As y'all know, I am of Italian descent and a fairly good cook (much to my gf's delight). Last night, I was asked if I would ever use jarred or canned tomato sauce - actually it was Prego, but the thought is the same - and I answered, "never." The reason is fairly simple - basic tomato sauce is ridiculously easy to make, and its cheaper and better than the jarred stuff.
Now, before I give you the details, let me be clear that this is basic tomato sauce - a quick cooked sauce. This is not "sauce" - the long cooked tomato sauce we all know and love. That kind of sauce you can't get out of a jar, and takes forever to make. This recipe (and its really more a technique than a recipe) is for the sauce making while cooking your pasta. So here goes.
Step 1: Put a gallon of salted water in a pot, and turn the heat to high. Cover.
Step 2 (optional): If you want to make a tomato sauce with zucchini, eggplant, mushrooms, now would be the time to saute them until golden brown and remove. If not, go to step three.
Step 3: In a flat bottomed wok or a saucier (and I'm guessing we all have the flat bottomed woks), put 2-3 teaspoons of extra virgin olive oil, 2-3 cloves of garlic (sliced, smashed or whole, your call), a pinch of red pepper flakes, a pinch of dried oregano and a pinch of salt in the pan. Turn the heat on medium.
OPTIONS - if you undertake step three, you are making a basic tomato sauce. For an amatricana sauce, replace the garlic with a 1/2 of a small onion diced, and 2 strips of bacon, diced. For puttanesca, throw in some anchovy paste, capers and Gaeta or kalamata olives in addition to the garlic.
Step 4: As soon as the garlic begins to color (we want VERY little color on the garlic), add in 1/2 a can, or 14 oz. of crushed tomatoes. If you want to get all fancy, buy the whole San Marzano tomatoes, crush them by hand in a bowl, and then add them. Really your call. Also, add about a 1/2 cup of white wine (helps wake up the tomato flavors).
Step 5 (optional): If you want to add a bit more vegetation, here's your chance. I typically add about a handful of chopped frozen spinach.
Step 6: Turn down the heat so that the sauce is simmering.
Step 7: When the water starts to boil, add your pasta (I'd go with around 3/4 of a pound). Stir the pasta to make sure it doesn't stick.
Step 8: Taste your sauce. If its kinda bland, add some salt. If its too acidic, add either a bit of sugar or (BETTER) a teaspoon of honey.
Step 9: When the pasta is finished cooking, remove from the pot, and drain. Put the drained pasta into the wok with the sauce. Turn up the heat to high.
Step 10: Stir the pasta and the sauce so that the pasta is coated with the sauce. Turn off the heat. Add your finishing touches - I like romano cheese, a bit of black pepper and some olive oil. If you have basil, now is the time to add it.
And really, that's it. Ten steps, two of which are optional. From this basic recipe, I can make basic tomato sauce, puttanesca sauce, amatricana sauce, pasta alla Norma, pasta alla Caruso, and probably a couple of other sauces.
Showing posts with label your mom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label your mom. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Sad Truths (hopefully, vol. 1)
As Bogart has repeatedly pointed out, I'm a pretty big firebomber when it comes to politics. That said, I would really would like to have a legitimate conversation about politics and policy in this country, and try to come up with solutions to problems. With that in mind, the following includes sad truths that conservatives must accept. I invite my conservative readers (all three of you - which is about half of my regular readership) to pen a similar post, and I will post it on this blog. So here goes:
Sad Truths That Conservatives Must Accept
1. Obama was born in the United States
Sure, Obama has a funny name, a weird personal history, and all that. But let's be clear, his birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, the local papers announced his birth as being in Hawaii back in the 1960's, and the Governor of Hawaii (who was friends with Obama's parents) remembers visiting Obama's parents in a Honolulu hospital. The dude was born in the States. Get over it.
2. Obama is a Christian
Look, I'll concede that Obama's father and stepfather were, at least in theory, Muslims, but its also clear that Obama was raised by his Christian grandparents, and by the time he was starting out as an organizer in Chicago, he was pretty much agnostic. He then converted to Christianity, not for show, but for real. Remember the whole Jeremiah Wright thing? Obama credited the guy with converting him, which is why he didn't immediately throw Wright under the bus - and instead gave one of the most reasoned, impassioned speeches on race in America, ever. If you listen to his speeches, he refers to the Bible (the Christian Bible) over and over again.
3. Evolution is Real
For those of you out there that think that evolution is "just a theory" keep this in mind - evolution, the process by which organisms change to suit their surroundings has been observed thousands of times in thousands of conditions. In other words, species evolve. The only theoretical part about evolution is the how. Does it occur all at once or gradually? What are the mechanisms that cause it to happen? Why do some species evolve and others do not? But there is no question whatsoever that evolution is real, and that its occurring.
4. Global Climate Change is Real
First of all, as a San Diegan who went through an entire summer where the Sun did not come out at all, I can tell you that the weather is totally bizarre lately. We've seen bigger than ever storms, severe droughts, crazy shit all over. Now, what's causing the craziness? The overall temperature of the Earth is warming, which means there's more heat than before, and heat is energy, and energy makes shit go crazy. That's physics 101. So, what's causing increase in heat? Well, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than before - something that has been measured by scientists over the past 50 years, and studied by measuring the carbon dioxide levels in air trapped in glaciers. So, what's causing the carbon dioxide? Well, let's see: carbon dioxide is created when carbon burns, and in the past 150 years, human beings have gotten really, really good at burning carbon, and the population of humans has quadrupled. All of this comes from science. Not science paid for by oil companies, but from independent scientists. And here's the thing, before a scientist can publish his results, he/she has to make sure everything is perfect so that other scientists can reproduce his or her results. In other words, a good scientific paper is like a cake recipe - its worth is in being able to show the same findings over and over again.
5. Fox News is Lying to You
Fox News likes to tell its viewers that its news is fair and balanced. Its not. On a regular basis, Fox tells its reporters and on-air personalities to shade the truth. Check this out. The whole, Obama is a socialist meme is fake. If anything, Obama is a cross between a New Deal Democrat and a Clintonian, pro-business Dem. Anyway, this makes sense because Fox News' business model is all about giving news a conservative spin. That is different from CNN because CNN's business model is all about being an objective purveyor of the news (which they suck at, and thus, CNN is unwatchable, but that's another story). So, Fox News doesn't get viewers by being accurate, it gets them by riling them up. The more of you who believe Obama is a socialist and the anti-Christ and a secret Muslim hell bent on destroying the country, the more of you watch Fox to gather updates on the impending doom, the more money Fox makes.
6. All Corporations are Amoral
This is one that I have to teach liberals as well. Corporations are not evil, but they're not good either. Rather, corporations exist for one purpose only - to make money. Not to save the environment, or to protect puppies, or to instill good, Christian values, but to make money. They may make money by helping people, or by screwing people, but they must make money. If they don't, their shareholders will get pissed and fire everyone. The only thing that distinguishes corporations is how they make money. Ford makes money by selling cars, Google makes money by selling internet advertising. But ultimately, they exist to make money.
I bring up this point because as a result of this single-mindedness, corporations will do both good and bad things. They will produce products we all want, but may use sloppy and dangerous methods to produce the products. They hire employees, but seek to pay them as little as possible. And corporations have shown no qualms about killing their customers with their products so long as it does not affect the bottom line. At the same time, corporations drive the economy, make cool shit, and put money in our pockets.
So, the way I think of corporations is like how I think of my dog - he provides great companionship, is friendly to humans and dogs, gets my ass off the couch, and is a good watchdog. But he has an intense desire to kill small furry animals - cats, squirrels, rabbits, etc. - and so when I walk him, I have to keep him on a short leash. Similarly, regulations have to exist to some degree to prevent corporations from leg-humping or worse. But liberals have to keep in mind is that we have to give corporations some ability to operate.
Sad Truths That Conservatives Must Accept
1. Obama was born in the United States
Sure, Obama has a funny name, a weird personal history, and all that. But let's be clear, his birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, the local papers announced his birth as being in Hawaii back in the 1960's, and the Governor of Hawaii (who was friends with Obama's parents) remembers visiting Obama's parents in a Honolulu hospital. The dude was born in the States. Get over it.
2. Obama is a Christian
Look, I'll concede that Obama's father and stepfather were, at least in theory, Muslims, but its also clear that Obama was raised by his Christian grandparents, and by the time he was starting out as an organizer in Chicago, he was pretty much agnostic. He then converted to Christianity, not for show, but for real. Remember the whole Jeremiah Wright thing? Obama credited the guy with converting him, which is why he didn't immediately throw Wright under the bus - and instead gave one of the most reasoned, impassioned speeches on race in America, ever. If you listen to his speeches, he refers to the Bible (the Christian Bible) over and over again.
3. Evolution is Real
For those of you out there that think that evolution is "just a theory" keep this in mind - evolution, the process by which organisms change to suit their surroundings has been observed thousands of times in thousands of conditions. In other words, species evolve. The only theoretical part about evolution is the how. Does it occur all at once or gradually? What are the mechanisms that cause it to happen? Why do some species evolve and others do not? But there is no question whatsoever that evolution is real, and that its occurring.
4. Global Climate Change is Real
First of all, as a San Diegan who went through an entire summer where the Sun did not come out at all, I can tell you that the weather is totally bizarre lately. We've seen bigger than ever storms, severe droughts, crazy shit all over. Now, what's causing the craziness? The overall temperature of the Earth is warming, which means there's more heat than before, and heat is energy, and energy makes shit go crazy. That's physics 101. So, what's causing increase in heat? Well, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than before - something that has been measured by scientists over the past 50 years, and studied by measuring the carbon dioxide levels in air trapped in glaciers. So, what's causing the carbon dioxide? Well, let's see: carbon dioxide is created when carbon burns, and in the past 150 years, human beings have gotten really, really good at burning carbon, and the population of humans has quadrupled. All of this comes from science. Not science paid for by oil companies, but from independent scientists. And here's the thing, before a scientist can publish his results, he/she has to make sure everything is perfect so that other scientists can reproduce his or her results. In other words, a good scientific paper is like a cake recipe - its worth is in being able to show the same findings over and over again.
