We Shall Overcome

What does it mean when the "California High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban" while "preserv[ing] the 18,000 same-sex marriages" on the books?

The gay marriage ban is Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It appears that the court is saying that Prop 8 is a valid amendment to the constitution, regardless of the fact that it requires discrimination, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno.

Because Prop 8 did not retroactively invalidate existing gay marriages, the court is allowing them to stand.

What all of this means to me is that the court will accept the will of the voters on gay marriage, but has no stomach for standing on principles, such as equality under the law.

OK fine. The trend of California voting shows increasing support for defining marriage as between two people, regardless of their sex. If we show up and vote, we will win this, no matter how much cash the Mormons pump into the campaign against us.

Stripe-ing Day

How do you add "ing" to the verb "to stripe". Perhaps it is striping, but it is definitely not stripping.

One of my favorite days of year in Tahoe is the day the county repaints the stripes that divide the highway. Sierra roads take a beating during the winter and when the snow and ice has melted and the grit is swept away, we are left with blacktop accented occasionally by the ghosts of former stripes.

Not only do the new yellow stripes look wonderful, they also are useful at preventing collisions. For example, there is a left turn lane from the highway onto a street I travel to get home. I know where it is, even if the stripes are missing, but oncoming traffic does not and they think it is part of their lane. Eeeeeek! No more. My left hand turn lane is now restored in yellow splendor.

The truck that lays down the stripes is cute (sorry I have no picture). It resembles a flatbed truck with an Apollo lunar lander leg stuck on one side. The leg extends to the middle of the road and squirts out the paint. I have no idea how they keep things aligned or control what kind of line is being painted: single stripe, double stripe, hashed lined, etc. It just looks like a guy driving a truck.

In other news, Clare and I exchanged our snow tires today for the all weather versions. My usual tire place is the Reno Costco because they have historically charged $24. Today they wanted $58 and it would be a two hour wait. Excuse me, but isn't the point of Costco to pay less money. The freaking VW dealership doesn't even charge that much.

A few months ago I read a gushing article about a family run tire shop in Truckee called Stowe's. They have very cushy couches, HD TV showing CNN, free coffee, and got me out in under an hour. Thank you Costco for driving away my business.

Miss Boo-S-A

Miss USA 2009, Kristen Dalton of North Carolina, AP


1st runner up, Carrie Prejean of California, AP

Yes, you are looking at two different women, not even twins, who sport equally fetching boob jobs. I did not actually watch the 2009 Miss USA pageant in its entirety, but tuned in for the last few minutes during the interview portion, where things got... interesting. How does one decide between two such obviously qualified Miss-USA-wannabees? Ask them a question?

Unfortunately for Carrie Prejean, Miss California, she was given the most difficult task. Her judge questioner, Prop 8 opponent Perez Hilton, asked "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?"

Will Miss California show brains and poise to match her beauty? Here is what she said.

I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.

A few moments later, Miss North Carolina, Kirsten Dalton, got the tiara upgrade. She had been lobbed a softball during her interview and only had to say that taxpayers need not bail out failing companies.

Did Miss California shed loser tears because of her anti-same-sex marriage stance and/or the way she stated it? I am inclined to say yes, as her answer is poorly constructed and was the opposite of what Perez Hilton wanted to hear. One can imagine a more tactful response, where she doesn't say "I think that I believe" and offers up civil unions as a compromise, reserving marriage as a religious institution. Mr. Hilton would not have liked that answer either, but she might have scored for being a worthy opponent.

Update: Perez Hilton posted a video blog following the pageant where he called Miss California a "dumb bitch." According to ABC, he later apologized for the remark.

Did Noah St. John Choke?

© David Cannon/Getty Images

(Be sure and read the comments at the end of this post.)

Noah St. John is an author of self-help books. Following the Masters (golf tournament), he published a blog entry on the Huffington Post titled Why Did Kenny Perry Choke on the Masters? In this post, Mr. St. John claimed that Kenny Perry, who was two shots ahead with two holes to play, might have won the tournament had he only given himself permission to succeed, a topic Mr. St. John writes about.

I found that suggestion to be a bit shameless, as Mr. St. John was simply using Mr. Perry's loss as an opportunity to sell product. I posted a comment on Monday saying as much, however, comments are moderated and my effort was rejected. But on Tuesday morning, the original blog post had been rewritten, giving more sympathy to Kenny Perry and explaining what Perry could have done to be successful rather than offering him a book.

Did I cause a Huffington Post article to be rewritten? Did Mr. St. John choke on his first attempt and take a mulligan (golfing term for a do over)?

Upon seeing the rewrite, I posted this comment, which may also be rejected.

Yesterday I posted a comment that was critical of Mr. St. John for using Kenny Perry's loss as an opportunity to hawk his book. That comment was not published, however, the original article has been rewritten, making it more favorable to Kenny Perry and giving more advice on how to be successful. Also, Mr. St. John no longer offers Mr. Perry a free copy.

I still think Mr. St. John knows nothing about golf. He says "he suddenly could not hit shots that any pro can hit on a Thursday." The facts are that Tiger also finished bogey-bogey. Why not claim that Tiger choked? The winner, Angel Cabrera hit his first drive of the playoff behind a tree. His second shot bounced off another tree before landing back in the fairway. So why don't we say that Angel choked? Kenny Perry's final put of the Masters made it to the hole. If it had been a half-inch to the right, he and Angel would have gone to the third playoff hole, for the first time in Masters history. That is not the putt of one who chokes.

In fairness to Mr. St. John, the "he suddenly could not hit shots" reference was misattributed. St. John actually said "he let it slip away like so much fairway bunker sand." If you are curious about what a real sports writer says about Kenny Perry, try Perry is the master of class by Dan Wetzel.

Update: I was thrilled to get a comment (see below) from Nina of www.successclinic.com. Here is the email reply I sent her.

Dear Nina,

Thanks for answering my question about the rewrite. I really didn't think I had anything to do with it, but one never knows. When I read the first article, there was already one comment up and it was favorable to Kenny Perry.

What annoyed me and motivated me to comment and blog was that the first version of the article appeared to be an ad for a book. I have no problems with ads for books (I love books) but I thought I was reading a sports article. Never before have I encountered "product placement" in a Huffington Post article. You may disagree that the article was an ad, but that was my perception.

As to Kenny Perry, everyone saw that he lost a lead on the last two holes and lost a 3-way playoff, however, it was very close. To claim to understand the cause of a bad golf shot (after so many excellent ones) is going out on a limb. If Mr. Perry had turned in a miserable fourth round or had three putted from three feet (as others have done), you might have had more of a case to say that he choked. What is wonderful about Mr. Perry's story is the big picture, the fact that he does not live or die by what happens in a golf tournament, which is not really that important in the scheme of things. By many accounts, he is an excellent golf-pro, a wonderful father and husband, and a strong contributor to his community.

Thanks again for commenting on my blog.

Regards,
David Renaud

I checked the St. John post just now and saw that my second comment has been rejected, as was my first. Normally, the Huffington Post is a place for exchange of ideas and different points of view. Not in this case, which suggests that criticism is not welcomed. On the other hand, I received a very nice email reply from Nina, which I appreciated.

More update: Noah St. John has also provided a second comment to this post, which I also appreciate.

Beck the Tea Bagger

If you watch Comedy Central or MSNBC, it is not necessary to watch Fox (or for that matter Rush), as Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, and Maddow keep you up on all the "good" parts. However, sometimes it is fun to go right to the source. Glenn Beck, high school graduate and Fox weekday show host, popped up on my radar after his infamous "I just love my country" crying spell. On Friday, Beck put on an hour-long special report on how our country got to "where it is" today, with the hint that "where it is" is either "off the rails" or "heading towards fascism".

The teaser for the show also sucked me in. Beck insisted that the show be watched in its entirety, as to do otherwise would risk hearing things "out of context" and those decontexted snippets might seem extreme or give you the wrong idea, whatever that could be.

