louis is 90° 11’ 12” west. So the correct order is: Memphis, New Orleans, Jackson, St. Louis.
Which city is further west, Boston (United States) or Santiago (Chile)?
Answer: Boston is at 71° 3’ 35” west. Santiago is 70° 34’ west. Boston is to the west of Santiago.
Precise city locations were calculated using the locations given for each city by Google Earth.
New York City, United States
Madrid, Spain
Istanbul, Turkey
Beijing, China
Answer: New York is 40° 42’ 52” north. Madrid is 40° 25’ north. Istanbul is 41° 0’ 19” north. Beijing is 39° 54’ 16” north. So the correct order is: Istanbul, New York, Madrid, Beijing.
Now, rank the following U.S. cities, from the furthest east to the furthest west:
New Orleans, Louisiana
Jackson, Mississippi
Memphis, Tennessee
St. Louis, Missouri
Answer: New Orleans is 90° 4’ 14” west. Jackson is 90° 11’ 6” west. Memphis is 90° 2’ 56” west. St. Louis is 90° 11’ 12” west. So the correct order is: Memphis, New Orleans, Jackson, St. Louis.
Which city is further west, Boston (United States) or Santiago (Chile)?
Answer: Boston is at 71° 3’ 35” west. Santiago is 70° 34’ west. Boston is to the west of Santiago.
Precise city locations were calculated using the locations given for each city by Google Earth.
Labels:
Trivia
June 7, 2010
June 2010 Election Endorsements
I haven't ever done official endorsements before, but blogging is all about trying new things. So here goes.
Proposition 13: Provides that certain kinds of seismic upgrades to existing structures will not trigger reassessment and thus property tax increases. I suggest voting yes on this initiative. The impact on property taxes will be negligible and this is an appropriate use of tax policy -- to incentivize desirable behavior, such as hiring contractors to make buildings more resistant to earthquakes, thereby stimulating the economy and reducing the amount of capital losses in the event of a disaster.
Proposition 14: Changes the way primary elections are run so that all candidates participate in a "jungle primary" in June and then the top two vote-getters will compete in a runoff election in November. I am torn, because I believe that politics are too polarized, and the theory is that a "jungle primary" would produce more moderate candidates making it into the general election. However, experience suggests that the result of open primaries is more political polarization, not less. Consequently, I think that this well-intentioned initiative will be counterproductive and I therefore suggest voting no.
Proposition 15: Would provide for public funding of political campaigns, to be paid for by a tax on lobbying, and available to candidates who accept spending limits for their campaigns. A silly idea that will not work. Well-heeled candidates may still voluntarily eschew the public funding and the "voluntary" spending limits if "traditional" fundraising proves more productive for them -- remember Barack Obama's pledge to adhere to spending limits, quickly discarded when he found he could raise, and spend, much more money than John McCain? Same thing would happen here. No major candidate for office in either major party has accepting existing Prop. 34 spending limits; why should Prop. 15 produce any different results? Vote no.
Proposition 16: Would require local voters to approve, by two-thirds vote, local utility and service districts establish electrical service to be paid for by taxpayer bonds. In theory, this sounds "pro-democracy," and it is certainly the case that local districts in California exercise shocking amounts of power with shockingly little effective public oversight -- including those districts which have elected boards, sometimes seeing voter turnout as high as the low teens for most elections. However, the practical effect of this initiative, if passed, would be to force local districts out of the electricity-generation business, and some of them are doing good things like putting up windmills and other "green" power generators -- and competing with the duopoly of Southern California Edison and PG&E. (Who, unsurprisingly, are the major financial backers of Proposition 16.) It's not that I hate PG&E, but there is a lot of dishonesty in the very slickly-produced campaign here, and that turns me off. More competition is better; more electricity is better; more green power is better. No on 16.
Proposition 17: Allows auto insurance underwriters to consider an insurance applicant's past insurance payment history when setting rates and issuing quotes. In practice, this is a premium-polarization effort. Poor people are more likely to have spotty records of insurance and therefore will be charged higher premiums. Rich people are more likely to have records of continuous coverage, and therefore will be charged lower premiums. The result? Insurance will become more difficult for the people who need it most to get it, and that will result in more uninsured drivers on the road, not less. Vote no here -- it may seem like your premiums will go down a little bit, but if you ever get hit by an uninsured driver, you'll realize that it wasn't worth it.
Republican for Governor: As between Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, I think Whitman presents a more appealing face for the general election and she makes for a more electable candidate. As to how they would govern, either Whitman or Poizner promises to be not so very different from Gov. Schwarzenegger, so the question for Republicans is really who has the best chance of preventing The Return Of Jerry Brown. Whitman gets my vote.
Democrat for Governor: You've only got one realistic vote here, and that's Jerry Brown. To be sure, today's Jerry Brown is not the Jerry Brown of the 1970's. But a leopard can't change his spots; if Brown is Governor, taxes will go up, he will likely call for a Constitutional convention to destroy Proposition 13, and there will be no consideration of any kind of fiscal or spending reform, which is badly, badly needed. I just plain can't endorse him because I can't imagine that anything he does is going to help the state's financial problems, so I decline to make any endorsement for Democrats.
Republican for Lieutenant Governor: There are two major candidates, Sam Aanestad and Abel Maldonado, the incumbent. Maldonado got appointed and confirmed to the position after caving on relatively modest tax increases in the last budget impasse. Aanestad is pro-life, which I do not like, but that is not a big issue at the state level because the state constitution would largely tie a pro-life official's hands. Other than that, Aanestad would clearly push the Legislature and the Governor to concentrate on spending reforms rather than raising taxes; Maldonado proved "reasonable" on the single issue that Republicans need to not be reasonable on. Aanestad is the better choice here.
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor: Here, the choices are between Janice Hahn, a Los Angeles City Councilmember, and Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco. Hahn is an experienced behind-the-scenes technocrat; Newsom is a firebrand willing to take risks, most notably on gay marriage. Newsom has demonstrated leadership as well as competence; Hahn has demonstrated only an ability to work below the public's radar and to avoid public admissions of marital infidelity, which is more than Newsom can say. Still, if you are a Democrat, you'll want to see Newsom grow and develop as a public figure for the future; he is the better choice between the two.
Republican for Secretary of State: Given that one of the two Republicans running is uber-birther, conspiracy theorist, repeat litigation-abuser, and all-around nutcase Orly Taitz, pretty much any other choice is the way to go. That other choice is Damon Dunn, about whom I know nothing other than that he is not Orly Taitz and therefore, unlike his adversary for the nomination, has not made a spectacle of a profound inability to come to grips with reality.
Democrat for Secretary of State: Incumbent Debra Bowen has no partisan competition for the nomination. My experience of dealing with the Secretary of State's business division is that since Bowen took office, the quality and speed of service from this branch of the state government has declined. Oh, sure, she won a "Profile in Courage" award for pulling hackable electronic voting machines from use at the last minute, but that doesn't seem like such a difficult call to me. Since Bowen has not impressed me as having delivered good service from her office, I urge my Democratic Readers to not vote for her.
