Welcome to the Aurosphere

Why don't people understand the word "anymore" anymore?

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:55:37 GMT

I have noticed, with increasing frequency, the use of the word "anymore" in a positive sense. Somebody did it on Talk of the Nation today, though I've now forgotten the exact context... The kind of thing I'm talking about is, "I used to prefer chocolate, but I prefer vanilla anymore." The word gets used to describe an activity that started at some point in the recent past, and is ongoing.

From my point of view as a descriptive linguist, this is kind of fascinating; it's an interesting generalization of the word, which used to only be usable to talk about an activity that ceased in the recent past, and is expected not to start again. "I used to like chocolate, but now I like vanilla -- I don't like chocolate anymore." English actually does usually play fast and loose with negative versus positive inflections. (Anyone who speaks Spanish is familiar with the stricter version of this, the way that the negative/positive on the verb affects the use of words like "ningun" or "nadie".)

But from the prescriptivist, former-writing-tutor point of view, it makes my skin crawl. Quit doing that, people! It's not like the etymology of the word is unclear. "I won't do X any more." It does not continue. There is not any more of it. In the positive, you have to use "some" rather than "any". "Please sir, may I have some more." "I think I will jog some more tomorrow."

This may be the first widespread linguistic error/evolution that I have found even more annoying than the degeneration of the difference between the adjectives "nauseated" (suffering from nausea), and "nauseous" (which used to mean "so disgusting as to cause nausea in nearby persons" -- a synonym for "nauseating"). People have used it incorrectly for so long, and so widely, that M-W now has a usage note declaring that current usage is dominated by the "nauseated" meaning, and therefore people who think the word ought to mean what it meant for hundreds of years ("nausea" and its various inflections date back to the 16th century, and originally referred specifically to seasickness -- note the similarity to "nautical") before ignorant valley girls misappropriated it are "mistaken". I find that kind of rootless ahistoricism... nauseous.

Good Customer Service

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:58:22 GMT

I've had two very positive customer service experiences in the last few months, and just wanted to record them for posterity -- so often folks tend to blog their complaints, but not give positive feedback when companies behave well.

Ideal Pet Products makes pet doors. I had one of their sliding glass door inserts years ago, and then used the cut-in doors at my last couple places, and Xta and I recently bought another door insert for the Sky Den. The cats promptly managed to break part of the door; I'm not sure if it was a manufacturing flaw in that particular unit, or if they were being particularly rambunctious, but they'd never managed to do that before. In any case, I was able to email Ideal, and they promptly offered to send a replacement part. Fixing it was as easy as undoing a few screws, putting in the new part, and screwing it back together.

Zyliss makes a variety of kitchen products, including rotary cheese graters. I bought this product because it has a wider barrel, which is good for coarsely grating medium-firm cheeses like cheddar and gruyere (which don't do so well in the narrow-barrel grater I use for hard cheeses. A couple days ago the handle on the coarse drum shattered. Although Amazon said their returns policy only covers things for 30 days, when I contacted Zyliss USA, they offered to send a replacement coarse drum, free of charge. So, yay.

I have to admit, I wouldn't actually buy this particular product again if I had it to do over; I like the larger drum, but the handle design is a little awkward, and you can tell it's a bit flimsy when you handle it. The problem is that it attaches at the rim, rather than having the drum closed on one side, or having struts across it, to allow the handle to attach at the center. Their smaller grater has the handle screw into a thread at the center, which works really well (and makes the disassembled pieces easier to clean). Still, given that I sank some money into it, I appreciate that Zyliss is willing to make some effort to maintain/service their product. If it breaks again, though, I'll probably just buy something else.

Nobel Peace Prize? Thanks, but no thanks.

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:49:41 GMT

I agree with Bob Reich. While I sort-of understand the Nobel committee's reasoning (Obama's re-opened diplomatic discussions, and already advanced the ball on both North Korea and Iran more in nine months than Bush did in eight years); and while I definitely understand how, to the average American, this may represent a realization of the campaign promise of improving our standing in the world; I think this award was kind of a weird pick.

And I think the best thing Obama could do is turn it down. Give a short speech about how he's incredibly honored, and that he hopes that the vision he's laid out for America inspires not just our people, but the people of the world, etc etc... But that there is still too much work to do, he can't rest on laurels. Keep it to ten minutes or less, and skip flying to Sweden.

The loons on the right (who are just itching to have another round of the kind of craziness they had when Al Gore won) would be completely dumbfounded. He'd totally defang the claim that he has a messiah complex. And the downside is, what, the Nobel committee feels a little miffed? It's sort of like a "Sister Souljah moment," except it dissociates him from "out of touch elitists," rather than from a minority/disadvantaged group.

At a bare minimum, he should pledge to donate the prize money to some organization that has a more legitimate claim on the notion that they're doing the most to promote peace. Say, past Nobelist Médecins Sans Frontières.

ETA: Wait a minute, Mickey Kaus had the same idea before I did. Maybe it's just contrarian, not good.

ETA: So, apparently he's going to accept and donate the money.

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

Opera tix for sale...

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:46:30 GMT

I have two pairs of opera tix for sale -- Abduction from the Seraglio on this coming Sunday 10/11 (a quite good Mozart comedy, with ahead-of-its-time portrayals of strong women, and a rather sophisticated, humane Turkish pasha) and Otello on Sunday 11/8 (Verdi adaptation of Shakespeare, one of the all-time greats of Italian grand opera). Feel free to pass the craigslist links to any friends who might be interested. I'm willing to consider a discount for friends who are into opera but don't get to go very often.