As it turned out, the content of the show was not nearly as interesting as the formula. Beck had four guests, each the author of a book that had changed the way he thought about the world. All of the authors were friendly witnesses and they had a grand time talking about Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, the progressive movement in the early 20th century, and the great depression of the 30s. The big takeaway was that fascism has two preconditions: fear and hunger. Once we were properly schooled in history-a-la-Beck, we were admonished that "history repeats itself." No attempt (zero, nada) was made to compare the circumstances of the 21st century with the circumstances preceding the rise of 20th century fascist regimes. It was up to the viewer to connect the dots. Beck also insisted that the viewer go out and buy the books, giving the show the feel of an infomercial.

The show concluded with a speech by Thomas Paine, who is normally unable to give speeches due to being dead for 200 years, however, an (old looking) actor filled in. Beck claims Paine as an ancestor but he may have been just joshing us. Paine the actor's purpose was to rouse the rabble to participate in some tax day tea bagging, you know, Boston Tea Party-like behavior to protest all the outrageous spending of taxpayer dollars by our federal government.

Did he say tea bagging? I first learned about tea bagging when watching one of my favorite movies, John Water's Pecker. Let's just say that if you look up and open your mouth and a guy sets his nut sack on your tongue, you have just been tea bagged.

Do the tax day tea bagging people not know what they are saying? I think not. Rachel Maddow is giggling so hard over this that I am amazed she hasn't fallen off her chair.

Just as Olbermann always refers to Rush as "Rush the comedian", I shall forever refer to Beck as "Beck the Tea Bagger".

Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Towleroad has a post about the National Organization for Marriage's 'pro-family' fear-mongering zombies release gay marriage scare ad. I checked out the NOM and found this FAQ on their marriage talking points page, which attempts to give same-sex marriage opponents the answers to some awkward questions.

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

They have equated "believing mothers and fathers matter" to being against same-sex marriage, which it is not. They introduce African-American opposition, which is a red herring. Pointing out that marriage is not new and asserting their conclusion (not taking away rights) does not address the question of bigotry.

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Prohibiting same-sex marriage continues the stigmitization of gay couples and continues their oppression. In this way, it is similar to bans on interracial marriage. The argument about marriage being for the purpose of male/female parenting assumes that marriage is always about having children and that alternatives to male/female parenting are inferior, both invalid assumptions.

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

The fact that same-sex marriage opponents desire an amendment to the constitution which codifies discrimination against gay people demonstrates that they understand that such discrimination is currently unconstitutional, confirming that judicial activism in states such as California and Iowa is correct.

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples does not remove any rights from anyone, as there is no right to define a word the way you wish. People who have beliefs that others find bigoted are not treated as bigots unless they act on those beliefs. Religious organizations who are acting as agents of the government by running public programs are obligated to follow public policy. If this is in conflict with their dogma, they may decline public funding and limit their bigotry to purely religious expression. The education issue is a red herring, however, if children are being taught that people may be who they are, that is a good thing. Same-sex marriage does not hold that children should not have both a mom and a dad, only that there are valid alternatives. There may be an assumption among same-sex opponents that exposing children to the idea of homosexuality may make them gay, which is of course, absurd. Finally, asserting that something is "not right" is not an argument.

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Actually, marriage is a legal contract and, for some, a sacrament.

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

Many decades ago, we decided that "separate but equal" did not work with respect to race relations. The same is case with respect to gay people and same-sex marriage. The only way to guarantee that everyone has the same rights is to say that everyone has the same rights.

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

An excellent point. The same-sex marriage opponents should be spending their time trying to make divorce illegal. I'm kidding, but hope I made a point that our legal system should not be used to enforce religious views.

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

There is an assumption in this argument concerning fitness to be a parent. Who is to decide this? Are two people, who together possess male and female parts, always the best parents? Are there not other factors, such as how these people participate in the lives of their children? There was one episode of Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood that I cherish where he suggests that what a child really needs is one adult who really cares about them.

9. What about older or infertile couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Again, there is the assumption of the ideal parents, which is invalid. If you accept this assumption, then it seems reasonable to deny male/female marriage to a couple who intends to neither procreate nor adopt.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh Greg!

On Tuesday, one of my personal guides through the financial crisis demonstrated that otherwise smart people can sometimes totally not get it. Concerning the AIG bonus flap, Professor Mankiw wrote in Trivial Pursuit:

The AIG bonuses now being debated in Congress and everywhere else represent about .001 percent of annual GDP. Regardless of how outraged you are about the AIG bonuses, it is probably not an optimal allocation of resources for our elected leaders to spend large amounts of time and energy on the topic.

Conventional wisdom says that our populist rage is unleashed on this particular topic because, unlike many topics in the financial crisis, we understand it. People understand companies going insolvent, getting bailed out, then paying $400,000 bonuses to a chosen few. And they don't like it, regardless of the fact that the bonus fund is .001 percent of GDP.

Mankiw would have done better to have stuck to prior criticisms of recovery legislation, which focus on the inefficiencies and mistakes that are inevitably made when so much money is spent so quickly.

As it turns out, Mankiw's lack of faith in the wisdom of congress (evidenced by the last paragraph of his post) was supported by today's House vote to tax the AIG bonuses at 90 percent. Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out on Olberman that such a law is unconstitutional because it is both retroactive and targets a specific group (Article I, Section 9. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.)

Penalty Shoot Outs: Fair or Foul?

Happy Pi day! March 14 is 3/14, the first three digits of pi (3.14159 and so on).


Natasha Kai, Striker, USWNT

On Wednesday the US Women's National Soccer Team tied Sweden 1-1 in the finals of the Algarve Cup in Portugal. The game was particularly exciting as the US tied the score during stoppage time, which is the few minutes that are tacked on at the end of each half to make up for stoppages (e.g. injuries, ball chasing). In this tournament, the rules call for a penalty shoot out to determine the tournament winner if the teams are tied after ninety minutes. In other tournaments, such as the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup, two fifteen-minute overtime periods are played, so each team has a chance to defend both goals, and the penalty shoot out occurs only if the teams are tied after that.

In a penalty shoot out, each team takes five penalty shots, alternating between teams. For each shot, the ball is placed directly in front of the goal, twelve yards away. The goalkeeper must remain on the goal line until the shooter kicks the ball.

If they are tied after five shots each, they start sudden death penalty shooting. Unfortunately for the American women, Sweden prevailed 4-3.

Most soccer fans, players, and coaches dislike penalty shoot outs because soccer is a team sport and shoot outs are individual competitions. Shoot outs also feel like flipping coins. A penalty shot heavily favors the shooter because if she can kick the ball near a post, the goalkeeper cannot stop it. Goalkeepers are allowed to move along the goal line prior to the kick, so they typically dive one way or the other in anticipation. The shooter fails if she fails to put the ball in the frame or kicks the ball near the goalkeeper. But with skilled players, the shot hits the net seventy to eighty percent of the time.

There are several alternatives to the penalty shoot out. In golden goal, a sudden-death overtime period is played where the first team to score wins. There are two problems with this option. First, because soccer is played outdoors on a field, one team may have an advantage due to wind or other conditions. Second, the influence of the referees on the outcome is increased, as they can disallow a goal (e.g. by calling offsides) or award a penalty kick (e.g. by calling a major foul). This may put the refs at risk of violence should the crowd disagree with their calls.

A variant of golden goal is silver goal, which is the same as golden goal except that after a goal is scored, play continues until the end of the current overtime period. Unfortunately, as an overtime period nears its end, silver goal becomes golden goal, so it's not much of an improvement.

So how should tied games be decided? Penalty shoot outs are leave too much to chance and emphasize the individual over team play. Golden and silver goals may give one team an unfair advantage and put too much power in the hands of refs, in addition to the risk of crowd violence.

