It's true, there definitely was a shortage in SF over the weekend. My housemates and I had to resort to eating our haroset on whole wheat table water crackers.
On an unrelated, totally unkosher note, I indulged in some other types of deliciousness over the weekend, including a burger and fritto misto at Magnolia Brewery, spaghetti and meatballs at Emmy's, and poached eggs with buttermilk biscuits and sausage gravy at Universal Cafe. Light, I know.
(If this is starting to look like a food blog, that's probably because eeting is my primary form of recreation. And if it looks like a photo blog, it's because I'm too lethargic from all the eeting to write.)
My co-workers and I were "those people" riding around the city a couple weeks ago in Go Cars. Think fumes, squirrelly-handling, incapable of going in reverse, and sometimes they need a push to make it uphill. At least mine did. You're the most hated thing on the road when you're driving them, so luckily people stay away from you. If it weren't for that fact, and the fact that they're taxicab yellow and you can't miss em, I'd say they really shouldn't be street legal. Though I have heard tales of people getting drunk and driving them around...perfectly safe.
It started raining while we were tooling around the Richmond district, and one leaked while the other wouldn't start after sitting for a few minutes.
In college, I couldn't resist taking the bait and responding to breathtakingly stupid opinion columns in the Daily Nexus. Case in point. As my readers (all three of them) can attest, I'm just a wee bit stubborn and have a hard time backing away from a political argument--er any argument, for that matter--even if it's a losing battle between two polarized ideologies that can only result in stalemate. Or ad hominem attacks (communist v. racist, anti-semite v. Islamophobe).
But after graduation, I didn't have another outlet for these wonderfully productive pissing contests. There was a serious shortage of self hair-rip or eyeball-gouge-enducing political fodder.
Then my endorsement of Edwards on Facebook precipitated an ongoing debate thread with a high school friend who also studied globalization but ended up on the opposite end of the spectrum. We took a long hiatus after the dialogue seemed to reach fever pitch around a "clash of civilizations"-type argument, and now we're back to electoral politics. He says he'll vote for Obama--he likes his counterterrorism expert--but he needed convincing that all this talk of populism is just to appease labor, and that he's really a free trade champion at heart.
I thought I'd share my response, since our conversations haven't gone beyond the confines of Facebook messages, and it's honestly the closest thing I've written to an editorial in a while, albeit an at times shrill antagonistic one. But that's how our conversations usually go--a jab here and there, but mostly gloves above the belt. I've kept it anonymous, though in the unlikely event he actually reads this, I'm happy to name names. For now we'll call him...Milton.
Oh Milton, trying to get my goat with some populist-baiting. Alright, I’ll bite.
No use losing sleep over Obama’s trade policy – rest assured, behind closed doors, he leans laissez faire. Yep, he’s just pulling the wool over the eyes of those poor jobless schmucks in the Rust Belt, the folks that have been hung out to dry time and time again by the race to the bottom. The proof is in the pudding (I'll let The Nation do the talking):
"...an Obama aide told Canadians not to take seriously the Illinois senator's criticisms of NAFTA"
"Obama backed the recent Peru Free Trade Agreement, and his 'movement' on globalization issues has seemed to be influenced more by presidential ambition than the commitment to workers here and abroad that motivates fair-trade crusaders like Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Maine Congressman Mike Michaud--neither of whom has endorsed anyone in the presidential race"
Obama’s no Edwards, much to my chagrin, though I could see where you might feel like he’s taking a page from the populist playbook with his recent watershed speech. He talked about unity, which has always made me nervous because it smells a little too much like capitulation--trying to shake hands across the aisle with an unbending opponent. It also reminds me of Pollyanna sunshine and lollipops notions of colorblindness that wash over the very real experience of racism. But I digress…
Instead Obama’s speech was nothing short of a paradigm shift in the way he encouraged a frank discussion of race, bridging the gap by promoting unity against a common socioeconomic threat: “a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.” He placed corporate greed squarely in the crosshairs. I could see how that might make some nervous.