Also, if you can afford full price just for yourself for the Seraglio ticket, I've been going back and forth on whether I want to sell that one. I've seen it once before, but I really liked it and wouldn't mind seeing it again. Otello I've seen half-a-dozen times, and while I'd happily go again if I had income, I can't really afford it at the moment. I've been maintaining my subscriber status for the last couple years so that once I have money again I won't have to start out from lousy seats again and gradually trade into the nice ones; but I've been selling off half or more of my tickets...

Also, I have tix for Salome on 10/18. I've never seen that one, but it's Richard Strauss (the student of Wagner who wrote Also Sprach Zarathustra, a.k.a. the music from the film "2001") working from a play by Oscar Wilde, based on one of the Biblical stories that is most packed with sex, intrigue, and violence. Am really looking forward to it; I think Xta is waffling on whether she wants to see it. If interested in joining, send email; I'll let you know if Xta decides she doesn't want to go.

foodpr0n: The Moss Room

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:59:56 GMT

Xta and I and our friend dragondawn420 went to see the Tut exhibit, and went to dinner at the restaurant in the Cal Academy. It's very good. We'll have to go back some time...

Hemingway Daiquiri: white rum, grapefruit, maraschino
Margarita Ahumada: mezcal, lime, black sea salt
Viognier, Cold Heaven "Sanford & Benedict Vineyard", Santa Barbara County, California, 2007

Country style pork terrine, house made pickles, mostarda di frutta, frisée. The pickles included cucumber, onion, and an amazing pickled carrot; I don't know exactly what they'd pickled it in. I think maybe they had some fennel seed in there, or something. Mostarda di frutta is kind of an Italian version of chutney -- a savory preserve, heavy on the mustard seed. They'd done it with some very good apricots. The whole appetizer was great with the fresh crusty bread. (We shared this as an appetizer.)

Roasted eggplant ravioli with cherry tomatoes, black olives, garlic, basil. Christa had them hold the tomatoes. There was a lot of garlic, roasted til it was basically spreadable. Topped with some sauteed spinach. (I think it was the same spinach as appears listed in the "Sides" part of the menu: local spinach, harissa, golden raisins, pine nuts.)

Bullfeathers Farms quail, caramelized peaches, purslane, pancetta, balsamic reduction. I think this was the best use of purslane I've ever run into. I could've wished the quail was a little bigger, but overall, superb. The peaches appeared to have been coated in a light syrup and then torched -- browned on the outside, but basically still raw on the inside.

Grilled American "Kobe" bavette steak, watercress, charmoula vinaigrette. DD had this; I got a taste of it, and was really impressed with their chermoula. You could definitely taste the pickled lemon in it.

Combier Crème Brûlée, vanilla marmalade sandwich cookies. Sort of a "dreamsicle custard". The cookies were shortbready, and had an intense vanilla aroma. The marmalade between them was more like bits of candied orange peel than marmalade -- no excess liquid. But not overly sweet, very orange-y.

Roast Peach and Summer Berry Parfait, with crème fraîche custard, buttermilk biscuit, praline streusel. Xta had this with a glass of Quady Red Electra. We've been fans of the Quady for a long time. I think jencallisto introduced us to their Elysium. Red Electra is what grape soda aspires to be -- very distinctly grape-y (purple flavor!), with a light, pleasant sparkle, and hints of other summer fruit flavors (especially peach and blackberry). It was a perfect complement to the parfait.

Devil's Chocolate Cake, with fleur de lait ice cream, malted powder, crispy wafer. I'm not sure I ever tried (or even saw) the wafer, so I don't know what was in that. Fleur de lait is an extremely simple ice cream, basically just milk, cream, sugar, a pinch of salt, and a bit of starch for thickening (usually cornstarch). There were actually two kinds of malt powder (chocolate and vanilla) sprinkled in arcs around the edge of the plate. The cake was incredibly dense and fudgey, and around 20-25% of the entire thickness was ganache frosting (thick layer on top, and a thinner layer halfway down). The cake was so rich that DD couldn't finish it, even with assistance. (I was pretty full after my own dessert, so I only had a couple bites.)

Today we're doing more unpacking. Earlier I sorted and arranged a bunch of random cables (power, networking, A/V, etc). And supposedly people who contacted me through Craigslist are going to take away my old bureau, and the empty boxes, later today...

The truth about health reform - in flowchart form.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:06:13 GMT

The Republicans have been showing big scary confusing flowcharts to suggest that health reform will create a gigantic new bureaucracy.

Here's the truth, courtesy of Nicholas Beaudrot.

Opera tix for sale...

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:34:16 GMT

Sun	Oct	4	2:00pm	Il Trovatore
Sun	Nov	8	2:00pm	Otello
Sun	Jun	20	1:30pm	Faust
Sun	Jun	27	2:00pm	Girl of the Golden West

You can learn more about each opera behind the links. All operas are preceded, one hour earlier, by a free educational lecture. My seats are Dress Circle E126 and E128, the latter of which is an aisle seat, on the first aisle out from the center. You can see the view from Dress Circle on the seating chart page.

If you're interested in an opera, but the date doesn't work, I can exchange for equivalent seats on a date of your choice (check the website for the dates of various shows) and send you the new tickets; however, I can't promise specific seats in that case.