Why not let the teams keep playing overtime periods? If tied after the two fifteen-minute periods, two ten-minute periods are played. If still tied, then two five-minute periods. If still tied, then two more five-minute periods, and so on until the tie is broken. Additionally, the number of players is reduced; eleven in the fifteen-minute periods, nine in the ten-minute periods, and seven in the five-minute periods. Players are selected from the eleven that were playing at the end of regulation.

Others have suggested similar schemes. Why not give it a try?

Have You No Shame, Sir?

©Comedy Central/Gavin Bond ©CNBC Photo

This week, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been showing clips of Jim Cramer, the host of a financial entertainment show on CNBC called Mad Money. Stewart was making fun of the fact that Cramer gets it wrong sometimes and zeroed in on his recommendations on Bear Stearns. On Thursday night, these two faced off on The Daily Show.

It wasn't funny, which is a problem because The Daily Show is supposed to be funny. First of all, the premise that Cramer should be chastised for giving bad advice is absurd. No one can predict the stock market reliably, much less individual stocks. Second, Stewart was acting like Chris Matthews, that is, he was asking long questions and then turning it into a multiple choice by giving the answers himself. He was getting all serious on us. Not funny. Third, Stewart was showing clips from 2006 of Cramer talking about borderline illegal activities of hedge fund traders. These clips were a bit obscure and not funny. If Stewart has an issue with them, why didn't he bring it up two years ago. Finally, Cramer was not himself and was not funny. He sat there like a contrite little boy and said CNBC could do better. Not funny.

The show I was hoping for would have Cramer trading punches with Stewart. He could have shown clips of Stewart's lapses, you know, other times when Stewart is not funny. Times when he does impersonations, badly. Times when he is a star-struck sycophant during a celebrity interview/movie promotion. Times when he says something and the audience goes "ewwwwwwwwwww".

I can credit The Daily Show for the opening, which admitted that the whole Cramer vs. Stewart thing was about ratings. That was funny.

Fortunately for Comedy Central, The Daily Show is just a warm-up for the highly-awarded The Colbert Report and the hilarious and talented Stephen Colbert.

Update: The NYT TV Decoder's The Comedian as Media Critic provides a good summary of what happened. Alessandra Stanley's Economic Meltdown Not a Laughing Matter says "Mostly, the much-hyped Thursday night showdown between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, the mercurial host of “Mad Money” on CNBC, felt like a Senate subcommittee hearing," which is similar to my take on it. The Huffington Post scored a big win for Stewart. The comments that follow these blogs show overwhelming support for and thanks to Stewart for revealing that CNBC may simply be PR for the companies they cover, that they help to spread rumors, and that they give bad advice. As to who really won, I like the Huffington Post's Tim Berry's call.

So who's winning the Cramer vs. Stewart battle? Cramer and Stewart. Both are smart enough to keep it going as long as they can. And, along with them, Comedy Central, and NBC, and all the news media that cover them.

Domestic Partnership Initiative

Two straight southern California college students now have an initiative in circulation which, if passed, would turn all married Californians into "domestic partners" and put government out of the marriage business. To get on the ballot, the backers must obtain 700,000 signatures by early August. Their proposed text states...

The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8. (09-0003.)

This initiative appears to address the objection of gay marriage opponents that gay marriage would "redefine" marriage.

I predict that the initiative will either fail to qualify for the ballot or, if on the ballot, will fail to pass, as just about everyone has reason to not like it. Consider these objections:

1. The initiative redefines marriage by removing government support. If you are against any redefinition of marriage, you will be against this initiative.
   
2. Some fundamentalists who are against homosexuality based on their interpretation of scripture will want to maintain the status quo, which denies same-sex marriage or civil unions.
   
3. Some gay marriage supporters will not be willing to settle for a "domestic partnership" solution. They feel that they have a right to be "married", just like straight couples.
   
4. Some married straight couples will be annoyed that they will be "domestic partnered" rather than "married." If they want to regain their "married" status, will they have to have another ceremony?
   
5. Some fundamentalists will be annoyed that gay domestic partners will be able to obtain marriage from a church which is accepting of gays and lesbians.
   
6. Some who are indifferent or hostile to religion will object on the basis that the initiative is kowtowing to religion.
   
7. Not really an objection, but some married people will claim that the state has nullified their marriage and they are now divorced. I doubt their claim will stand up, but am fairly certain someone will try.

A simpler version of this initiative is to repeal Prop 8 and reinstate gay marriage. Non-governmental institutions (i.e. churches) can then issue or deny "the sacrament of man-woman matrimony" to whoever they wish.

Silly Robo Call

I just received a robo call from Anthem Blue Cross, telling me that they are now providing free language assistance in compliance with a new California law. The robo caller was speaking english and gave me no opportunity to switch to another language.

So if I speak english, I now know that my health insurance company provides a service I don't need. And if I don't speak english, I don't know what the robo caller said.

Silly Robo Call!!!!

Big Love Too?

HBO's Big Love (not actual polygamists but play them on TV)

On March 6, the California Supreme court heard oral arguments on the validity of Prop 8, which took away the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. Regardless of their decision, the right to gay marriage will eventually be guaranteed to all Americans, as suggested by our progress in extending to the few those civil rights which are enjoyed by the many.

One question that occurred to me is... if we legalize gay marriage, why not do the same with polygamy?

There are two differences between gay marriage and polygamy that persuade me to allow the former while denying the latter. First, people are born gay and culture can only suppress that fact, not change it. The trend in our society is to not deny civil rights based on who we are at birth (e.g. sex, ancestry, disability). One might argue that men are hardwired for polygamy in that they seek out multiple sexual partners, however, being born with a desire to have sex with multiple women is not the same as a desire to be in concurrent marriage with the same.

Second, there is no benefit to society in denying gay marriage; in fact, there are costs, such as complicating the legal and financial situation of committed couples. Simply put, it's bad for business. On the other hand, there is benefit in denying polygamy. In past cultures where a minority of men commanded all the wealth, women may have benefited from being one of many rather than the sole wife of a pauper, however, that is not the world of today. Society suffers if men are unable to find wives. Their chances improve if other men can only marry one woman at a time.

I write about this topic because it adds to the debunking of the argument that if gay marriage is legalized, then the door to the marriage tent is open to anything, including fruit salad.

McCain's Tweets

Maureen Dowd's Stage of Fools piece in the NYT discusses the content of Senator John McCain's efforts on Twitter, focusing on his top ten lists of stimulus pork. As that ground has been plowed, I will confine my remarks to his tweet style.

First of all, I believe that Senator McCain is posting his own tweets because they don't appear everyday. If this task had been assigned to a staffer, I would expect to see more regular output. For example, he does not tweet on most weekends and he skips some weekdays, such as February 9. Also, when not pork listing, he maxes out at 3 or 4 tweets.

McCain uses tweets primarily for three things: a public day timer (e.g. "I am working in my office on Capitol Hill today."), a promo (e.g. "Watch my interview with Fox & Friends LIVE @ 8:15 am"), and to garner media attention by listing pork (e.g. "$95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio"). This last use subverts the whole concept of Twitter, which is micro blogging or the publishing of a tweet, a self-contained 140 character message (or less). By assembling a lengthy communication into successive tweets, he is exploiting Twitter's ability to stream messages into mobile devices in real time, but making the recipients read the message in a start/stop fashion. For example, on March 5, he started his list at 6:41am and ended it at 1:35pm. A list is more easily read from the archive once it is posted in entirety, which means that Senator McCain should be blogging, not Twittering.

Another style issue is prefacing, or sending a tweet to say you are about to send a tweet (e.g. "and the #1 project is..." ). To me, it's just getting around the 140 character limit.

