christopher's blog

It's TRUE

2007-09-07T08:17:00.000+02:00

I've been making it a facetious point for years, but Dubner finally shows that Mexicans are both hard working AND lazy!

And as I say that

2007-09-07T08:09:00.000+02:00

The Wall Street Journal makes me eat my words with a pretty excellent article about how the Republicans have real problems, namely that their point of view doesn't really coincide with that of the vast majority of Americans. The fact that national security, the Repubs number one issue has come to the fore during the last few years has really served to cover up the growing rift between the Republicans and America.

He found that the party is significantly older and more conservative than it was a decade ago. That, he says, suggests a Republican Party increasingly at risk of being seen "as very old-fashioned, very old and not in touch with the realities of today's society."

It seems to me what we are seeing is that the Republicans are going to go through a malaise similar to what the Democrats did in the 1980s, where the idea of "liberalism" was seen as old and out of date. With the Democrats younger and more energized, and the Republicans a mess, the tables have hopefully turned after 25 years.

wall street journal

2007-09-07T08:03:00.000+02:00

Well, I have begun receiving the Wall Street Journal again, since the subscription runs for a year. But seeing as that paper has been bought by the evil Murdoch in hopes of Timesing it, I don't think I can give them anymore of my hard borrowed money. Shame, too, since it was a good paper.

Law school

2007-08-31T21:36:00.000+02:00

So I am now a law student. What exactly does this mean?

1) The workload is hard, but not ridiculous. There is a lot of reading. It is like taking Constitutional Law five times over (which was my hardest class in undergrad), except that all five classes are graded based only on one exam.

2) I feel young. Everybody else is older and has more experience. My colleagues are definitively men and women not boys and girls.

3) Some of the stuff is interesting, some of it is not. Like property. Is not. Interesting. Most of it dates back to medieval precedents that don't have a whole lot to do with anything. On the other hand, contracts and civil procedure have been better than I expected.

4) The professors are lawyers. That means they like to talk and be clever and charismatic. It doesn't mean they are always as great as they think they are, but it does keep things interesting.

Well, those are my first impressions, after an entire week. Should be a bit of an adventure.

the competence illusion

2007-08-20T23:00:00.000+02:00

The "Lexington" column in this week's Economist has an interesting, and superficially true statement: voters in the 2008 presidential election will be more concerned about competence than anything else. The column then goes on to state that Mitt Romney's "competent" track record is being unfairly punished because the Republican nomination process is controlled by people who vote based on - gasp - issues.

Mr Romney's problem is that he is competence on steroids. He turned Bain Capital into a financial juggernaut and made himself $250m. He saved the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. As governor of Massachusetts, he introduced one of the country's most ambitious health-care reforms. But he cannot dwell upon his real strengths until he first wins over the guys with the “Jesus is cool” T-shirts and the monkeys in nappies. A cruel business, politics.

Complaining about issue-based voters controlling the primary process is quite ridiculous. Historically, "manager" types like Romney have been losers. This is because voters tend to vote for candidates based on issues and personality, not whether or not the candidate is perceived as "competent." Based on his background, it's likely that he'll be friendly to business and somewhat ambivalent about social issues. These views conflict strongly with a large swathe of the Republican base, and as such, he's unlikely to be nominated. That people don't vote for people they disagree with is a feature of the system, not a defect.

An additional problem with the popular line about Romney being the "competent" candidate is that having a reputation for being competent in other lines of work is no guarantee of a person being a competent president. Running a campaign is actually a much better indicator of the job somebody will do as president than any previous position they might have held. That's because the president has rather limited concrete powers, and his or her ability to effectively implement an agenda comes down to an ability to connect with people and effectively use the bully pulpit... charisma. Although charisma is frequently demeaned as a superficial part of the campaign that has little to do with how a candidate might govern, it is really a critical part to being an effective president.

In addition to charisma, a president must have almost impeccable political judgment and the ability to lead a group. He or she has to be able to choose one adviser's advice over another's without causing the other to feel put out. These skills, along with the 24 hour stress of the presidency, are actually best tested through the wear of the stump, the quick decision making, and constant leadership a candidate must display on the campaign trail. Nothing Romney has done in his career comes close.

For an instructive example, look at another consummate "competence" candidate: Wes Clark. Clark was supposed to be the perfect candidate for a country in a hopelessly botched war: he'd been in charge of NATO. But it turned out he lacked political judgment and was milquetoast on the stump. So given these qualities, it's good he got beaten because he would have been an uninspiring president with poor political judgment. I'm not saying that Mitt will be like this, but we should give him some time before we say he'd certainly be a good president.

the insidious american dream

2007-08-20T19:15:00.000+02:00

I agree with John Edwards that home ownership is a part of the American Dream, insofar as many people want to own homes. Of course, Edwards takes this to mean that the government should subsidize home ownership to the tune of a tax credit against a down payment.

Just because it is part of the "American Dream" doesn't mean it's a good thing. First off, one reason that we have the current economic issues and a bunch of people being foreclosed upon is because people who weren't ready to buy a house did it anyway. They got trapped into crappy variable rate mortgages, and were screwed when the interest rate rose. So the problem as far as home ownership in this country goes is not that people can't afford a down payment, it's that they don't know what they are getting into as far as monthly payments, and are in far too tenuous a financial situation to be taking on a mortgage.

Edwards also seems to be under the impression that ownership is a financial panacea, saying that "home ownership is the best way to establish a nest egg." This is just plain wrong. For many families, a home can be a good investment... it's about the only investment you can live in. But if you are not going to be staying in your home all that long, or you are getting into a bad mortgage, renting tends to be a better option. Plus, the real estate market is incredibly volatile and you have to pay property taxes on your investment every year, not just capital gains tax at when you cash out.

Plus, home ownership is already subsidized, since interest on your mortgage is tax deductible. The most basic economics/public policy principle is that you subsidize what you need more of. Well, we already have too much home ownership, and we're also subsidizing it. So how exactly further subsidy like Edwards is proposing is going to help anything is well beyond me. What we really need to do is persuade people that they might be better off renting, not encourage them to run headlong into buying when it might not be right for them.

Interesting

2007-08-17T22:42:00.000+02:00

The EU's method of reducing carbon emissions may not be effective, but China is doing something I know will work: ban half the cars from the road.

During the current test period, cars with registration plates ending in odd and even numbers will each be banned from the roads for two day.
Any driver caught contravening the restrictions will be fined 100 yuan ($13, £6.50) by 6,500 police officers, many stationed at road entrances.

For me, this highlights the power of an oligarchy. If they want cleaner air and less traffic and less people spitting on the ground during the Olympics to please all the visitors, by gawd they are going to have it. This is a pretty striking contrast to the US, where common-sense ideas like CAFE standards become politically rancorous, and ethanol is considered an energy solution.

Obviously I don't support dictatorships. However, environmental issues are so important at this juncture, politicians need to take a harder look at which policies will work in the long term, not just what solutions appear environmentally sound and are easy to implement. After all, they are supposed to be the experts on policy, and they owe us good faith attempts at real solutions.

travesty

2007-08-17T22:16:00.000+02:00

Interesting to note that the EU's policy of switching to 20% biofuel by 2020 is not a particularly good idea:

The EU target of ensuring 10% of petrol and diesel comes from renewable sources by 2020 is not an effective way to curb carbon emissions, researchers say.
A team of UK-based scientists suggested that reforestation and habitat protection was a better option.

I find this to be extraordinarily maddening, because we're not talking about a question of conflicting priorities or principles. It's a rather simple question of effectiveness. Now, if you believe that global warming isn't a big problem, or that it's just too expensive to deal with, you are stupid and wrong.

But if you are going to take the position that greenhouse gases need to be reduced, you should be in favor of the most effective possible method of doing so. In this case, the EU clearly believes greenhouse gases ought be reduced, but failed to ask people who would know if their solution was any good. So why don't they try to figure out the best way to do it? Why didn't they ask the scientists who did this study about reforestation? I'd really like to know.

The mystery of "Fred"

2007-08-17T20:45:00.000+02:00

It strikes me that the entire intrigue of Fred Thompson's presidential campaign is that he's not a candidate yet, so everybody wishes he was one. Even if he acts like a candidate, he still leaves Republicans wanting more:

Staying true to his character so far, he was vague and coy, even when there was a shout from the crowd: “Hurry up and declare, already!”

It's smart to be vague and mysterious when that's the only weapon you've got in your bag. When your entire political resume is being an obscure backbench senator in a faction that most people don't really like any more (see DeLay and Gingrich), it's good to keep speculation focused on your "mysterious" intentions so they can't analyze your record.

I'm back

2007-08-17T17:13:00.001+02:00

Ok, we'll see how long this lasts, since I am starting law school in about a week, and it's pretty unlikely that I'll have any readers and any time then. But I have time this week, so here goes.

Anyway, have a look at this:
Then think about the fact that the Fed listened to him and cut the lending rate. Cramer has a point: it is bad that people will lose their homes. But that doesn't change the fact that he's crazy and funny.

time for a real update!

2006-04-23T15:06:00.000+02:00

So basically I have neglected my blog for almost a month. Really, it's a pity, but you haven't missed so much. Basically, I was supposed to finish up with my history paper when I got back from Mainz and before my dad came to visit on the 17th, but I was kinda wore out, so I just sat around, killed time, went to bars and went skiing occasionally, once at Wildschonau, once at Garmisch-Partenkirchen Classic area, and with my cousin at Serfaus-Fiss-Ladus. I also went to bars a lot.

When my dad came, we went to Budapest, which was really super cool. Just like in Italy, it's hard to resist the urge to speak German back at people who speak another language to you. The most practical thing to do is to speak English very slowly and gesticulate wildly. Hungarian is CRAZY. I didn't pick up any of it, like I did a little with Italian. It really has nothing to do with any language I've ever heard. It's more like what someone who has never heard German would say German sounds like: super harsh and very very gutteral. Basically, the thing you do in Budapest is go to the baths. It's also a beautiful city with most of the buildings being restored from the late 19th century. There are some relics from the Soviet days too: all the cars in the subway system were from 1972, and it was quite obvious that they were Soviet vintage.

Since then, I've been back in Munich trying to get ready for the start of the next semester. I got my last paper out of the way, which was really a hassle. I just hope that I pass the class. It's really bizarre to be just starting back up right now. What an injustice. Anyway, I'll post photos as soon as I can find them. The weather has finally improved here, so I should be outside more, which will be a nice change of pace.

i promise

2006-04-03T16:39:00.000+02:00

I'll do a real update soon enough. But for now, let the record show that Keira Knightley is really talented.

haha

2006-04-02T00:55:00.000+02:00

Prince Poldi, der Tor-König. And the King of Kölner hearts.

By the way, what are the chances the boy is playing for Bayern next year? I say 55%. He won't be in the 2. Bundesliga.

sigh

2006-03-27T15:55:00.000+02:00

I think I'm in love.

polygamy?

2006-03-16T12:37:00.000+01:00

Katherine Kersten is at her inflammatory best this week in the Star Tribune (and how she still has a job there is beyond me). It's the age old argument against gay marriage:

But wait. What if a person loves two people, or three or more? If "one man-one woman" is a discriminatory limitation on the choice of a life partner, on what grounds can the state logically restrict marriage to two people? The fact is, once you adopt same-sex marriage -- legally changing the standard for marriage from one-man, one-woman to a "committed relationship" -- there is no principled way to prevent its extension to polygamy or other forms of "plural marriage" or partnership.

This argument is really completely invalid. Why? Because she fails to outline the reasons that polygamy shouldn't be legal. The problem with polygamy is not that it is an assault on our traditional values, or somehow in bad taste. The problem is that it's very strongly correlated to abusive and incestuous relationships. If you just think about the power dynamic at play when one man is married to several women, this makes complete sense. This logic does not at all apply to same sex marriage. There is no evidence of negative effects of gay marriage except for vague claims that it "weakens the institution of marriage."

los geht's: turin and florence

2006-03-02T13:49:00.000+01:00

And yes it's TURIN. Not Torino. I don't want anybody saying Torino who doesn't also say Venezia, Firenze, Roma, Wien, Genova or Genf. Now on to business. Whatever it's called, screw this city. No mass transit to speak of. Nothing even that pretty. And the mountain venues were about two hours away. Seriously now.Coca-Cola of all companies welcomes us to Turin.
Waking up after sleeping in the park. Bad idea. Woke up covered in dog-shit as detailed below. If I can't find a room, I will definitely be sleeping in the train station next time.