I paid $96.50 per ticket (including processing and shipping fees), so each pair is $193 (and I strongly prefer to sell the pairs together). Non-subscriber price for the equivalent tickets would $120 per seat, $240 per pair -- so I'm selling at roughly a 20% discount relative to buying from the SFO box office. I'll be happy to cover the stamp to mail the tickets to you, or make other arrangements.

Please feel free to direct friends to this post.

ETA: It occurs to me to mention that we're selling a sofabed, because not all of our furniture fits in our new place.

If anyone tells you that CA has high taxes...

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:42:46 GMT

...please direct them to this data from the Federation of Tax Administrators. California's total tax collections at the state and local levels, as a percent of income earned in the state, are 12.1%, ranking it fourteenth out of the fifty states. Compare to Wyoming (16.6%) and Alaska (15.1%). If you include all revenue sources (taxes, plus various service fees, plus revenue from fines and tickets, etc), California is at 18th out of 50, collecting 17.6% of gross state income. Again, compare to Wyoming (26.4%) and Alaska (35.5%).

CA has a relatively high income tax, and a fairly high sales tax, but has extremely low property taxes, and has a fairly business-friendly tax environment in general. Conservatives telling you that our taxes will drive business out of state are basically just making stuff up -- there's no data to back their claims.

Geothermal Earthquakes

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:53:15 GMT

The New York Times had an article last month, that I missed until now, about the Alta Rock deep geothermal project up in the area of The Geysers, a current geothermal field. They discuss the numerous small quakes that are already created by the expansion and contraction of rock in the area as water is injected (causing cooling and contraction of the rocks, opening fissures), as steam is created (creating pressure that further expands the fissures and creates new cracks), and as the steam is extracted (relieving pressure).

They also have a story about a similar deep well in the vicinity of Basel, Switzerland, that seems to have caused some significant shaking. The article feels to me a bit overwrought in its descriptions of the problems in Basel. They play up how terrifying the quake was, and barely mention the fact that nobody got hurt. Not even people standing directly over the borehole. This sounds to me like an argument for building your geothermal projects out in a rural area, rather than right by a major city. Alta Rock's project is, in fact, far from any major city, suburb, or exurb.

A lot of people seem to be scared that the Alta Rock project might set off a truly major quake. Color me skeptical. Major quakes happen when pressure builds up along a fault line for a very long time, and then the energy is all released at once. Having numerous small quakes sounds, to me, like a good thing. If it really turns out that we can induce quakes, it might actually be a good idea to start doing so at significant stress points along the major fault lines, on an ongoing basis. The fact that this happens to be a method for producing extremely high-temperature / high-pressure steam, which can generate a lot of energy, is an added bonus.

Geothermal is, IMHO, one of the more promising sources of base load energy generation; if we have to provide some relocation funding, or funding for people to build houses that can withstand small quakes on a regular basis, fine. But I don't think we ought to have the "paper of record" suggesting that it's going to cause a huge quake that will knock down San Francisco when it seems equally-or-more likely that it will actually help relieve pressure through small quakes, reducing the chance of a "Big One".

An Open Letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:18:08 GMT

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I have just returned from attempting to visit your San Francisco office to drop off a petition, on behalf of Democracy for America and roughly 56,000 of your constituents, in support of health care reform that includes offering a federally administered public insurance option. Such reform is, according to multiple polls, supported by two-thirds to three-quarters of all Americans, including roughly half of rank-and-file Republicans. It is also heavily favored by essentially all moderate and liberal economists, and was an element of the health plans offered by all three major Democratic presidential campaigns in 2008.

I say "attempting to visit," rather than "visiting," because a staffer there rather brusquely refused to ask the One Post Plaza office tower's lobby security guards to admit me, saying that visitors are admitted by appointment only, thus making a waste of the hours I spent travelling to and from your office. I am unclear what, exactly, is more important to your staffers than your constituents' Constitutional right to petition. This is no way to treat a grassroots activist.

If they are overwhelmed with phone calls today, I am sympathetic, but I would think that it ought to count for something when somebody cares enough to come visit in person -- that you would be more interested in hearing from the in-person visitor. I fully intended to be respectful of your staff's time; my visit to Rep. Anna Eshoo's Palo Alto office, earlier in the day, took perhaps three minutes. I identified myself, to your staffer who answered my call from the security lobby, as a California State Party Delegate, acting for the day as a representative of DFA, and I told him that I just wanted to drop off the petition and ask a couple of quick questions. I would've taken no more time than a caller.

Based on my experiences with other legislators who have served as my representatives over the years, and with their offices, I do not believe that any of them would tolerate a staffer treating a constituent so rudely, either at a campaign office or a (taxpayer funded!) legislative office. Neither should you.

Disappointedly,
R.M. 'Auros' Harman, M.B.A.
Delegate, A.D. 21, California Democratic Party State Central Committee
Treasurer, CDP Business & Professional Caucus

ETA: I just realized I had the number of constituents wrong; I was multiplying 90 lines by 156 pages, but I also should've multiplied by the four columns of names... Fixed now.

Green Lasagna

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:23:31 GMT

Invented for Christa.

A number of the steps in here can proceed in parallel.

Preheat oven to 375F.

Noodles: Cook a standard 8 oz lasagna noodle box, according to its directions.

Cheese Filling: Mix 16 oz of ricotta, about two-thirds of a 7oz package of pesto, and a few tablespoons of alfredo sauce. Add chopped fresh herbs. (We had parseley around, but extra basil, or whatever else you like, or even some dry herbs, would be fine. The thing is that you can't get all your herbage from the pesto sauce, because if you do, it'll be too much oil.)