Republican for Attorney General: By contrast, Steve Cooley has impressed as Los Angeles County's District Attorney. Before Cooley took office, the L.A.D.A. could not secure convictions in any high-profile case. Cooley, however, has found a way to minimize the showboating and maximize the prosecutorial efficiency. He has also brought a degree of sanity to child support garnishment enforcement without sacrificing the effectiveness of that program. He can't take credit for crime going down overall, but he can take credit for running a tight ship and producing better results than anyone had thought possible. He deserves a reward for that, and being California's top prosecutor seems fitting and stands head and shoulders above Senator Tom Harmann, his only real competition for the nomination. Cooley for A.G.
Democrat for Attorney General: This is a crowded field, including Kamala Harris, the District Attorney of San Francisco; Chris Kelly, the privacy officer for Facebook; Rocky Delgadillo, the city attorney of Los Angeles; Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance); Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara); and Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Fremont). Of them, I can suggest excluding Kelly and Delgadillo out of hand -- Kelly because he lacks any kind of prosecutorial experience and, let's face it, privacy on Facebook is a cruel, sick joke; and Delgadillo because he has demonstrated a significant tendency towards corruption. Harris shows the most chops as a prosecutor, although I do not have a sense for how well she has run the S.F.D.A.'s office. Torrico appears to be the unions' choice, and Nava appears to be the choice of a number of environmental advocates and has made environmental protection a focus of his campaign. As between these choices, the bread-and-butter choice is Harris, because she, more than anyone else in this field, has proven that she can run a prosecutorial office best.
Republican for U.S. Senator: There are three credible choices here, Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina, and Chuck DeVore. Unlike for a state-level position, there is nothing to bind a U.S. Senator from acting on a pro-life position, and DeVore's pro-life stance should be considered here -- at minimum, for the fact that in a California general election, a strident pro-life stance is a virtual guarantee that a candidate will not be elected. Campbell and Fiorina are both more socially moderate; Campbell more so than Fiorina. Campbell is a little bit too "reasonable" for my taste on the idea of raising taxes but very bright and creative on the spending reform side of things. Fiorina has made a push to the right, but there are health concerns and people coming from big business tend to not do well in government, particularly the legislative side of things, because there are different skill sets at play for success in a logrolling, compromising body like the Senate than in a corporate boardroom. Of the three imperfect candidates, Campbell possesses the better blend of attributes and should get the nod.
Democrat for U.S. Senate: I've never been a fan of Barbara Boxer and have always considered her a weak politician. She has only been elected as much as she has because her first opponent crashed and burned in a sex scandal one week before the general election and the Republicans could never get their crap together enough to field a real candidate against her six and twelve years after that. By contrast, Mickey Kaus is a blogger and a wise-ass, which even if I disagree with some of his opinions, makes me want to identify with him; if by some astonishing miracle he gets his party's nomination, that would be just plain fun. Democrats, vote Kaus for Senate.
Proposition 13: Yes
Proposition 14: No
Proposition 15: No
Proposition 16: No
Proposition 17: No
Republican for Governor: Meg Whitman
Republican for Lieutenant Governor: Sam Aanestad
Republican for Secretary of State: Damon Dunn
Republican for Attorney General: Steve Cooley
Republican for U.S. Senate: Tom Campbell
Democrat for Governor: No endorsement
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
Democrat for Secretary of State: No endorsement
Democrat for Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Democrat for U.S. Senate: Mickey Kaus
Proposition 13: Provides that certain kinds of seismic upgrades to existing structures will not trigger reassessment and thus property tax increases. I suggest voting yes on this initiative. The impact on property taxes will be negligible and this is an appropriate use of tax policy -- to incentivize desirable behavior, such as hiring contractors to make buildings more resistant to earthquakes, thereby stimulating the economy and reducing the amount of capital losses in the event of a disaster.
Proposition 14: Changes the way primary elections are run so that all candidates participate in a "jungle primary" in June and then the top two vote-getters will compete in a runoff election in November. I am torn, because I believe that politics are too polarized, and the theory is that a "jungle primary" would produce more moderate candidates making it into the general election. However, experience suggests that the result of open primaries is more political polarization, not less. Consequently, I think that this well-intentioned initiative will be counterproductive and I therefore suggest voting no.
Proposition 15: Would provide for public funding of political campaigns, to be paid for by a tax on lobbying, and available to candidates who accept spending limits for their campaigns. A silly idea that will not work. Well-heeled candidates may still voluntarily eschew the public funding and the "voluntary" spending limits if "traditional" fundraising proves more productive for them -- remember Barack Obama's pledge to adhere to spending limits, quickly discarded when he found he could raise, and spend, much more money than John McCain? Same thing would happen here. No major candidate for office in either major party has accepting existing Prop. 34 spending limits; why should Prop. 15 produce any different results? Vote no.
Proposition 16: Would require local voters to approve, by two-thirds vote, local utility and service districts establish electrical service to be paid for by taxpayer bonds. In theory, this sounds "pro-democracy," and it is certainly the case that local districts in California exercise shocking amounts of power with shockingly little effective public oversight -- including those districts which have elected boards, sometimes seeing voter turnout as high as the low teens for most elections. However, the practical effect of this initiative, if passed, would be to force local districts out of the electricity-generation business, and some of them are doing good things like putting up windmills and other "green" power generators -- and competing with the duopoly of Southern California Edison and PG&E. (Who, unsurprisingly, are the major financial backers of Proposition 16.) It's not that I hate PG&E, but there is a lot of dishonesty in the very slickly-produced campaign here, and that turns me off. More competition is better; more electricity is better; more green power is better. No on 16.
Proposition 17: Allows auto insurance underwriters to consider an insurance applicant's past insurance payment history when setting rates and issuing quotes. In practice, this is a premium-polarization effort. Poor people are more likely to have spotty records of insurance and therefore will be charged higher premiums. Rich people are more likely to have records of continuous coverage, and therefore will be charged lower premiums. The result? Insurance will become more difficult for the people who need it most to get it, and that will result in more uninsured drivers on the road, not less. Vote no here -- it may seem like your premiums will go down a little bit, but if you ever get hit by an uninsured driver, you'll realize that it wasn't worth it.
Republican for Governor: As between Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, I think Whitman presents a more appealing face for the general election and she makes for a more electable candidate. As to how they would govern, either Whitman or Poizner promises to be not so very different from Gov. Schwarzenegger, so the question for Republicans is really who has the best chance of preventing The Return Of Jerry Brown. Whitman gets my vote.
Democrat for Governor: You've only got one realistic vote here, and that's Jerry Brown. To be sure, today's Jerry Brown is not the Jerry Brown of the 1970's. But a leopard can't change his spots; if Brown is Governor, taxes will go up, he will likely call for a Constitutional convention to destroy Proposition 13, and there will be no consideration of any kind of fiscal or spending reform, which is badly, badly needed. I just plain can't endorse him because I can't imagine that anything he does is going to help the state's financial problems, so I decline to make any endorsement for Democrats.
Republican for Lieutenant Governor: There are two major candidates, Sam Aanestad and Abel Maldonado, the incumbent. Maldonado got appointed and confirmed to the position after caving on relatively modest tax increases in the last budget impasse. Aanestad is pro-life, which I do not like, but that is not a big issue at the state level because the state constitution would largely tie a pro-life official's hands. Other than that, Aanestad would clearly push the Legislature and the Governor to concentrate on spending reforms rather than raising taxes; Maldonado proved "reasonable" on the single issue that Republicans need to not be reasonable on. Aanestad is the better choice here.