Things were looking up on Sunday as we went to the 4 X 10 Cross-Country ski relay. However, I forgot my camera, so I can't bring back the promised pictures. It was quite the event; the Norwegians really had a ton of fans (one of them wore a set of antlers). But it was really the Italians' day at home. Zorzi got his revenge for 2002 by increasing the lead on Angerer as the fans chanted his name alternating with ITALIA! ITALIA! ITALIA! But down by 25 seconds, Angerer was really resigned to second. He just didn't have his World Cup leading form for the Olympics.

So in cross country, the two big stars fail (Bjoergen and Angerer) while Wilhelm and Greis became heroes on the sports stage. Seriously, everybody is obsessed with the biathletes now. They are on TV ALL THE TIME. When the anchors aren't bashing the soccer team for losing 4-1 to Italy yesterday, they are slobbering on Kati Wilhelm and Michael Greis.We were absolutely thrilled to be out of Turin. Here's the Florence Duomo (Cathedral).
The tower next to the Duomo. It costs 6 euro to go to the top of each.
Me in front of the Duomo.
View from the top of the DuomoVery flattering picture on top of the Duomo.
Lunch time.
This has to be the crappiest fountain ever. I mean it literally looks like a pile of shit.
Me and Niccolo Machiavelli.
Alia and Dante.
In front of David. No, you can't take pictures of the real David. And the real David is in a gallery with a bunch of mediocre counter-reformation art. Botticelli's Birth of Venus is in Florence too. It's in a gallery with a bunch of decent Italian Renassaince art. STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!

innsbruck

2006-03-02T13:03:00.000+01:00

Here's some pictures from the last three weeks for anybody who still reads my blog. I'll do it in chronological order, starting with the ski trip to Innsbruck. Alia and I skied four areas in four days, and shredded every single one of them.This is the town of Innsbruck. Our apartment wasn't really in town, which was probably a good thing considering going out at night plus the skiing definitely would have put me out of commission.Area 1: Patscherkofel. They basically have one run and one lift: the Olympic downhill run from 1964 and 1976, and a quad lift that goes to the top. Although we were on the same hallowed run that Franz Klammer shredded in '76 to win the gold medal, I did not come anywhere near his time. We got shredded to bits by little kids who were in ski racing schools. Jackasses.
The ghetto-ass SINGLE chairlift that runs to the top of Patscherkofel. Never seen anything like it. Nice view on top, and some cool bowls to ski though.The obligatory apres-Ski beer. In this case, Zipfer: Austria's finest.
Area two: Stubaier Gletscher (or as they advertise it, Happy Stuby). I have never seen anything like this. Just to get to the area from the parking lot, it was a fifteen minute gondola ride, and it was a sprawling, wide open area. Unbelievable.Me being happy on the Stubai.
Area 3: Axamer Lizum. Awesome, awesome, awesome. I thought this was definitely the best area we skied. It was easy to get around, the lines weren't too long, and the runs were good and well groomed. And we met some hilarious Australians: "I wish it was snowing so I could try and catch snowflakes on my tongue" Me: "But it's a nice view" Aussie: "But I don't have a camera, and you know the view's only as good as the shot you take of it.
More Axamer Lizum.
Area 4: Der Schlick. Basically, we couldn't see anything, there were a lot of crappy skiers and Alia almost got killed by a four year old. Not the best. But the student price was 18 euros, so I didn't feel ripped off.
Me in the whiteout at Schlick 2000.
This is how you kick it after skiing.
Wait... this is even better.

holy crap

2006-02-18T12:02:00.000+01:00

If you read one entry, this should be it. I am now in Turin for the Olympics. Coming here was kind of a bad idea, to put it gently. Last night we slept in a park because there was no room at the Inn. We woke up and all of our stuff was covered in dog shit. Not only that, during the night we were awoken by the sound of a PA from the police. Fortunately, they did not want to kick us out, one simply needed to borrow our bushes to relieve himself.

Much love and much more later,
Chris.

innsbruck

2006-02-16T01:05:00.000+01:00

Just back from Innsbruck where I had an amazing time shredding four different areas in four days. However, I'm crunched for time, so I don't think I'll be able to afford a real update until March when I get back from Turin-Milan-Florence-Mainz.

this is pretty unbelievable

2006-02-08T12:08:00.000+01:00

According to MyDD, there's really a throw out the bums sentiment in Congressional Elections every year. It just so happens that a lot of times people don't know who the "bums" are (i.e. who controls Congress). So if you are in the majority and pick up seats in the House, it's not really a stamp of approval for the way you govern. It's more that people don't know you are governing.

you had to see it coming

2006-02-08T11:35:00.000+01:00

This cartoon thing is obviously an indication of anti-Islam sentiment. Free speech advocates just need to shut up and look around at stuff like this. So if you are trying to make a statement about free speech, why do you pick the Muslims to offend? Because they're good guys and they can take shit?

Oh, and if you think the Danes shouldn't denounce the anti-Islam cartoons, then I hope you aren't offended by the Iranians publishing Holocaust cartoons.

the plan

2006-02-08T08:53:00.000+01:00

Here's what's on tap for the semester break (or at least the month of February):

February 10: Take my last final. History. Arrggghhh.
February 11-15: Innsbruck to ski.
February 16: Night train to Turin.
February 19: Watching cross country ski race in Turin, then on to Milan.
February 20 or 21: Train from Milan to Florence.
February 23: Flying to Frankfurt. There's a big party in Mainz that I want to celebrate with Nico. Mainz is a city of 100,000, and 500,000 people are at the Karneval celebration.
February 27: Rosenmontag, big party and parade day.
February 28: Last day of Karneval (also Fat Tuesday).
March 1: Ash Wednesday, return to Munich with the train.
March 2-15: Write some papers for my classes.
March 16-19: My cousin comes to visit.
Sometime in later March: My dad comes to visit.

Whew. After that, I'll be free until April 24.

new blog

2006-02-07T18:19:00.000+01:00

I find Skeptico to be awesome.

jawohl!

2006-02-06T16:45:00.000+01:00

Brian's Abschiedsparty und Saufspielerei! Also, there's a shirt that goes with that hat.

cartoony riots

2006-02-06T16:19:00.000+01:00

I think a lot of free speech absolutists supporting the Danish in this whole cartoon brouhaha are missing the point. Of course this type of speech ought to be protected, and acting violently is totally out of line. But it's pretty obvious that this stuff was designed to be intentionally offensive and provocative. It's some sort of statement against self-censorship, saying that if we don't exercise freedom of the press, it's useless and we will be suffocated by societal political correctness.

However, the fact that the author chose to rail on Muslims says something. I mean, would it be OK to publish cartoons about the Holocaust in the mainstream press? That seems like it would really make a statement. I don't buy the idea that we need really offensive speech to make sure we aren't suffocated by political correctness. Furthermore, the broad support of the cartoonist under the guise of "free speech" indicates to me a pretty strong anti-Muslim undercurrent.

super!

2006-02-06T12:38:00.000+01:00

I went to an American sports bar and watched the Super Bowl this morning. Everybody's talking about the horrible officiating. The offensive pass interference call against the 'hacks and Rothlisberger's touchdown were definitely questionable, and the holding call that set up the interception was an abysmal call. My biggest problem was just how the refs had to make it feel like the game was being fixed. Why did the line judge have to run in and begin to signal fourth down before he signalled touchdown? Why did the referee basically let the DB call that offensive PI call?

And yes, I do think that holding call might have cost the Seahawks the game. Without that call, it's almost certainly 17-14 for them, and they definitely have a chance. But then there's the pick, and the aweful call against Hasselbeck, and the Randal-El to Ward. Game, set, match.

i'm pissed

2006-02-05T19:49:00.000+01:00

I'm angry because Wonkette left Wonkette!

sorry

2006-02-02T12:52:00.000+01:00

Erik points out that I've been pretty lackadaisical about posting pictures of myself in really awesome places. So here I am to try and correct some of that, and promise to do better going forward.A Beck's commercial in Garmisch-Partenkirchen.
The Alps are really very pretty.
The scene at the end of the day at the bottom of the hill.

Now here's some other outdated shit:
Me in Nuremberg for the Christmas Market. I don't think I was supposed to be in the picture.
Lauren and Alia ride the kiddie carousel. They were the only ones older than nine on the thing, and none of the little kids really seemed to enjoy it this much.
Munich's Christmas Market.
Awww.

Hope this helps. I'll try to do better in the future, although my postings will be more sporadic, as I'll be travelling around a lot.

sotu thoughts

2006-02-01T18:01:00.000+01:00

Well, my background is US politics, so I'll crap something out about Bush's POS SOTU. First of all, the focus on energy is pretty ridiculous. There's no way he's going to work for energy independence; it's just not in the interest of the interests that control the government. Plus, Bush is wrong (hey, there's a new one!). It's not about making ethanol viable as fuel within a certain amount of time, it's about making ethanol or whatever competitive against foreign oil. Matt Yglesias nails this point: if you are trying to reduce dependence on oil you need to tax it and not subsidize it.

In other State of the Union news, it has come to my attention that Cindy Sheehan's done. It's not that her fifteen minutes of fame are up, it's that she's entirely destroyed her calling card. She was supposed to just be a mom that was looking for an explanation for poor little Casey. Now it turns out she's pretty much a walking, talking, America-hating liberal stereotype. She's got ulterior motives up the ass. Anyone who calls Bush a terrorist is just being a stupid flamebaiter. Even liberal Jon Stewart has the good sense to smack down this crap.

we can't negotiate with these people!

2006-02-01T17:29:00.000+01:00

Apparently, the appearence of this cartoon in some Danish newspaper is causing people in the Middle East to burn Danish flags and has caused Hamas to order a boycott of Danish products. There's also a bounty on the poor artists head.

This raises two questions, for me. If the good ol' U.S. of A is the "Great Satan" and Israel is the "Little Satan," what does that make Denmark? And more importantly, since when was Denmark ever worth holding a grudge against?

awesome

2006-01-29T14:53:00.000+01:00

Kickin' back with a Beck's after skiing at Garmisch Partenkirchen. Sweet.

libertarians are stoopid

2006-01-17T20:46:00.000+01:00

I was just watching Colbert's interview with John Stossel (whoever the hell that is) and I was struck by how dumb libertarians are. He said that we don't need an FAA because the free market would somehow determine a way to prevent airplanes from crashing into each other in the air, since it would be bad for airline profits if they killed their customers. Uhhh, John, not exactly. The whole point is that the level of risk a company is willing to take of people dying is higher than the risk society is willing to take. An airplane manufacturer won't rush an airplane into production because they want people to die, but their risk calculations are different from that of the public. If rushing an airline into production means a five percent risk of an avoidable plane crash in the next 20 years, but will ensure a manufacturers solvency, that might be something they are willing to live with. The public, including me, and by extension the government, will not allow it.

blech

2006-01-16T20:20:00.000+01:00

I'm not entirely sure why I still read this website. The reasoning is specious and ridiculous. Yes, New York City and other places are declining in population in comparison to, say, South Carolina. Yes, abortion may be largely responsible for this decline. But is population growth really much of a goal for New York City? Should Democrats and people in blue states just have a bunch of kids in order to sway the political order? Apparently Republicans think that piss-poor quality of life is OK as long as there are more little Republicans.

wow. just wow.

2006-01-10T18:17:00.000+01:00

I'll update for real sometime later this week, but something too good to pass up just came to my attention.