The Twitter homepage states that a tweet is an answer to the question "What are you doing?", however, my experience with the Facebook status feature suggests that micro blogs are just as concerned with what people are thinking or feeling. We rarely get that from Senator McCain. On occasion, he might twitter something like "I appreciate Senator Byrd speaking in favor of my Constitutional point of order", but not very often.

Tweets (as I experience in Facebook) can also be funny. I am seeing no humor in Senator McCain's thumb jockeying. OK, Congress is serious business but he is using something called "Twitter." Throw us a bone every once in a while. Actually, the "Happy Birthday Joe Lieberman!!" tweet on Feb 24 was a little bit funny.

One cute thing McCain does is to start some tweets with ICYMI, which I have never seen before but assume means "in case you missed it". I find it cute because it's almost always unnecessary. In 159 updates, he has yet to utter a single LOL, ROFL, or WTF, which one might expect given his history of salty language.

In the final analysis, there is nothing really wrong with McCain's tweets. Hey, it's a free country. He is simply using a new technology, getting some media attention because of it, and possibly shedding a bit of his internet-illiterate image. But he has not embraced the spirit of micro blogging, which is more related to social interaction than public relations, at least this week.

The Greying of Obama

People are starting to notice that President Obama is going grey. Supposedly, this started during the campaign and is noticeable now that he is President. We will never know if we would have gone grey regardless of his career choice, but we can be certain he is subject to considerable lifestyle stress.

In a post titled Obama's Ball and Chain, Thomas Friedman fears "that his whole first term could be eaten by Citigroup, A.I.G., Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and the whole housing/subprime credit bubble." David Brooks in A Moderate Manifesto finds in the Obama budget "a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs."

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, usually sympathetic to the left, writes in The Big Dither of "a growing sense of frustration, even panic, over Mr. Obama’s failure to match his words with deeds. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern." Stanford economist Michael Boskin, in a piece called Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow for the right-leaning Wall Street Journal, charges "that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis." Congressional Republicans say the same thing in tweet-sized bites, accusing the President of leading us to socialism or a European-style welfare state. And then there is the comedian Rush Limbaugh, whose radio audience has climbed from 14 million to 25 million in one week.

Commenting on the budget, the conservative British journal The Economist writes in Wishful, and dangerous, thinking that "the president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it." Basically, they argue that the numbers don't add up when you increase government spending year after year while lowering taxes on 98% of taxpayers and increasing the tax burden on 2% who are not as rich as they used to be.

A response comes in the Brook's piece titled When Obamatons Respond. Senior administration officials say

1. "They’re not engaged in an ideological project to overturn the Reagan Revolution."
2. "The Obama administration will not usher in an era of big government."
3. "It is going to reduce this spending to 3.1 percent [of GDP] by 2019, lower than at any time in any recent Republican administration."
4. "The Medicare reform represents a big cut in entitlement spending. Health care reform will be deficit-neutral."
5. Deficits are now at a gargantuan 12 percent of G.D.P., but the White House aims to bring this down to 3.5 percent in 2012."
6. "Obama folks feel they spend as much time resisting liberal ideas as enacting them."

In other words, the administration feels its budget is misunderstood and it probably is. On the other hand, any attempts to make statements about the future (aka predictions) must be based on economic models which have assumptions, and the validity of the assumptions is always in question. (The use of mathematical models with invalid assumptions is cited as a primary cause of the financial crisis, so far a mortgage-backed securities are concerned.)

Obama has reason to go grey. Fixing the banks is something that has eluded both Treasury Secretaries Paulson and Geithner. The mess called AIG continues to act as a cancer upon the global economy. Joe Nocera's piece on AIG in the NYT called Propping Up a House of Cards reveals the greatest financial scam in the history of the world, one for which it is unlikely that anyone will go to jail, as everyone knew what was going on and everything was legal. People just didn't anticipate or care about the consequences, as so much money was being socked away.

Yes, Obama has reason to go grey.

Soccer Fashion

The Women's Professional Soccer league, or WPS, is the new top league in North America and begins play at the end of March. What to wear, what to wear?

Project Runway's Christian Siriano worked with Puma to produce designs for the seven teams, which were unveiled last week to mixed reviews.



The main complaint concerns an optional removable wrap that converts shorts to a skort, reminiscent of the skorts worn by the women ball players in A League of Their Own.

As the wrap is optional and not intended for field use, I will only say that the skort combined with some roller skates would make a great outfit for waitresses at a 50s-style drive-in.

My main issue is that the collection is more suited to children's soccer than adult women, due to color choices and the use of the same color for tops and bottoms (which allows a kid's team to not have both dark and light uniforms). The similarity between the teams is also dissappointing. Why not have have a different designer for each team, so that we don't get the effect of the same design with different accents, collars, and colors?

The strongest aspect of the collection is the tailoring of the jerseys so that they need not be tucked. They uniforms look much better when the jerseys are out.

There remains the question how numbers will be handled with respect to font, size, and location. Will the player's name be across upper back? Apparently, the WPS shield logo appears on the right sleeve and a team logo appears above the left breast and on the front of the shorts. And what will the goalkeepers wear? The rules of soccer require the goalkeeper to wear different colors than field players.

Here is the breakdown by team.

Boston Breakers



Love the shade of blue but find the geometric collar to be unattractive and possibly uncomfortable to wear. The shoulder accents remind me of the Indianapolis Colts of the NFL, which is not exactly fashion forward. Nice to see Amy Rodriguez, left, and Angela Hucles, right, stars of the US Women's National Team (USWNT).

Chicago Red Stars



These would make great pajamas for a six year old. The red stars across the chest are very cute but the whole look is just too simple. On a positive note, I prefer this traditional collar option. Carli Lloyd, right, scored the the winning goal for the USWNT in the 2008 Olympic gold medal match against Brazil.

FC Gold Pride (San Francisco Bay Area)



FC stands for Football Club. Same as the Breakers except in black and tan, which are very nice colors. Is the black a nod to the Bay Area's Oakland Raiders? The diagonal stripe accent at the bottom of the jersey is fun. Wouldn't tan socks work better with the dark uniforms? At any rate, this is my second favorite uniform. That's USWNT veteran Leslie Osborne on the left.

Los Angeles Sol



Same as the Breakers and Pride except in dark navy and yellow. The Sol and Pride dark uniforms are just too similar. By the way, that's Brazil's Marta on the left, one of the greatest women's soccer players of all time.

Sky Blue FC (New York/New Jersey)



Same as the Red Stars except in turquoise and Texas Longhorn orange, colors which could be used together but are not. When the jersey is tucked, as modeled by USWNT starting midfielder Heather O'Reilly, it again looks like a kid's pajamas. The orange skort and the geometric collar suggest that USWNT captain and veteran defender Christie Rampone is a drive-in waitress.

St. Louis Athletica



Same as the Red Stars and Sky Blue, but in Philadelphia Eagles green, an adult color. Finally a uniform I can believe in, one that says "this is a pro soccer player in 2009." The dark version is my favorite of the entire collection due to the traditional collar and contrasting white socks (for once!). Love the white piping accent down one side and the color stripe accent on the socks. That's Hope Solo, the USWNT starting goalkeeper, on the left, sporting her new fierce black hair. Previously, she was a blond. USWNT co-captain and starting defender Lori Chalupny, also known as the Ginger Princess, is on the right. Great color choice to compliment her hair.

Washington Freedom



Same as the Athletica but in dark navy and a red orange, which are not used together. I would have preferred to see the navy and orange used on both the dark and light versions.