If Obama’s just spouting supposed populist claptrap about improving people’s lives, then I suppose it’s no different than the obligatory Republican deception that the GOP has middle class Americans' economic interests at heart. And I doubt Obama's just doing it to pander to labor. You know, it’s amusing to hear the free trade faithful decry the unfair influence of “big labor,” as if labor could somehow compete with corporate power in influencing politics. Last I checked, only 12% of the workforce is unionized, and Americans have a more favorable view of WalMart than unions, ferchrissakes. And anti-statists act as if they’re some embattled minority? Ha. For as much as free marketeers fancy themselves empiricists, they’ve always sounded a lot like another “embattled” faith-based force in American politics that holds onto a tired orthodoxy with religious fervor.
Phew, tangent.
Is it all empty rhetoric? I’m skeptical too, but unlike cynical fundamentalists who would conflate democracy with markets and would have every politician in their pocket, I’d prefer to think that we have a candidate who is genuinely interested in this “nonsensical” desire to address the needs of the many.
You’ll really have to make this decision on your own. And honestly, what choice do you have, since Republicans have failed to produce a worthy candidate? The American people have seen the impact of deregulation and privatization with the mortgage crisis and the catastrophe in Iraq, and if all this talk of “change” is any indication, hopefully this election will act as a referendum on the relentless corporatist trade policies that have steamrolled homeowners and robbed American troops and Iraqi civilians alike of their lives and livelihoods.
Aaand I'm spent. This ended up taking more time than I intended. But it's been a while since I've sparred with anyone on this stuff. Got me fired up -- thanks.
-Heather
P.S. About The Economist -- I no more believe that it’s an objective agenda-free publication than I believe that Pinochet's Chile was an “economic miracle.”
The only way to get the Iraqis to accept responsibility for their future is by no longer extending them an indefinite blank check, intensifying diplomacy and withdrawing our troops swiftly, responsibly and safely.
-Lee Feinstein, national security director for the Clinton campaign
Oh, there was many a hipster, to be sure, donning plaid just like the headliner, and their "very unique hairdos" (as David sarcastically sniped). They were out in full effect, professing their "man crushes" and demanding their favorite songs. One was met with an uncharacteristically firm rebuke from Jens: "No. You can't get everything you want in life." But he couldn't keep a straight face long enough to be make his annoyance believable. This guy is too sanguine, too sweet to be cold -- dancing giddily around the stage with his band, all in matching outfits with matching keys around their necks, arms outstretched like airplanes during an electronic instrumental interlude.
No, the hipsters couldn't dissuade me. After all, with a"boyfriendable baritone" and "deadpan style of singing" reminiscent of Stephen Merritt*, what other musician is charming enough to make even the most mundane minutiae lyrical? Seriously, who else can pull off a line like this:
So you pick up your asthma inhaler and put it against your lips and oh those lips I've loved
or this
I was slicing up an avocado when you came up behind me with your quiet brand new sneakers
or my favorite,
Oh, I still remember "Regulate" with Warren G. Could that have been back in the sweet summer of 1993?
Hell, he made a song out of Google Map directions!
Wasn't really expecting him to be a comedian, though I guess those witty lyrics had to come from somewhere. He related a story of telling his audience in Florence how he marvelled at what a beautiful city they lived in, and learned his lesson after the show when some fans cornered him and angrily insisted it was a shit hole. So he did a little reverse psychology -- "I hate San Francisco, with your rainbows, and your tiny tiny hummingbirds, and your cute boys and girls...fuck San Francisco. This song's for Oakland." Cheers all around, natch.
He played Sweet Summer's Night on Hammer Hill during an encore, violin and cello subbing for the horns like at this show in Italy:
Reminds me of clapping on a street corner in Santiago...
*Talking smack about hipsters and then linking to Pitchfork...no, the irony's not lost on me.
Young McHipster has a farm, e-i-e-i-o. And on her farm, she has organic produce, e-i-e-i-o. With a CSA here, and a trucker hat there, here a market, there a Pabst, everywhere an urbanite. Young McHipster has a farm, e-i-e-i-o!
Reminds me of one of those "overheard in San Francisco" moments I had with my housemate at Dolores Park a while back--couple d00ds of the hipster persuasion were sitting near us guzzling (of course) Pabst, and this is their prototypically perfect exchange:
Hipster 1: You're not rockin' the fixie today, man. Hipster 2: Nah, too many hills.
The rhetoric Wednesday was not as heated. Direct Action coordinated this year's protest but seemed aware of what has been called the "Code Pink conundrum," in which the activists are so shrill and unpleasant that even those who agree with them are turned off by their tactics.