Hat tip.

objective taste

2005-12-21T14:36:00.000+01:00

When I came to Munich, I expected to compare different beers, and figure out which one was the best. Little did I know, the quality of beers is not a matter of taste, there is an objective ranking. Most importantly, Löwenbräu is "piss beer" and Augustiner is the best. This is not a matter of opinion. All the other beers fill some sort of mushy middleground, although it seems like Spaten is considered pretty crummy, while people like Paulaner. Bottom line: if you want to seem like you know about beer in Munich, just say that you like Augustiner. It's the right answer anyway. That stuff is frickin' good.

nyc strike

2005-12-20T23:07:00.000+01:00

It's amazing how being affected by a strike can change one's view on labor unions:

The Transit Workers Union went on strike, and with that a 20 minute commute became a four-hour march with millions of bridge and tunnel kids through ice and wind.

Like that the city halted before rush hour, for some-thousand ignorant overpaid lazy and expendible selfish workers.

The strike is illegal under New York's Taylor Law, a law in place for obvious reasons. The city seems determined to break the TWU, and hopefully it will end happily like the NWA strike. Outsourcing, scabs, and restructuring sans all former employees.

New York can litigate the union, and oh I hope they break and cripple them beyond all recompense.

Heh.

disappointment

2005-12-18T21:47:00.000+01:00

The Hong Kong WTO deal doesn't add up to much in the way of cutting farm subsidies (read about it here, here, and here). Jerome a Paris at DailyKos has it right: as with every trade deal, the devil's in the details. It's good to see they're at least talking about cutting farm subsidies, but too bad they can't get much substantive accomplished..

ag subsidies

2005-12-16T12:46:00.000+01:00

The big sticking point of the upcoming Doha Round WTO talks is almost certainly going to be agriculture subsidies and quotas. Namely, the European Union won't want to get rid of the policies that protect their farmers. The EU's agriculture subsidies essentially amount to a Europeanization of what once was French policy.

And it's really pretty bad policy. According to The Economist, CAP (Ag subsidies) are 40% of the EU's budget. This, despite the fact that farmers make up only 2% of the workforce. Subsidies make up an average of 90% of a farmer's pre-tax income. Hmm, sounds like terrible policy, kind of like in the United States.

Unfortunately, like in the United States, Euro farm subsidies don't appear to be going anywhere. It's one of the principle demands of the French, which is the second most important member of the EU. The Germans bankroll the thing and get to determine all the monetary policy; the French pay a fair amount into the cash register, agree to get along with the Germans, and get their agriculture policy through.

It's not like the US will be in any position to get high and mighty at the WTO. Ethanol. Oh, sure we passed CAFTA, but why are there still terribly costly sugar quotas? Farm subsidies remain one of the worst worldwide policy disasters in the developing world. Maybe if the Netherlands, Malta or some other country with no farming to speak of ascends to hegemony, they can kick the crap out of us and set the world straight.

scandal?

2005-12-15T12:20:00.000+01:00

You'd be amazed at what passes for a scandal in Germany. And it has nothing to do with any current politicians.

Everybody knew that Schröder would pursue a lucrative private sector opportunity after losing the Chancellorship. That's where his connections and past lay. There was even a lot of speculation that he called the election when he did because he was sick of being Chancellor and would prefer to work for a big company. Now he has a job, with the Baltic Sea Pipeline Project, which just happened to be a project he advocated as the Chancellor. Hmm.

The other question being raised is that apparently Putin helped ol' boy Gerd get the gig. Schröder is very popular in Russia thanks to his strong anti-Iraq War stance and other things, and he's also popular with the Russian higher-ups thanks to the pipeline and such. People aren't happy that Schröder might have been cuddling up to authoritarians in order to further his post-government career options.

This seems like it might be unethical, but it's strange to me that it's such a big deal. To me, taking the job doesn't make the deal unethical. If the pipeline was a boondoggle (over which there has no debate) this would be real scandal and cause for concern. After all, that's exactly what Duke Cunningham did. But if the merits of the pipeline are sound, it seems like wasting a lot of hot air on a politician who's already out of office is a bit silly. There's no indication that malfeasance goes beyond Gerd, and the outrage seems to be directed at him personally. Find something real to bitch about. Like... oh... I don't know.... say the economy.

World Cup draw

2005-12-14T16:46:00.000+01:00

Soccer is a religion here. My favorite German politics blog chimes in on Germany's group for the World Cup:

Ecuador, Poland and Costa Rice: the knock out rounds should be a sure thing, otherwise we'll have the next national depression.

No similar luck for the United States, who are in the most difficult group in the tournament. Looking forward to Germany-England at some point.

tookie!

2005-12-13T17:40:00.000+01:00

Sometimes, people just pick the wrong example for their causes. I was pretty surprised to see that Tookie Williams made the front page of Der Spiegel, because apparently there's a big outcry in Europe against his execution. This likely stems from the fact that Mr. Williams has some celebrities on his side. Of course, Michael Douglas and Snoop Dogg probably know little about the facts of Tookie's case. And this seems a bit extreme:

Some of Williams supporters have gone so far as to put his name forward as a nominee for both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize in Literature.

The argument these guys are making is that Tookie's role as an influential gangsta (founder of the Crips?) back in the day has made him an important actor in preventing kids from joining gangs. Some idiots even say that he has saved 150,000 kids. How exactly we could measure and know this would be an interesting proposition, if it weren't patently false (on both counts):

But gang experts dispute Williams' claims to have founded the Crips and say he has little influence over teens. Los Angeles Police Chief Bill Bratton has said that few gang members had likely heard of Williams before press coverage of his execution.

Plus, Tookie refuses to tell the cops about the Crips, because that would make him a "snitch." So this dude who won't talk about a gang that he didn't start is getting celebrity support for clemency because of an overrated influence on poor kids? Color me unimpressed. Celebrities are stupid.

I'm against the death penalty, but there are a lot of innocent people who have been executed and are on death row that make a much better case than a notorious and semi-repentant gangster.

something

2005-12-09T19:33:00.000+01:00

I can't really think of anything good to write, but I hate to let the blog lay fallow. So here's some garbage just to demonstrate that I'm not dead.

One thing I found interesting is that according to Wikipedia, the Brazilian National Soccer Team has 20 players with a total of 25 names and surnames (and this generously counts the "Junior" in "Roque Junior" as its own name). This means that 15 of the 20 players only have one name. I knew that Brazilians were all one name wonders, but this makes things really confusing. So I decided to make a primer, for myself as much as anything (you never know when this information might come in handy).

Ronaldo: The most famous active Brazilian. Striker for Real Madrid.

Robinho: The child of the crew at age 21. Also a striker for Real Madrid.

Adriano: Super striker for Inter Milan. Good at free kicks.

Ronaldinho: FC Barcelona midfielder. Arguably the world's greatest footballer.

Kaka: AC Milan midfielder. The reason we say Ronaldinho is only "arguably" the world's greatest. Certainly either the best or second best midfielder in the world.

Juninho: Lyon midfielder. The best free kick specialist in the world. Too bad "Bend it like Juninho" doesn't have a ring.

Ze Roberto: Bayern Munich midfielder, tricky little guy with the ball, hard to pin down.

Renato: Never heard of 'im.

Emerson: See Renato.

Cafu: AC Milan defender. Nobody cares about defenders though.

Lucio: Bayern Munich defender. See Cafu.

Great, well now I have no excuse for not knowing the difference between Juninho and Robinho in conversation (believe me, it comes up).

welcome to europe

2005-12-06T16:38:00.000+01:00

I finally got a bike.
This is big shit. It may be a super heavy girly bike, but it's a bike nonetheless. Instead of riding the subway and paying money to be shut underground, and only come out of the hole at my destination, I can now ride through the streets, enjoy the scenery and the weather and all that.

Furthermore, my aquisition of a bike and the subsequent termination of my U-Bahn month membership now means I have no way to get to the giant grocery store (since it's against the law to ride a bike on the freeway). Some might see this as a limitation. I think it's great. No longer will I buy massive amounts of food twice a week. Instead, I can patronize Wimmer, mein Bäcker für immer (my bakery forever), and the local deli.

No more crowded Saturday afternoons at the grocery store. No more buying way to damn much of everything. Just getting a loaf of bread, some ham and a brick of cheese and putting them in the basket of your bike (yes, my bike has a basket!) is the way it was meant to be.

referats

2005-12-01T21:41:00.000+01:00

I just got back from giving my referat (presentation) for my Democracy in Latin America class. Basically, every class consists of a Referat and a Hausarbeit, which is a 15 page paper you write about the topic of your referat. You'd think that since German students give presentations four or five times a semester, they'd get good at it. You'd be completely wrong.

Essentially, they put together super thorough handouts for the class, then go through said handouts point for point. It is unbelievable tedious. The presentations are so unengaging, so scripted and so dull, that it's almost impossible to stay awake. It's a lot like a lesson from the worst professor ever, except that there is no incentive to pay attention because the entire lecture has already been transcribed and handed out. Why even care? Referats are really one of the worst ideas ever, especially if you aren't going to teach students how to present properly. It would appear to defeat the purpose.

Well, I'd love to say that my Referat was different, but it wasn't. It was a group project, which was nice because I only had to talk for a quarter of the time. Oh, and if my biggest issue is being unengaging during a fifteen minute presentation given in my second language about a topic I know little about, then I'd say I'm in pretty good shape.

deeply disturbing

2005-11-30T21:37:00.000+01:00

Click here to see something that's really fucked up.

trains are better than buses

2005-11-29T16:43:00.000+01:00

I've seen and heard the argument that Minneapolis and other US cities shouldn't expand light rail networks because building devoted bus lanes is just as good and would save a lot of money. Having lived in a city with effective rail transit and having ridden the bus a fair amount, I can now say this is false. There are differences between trains and buses that go beyond getting stuck in traffic.

Getting on and off
This is a two-fold benefit of trains. Since train tracks are recessed below the platforms, there are no steps to climb when boarding a light rail or subway train. Furthermore, a train has many doors that run the length of the platform. This eliminates the queuing problem busses face because they have just one or two entrances.

Riding itself
Trains are much smoother, much quieter and just generally a lot more pleasant to ride than busses. Try reading a book on a city bus. It's not easy.

Trains run established lines
The infrastructure of a train system is such that you can't just up and move a station or line. This makes the trains system much more intuitive and easy to use. It also explains why train lines are responsible for economic development around stations, since businesses can count on easy accessability and a stream of passersby through public transit.

Carrying capacity
A train line will always be able to transport more people than a bus line, because you can put more people in a 300 foot long train than a 50 foot long bus. It only makes sense.

Ridership
There are a lot of people who will ride the train but won't ride the bus at all. I have no idea what their reasons might be, but this is the case for 40% of Minneapolis LRT riders. Further expansion of bus lines totally ignores this demographic. There is no way a bus line can ever be as well used as a train line.

Infrastructure
Infrastructure for a bus system deteriorates a lot more quickly that train tracks and such. Dedicated bus lines quite expensive to maintain, which at least partially mitigates the seemingly stunning cost savings for dedicated bus lanes. The cost advantage is clearly eliminated and then some by the other factors I have listed. For a large city trying to build a high capacity line like Minneapolis on University Avenue, there is no way bus transit in any form is cost effective compared to some sort of light rail.

oppressing workers

2005-11-19T17:59:00.000+01:00

It's not just for American companies. Apparently, German retailers are compiling a track record similar to Wal*Mart. Die Zeit has a scathing expose about the kind of shit Aldi and other discounters pull on their employees.

Basically, it's your standard Wal*Mart fare: shitty wages, unpaid overtime, nasty working conditions and anti-union activism. Just like Wal*Mart there were entire stores shut down because of union rumblings. What really struck me here though, was how up-front this executive was willing to be on the record:

The discussion about dismissal protection is overdrawn. The only thing of importance is that everybody plays by the same rules. Only associations and certain middlemen gain when this debate is continually incited.

Wow! The anti-union message made it across the Atlantic! Land of milk and honey for workers? Not so much.

auf wiedersehen

2005-11-18T17:53:00.000+01:00

Schröder is officially done, off to make millions in the private sector and canoodle with his fourth wife. Which reminds me of a joke: Why does Gerd drive an Audi? Their logo also has four rings.