In summary, the WPS would have been better served by using multiple designers so that each team could present a more unique style. Short of that, Christian should have used bolder colors (e.g. bright red, gold, silver) and given us more "fierce." Short of that, he should have avoided the mono color look or used contrasting socks more often (as he did for my favorite Athleticas). It may be that the single designer/collection approach was in the spirit of keeping expenses down and concentrating the PR on one fashion show. Still waiting to see what fonts will be used for numbers. Some final rankings:

1. Athletica
   
2. FC Gold Pride
   
3. Breakers
   
4. Sky Blue FC
   
5. Freedom
   
6. Sol
   
7. Red Stars

The good news is that the WPS will not sink or swim based on their uniforms. Unlike the previous failed women's pro league, they intend to keep expenses down and play in markets where there might be demand. The success of the US Women's National Team at the 2008 Olympics can't hurt either, as each team has players who wear Olympic gold.

Square Root Day

People like to make up holidays, however, not all holidays are equally sticky. In my lifetime, Superbowl Sunday has emerged, along with a few others promoted by greeting card companies such as Secretary Day (or is it Assistants Day?).

Today is square root day because if you multiply the digit(s) representing the month by the same digit(s) representing the day, you get either the last two or three digits of the year. In other words, the month/day digit(s) is the square root of the year digits. Specifically, these are the dates of square root day.

1/1/01
2/2/04
3/3/09
4/4/16
5/5/25
6/6/36
7/7/49
8/8/64
9/9/81
10/10/2100
11/11/2121
12/12/2144

The first nine occur once a century and the last three occur once a millennium. Wikipedia says that square root day was first celebrated in 1981, no doubt only by the founder.

In the spirit of square root day, I am declaring the "ascending moment" and the "descending moment", which likely have already been declared under different names. These moments occur when the date plus time or time plus date are the ascending digits 1 to 9 or the descending digits 9 to 1, specifically

ascending moment 1:23:45 6/7/89
descending moment 9/8/76 5:43:21

Other moments involve the zero digit (e.g. 12:34:56 7/8/90 and 01:23:54 6/7/89). Am still working out the details on how to celebrate these moments but am fairly certain it will involve the phrase "woo hoo!"

Polar Bears

It was a mild day considering it was the last of February. Wind would make a big difference, but mercifully, it was calm. Not a bad day for a multi-hundred yard swim in the forty degree water of Lake Tahoe.



The 2009 Lake Tahoe Snow Festival runs for ten days along the North Shore. A featured annual event is the polar bear swim at Gar Woods Grill & Pier in Carnelian Bay. Around ten women and thirty men paid thirty dollars each to enter the spectacle. Onlookers sat along the pier, crowded the Gar Woods deck, and pressed close upon the beach, point-and-shoots, DSLRs, and HD camcorders at the ready. The Wet Woody machine was going full tilt, keeping the masses happy.



The course was not trivial, beginning on a rocky beach that requires ten yards of tippy-toeing before you can even think of swimming. In the distance, two red buoys marked the half-way, bobbing in the waves of two jet skis that patrolled the perimeter, dragging pool floats in anticipation of a rescue.



The ten or so women went first. It became clear that some of these people had no intention of actually swimming in the lake, particularly those that had just come from a hot tub. Sanity prevailed. But then you noticed that others knew exactly what they were doing and were making a beeline for the buoys.



A woman with a painted red nose and yellow cap won by two body lengths then lingered in inch deep water. It could be exhaustion or maybe getting out isn't all that easy.



One women who went the distance was still swimming the backstroke, very slowly. In the spirit of moving things along, the men took their marks.



Being at least thirty in number, they churned the water more than the women, spreading out almost immediately into the serious and the timid.



As with the women, some reconsidered. Icy cold water takes some getting used to even if you are otherwise in good shape. If you don't train for it, it is not likely you will not last more than seconds. Anticipating the worst, an NTPUD ambulance was parked nearby.



I couldn't tell you who won the men's race as the full-coursers blended in with the this-was-a-big-mistakers. The main activity at the finish was getting people reshoed, not getting them bundled up. When you are in forty degree water, forty-five degree air probably feels pretty good.



On the way out, I noticed that the hot tub girls were back in the hot tub, along with some hot tub boys. The "insecurity" guard was encouraging those with drinks in their hands to knock them back before leaving the premises. The carnival atmosphere endured.

More and bigger photos can be seen at my Flickr photo set.

Fairly Fairey

Today's Fresh Air with Terry Gross included a piece about Shepard Fairey and the issues surrounding his appropriation of a Mannie Garcia/AP photo as the starting point for his famous Obama Hope poster.



Fairey and the Associated Press are engaged in a lawsuit over the question of fair use; I will render a verdict on that later.

Photographers, particularly those that are trying to make a living at it, face rights issues because photography necessarily appropriates reality and reality is often owned. As a member of an organization of photography professionals, ASMP, we are advised to always obtain model and property releases so as to gain rights to content of our own images. Photojournalists, such as Mr. Garcia, need not do so because content from the public domain or otherwise newsworthy imagery is usually considered fair use.

Sometimes a misunderstanding or fear of fair use policy creates a chilling effect. For example, in 2005 I photographed The Gates by Christo and Jeanne-Claude, which is an art work consisting of the temporary installation of suspended orange fabric all over Central Park. The artists do not accept donations or sponsorships but collect revenue by selling product related to the exhibit. A few months later, I submitted a photo essay on The Gates to a photography website which rejected it for fear of litigation, in spite of the fact that images of The Gates were appearing in the national media.

Terry Gross also interviewed a lawyer, who reported that fair use law is based on various tests, whose application is open to interpretation.

My opinion is that Shepard Fairey's use of Mr. Garcia's image does constitute fair use. As a photojournalist, Mr. Garcia makes photographs that are expected to be factual and possibly newsworthy. He also enjoys the special privilege of preferred access, which is extended only to credentialed members of the press. Within the commercial world of news photography, Mr. Garcia has rights which obligate those who exploit his photographs to both pay him and credit his work.

But Mr. Fairey is not in the business of consuming or redistributing news photography, rather, he is an artist who creates new works of cultural and political significance based on news artifacts. Just as Mr. Garcia enjoys the privilege of access to Obama and the rights to Obama's image, Mr. Fairey should enjoy the privilege of fair use of these news artifacts. To do otherwise would limit free artistic expression and would tend to chill political commentary and parody.

Ironically, Mr. Fairey is being ripped off more than anyone. Obamicons are the new smiley face and I am assuming that Mr. Fairey is not profiting in anyway, nor is he being asked for permission.

The Oscars Are Our Superbowl

Fashion wrap to come, but first, a few comments on the show. It was wonderful even though it ran 3 and a half hours. The Hugh Jackman opening-on-a-budget was funny and a bit surprising, as Jackman was totally unknown to me. The best parts were the actor awards, where prior winners gave personal tributes to the nominees. We got verklempt. Foodwise, it was an Oscars to remember as Clare made her special mac and cheese.

My fashion commentary is based on the Yahoo oscars fashion report. Please open that in a separate window and follow along. I have three grades: honors, pass, and fail.

Angelina Jolie, honors. The "best in show" of the night, AJ put it all together in one super-star red carpet look. Understated emerald earrings and cocktail ring highlighted a black strapless cocktail gown that showed a hint of leg.

Miley Cyrus, pass. Miley is in a difficult situation, being too young to pull off dressing sexy, but too much of a star to dress like the average prom queen. Her solution was to go out of box for something resembling a christmas tree made out of aluminum foil. It was not awful, rather, it was fun to see. So you other critics, lay off her as she's still just a kid.

Kate Winslet, pass. Kate Winslet is best actress this year. Everyone knew that, including Time magazine, who announced this on their cover prior to the Oscars. She put on a dignified appearance, transitioning from the sexy starlet look of former years. The gun metal grey gown was beautiful, but yelled out "don't go all Meryl Streep on us just yet."

Mickey Rourke, fail. I am always a bit in awe of those who insist upon being themselves, regardless of where they are (yes, I'm thinking of you Johnny Depp and Alexander Calder). Mickey was just being Mickey. Liked the boots.