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor: Here, the choices are between Janice Hahn, a Los Angeles City Councilmember, and Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco. Hahn is an experienced behind-the-scenes technocrat; Newsom is a firebrand willing to take risks, most notably on gay marriage. Newsom has demonstrated leadership as well as competence; Hahn has demonstrated only an ability to work below the public's radar and to avoid public admissions of marital infidelity, which is more than Newsom can say. Still, if you are a Democrat, you'll want to see Newsom grow and develop as a public figure for the future; he is the better choice between the two.
Republican for Secretary of State: Given that one of the two Republicans running is uber-birther, conspiracy theorist, repeat litigation-abuser, and all-around nutcase Orly Taitz, pretty much any other choice is the way to go. That other choice is Damon Dunn, about whom I know nothing other than that he is not Orly Taitz and therefore, unlike his adversary for the nomination, has not made a spectacle of a profound inability to come to grips with reality.
Democrat for Secretary of State: Incumbent Debra Bowen has no partisan competition for the nomination. My experience of dealing with the Secretary of State's business division is that since Bowen took office, the quality and speed of service from this branch of the state government has declined. Oh, sure, she won a "Profile in Courage" award for pulling hackable electronic voting machines from use at the last minute, but that doesn't seem like such a difficult call to me. Since Bowen has not impressed me as having delivered good service from her office, I urge my Democratic Readers to not vote for her.
Republican for Attorney General: By contrast, Steve Cooley has impressed as Los Angeles County's District Attorney. Before Cooley took office, the L.A.D.A. could not secure convictions in any high-profile case. Cooley, however, has found a way to minimize the showboating and maximize the prosecutorial efficiency. He has also brought a degree of sanity to child support garnishment enforcement without sacrificing the effectiveness of that program. He can't take credit for crime going down overall, but he can take credit for running a tight ship and producing better results than anyone had thought possible. He deserves a reward for that, and being California's top prosecutor seems fitting and stands head and shoulders above Senator Tom Harmann, his only real competition for the nomination. Cooley for A.G.
Democrat for Attorney General: This is a crowded field, including Kamala Harris, the District Attorney of San Francisco; Chris Kelly, the privacy officer for Facebook; Rocky Delgadillo, the city attorney of Los Angeles; Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance); Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara); and Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Fremont). Of them, I can suggest excluding Kelly and Delgadillo out of hand -- Kelly because he lacks any kind of prosecutorial experience and, let's face it, privacy on Facebook is a cruel, sick joke; and Delgadillo because he has demonstrated a significant tendency towards corruption. Harris shows the most chops as a prosecutor, although I do not have a sense for how well she has run the S.F.D.A.'s office. Torrico appears to be the unions' choice, and Nava appears to be the choice of a number of environmental advocates and has made environmental protection a focus of his campaign. As between these choices, the bread-and-butter choice is Harris, because she, more than anyone else in this field, has proven that she can run a prosecutorial office best.
Republican for U.S. Senator: There are three credible choices here, Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina, and Chuck DeVore. Unlike for a state-level position, there is nothing to bind a U.S. Senator from acting on a pro-life position, and DeVore's pro-life stance should be considered here -- at minimum, for the fact that in a California general election, a strident pro-life stance is a virtual guarantee that a candidate will not be elected. Campbell and Fiorina are both more socially moderate; Campbell more so than Fiorina. Campbell is a little bit too "reasonable" for my taste on the idea of raising taxes but very bright and creative on the spending reform side of things. Fiorina has made a push to the right, but there are health concerns and people coming from big business tend to not do well in government, particularly the legislative side of things, because there are different skill sets at play for success in a logrolling, compromising body like the Senate than in a corporate boardroom. Of the three imperfect candidates, Campbell possesses the better blend of attributes and should get the nod.
Democrat for U.S. Senate: I've never been a fan of Barbara Boxer and have always considered her a weak politician. She has only been elected as much as she has because her first opponent crashed and burned in a sex scandal one week before the general election and the Republicans could never get their crap together enough to field a real candidate against her six and twelve years after that. By contrast, Mickey Kaus is a blogger and a wise-ass, which even if I disagree with some of his opinions, makes me want to identify with him; if by some astonishing miracle he gets his party's nomination, that would be just plain fun. Democrats, vote Kaus for Senate.
Proposition 13: Yes
Proposition 14: No
Proposition 15: No
Proposition 16: No
Proposition 17: No
Republican for Governor: Meg Whitman
Republican for Lieutenant Governor: Sam Aanestad
Republican for Secretary of State: Damon Dunn
Republican for Attorney General: Steve Cooley
Republican for U.S. Senate: Tom Campbell
Democrat for Governor: No endorsement
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
Democrat for Secretary of State: No endorsement
Democrat for Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Democrat for U.S. Senate: Mickey Kaus
Labels:
2010 Election,
Domestic Politics
June 5, 2010
Service Matters
Last weekend, The Wife and I went out to our Friday night date. We went to a new restaurant in the area, one that advertises that its very name refers to its excellence. We, however, were underwhelmed, and in the process learned something about ourselves.
The food was actually quite good, for the price. That wasn't the problem. Neither was the beer selection, which was excellent, and the decor, that was interesting and enjoyable. The problem was the service.
The service model appears to be "we will take care of you when it's convenient for us to do so." When you show up, you wait in line to get a pager, and once you get that, you have to mill around the sidewalk in front of the restaurant looking at a high-gloss copy of the menu. In this sense, the restaurant resembles nothing so much as the Department of Motor Vehicles.
When your pager buzzes, you are then given the privilege of standing in another line, which takes you to a counter, where your food order is taken and you are given a paper receipt to take with you. If you order a soft drink, they give you a waxy-cardboard container. Now, your experience has been upgraded to McDonald's.
Then, a hostess takes you to your seat. You are met by a "D&D Specialist," meaning that she is in charge of bringing you "D"rinks and "D"esserts. She runs a scanner over the receipt and explains that she's going to bring you your alcohol and later, your dessert. She wants your order RIGHT NOW, even though you haven't had a chance to look at the drink list yet. If you're one of those people who always orders the same thing, that's probably not such a big deal; but if you're there to sample new beers, the feeling is a bit rushed. The "D&D Specialist" also informs you that even though it's six o'clock in the evening, they are almost out of desserts for the entire day, so if you want one, you'd better put your order in first.
Meanwhile, expediters from the kitchen run your food out to you. As soon as it's ready. One dish at a time. The Wife got her soup within sixty seconds of our sitting down; my sandwich came a few minutes later, and the french fries came a good ten minutes after we were seated.
You might take for granted that things like plates, napkins, and utensils were either waiting for us at the table or were brought along with the food. Not so. If you want a napkin or a fork or a plate, you have to get up and walk over to the service station yourself and carry it back to your table yourself. This has some minor upsides -- if you are having soup, for instance, you don't need a knife or fork so you can leave them there. On the other hand, if you're going to sample your companion's food, that gets slowed down. The utensils are also stored next to the soda fountains where you pour yourself your soft drinks or water, which are also near the pump stations for ketchup and other "dipping sauces" for your food along with the disposable paper mini-cups in which you are expected to take it all back to your table.
You are charged separately for the drink and dinner tab. No suggestions are offered about the tip -- do you tip for the entire meal, for just the drinks and dessert, at a counter-service tip rate for the food and a full-service rate for the drinks? Are the tips pooled for the staff, since a massive number of people have actually waited on you?