Gerd, you'll be missed. Angie just ain't the same.

sugar quotas

2005-11-14T09:46:00.000+01:00

I've now experienced the best argument for abolishing corn subsidies and sugar quotas in the United States. Coca-Cola in Europe, which is made with cane sugar, tastes markedly better than corn syrup based Coca-Cola in the United States. Plus, corn syrup is far worse for you.

ok

2005-11-13T11:52:00.000+01:00

Dear Legion of Commentators,

Comment spam is getting out of control, so I am enabling word verification. Don't let this discourage you, because it shouldn't be all that difficult.

Love and Peace,
Chris

this is personal growth

2005-11-13T11:41:00.000+01:00

Three years ago, Michael Ballack was the random guy who scored the goal against the US to knock us out of the World Cup. Ronaldinho was a guy whose name sounded like Ronaldo. And hell if I knew who Thierry Henry, Zidane, Pavel Nedved or Kaka were. Yesterday, I finally understood how good Ballack is. I was able to appreciate that he was dominating the midfield play, getting the ball to Schneider and Deisler in the right spots to attack up the field and always reversing field at the right time. No matter that he missed a header that would have won the game and it ended 0:0; the Germans were better than the French and it was just a friendly. But the difference was clearly that the Germans had their star Ballack and the French were missing Zidane. I feel like I am a better person for being able to appreciate the play of my team in the much-maligned 0:0 football draw.

By the way, Ballack is the world's most complete player. He distributes, defends, dribbles and can score with both feet and his head. Ronaldinho may be more spectacular, Kaka more fluid and artistic and Henry more of a goal machine, but Ballack is a complete footballer.

new coalition agreement

2005-11-12T19:38:00.000+01:00

The Union and the SPD have finally nailed down the details of their policy arrangement and signed the contract which will put Merkel in as Chancellor when the Parliament votes on it. The document is titled "Mut und Menschlichkeit," or "Courage and Humanity." This outlines the basic tension in German policy. Essentially, the new government will need to have the courage to make some significant cuts in spending, but also will have to do so with a human touch.

Der Spiegel compares "Courage and Humanity" to "Pride and Prejudice," saying that this is the happy end compromise that everybody has known to be in the offing since the personell agreement for the cabinet was made a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, making the agreement was more or less a foregone conclusion. Of course, the title does demonstrate that some more tensions are inevitable. Mut or Menschlichkeit? Which will they choose? Well, Küchen Kabinett has a pretty good idea: look at the actual contents of the document.

The contract is titled "Together for Germany with Courage and Humanity." Courage is mentioned in the document 17 more times, while humanity is only mentioned in the title.

Quick! Who wants to claim to be a compassionate conservative? This is not some unfortunate freak occurance of wording, either. The policy agreement also appears to be "we'll cut your social benefits, but we'll give you a hug while doing it."

The first was the agreement to raise pension retirement age from 65 to 67, which makes a lot of sense since people are working longer, living longer and the pension system is going bankrupt. I would say this is a total no brainer.

The policy that really doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense is raising the value-added tax (which basically amounts to raising a sales tax). There are a couple of problems with this. First, it's regressive (so much for "humanity"). Apparently the idea is that taxing rich people will drive down investment, so it's better to take it out on the poor people.

The other issue I see is that the biggest problem in the German economy is domestic consumption. People just don't have the confidence to buy things, because they are afraid of losing their jobs. How exactly you solve problems in consumer confidence by raising taxes is way beyond me. So basically the value added tax appears to be anti-poor and ineffective. But Franz and Angie didn't ask my opinion, and it's not even my country, so we'll just see how it plays out.

this hurts, but....

2005-11-11T00:02:00.000+01:00

I'm swearing off all American politics news for as long as I can resist. It's been a nasty addiction for a while now, and no good really comes from reading all those blogs. Plus, they're in English. Damn. Anyway, my new reading list is in the new blogroll (German proficiency required).

gay marriage

2005-11-10T13:12:00.000+01:00

The first argument against it that seems legit to me.

holy shit

2005-11-06T13:30:00.000+01:00

Pirates!

the bundesliga's "yankees" problem

2005-11-06T13:00:00.000+01:00

If you think money in baseball is a problem, then you certainly wouldn't be a big fan of European football. Yesterday, in a matchup between the two best teams in the Bundesliga, FC Bayern Munich beat SV Werder Bremen 3:1 to go five points up in the standings. I like Werder and was angry about the result, because I can't stand Bayern. Why? Because they are destroying German football.

FC Bayern is the only club in the Bundesliga that can afford to stock their roster with top flight European talent; everybody else has to bring people up through the youth system. This is fine, money is boss in every single European soccer league. However, unlike other club powers, Bayern poaches almost exclusively from other German teams. This has the two-fold effect of making Bayern essentially another version of the German National Team (check Deisler, Kahn, Ballack, Schweinsteiger) and pushing down other clubs so it's almost impossible to compete.

Compare this to Spanish teams like Real Madrid and FC Barcelona. Real has Ronaldo and Rivaldo from Brazil, Zidane from France, Beckham from England while FC Barcelona has Ronahldino. With this, Real can improve and dominate la Liga without crippling the rest of the Spanish teams' chances of doing well in the Champions League and UEFA Cup. It's a little different in England, where Manchester United certainly does try to buy everybody (see Rooney, Wayne). However, there are other English teams rich enough to buy top players from other countries. Arsenal with Henry comes to mind, but Liverpool and Chelsea are also very well off.

So while Bayern thinks they may be pulling off a coup, what they are doing is really terrible for German football. And it makes it a lot less fun to watch as well I hope to see Werder win the Bundesliga and Schalke win the Champions League. Screw Bayern.

everybody loves bush

2005-11-05T16:09:00.000+01:00

Even the greatest soccer player of all time.
Picture source.

sdp not sdo

2005-11-04T08:38:00.000+01:00

I'm not a lawyer and I normally have better things to worry about than worry about constitutional law issues, but the inconsistency from both sides on substantive due process is really something to think about. The biggest concern is that application of substantive due process to economic rights could lead to very unfriendly results for liberals. BinkyPing:

The fact is, if it can prop up rights as disparate as privacy and contracts, it can prop up pretty much any right a crafty judge chooses to put under its umbrella. Or, worse yet, it could bring back Lochner-era rulings that gutted economic regulation for several decades: the right to contract resulted in maximum hour and minimum wage laws being struck down, which means there's a lot of contemporary stuff us liberals like that would disappear pretty quickly (such as Social Security, the Environmental Protection Act, and the Civil Rights Act). The political process will never allow conservatives to take these things away, so the Court is their only recourse.

Of course, as a liberal who likes the right to privacy but is a little bit squeamish about striking down laws that protect workers, I'm always looking for something to square what seems to be a hopelessly hypocritical position. Armando at DailyKos gives it his best shot:

Liberals of course have a different view. Economic rights are protected through the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment and the political process. It is our view that the Bill of Rights concentrated on individual rights for a reason, the rights of individuals can be trampled by the majority. Those holding economic rights generally have the wherewithall to defend their interests from majorities in the political process or through other means. And it seems clear that the Framers were correct in their assessment.

This is an extremely results oriented argument. He makes no real attempt to explain what text exactly would support his holding that economic and privacy rights are actually fundamentally different. It's pretty clear that Armando is just working backwards from his (and my) policy preferences and constructing legal reasoning from it. I just don't see how we can make coherent law when there are really no consistent guidelines on what rights should be protected under substantive due process.

Schizophrenia with regards to substantive due process is just as pervasive on the conservative side, who would love to see a return to Lochner era jurisprudence. Jack Balkin wrote an excellent piece comparing the dissenting opinion in Kelo to Dredd Scott. The kernel is that the most conservative justices on the court latched on to a substantive due process argument:

So where *do* we get the principle banning takings for purely private use that was at stake in Kelo? We get it from the basic idea of substantive due process, which prohibits A to B transfers and protects vested rights from being destroyed by government. Justice Thomas tries to avoid recognizing this in his dissenting opinion, arguing that despite its language the Public Use clause cannot apply merely to public uses; otherwise, it would allow takings for private use without compensation, which would "contradict a bedrock principle well established by the time of the founding: that all takings required the payment of compensation." He artfully elides the question of what textual provision in the Constitution prevents takings for private use with compensation. We know the answer-- it's the Due Process Clause. That's what most people at the Founding thought, and that's why the Fifth Amendment is written that way.
But, wait, that would mean that in Kelo Thomas is actually making an argument from (shudder) substantive due process.

Read the whole thing if you have time, it's really good. It seems to me that conservatives wouldn't mind bringing back substantive due process in order to strike down labor regulations and return us all to indentured servitude. However, since this position is so politically unteneble, they claim to be entirely against "pulling rights out of thin air" and "legislating from the bench." Fortunately for them, Lochner era thinking is more or less dead, so nobody really worries about it. However this doesn't at all take away from the deeply intellectually dishonest position of their darlings on the court, Thomas and Scalia.

Without stricter tests on how to apply it, substantive due process appears to be simply a vehicle for reading one's policy preferences into the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is really a pretty difficult problem to solve. Who doesn't want to legislate from the bench, after all?

vice presidents

2005-11-03T13:15:00.000+01:00

Al Gore looks pretty good, now doesn't he?

Lindau photo essay

2005-10-31T18:50:00.000+01:00

This is how we roll.
Well, we act pretty irresponsibly when left to our own devices (even if for only forty minutes in some random town). Where the HELL is Kempten? Actually, it's in Allgäu, but who's keeping score?We hiked up a cool mountain called the Pfänder. There's also a lift, but that's for sissies. Lindau proper is on the island you can barely make out through the haze.
Of course the delicious berry schnapps came with.
I get a close look at some of the local wildlife. It's important to note that there are fields and livestock everywhere. The only difference between this and the rural USA is that you won't get shot by vigilantes.
Got a few minutes before the train back to Lindau? Hit it, Alia!
The Lindau harbor and historic lighthouse are the big tourist attractions. It's also a family oriented harbor. You have to bring your own adult beverages.
Kein Alkohol ist auch keine Lösung. Time to go home.
Whuwhuwhuwait! Look what Alia found!
Now it's actually time to go home. Here's the trip scorecard:
People: 2
Days: 3
Fifths of liquor consumed: 2
Train stations where liquor was consumed: 3 (Immenstadt, Kempten, Bregenz)
Mountains climbed: 1
Fun had: A significant amount

SCOTUS among us

2005-10-31T13:15:00.000+01:00

Alito is crazy. Filibuster.

a few pictures

2005-10-26T19:36:00.000+02:00

Well, I've got a few free minutes so here's some more pictures for your enjoyment.

An unintentional self portrait from the Augsburg Rathaus. As you can tell, they spare no expense in decorating government buildings in this neck of the woods.
The hills surrounding Salzburg. It's a pretty novel concept to see topo like this when the only contours in your own town are built from destroyed houses courtesy of allied bombers.
View over Salzburg and the Salzach flowing out of town.
Salzburg: Church City Austria.

planes and trains

2005-10-23T14:09:00.000+02:00

I've been taking the train quite a bit lately, most recently to Salzburg to visit my friend Erik. I've decided now that I like taking the train a lot more than flying. Why? It really comes down to the difference between the train station and the airport. A city's Hauptbahnhof (central station) is located just outside the center of town. It's a hangout, a meeting place and the springboard for amazing journeys all over the continent.

The airport, on the other hand, is almost always located on the outskirts of town. You don't go there unless you've got a flight to catch or you're picking somebody up. It's out in the middle of nowhere, and it's been sterilized to the point of being soulless. Even the nicest airport, like Denver, can only hope to be clean and pleasant. And these are airports at their best; they can never reflect the personality of the city or capture the tremendous energy or emotion that a train station contains.