Marisa Tomei, honors. Marisa looked as good as Marisa can look. The Versace satin gown flattered her form while dazzling onlookers with pleated complexity. Perfect hair, jewelry, and makeup complimented the look. Good to know MT has still got it, as in prior award shows, it seemed as if she wasn't even trying.

Beyonce, fail. She failed not just because the bottom of the dress looked like some really bad curtains, but because the dress made her look fat. Not sure if anything could save this look, but a touch of jewelry might have distracted us.

Anne Hathaway, honors. White, tight, and shiny. Miss Hathaway has the most amazing face with features that are just too big, but somehow combine to render beauty. This dress was a pedestal for all that. She did not appear busty (but she is), consequently the look was not afflicted with any distractions.

Vanessa Hudgens, fail. This dress looked cheap to me, both in fabric and in execution, particularly the bottom. The flowers seemed to be a mess. Otherwise, from the shoulders up, Vanessa looked great.

Zac Eftron, fail. The tux was standard issue and the collar did not seem to fit. Spring for some nice studs next time.

Jennifer Aniston, pass. The Valentino gown was beautiful, well fitted, and had nice bead work. But the braid across over the forehead and limp locks made me think she wasn't too jazzed about the Oscar's this year.

Heidi Klum, honors. Nixon said, "if the President does it, then it's not illegal". And so it goes with Heidi, if she wears it, it can't be bad. Heidi is from the world of fashion, not Hollywood, and rules are different. It is not enough that she be simply beautiful, which happens without breaking a sweat. She must dazzle. Perched on red satin open-toed stilettos, she dazzled us with an origami-inspired red asymmetric Jane Jetson masterpiece, complete with train. Someday the other critics will agree.

Meryl Streep, pass. The job here is to dress so that people will know you're going to an awards show. Mission accomplished. Next year, consider a diamond necklace. You'll look great.

Hugh Jackman, honors. Crisp, clean, well-fitted, shoes shined. Above all, everything was in the correct proportions.

Freida Pinto, fail. I wanted to like this dress but there was something about it that wouldn't let me. Finally it hit me. Her mother should be wearing it. Freida is a young beautiful woman and this dress does not match that reality. The ornamented left sleeve says "I should be covering up an arm that needs covering up."

Sophia Loren, fail. This dress is so bad, the worst of all the season's award shows, that it deserves a special place of honor. Ms. Loren is 74 years old, and that she would go out in public in such a tight, boob revealing, flouncy thing is amazing. Unfortunately, no woman of any age would look good in this monstrosity. My suggestion is that she be buried in it. Nice diamond choker though.

Brad Pitt, pass. Mr. Pitt looked good, however, I expect a bit of cuff to show.

Taraji P. Henson, honors. The white mummy-like strapless gown with train flattered her figure without suggesting a wedding. The rather heavy necklace was unnecessary but did not detract from the overall look.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman, fail. Black on black on black on black with a black skull cap is not a good look for anyone who can pose for the Ab Lounger "before" pictures.

Halle Berry, honors. If you are going to do a black strapless column mermaid dress, Halle shows you how. The gold brocade texture and diagonal stripes make this a winner.

Reese Withespoon, fail. The asymmetry of this dress of this dress did not work, as it leads the eye nowhere and fails to flatter an otherwise beautiful body. The mismatched color patterns on the bottom look like a mistake.

Jessica Beil, pass. Take off the strange floppy bow from this white satin strapless gown and we may have something. The dress is not a disaster, but it does not flatter her figure, which in Ms. Beil's case, is considerable.

Penelope Cruz, honors. A beautiful dreamlike vintage wedding dress for the ages, only we are not at a wedding. None the less, I am so happy we got to see Ms. Cruz in this wonderful work.

Whoopi Goldberg, pass. Ms. Goldberg also belongs to the club that enjoys their own personal set of rules. On anyone else, this leopard print mu mu-like flesh cover er would be outrageous, but on a smiling Whoopi decked in shades, it works.

Amy Adams, fail. Ms. Adams is adorable and one of my favorite celebrities, but I just don't like this dress. For starters, the color is wrong for her hair. The geometric upper is distracting. And the necklace looks like a yoke from King Tut's tomb. Amy, please ask me next time, I'll steer your right, I promise.

Nicole Kidman, fail. A white strapless column gown with applied feathers. The texture of the gown is pleasing, but the feathers are a huge distraction. Hair was a bit amiss. From the shoulders to the forehead, Nicole is otherwise flawless.

Queen Latifah, fail. The black single strapped gown with applied white beading could have done without the wispy see through train, which makes it look like costume.

Josh Brolin and Diane Lane, pass. Josh looks smart in his tux-with-a-regular-old-tie. As I require, the cuffs are peeking out. I am hoping that that civil-war-general facial hair arrangement is for a role. Ms. Lane is gorgeous in a black strapless tight fitting gown with a bit of fringe. Unfortunately, her hair looks as if she has just done a few laps with Dara Torres.

Virginia Madsen, pass. Ms. Madsen looked beautiful in a red strapless gown with an angular asymmetric upper part. The matching belt appears out of place as it is too informal for the gown. The dangling over sized diamond-shaped earrings are killer.

Natalie Portman, pass. When Ms. Portman was presenting on TV, this gown looked fantastic, perhaps because we could only see the upper part, strapless and symmetrical with multicolor bead inlays. The bottom portion is a simple stretch of boring fabric, hiding everything.

Daniel Craig, pass. James Bond in a tux, as expected.

Evan Rachel Wood, honors. Ms. Wood's strapless off-white gown provide interest from top to bottom. The color was not that far off from her skin tone, however, in normal (non-TV) lighting, the contrast would be much greater. Color comes from hair, eyes, lips, and nails, yielding an elegant look. Well done.

Adrian Brody, fail. Looking a little bit like someone on the way to pick up their prom date. Next time, go for a jacket with contrasting lapels and cuffs that show a bit.

Sarah Jessica Parker, fail. SJP, what is going on with those boobs? The "almost mint" dress is fit for a princess, but with that bust, you come across as a housewife from Orange county. The belt is also too informal.

Viola Davis, honors. The iridescent gold halter dress flattered her figure and stood out on the red carpet. But the double white bracelets should have been left at home.

Amanda Seyfried, fail. This thin strapped red dress with the huge bow in front was just too heavy. Combined with some not so glamorous strappy sandals and an unnecessary necklace, we have the misfortune of a pretty young girl dressed badly.

Sean Penn, honors. Mr. Penn shows us that black on black can work if you leave the vest and skull cap at home, the jacket fits well, and you use texture for contrast. Robin Wright Penn is beautiful, even if she could be on her way to performing with the Philharmonic.

Tilda Swinton, fail. Ms. Swinton has always appeared to me as beautiful so I wonder why she swaddles herself in beige and black bunting. The matching ring brackets on each wrist appear too informal.

Alica Keys, pass. A strapless chiffon gown of similar color to Ms. Portman, keys simple look works because she is a beautiful young woman. The flowing over-the-shoulder hair looks good.

Robert Downey Jr., honors. A crisp and well fitting tux.

Marion Cottilard, pass. A strapless dress with blue beading, Ms. Cottilard is saved by the layering of the bottom, which suggests a mini dress that has been converted to a gown.

Tina Fey, honors. On television, Ms. Fey looked statuesque in an off white halter top gown. No nerd girl ever looked so good.

Melissa Leo, fail. If Ms. Loren had not attended, Ms. Leo would get my vote as worst dressed of the evening. It appears she thought she was attending a Renaissance Faire. A completely unflattering garment.

Robert Pattinson, pass. Hey, it fits great.

Bridget Fonda, fail. The entire look was too informal and not appropriate for the red carpet.

Melissa George, fail. I give Ms. George an A for effort in going with a strapless, tight, mermaid dress, however, the upper part looks like a girdle and the lower part looks like a tutu. From the shoulders up, she is gorgeous.

Leslie Mann, fail. This dress is all about the mirrored fabric, but for Ms. Mann, it should have been about tummy control.