This is not done for the purpose of reducing the demand for service. The place is crawling with help -- busboys, expediters, "D&D" girls (who are all appropriately hot), hostesses, counter clerks, bartenders, and cooks. If anything, there are more employees working here than at a standard full-service restaurant. No, the customer-operated service stations appear to be an intentionally designed feature of the restaurant.
The Wife later theorized that the idea is to force you to interact with other customers, which might be an advantage if you're single and looking to meet other single people while waiting in line for a squirt of the pesto remoulade.
I noticed, however, that we were not in the place for very long. Once we were allowed to enter, we were in the premises for not much more than half an hour, pretty much just as long as it took to eat the food. So my theory is that it's set up this way so that the restaurant can turn the tables around faster and get more customers in. We the customers get to wait outside and not enjoy the ambiance of the place, and in exchange the people who work there are able to perform their jobs more conveniently.
Which is a bargain one can make, I suppose, but not one that sounds so great to me, the one whose role is also to pay for it all.
The result was that we both felt treated like livestock, and enjoyed what we had hoped would be a nice night out together a lot less than we would have otherwise. So what we learned about ourselves is that we have risen above a threshold for service. I don't mind ordering at a counter and doing some of my own table-bussing at a fast food restaurant, but I'm also paying a lot less, and it's not the sort of place that I would go expecting to have a nice date with my wife. But at the point where I'm paying ten bucks or so per meal, my expectations are such that I expect to have someone wait on me so that I can relax and enjoy the company of my companions rather than doing the work of enabling a meal to be prepared, served, and eaten.
So this week, The Wife and I drove to Santa Clarita and tried another place that wound up offering a similar service model. If anything, I enjoyed it less, because the quality of the food and the drink options were not nearly as good as what we had available closer to home. However, we found that there were other options available afterwards -- not wanting to muscle our way in to a place like a bar at a chain restaurant, we chose to pay a little bit extra to have a drink and dessert afterwards at a swanky hotel bar, which was quiet enough that we could talk to each other and unpopulated enough that we were able to sit and relax easily. We got good service, a good atmosphere, and didn't have to fight crowds or stand in line. That's the way to go for a nice night out with your spouse.
The food was actually quite good, for the price. That wasn't the problem. Neither was the beer selection, which was excellent, and the decor, that was interesting and enjoyable. The problem was the service.
The service model appears to be "we will take care of you when it's convenient for us to do so." When you show up, you wait in line to get a pager, and once you get that, you have to mill around the sidewalk in front of the restaurant looking at a high-gloss copy of the menu. In this sense, the restaurant resembles nothing so much as the Department of Motor Vehicles.
When your pager buzzes, you are then given the privilege of standing in another line, which takes you to a counter, where your food order is taken and you are given a paper receipt to take with you. If you order a soft drink, they give you a waxy-cardboard container. Now, your experience has been upgraded to McDonald's.
Then, a hostess takes you to your seat. You are met by a "D&D Specialist," meaning that she is in charge of bringing you "D"rinks and "D"esserts. She runs a scanner over the receipt and explains that she's going to bring you your alcohol and later, your dessert. She wants your order RIGHT NOW, even though you haven't had a chance to look at the drink list yet. If you're one of those people who always orders the same thing, that's probably not such a big deal; but if you're there to sample new beers, the feeling is a bit rushed. The "D&D Specialist" also informs you that even though it's six o'clock in the evening, they are almost out of desserts for the entire day, so if you want one, you'd better put your order in first.
Meanwhile, expediters from the kitchen run your food out to you. As soon as it's ready. One dish at a time. The Wife got her soup within sixty seconds of our sitting down; my sandwich came a few minutes later, and the french fries came a good ten minutes after we were seated.
You might take for granted that things like plates, napkins, and utensils were either waiting for us at the table or were brought along with the food. Not so. If you want a napkin or a fork or a plate, you have to get up and walk over to the service station yourself and carry it back to your table yourself. This has some minor upsides -- if you are having soup, for instance, you don't need a knife or fork so you can leave them there. On the other hand, if you're going to sample your companion's food, that gets slowed down. The utensils are also stored next to the soda fountains where you pour yourself your soft drinks or water, which are also near the pump stations for ketchup and other "dipping sauces" for your food along with the disposable paper mini-cups in which you are expected to take it all back to your table.
You are charged separately for the drink and dinner tab. No suggestions are offered about the tip -- do you tip for the entire meal, for just the drinks and dessert, at a counter-service tip rate for the food and a full-service rate for the drinks? Are the tips pooled for the staff, since a massive number of people have actually waited on you?
This is not done for the purpose of reducing the demand for service. The place is crawling with help -- busboys, expediters, "D&D" girls (who are all appropriately hot), hostesses, counter clerks, bartenders, and cooks. If anything, there are more employees working here than at a standard full-service restaurant. No, the customer-operated service stations appear to be an intentionally designed feature of the restaurant.
The Wife later theorized that the idea is to force you to interact with other customers, which might be an advantage if you're single and looking to meet other single people while waiting in line for a squirt of the pesto remoulade.
I noticed, however, that we were not in the place for very long. Once we were allowed to enter, we were in the premises for not much more than half an hour, pretty much just as long as it took to eat the food. So my theory is that it's set up this way so that the restaurant can turn the tables around faster and get more customers in. We the customers get to wait outside and not enjoy the ambiance of the place, and in exchange the people who work there are able to perform their jobs more conveniently.
Which is a bargain one can make, I suppose, but not one that sounds so great to me, the one whose role is also to pay for it all.
The result was that we both felt treated like livestock, and enjoyed what we had hoped would be a nice night out together a lot less than we would have otherwise. So what we learned about ourselves is that we have risen above a threshold for service. I don't mind ordering at a counter and doing some of my own table-bussing at a fast food restaurant, but I'm also paying a lot less, and it's not the sort of place that I would go expecting to have a nice date with my wife. But at the point where I'm paying ten bucks or so per meal, my expectations are such that I expect to have someone wait on me so that I can relax and enjoy the company of my companions rather than doing the work of enabling a meal to be prepared, served, and eaten.
So this week, The Wife and I drove to Santa Clarita and tried another place that wound up offering a similar service model. If anything, I enjoyed it less, because the quality of the food and the drink options were not nearly as good as what we had available closer to home. However, we found that there were other options available afterwards -- not wanting to muscle our way in to a place like a bar at a chain restaurant, we chose to pay a little bit extra to have a drink and dessert afterwards at a swanky hotel bar, which was quiet enough that we could talk to each other and unpopulated enough that we were able to sit and relax easily. We got good service, a good atmosphere, and didn't have to fight crowds or stand in line. That's the way to go for a nice night out with your spouse.
Labels:
California,
Food,
The Wife
June 4, 2010
To The Terrified Woman Who Drove A Gray 1980's Thunderbird This Morning
My good woman, should you again find yourself at a four-way stoplight and desirous of turning to the street on your left, might I be so bold as to offer some advice about how you might accomplish this task in a more expeditious fashion than you did earlier today?
When the light controlling your side of the intersection turns green, you will notice that there is no green left-turn arrow.* This should not alarm you. Instead, ease your foot off the brake pedal and allow your vehicle to slowly creep out into the intersection, about one car length. Then wait for oncoming traffic to clear. When you have enough space, remove your foot from the brake entirely, and accelerate into a left turn.