5. Fox News is Lying to You
Fox News likes to tell its viewers that its news is fair and balanced. Its not. On a regular basis, Fox tells its reporters and on-air personalities to shade the truth. Check this out. The whole, Obama is a socialist meme is fake. If anything, Obama is a cross between a New Deal Democrat and a Clintonian, pro-business Dem. Anyway, this makes sense because Fox News' business model is all about giving news a conservative spin. That is different from CNN because CNN's business model is all about being an objective purveyor of the news (which they suck at, and thus, CNN is unwatchable, but that's another story). So, Fox News doesn't get viewers by being accurate, it gets them by riling them up. The more of you who believe Obama is a socialist and the anti-Christ and a secret Muslim hell bent on destroying the country, the more of you watch Fox to gather updates on the impending doom, the more money Fox makes.
6. All Corporations are Amoral
This is one that I have to teach liberals as well. Corporations are not evil, but they're not good either. Rather, corporations exist for one purpose only - to make money. Not to save the environment, or to protect puppies, or to instill good, Christian values, but to make money. They may make money by helping people, or by screwing people, but they must make money. If they don't, their shareholders will get pissed and fire everyone. The only thing that distinguishes corporations is how they make money. Ford makes money by selling cars, Google makes money by selling internet advertising. But ultimately, they exist to make money.
I bring up this point because as a result of this single-mindedness, corporations will do both good and bad things. They will produce products we all want, but may use sloppy and dangerous methods to produce the products. They hire employees, but seek to pay them as little as possible. And corporations have shown no qualms about killing their customers with their products so long as it does not affect the bottom line. At the same time, corporations drive the economy, make cool shit, and put money in our pockets.
So, the way I think of corporations is like how I think of my dog - he provides great companionship, is friendly to humans and dogs, gets my ass off the couch, and is a good watchdog. But he has an intense desire to kill small furry animals - cats, squirrels, rabbits, etc. - and so when I walk him, I have to keep him on a short leash. Similarly, regulations have to exist to some degree to prevent corporations from leg-humping or worse. But liberals have to keep in mind is that we have to give corporations some ability to operate.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Beer and Monogamy
Ah, the glories of the internet. Without it, I would never have found this article linking alcohol consumption with monogamy. After reading the journal article, there is certainly a question as to whether or not alcohol consumption and monogamy have a specious relationship, like storks and babies (there is a positive correlation between stork populations and birth rates in Sweden caused by the fact that storks live in rural areas where the residents have more kids), or a positive correlation. Unfortunately, the authors never really describe why there is a positive correlation between alcohol consumption and monogamy that exists to this day.
So, why is it that alcohol consumption = (at least in theory) monogamy? If I had to speculation, I would say that the reason is beer goggles. That is, the tendency of drunk people to engage in riskier sex than they normally would (and alcohol, we love you for it). This tendency leads to some problems, especially in the area of determining the parentage of the child. Plus, there are some drunken hook-ups that should never be discussed (beer - helping ugly people breed since 1800 b.c.) What's interesting about monogamy is that its a statement that all children born to the wife are assumed to be the children of the husband. All other relationships with other women, under the Roman/Greek version of monogamy, as stated in the article, are strictly informal, and the children produced were considered illegitimate. Problems with beer goggles solved.
As women gained more equality, there was a push to do away with informal polygyny (because, apparently, women don't like it when their men have sex with other women), and we are left with what we have today.
In the more, ahem, sober world, there was no need to worry about spontaneous hook-ups because, well, everyone was sober. So, rather than informalize relationships - to the point of ignoring their existence - these societies formalize them into marriages. The problem is that polygyny is inherently biased towards younger, poorer males - the exact kind of people who tend to do fun things like lead revolts and commit crimes - because they can't compete with older, richer men for mates.
Anyway, for whatever the reason, HOORAY BEER!!!
So, why is it that alcohol consumption = (at least in theory) monogamy? If I had to speculation, I would say that the reason is beer goggles. That is, the tendency of drunk people to engage in riskier sex than they normally would (and alcohol, we love you for it). This tendency leads to some problems, especially in the area of determining the parentage of the child. Plus, there are some drunken hook-ups that should never be discussed (beer - helping ugly people breed since 1800 b.c.) What's interesting about monogamy is that its a statement that all children born to the wife are assumed to be the children of the husband. All other relationships with other women, under the Roman/Greek version of monogamy, as stated in the article, are strictly informal, and the children produced were considered illegitimate. Problems with beer goggles solved.
As women gained more equality, there was a push to do away with informal polygyny (because, apparently, women don't like it when their men have sex with other women), and we are left with what we have today.
In the more, ahem, sober world, there was no need to worry about spontaneous hook-ups because, well, everyone was sober. So, rather than informalize relationships - to the point of ignoring their existence - these societies formalize them into marriages. The problem is that polygyny is inherently biased towards younger, poorer males - the exact kind of people who tend to do fun things like lead revolts and commit crimes - because they can't compete with older, richer men for mates.
Anyway, for whatever the reason, HOORAY BEER!!!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Random Thoughts Blogging. . .
Okay, random is never the right word - rather, these are thoughts that I had that I don't want to have their own post.
1) Failures of the Democratic Party
When I look at what has gone wrong over the past four years of Democratic control of Congress, and the past two years of controlling all of government, I am struck by how ill-prepared the Democratic Party was to rule. And here's what I mean - whereas the GOP has a governing philosophy, the Democrats define themselves by not being the GOP. Sure, there is a laundry list of things to do, but Democrats can't agree on their own political philosophy, while Republicans do their best to comport to "conservativism," consequences be damned.
So, when the Democrats took power, their only goal was to dismantle everything Bush did, and then they got caught up in the storm of economic crises, wars, etc. But there was and is no clear economic vision. To this day, I don't know what Obama's vision for America is, and that's largely because he's been trying to keep the economy afloat.
This failure of leadership and vision is probably what's killing us now. The economy is stable, businesses have the cash to invest and move forward, but no one knows what the future will hold, so these companies are holding back. Had Obama set forth his vision, a vision in line with a Democratic Party philosophy of economics, we would be in a different spot then we're in now.
2) Padres Trading Away Adrian Gonzalez
As a Padres fan, this trade was painful. I knew it was bound to happen, but this trade lays bare all the problems in baseball. Here, the Padres traded away their best player, a team leader, a local boy done good (he credits his power to carne asada burritos), and an all around good guy, for prospects because they couldn't afford to resign him in a year. This may be a broken record, but when a mid-market team like the Padres can't afford to pay its best player, then there are serious problems in baseball.
3) The Yankees are Douchebags
There are two reasons why the Yankees didn't sign Cliff Lee: 1) their fans spit on and heckled Cliff Lee's wife during the playoffs; and 2) the organization went out of its way to embarrass Derek Jeter. Now sure, Jeter is overrated as a baseball player, but Jeter is Mr. Yankee - a guy who willingly took up the Ruth/Gerhig/DiMaggio mantle and wore it proudly. There are maybe 5 guys in baseball who could do the same. . .no fuck that, there's only Derek Jeter. So, if I was not a Yankee, but offered money to be one, I would have to think long and hard. If the Yankees are willing to throw Jeter under the bus, they'd throw anyone under the bus. There was no way in hell Lee was joining the Yankees after that spectacle.
4) I'm having a hard time getting excited for football this season
Maybe its a reaction to how up and down the Chargers are this year, maybe its because my dog reacts whenever I yell at the TV (he thinks I'm barking at a squirrel or something and goes nuts), but I'm just not into football this season. Sure, I'm enjoying it, but I'm not as into football as I have been in the past.
1) Failures of the Democratic Party
When I look at what has gone wrong over the past four years of Democratic control of Congress, and the past two years of controlling all of government, I am struck by how ill-prepared the Democratic Party was to rule. And here's what I mean - whereas the GOP has a governing philosophy, the Democrats define themselves by not being the GOP. Sure, there is a laundry list of things to do, but Democrats can't agree on their own political philosophy, while Republicans do their best to comport to "conservativism," consequences be damned.
So, when the Democrats took power, their only goal was to dismantle everything Bush did, and then they got caught up in the storm of economic crises, wars, etc. But there was and is no clear economic vision. To this day, I don't know what Obama's vision for America is, and that's largely because he's been trying to keep the economy afloat.
This failure of leadership and vision is probably what's killing us now. The economy is stable, businesses have the cash to invest and move forward, but no one knows what the future will hold, so these companies are holding back. Had Obama set forth his vision, a vision in line with a Democratic Party philosophy of economics, we would be in a different spot then we're in now.
2) Padres Trading Away Adrian Gonzalez
As a Padres fan, this trade was painful. I knew it was bound to happen, but this trade lays bare all the problems in baseball. Here, the Padres traded away their best player, a team leader, a local boy done good (he credits his power to carne asada burritos), and an all around good guy, for prospects because they couldn't afford to resign him in a year. This may be a broken record, but when a mid-market team like the Padres can't afford to pay its best player, then there are serious problems in baseball.
3) The Yankees are Douchebags
There are two reasons why the Yankees didn't sign Cliff Lee: 1) their fans spit on and heckled Cliff Lee's wife during the playoffs; and 2) the organization went out of its way to embarrass Derek Jeter. Now sure, Jeter is overrated as a baseball player, but Jeter is Mr. Yankee - a guy who willingly took up the Ruth/Gerhig/DiMaggio mantle and wore it proudly. There are maybe 5 guys in baseball who could do the same. . .no fuck that, there's only Derek Jeter. So, if I was not a Yankee, but offered money to be one, I would have to think long and hard. If the Yankees are willing to throw Jeter under the bus, they'd throw anyone under the bus. There was no way in hell Lee was joining the Yankees after that spectacle.
4) I'm having a hard time getting excited for football this season
Maybe its a reaction to how up and down the Chargers are this year, maybe its because my dog reacts whenever I yell at the TV (he thinks I'm barking at a squirrel or something and goes nuts), but I'm just not into football this season. Sure, I'm enjoying it, but I'm not as into football as I have been in the past.
Monday, December 13, 2010
A Case for a Higher Marginal Tax Rate*
I could write this post and discuss why Obama is a dumbass, etc., but rather than parrot what everyone else is saying, let me say this - having a high marginal tax rate (the rate on the highest income earners) is good. Now, I'm sure you're thinking that, since Phat Jim is a liberal/leftie/commie/pinko/socialist, that I support high taxes so as to take from the rich and give to the poor. After all, I'm a tax and spend liberal right?