Meaty filling: Dice 8 oz fairly fatty sausage (we were using Moroccan merguez), or bacon, or other meat that will render a decent bit of fat. Dice one medium yellow or white onion. Mince about 4 cloves of garlic (adjust to taste). Finely chop about 4-6 oz of greens (we used about eight medium leaves of dinosaur kale, b/c that's what we had handy). Cook the sausage in a pan over medium-high heat until it's lightly browned, and oil has rendered. Scoop it out with a slotted spoon, allow to rest in a bowl. Add onion to pan, cook for a few minutes until it starts to turn transluscent. Add garlic and greens to pan. Cook until the greens are cooked (time depends on the type of greens). Dump the veggies in with the meat, mix. (If the amount of oil is such that there is still actual liquid in the bottom of the pan, you may want to pull the veggies out with the slotted spoon, so you don't end up with oil dripping out of your lasagna.)

Zucchini filling: Chop two medium-to-large zucchinis (the ones we use probably weighed almost a pound, taken together) into ~1/4 inch thick rounds. Lightly brush a half-sheet pan with olive oil, put down a layer of zuke rounds, brush with oil, put down another layer, brush with oil. (If you lack for a brush, you can use a paper towel, or just your fingers dipped in a dish of oil. It washes off!) Bake uncovered for about fifteen minutes. You want to see sizzling on the surface, as it gives up some moisture. Don't cook it to mush, but you want it a bit softened, since it won't get much softer during the final bake. The layers of zuchini in the lasagna shouldn't need to have the discs overlapping; if you end up with extra, just save it to reheat as a side dish with some other meal.

Final topping: 8 oz of mozzarella, coarsely shredded.

Put a layer of noodles in the bottom of your baking dish (use a 9x13 if you have it; we didn't so we ended up using a 2qt, about 8x12, and then making a second smaller dish), then about 40% of the cheese mixture, then half the meat mix, then 40% of the zukes, then more noodles, another 40% of the cheese, half the meat, 40% of the zukes, more noodles, remaining 20% of cheese, arrange last 20% of zukes in a grid to define serving pieces, top with mozzarella. Bake for 30-35 min, until mozzarella gets bubbly and starts to brown. Allow to cool for 15-20 minutes.

Makes about six to ten servings, depending on how hungry you are.

Wedding Date: either Sat 10/30/10 or Sun 10/31/10.

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:07:45 GMT

Xta and I have finally picked out a date, or at least a pair of possible dates -- Halloween or the day before, next year. It will probably be a sunset ceremony. Location and the rest of the details to be decided later. We will also likely, for the benefit of folks with kids, encourage trick-or-treating at the reception. (Guests can bring little bags of cool candy to give to the trick-or-treaters.) Oh, and costumes. We definitely encourage costumes. (Not required, obviously, and invitees should probably think about whether something will be comfortable through a ceremony, eating at the reception, and potentially dancing.)

I know some of my friends live in Campbell and west San Jose...

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:28:31 GMT

...which are in the district of CA Sen. Abel Maldonado, the one Republican who might conceivably be persuaded to vote for a sane budget fix.

See the California Tax Reform Association for some suggestions on what might be included in an immediate package to help resolve the budget crisis, rather than gutting the entire social safety net, if the GOP was not absolutely refusing to allow consideration of new revenues.

The Governor has proposed the elimination of CalWorks, which would immediately lead to 39,510 very low income children and parents losing their housing in Santa Clara County, and take $171 million out of the local economy. The elimination of Healthy Families (CA's implementation of the federal Children's Health Insurance Program) would result in 32,220 children losing health coverage in Santa Clara County. Schwarzenegger has also proposed elimination of all Medi-Cal funding for treatment of women with breast and cervical cancer, and for kidney dialysis treatments. In addition to being cruel, defunding these programs will cause losses of federal revenues of $3 for every $1 of state money. The Governor is also proposing to take millions of dollars that are normally collected by the state on behalf of cities and counties, and returned to fund local gov't functions (your standard "police, fire, libraries, etc" list).

Something is going to give here. Either the entire system of government as we have understood it for the last five decades is going to shut down within the next year or two, or we are going to have to break the logjam we've had for the last 15-20 years where a crazy anti-government fringe has been allowed to prevent us from pursuing any kind of sane, coherent policy agenda.

Cool trailer.

Fri, 22 May 2009 17:29:44 GMT

Robert Downey, Jr. is actually a pretty good pick for this role.

PS: Am recovering from the Martian Death Flu. At least it waited til after classes ended.

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit, people like me!

Sat, 16 May 2009 02:17:20 GMT

My Capstone team was voted (by our fellow students) as one of the three teams to present tomorrow night at the Venture Showcase.

Two more days, and two more presentations. Tomorrow morning is Capital Markets, and tomorrow evening gets a repeat of today's presentation, and then there's the human-factors class on Sunday where the chances of anyone paying attention are close to nil.* And then I'm done.

* If any of the professors or TAs are reading this -- I'll try, really, but you know it's true! Also, hi!

Lifted and edited from one of my own comments on a previous post...

Tue, 05 May 2009 07:19:07 GMT

We have had a system in place over the last three decades where the lending class -- the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution -- made sure that everybody else was underpaid (by crushing any factor that would force them to provide raises in keeping with productivity growth, or even inflation most of the time), but then given credit to allow them to consume at the same standard they'd grown accustomed to during the rise of the middle class in the '50s and '60s. This structure ensured that over time, more and more people -- initially in the lower classes, but eventually in the shrinking middle class as well -- sank into what is effectively debt peonage: their future productivity became explicitly forfeit to the lenders, foreclosing any further efforts to extract concessions via unionization or other such tactics.