Should the light turn red while you are in the intersection, it means "complete your left turn immediately, so as not to block cross traffic and create a hazard." It does not mean "press your foot on your brake as hard as you can and stare in panicked paralysis at all the vehicles honking their horns at you for forty seconds until the light turns green again."
I rather suspect that this scenario -- having to turn left at a stoplight without a special left-turn arrow -- will arise for you again. It's one of those life challenges that is readily susceptible of repetition. So if you remember this technique, you will be able to get where you are going faster, and more importantly, you will inconvenience other drivers like, say, ME, a whole lot less.
On behalf of every other driver in the state of California, I thank you in advance.
* If there were separate signals for left turns, it would, by definition, no longer be a four-way stoplight.
When the light controlling your side of the intersection turns green, you will notice that there is no green left-turn arrow.* This should not alarm you. Instead, ease your foot off the brake pedal and allow your vehicle to slowly creep out into the intersection, about one car length. Then wait for oncoming traffic to clear. When you have enough space, remove your foot from the brake entirely, and accelerate into a left turn.
Should the light turn red while you are in the intersection, it means "complete your left turn immediately, so as not to block cross traffic and create a hazard." It does not mean "press your foot on your brake as hard as you can and stare in panicked paralysis at all the vehicles honking their horns at you for forty seconds until the light turns green again."
I rather suspect that this scenario -- having to turn left at a stoplight without a special left-turn arrow -- will arise for you again. It's one of those life challenges that is readily susceptible of repetition. So if you remember this technique, you will be able to get where you are going faster, and more importantly, you will inconvenience other drivers like, say, ME, a whole lot less.
On behalf of every other driver in the state of California, I thank you in advance.
* If there were separate signals for left turns, it would, by definition, no longer be a four-way stoplight.
Labels:
California
June 3, 2010
Amazingly, The President Is A Politician
Twice in as many weeks, it has been revealed that the Obama Administration has offered White House jobs to prominent primary challengers to incumbent Democrats. Once in Pennsylvania and now, we learn, in Colorado. The idea seems to be to let Democratic incumbents keep their seats and avoid bruising and expensive primary fights which, in the end, would only benefit Republicans.
There seems to be nothing illegal about this. I can't even think of why it ought to be illegal. The President is, after all, a politician, and he depends on his own party maintaining a majority in Congress to help him govern as he sees fit. Presidential intervention in elections seems perfectly okay if the President hosts or attends a fundraising dinner for a Congressional candidate; why not, then, have political involvement in other ways -- including the time-honored tactic of easing competition out of the way?
I suppose the idea is that the people ought to be able to express their choices free from political machinations by the already-powerful, but that's nonsense on stilts. The people don't get a whole lot of choice about who stands for election in the first place. From there, the primary process is not open to the people in most states, just to members of a particular party. And no one seems to have any problem with someone trying to persuade a candidate to stand aside and let someone else get a nomination -- witness, for instance, Tom Campbell's decision to switch from the Gubernatorial race to the Senate race in California. Whether that works out or not remains to be seen; the point is, no one thought there was anything improper about it.
Could it be the offer of a job, of patronage? Yes, that's unseemly, but no more so than other things that are accepted and noncontroversial. If President Obama wants to offer a plum to a primary candidate so as to keep a trusted ally in the Senate, really, is that any different than President Obama recognizing that someone raised a million dollars for his election campaign and making the guy the ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago? Come to think of it, I'll wager that one reason there are so many autonomous island nations in the tropics is so that the elites of various nations with crappy weather can become ambassadors to them and enjoy a few years of life in paradise as a reward for the otherwise-unglamorous work of delivering the political goods.
If the candidate is obviously unqualified for the job, that would be one thing. But the outrage doesn't seem to be over a perceived inability to do the job in question. Rather, the outrage seems to be that the President meddled in a primary election, he took sides in an intra-party dispute, and didn't remain "above the fray." Perhaps this is un-presidential, but it really just seems like smart, tough politics to me. And as I said before, the President is, first and foremost, a politician. The only real problem I see with this is indiscretion -- it shouldn't have ever come to light at all.
There seems to be nothing illegal about this. I can't even think of why it ought to be illegal. The President is, after all, a politician, and he depends on his own party maintaining a majority in Congress to help him govern as he sees fit. Presidential intervention in elections seems perfectly okay if the President hosts or attends a fundraising dinner for a Congressional candidate; why not, then, have political involvement in other ways -- including the time-honored tactic of easing competition out of the way?
I suppose the idea is that the people ought to be able to express their choices free from political machinations by the already-powerful, but that's nonsense on stilts. The people don't get a whole lot of choice about who stands for election in the first place. From there, the primary process is not open to the people in most states, just to members of a particular party. And no one seems to have any problem with someone trying to persuade a candidate to stand aside and let someone else get a nomination -- witness, for instance, Tom Campbell's decision to switch from the Gubernatorial race to the Senate race in California. Whether that works out or not remains to be seen; the point is, no one thought there was anything improper about it.
Could it be the offer of a job, of patronage? Yes, that's unseemly, but no more so than other things that are accepted and noncontroversial. If President Obama wants to offer a plum to a primary candidate so as to keep a trusted ally in the Senate, really, is that any different than President Obama recognizing that someone raised a million dollars for his election campaign and making the guy the ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago? Come to think of it, I'll wager that one reason there are so many autonomous island nations in the tropics is so that the elites of various nations with crappy weather can become ambassadors to them and enjoy a few years of life in paradise as a reward for the otherwise-unglamorous work of delivering the political goods.
If the candidate is obviously unqualified for the job, that would be one thing. But the outrage doesn't seem to be over a perceived inability to do the job in question. Rather, the outrage seems to be that the President meddled in a primary election, he took sides in an intra-party dispute, and didn't remain "above the fray." Perhaps this is un-presidential, but it really just seems like smart, tough politics to me. And as I said before, the President is, first and foremost, a politician. The only real problem I see with this is indiscretion -- it shouldn't have ever come to light at all.
Labels:
2010 Election,
Domestic Politics,
News,
Scandal
June 2, 2010
Five Rules For Blogging
- Do not have any audio that auto-loads on your web page. EVER.
- It’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Practicing this skill reaps many rewards.
- Nothing is ever truly deleted. If it happened on a computer, one day, someone will find it.
- Keep your skin thick and your ego strong; when you have made an error, own it because crow tastes better warm than cold.
- Sex sells.
Labels:
Blog
Polling Reveals A Problem
I really really want to like Rand Paul in Kentucky. I want to see him find a way to mediate basic libertarian ideas and appeals to social conservatives. But he isn't doing it. Hopefully, the worst of his gaffefest is over -- but my verdict remains: A Republican, in 2010, in Kentucky, ought to be leading his Democratic opponent by much more than eight points.
And, a Republican, in California, with a realistic shot at defeating Barbara Boxer, ought to be leading in the polls. Instead, he's losing the more-conservative-than-thou game and getting totally swamped by the private fortune of a vanity candidate with little political experience:
Come on, social conservatives. It's true that Campbell is not ideologically pure; he's pro-choice and doesn't have any particular hatred for teh gheys. But you'd seriously prefer to give Boxer a fourth term rather than give a moderate Republican any space in the Senate? You can pressure Campbell once he's in -- but Boxer will just laugh at you, the way she laughs at Fiorina.