Wrong.
A high marginal tax rate has the added benefit of redistributing wealth, and paying for social programs, and it makes sense to take money from the wealthiest people who can afford to go with less so that the government can pay its bills. But that's not why I think a high marginal tax rate is good.
What its really about is changing behavior. Specifically, its about getting CEO's and bank executives to look long-term instead of short term. When the marginal tax rate is relatively low (35% right now), high income earners have every incentive to maximize profit now - and before any feared income tax increase. So, rather than putting profits into shoring up the company for downturns, or investing in research, or whatnot, the motivation is to make money NOW.
The end result, as we've seen over and over again, is that more and more money goes to the executives and fewer and fewer money goes elsewhere. Or, worse yet, the company pursues short term profit over long-term gain. Then the company collapses into itself. We have seen this boom/bust cycle move from industry to industry for the past twenty years - twenty years that have coincided with the drop in the marginal tax rate. Not surprisingly, this boom-bust cycle we're seeing now is almost exactly the same cycle as we saw prior to the economic reforms of the New Deal, when the marginal tax rate increased, and which had come to an end after taxes were raised.
Now, don't get me wrong - paying taxes sucks major donkey di. . .okay to humor my fourth reader, I will avoid profanity here. Paying taxes, for the individual, is a terrible thing, and no one wants to pay taxes. But like speed limits, a higher tax rate is good for the country as a whole. Additionally, if we raise the marginal income tax rate, but keep other tax rates lower, such as capital gains on long term investments, etc., we can funnel money towards capital investment (which is what would happen anyway), and ease the burden. What you will definitely see, though, is a sudden and precipitous drop on executive pay, which everyone agrees is too high.
*****WARNING DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE BELOW DO NOT READ***********
So, paying taxes may suck major donkey dick, but that donkey is the United States, and it is in desperate need to get off.
*****END OF DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE RESUME READING*******
And that is why a higher marginal tax rate would be a good idea.
*Also known as "Bogart Baiting"
Wrong.
A high marginal tax rate has the added benefit of redistributing wealth, and paying for social programs, and it makes sense to take money from the wealthiest people who can afford to go with less so that the government can pay its bills. But that's not why I think a high marginal tax rate is good.
What its really about is changing behavior. Specifically, its about getting CEO's and bank executives to look long-term instead of short term. When the marginal tax rate is relatively low (35% right now), high income earners have every incentive to maximize profit now - and before any feared income tax increase. So, rather than putting profits into shoring up the company for downturns, or investing in research, or whatnot, the motivation is to make money NOW.
The end result, as we've seen over and over again, is that more and more money goes to the executives and fewer and fewer money goes elsewhere. Or, worse yet, the company pursues short term profit over long-term gain. Then the company collapses into itself. We have seen this boom/bust cycle move from industry to industry for the past twenty years - twenty years that have coincided with the drop in the marginal tax rate. Not surprisingly, this boom-bust cycle we're seeing now is almost exactly the same cycle as we saw prior to the economic reforms of the New Deal, when the marginal tax rate increased, and which had come to an end after taxes were raised.
Now, don't get me wrong - paying taxes sucks major donkey di. . .okay to humor my fourth reader, I will avoid profanity here. Paying taxes, for the individual, is a terrible thing, and no one wants to pay taxes. But like speed limits, a higher tax rate is good for the country as a whole. Additionally, if we raise the marginal income tax rate, but keep other tax rates lower, such as capital gains on long term investments, etc., we can funnel money towards capital investment (which is what would happen anyway), and ease the burden. What you will definitely see, though, is a sudden and precipitous drop on executive pay, which everyone agrees is too high.
*****WARNING DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE BELOW DO NOT READ***********
So, paying taxes may suck major donkey dick, but that donkey is the United States, and it is in desperate need to get off.
*****END OF DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE RESUME READING*******
And that is why a higher marginal tax rate would be a good idea.
*Also known as "Bogart Baiting"
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
I. Am. So. Pissed. Off. Right. Now.
Okay, that's not quite true. In the wake of the complete and utter disaster that was last night, I am more or less depressed. But to make a few of you happy, here are my thoughts:
1) Anger With Obama and the Democratic Leadership: In the last two years, Democrats had proof, actual, real proof, that Republican economic policy was a complete and utter failure, and they did nothing with it. No mortgage foreclosure reform. No bankruptcy reform. A stimulus that was completely limp and relied on tax cuts (which, by the way, don't do shit in a deflationary cycle). All we could do was stop the economic bleeding. Now, that would have been enough to explain to the voters, but oh, fucking, no, we can't do that.
Instead of actually governing, the Democratic "Leadership" fought amongst themselves - okay the Democrats in the Senate did the fighting - and we ended up with watered down everything. Anyway, it wasn't the liberals who fucked everything up. It was the moderates. The half-measures didn't help enough people, pissing off the moderates, and deflated the Democratic base. And guess what, when you lose even some of the base, you lose the election. The GOP figured this out thirty years ago.
So, I'm very, very angry with the Democratic Leadership right now. Okay, not with Nancy Pelosi, who did everything she was supposed to do.
2) Depressed Over Good People Losing: There were lots of good, smart people who lost yesterday. Russ Feingold worked his ass off for the people of Wisconsin, and lost because of the weak-kneed bullshit of his more conservative fellow Democrats.
Worst of all, for me personally, Howard Wayne lost to Lorie Zapf in the race for San Diego City Council. Howard Wayne was overqualified to be a City Councilman, and who cares about people. He might have dressed like a schlub, and wasn't a good public speaker, but Wayne is a true public servant who, when he isn't a public official, he is a public servant (literally - he is an Assistant AG). And he lost to Lorie Zapf, who hasn't done a goddamn thing in her life for the public good, and speaks in talking points. Ugh.
And here's where I get upset really - it would be one thing if Democrats lost to good, hard-working, smart, and well-deserving conservatives. But they didn't, for the most part. With the exception of Brian Sandoval - the next Governor of Nevada (and potentially huge problem for the Democrats in the future) - the GOP candidates were the dregs of the conservative movement. Let's face it, good conservatives don't run for office, they go out and make money. So instead of intelligent discourse, we're going to have talking points and lunatic conspiracy theories. Fucking great.
3) Fear for the Future: We have big, big problems in this country, and this next Congress isn't going to help fix any of them. If there's a government shutdown, we're going to end up in a full-blown deflationary cycle, and the economy will get worse. That's for certain. At best, we're looking at two years of gridlock. At worst, two years of Democratic capitulation. Fuck.
4) Hope: At least in California, we got Jerry Brown, almost passed Prop. 19, and rejected Prop. 23. There is some hope for the future. Some.
1) Anger With Obama and the Democratic Leadership: In the last two years, Democrats had proof, actual, real proof, that Republican economic policy was a complete and utter failure, and they did nothing with it. No mortgage foreclosure reform. No bankruptcy reform. A stimulus that was completely limp and relied on tax cuts (which, by the way, don't do shit in a deflationary cycle). All we could do was stop the economic bleeding. Now, that would have been enough to explain to the voters, but oh, fucking, no, we can't do that.
Instead of actually governing, the Democratic "Leadership" fought amongst themselves - okay the Democrats in the Senate did the fighting - and we ended up with watered down everything. Anyway, it wasn't the liberals who fucked everything up. It was the moderates. The half-measures didn't help enough people, pissing off the moderates, and deflated the Democratic base. And guess what, when you lose even some of the base, you lose the election. The GOP figured this out thirty years ago.
So, I'm very, very angry with the Democratic Leadership right now. Okay, not with Nancy Pelosi, who did everything she was supposed to do.
2) Depressed Over Good People Losing: There were lots of good, smart people who lost yesterday. Russ Feingold worked his ass off for the people of Wisconsin, and lost because of the weak-kneed bullshit of his more conservative fellow Democrats.
Worst of all, for me personally, Howard Wayne lost to Lorie Zapf in the race for San Diego City Council. Howard Wayne was overqualified to be a City Councilman, and who cares about people. He might have dressed like a schlub, and wasn't a good public speaker, but Wayne is a true public servant who, when he isn't a public official, he is a public servant (literally - he is an Assistant AG). And he lost to Lorie Zapf, who hasn't done a goddamn thing in her life for the public good, and speaks in talking points. Ugh.
And here's where I get upset really - it would be one thing if Democrats lost to good, hard-working, smart, and well-deserving conservatives. But they didn't, for the most part. With the exception of Brian Sandoval - the next Governor of Nevada (and potentially huge problem for the Democrats in the future) - the GOP candidates were the dregs of the conservative movement. Let's face it, good conservatives don't run for office, they go out and make money. So instead of intelligent discourse, we're going to have talking points and lunatic conspiracy theories. Fucking great.
3) Fear for the Future: We have big, big problems in this country, and this next Congress isn't going to help fix any of them. If there's a government shutdown, we're going to end up in a full-blown deflationary cycle, and the economy will get worse. That's for certain. At best, we're looking at two years of gridlock. At worst, two years of Democratic capitulation. Fuck.
4) Hope: At least in California, we got Jerry Brown, almost passed Prop. 19, and rejected Prop. 23. There is some hope for the future. Some.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Insensitivity?
I have a quick nit to pick with the media - stop referring to animus as "insensitivity." Today's example comes from ThinkProgress.org, which refers to Mike Pence's claim that stopping gay marriage is more important than the economy as "insensitivity to gay Americans." But Mike Pence isn't being insensitive to the LGBT community, he's declaring outright war against them.
Unfortunately, I see this time and time again when it comes to describing what politicians said. When Senator DeMint says that gays and sexually active women shouldn't be allowed to teach, he's not being insensitive to their interests, he's actively saying that all unmarried women are sluts, and gay men are pedophiles. That's not "insensitive," its an expression of antipathy (go ahead, look up the definition of antipathy, I'll wait). Is the KKK insensitive to African Americans and Jewish Americans? No, the KKK actually wants to forcibly remove all non-White people from the United States in as violent a way as possible.