The system finally collapsed because the lenders got a little too greedy. I am not eager to bail them out by promising them even more of the future productivity of workers, in the form of today's government dollars to cover immediate losses, and tomorrow's government dollars to pay off the debt that financed today's government dollars.

Note that I'm perfectly happy to pay rich folks back on government debt if they're financing actual Keynesian spending today, which would help get the economy growing again. In that scenario, growth causes the debt to shrink over time relative to the economy as a whole -- the rising tide actually lifts all boats.

But I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are allowing the ultrarich to lend money -- at interest -- in order to finance paying off themselves, to make up for stupid risks they should have known better than to take. This basically has them taking money out of one pocket, handing it to the government, then grabbing it back and stuffing it in a different pocket, and charging our posterity for the privilege of having momentarily held the money.

Anyone who complains about efforts to use progressive taxation to redistribute wealth has missed the fact that the current distribution only exists because of a fundamentally unsustainable system of policies that was intentionally designed to concentrate wealth, and which has collapsed because such concentration leads to an insufficiency of demand relative to potential output. The poor can't afford to consume, and there aren't enough rich to pick up the slack.

OK, so most people don't know how to read a balance sheet.

Sun, 03 May 2009 17:18:38 GMT

But doesn't Geithner know that some Americans can read a balance sheet? (Some of us are even capable of understanding the order of claims in bankruptcy, and all that other Accounting 101 stuff.) As far as I can tell, his plan depends on none of these people being sufficiently public-spirited to point out that he's trying to protect bondholders at the expense of taxpayers. Perhaps he thinks the only people capable of understanding his plan are, themselves, the kinds of people benefitting from it?

Propositions 1A-1F, transcribed from notes I took on my iPhone...

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:40:30 GMT

Monday was sort of a bonus convention day, as I attended a meeting with former Assembly Budget Committee Chairman John Laird, discussing the propositions. Asm. Laird started off the meeting by giving some background on the budget and the General Fund, which is almost entirely devoted to just two things – education and prisons. (This past year was, apparently, the first year that the prisons consumed more funds than K-12 education; and with courts requiring more space and better treatment of prisoners, that’s not likely to reverse any time soon, unless there’s a significant policy change, such as ensuring that all minor drug offenders are routed to treatment instead of prison.) The General Fund receives most of its revenues from sales and income taxes; in the past it was primarily funded by property taxes, which are far more stable and predictable, but since Prop 13, the real value of property tax revenues has fallen by about two thirds. (This could be remedied if we were to pass a “split roll” reform, retaining Prop 13 rules for residential properties while restoring the old assessment system for commercial and industrial properties.) The general fund faces a problem in that its revenues vary greatly with economic conditions, while its expenses have been written into the constitution – Prop 98 for schools, Prop 49 for after-school programs, and the Three Strikes law which effectively puts a floor under prison expenses. Whereas some expenses have a dedicated funding source (such as the gas tax for transportation), few of the propositions that mandate expenses create corresponding revenue streams. (Asm. Laird noted at this point that he strongly favors a reform that would force Propositions to follow PAYGO rules.) Similarly, the reduction of the Vehicle License Fee left in place mandates for local and county expenses that the VLF had previously funded. County health programs and the UC/CSU system tend to face huge cuts in times of deficits, because they’re the only large programs that lack constitutional protection.

Another piece of the background is Republican extremism. In 2001, Gray Davis managed to get a decent budget passed, but the GOP immediately cracked down on its “turncoats” – none of them got re-elected.

With all of that said, Laird turned to the actual propositions, which he described as “the best bad deal we could get.” Prop 1A extends a tax increase that is part of this year’s budget from two years to four. It creates a “rainy day fund” and defines the “rainy day” conditions under which it can be used; any time revenues exceed expectations, a portion is swept into the rainy day fund. It gives the governor the power to cut certain budget items mid-year and to cancel cost-of-living increases for state services (e.g. assistance to the blind, working poor families, etc.), if revenues fall short of expectations.

1B is contingent on 1A, and was created basically to prevent teachers from campaigning against 1A; it provides stronger constitutional protection for Prop 98’s education funding rules.

Prop 1C borrows $5 billion against future lottery revenue to help close the hole in the current budget, and transfers schools’ current claims against that lottery revenue to the general fund.

Prop 1D takes money that has been held in reserve for the First 5 program (health and education for pre-schoolers) as a hedge against volatility in revenues, and uses it to close the budget hole. Prop 1E similarly grabs reserves from the mental health program that was created under Prop 63 (which, unlike most other spending-mandate props, funded itself with a 1% tax on income over $1 million).

Prop 1F denies raises to legislators when the budget is in deficit. Asm. Laird remarked that although the proposition is mostly about grandstanding, and will have no impact on the budget, he does agree with the principle that when teachers and policemen are facing cuts, it is unseemly for legislators to get raises; this was the same reason that 1F was supported at the convention.

Laird said that he is “grudgingly” planning to vote for the propositions. He is concerned that if they fail, the Republicans will be able to create a narrative about Californians rejecting tax increases (which were part of the current budget, and part of Prop 1A). He feels that it is important to end the two-thirds budget rule; to require future propositions that mandate spending to include corresponding revenue sources; to reform or end term limits so that legislators are able to learn more about the budget process before getting termed out; and to get clean money rules in place to ensure that legislators are not beholden to wealthy donors who oppose progressive taxation.