James Franco, pass. A bit plain and no cuffs showing, but he didn't embarass himself.

Phoebe Cates, fail. Ms. Cates, like Ms. Pinto, is wearing a gown that is more suited to an older woman. Add that to boring hair and makeup and we have a red carpet bomb.

Maria Menounos, pass. The grey color is not my favorie but the heavy ornamentation of the bottom saves this strapless gown. Would have preferred fewer lines running through the tummmy. Love the hair, makeup, and lack of jewelry.

Lisa Rinna, fail. In the photo, I am seeing, nips, which is just nasty on the red carpet. The thin halter purple gown is uninspired.

Guiliana Rancic, fail. Is it me, or is this woman pregnant? If yes, then I give her a pass, otherwise, this dress makes her look pregnant. The asymetric strap is a distraction.

And so ends another fashion wrap. See you on the red carpet!!!

Keep Hope Alive!

This past week, President Clinton advised President Obama to be more hopeful about the economy. Better advice might have been to read The New York Times Sunday magazine piece about the undiagnosed diseases program of the National Institutes of Health, which presents a different paradigm for problem solving than the "blind man feeling the elephant" mode we are in (e.g. fix a bridge).

The media is doing it's job in deconstructing the crisis and assigning blame. Time magazine gives us a list of the 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis. In summary,

1. Phil Gramm, US Senate Banking Committee chairman, deregulator
   
2. Chris Cox, SEC chairman, failed to provide oversight
   
3. Angelo Mozilo, predator lender (Countrywide)
   
4. Joe Cassano, AIG exec, issued credit default swaps
   
5. Frank Raines, Fannie Mae CEO, abused position of Government Supported Enterpirse (GSE)
   
6. Kathleen Corbet, Standard & Poor, gave unreliable ratings
   
7. Ian McCarthy, predatory home builder (Beazer Homes)
   
8. Dick Fuld, led Lehman Brothers to failure
   
9. Bernard Madoff, ran fraudulent investment schemes
   
10. Herb and Marion Sandler, predatory lenders (Golden West Financial, World Savings Bank)
    
11. Stan O'Neal, created collateralized debt obligations (Merrill Lynch)
    
12. John Devaney, facilitated predatory loans as a hedge-fund manager
    
13. Sandy Weill, led Citigroup to insolvency
    
14. Jimmy Cayne, led Bear Stearns to failure
    
15. George W. Bush, US President, deregulator
    
16. American Consumers, over borrowed, under saved
    
17. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, deregulator and economic overstimulator
    
18. Hank Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, ineffective policies
    
19. David Lereah, National Association of Realtors economist, promoted housing bubble
    
20. Lew Ranieri, father of mortgage-backed bonds (securitization)
    
21. David Oddsson, Prime Minister of Iceland, led Iceland to bankruptcy
    
22. Fred Goodwin, predatory banker, led Royal Bank of Scotland to insolvency
    
23. Bill Clinton, US President, deregulator and politicized mortgage lending
    
24. Wen Jiabao, supplied US with cheap credit from China
    
25. Burton Jablin, TV programmer, encouraged housing bubble

The list is not "scientific" as it was created by popular vote, but that hardly matters. No matter who is on the list, the point would be same... everyone wanted more, just like Oliver Twist. This list could be easily titled "25 People Who Rose to the Top of their Field".

My favorite post-mortem works so far are Bethany McLean's Vanity Fair piece on Fannie Mae and the CNBC documentary on predatory lending, The House of Cards. As a society, we live and learn, and one must hope that these types of mistakes will not be repeated. We do live by the rule of law, and laws might prevent future tragedies of the economic commons.

So does Obama have reason to be hopeful? Can one be honest about a bleak reality and hopeful at the same time? I say yes, if you look at the world with a perspective that transcends maintenance of America-as-we-know-it. Frank Rich in a NYT opinion piece wrote that

Obama’s toughest political problem may... [be] with an America-in-denial that must hear warning signs repeatedly, for months and sometimes years, before believing the wolf is actually at the door.

But in the same piece he points us towards something hopeful, an America remade.

Writing in the Atlantic, Richard Florida presents a vision of How the Crash Will Reshape America. The world he describes is actually a place I would want to live... highly productive mega-regions, decline of the automobile, smart people being smart together. Home ownership, rather than the American dream, is recast as the bonds that hold you down.

Yes, there is hope, not for pointless attempts to save the doomed, but for nurturing new growth and way people will live in the future.

21 Years in North Lake Tahoe

Bonnie Tsui's Sunday New York Times article on North Lake Tahoe raised a few eyebrows among the Renaud clan. Thanks to Jane, who alerted us to it's online presence. Tahoe locals are very much tuned in to the tourist experience, as our economy is based on tourism, recreation, and second home getaways. For the record, we have had a second home on the north shore since 1988 and have lived here full time since 2005.

By the way, Royal Gorge is nice but not the best choice for an opening photo. If you were doing an article on Central Park, would you open with a shot of the Statue of Liberty? Hey, there's a lake here and it's really BIG.

Here are some of our family favorites that we regularly visit.

Getting Here

Nevada State Route 431, from Reno to Incline Village, is the most beautiful way to enter the Tahoe basin. It's a vertiginous two-lane road that climbs above timberline and affords breath taking vistas of Lake Tahoe, Reno, and the Carson valley.

Nice Restaurants

Wolfdale's in Tahoe City is our favorite place for a special occasion or for guests. Not sure on the labels, but I would call it it a California/Asian fusion cuisine.

Spindelshank's in Tahoe Vista has no lake view but makes up for it with consistently excellent American cuisine. We took a large group their during a Thanksgiving holiday and everyone enjoyed it.

Gar Woods Grill in Carnelian Bay is the place for lakeside summer dining on the deck, even if its only for cocktails and bar food. They are famous for the Wet Woody, which is similar to an orange Hurricane.

The Blue Onion in King's Beach is a great place for breakfast or lunch. You can dine on the deck overlooking the first hole of the Brockway golf course.


Less Expensive Eats

The Log Cabin Cafe in Kings Beach is our favorite place for breakfast, particularly if we are jonesing for some french toast. The only downside is that it is small and there can be a wait. The Old Post Office in Carnelian Bay is a reasonable alternative but not quite up to the Log Cabin. When you sit at the counter, you feel like a local.

The Char Pit in Kings Beach is the place for burgers, or so I have been told.

The Coffee Shop in the Tahoe Biltmore Casino in Crystal Bay, NV (on the CA/NV border) is good place to get a filling breakfast at a low price. They also have great club sandwiches, which we enjoy at least once a year.

T's Rotisserie in Incline Village, NV is our favorite Mexican barbeque place. The soft chicken tacos are sublime.

The Tahoe House, south of Tahoe City on the west shore, has great sandwiches and yummy desserts.

CB's Pizza in Carnelian Bay. A local place behind 7-11, CB's provides pizza, soups, and other comfort food. You can watch sports on large screen TVs or possibly witness someone's retirement party. Service is notoriously slow but it's kid friendly.

Pizza

Jiffy's Pizza in Kings Beach is our favorite, although there are other locations. The plain cheese pizza is very similar to what you might get in New York.

Bars

The Bar of America in Truckee is my favorite, not so much for drinking, but for the beauty of the interior. I love to take visitors here just to see the bar, which is old and very long. A great place for lunch, the food is tasty and you can sit on high stools near the front windows and watch people pass.

Coffee

The Java Hut in Kings Beach serves up coffee and expresso drinks with a local flair. They also have an assortment of bagels and wraps. If you must have Starbucks, there is one inside the King's Beach Safeway, which we affectionately call the Food Palace due to its "oversized-Tahoe-cabin" architecture.