All this leads to the ultimate non-apology, apology - I'm sorry if I said anything that offended you. My favorite examples of this include Trent Lott saying that he wished segregation still existed, the University of Colorado football coach who said it was okay for the kicker to be raped because she was a terrible kicker (definitely a reason to either quit the team, or play your best at all times), and let's see. . .I'm blanking now. But even though these guys said horrible things, its apparently the fault of the listener that they got offended. Um, no.
So please media, stop saying that someone is "insensitive" when in reality, the person is a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or a homophobe.
Unfortunately, I see this time and time again when it comes to describing what politicians said. When Senator DeMint says that gays and sexually active women shouldn't be allowed to teach, he's not being insensitive to their interests, he's actively saying that all unmarried women are sluts, and gay men are pedophiles. That's not "insensitive," its an expression of antipathy (go ahead, look up the definition of antipathy, I'll wait). Is the KKK insensitive to African Americans and Jewish Americans? No, the KKK actually wants to forcibly remove all non-White people from the United States in as violent a way as possible.
All this leads to the ultimate non-apology, apology - I'm sorry if I said anything that offended you. My favorite examples of this include Trent Lott saying that he wished segregation still existed, the University of Colorado football coach who said it was okay for the kicker to be raped because she was a terrible kicker (definitely a reason to either quit the team, or play your best at all times), and let's see. . .I'm blanking now. But even though these guys said horrible things, its apparently the fault of the listener that they got offended. Um, no.
So please media, stop saying that someone is "insensitive" when in reality, the person is a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or a homophobe.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
And Now For Something Completely Different. . .
With the political realm getting more and more depressing day by day, I figured I'd turn to a happier subject - the Padres! Not only are the Padres in first place, but they just swept the Dodgers to right the ship after a painful 10 game losing streak (though, to be fair, the Dodgers have given up).
Now, I have a theory about why the Padres have done so well this year - the weather. Okay, so last year, the Padres did very well down the stretch, having one of the best records in baseball for the second half of the year. Unfortunately, their first half of the season was so awful that it didn't mean all that much. Regardless, it looked like going into this year, the Padres would do about the same, or better, if they got good production from their young players.
Here's the thing - they didn't. Everth Cabrera, Will Venable, Tony Gywnn, Jr., and Kyle Blanks have all underperformed this year. But the Padres have been in first place since May for one big, big reason - totally and completely ridiculous pitching. If you look at the stats, you'll see that the Padres lead the league in almost every pitching category, and their bullpen has an ERA of around 2.* So, to win, the Padres' offense doesn't need to be good, just not terrible. And the offense this year falls between mediocre and reasonably good.
A lot of people point to Petco Park as the key reason for the Padres' success, others point to the Padres' talent in the bullpen. Both of those are factors, but the key difference, the one that is getting the Padres to the playoffs (hopefully), in my humble opinion, is the weather.
The weather in San Diego this summer has been completely bizarre - the low cloud formation that plagues us every spring (aka, "May Gray," "June Gloom" or "El Velo") lasted until mid-August. With the low clouds comes relatively cool weather, and higher humidity, both of which make the baseball break more when its pitched, and move less when its hit. So as the pitcher throws the baseball to a hitter at Petco, his curveball curves more in the cool, humid air at Petco, making the ball harder to hit. And then when the ball is hit, because its traveling through thicker air, the ball travels less than it normally would. All of this makes for a superior pitching. The Padres' hitters, meanwhile, are used to the conditions and have already adjusted for it.
Part of what makes me think that the weather has a role here is that when the low cloud thingy stopped in mid-August, the Padres went on a ten game losing streak, with the bullpen giving up leads almost every night. Then, the low clouds and cool weather returned, and suddenly the Padres are back to playing as they have all season.
*For you stat geeks, I know that ERA is a bad indication of a pitcher's abilities, but I don't understand all the sabermetrics stuff. I'm sure that there are a few statistics to describe how awesome the bullpen has been, and please share them if you want.
Now, I have a theory about why the Padres have done so well this year - the weather. Okay, so last year, the Padres did very well down the stretch, having one of the best records in baseball for the second half of the year. Unfortunately, their first half of the season was so awful that it didn't mean all that much. Regardless, it looked like going into this year, the Padres would do about the same, or better, if they got good production from their young players.
Here's the thing - they didn't. Everth Cabrera, Will Venable, Tony Gywnn, Jr., and Kyle Blanks have all underperformed this year. But the Padres have been in first place since May for one big, big reason - totally and completely ridiculous pitching. If you look at the stats, you'll see that the Padres lead the league in almost every pitching category, and their bullpen has an ERA of around 2.* So, to win, the Padres' offense doesn't need to be good, just not terrible. And the offense this year falls between mediocre and reasonably good.
A lot of people point to Petco Park as the key reason for the Padres' success, others point to the Padres' talent in the bullpen. Both of those are factors, but the key difference, the one that is getting the Padres to the playoffs (hopefully), in my humble opinion, is the weather.
The weather in San Diego this summer has been completely bizarre - the low cloud formation that plagues us every spring (aka, "May Gray," "June Gloom" or "El Velo") lasted until mid-August. With the low clouds comes relatively cool weather, and higher humidity, both of which make the baseball break more when its pitched, and move less when its hit. So as the pitcher throws the baseball to a hitter at Petco, his curveball curves more in the cool, humid air at Petco, making the ball harder to hit. And then when the ball is hit, because its traveling through thicker air, the ball travels less than it normally would. All of this makes for a superior pitching. The Padres' hitters, meanwhile, are used to the conditions and have already adjusted for it.
Part of what makes me think that the weather has a role here is that when the low cloud thingy stopped in mid-August, the Padres went on a ten game losing streak, with the bullpen giving up leads almost every night. Then, the low clouds and cool weather returned, and suddenly the Padres are back to playing as they have all season.
*For you stat geeks, I know that ERA is a bad indication of a pitcher's abilities, but I don't understand all the sabermetrics stuff. I'm sure that there are a few statistics to describe how awesome the bullpen has been, and please share them if you want.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Don't Get Fooled Again
During my freshman year at William & Mary, my freshman seminar class had a debate between a country lawyer Democrat and an Wall Street Republican. In the debate, the Republican crushed the Democrat when he attacked Bill Clinton over the weakening dollar. Now, the beating didn't occur because the Republican was right, but rather because the Democrat didn't have the foggiest understanding of economics. And when the Republican came to our class the next day, I managed to get the Republican to admit he was bullshitting about the weakening dollar because he knew the Democrat had no knowledge of economics.
From that moment on, I realized that if Democrats were going to win debates about the economy, they have to know economic theory, or else they'll get rolled by Republicans. And finally, we're in a situation where knowledge of economics is a good thing, and we end up getting cowed by the Republicans again. This tweet by John Boehner is the single most ignorant thing about the economy ever. He wants to create jobs by cutting government spending. . .Ugh.
Here's the problem with Boehner's prescription - we're not in an inflationary cycle, we're in a deflationary cycle. Yes, the Budget Deficit is huge, and normally that would mean that there would be large inflationary pressures, but there aren't. Inflation is phenomenally low at 1% (ish), and the economy still sucks. That's because we have a demand side recession - businesses and customers aren't spending - rather than a supply side shock - where there's no money to invest. Or, think 1940's instead of 1970's. So cutting government spending is like giving a laxative to someone who has diarrhea - its only going to make things worse because now no one will be spending.
Cutting taxes is a less stupid idea, but not exactly brilliant either. Again, there is no problem with the money supply - if anything, there is too little money in the economy right now, so increasing the monetary supply through tax cuts won't help at all. It might encourage some people to spend a little more, but not enough to help.
No, the only thing that will work here is a massive increase in domestic spending. Maybe not New Deal big, but close. That way, government spending will increase overall demand, and people will have jobs, etc. Now, I understand the whole, if we spend it, we'll end up spending it for a lifetime theory, so write in Sunset clauses into the spending legislation. But do something.
And ultimately that's the problem - right now there's no Democratic leader who's saying this. They're all cowed by the GOP rhetoric on the economy, even the dumb rhetoric. If I was Obama, I would make this case in a national address every single week until Congress passed the right legislation. Of course, what I'm saying is exactly what Paul Krugman, a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN ECONOMICS has been saying for the PAST YEAR AND A HALF, but what the fuck to we know. Ugh.
From that moment on, I realized that if Democrats were going to win debates about the economy, they have to know economic theory, or else they'll get rolled by Republicans. And finally, we're in a situation where knowledge of economics is a good thing, and we end up getting cowed by the Republicans again. This tweet by John Boehner is the single most ignorant thing about the economy ever. He wants to create jobs by cutting government spending. . .Ugh.
Here's the problem with Boehner's prescription - we're not in an inflationary cycle, we're in a deflationary cycle. Yes, the Budget Deficit is huge, and normally that would mean that there would be large inflationary pressures, but there aren't. Inflation is phenomenally low at 1% (ish), and the economy still sucks. That's because we have a demand side recession - businesses and customers aren't spending - rather than a supply side shock - where there's no money to invest. Or, think 1940's instead of 1970's. So cutting government spending is like giving a laxative to someone who has diarrhea - its only going to make things worse because now no one will be spending.
Cutting taxes is a less stupid idea, but not exactly brilliant either. Again, there is no problem with the money supply - if anything, there is too little money in the economy right now, so increasing the monetary supply through tax cuts won't help at all. It might encourage some people to spend a little more, but not enough to help.
No, the only thing that will work here is a massive increase in domestic spending. Maybe not New Deal big, but close. That way, government spending will increase overall demand, and people will have jobs, etc. Now, I understand the whole, if we spend it, we'll end up spending it for a lifetime theory, so write in Sunset clauses into the spending legislation. But do something.
And ultimately that's the problem - right now there's no Democratic leader who's saying this. They're all cowed by the GOP rhetoric on the economy, even the dumb rhetoric. If I was Obama, I would make this case in a national address every single week until Congress passed the right legislation. Of course, what I'm saying is exactly what Paul Krugman, a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN ECONOMICS has been saying for the PAST YEAR AND A HALF, but what the fuck to we know. Ugh.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Amending the 14th Amendment
I've been thinking about this post for awhile, but every time I write, it comes out wrong. Now that revoking the 14th Amendment's birthright provision is apparently a mainstream Republican policy (ironic, considering that the Republican Party was responsible for its creation and ratification), I had to write something.