The problem in both Kentucky and California is that social conservatives want to have it their way and only their way and they no longer have any appetite for country-club Republicans like Campbell or libertarian thinkers like Paul. If ideological purity is more valuable to them than actually electing Republicans to office, they are consigning themselves to eventually becoming a permanent minority party.
And, a Republican, in California, with a realistic shot at defeating Barbara Boxer, ought to be leading in the polls. Instead, he's losing the more-conservative-than-thou game and getting totally swamped by the private fortune of a vanity candidate with little political experience:
Come on, social conservatives. It's true that Campbell is not ideologically pure; he's pro-choice and doesn't have any particular hatred for teh gheys. But you'd seriously prefer to give Boxer a fourth term rather than give a moderate Republican any space in the Senate? You can pressure Campbell once he's in -- but Boxer will just laugh at you, the way she laughs at Fiorina.
The problem in both Kentucky and California is that social conservatives want to have it their way and only their way and they no longer have any appetite for country-club Republicans like Campbell or libertarian thinkers like Paul. If ideological purity is more valuable to them than actually electing Republicans to office, they are consigning themselves to eventually becoming a permanent minority party.
Labels:
2010 Election,
California,
Domestic Politics,
Polls
Tee Hee
This is such a flippant, ironic suggestion that -- well, there's actually a bit of truth in it. Because, of course, it's the last thing Turkey really wants to have happen.
Labels:
International Politics,
Israel,
Turkey
New States
I got a Hawaii quarter yesterday during a routine transaction. It occurred to me that the fiftieth state was admitted into the Union in 1959. For more than fifty years, there hasn't been another new state admitted. Looking back over American history, though, it appears that new states were coming in all the time throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But after we filled in the contiguous states in the continental mainland, in 1912, we pretty much stopped, and waited 48 years thereafter to admit Alaska and Hawaii. Since then, no new states.
Now, we're kind of out of the territorial expansion business, which we were in through the mid-1800's, and it makes sense that statehood for newly-acquired territories would lag somewhat behind getting the dirt within our borders. But this is only a rough concept, not borne out in reality -- compare Oklahoma, acquired in the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 but not organized as a state until 1907, with California, formally acquired after the war with Mexico in 1848 and admitted as a state in 1850.
The issues affecting statehood then were related to territorial acquisition but also related to migration (in turn a function of economic opportunity) and the politics of race and slavery. By the time we had mostly put those issues behind us, the Cold War and the need to project military power drove admitting Alaska and Hawaii. No new internal political dynamic, however, seems to be driving a need to create new states either out of old ones or out of other extracontinental territories controlled by the U.S.
What we might see, though, is a re-creation of existing states. Simmering under the surface of our current political and economic turmoil is a debate about the role of the government in the life of the individual, and within that, the relative roles of the federal and state governments. There has been considerable blurring between the two -- consider, for instance, the Federal Departments of Education and Transportation, which significantly underwrite a lot of activity that an originalist understanding of the Constitution would have identified as clearly state-level governance, and do so with little controversy. We also see states balking at poor Federal enforcement of, most recently, immigration laws, or state-level decisions wagging the federal law enforcement dog when it comes to things like marijuana.
The role of the states is not immutable in our Constitutional scheme. In 1868, the power relationship between each and every one of the states on the one hand and the Federal government on the other hand was fundamentally altered with enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since then, we've seen the incorporation doctrine and the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause push hard on the limits of what both levels of government can and cannot do; the national government has mostly expanded its power while the states have mostly had to share.
And now, the states are faced with massive mandates and significant revenue shortfalls, and they cannot deficit-spend the way the Federal government can. It could be that we simply cannot afford to have state governments like we used to, that some radical ways of thinking about how those services will be provided will be imposed upon us by a combination of harsh economic necessity and shifts in political thinking.
I cynically think that most Americans these days are somewhat foggy on the difference between the state and federal government to begin with and have less appreciation for the benefits derived from a federalized system of government. They are concerned with ends rather than means, results rather than processes. After all, partisans on either side of our political spectrum seem to have little problem with unifying, streamlining, and generally nationalizing government so long as their party is the one in power when it happens -- had Barack Obama proposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security (something I can easily see him doing had he been faced with the challenges his predecessor did in 2001), conservatives might have howled about the massive aggregation of Federal power but liberals would have called it a sad necessity and chided their counterparts for wanting the country to be weak in the face of adversity. In reality, of course, it was reversed. Had George W. Bush proposed the healthcare reforms of 2010 (something I can easily see him doing, seeing as he was a major proponent of creating and enacting Medicare Part D), Democrats would have called it another conservative budget-buster and a great diminishment of personal freedom while conservatives would have praised it as a smart, timely, and useful example of "compassionate conservatism." Again, reality was reversed.
But the point is that in both cases there was a consolidation of power at the federal level and there was little objection to any of it from a federalism point of view. For the most part (and there were exceptions to this general rule), the political debate was driven by a search for a better result, not an appropriate process, and one's stance on the issue of the day was driven in large part by which party held the White House at the time.
So I don't see a reformation in the role played by states as opposed to the federal government as a particularly partisan issue. And if we're going to change the way the various states do business, there is no particular reason I can think of to hold on to the old boundaries of the states other than a desire to maintain these accidents of history. Many state boundaries are set by the existence of natural features, like the Continental Divide or important rivers. Others were set because of population patterns that existed at the times of their admission and because of their location north or south of arbitrary lines drawn on maps in Washington to smooth over disagreements about slavery. We hang on to them now because of historical inertia and affinity for sports teams. Serious downsides of the existing states include substantial variances in population between them, creating an imbalance of representation in the Senate and creating tremendous inefficiencies in governing particularly the larger states and, conversely, significant revenue issues in the smaller ones.
We're headed down a political path which will leave us closer to a nation like France or the UK than a nation like Canada, one in which there is substantially less federalism. That may be a bad thing and we may regret it, but it's happening one way or another. If the trend is to go in that direction, then, we can at least aim ourselves at a result that makes more sense and gets us the results we want -- and maybe create a principled process along the way.
Now, we're kind of out of the territorial expansion business, which we were in through the mid-1800's, and it makes sense that statehood for newly-acquired territories would lag somewhat behind getting the dirt within our borders. But this is only a rough concept, not borne out in reality -- compare Oklahoma, acquired in the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 but not organized as a state until 1907, with California, formally acquired after the war with Mexico in 1848 and admitted as a state in 1850.
The issues affecting statehood then were related to territorial acquisition but also related to migration (in turn a function of economic opportunity) and the politics of race and slavery. By the time we had mostly put those issues behind us, the Cold War and the need to project military power drove admitting Alaska and Hawaii. No new internal political dynamic, however, seems to be driving a need to create new states either out of old ones or out of other extracontinental territories controlled by the U.S.
What we might see, though, is a re-creation of existing states. Simmering under the surface of our current political and economic turmoil is a debate about the role of the government in the life of the individual, and within that, the relative roles of the federal and state governments. There has been considerable blurring between the two -- consider, for instance, the Federal Departments of Education and Transportation, which significantly underwrite a lot of activity that an originalist understanding of the Constitution would have identified as clearly state-level governance, and do so with little controversy. We also see states balking at poor Federal enforcement of, most recently, immigration laws, or state-level decisions wagging the federal law enforcement dog when it comes to things like marijuana.