A train station is such a ridiculous mixture of different emotions and circumstances that one can't help but be wrapped up in it. There are long separated friends meeting each other, couples saying goodbye, families buzzing with the excitement of a long-planned vacation and people just relieved to get home. Then there is the potential for adventure that I see every time I got to the train station. It's almost miraculous that I could easily get on this train and go to Hamburg or another and go to Milan or Vienna. Sure, you see this at the airport, but it's just a totally different atmosphere to be right next to the trains as opposed to looking at planes out the window.

Airports have eliminated this character and energy because the drop off and meeting point isn't even at the airplane anymore. Call me old fashioned, but seeing somebody off at the check-in counter and picking him or her up at baggage claim just isn't the same. Plus, people have to be dropped off an hour and a half before actual departure, further removing travellers from their loved ones.

There's just something magical about watching people at a train station. Where did these people come from? Where is she going and why can't he come with? What's in Budapest that would cause two old people to go there on vacation? An airport's clean, white and hospital-like interior kills the atmosphere that makes a train station so unique. Add the distance between the city and the planes, and the powers that be have successfully created a truly generic and emotionless hub of transportation.

murkins abroad

2005-10-19T19:56:00.000+02:00

[Update: Josh's article is well worth a read.]

My buddy Josh recently penned a funny and provocative piece in the Lewis & Clark school paper about the idiocy of American girls who travel. His main contentions are: 1) they'll fuck anyone with an accent 2) they're loud, they don't listen and then ask stupid questions 3) they refuse to interact with the local populace 4) they are bad tippers.

While this persistent cultural insensitivity is certainly irritating, I've found the opposite phenomenon to be equally annoying. It's a little thing commonly called Eurotrashiness... Americans who hate America with irrational passion and express this hatred by constantly waxing poetic about all things Europe.

This first becomes evident when a Eurotrash student begins making statements that would appear to entirely contradict his or her previous ideology. For example, those kids who were always telling you about clothing being a "cultural construction" are all of the sudden talking about how much they love the "schicki-micki" fashionable European culture. First of all, I don't think Europeans are all that fashionable:
OK, point taken. When they're dressed in "unfashionable" clothing they have nice boobs.

Moving on, Eurotrash always make comments and comparisons that they are absolutely unqualified to substantiate. I was riding the bus with some other Amis from our group, and one commented that it was "a really nice bus." Bullshit. It was like every other bus I've ever ridden... in San Francisco, in Portland, in Minneapolis. So then the question becomes, has said Eurotrash ever ridden a bus in the United States? Or would he be too good to participate in such a low class activity? Evidently, he had just been exposed to the amazing effectiveness of bus transit. He had to come to Europe to overcome the stigma bus riding carries in the US. When he comes back to the US, will he ride similar busses and call them "really nice?" Just asking.

Another astonishing quality of Eurotrash-Americans is that they can turn many positive American characteristics into negatives. Let's look at typical American characteristics: fat, lazy, optimistic, friendly. Leave it to Eurotrash to take "friendly" and give it a stigma. According to the Eurotrash dictionary, we're not friendly, we're "superficial." What the fuck? Judging somebody's character as "superficial" is itself a superficial judgement, so back at ya, biatch. But beyond this, is it somehow a blight on our national character that it is acceptable to talk to a stranger on the bus? That it's normal to exchange pleasantries with somebody you don't know? Is there something wrong with this? These brief exchanges are by nature superficial. It'd be impossible to do real soul searching on the bus. But hey, it's enjoyable, right? Does somebody get hurt because I talk to somebody who isn't one of my 18 best friends? I didn't know we were supposed to be so protective.

Here's a start. As I think of more irritating things about Eurotrash, I'll throw them up.

pictures

2005-10-19T08:10:00.000+02:00

For those of you interested, my program has set up a group photo account which can be found here. Also, I have my own Photobucket Account with more random pictures from Germany and elsewhere..

more funny stuff

2005-10-17T10:44:00.000+02:00

Thomas Friedman's moustache of understanding.

couldn't resist

2005-10-15T19:32:00.000+02:00

A little US politics for humor: "[Harry Reid] is the first lesbian, mormon, white male to ever lead the minority party. they called my crazy...."

Well, the blog is back in black. What can I say? I'm a pushover.

state of the blog

2005-10-08T19:38:00.000+02:00

To my loyal reader(s):

I am going on an indefinite sabbatical from blogging. When I started this blog, I sincerely believed nothing passive agressive would be written here, simply because my life never involves any drama. I am now convinced that blogging and writing in a journal (which I started doing last week) actually attract drama (in the form of cute blonde girls). Ergo, I am going to stop both activities until this mess blows over.

Sincerely,
Your favourite former blogger

WOOHOO!

2005-09-28T19:06:00.000+02:00

I said I'd cease commenting on US domestic politics, but TOM DELAY GOT INDICTED! As Kos said, "Holy fucking shit." Getting a beer to celebrate.

ranking the beers

2005-09-28T08:23:00.000+02:00

So I went to the store and bought a bunch a different kinds of beer in hopes of trying them out. Here's what I came up with:

1) Augustiner Hell: My favorite light beer. Not too hoppy, not too malty. Just about right.
2) Paulaner Hell: See above. Just not quite as good.
3) Hofbräu Hell: Not close to Paulaner. Waaayyyy too wheaty.
4) Spaten Munchner Hell: Just not all that tasty.
5) Hacker Pschorr Hell: Far too hoppy. Not very good at all.

This is just the light beers. I actually like dark beers better, but I haven't given those as thorough a test. So if you're in Munich for a day or two, stick to Augustiner and Paulaner (at least that's my advice).

Oktoberfest pictures

2005-09-19T20:07:00.000+02:00

OK, well all two readers of this site get to enjoy some more pictures.
When you want to leave at 9:15, you have to pregame kinda early. Yes we, documented this momentous occasion (and you wish you looked this good at 8:30).
The Augustiner tent has plenty of space at 9:40 in the morning. So that's why we got up so damn early!The first momentous Mass, and a big Wiesn Pretzel to boot!Bavarian breakfast of champions.

No benders please, I want to live

2005-09-17T14:03:00.000+02:00

I was supposed to get up early today to go to Oktoberfest, but I went to take a shower and realized that Friday night had largely carried into Saturday morning. Drinking while still drunk from the night before would have been unhealthy and unfun. I'm going tomorrow, and I'll update more extensively afterward (w/German election results and commentary!).

i love coalition politics

2005-09-11T11:10:00.000+02:00

I went downtown and saw Chancellor Schroeder speak. He's an outstanding speaker, and his defeat is looking much less like a foregone conclusion. This is owed primarily to his charisma personal popularity as compared to the milquetoast Merkel. If Merkel wins it will be based entirely on dissatisfaction with unemployment. I'm going to take this entry to spell out a few of the complexities and possible consequences of the upcoming election.

1) A Christian Dem (CDU)/Merkel victory would be best for Germany economically
Schroeder and Merkel agree that Germany's taxes need to be cut and some of the social welfare programs reduced. The problem has been that Schroeder has been unable to get his reform agenda through because the CDU controls the upper house. Schroeder basically called the election because he can't do much of anything. Merkel would have a much stronger position. I don't see any reason why reelecting Schroeder would make any real changes all that likely.

2) Here's the nightmare scenario
Coalition politics, however, are never simple. Normally the SPD (Schroeder's Party) allies with the Green Party while the CDU coalitions with the Free Democrats (FDP). A rising force, especially in the East, has been the Left. Their agenda is so extreme that neither of the major parties will coalition with them. So if they get enough votes to make the traditional coalitions impossible, the only possibility is a CDU/SPD grand coalition. This looks like a nasty possibility that results in little more than a bunch of blame and little effective governance.

3) Fo/Po Ramifications
Merkel is implying that a stronger relationship with the US will help the German economy. While she has been clear to state that she does not want Germany to support the Iraq Adventure, Schroeder has been able to play to anti-Americanism by implying that a vote for Merkel might be supporting US neoconservativism. This seems like a fat sack of crap. Why would Merkel compromise her chances of economic reforms to follow Bush into another adventure?

4) Most American commentators have no idea what they are talking about
Could Germany's economy be in better shape? Sure. Are India and China rapidly gaining and taking jobs away from Old Europe? This is true as well. But all these statistics absolutely miss the point. Quality of life over here is so much better than for people in India and China. There are about 1.8 billion people in those countries who would do just about anything to enjoy their Saturday nights in discotheques and Sundays in idyllic beer gardens. Sometimes, Mr. Friedman, international geopolitics is not the most important thing for everybody. It's quality of life, stupid.

settling in with pictures

2005-09-09T02:00:00.000+02:00

I don't normally carry my camera around town for fear of looking too much like a gawking tourist, but I made an intrepid journey around town equipped with my photo-taking apparatus and returned with documentation for my loyal blog readers.

Here is the new Rathaus (city hall) downtown featuring the world famous glockenspiel. It's no shame to be a tourist in front of this thing, particularly when the little figures up there start dancing at 11, noon and 5 pm.The view across Marienplatz, the center of downtown Munich. The Glockenspiel is off to the right. The shop in the corner is called Kaufhof, and is basically the most expensive department store on earth. We tried to get alarm clocks there, figuring nobody would ever charge more than $10-12 for alarm clocks. Wrong. The cheapest at Kaufhof were about $30. Found them for $8 at a cheaper store.Another famous downtown Munich site: die Frauenkirche (women's church.)I admit that the camera angle is kinda shitty. You get the idea. I'm frickin' here. In Europe. If you want a good picture of die Frauenkirche, google image search is your friend.One more from Marienplatz before moving on to more interesting things. That in the middle is a pretty sweet fountain with a cool golden statue on top. If I knew the name, it'd be even cooler.Here's a campaign sign. It says: "Ban all Fascist Organization." The tagline is "The Socialist Alternative." These guys might get a sizeable percentage of the disgruntled eastern vote and make coalition politics a mess. More on this as the election roles around."Time for the change" proclaims a sign for the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Does Germany want to leave Schroeder and change to the friendly face of Merkel? A couple weeks will tell.Here's a lake in the English Garden, my extended backyard. The English Garden is awesome, featuring miles of paths, a riverfront on the Isar and at least three beer gardens. The Park also contains the center of Munich's illegal drug dealing and some places where old men can tan naked (it's all about knowing where to go and where not to go).I told you the Studentenstadt featured some commie-style architecture.Hands down the most popular method of transit around here is the ill-maintained bike.The Brotladen (Bread store) which has been upgraded from East Germany to Cuba through colorful paint.Hey! That's the front door of my building.Here's my room. It's bigger than it looks in the picture, and probably messier too.This sink is a lifesaver, so I put a picture of it here.

Well

2005-09-05T00:51:00.000+02:00

As indicated by the changed title, my life (and by extension this blog) will be substantially different from this point forward. So you can expect a lot less domestic policy analysis and more cultural observations. Also, there should be less updating, since I'll have less time than I did in the summer. Well, that's the hope anyhow. If I don't make any friends and sit online all day (like during the summer), then it will still be on US policy and frequently updated., but that's not going to happen.

So miss my prescient political analysis or welcome the loss of my dry ramblings. I report, you decide. By the way, I will make observations here, but right now it's getting to be past my bedtime. Gute Nacht, Alle.

WWJS?

2005-08-30T05:17:00.000+02:00

What if Jesus spoke at a Republican Party fundraiser? Slate's on it.

another rock n roll rant

2005-08-29T15:50:00.000+02:00

Sometimes I'll poke around message boards with lists of the 100 Greatest Rock n Roll songs, or something to that effect. Something about these boards had always bothered me. I finally figured out what it is: they demonstrate just how stuffy and orthodox classic rock fans have become. Basically, you are allowed to choose your top five bands (and songs) from a set of the following:

Led Zeppelin (must be number 1)
The Rolling Stones
Lynyrd Skynyrd
AC/DC
The Beatles
Aerosmith
Van Halen
Queen
The Who
The Doors
Eric Clapton

Never mind that this is just a bunch of shit culled from classic rock radio. The worst part is that you know exactly what the comments replying to anybody who posts a top ten songs post is going to be. If they put Freebird (a good but not great song) anywhere below #3, people will bitch and moan and stomp their feet about that. Most of the commentary will be fucking idiots who think that their garbage pet band (AC/DC, Van Halen, REO Speeedwagon) should have been included in the list.