The birthright provision of the 14th Amendment is one of the hallmarks of America's post-Civil War policy. It says that no matter your race, your color, your creed, or your gender, if you are born in the United States, you are an American and are entitled to the full rights are privileges therein. This provision separates America from all other countries in the world, and carries with it the promise that the American Dream is open to all people. It was a clean break from our racist and slave-owning past, and a statement for the future.
Many of those who attack the 14th Amendment hate the fact that its definition of American opens the door to everyone. Contrary to the hysterical statements of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and others, America is not a Christian country. It is not a White country. It is a country that is made stronger by the polyglot of peoples and religions and cultures that are within its borders. That is the promise of the 14th Amendment, and that's why it must stay unscathed.
It is this promise that gives us an opportunity in the Middle East - a promise left unfulfilled by our own bigotry. We can and should remind the Muslim World that an American can be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu. An American can follow his or her beliefs, guided only by his or her conscience. We should remind the Muslim World that in America, what is or is not proper Islam is not defined by sheikhs and imans, but only by the internal belief of its practitioners. Where bin Laden offers intolerance, we must offer freedom.
Instead, we fight amongst ourselves over what constitutes a "Real American." But guess what, San Francisco is a real part of America, as is Northern Virginia. There is no real America or fake America, there is simply America. And yes, there are differences between Americans over pretty much everything. But those differences are our greatest strength.
The birthright provision of the 14th Amendment is one of the hallmarks of America's post-Civil War policy. It says that no matter your race, your color, your creed, or your gender, if you are born in the United States, you are an American and are entitled to the full rights are privileges therein. This provision separates America from all other countries in the world, and carries with it the promise that the American Dream is open to all people. It was a clean break from our racist and slave-owning past, and a statement for the future.
Many of those who attack the 14th Amendment hate the fact that its definition of American opens the door to everyone. Contrary to the hysterical statements of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and others, America is not a Christian country. It is not a White country. It is a country that is made stronger by the polyglot of peoples and religions and cultures that are within its borders. That is the promise of the 14th Amendment, and that's why it must stay unscathed.
It is this promise that gives us an opportunity in the Middle East - a promise left unfulfilled by our own bigotry. We can and should remind the Muslim World that an American can be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu. An American can follow his or her beliefs, guided only by his or her conscience. We should remind the Muslim World that in America, what is or is not proper Islam is not defined by sheikhs and imans, but only by the internal belief of its practitioners. Where bin Laden offers intolerance, we must offer freedom.
Instead, we fight amongst ourselves over what constitutes a "Real American." But guess what, San Francisco is a real part of America, as is Northern Virginia. There is no real America or fake America, there is simply America. And yes, there are differences between Americans over pretty much everything. But those differences are our greatest strength.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Evolution and the Arts. . .
So, like so many other people, I saw "Inception" the yesterday and was suitably impressed. I guess a better way of saying it was that my mind was completely blown. To balance four (or five) separate dream sequences in the mind of the viewers simultaneously was totally fucking awesome.* My initial thought was that the acting was solid, but not great, while the plot was brilliant. Upon reflection, the acting was far better than I had realized. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance, in particular, was amazing and subtle. Anyway, Christopher Nolan is a genius, hands-down.
And in that realization, I began to think again about the evolution of art, in general. For instance, if you look at the cave paintings of our early ancestors, which have depth and perspective, and compare them to the paintings of the Middle Ages (which lack either depth or perspective), and then compare that to the later works of the Renaissance, you get totally confused. Are we evolving or moving backward, or going back to where we've been?
Biologically speaking, there's not a whole lot of difference between humans today and humans 25,000 years ago (especially since, outside of Africa, the family tree doesn't branch out a whole lot). The same abilities and same brains are at work. The hunters in the caves made art because they were felt compelled to by the same motivation that drove Leonardo and Christopher Nolan - to make art. And as hunters, they had a lot of free time on their hands (look this one up people - hunting and gathering is ridiculously easy compared to agriculture), so they could take the time to paint.
But as people spent more time farming, less time was spent on painting. So, art began to suck. Additionally, the good artists were probably drawn to other types of art. If painting is a drag, then artists will go into sculpture, or performance art, or writing. And when it comes to the painting art of the Middle Ages, I think that's what happened. The good artists were probably sculpting, and the hacks were painting. Once there was some money in painting, the good artists, like Leonardo or Michelangelo became painters.
Comic books in the 20th Century is a good example of this. When the 20th Century rolled around, probably the lowest form of art was the comic book, and the authors of comic books wrote crappy plotlines and two dimensional characters. But, these comic books were popular, and some kids who actually had artistic talent went into the comic industry (such as Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman), and then comic books became more and more complicated and complex. Similarly, Nolan's rewriting of the summer action film is probably the result of being inspired by earlier, crappier films.
So, I guess to sum up, I think that art, or rather the production of art, is a fluid evolution and devolution of thoughts and techniques, all depending on what inspires the artist. Who knows, maybe the "Jersey Shore" will inspire some genius down the road. . .or not.
*Ed. Note - The author has a tendency to turn into a total fanboy sometimes. Our apologies.
And in that realization, I began to think again about the evolution of art, in general. For instance, if you look at the cave paintings of our early ancestors, which have depth and perspective, and compare them to the paintings of the Middle Ages (which lack either depth or perspective), and then compare that to the later works of the Renaissance, you get totally confused. Are we evolving or moving backward, or going back to where we've been?
Biologically speaking, there's not a whole lot of difference between humans today and humans 25,000 years ago (especially since, outside of Africa, the family tree doesn't branch out a whole lot). The same abilities and same brains are at work. The hunters in the caves made art because they were felt compelled to by the same motivation that drove Leonardo and Christopher Nolan - to make art. And as hunters, they had a lot of free time on their hands (look this one up people - hunting and gathering is ridiculously easy compared to agriculture), so they could take the time to paint.
But as people spent more time farming, less time was spent on painting. So, art began to suck. Additionally, the good artists were probably drawn to other types of art. If painting is a drag, then artists will go into sculpture, or performance art, or writing. And when it comes to the painting art of the Middle Ages, I think that's what happened. The good artists were probably sculpting, and the hacks were painting. Once there was some money in painting, the good artists, like Leonardo or Michelangelo became painters.
Comic books in the 20th Century is a good example of this. When the 20th Century rolled around, probably the lowest form of art was the comic book, and the authors of comic books wrote crappy plotlines and two dimensional characters. But, these comic books were popular, and some kids who actually had artistic talent went into the comic industry (such as Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman), and then comic books became more and more complicated and complex. Similarly, Nolan's rewriting of the summer action film is probably the result of being inspired by earlier, crappier films.
So, I guess to sum up, I think that art, or rather the production of art, is a fluid evolution and devolution of thoughts and techniques, all depending on what inspires the artist. Who knows, maybe the "Jersey Shore" will inspire some genius down the road. . .or not.
*Ed. Note - The author has a tendency to turn into a total fanboy sometimes. Our apologies.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Profiles in Fucktatude: General Stanley McChrystal
Well, talk about a turn of events - suddenly, the General in charge of the Afghanistan campaign is quoted in Rolling Stone criticizing the President, and is being recalled to Washington. And by recalled, I mean the General was told under no uncertain terms to get his ass on a plane to DC ASAP. While I'm not sure what will happen to McChrystal when he gets here, I sure as hell don't want to him right now.
Let's face it, Obama has easily moved into the most-shit-on President sweepstakes. I'm not saying he's the most shit upon, but he's definitely in the top five or six (FDR, Hoover, Lincoln, Bush, and maybe Madison). He starts off having to rescue the economy, fix health care, deal with the BP oil disaster, fight two wars, and deal with the morons in Congress. All the while, he also has to fend off accusations that he is a foreign Manchurian candidate who's going to turn over the country to theIslamists Socialists. Ugh. Hell, even I've criticized his actions.
In other words, this guy probably has A LOT of reserved anger (which, by the way, I'm okay with him playing golf and basketball - he needs to get the anger out so he doesn't bomb some poor country into the stone age). And here comes McChrystal criticizing him, not for substantive issues, but because Obama took time to listen to other opinions BEFORE GIVING MCCRYSTAL EVERYTHING HE WANTED.
So, as McChrystal makes the slow flight back to DC, Obama is going to seriously think about what he's going to do with the General. His options are: 1) fire the guy immediately; 2) hear McCrystal out, and after getting the General to grovel, keep him on; or, 3) Be a total dick.
Given that McChrystal is coming back to DC, option 1 is out of the question. Option 2 is still possible, but if I were McCrystal, I wouldn't bet on it. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Obama will go with Option 3 - be a total dick. He's going to make McCrystal grovel for his job, let him twist in the wind for a week, and then reassign him to the most humiliating job Obama can find. And if McChrystal tries to resign, Obama will refuse the resignation (he can do that).
Now, in reality, Obama will probably not go as far as I just did, but he can. And the problem with being a maverick like McChrystal is that there isn't anyone to back him up. Thus, I'm fairly certain that McChrystal is going to get a taste of the shit Obama has been eating. Good luck, General, you're going to need it.
Moral of the story - Never purposely shit on your boss when your boss is getting shit-on by the world.
UPDATE - McChyrstal has offered his resignation, and Obama has refused to consider it until after he speaks with the General directly. My new bold prediction is that Obama gets his pound of flesh tomorrow, and then accepts the resignation.
Let's face it, Obama has easily moved into the most-shit-on President sweepstakes. I'm not saying he's the most shit upon, but he's definitely in the top five or six (FDR, Hoover, Lincoln, Bush, and maybe Madison). He starts off having to rescue the economy, fix health care, deal with the BP oil disaster, fight two wars, and deal with the morons in Congress. All the while, he also has to fend off accusations that he is a foreign Manchurian candidate who's going to turn over the country to the
In other words, this guy probably has A LOT of reserved anger (which, by the way, I'm okay with him playing golf and basketball - he needs to get the anger out so he doesn't bomb some poor country into the stone age). And here comes McChrystal criticizing him, not for substantive issues, but because Obama took time to listen to other opinions BEFORE GIVING MCCRYSTAL EVERYTHING HE WANTED.
So, as McChrystal makes the slow flight back to DC, Obama is going to seriously think about what he's going to do with the General. His options are: 1) fire the guy immediately; 2) hear McCrystal out, and after getting the General to grovel, keep him on; or, 3) Be a total dick.