After speaking to these issues, Asm. Laird opened the floor for questions – I didn’t capture all of the Q&A session, and some of the questions were not directly pertinent to the propositions.

My own question was about whether Arnold might sign off on “fees” if 1A fails. Laird said that even if Arnold did so, the anti-tax Republicans would immediately challenge the issue in court, and get a proposition campaign under way – the fees would not help with the budget for the next year or two. So if 1A fails, the only real option is to go all-out for a reform of the two-thirds rule, and this is a politically difficult fight; just a few years ago, 65% of voters rejected a reform. Polls say that a reform that retains the two-thirds rule just for tax hikes (not the budget as a whole) could pass; switching from majority to 55% or 60% makes little difference. Laird noted at this point that the two-thirds rule as originally written only applied when the economy was growing rapidly – when the economy was up at least 5% from the previous year. Legislators and the public felt that when revenues were growing fast, it was important to have strong consensus about new investments and programs. Ironically, the conditional clause was removed to “streamline” the budget process – California’s economy grew for much of the twentieth century, and seldom suffered a serious contraction, and it was considered a nuisance to certify the growth rate every year.

Another questioner asked, simply, what the downside of 1A is, in Laird’s view – he said that basically, it trades two years of revenue enhancement for a permanent ratcheting-down of public investment, due to the way the rainy day fund rules prevent us from devoting windfalls in good years on infrastructure or other investments.

The final question was about why people support the two-thirds rule. Asm. Laird said he thinks that people tend to recognize their direct tax bill, but fail to see how failure to invest taxes them, by taking risks with the road and water infrastructure that supports day-to-day life and business, or by making education and healthcare more expensive and less accessible.

I personally feel like the big question here is still about what will happen if/when the propositions go down. I wish the Dems in the legislature, and in other offices (mayors, executive officers, etc) were getting more coordinated about framing this debate. The legislators came up with a budget, and they tried to find a compromise with the GOP, but the incentives for each GOP legislator are all in favor of obstruction. GOP legislators refuse to even say what changes, within reason, would induce them to vote for a budget. If it comes down to a government shutdown, we need to be clear that it's the obstructionist minority that's causing it, and that the fix is to end the two-thirds rule.

While you were out...

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:50:42 GMT

Catching up on Paul Krugman's blog, I learn that the nation's top expert on economic inequality received a major award, the torture memo judge basically confessed (though he doesn't seem to understand that what he did is actually a problem), and Iceland elected a lesbian prime minister.

Back on convention news, I forgot to mention that I had met Eric Bauman, the new party Vice-Chair, at the Red to Blue Dinner. I saw him as the dinner was getting over, and went by to congratulate him, and mention that the PYD Endorsements Committee had been very impressed when we interviewed him, but our endorsement had become moot because his opponent dropped out. He apparently actually runs his own Facebook account, because he recognized me from my photo there. In any case, he seems to be pretty dedicated to getting his people down in SoCal active in red counties, along the same lines as the assistance that folks around here gave to Jerry McNerney. Very encouraging.

On the negative side, or maybe just the weird side, California Republicans declared over the weekend that we are not having a drought. In fact, in the print version of the story, there's a banner headline: "McClintock Doubts Drought". Never mind that the pumps that normally pull water into our plumbing are literally high and dry, with the water having withdrawn to several feet below them -- there is no drought! Rejoice! That headline was being passed around the convention floor, for laughs. McClintock is the carpetbagging SoCal career politician who just barely edged out Lt. Col. Charlie Brown -- a decorated Air Force veteran who has served with both the police dep't and the public schools in Roseville -- because apparently the GOP'ers in that district are that scared of "socialism". Perhaps McClintock and his fellow wingnuts will next solve our oil problems by declaring that cars run on fairy dust, and that homes can be heated by thinking warm thoughts.

Convention

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:33:06 GMT

Came up late on Thu night after getting out of a Kinko's at 11pm. Crashed at dragondawn420's place at 1am. Got to the Convention Center a bit after 9am Friday. Helped set up Hilary Crosby for CDP Controller booth. Hilary is a CPA whose practice for three decades has been working with nonprofits. She helped get the books in order, and streamline fiscal processes, for the California Democratic Council (which is basically a statewide alliance of grassroots clubs). Spent a bunch of time at the booth, handing out stickers and such. We were running a little contest, guessing the number of chocolate-covered espresso beans in a jar, next to a sign that said, "Wanna know how many beans there are? Hire a bean counter!" (Hilary's incumbent opponent, although a nice guy and a good fundraiser, is not an accountant, and many of us felt that he had been lax about identifying and calling out some shady practices in terms of how funds were transferred to Nuñez when he was Assembly Speaker.)

Went to Business and Professional Caucus. Got elected Treasurer. There was a bit of drama, because our Secretary and Chair did not arrive until minutes before the caucus was scheduled to get underway. This, combined with the fact that the party doesn't schedule any time between caucuses, led to chaos in the sign-in process, and the Chair was trying to drive the agenda forward as fast as possible as soon as people got in. The autocratic approach backfired, and folks nominated a new secretary, who won the vote 19-12. He seems like an OK guy to me (and since I'm going to have to work with him to keep our records in order -- McCain-Feingold violations are a VERY BAD THING -- I'm trying to smooth things over and get along) but our chair and ex-secretary are, understandably, fairly ticked off...