Update: From the ANSWER Coalition flyer--
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW END COLONIAL OCCUPATION IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PALESTINE, HAITI MONEY FOR JOBS, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE & SCHOOLS, NOT WAR STOP U.S. INTERVENTION IN IRAN, VENEZUELA, CUBA, PHILIPPINES... NOT TO RACISM & ANTI-IMMIGRANT ATTACKS, DEFEND CIVIL LIBERTIES
I've heard of casting a wide net, but wow...that covers just about everything.
So I know I said I'd blog about our office cupcake tasting, but then I found the post that might've served as inspiration for the day that almost ended in tragedy...delicious, iced tragedy.
I was completely torn between Kara's Cupcakes and That Takes the Cake, but ultimately my chocolate bias won out and I gave the nod to Kara's because of the Fleur De Sel. With that said, I think That Takes the Cake has the most original cupcakes in terms of flavor combinations and cake textures.
My thoughts exactly. I can't believe we did this the week of Thanksgiving. Oh wait, yes I can. And did I mention my housemates and I are hosting a cupcake party soon?
You know, Nosheteria (best food blog name evar) says cupcakes have become passe, but it's gonna take a helluva lot more than them falling out of fashion for me to stop fiending.
Seems every time there's some sort of significant shift in where I'm at, I rename the blog. So it's been almost 6 months since I moved to "The City"...long overdue, but maybe now that I've got a purty new masthead and links to boot I'll have more of an incentive to post.
Thought I'd share a coupla things I read over the weekend that struck a chord.
>>Jessica Valenti on "The Sisterhood Split" -- this captures a lot of what I've been feeling about the dialogue around Clinton's candidacy and reactions from mainstream feminsim:
...Herein lies the reason so many of us are loath to discuss intrafeminist problems publicly. We know that Clinton supporters are taking heat from sexists--whether at home, at work or from pundits who relish talking about Clinton's "shrill" voice or whatever thinly veiled misogyny of the day is on cable news. We don't want to provide the backlash more fodder. We also know how hard our feminist foremothers fought to be here and how important the moment is--and we want to be a part of it. I certainly do. But not at the expense of what I believe is best for women, and not just because a movement that assumes it knows what's best for me tells me to.
This is refreshing after reading Astrid Henry's "Not My Mother's Sister" -- a book reviewed on by Feministing's "Not Oprah's Book Club" with a cover more befitting "Ya Ya Sisterhood" than a somewhat dense scholarly deconstruction of the generational lines in the sand drawn between 2nd and 3rd wave feminisms. And by dense I mean that the footnotes and bibliography were as long as half the text itself, and my head just isn't in the game anymore when it comes to academic writing. Too much writing for email, where there's a premium placed on punchy prose (and did I mention aliteration?). But I'm rambling...I like that Henry is trying to get at the roots of intergenerational infighting in order to shore up the movement and refocus energy outward, but I think I prefer Valenti's approach:
...feminists make a mistake in prematurely calling for unity. Instead of glossing over the problem with the rhetoric of sisterhood or having an elite group declare the dispute settled, let's own the conflict and use it to make real progress.
>>On the topic of global feminisms, Alternet's Joshua Holland asks "Is Islam Really Stuck in the 12th Century on Women's Rights?" A lot of what I've read from him has challenged the "clash of civilizations" contingent and called out Islamophobia and Western ethnocentrism, and this was no exception:
The bottom line here is that increasing women's civic, political and economic participation is a good fight, and an incredibly significant one. Focusing primarily on the status of women in Islamic countries to rid ourselves of the stigma of our own inequalities or to justify Western hegemony over the rest of the world is not.
I had to read this at least five times before it really registered:
Portuguese women got the vote in 1976, Swiss women in 1971.
Where I work, the last Friday of every month is reserved for "Final Friday Funday" office fieldtrips -- er, off-site meetings? So on leap day, a coworker took us on a walking tour of the murals in the Mission.
Check out all the photos here -- particularly the Megatron-esque gentrification monster. Most photos were taken in Balmy Alley and Clarion Alley by Mark F. and myself. Silhoutte portal reveals a previous incarnation of constantly repainted Clarion Alley
Precita Eyes is a community-based mural arts collaboration that offers weekend tours and curates many of these pieces.