The role of the states is not immutable in our Constitutional scheme. In 1868, the power relationship between each and every one of the states on the one hand and the Federal government on the other hand was fundamentally altered with enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since then, we've seen the incorporation doctrine and the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause push hard on the limits of what both levels of government can and cannot do; the national government has mostly expanded its power while the states have mostly had to share.
And now, the states are faced with massive mandates and significant revenue shortfalls, and they cannot deficit-spend the way the Federal government can. It could be that we simply cannot afford to have state governments like we used to, that some radical ways of thinking about how those services will be provided will be imposed upon us by a combination of harsh economic necessity and shifts in political thinking.
I cynically think that most Americans these days are somewhat foggy on the difference between the state and federal government to begin with and have less appreciation for the benefits derived from a federalized system of government. They are concerned with ends rather than means, results rather than processes. After all, partisans on either side of our political spectrum seem to have little problem with unifying, streamlining, and generally nationalizing government so long as their party is the one in power when it happens -- had Barack Obama proposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security (something I can easily see him doing had he been faced with the challenges his predecessor did in 2001), conservatives might have howled about the massive aggregation of Federal power but liberals would have called it a sad necessity and chided their counterparts for wanting the country to be weak in the face of adversity. In reality, of course, it was reversed. Had George W. Bush proposed the healthcare reforms of 2010 (something I can easily see him doing, seeing as he was a major proponent of creating and enacting Medicare Part D), Democrats would have called it another conservative budget-buster and a great diminishment of personal freedom while conservatives would have praised it as a smart, timely, and useful example of "compassionate conservatism." Again, reality was reversed.
But the point is that in both cases there was a consolidation of power at the federal level and there was little objection to any of it from a federalism point of view. For the most part (and there were exceptions to this general rule), the political debate was driven by a search for a better result, not an appropriate process, and one's stance on the issue of the day was driven in large part by which party held the White House at the time.
So I don't see a reformation in the role played by states as opposed to the federal government as a particularly partisan issue. And if we're going to change the way the various states do business, there is no particular reason I can think of to hold on to the old boundaries of the states other than a desire to maintain these accidents of history. Many state boundaries are set by the existence of natural features, like the Continental Divide or important rivers. Others were set because of population patterns that existed at the times of their admission and because of their location north or south of arbitrary lines drawn on maps in Washington to smooth over disagreements about slavery. We hang on to them now because of historical inertia and affinity for sports teams. Serious downsides of the existing states include substantial variances in population between them, creating an imbalance of representation in the Senate and creating tremendous inefficiencies in governing particularly the larger states and, conversely, significant revenue issues in the smaller ones.
We're headed down a political path which will leave us closer to a nation like France or the UK than a nation like Canada, one in which there is substantially less federalism. That may be a bad thing and we may regret it, but it's happening one way or another. If the trend is to go in that direction, then, we can at least aim ourselves at a result that makes more sense and gets us the results we want -- and maybe create a principled process along the way.
Labels:
Domestic Politics,
Government,
History
Law Students: There Is No Pot Of Gold
If you are in law school right now, in California, chances are pretty good that by the time you get your J.D. you're going to have spent $100,000 on your legal education. And if you're like I was, you've borrowed that money. In some parts of the country, that's what it costs to buy a house. Only you can't default on student loans; you can't even bankrupt out of them.
The sad reality of it is, the majority of you law students aren't going to be getting $100K+ jobs. Some of you will, of course, selling your souls to BIGLAW, which will entomb you in a dungeon of massive billable hour obligations. Although apparently well-paid, you will be celibate, divorced, unappreciated, and soon come to regard sunlight as something of a novelty. The rest of you, the majority of you graduating from schools other than UCLA, USC, Stanford, or Berkeley, will wind up practicing law under your own shingle or in small to medium-sized firms. You'll make between $40,000 to $80,000, depending on a variety of factors.
From this, you will need to 1) service your student debt, 2) support yourself, and 3) underwrite your own personal sales and marketing efforts so as to increase your value in the future. You aren't going to be living nearly as well as you probably dreamed of. The reason for this is partially the economic times, partially the competition (there are a lot of other lawyers out there) and partially the effect of all that debt. In my experience with less dramatic numbers and less crushing competition many years ago, for a couple of years there was almost no discretionary money after paying for a modest apartment (which I shared with a roommate) and servicing my student loan debts. You will be in danger of relying on liquid credit to sustain something resembling the lifestyle you had hoped to enjoy as a young attorney, and you will need to find the willpower to consistently resist that temptation.
As the President of the California Bar points out, your law school isn't going to tell you any of this. Your law school is going to lie to you and tell you everything is going to be great, you'll be out of debt in a flash and in a position to make generous alumni donations. But this is the truth: becoming a lawyer in today's world gives you, at best, only a small-odds shot at a financially comfortable life, at least in the short run. If you stick with it long enough and are good at the business side of practicing law (things which have nothing to do with how smart you are or how good a lawyer you are), yes, you'll eventually start to make decent money at it. But it's going to be a while.
There were no lawyers in my family before me; no close friends who could have taken me aside and explained all of this to me. That was no one's fault; but my Reader, you no longer have that same disadvantage as I had lo those many years ago. Had I known then what I know now, yes, I'd still have gone ahead and committed to the legal profession. But I'd have had my eyes open about it and no illusions about making lots of money and being in an elite stratum of society. What you get with that bar card is the ability to make a decent but not extraordinary living doing something that is sometimes interesting and fun, and sometimes not. You deserve to know what you're getting yourself into before you get there, and in enough time that you can change paths should this not be what you're looking for.
The sad reality of it is, the majority of you law students aren't going to be getting $100K+ jobs. Some of you will, of course, selling your souls to BIGLAW, which will entomb you in a dungeon of massive billable hour obligations. Although apparently well-paid, you will be celibate, divorced, unappreciated, and soon come to regard sunlight as something of a novelty. The rest of you, the majority of you graduating from schools other than UCLA, USC, Stanford, or Berkeley, will wind up practicing law under your own shingle or in small to medium-sized firms. You'll make between $40,000 to $80,000, depending on a variety of factors.
From this, you will need to 1) service your student debt, 2) support yourself, and 3) underwrite your own personal sales and marketing efforts so as to increase your value in the future. You aren't going to be living nearly as well as you probably dreamed of. The reason for this is partially the economic times, partially the competition (there are a lot of other lawyers out there) and partially the effect of all that debt. In my experience with less dramatic numbers and less crushing competition many years ago, for a couple of years there was almost no discretionary money after paying for a modest apartment (which I shared with a roommate) and servicing my student loan debts. You will be in danger of relying on liquid credit to sustain something resembling the lifestyle you had hoped to enjoy as a young attorney, and you will need to find the willpower to consistently resist that temptation.
As the President of the California Bar points out, your law school isn't going to tell you any of this. Your law school is going to lie to you and tell you everything is going to be great, you'll be out of debt in a flash and in a position to make generous alumni donations. But this is the truth: becoming a lawyer in today's world gives you, at best, only a small-odds shot at a financially comfortable life, at least in the short run. If you stick with it long enough and are good at the business side of practicing law (things which have nothing to do with how smart you are or how good a lawyer you are), yes, you'll eventually start to make decent money at it. But it's going to be a while.