Went from caucus to B&P dinner event. Dinner was problematic as well. We'd had something like 50 people originally signed up to fill the room we'd reserved, plus a waitlist; we actually got moved to a room with space for ~70, to accomodate some of the waitlist. But then, in fact, about half of the original 50 failed to show up -- maybe waylaid in the Progressive Caucus (which is always a madhouse), or maybe just folks who aren't so good at keeping commitments -- GRR). We ended up with 37 diners, but we were on the hook for a minimum of 50, so we'll have to send out a letter to the folks who signed up but didn't show, and explain that it's between them and their conscience whether they help make up the dent that put in our treasury.

(On the bright side, the dinner itself was delicious -- a light green salad, ravioli in a champagne-cream pesto sauce, chicken with lemon beurre-blanc, mustard-buttermilk mashed potatoes, and some steamed carrots and brocolli and yellow squash.)

Christa arrived towards the end of the dinner; she'd had to work, but then came up on the train, which dropped off right near the restaurant where the B&P dinner was. We went over to a cocktail party, where Jim Dean was appearing in place of Howard (who was arriving late, I guess due to travel issues?), along with Kamala Harris. The venue had no speakers/mic -- technology FAIL! -- so the poor speakers had to try to hollar over the crowd, with folks at the back refusing to shut up when shushed -- respect FAIL!

Saturday I did some more work with Hilary's campaign (putting together signs, marching around for visibility; standing with a gang of sign-wavers in front of the podium with a sign when she was speaking to the General Session). Her speech, about her history, and the need for grassroots involvement in the party structure, and the importance of turning numbers into a narrative about how the party is doing, who our base is, etc, was really good. When I'd heard her speak when she was doing house parties and my County Committee, she'd been persuasive -- but this was inspiring. She did an amazing job framing the debate -- for all of the CDP officers, actually. The Vice-Chair and Chair races were also basically fought around transparency, responsiveness to the grassroots, using our donations effectively, funding a 58-county strategy where we help train a "farm team" of local officials to rise out of "red" areas, etc. Also got to run around completing the B&P's certification process, to ensure the caucus would continue to exist. Ran into Anna Eshoo while working on all that; I really need to talk with her at some point to see whether she'd be a reference for the resumés I'm sending out. :-)

Saturday night we went to the Take Back Red California dinner, where we actually did get to hear Howard Dean (though he gave a very short speech, so he could also go speak at another event as well, and to save material for his floor speech) as well as a bunch of our recent congressional candidates (including Jerry McNerney, who won, and Charlie Brown, who missed by a tiny margin). Xta had lost her VPN token, and was stressed throughout dinner. Fortunately, after dinner, I was able to find it for her -- it had been turned in at the CDP staff room. So that was good. Then went home and typed up the summary sheet to be turned in with B&P dues.

Christa didn't come back this morning, b/c she had to fly off on work travel; I think DD drove her to the airport. Will not be seeing her again til the end of the week.

I got here early, at 8am, and discovered that the Kinko's by the Convention Center is the only one I've ever seen that is not 24/7 -- it doesn't open til 10am on Sunday. You'd think that with the Conventions Center right by it, they'd get steady business any time there's a weekend event. I ended up going over to help pack up Hilary's booth, then went back out later. I ended up missing about two-third's of Howard's floor speech -- very annoyed. Turned in dues. Now am on the floor in general session; heard from Debra Bowen, and the head of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

Now we're hearing debate on the propositions. I'm kinda torn about them. Fundamentally, the question is whether we should accept the unpleasant compromise that was worked out with the SINGLE sorta-moderate Republican (which ties our budgeting process into even more knots, with a spending cap that very likely means that funding would wither as it lagged inflation), or whether we should kick things back to the legislature to try to come up with another budget. If we do that, my guess is that there will be no budget, and the government will shut down. That may be what we need to get through to the people of California that the two-thirds rule needs to go. But it's also hugely risky, both politically and economically. So tempers are pretty heated, and I have no idea what the outcome is going to be -- there seems to be a fair amount of noise in response to both sides, though it sounds like the Con side is more riled up, probably in part because the legislators and "establishment" types (who worked out the deal in the first place) are for it, so the grassroots types who are against. I've been waffling, was considering voting no endorsement. But it's really tough to vote, in the middle of a recession, for a collapse of gov't spending. Ended up voting for the Yes resolution, but it failed, 58-42. So, no party endorsement. Which I'm OK with.

May be tied up here for a while; we have to go through the rest of the propositions, and some bills before the legislature... Eventually I hope to get out of here and take DD out to dinner, since she put us up and saved me hotel costs.

Edited To Add: A friend who is in opposition to the props points out that, if they fail, one possibility is that the Dems will re-pass some revenue sources that Arnold previously vetoed. This was an argument over the definition of "fees" (which can be passed on a majority vote) versus "taxes" (which require a two-thirds vote under Prop 13). Arnold took the position that the stuff the Dems had passed was not really fees. The Republican legislators are actually apparently telling constituents to vote for the props because if they fail, Arnold will pass the Dems' revenue increases. Interesting stuff...

This special election is really important, and complicated, and is flying under most people's radar.

ETA: I think we're taking no position on 1A or 1D, endorsing Yes on 1B and 1C. 1E is currently being counted -- and the votes are just in, and we have no endorsement...

ETA: Back at DD's now. My guess won the jar of chocolate-covered espresso beans. Yay. Also, 1F was supported.

Two tix to SF Opera Porgy and Bess, Sun 6/21 2pm, sold out show.