Just watched Alex Koll do this routine at the Punch Line, and thought it was definitely share-worthy:
He did deadpan improv like I've never seen at the Dark Room earlier this month. Ooo, look at me, name dropping San Francisco comedy joints, whoopedy-doo.
...and well. Haven't written since moving to San Francisco, and for lack of a better place to begin, I thought I'd start by sharing some of the more recent activities that have been keeping me gleefully preoccupied, and work backwards (read: SF cupcake tasting still has yet to be chronicled).
Please, try to contain your excitement, hb.
Yesterday: SF Freeze flash mob, at the Powell St. cablecar turnaround. Stood still in the rain, nose running and tears streaming for five minutes while unamused shoppers pushed past. My housemate and her brother had planned to pose jousting with umbrellas, and I ended up holding mine out as a shield. Passersby got increasingly annoyed--"what is this?" "get out of the way" "fucking move"--and I started asking myself: Really? Are you really willing to get poked in the eye with an umbrella spoke for the sake of a performance art? Er, no. Definitely outside the comfort zone, and not something I would've done on my own, but ultimately was glad to be a part of it, risking loss of sight notwithstanding.
Here's a really well composed photo, and some low-res video below. Neither capture this punk/Victorian-esque style couple that stood nearby me, frozen in a kiss for the full five minutes beneath an inside-out umbrella.
No shit I'm critical - you're flawed. - Elizabeth Koch Friends all Jewish. I'm merely neurotic. - Brian Mahon Most successful accomplishments based on spite. - Scott Birch Big heart protected by sharp tongue. - Kris Kleindienst Adopted? Are you fucking shitting me? - Darius Logan Happiness is a warm salami sandwich. - Stanley Bing Mormon feminist loves husband, hates patriarchy. - Caroline Kline Never really finished anything, except cake. - Carletta Perkins Fight. like. hell. for. the. living. - Susie Bright
Was inspired to write a couple less clever ones of my own:
Hated perpetual motion, now can't stop Privileged social activist: contradiction in terms? Mellow actor, scattered activist: seeking balance
And finally: Just so I don't look like a shill for Laughing Squid, there's McDonald's in Chinatown for the New Year's celebration.
They were out in full force with a hidg-ous float and colossal puffy happy meal box-shaped tent, complete with flags advertising their offensive "i-am-asian" sitelet. They've actually trademarked the phrase. Mmm, have some cultural appropriation with your Big Mac. Oh, and don't miss their tagline: "i aim to be the best." It's okay to perpetuate the "overachiever" stereotype, cause it's not racist if it's a compliment, right guys?! McVom.
Since coming to the Chronicle from Wired News in 1999, David Lazarus has been one of the most prolific, and influential, writers at the paper. His coverage of the energy crisis in 2001 earned him the Journalist of the Year award from the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California chapter. He continues to butt heads with corporate executives and write stories that unambiguously take the side of consumers.
In his final column, he calls for the reawakening of a dormant consumer movement, with muckraking reporters on the corporate watchdog beat leading the charge alongside advocates.
It's a point he made repeatedly during our conversation - that the biggest difference between now and then is that the media have lost interest in consumer advocacy as both a story and a calling.
This, in turn, leaves the consumer movement to a great extent voiceless.
...Still, I attend a lot of public events and I can say with confidence that most consumers haven't given up when it comes to defending their rights. They're frustrated - that goes without saying. They often feel that companies are dedicated solely to outmaneuvering customers.
But people aren't hopeless. They just want to be treated fairly.
...There was a time when businesses believed the customer is always right. That's an exaggeration, of course, but there's a grain of truth in it. Businesses understood that if you treat customers right, they'll keep coming back.
...These days, the shareholder is always right. Businesses focus almost exclusively on placating investors by delivering steady growth quarter after quarter. And to maintain a consistently robust bottom line, many companies reduce overhead by repeatedly cutting back on service.
Lazarus said he never envisioned himself launching a "one-man consumer crusade against corporate malfeasance."
I don't think there's any mistaking that my work is fairly populist in its sentiment. The rap on what I do is that I'm anti-business -- that's what my critics like to say most often than not. I see myself more as pro-accountability. ... Corporations should be accountable. And if you're going to do something, especially if it affects thousands or millions of customers, you should be able to defend that policy...