Classic rock radio has exercised such mind control over people's memories that there is now a very narrow group of bands that it is acceptable to say are great. Never mind that the Allman Brothers and CCR were better in every concievable way than Lynyrd Skynyrd; Skynyrd wrote a cookie cutter ballad. All the Allman Brothers did was CREATE LYNYRD SKYNYRD'S GENRE. Not too much. And their best songs are live, so they're a little too long for radio play. Plus, Lynyrd Skynyrd told that fucking liberal Neil Young who's boss. Hey, NY even said that "Sweet Home Alabama" was better than "Southern Man." It doesn't matter that "Sweet Home Alabama" is Skynyrd's best song by two fold, while "Southern Man" is just one of perhaps sixty great songs penned by Neil Young.

Oh, I may hate those lists, but that didn't stop me from making my own.

1) Powderfinger
2) Cortez the Killer
3) Heart of Gold
4) Helpless
5) Ohio
6) My My Hey Hey
7) Cripple Creek Ferry
8) After the Gold Rush
9) Cinnamon Girl
10) Needle and the Damage Done

the eagles piss me off

2005-08-29T04:31:00.000+02:00

NBC was showing a concert from the Eagles farewell tour tonight. It was like a train wreck: I was horrified but couldn't avert my eyes. This horrendous bit of programming, which was surely dredging the depths of the typically aweful summer season begged one simple question. Why?

Why do the Eagles need to embarass themselves by putting their sorry asses out on national television? It can't be for the music; the Eagles have done nothing for music in their careers. Even at their peak, they were little more than a goofy guilty pleasure. My brother claims the Eagles contributed more to the genre of punk than any actual punk band because their sheer lack of originality inspired such hatred in punks.

Is it for the money? I hope, and don't think so. These guys have plenty of cash. Sure, Joe Walsh spent all his money on parties in the 1980s, but the long ago troubles of a single occasional member hardly justify almost continuous "farewell" touring. They have plenty of money; they don't need to go on the road anymore. Furthermore, why do they keep writing new songs that set records for terribleness if all they need to do is go on tour? Why stick with custom? Just admit you are covering yourself from your not so great zenith instead of writing new material to promote on tour.

No, I think the reason the do it goes back to sheltered rock-star syndrome. It's so easy to surround yourself with adoring fans when you get to be an old, washed up rock band that they actually believe they are doing the world a service by recording new garbage and touring to trump it up. Where do I get this idea? I look at these fans and make a few observations.

The first observation is that the people in the audience are the most middle-aged, middle-class, white and middle-America group of people I have ever seen. These people like the Eagles because they are the antithesis of what music should be about: the Eagles will never challenge your way of thought. The Eagles will always write a song about nothing. Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen will hammer America with "Rockin' in the Free World" or "Born in the USA." The Who gave us "My Generation," and at least Led Zeppelin had a weird satanic obsession. Te one constant is that and Eagles song will never mean anything real. It may or may not have a catchy tune, riff or line. But you can always count on the Eagles to eliminate the edge.

The second observation is that these people think that the Eagles rock. Never mind that the Eagles have exactly one song that comes even remotely close to anything that could be broadly defined as rocking. They're getting up and stamping to shit like "Heartache Tonight" or "Already Gone." These are the blandest songs from a band that has built itself on the concept of being mundane. It's pathetic. The Eagles are soft rock, they're against the whole concept of rocking. And yet here's a bunch of white morons who think the Eagles are hard core.

Never mind that every single fill and solo has been meticulously scripted to eliminate the improvisational joy that's supposed to differentiate live music from it's tamer studio cousin. Never mind that every move on stage, including the posturing to the crowd, is painfully obvious in how choreographed it is. These people think the 55 year old Eagles still rock. Do they still play Hotel California, arguably a rock and roll song? Yes. Does this mean they still rock hard? I don't think recovered alcoholics can rock, but even if they could Joe Walsh doesn't. And Don Henley never did. And none of the other Eagles either.

The worst part of this whole thing is that really bad bands like the Eagles end up soiling the reputation of an entire fertile period of music. The Who, Neil Young, The Doors, Cream and the Rolling Stones were innovative and technically proficient. Most importantly, they ROCKED. And they end up lumped with the Eagles, REO Speedwagon and Styx under the ridiculous label "classic rock" despite the fact that they share nothing more than space on one or two horrible radio stations in every market nationwide.

I'm not defending the touring habits of Eric Clapton, Neil Young and the Who, none of whom have done anything of note since 1991, but it's absolutely preposterous to lump them in in any way with abomination I saw this evening on NBC.

Umm, OK

2005-08-23T05:51:00.000+02:00

This is bizarre.

Montana photo essay

2005-08-19T19:11:00.000+02:00

Reporting on the first exciting thing I've done all summer: the backpacking trip out to the Beartooths in Montana. Some selected pictures and commentary.

Charlie:Erik:
John:
and me:
Everything started off auspiciously enough; we drove out to Billings to buy maps. Evidently, the economy of Montana's largest city is supported primarily through casinos. Pretty much every other business is a house of Kino. Also, it's a really hard town to get around. And apparently out of towners are pretty noticeable. It's either because nobody walks anywhere, and we had to walk three blocks to find a place to eat and the grocery store. Or it's because all the boys in Billings are either at the casino or locked up for DUIs. Probably a little of each.

After escaping Montana's smelliest town this side of Butt(e), we spent the night outside Red Lodge. It was time to tackle our most beastly backpacking trip yet. In the parking lot at the trailhead, the consensus was that we would "destroy" everybody. Charlie: "I'll bet not too many people do eight nights out." Yeah, maybe they're just more sane than we are. Does being stupid mean you destroy? Well, we were about to find out.

First we were confronted with some nasty weather. We reached the consensus that the afternoons were basically unusable for hiking, due to rain. The worst of the weather was exemplified by my unfortunate early morning query: "Charlie, is it cloudy out there?"/"We're in a cloud."
Yes, there was accumulated sleet on the ground too. Ick. In the middle of August. Such is life above the treeline. Fortunately, the weather did clear long enough for us to scramble up the foreboding Lonesome Mountain.
Lonesome Mountain has shear cliffs on three sides. I am petrified of heights, ergo I am sitting and not standing in the following picture.
Charlie does stands in a place where I never would. Erik put it best: "Charlie, you're really small."
Weather wasn't the only issue. We demonstrated a collective ineptitude at staying on the trail or finding the correct trail. Here, John and Charlie consult the map to determine what went oh so horribly wrong:This particular mistake led to about an hour and a half of bushwhacking replacing what should have been a simple half hour hiking on the trail. It was all worth it; it brought out the quote of the trip. Charlie: "This is bullshit. This whole place is fucking bullshit." Now there's a guy who takes his vacations seriously. It could have been a whole lot worse had we not found a miracle bridge across the creek after some dangerous scrambling. Here, the other guys get the packs over while I take a picture because my documentation duties are more important than actually doing work.After a few days marred by bad weather and navigation mistakes, we hit a stride. If you've never been to the Rockies, that's a shame. The scenery is quite nice. There were beautiful lakes:
Here's a big spire called Sky Pilot (and no, we did not climb this):
And here's one of the more picturesque campsites:
Tents are selfish picture subjects. They're always being upstaged by the people they keep dry. My tent performed admirably despite this slight:
When we got back on the beaten path and started seeing people again, Charlie proclaimed triumphantly that we were "really destroying today." That was before we lost our way again:
Now we have no problems asking for directions in a city. But asking where to go on the trail is pretty shameful. It constitutes being "destroyed." Fortunately, our educated guess turned out OK.

A further challenge was that there were rivers without bridges or even rocks suitable for dry crossings. These wet crossings are known as "fords." No oxen were harmed during this fording of the river:
Fording the river was cold. But it wasn't as cold as swimming. Damn, that was cold. After seven days and no showers, you're willing to swim in pretty cold water to get even marginally cleaner. Swimming lasted about one minute, was done in sub-sixty degree water and went undocumented because the wise non-participant (Charlie) was busy reading Catch-22.

I've never consumed more calories than on the day we hiked out of the woods. For some reason, the best part of the trip is always getting out, and this was no exception. As usual, we dicked around at the trailhead for a while, listening to the Beatles and eating what was left of the food in the car. This included Chickin in a Biskit (my personal favorite), a few Clif Bars and some Twizzlers. Then we drove to Cody for the largest reuben sandwhich I have ever consumed. I washed this down with a shake. It was clearly our lucky day for dinner. Buffet nite at Godfather's Pizza in Gillette. Six pieces of pizza and three pieces of treatza pizza, plus a serving of nachos to cap off the 10000 calorie day.

The drive home was largely uneventful, highlighted by a stop in the Bighorns, where I got the picture of me at the top and the on below:
We also made the obligatory stop at Wall Drug, so Charlie could get a picture with the broad above. I also got this picture of me and General Custer:
After much debate, we decided to skip the Mitchell Corn Palace in favor of a quicker return to Minneapolis. I think we'll regret it. The design changes every year. I'll never get an opportunity to see the '05 edition (tear).

Starting a countdown

2005-08-08T06:48:00.000+02:00

Just over a month to Oktoberfest. I can't wait. I can't wait. I'm positively giddy. Did I mention I can't wait?

By the way, somebody actually is counting down.

Notes

2005-08-08T01:46:00.000+02:00

These are purely notes for yours truly. I won't be able to blog all these ideas before going to Montana, where I'm sure to forget them. The two free weeks after that are likely to be ideologically barren, because when there's time to write there's never anything to write about. So here's a preview of some future entries.

1) Why liberals should never scream federalism
2) Why separation of powers is a dishonest argument
3) Equating abortion and infanticide: the lie of the pro-life argument
4) Urban, rural, suburban, exurban yard signs and what the hell they mean
5) The New York Times kicks ass
6) Then they came for rock 'n' roll

Gripping, I'm sure. The entries, like the notes, are for me and not you.

OK

2005-08-08T01:42:00.000+02:00

Northfield, MN is an idyllic liberal bastion situated just this side of exurbia. It's a blip of a blue oasis in the heart of red rural Minnesota. Summer in Northfield is about the best of both worlds: the non-pace of small town existence combined with the enlightened and youthful atmosphere of a college town. Life there seems to consist of reading liberal weeklies, sitting in a kiddie pool and partying hard on the weekends. Needless to say, my visit to Carleton provided some much needed relaxation.

Presidential vacation

2005-08-05T19:30:00.000+02:00

Only one pundit cuts through the ridiculous sniping to give the real story of Bush's August break.

Fundies are hungry

2005-08-03T20:09:00.001+02:00

To most observers, the Republican coalition between moderate suburbanites, wealthy plutocrats and religious fundamentalists is fragile and perhaps unsustainable. This fragile coalition appears to be fracturing. Fundies, armed with their importance in W's reelection, are starting to flex their muscles and demand substantive policy. They're practically foaming at the mouth over the SCOTUS nomination, and are frighteningly praying for more vacancies. Maybe it's the SCOTUS openning that has them in a frenzy, but the little fundies and their minions have certainly been active of late.

In the past, the fundies have only gotten a lot of rhetorical hot air and posturing. Essentially, they get their Defense of Marriage Amendment voted down and Frist makes some speeches about Terri Schiavo and this is the extent of play the fundamentalists get in the wider GOP agenda. The pro-life agenda of the GOP has primarily consisted of parental notification laws, waiting periods and D & X bans. All these garner wide support among moderates, and allow the GOP to hide the ugly face of the religious right. However, actions this past week indicate that this is no longer sufficient. A blood sacrifice may soon be needed to gain fundie support.