Given that McChrystal is coming back to DC, option 1 is out of the question. Option 2 is still possible, but if I were McCrystal, I wouldn't bet on it. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Obama will go with Option 3 - be a total dick. He's going to make McCrystal grovel for his job, let him twist in the wind for a week, and then reassign him to the most humiliating job Obama can find. And if McChrystal tries to resign, Obama will refuse the resignation (he can do that).
Now, in reality, Obama will probably not go as far as I just did, but he can. And the problem with being a maverick like McChrystal is that there isn't anyone to back him up. Thus, I'm fairly certain that McChrystal is going to get a taste of the shit Obama has been eating. Good luck, General, you're going to need it.
Moral of the story - Never purposely shit on your boss when your boss is getting shit-on by the world.
UPDATE - McChyrstal has offered his resignation, and Obama has refused to consider it until after he speaks with the General directly. My new bold prediction is that Obama gets his pound of flesh tomorrow, and then accepts the resignation.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Big Spill, Obama and Joe Barton
For the longest time, I believed that one political party in the U.S., the Democratic Party, my party, was exceptionally skilled at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. Like a jilted sports fan, I can go on and on about the various miscues and missteps made by members of my party. But after seeing Joe Barton's performance yesterday - where he APOLOGIZED to BP for the perceived "shakedown" of the Obama Administration, and then had to retract the apology, I have learned that snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is common to both sides of the aisle.
Mere mocking aside, I cannot emphasize enough how damaging Joe Barton's apology was. For the past several months, Obama has taken a beating on his handling of the BP oil disaster. He's a consensus builder, a back scratcher, a strategist, but he's not a great tactician. To use a "Godfather" analogy, he's a Michael - you might be able to spit in his face, but you and your family will be dead within six months. In a disaster, people want the tactician - they want a Sonny (or a George Patton) - and Obama isn't that guy. As a result, bullshit like this statement from Inhofe are coming from the GOP stating that this is "Obama's Katrina." That's ridiculous, but it does play into the idea that Democrats are weak executives. That's a good narrative for November.
But here comes Joe Barton. When Obama finally looks like he's going somewhere, Barton APOLOGIZES TO BP. BP, the FOREIGN OIL COMPANY who's negligence (at best) has destroyed fishing in the Gulf of Mexico for probably a generation, and who promises to look after "the small people." And why did Barton apologize to BP? Because Obama pushed BP to put $20 billion into escrow to pay for its own mess. Um, what?
And now ladies and gentlemen we have a new narrative - the GOP is in the pocket of Big Oil. Every time a Republican criticizes the President, someone is going to bring up Joe Barton. The narrative is completely broken.
Mere mocking aside, I cannot emphasize enough how damaging Joe Barton's apology was. For the past several months, Obama has taken a beating on his handling of the BP oil disaster. He's a consensus builder, a back scratcher, a strategist, but he's not a great tactician. To use a "Godfather" analogy, he's a Michael - you might be able to spit in his face, but you and your family will be dead within six months. In a disaster, people want the tactician - they want a Sonny (or a George Patton) - and Obama isn't that guy. As a result, bullshit like this statement from Inhofe are coming from the GOP stating that this is "Obama's Katrina." That's ridiculous, but it does play into the idea that Democrats are weak executives. That's a good narrative for November.
But here comes Joe Barton. When Obama finally looks like he's going somewhere, Barton APOLOGIZES TO BP. BP, the FOREIGN OIL COMPANY who's negligence (at best) has destroyed fishing in the Gulf of Mexico for probably a generation, and who promises to look after "the small people." And why did Barton apologize to BP? Because Obama pushed BP to put $20 billion into escrow to pay for its own mess. Um, what?
And now ladies and gentlemen we have a new narrative - the GOP is in the pocket of Big Oil. Every time a Republican criticizes the President, someone is going to bring up Joe Barton. The narrative is completely broken.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Rant on BP. . .
So last week, I finally broke down and ordered HBO from my local cable outlet. In the orgy of television watching the followed, I saw "Treme," David Simon's show about New Orleans post-Katrina (great show by the way). Just as Simon's beloved Baltimore, New Orleans is basically a fucked up place, but beloved nonetheless.
One thing that got me is how New Orleans has now gone from mostly fucked - as in, sure the town is destroyed, but there needs to be a city around the largest American port - to totally fucked. The BP oil rig disaster is currently devastating a way of life - fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida - in ways beyond our comprehension. Worst of all, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that BP, with the okay of the Feds, ignored all possible safety precautions that could have prevented the disaster.
So, another day, another mess for the Obama Administration. Never have I ever seen an Administration have to deal with so many crises at once. And thanks to decades of deregulation, we're going to see one crisis after another pop up seemingly from nowhere. Worst of all, our leaders are stuck in the Clintonian era of paying down deficits and deregulation. Morons.
In this instance, and rather than consensus building, Obama needs to bring down the hammer. Order the government to seize all of BP's assets to insure that BP has the money to pay for the cleanup. Fire every Federal employee that he can, and who is responsible for this mess. Push the DOJ to file criminal charges against all parties involved, and hire the local fishing fleet to clean up the mess. Hire Samuel L. Jackson* to act as his spokesman for anything BP related. "Yes, the President stripped BP of all of its drilling contracts, and I HOPE BP BURNS IN HELL!!!"
*Editor's Note: My suggestion of Samuel L. Jackson has nothing to do with anyone's race, but rather has everything to do with Mr. Jackson's ability to express righteous indignation better than anyone else alive.
Anyway, I think you get the idea. The thing is, the people are pissed, and someone needs to be made an example of. And given that BP is an oil company, and a foreign company, and they've totally ruined the fishing industry in the Gulf for at least a generation, why not completely fuck them up?
One thing that got me is how New Orleans has now gone from mostly fucked - as in, sure the town is destroyed, but there needs to be a city around the largest American port - to totally fucked. The BP oil rig disaster is currently devastating a way of life - fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida - in ways beyond our comprehension. Worst of all, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that BP, with the okay of the Feds, ignored all possible safety precautions that could have prevented the disaster.
So, another day, another mess for the Obama Administration. Never have I ever seen an Administration have to deal with so many crises at once. And thanks to decades of deregulation, we're going to see one crisis after another pop up seemingly from nowhere. Worst of all, our leaders are stuck in the Clintonian era of paying down deficits and deregulation. Morons.
In this instance, and rather than consensus building, Obama needs to bring down the hammer. Order the government to seize all of BP's assets to insure that BP has the money to pay for the cleanup. Fire every Federal employee that he can, and who is responsible for this mess. Push the DOJ to file criminal charges against all parties involved, and hire the local fishing fleet to clean up the mess. Hire Samuel L. Jackson* to act as his spokesman for anything BP related. "Yes, the President stripped BP of all of its drilling contracts, and I HOPE BP BURNS IN HELL!!!"
*Editor's Note: My suggestion of Samuel L. Jackson has nothing to do with anyone's race, but rather has everything to do with Mr. Jackson's ability to express righteous indignation better than anyone else alive.
Anyway, I think you get the idea. The thing is, the people are pissed, and someone needs to be made an example of. And given that BP is an oil company, and a foreign company, and they've totally ruined the fishing industry in the Gulf for at least a generation, why not completely fuck them up?
Friday, June 4, 2010
On Israel. . .
There have been a lot of articles written about the most recent incident involving Israeli commandos attacking a flotilla of ships heading for Gaza in international waters, and from a variety of perspectives. So, to add to the cacophony, I figured I should add my own two cents.
Fundamentally, the attack on the flotilla was phenomenally stupid. Supernaturally stupid. For the past forty years, Israel's Arab enemies have stated that Israel is an aggressive, oppressive regime that commits human rights abuses in violation of international law. So, what does Israel do? It attacks a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian supplies in international waters, killing several people in the process in violation of international law. All this to prevent the people of Gaza, one of the most shit on people on Earth, from getting some form of aid.
Now, I could go on and on about the moral issues involved here. And certainly Israel has the right to defend itself from threats. But there's a right way, a wrong way, and a stupid way to go about it. Israel is choosing the stupid way. And unlike the U.S., Israel can't afford to be stupid.
The thing we have to remember is that Israel is a very small country. Its about 8,000 square miles of territory, holding around 7.5 million people. By contrast, San Diego County is around 4500 square miles, and has 3.5 million people. That's tiny as far as countries go. Because its so small, Israel's internal market cannot provide enough of a market for what goods its produces and so, Israel depends on foreign trade to survive economically. Additionally, because its neighbors are or were hostile, Israel spends a lot on its military. To do that, Israel depends on infusions of cash from the United States. Israel is the number one recipient of American foreign aid, and has been for some time.
In other words, to survive and thrive, Israel needs international support. More importantly, it needs American support. To that end, Israel has been exceptionally skilled - it has appealed to the Jewish elites of the American left while simultaneously appealing to the Christian conservatives on the American right. Through AIPAC, even criticizing Israel is politically risky. It helps that several of Israels founding politicians, like Golda Meir, were Americans by birth. But Israel was also smart about using force, unlike the recent attack on the flotilla.
As Israel becomes more and more aggressive (and it really has been aggressive), it has alienated potential allies in Europe, Russia, and the moderate Arabic World. Moreover, it is progressively losing the support of American Jews. If Israel were to become an international pariah, its economy would completely fall apart.
Now, this is a risk that might be worth it if Israel was facing enemies like Syria and Egypt, but its not. In fact, Israel is at minimal risk of the kind of attacks it faced in the 1960's and 1970's, because the State actors have simply decided its not worth the effort. Israel's military is ridiculously powerful, it has nukes, and if push came to shove, the U.S. would help out. So, military action isn't worth the effort.
Instead, Israel is facing the Palestinians, and that's a big, big problem, because for the Palestinians, the fight is worth the effort. These people are literally fighting for everything they have (which ain't much to begin with). And when the Palestinians have nothing left, they commit suicide by strapping a bomb to themselves so that they can take a few Israelis with them. I can't stress this point enough - the suicide bombers aren't just killing themselves to spread terror - they're killing themselves for the same reason people everywhere kill themselves - to put an end to their own suffering. Sure, the terrorist organizers are exploiting the opportunity, but the opportunity was there to be exploited.