I was excited to hear that the organization I work with (the Consumer Federation of California) recognized Lazarus with its Journalist of the Year award in 2004. This year SF Weekly named him the city's best columnist:
With the Chron's business section too often serving as a bulletin board for industry press releases, Lazarus brings a healthy dose of skepticism to the notion that corporate America knows best.
The touching farewell:
Not that long ago, my young son finally got around to asking why Daddy's picture appears in the newspaper.
"Well," I replied, "that's because I try to help people and protect them from bad guys."
My son stewed on that for a moment. His eyes lit up.
"Daddy!" he exclaimed. "You're Batman!"
I'm going to miss Gotham. But Metropolis should be fun, too.
I'll be watching for him in the LAT.
Side note: Lazarus is in very good company as a Crossroads alum.
With SiCKO ranking in the top 5 grossing documentaries of all time, millions of Americans are unleashing a healthy sense of moral outrage over our inadequate and exorbitantly expensive system of private health care. Bush and his fellow insurance industry apologists are running scared, pushing back against the rising groundswell in favor of revolutionizing our health care system.
Chronicle columnist David Lazarus points out that Bush should be the last person to deride government-run health care, with taxpayers having just foot the bill for his colonoscopy. What's more, Bush's argument for why he'd veto Congress' bill to provide care to millions of uninsured children mischaracterizes what health care reform really entails:
Bush wasn't being entirely accurate when he derided the notion of government-run health care for every American. That might make for a fine little sound bite, especially among those who fear the specter of "socialized medicine," but it's not really what's at stake.
Rather, advocates of health care reform are seeking government-run insurance for every American, leaving the health care part to those who know best - doctors and nurses.
This is a crucial distinction at a time when 47 million Americans lack medical coverage and, according to researchers at Harvard University, about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on health care in this country is squandered on bureaucratic overhead.
"Cuba is socialized medicine," observed Dr. Kevin Grumbach, who heads the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF. "The government employs all the physicians and owns all the hospitals. That's not what anyone is talking about for this country."
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.
As for those long waiting lines? Paul Krugman spells it out:
It’s true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there’s a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
That’s right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that’s what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding — end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.
Klein: Let's talk you about the socialized system. We have the VA. Kudlow: I don't think the VA works in spots. But since you asked me, what we learned about the VA is that certain of those hospitals have completely run down in care and need to be replaced. Klein: Are you talking about Walter Reed? Kudlow: We have number one. Klein: Walter Reid is part of an army hospital, not part of the VA. Kudlow: With regard to the prescription drug program, you can't get the drugs you need. Klein: Here's what I don't understand. Rand Corporation ranked VA highest on quality. The Internal Medicine ranked it highest. The New England Journal ranked it had highest on quality. They keep health care costs down and they have slower spending. I don't understand what you don't like.
Single-payer advocates have the facts on their side. Opponents only have diversions.
Olbermann talks about the "myth of the omnipresent enemy" and provides a platform for the voice of reason on this overblown non-story.
We saw about three years ago, General Richard Meyers, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say that the threat of terrorism was the greatest threat we face in this country, in the U.S., since the Civil War. And what we know factually is that fewer than 50,000, not just Americans, but all people worldwide, have died from international terrorism since 1968. We lose 50 million people plus in WWII and we have someone like General Meyers saying that this is the greatest threat? It’s a threat, but we need to put it in its proper perspective and go back and remember the words of FDR—it’s the fear! If we allow the fear to conquer us and drive us to do things like allow Guantanamo, like allow torture, we ourselves become victims of the very things that we say we’re trying to fight. You know, I think big deep breaths, remain calm, and let’s stop with some of the alarmist behavior. --Larry Johnson, counterterrorism expert
The idea—which is critical to the FBI’s prosecution—that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.
Without a simple, distinct enemy, there'd be no conduit in which to channel hatred and fear. Unprocessed political realities are often much too complex and abstract for this. Buzzwords are more accessible and successful in arousing the type of emotion needed to promote warmaking. It's this kind of soundbyte-ready fearmongering and cable news complicity that Al Gore assails in the first chapter of The Assault on Reason. Started it today--definitely a timely read.