1. Frist Stem Cell Flip-Flop-Flip
After indicating that he supported federal funding for stem cell research in 2001, Frist then said he stood with Bush's policy. Last week, Frist changed his mind and has decided to stick with his original position (and that of science, and the position which is popular with 60% of Americans). Needless to say, this didn't go over too well with the fundamentalists. After his egregious violation of federalism and the independent court system in the Schiavo debacle, Frist seemed to be a Fantastic Fundie Favorite for 2008. Now he won't even be invited to speak at Justice Sunday II, despite having spoken at the first Justice Sunday. It appears as though the combination of the Gang of 14 Compromise and the Stem Cell Bill have neutered Frist in the eyes of his old pals. Of course, there are plenty of GOP pols scrambling to fill the void.

2. George Pataki Vetos Emergency Contraception Bill
Mr. Pataki is doing what appears to be a reverse-Frist: attempting to shore up his fundie cred at the expense of good policy.

Mr. Quinn said the governor would be willing to reconsider the measure if the Legislature drafted and passed a new bill that addressed his concerns about the drug's availability to minors, as well as "other flaws."

Mr. Pataki's decision comes as he lays the groundwork for a presidential run in 2008 and underscores the forces he must negotiate as he steps onto the national stage.

What I've read indicates that invoking the availability to minors quote is a veiled reference to New York's abortion laws. This bill makes no sense, since abortions are available to minors. Why not allow minors to prevent pregnancy? It's a pandering stunt.

3. Bush Says ID Should Be Taught in School
And in a ridiculous bit of partisan pandering, W said that both intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools because students ought "to be exposed to different ideas." Now this is a ludicrous proposition, as DarkSyde's diary explains quite well. What it does demonstrate is that Bush is feeling the pressure from the fundies.

Conclusion
Taken individually, these cases might not mean much. However, three high profile cases in three separate issue areas with three different politicians indicates to me that the fundies are looking for serious policy, not just pandering. All three of these issues are ones where the Democratic party line plays well with the moderates and public at large. It's becoming evident that the fundies will not support GOP candidates who take moderate stances on their issues. Let's take late term abortions and parental notification rules off the table and replace it with issues we can take to the bank in '06, '08 and beyond.

I did it! I did it!

2005-08-02T21:29:00.000+02:00

I feel initiated to DailyKos now that I've made Social Democrat's list of the 17 Best Rated Comments today. My comment is titled "i like this."

Get rid of editorials

2005-08-02T19:10:00.000+02:00

Today, the New York Times made this argument more cogently than I could every imagine. In typical Times seriousness, they published an editorial arguing that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet:

Our own preference is to take a cleaner way out by dropping Pluto from the planetary ranks. Scientists may well discover many more ice balls bigger than Pluto, and it's a safe bet that few in our culture want to memorize the names of 20 or more planets. Far better to downgrade Pluto to the status of an icy sphere that was once mistakenly deemed a planet because we had not yet discovered its compatriots on the dark fringes of the solar system.

Two questions: could anybody possibly care less whether or not Pluto is a planet or not? And if it did matter, would anybody care what the New York Times thought about the issue? Obviously, the editorial board thinks this is a matter of pressing national importance, because people are becoming desensitized, and will no longer give appropriate weight to the importance of the term "planet." The editorial is titled "Too Many Planets Numb the Mind," as if the great Neptune is somehow demeaned by the inclusion of its little icy neighbor in the exclusive planetary club.

An even more annoying constant of editorials in every paper is the assumption that their opinions carry weight simply because they speak for the newspaper. Whereas op/ed columnists must convince their readers through solid arguments, the idea of the editorial is simply to inform readers what they ought to think, because the newspaper is always right. It's maddening that this editorial says "our preference" as if anybody cares about the issue, let alone what the New York Times thinks about it. Also in the vein of disturbing self importance is the following passage:

So now Dr. Brown proposes that scientists give up the battle and accept a cultural definition of what a planet is. It's either the nine planets we learned about in grade school, or those nine plus any new-found object orbiting the Sun that turns out to be bigger than Pluto. He opts for the latter approach on the theory that most people, deep down, accept that definition. This definition would also, of course, qualify Dr. Brown for the historical footnotes as the discoverer of a new planet.

OH MY GOODNESS! Selfish scientist wants fame and fortune; twists definition of planet to make self discoverer. Alert the media! Hang on, the New York Times is the media. Alert the newsroom! Seriously, this is ridiculous. This space would certainly be better filled by adding more columns. There just aren't enough serious issues for a paper to trot out 2000 words of their staff opinions on them every day. And so we end up reading about planets.

Also, in trying to represent the venerable tradition of a newspaper, editorials are always so muted down both in content and in style they are hardly worth reading. A columnist brings personality and interesting viewpoints to the table, while the staff editorials are almost always uninspiring in both categories. It's such a waste of space that two whole columns are devoted to such droll and humorless drivel. Nobody cares about half the issues in the editorials, and nobody's going to be persuaded just because the New York Times or any other newspaper says so. Just abolish the editorials.

Calling CAFTA bullshit

2005-08-01T20:05:00.000+02:00

When the Wall Street Journal runs an editorial that criticizes a Bush administration priority, it always catches the eye. The arguments it makes are pretty standard, but I think it's the most convincing anti-CAFTA piece I've seen thus far. I'm normally very pro-trade, but CAFTA appears to have almost none of the benefits of a good free trade agreeement. Unfortunately, it's too little too late. The article starts by calling bullshit on the China claim:

Tony Villamil insisted that "if we don't do this China and the European Union will step into the breach and we will lose business and influence on our doorstep."

That's utter nonsense. In 2003, China's share of the Cafta market was just 3%, up one point from 1998. The EU share, which had been 8% in 1998, also rose in 2003 by one point. Japan's share -- the bogeyman of past years and fears -- actually fell from 4% in 1998 to 3% in 2003. Meanwhile, as the chart nearby also shows, the dollar-value of America's 40-plus per cent share of the Cafta market has steadily risen to its present $15 billion.

Furthermore, the benefit for agriculture in Central America will be minimal because the agreement does not remove protections for sugar, which is the one product that really matters:

And if the experience of Mexico's farmers with Nafta is any guide, we'll have to expect more pain among Cafta's farmers. Theirs is a tiny market, but however small, they won't be able to compete against the lower prices of U.S. farm exports.

Sure, some individual but small Cafta exporters may eventually benefit; but as we all know, one of the region's principal products -- sugar -- will gain hardly at all. That was also Australia's experience in its "Free Trade Area" deal with the U.S., when Trade Minister Mark Vaile bitterly complained both that it "failed to include sugar" and that its openings for farm goods were "the smallest and slowest of any trade pact Washington had ever written."

And finally, a preferential trading agreement like CAFTA sends the wrong message about the United State's attitude toward free trade to the rest of the world:

We say we are pro "free trade," but we continue to undermine the WTO's genuinely global Doha Round by pressing for special blocs in this hemisphere. And we further undermine essential U.S. economic and security interests by encouraging the rise of blocs in regions that remain of profound importance to the U.S. That's something to ponder as Cafta moves closer to final approval, and in the light of clear evidence that it brings little if anything new to America's table.

I know, I know, it doesn't matter anymore since CAFTA's already gone through. It's still quite amazing that the WSJ is willing to put something so opposed to the party line in a place normally reserved for hackery, and this likely speaks to the low quality of the agreement.

Change is inevitable

2005-07-29T22:02:00.000+02:00

No shit Sherlock.

Reading all about Hackett and taking back the House in 2006 has me real fired up. There's something bigger afoot, though. The movement that Reagan brought to the fore in 1980 is in its decline, and something new will replace it. This is a historical inevitability; every dominant movement in the United States since the Civil War has had about 20-30 years in the sun before declining. Time's up for the Reagan Revolution.

Dominant political movements since 1865:

Reconstruction (1865-1877)

What it meant: Occupation of the South by the North after the Civil War. Essentially, the South became politically irrelevant and the Northerner dominated Republican Party dominated the Federal Government.

Achievements: Passed the Civil War Amendments banning slavery and granting equal rights to African-Americans (the 14th Amendment would be extended to women by th 19th Amendment and activist judges). Created equality for blacks that would not be equalled again until after the Civil Rights movement.

Downfall: Federal troops were pulled out of the South as part of the Compromise of 1877 resulting in the Nadir of American Race Relations as states assumed more power to discriminate. Many of the era's achievements were struck down by the United States Supreme Court through various cases, most notably Plessy v. Ferguson which established separate but equal as constitutional.

Progressive Era (1890-1920)

What it meant: A period of reform in American politics where reformers sought to change government starting at the local level. These changes eventually moved through the state and federal levels of government.

Achievements: The 18th Amendment banned alcohol (is that an achievemen?) while the 19th Amendment extended the suffrage to women. The progressive era also initiated the income tax, the popular election of US Senators along with popularizing the ballot initiative/referendum process. Many populist mechanisms (such as the recall) are relics of the Progressive Era. More notable Progressive Era laws can be found here.

Downfall: At the end of World War I, the United States was a different country economically and politically. In a new period of [debt financed] prosperity, Americans were less concerned with reform and more concerned with drinking at speakeasies. This resulted in a new rise of conservative ideologies.

The New Deal/World War II (1932-1950)

What it meant: Seeking to soothe the wounds of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt implemented extensive government regulations during the 1930s.

Achievements: The New Deal brought about such staples as the FDIC and Social Security to help restore faith in the government. Supreme Court decisions in 1937 also spelled the end of Lochner era jurisprudence, allowing the government much more leeway to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

Downfall: New Deal liberalism didn't really fall down in the 1950s. It was replaced by its successor: the age of unions.

Union Dominance (1950-1970)

What it meant: Due to the strength of the economy and shortage of labor after World War II, organized labor had unprecedented abilities to dictate its agenda.

Achievements: Incredible economic growth and a thriving middle class were the hallmarks. This period also saw the Civil Rights movement and tremendous gains in race relations.

Downfall: With a decline in manufacturing jobs, unions faced declining membership and clout. Also, the stagnant economy of the 1970s had Americans looking elsewhere for leadership.

Reagan Revolution (1980-present)

What it meant: Ronald Reagan invited social cons into the big tent of the Republican Party creating a coalition that still dominates politics.

Achievements: I'm too bitter to talk about it.

Downfall: Fissures between the social cons and economic cons along with the rise of a new liberalism.

You see, we're not just going to take back Congress. The decline of the current Conservative movement is imminent. We have to fight for it, but it's going to happen. The new liberalism that's going to dominate can't be the 1960s liberalism that a lot of people would like to see. The world is too different. I'd like suggestions, but here's how I think we'll look back on early 21st Century liberalism:

New New Deal Liberalism (2010-2030)

Achievements: We'll expand civil and substantive rights. Civil rights means sanctity of privacy, free speech, separation of Church and state and gay marriage. We'll also bring American high schools to the place near the top where they belong and have universal health care, like any first world country deserves.

Movies...

2005-07-29T16:40:00.000+02:00

I still refuse to see "War of the Worlds" because I'm not going to give a red cent to Tom Cruise and his insane cult that abducted Katie Holmes. However, I did finally get out of the house this past week to see "The Interpreter" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

"The Interpreter": I've never seen a movie that was so boring and so full of holes at the same time. Normally moviemakers have you suspend your disbelief for a good reason. With this movie, it was about nothing. And the whole thing was obviously foreshadowed through a multicultural lens. Terrible discontinuity, anticlimactic, obviously foreshadowed and obsessively multicultural? Four strikes and you're out. Frankly, this movie sucked. The only saving grace was the bizarre sexual tension between Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. Oh, and Sean Penn is amazing.

"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": It's a hard book to turn into a movie, because the narration is so overbearing. They did a good job with the plot, though. The actor that played Arthur was excellent... I've never seen someone more ackward in a movie. It was perfect. Plus, anything with Mos' Def is worth seeing. My only gripe was that Trillian kept slipping in and out of an obviously fake English accent. Couldn't they find a nice English actress? Overall, though, it was quite entertaining.

Ouch

2005-07-27T22:37:00.000+02:00

New lows for The Hill. Hat tip: Wonkette.