Machiavelli wrote, and wisely I think, that the worst place for a leader to be in is to be hated by his people. Or mathematically: Fear > Love > Hate. The problem with hate is that it overwhelms fear. People with hate in their hearts don't care about themselves or their families anymore. All that matters is killing the enemy. And the less people have, the less they have to lose, and the more likely they are to lash out. That's what we've been seeing from the Palestinians for the past twenty years.
The attack on the flotilla was so awful because it reminded everyone of how shit-on the Palestinian people (particularly the Gazans) have it. So they look like victims, while at the same time, are shit-on even more. In this environment, Israel looks like assholes or worse, and the Palestinians remain in a position to be exploited by terrorists. The whole thing is a shitstorm.
Let me end this by saying that I support the existence of Israel. In modern history, no one has been braver than the Jewish people and the founders of Israel. And no one kicks more ass. But the fight that Israel is in right now isn't about bravery or asskicking, its about being smart. Its about seeing that your enemy has something to live for, as opposed to something to die for. To survive, Israel has to get smart - and it has to seek peace. Otherwise, Israel will be turned into a pariah, and it will collapse.
Fundamentally, the attack on the flotilla was phenomenally stupid. Supernaturally stupid. For the past forty years, Israel's Arab enemies have stated that Israel is an aggressive, oppressive regime that commits human rights abuses in violation of international law. So, what does Israel do? It attacks a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian supplies in international waters, killing several people in the process in violation of international law. All this to prevent the people of Gaza, one of the most shit on people on Earth, from getting some form of aid.
Now, I could go on and on about the moral issues involved here. And certainly Israel has the right to defend itself from threats. But there's a right way, a wrong way, and a stupid way to go about it. Israel is choosing the stupid way. And unlike the U.S., Israel can't afford to be stupid.
The thing we have to remember is that Israel is a very small country. Its about 8,000 square miles of territory, holding around 7.5 million people. By contrast, San Diego County is around 4500 square miles, and has 3.5 million people. That's tiny as far as countries go. Because its so small, Israel's internal market cannot provide enough of a market for what goods its produces and so, Israel depends on foreign trade to survive economically. Additionally, because its neighbors are or were hostile, Israel spends a lot on its military. To do that, Israel depends on infusions of cash from the United States. Israel is the number one recipient of American foreign aid, and has been for some time.
In other words, to survive and thrive, Israel needs international support. More importantly, it needs American support. To that end, Israel has been exceptionally skilled - it has appealed to the Jewish elites of the American left while simultaneously appealing to the Christian conservatives on the American right. Through AIPAC, even criticizing Israel is politically risky. It helps that several of Israels founding politicians, like Golda Meir, were Americans by birth. But Israel was also smart about using force, unlike the recent attack on the flotilla.
As Israel becomes more and more aggressive (and it really has been aggressive), it has alienated potential allies in Europe, Russia, and the moderate Arabic World. Moreover, it is progressively losing the support of American Jews. If Israel were to become an international pariah, its economy would completely fall apart.
Now, this is a risk that might be worth it if Israel was facing enemies like Syria and Egypt, but its not. In fact, Israel is at minimal risk of the kind of attacks it faced in the 1960's and 1970's, because the State actors have simply decided its not worth the effort. Israel's military is ridiculously powerful, it has nukes, and if push came to shove, the U.S. would help out. So, military action isn't worth the effort.
Instead, Israel is facing the Palestinians, and that's a big, big problem, because for the Palestinians, the fight is worth the effort. These people are literally fighting for everything they have (which ain't much to begin with). And when the Palestinians have nothing left, they commit suicide by strapping a bomb to themselves so that they can take a few Israelis with them. I can't stress this point enough - the suicide bombers aren't just killing themselves to spread terror - they're killing themselves for the same reason people everywhere kill themselves - to put an end to their own suffering. Sure, the terrorist organizers are exploiting the opportunity, but the opportunity was there to be exploited.
Machiavelli wrote, and wisely I think, that the worst place for a leader to be in is to be hated by his people. Or mathematically: Fear > Love > Hate. The problem with hate is that it overwhelms fear. People with hate in their hearts don't care about themselves or their families anymore. All that matters is killing the enemy. And the less people have, the less they have to lose, and the more likely they are to lash out. That's what we've been seeing from the Palestinians for the past twenty years.
The attack on the flotilla was so awful because it reminded everyone of how shit-on the Palestinian people (particularly the Gazans) have it. So they look like victims, while at the same time, are shit-on even more. In this environment, Israel looks like assholes or worse, and the Palestinians remain in a position to be exploited by terrorists. The whole thing is a shitstorm.
Let me end this by saying that I support the existence of Israel. In modern history, no one has been braver than the Jewish people and the founders of Israel. And no one kicks more ass. But the fight that Israel is in right now isn't about bravery or asskicking, its about being smart. Its about seeing that your enemy has something to live for, as opposed to something to die for. To survive, Israel has to get smart - and it has to seek peace. Otherwise, Israel will be turned into a pariah, and it will collapse.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Enforcement Only Immigration Reform is Idiotic
So, Obama is sending 1200 troops to the border in an effort to stem illegal immigration. Additionally, no one, and I mean no one, has deported more people than the Obama Administration. Go ahead, look it up on Google, I'll wait. You done yet? Okay, good, because the point of this article isn't to praise Obama's immigration enforcement efforts, its to pan them completely (though, the deportation increase is probably the result of the enforcement efforts at the end of the Bush Administration which are now finally being litigated).
So, let's ask the key question - why do people hire illegal/undocumented immigrants? Simple, they hire undocumented immigrants because the immigrants will be willing to be paid less than other workers and because they won't complain about abuse (out of fear of deportation). But these factors don't change when you change the supply of illegal immigrants by enforcement - they exacerbate them. Immigrants become less and less willing to speak up for themselves if deportation becomes a very real threat. For instance, when I worked for the Fair Housing Council, a landlord had two fake immigration officials threaten her tenants, and these tenants almost dropped their complaint (and they would have, but for the fact that the immigration officials were so obviously fake).
Now, if the enforcement was equally applied to both employers and immigrants, this would be different. The monetary value of hiring an undocumented person would drop, and employers would think that hiring an undocumented person wasn't worth the risk. But that's never going to happen. For one, its easier to find undocumented immigrants than employers, and its easier to prosecute them. Employers have "rights" and "lawyers" which make prosecutions expensive and risky. So, the Feds go for the easy target.
And that's been the state of immigration in the country for the past twenty years. Every Administration since Reagan has beefed up immigration enforcement, and the situation has only gotten worse. So, instead of trying to prevent immigrants from coming, let's reduce the economic benefit of hiring undocumented immigrants - give them documentation, full rights under the law, and let them compete with Americans on an even playing field.
So, let's ask the key question - why do people hire illegal/undocumented immigrants? Simple, they hire undocumented immigrants because the immigrants will be willing to be paid less than other workers and because they won't complain about abuse (out of fear of deportation). But these factors don't change when you change the supply of illegal immigrants by enforcement - they exacerbate them. Immigrants become less and less willing to speak up for themselves if deportation becomes a very real threat. For instance, when I worked for the Fair Housing Council, a landlord had two fake immigration officials threaten her tenants, and these tenants almost dropped their complaint (and they would have, but for the fact that the immigration officials were so obviously fake).
Now, if the enforcement was equally applied to both employers and immigrants, this would be different. The monetary value of hiring an undocumented person would drop, and employers would think that hiring an undocumented person wasn't worth the risk. But that's never going to happen. For one, its easier to find undocumented immigrants than employers, and its easier to prosecute them. Employers have "rights" and "lawyers" which make prosecutions expensive and risky. So, the Feds go for the easy target.
And that's been the state of immigration in the country for the past twenty years. Every Administration since Reagan has beefed up immigration enforcement, and the situation has only gotten worse. So, instead of trying to prevent immigrants from coming, let's reduce the economic benefit of hiring undocumented immigrants - give them documentation, full rights under the law, and let them compete with Americans on an even playing field.
Friday, May 14, 2010
How About Them Padres. . .
In case you haven't heard, my favorite team, Los Padres de San Diego (heh), are in first place by 3 and a half games and owners of the best record in the National League. Woot! As a Padres fan and season ticket owner, I feel its necessary to gloat at this moment before the whole thing comes crashing down.
Going into this season, most of us diehards were cautiously optimistic about this season. Unlike last season, where the Padres were beset with trade rumors and over-the-hill veterans (which lead to total disarray in the infield, outfield and pitching staff), the Padres entered the year with a solid core of young players at all positions. It was this group that did exceptionally well toward the end of last season, and gave me some hope.
However, this team has exceeded my expectations in surprising ways. For instance, every year for the past four years, I heard the same story - the Padres are going to steal more bases this year - and every year the Padres were one of the worst baserunning teams in baseball. Suddenly this year, the team leads the majors in stolen bases. The pitching is phenomenal - teams that are behind after seven innings have no chance. Right now, the Padres have kept opposing teams to two runs or less in 17 games out of the 34 games played. 17 games!
Now granted, some of this has to do with playing in Petco Park ("where fly balls go to die"), but here's the thing - for the first time since Petco opened, the Padres are built to play in Petco. No more station to station players. No more guys dependent on hitting opposite field home runs. No more slow pokes. And the front office has figured out that "hey, pitchers free agents will play at Petco for a discount because they get to pitch at Petco."
So, I'm glad to be able to go to the games, and if you live in San Diego, so should you. Sure the food continues to suck, but the beer is cold (and at $8 a beer, it better be), and the team is hot. Woohoo!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Immigration Reform (Part 2)
Let's face it, the current state of affairs when it comes to immigration in the United States sucks. Undocumented immigrants live in fear of deportation and as such, are willing to take abuse from employers, landlords, etc, just to avoid confrontation. Low wage workers get the shaft because they're competing for jobs with undocumented immigrants who are afraid to confront their employers. Worst of all, apparently, my roommate had to learn Spanish in high school. (Actually, it was the efforts of Thomas Jefferson and Carlo Bellini in the late 18th Century that created Modern Languages studies in American schools.)