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:00:58 GMT

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/tix/1136536665.html

I'm going to a different show with amberckerr and bostorus.

Writer's Block: Gamer's Choice

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:10:45 GMT

What is your favorite old-school video game?

Submitted By 2hated2care

View 503 Answers

Wait, I'm supposed to choose one? Also, just how old-school? Listing a few out by the platform I originally played them on...

NES: Zelda 2 -- I still say it was better than the original. Rygar. The original Final Fantasy.

PC: Bard's Tale. Star Control -- though mostly because it spawned Star Control 2. Starflight -- though again, the sequel (Trade Routes of the Cloud Nebula) was significantly better.

Mac: The Journeyman Project (1-3). Myst (and Riven and Exile).

Apple IIe: Bug Attack. Frogger. Lode Runner. Some early iteration of Carmen Sandiego. Many Infocom games.

Arcade: Gauntlet, Magic Sword.

I could probably keep going.

Know anyone who needs a room for the summer?

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:00:22 GMT

Xta and I are looking for another subletter. Our current roommate (who was already temporary anyway) got let go from his contract position in Menlo Park early, and is moving in with a friend where he can have cheaper rent at the end of April. So we're looking for yet ANOTHER subletter. We did the math on the foreclosure process for our house and at the earliest we could potentially be kicked out of here is August 15th. It is likely it will be significantly later than that. We're also in the process of investigating whether we want to just buy the place ourselves, so it's possible we will be here longer than that.

So we're looking for a subletter from May 1 to July 31 or possibly later. Which seems about perfect for someone with a summer internship. Do any of you know someone with an internship in the bay area who might be looking for a place? Here is our Craigslist ad.

ETA: Taken...

Bday dinner for Xta...

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:19:13 GMT

Triptych is very good. And has very friendly staff.

hot cider with soju and cinammon

local biodynamic savignon blanc (from Mendocino County, not sure what label, and the wine list on the website appears to be out of date)

arugala, red beets, pink grapefruit, goat cheese baked wrapped in leek leaves, and meyer lemon vinaigrette

butternut squash ravioli (done with the filling slightly sweet -- kind of like Afghan kadu) with wilted spinach, sage, browned butter, and (I think?) a touch of aged balsamic vinegar

osso buco -- braised pork over polenta, with a strip of crispy bacon and gremolata (finely minced garlic, parsley, lemon zest, and a bit of anchovy paste)

pear tart, Vouvray demisec (very strong pear and honey notes; forgot the label)

capuccino cake, ruby port (Robert Hall)

We also went to Clockwork afterwards. Good music. And their video loop included bits of an interesting looking film called The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello.

Financial collapse, and the civilizational variety.

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:52:21 GMT

This is a very important article. It's worth reading in its entirety, but I think this is the key message:

Typically, [countries that come to the IMF for help] are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason — the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. . . . From long years of experience, the IMF staff knows its program will succeed — stabilizing the economy and enabling growth — only if at least some of the powerful oligarchs who did so much to create the underlying problems take a hit.

This is kind of the point of Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. If the elites who are able to make the big decisions about what activities a society invests in are disconnected from the consequences of their decisions -- if they are not held accountable for the risks they take -- they will inevitably risk the survival of the society. This is one of the biggest arguments for nationalizing the banks and wiping out the shareholders and managers who renedered them insolvent.

I posted a somewhat intemperate argument against Geithner's current actions a few days ago... (It also included a rant against the ConservaDems who are undermining the president's tax and budget ideas. I stand by that portion entirely.) Re: Geithner, I've since come to believe, tentatively, that he may have a good idea, if it serves as a glide path to nationalizing some of the banks.

Basically, the argument for the Geithner plan, as outlined by John Hempton, is that the plan is not big enough to be a solution, but is big enough to make the "stress test" mechanism work, because it will provide good pricing information to figure out the real value of the banks' balance sheets. I think Hempton's resistance to nationalization is overwrought, but he does have a point that creating a clear, predictable method of understanding which banks are being nationalized, and which aren't, will help reduce uncertainty in secondary credit markets.

You have to consider whether you think the amount of money being put at risk, through the FDIC -- which may be recoverable through higher insurance premia to the banks later, or may come out of the taxpayers' pockets -- is worthwhile, to establish this fair/predictable mechanism and reduce worries in the credit markets. If the plan really does cause long-term interest rates to drop another few points, helping out folks (including the state and federal gov'ts) who want to invest in infrastructure, new manufacturing capacity for cleantech, and so on... then I'd have to admit that, yeah, it probably is worthwhile.

I'm still concerned about the fact that this pricing mechanism probably has an upward bias. In theory, though, the stress-testing could account for this, discounting the prices discovered in this market by say, 20-30%.

So, if Geithner actually uses the market as a mechanism for pricing bank assets and then nationalizing the insolvent ones, I will take back any bad things I have said about him. But given that he (and Obama) appear to be in thrall to the idea that nationalization is un-American and that Wall Street knows best how to fix itself, that's an awfully big if. We can pray that they are merely buying time, planning to execute the eventual nationalization over a long weekend, preventing much market chaos in the process.

ETA: In unrelated news, Paul Krugman is on the cover of Newsweek, and has accordingly issued a warning that, in light of the Magazine Cover Curse, he no longer trusts himself. As he once wrote, "Whom the gods would destroy, they first put on the cover of Business Week."

ETA: There's a fairly exhaustive set of links to various arguments for and against Geithner in this post, which I found because Krugman responded to the argument in it.