Armando is Extraordinary

2005-07-27T05:48:00.000+02:00

An extraordinary asshole.

(This is a rant for people who read DailyKos. Otherwise, skip it.)

The annoying thing about blogs is that they segment the audience by ideology, and give righteous but out of touch guys like Armando a bully pulpit. Basically, during the Roberts nomination, DailyKos has become a massive forum for righteous but meaningless posturing. "Explain your views on Roe or we filibuster." "Disclose the memos Roberts wrote in the Solicitor General's office or we have to filibuster." "Explain your views on stare decisis or filibuster." These are all common refrains on the frontpage and inside the comments.

These refrains are flawed twofold. First, they are hypocritical. The right-wing spinpoint is called the Ginsburg precedent, and there's no intellectually honest way to refute this. Some idiots say that "we heard Ginsburg's opinion on Roe." This is woefully inadequate, since Ginsburg only gave talked about abortion as related to a speech she had given on the topic. Roberts, squeaky-clean as he is, has no flags to grab him on. Furthermore, Ginsburg refused to answer questions on dozens of other important legal questions including: establishment vs. free exercise in the first amendment, anti-trust law, the Constitution as related to Native Americans and numerous others. However, this demonstration of idiocy is meaningless because Kossacks and those like them don't get to decide.

As Armando says, the SCOTUS is Extraordinary. This language is lifted from the filibuster compromise made by the Gang of 14 moderates. As Armando would have it, failure to give a straightforward answer on Roe is extraordinary; ergo it is grounds for a filibuster. This is not only frustrating in its confrontational petulance, it also demonstrates an inability to get beyond his own sphere of power and determine who actually gets to decide the cloture vote. You have to get 14 people on board:

That's it. Did I miss Sen. Armando (D-Mars)? KOSSACKS: YOU HAVE NO SAY IN WHETHER OR NOT TO FILIBUSTER! Stop blustering and blowing and hemming and hawing. Do you think that these guys believe a non-answer in the Ginsburg mold is Extraordinary? Well, I'm a flaming lefty and I think the leftist arguments are absolutely dishonest. Where does that mean Landrieu or Nelson stand? Or for that matter DeWine and McCain? I'm pretty sure the Repubs would nuke it in a second. Then we dare say that Dems don't have a spine anymore. Stop acting like you're in the majority. We can't pick and choose who we have; we need more seats not less.

Stop telling the so called DINOs to leave. You want only "tough" Senators who stand for real lefty values? I'd like to see Ted Kennedy win Landrieu's seat, Barbara Boxer win Mark Pryor's seat, Nancy Pelosi win Salazar's seat, Howard Dean win Ben Nelson's seat, Pat Leahy win Max Baucus's and Chuck Schumer win Byron Dorgan's. Yep, without those DINOs that save our asses in the red states, the Republicans would have a filibuster proof majority. Then you could quit your blustering about when we should or shouldn't filibuster. They're saving the filibuster for us, we can't just tell them when we want to filibuster. They're representing their constituents, many of whom are very in favor of the other party.

And on a further DINO note, you're not a DINO if abortion isn't your number one issue. People on Kos keep coming up with this ridiculous shit about how the Dems have to put their foot down, because abortion is basically the only issue that matters. That's bullshit. We stand for a lot of things. One of the biggest Dem problems is its inability to formulate a palatable stance on abortion because NARAL et. al. insist that the Democrats absolutely legalize it, with not restrictions and piss and moan if a Democrat so much as finds abortion morally objectionable (see Clinton, H.R.). If the Democrats continue to offer this extreme position and leave the mushy middle with nothing to cling to, Republicans will keep winning elections and appointing judges. And before anyone tells me that electing a mushy dem is just as bad as electing a repug, remind me again which party has overturning Roe as A GOAL IN ITS NATIONAL PLATFORM. Hmm, well that sure leaves me conflicted on which party is going to do more to preserve legalized abortion.

That felt good.

Anybody who read this and reads Kos, please comment, because it has no cross posting value. It'll just get flamed to shits on any lefty site.

Well

2005-07-26T05:28:00.000+02:00

Smearing distinguished veterans is a much older practice in this country than we originally thought.

John G. Roberts

2005-07-25T22:07:00.000+02:00

We finally have something substantive on our nominee:

According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral.
[snip]
Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws.

So it looks like an eight member Court this term.

Maddox

2005-07-25T19:38:00.000+02:00

His humor is back after a six month hiatus.

A little on Roe

2005-07-24T18:46:00.000+02:00

A popular bit of amateur wonkish thinking in the context of Supreme Court vacancies holds that creating a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe would be very good for the Democratic party. The theory is that if Roe were overturned and the states allowed to regulate abortion, the silent pro-choice majority who consider Roe settled law would mobilize and essentially destroy the Republican Party, which would continue to be beholden to its virulently anti-abortion base. Although I don't believe Roberts will vote to completely overturn Roe, I want to address why overturning Roe would be bad for the Democrats.

Most simply, it represents a defeat
The Democratic Party is an organization whose purpose is to implement the policies it wants, and prevent policies that it opposes. Ensuring the right to choice is one of these policy goals.

It would take a while
The Supreme Court won't be able to just immediately strike down Roe. It could take five or ten years to put the precedents in place for the landmark decision. The Democrats want to take back the government before that, right? And if we do take power in ten years, the country may be so fucked up we don't want to govern it.

Overturning Roe would take a court decision of a particular sort
This decision would have broader implications than simply eliminating the right to an abortion. There are two options. Striking down Roe could recognize compelling state interest to protect all unborn life, which is unpalatable because it would free states to ban birth control. It could also go even further and strike down Griswold and the right to privacy, which is a risk I'm not willing to take for any sort of political gain in other areas.

Making this decision would require a Supreme Court of a particular sort
One that would likely set back liberal causes a long ways by doing things like destroying the Federal Government's power to regulate. It might also blur the bounds between church and state, and be likely to side against many civil liberties claims. It's hard to say exactly what a Court like this would do, but whatever Court would overturn Roe wouldn't just go away after the decision. This Court might cause irreparable damage to the United States.

The pro-choice majority is a lot more tenuous than many assume
When NARAL cites statistics saying 60% of Americans are pro-choice, they are doing a disservice to everyone and fooling themselves. According to this compilation of abortion polling data, people agree that Roe should be upheld. However, many also ageree that abortion is murder. And when you remove abortions in cases of rape, incest and the health of the woman support for legal abortions falls below 50%. So while there are wacko fundamentalists on the one side who fall outside the mainstream, the NARAL ideal that abortion should not only be legal, but destigmatized is also well outside mainstream American thought. Republicans and Democrats would each probably gravitate toward the center of keeping abortions legal but heavily regulated. This would alienate the radicals on both sides: those who want legal abortion on demand and those who want to ban all abortion (and maybe birth control). This would create a better representation on public opinion in abortion policy and also a less vitriolic political atmosphere surrounding the issue, but it would also represent a significant policy loss as a woman's right to choose would be significantly threatened. Furthermore, the splintering that some predict for the GOP is just as likely to happen to the Democrats as they advocate regulations and alienate NARAL et. al.

My bet is that the Court will chip away at Roe but not strike it down, but it's worth looking at the political fallout regardless.

Ugh

2005-07-23T06:51:00.000+02:00

Would now be an appropriate time to burn a flag?

Do I smell a Souter Surprise?

2005-07-23T03:19:00.000+02:00

Undergraduate Degree:
David H. Souter: Harvard
John G. Roberts: Harvard

Law Degree:
David H. Souter: Harvard
John G. Roberts: Harvard

Birthplace:
Souter: Northeastern liberal bastion (Mass.)
Roberts: Northeastern liberal bastion (NY)

Experience on Federal Bench
Souter: Short (less than a year)
Roberts: Short (two years)

Age at nomination:
Souter: 51
Roberts: 50

What the press called him:
Souter: "stealth justice"
Roberts: "stealth conservative"

Personality:
Souter: Affable (he gets along with Scalia)
Roberts: Charming (have you seen the coverage?)

Life update

2005-07-22T16:44:00.000+02:00

Well, it's been a while since I've taken a break from political commentary nobody cares about to write some stuff about me that nobody cares about. To be honest, there's not much to update. I've been brushing and flossing daily and eating three meals a day plus snacks (which is almost always an inordinate amount of Zours... mmm... Zours).

In all seriousness, this work thing is getting old. Fortunately, I only have two weeks left. That's only ten working days! Only eighty hours! I can hardly contain myself.

Man, I have a boring life. The one interesting thing is that we have some German kid coming to stay at our house for the month of August. He gets here tomorrow. More on that later.

More federal funds for profiteers in higher ed?

2005-07-20T19:16:00.000+02:00

This isn't about Rove or Roberts, who have already been hacked to death. However, it did strike me as quite important. For-profit private colleges want a single definition for institutions of higher education that would allow them funds currently only available to non-profits. And because of their lobbying clout, they look likely to get it:

Creating a single definition has been one of the highest priorities of for-profit institutions, which have increasing clout on Capitol Hill because of their growing enrollments (and because their political action committee contributes to lawmakers in ways that nonprofit institutions generally do not). "As a matter of equity and to create a modern Higher Education Act and higher education system, we ought to be recognized as equal participants through sharing a single definition," said Mark Pelesh, a senior vice president at Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a publicly traded higher education provider.

Non-profits are vehemently opposed:

But the traditional higher education establishment and faculty unions have opposed the for-profits' inclusion in the single definition, which they say would give the commercial institutions access to funds that are already in short supply. They have also opposed other provisions in the committee's legislation that they say would weaken protections against potential financial aid fraud and abuse at for-profit colleges.

And in another terrific example of government by lobbyist, it appears as though the for-profits essentially got what they wanted (at least in committee):

The overall result left the single definition provision largely intact, with only the restriction on funds from Titles III and V.

The worst part is that the reason this provision has so much force might just be Democratic stupidity.

[A compromise proposed by Rep. Castle (R-Del)] would prevent for-profit institutions from competing for research grants from the Agriculture Department or the National Institutes of Health unless the laws that govern those grant agencies were specifically amended to allow them to.

Lobbyists for nonprofit colleges were heartened as five of the panel's Republicans (who always vote first because they are the majority party) cast ballots for Castle's amendment. But it came time for the Democrats to vote, a majority of them opposed it, and it failed, 21 to 11.

The Democrats may have voted against this proposal because they advocated Betty McCollum's (D-MN) amendment that would have restored the old distinction between non-profit and for-profit colleges. However, this was little consolation to the non-profit groups:

Lobbyists for nonprofit colleges were furious at the Democrats for not supporting Castle's amendment more uniformly; some were believed to have opposed it because they preferred McCollum's amendment, and others because they did not want to support a compromise crafted by a member of the opposition. Baime of the community college association said they'd made a huge mistake. "To not take three-quarters of a loaf because you prefer the whole loaf that you may not get" is idiotic, he said after the vote.

Why is this a big deal? For one, allegations of fraud at some for-profits. One example is Brooks College, in Long Beach, Calif:

To recruit students, the show said, the college grossly misrepresented graduation and job placement rates, and graduates' starting salaries.

One admissions representative told "60 Minutes" that people in her position would tell prospective students that they would, "have a 95 percent chance that you are gonna have a job paying $35,000 to $40,000 a year by the time they are done," when the actual starting salary was under $11 an hour, according to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

The problem is not anecdotal, however, it's a systemic conflict of interest. In fact, there is a current congressional investigation into the private accreditation agency, which appears to have much too close a relationship with the Career College Association (an association of for-profit colleges).

The other part of the problem involves research funds. Should the federal government really be granting research funds to institutions which are more interested in turning a profit than generating important research? Our universities are the most important bastion of scientific and technological development, which is critical to the health of our economy and national security. Furthermore, these funds are limited. The Star Tribune has more:

But research grants from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are another matter. They should be reserved for scholars who have committed themselves to peer-reviewed research, not the pursuit of profit, and should produce results that advance a public research agenda -- whether it's medicine or engineering or food safety -- not some private shareholder priority.

My thoughts exactly.