There were no lawyers in my family before me; no close friends who could have taken me aside and explained all of this to me. That was no one's fault; but my Reader, you no longer have that same disadvantage as I had lo those many years ago. Had I known then what I know now, yes, I'd still have gone ahead and committed to the legal profession. But I'd have had my eyes open about it and no illusions about making lots of money and being in an elite stratum of society. What you get with that bar card is the ability to make a decent but not extraordinary living doing something that is sometimes interesting and fun, and sometimes not. You deserve to know what you're getting yourself into before you get there, and in enough time that you can change paths should this not be what you're looking for.
Labels:
Law
Budgeting Toy
Thanks to Ordinary Gentleman Mark Thompson, I can provide you with a link to a toy that lets you try to cut the Federal budget. It turns out to be a good deal more difficult that it might seem. Here's a hint, though -- you can't have any sacred cows. And you've got to approach the task with the overriding policy goal of reducing debt. Here are my results, with real policy choices I would really make if I were really President:
Note, also, that I include about equal amounts of revenue increases (I don't increase taxes outright, but it would sure feel that way to most of you and I do allow the Bush tax cuts to expire) and spending cuts, including tightening up on SSI and significantly paring back our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Did I say I'd make those kinds of choices if I were President? Yes, but given our current political environment, I'd probably be a one-termer; I could only get all this enacted if I were the King instead. Of course, we don't have one of those...
Note, also, that I include about equal amounts of revenue increases (I don't increase taxes outright, but it would sure feel that way to most of you and I do allow the Bush tax cuts to expire) and spending cuts, including tightening up on SSI and significantly paring back our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Did I say I'd make those kinds of choices if I were President? Yes, but given our current political environment, I'd probably be a one-termer; I could only get all this enacted if I were the King instead. Of course, we don't have one of those...
George Washington's Religion
An ongoing subject of some contention here is the recurrent question of the religion of the Founders. I point Readers interested in that discussion to a very interesting piece on George Washington and his manner of expressing religious feelings:
Instead, let no one claim him. It's best if we say he was an "American" and leave it at that. In that way, Washington can belong to all of us regardless of our personal beliefs, which surely is what Washington himself would have wanted.
Here are the actual phrases that Washington used in his "written prayers" to describe divinity, along with the number of times they were used:In this, I see support for my own view of things -- which is that even if one concedes that the Founders were deeply religious men, the way in which the Founders were religious was very different than the way that modern people are religious, and it is therefore not appropriate to call them "Christians." The author of the reviewed book labored mightily to come up with justifications for Christians claiming Washington as one of their own, but it would seem that the content of Washington's own words does not support that conclusion. Now, based only on the review that I read and linked for Readers here, I don't think it would be fair to call Washington an "atheist," either. It seems that he believed in something, and of course he was a man of his times and his culture which would have caused him substantial knowledge and appreciation for Christianity. But it's very interesting indeed to see him shy away from the kinds of names and phrases used by Christians, both contemporary and subsequent.
"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0
With such a large assortment of phrases, I find it amazing that Lillback does not provide a single example of where Washington prayed to Jesus specifically or directly. In fact, the only time the word "Christian" is mentioned in all of appendix three is on page 775. In a letter to the king of France, Washington begins the letter by writing, "To our great and beloved Friend and Ally, his Most Christian Majesty." [My emphasis added].
Despite these obvious discrepancies in his argument, I must also point out the fact that Lillback provides AMPLE evidence to support his claim that Washington was NOT a Deist. The simple fact that these prayers exist is sufficient proof of this fact. Regardless of who Washington was praying to, the fact remains that he did, in the end, pray regularly.
Instead, let no one claim him. It's best if we say he was an "American" and leave it at that. In that way, Washington can belong to all of us regardless of our personal beliefs, which surely is what Washington himself would have wanted.
June 1, 2010
How Not To Celebrate Memorial Day
To commemorate Memorial Day this year, I spilled water into the keyboard of my laptop. I shall have to find a less expensive and more convenient way to commemorate America's fallen heroes next year. For now, however, I will be grateful that my computer geek consultant convinced me to buy a three-year extended warranty, which should cover the damage to the motherboard, and that the hard drive continues to be functional and therefore can be mirrored before the factory service which will almost certainly involve a memory wipe.
The rest of you will have to be content with continued slow output from me.
The rest of you will have to be content with continued slow output from me.
Labels:
Technology
Miranda Rights: See Rule One
The Supreme Court today handed down a case in which they made it clear that a criminal suspect must invoke his Miranda rights or they are waived. While that sounds bad at first blush, on the facts of the case, I can't say the Supremes blew the call. The basic story is, the arrestee sat silent for nearly three hours without a lawyer in the room, and then when asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" and the arrestee then looked away and said "Yes."
Well, guess what. That's a waiver of the right to remain silent, and the cops should indeed be able to use that statement in court. And based almost exclusively on the strength of this one-word confession, the defendant is convicted of first-degree murder, a sentence upheld today. So what have we learned here?
First, cops are very persistent and sometimes very sneaky about how they get you to waive your rights. Human beings feel a basic impulse to talk and be social with one another, and here, the cop used nearly three hours of time to deprive the arrestee of that kind of social contact so as to elicit an admission.
Second, particularly if you're religious, beware of appeals to your religiosity, even from those whom you have reason to trust (not that the arrestee had any reason to trust the cop here). If you adopt religion into your world view, you are voluntarily rendering yourself vulnerable to this sort of mind game. That's not to say there aren't other kinds of mind games the cop could have played on the defendant here. But religion provides a a pretty easy mind game for a cop to use.
Third, if you've been convicted based on a confession, you can count on a very skeptical judiciary that will probably labor to uphold your conviction.
And fourth -- particularly if you've been arrested, shut up. Let your lawyer do your talking for you.
Well, guess what. That's a waiver of the right to remain silent, and the cops should indeed be able to use that statement in court. And based almost exclusively on the strength of this one-word confession, the defendant is convicted of first-degree murder, a sentence upheld today. So what have we learned here?
First, cops are very persistent and sometimes very sneaky about how they get you to waive your rights. Human beings feel a basic impulse to talk and be social with one another, and here, the cop used nearly three hours of time to deprive the arrestee of that kind of social contact so as to elicit an admission.
Second, particularly if you're religious, beware of appeals to your religiosity, even from those whom you have reason to trust (not that the arrestee had any reason to trust the cop here). If you adopt religion into your world view, you are voluntarily rendering yourself vulnerable to this sort of mind game. That's not to say there aren't other kinds of mind games the cop could have played on the defendant here. But religion provides a a pretty easy mind game for a cop to use.
Third, if you've been convicted based on a confession, you can count on a very skeptical judiciary that will probably labor to uphold your conviction.
And fourth -- particularly if you've been arrested, shut up. Let your lawyer do your talking for you.
Labels:
Constitutional Law,
Crime and Punishment,
News,
Religion
Inaction Preferable To Action
I'm not so sure I enjoy seeing tension involving Israel -- particularly when it appears that the antagonists are trying to draw Turkey into a side adverse to Israel. This would be an excellent time for a diplomatic effort to resolve the question of humanitarian aid going in to Gaza without disrupting the military blockade. Which would be a job for, well, the United States.
Labels:
International Politics,
Israel,
News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