Anyway, no one is happy except for people who hire undocumented immigrants, and people who've developed a taste for authentic Mexican tacos. Mmm. . .tacos. As you can guess, I fall in the latter category. And as much as I love tacos, surely there has to be a better way to get my taco fix.
I've stated this before in a few other blogs, but it bears repeating - the way to fix the immigration problem is to remove all benefits of hiring illegal immigrants for employers. The only way to do that is to "legalize" everyone. If foreign workers want to come work in the U.S., they can so long as they pass a background check. In so doing, these foreign workers are protected by the same employment laws that protect everyone else, and as a result, they compete directly with American workers on a level playing field. And if, in the resulting competition, foreign workers can't find work, they're going to go home.
Additionally, we should have a separate path of citizenship for those who want to become American citizens, complete with the full restrictions and requirements as exist today.
Anyway, no one is happy except for people who hire undocumented immigrants, and people who've developed a taste for authentic Mexican tacos. Mmm. . .tacos. As you can guess, I fall in the latter category. And as much as I love tacos, surely there has to be a better way to get my taco fix.
I've stated this before in a few other blogs, but it bears repeating - the way to fix the immigration problem is to remove all benefits of hiring illegal immigrants for employers. The only way to do that is to "legalize" everyone. If foreign workers want to come work in the U.S., they can so long as they pass a background check. In so doing, these foreign workers are protected by the same employment laws that protect everyone else, and as a result, they compete directly with American workers on a level playing field. And if, in the resulting competition, foreign workers can't find work, they're going to go home.
Additionally, we should have a separate path of citizenship for those who want to become American citizens, complete with the full restrictions and requirements as exist today.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Immigration Reform and the Law of Unintended Consequences
So it appears that California's neighbor to the east, Arizona, has passed a ridiculously restrictive immigration law that requires all law enforcement officials in Arizona to enforce immigration laws, and allows law enforcement officials to pick up anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant. The person would, I guess, have to prove their immigration status by showing their birth certificate on the spot. As you imagine, I have a few thoughts about this.
First, let me say that if I was planning a trip to Arizona, I'm not now. Due to my Italian heritage, I am blessed with dark (though graying) hair and a decent tan. So, I may not look Latino, but its close enough that I'm sure as hell not going to take any chances. Given that the police officer need only have a "reasonable suspicion," (the legal equivalent of "hey, that guy is buying a taco, he must be Mexican"), pretty much everyone is at risk of being arrested for not being able to prove their citizenship on the spot.
Second, while Courts are unpredictable, there's no way in hell this law survives a lawsuit. For one, foreign relations, which includes immigration, is solely an area of federal jurisdiction and the Constitution is very clear on this. (Article 1, sections 8 and 10). That's why every anti-immigrant legislation passed in the last 30 years has been overturned.
If that wasn't enough, states are prohibited from passing laws that discriminate based on race or nation origin, unless the law is narrowly tailored to avoid racial discriminatory affects as much as possible (see the 14th Amendment). Given that Arizona sits on the Mexican-American border, its safe to say that when Arizonans complain of undocumented immigrants, they're not complaining about Canadians. A review of the legislative record will undoubtedly have some legislator complaining about the Mexicans.
Lastly, and perhaps more interesting to me, is that this immigration law was passed largely because over the past 20 years, the Feds have been enforcing immigration laws to a greater degree. Arizona, like San Diego, sits on the border, and for time, Mexican workers would cross the border to work in the U.S., but then cross back to live in Mexico. It was the best of both worlds - American paycheck, Mexican cost of living. When we made it more difficult to cross the border, Mexican workers had to choose between Mexico and the U.S., and they chose the higher paying jobs up North. That's why San Diego and Arizona have seen increases in their Hispanic and Latino populations, and that increase in population inflames the populace, leading to more and more anti-immigration laws. The irony is stunning and tragic.
First, let me say that if I was planning a trip to Arizona, I'm not now. Due to my Italian heritage, I am blessed with dark (though graying) hair and a decent tan. So, I may not look Latino, but its close enough that I'm sure as hell not going to take any chances. Given that the police officer need only have a "reasonable suspicion," (the legal equivalent of "hey, that guy is buying a taco, he must be Mexican"), pretty much everyone is at risk of being arrested for not being able to prove their citizenship on the spot.
Second, while Courts are unpredictable, there's no way in hell this law survives a lawsuit. For one, foreign relations, which includes immigration, is solely an area of federal jurisdiction and the Constitution is very clear on this. (Article 1, sections 8 and 10). That's why every anti-immigrant legislation passed in the last 30 years has been overturned.
If that wasn't enough, states are prohibited from passing laws that discriminate based on race or nation origin, unless the law is narrowly tailored to avoid racial discriminatory affects as much as possible (see the 14th Amendment). Given that Arizona sits on the Mexican-American border, its safe to say that when Arizonans complain of undocumented immigrants, they're not complaining about Canadians. A review of the legislative record will undoubtedly have some legislator complaining about the Mexicans.
Lastly, and perhaps more interesting to me, is that this immigration law was passed largely because over the past 20 years, the Feds have been enforcing immigration laws to a greater degree. Arizona, like San Diego, sits on the border, and for time, Mexican workers would cross the border to work in the U.S., but then cross back to live in Mexico. It was the best of both worlds - American paycheck, Mexican cost of living. When we made it more difficult to cross the border, Mexican workers had to choose between Mexico and the U.S., and they chose the higher paying jobs up North. That's why San Diego and Arizona have seen increases in their Hispanic and Latino populations, and that increase in population inflames the populace, leading to more and more anti-immigration laws. The irony is stunning and tragic.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Food Blogging: How to Make Pizza 101
Last night, I came home and had a relatively free evening. Pete was passed out from doggy day care (which, considering that he's been a total spaz for the past few days, this was a GOOD thing). In my free time, I decided to make pizza, which is both relatively cheap and easy.
Shortly after the pizza was made, and partially consumed, one of my neighbors (visiting my roommate) came over and said, "Your pizza looks good, what brand is it?" She had assumed that I made frozen pizza. In that moment, I simply stared blankly at her - probably not my best moment, in retrospect - but I wouldn't buying frozen pizza unless it was one of the pricier kinds, in which case, I might as make my own. Take out or delivery pizza is a different story, of course, because when I order pizza from somewhere, its because I want to avoid cooking.
Anyway, for those of you who want to make your own pizza, it is incredibly easy to do so - its not so much cooking or even baking as it is assembly.
Here are the ingredients:
1 28 oz. can of CRUSHED tomatoes (you should only use about half of it) - $2.60
1 lb. of mozzarella cheese (again, you should use only around half) - $6
1 lb. of pizza or bread dough - $2 (max).
Toppings: you pick
Spices - dried oregano, garlic powder, salt, honey, black pepper, red chile flakes, pecorino cheese and olive oil (all of which, you should have - sugar can be substituted for honey).
Hardware needed:
1 clean aluminum cookie sheet (preferably one that fits in your oven)
1 bowl, also clean
1 implement to shred cheese, also clean.
1 can opener
1 spoon (clean)
1 oven, preheated to 475 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, here's what you do.
Preparation:
1) Put about a teaspoon or so of olive oil on the cookie sheet, and using a paper towel, wipe the entire interior of the cookie sheet, including the interior's sides.
2) Put the pizza or bread dough in the middle of the cookie sheet. Slowly, and carefully, stretch the dough so that it covers the entire interior of the cookie sheet. If the dough sticks to your hands, then put a little bit of olive oil on your hands, and that should help. Do not tear the dough. Put a towel over the dough and the cookie sheet and wash your hands.
3) Using the can opener, open the can of crushed tomatoes and pour the contents into the bowl. If the bowl now appears to be too small for the job, get a bigger bowl. Okay, now add the spices (except the pecorino cheese) to the tomatoes. You are now seasoning the tomato sauce, so do so to your own tastes. Stir with spoon. I happen to have a heavy hand with the red chile flakes and black pepper. If the sauce is a bit too thick, feel free to add a little bit of white wine or water. Set aside the sauce.
4) Shred half mozzarella cheese. If you bought shredded mozzarella, then you're ahead of the game, although the cheese you bought probably tastes like cardboard. If you have a cheese grater, then use the cheese grater. Otherwise, you can slice the cheese with a knife, and then hand-shred the cheese slices. Set aside.
Assembly:
5) Remove the towel from atop the cookie sheet and dough. If the dough has shrunk from the sides of the pan, carefully stretch the dough out, but don't tear the dough.
6) Using the spoon, put a small amount of sauce onto the dough and spread it out so that the sauce covers almost all of the dough, but leaving a frame around the dough of about an inch. This is important because if the sauce is too close to the edges, some of the juices of the sauce will run over the sides of the pizza, burn in the oven, and then cause the pizza to stick to the pan. Trust me, you do not want this. Also, you want a thin covering of sauce on top of the dough.
7) Put the cheese on top of the sauce on top of the dough, but don't stray outside the margins above. Pizza sticking to pan = bad.
8) Now, put a slightly thicker layer of sauce on top of the cheese. You should end up only using about half of the sauce you made (so save the rest for next time). Again, stay within the margins.
9) Here's the last step before going into the oven - put on your extras. For last night's pizza, I put on some kalamata olives that were pitted and sliced in half, lengthwise. If you want to add pepperoni, do so now. Also, take it easy with the toppings, and beware that some toppings (like mushrooms) will release liquids when cooked. So, I would suggest cooking toppings like mushrooms ahead of time. Lastly, sprinkle the pizza with oregano, pecorino cheese, and just a little bit of olive oil.
Cooking:
10) Open the door to your oven and put the pizza into the oven (preheated to 475 degrees) on the lowest rack in your oven. Close the door to the oven and let it cook for about 10 minutes. Because the pizza will be closer to the bottom of the oven (where the heat comes from), the bottom will cook faster than the top of the pizza. This is a good thing.
11) After about ten minutes, check on the pizza. At this point, the bottom should be pretty well cooked, so go ahead and move the pizza to a higher rack in the oven, and also rotate the pizza so that the side that was facing the door of the oven now faces the back of the oven. Close the door to the oven.
12) Continue to let the pizza cook in the oven for about 5 minutes, and then start checking on it. When the pizza is at your desired level of doneness, take the pizza out of the oven.
13) Let the pizza sit for about five minutes, then slice and serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)