Ice Cream

Our favorite ice cream stand is across the street fom Mourelators' Lakeshore Resort in Tahoe Vista. It is open only in the summer and serves Bud's ice cream, hence, we call the place simply Bud's. An adjacent lawn with tables provides the perfect place to enjoy three dollars of bliss.

The Char Pit in Kings Beach has soft ice cream year around. Go for the chocolate/vanilla blend.

Gyms

Need a workout or a fitness class? Asante Fitness in Tahoe City, located behind the Safeway, is well equipped and has lake views for those doing cardio work. The yoga classes are among the best in Tahoe.

Ski Areas

Squaw Valley, between Tahoe City and Truckee, is the premier area, due to its Olympic history, incredible terrain, and huge number of lifts.

Alpine Meadows, next door to Squaw, also has excellent terrain but is a bit less expensive. Alpine has very little bottom-of-the-mountain development, compared to places like Squaw and Northstar, and presents a classic (i.e. little shopping) experience.

Homewood, on the west shore, is great when there is lots of snow and provides incredible lake views.

Mt. Rose, on the road from Incline to Reno, is the highest ski area in Tahoe and provides wonderful spring skiing.

The Berm-(elim-)inator

In Tahoe, we are used to lots and lots of snow. The only things that hinder transportation are white-out conditions during blizzards and pre-plow snow depths that are higher than your axle. On highways, the plows run continuously, so snow depth is rarely a problem, but in residential neighborhoods, things can pile up. In the old days, the county plow dutifully pushed the snow into berms on each side of the road, blocking driveways. If your private plow had already plowed your driveway, or if you had no private plow, or if you really needed to get your car out, it was your task to shovel the berm... ugh. Berms are typically full of compacted snow and huge chunks of ice so the going can be tough.

But hark! Placer County, in their wisdom, has outfitted my local plow with a berm-eliminator, which I call the berm-inator. The plow is actually a big road grader, with a large blade a-midships. The berm-inator is an second blade attached to the right side of the main blade, which can be raised and lowered by the plow driver. When passing a driveway or other berm unworthy area, the driver lowers the second blade, which forms a V with the main blade, pushing the would-be berm past the driveway.

Gotta love it!

Defending Your Mankiw*, Not that he needs it

In an article titled Tax Cuts Won't Work, Newsweek's Daniel Gross argues against those who advocate tax cuts as remedy to the current financial crisis. But in a self-contradictory moment, he writes

And the way they read the relevant data, history, and experience, permanently reducing long-term tax rates has historically provided the best possible incentives to invest and spend. They may be right (emphasis mine).

Gross discusses Harvard's Greg Mankiw in ways that don't seem complimentary, which elicited a reply from Mankiw.

I take two issues with Gross.

1. Categorizing people as "Economists whose sympathies lie with the Republicans" and
2. mischaracterizing Harvard professors.

I am not one of those who sees the world as blue vs. red. There are Democrats who are fiscal conservatives (e.g. the blue dogs) and Republicans who embrace pork (e.g. ex-Senator Ted Stevens). Mankiw worked for W yet he is recommending "a gradual, permanent, and substantial increase in the gasoline tax". I did not fact check, but I cannot imagine that is in the Republican platform. Additionally, Mankiw has written that his opposition to proposed spending is for practical reasons; it is not possible for any government to spend that much money so quickly without inefficiency and waste.

During the 2008 presidential election, Republican campaign rhetoric painted Obama as an elitist, perhaps because he graduated from Harvard Law School. Gross implies that Harvard professors (and Mankiw and Barro in particular) are ensconced in a comfortable university lifestyle that has clouded their professional judgment. Obama is not an elitist because he is smart, nor is Mankiw distorted by his professorial income, which is most likely much less than many of his students who have gone on to well-compensated non-academic jobs. Tangentially, the Harvard economics department is not immune from pain.

As to the actual issue about whether or not tax cuts would help in these troubled times, I say yes. For Americans who live on anything resembling a budget, being able to keep more of your income will result in money being spent. Confidence has nothing to do with it. If you have a bill and you happen to have a few more dollars due to tax cuts, you are more likely to pay that bill.

Some people will take their tax savings and save rather than spend. Why is that a bad thing? Assuming they don't take the money in greenbacks and stuff it under their mattress, the money gets deposited in a savings account, or a CD, or whatever. The receiving institution can take that deposit and loan it out to someone who will spend it. Is this not a good thing?

Just for fun, my own stimulus bill would be structured as follows:

1. Do what it takes to keep banks working.
2. Cut taxes. I do not understand the trade offs between payroll tax cuts and income tax cuts.
3. Help state and local governments that are in imminent peril.
4. Spend on strategic projects that will help us survive over the next 50 years, such as energy, education, and transportation.

Veritas!

*the title is a riff on Defending Your Life, a movie starring Albert Brooks and Meryl Streep about dead people defending their lives in an afterlife tribunal

Darwin's Birthday

On February 12, 1809, both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born. I was unaware of this historical coincidence until I saw Adam Gopnik talking about it on Charlie Rose. Mr. Gopnik has written a book called Angels and Ages: A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln, and Modern Life that I am sure I will read eventually.

My first introduction to Darwin happened in a high school biology class in 1967. Evolution was not actually taught, as we were preoccupied with dissecting frogs and learning the Krebs cycle. However, evolution was discussed in the textbook in one of the final chapters and I found it curious that we skipped it. Later it dawned on me that teaching evolution in a Texas high school in 1967 was controversial.

As a biology major at Harvard in the early 70s, I saw no one questioning natural selection, the differential reproduction of genotypes, which implies that living things are not static, but change over time. Our job was to work out the details.

There was not much talk about Darwin. I read On the Origin of Species and found it persuasive and detailed, but only useful for a historical understanding of my field.

My appreciation is now increased. As was pointed out on a recent NPR broadcast, the genius of Darwin lay in his ability to observe what was in plain sight, to formulate a theory based on easily confirmed facts, and to persuade others by detailed explication of what most know to be true. Kind of hard to argue with that, even if the theory was at odds with a competing theory that relied solely upon authority.

Funny how certain things become obvious, once they are pointed out.

Catastrophe

In President Obama's weekly video address of February 7, 2009, he said

Because if we don't move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe. Millions of Americans will lose their jobs, their homes, and their health care. Millions more will have to put their dreams on hold.

What our president is saying is that a national catastrophe happens when unemployment reaches reaches a certain number, or foreclosures or rent evictions rise to a certain level, or some number of people cannot afford heath insurance. The common denominator is loss of income necessary to maintain the basic necessities of life. Note that this is a quantitative argument, as we have always had citizens without jobs, homes, or health insurance.

What is scary about our current economic predicament is that other types of catastrophes are looming. The one that Obama mentioned is the usual catastrophe brought on by the usual business cycle of recession, recovery, and expansion.

The other catastrophes include

(1) bank failure, where the ATMs and credit cards stop working

(2) hyperinflation, where greenbacks lose their value, absolving all dollar-based debt and wiping out all savings

(3) stock market crash, where equity-based retirement accounts get wiped out and old people must depend on the kindness of strangers and/or their families

(4) economic loss due to global climate change, that is, more devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and wintry weather

(5) a haves vs. have-nots scenario, where ownership of assets is concentrated in the hands of a few percent of the population and everyone else is impoverished

(6) Jim Kunstler's Long Emergency scenario, where our way of life becomes unsustainable due to the depletion of energy resources and the organization of American homes and buildings around automobiles.


As to the probability of any of these other catastrophes occurring, I have no idea. One must imagine that the transactional functions of the banking system would be maintained at all costs, as this is the circulatory system of the economic body. The fed is supposed to be keeping inflation in check. The stock market is more of a symptom than a cause, that is, when the business cycle recovers, the market should recover. A consensus on the economic effects of climate change is undeveloped.

The last two catastrophes may be the same and both concern our nation's energy policy. Breaking us of our oil addiction is the key policy we must embrace. Kudos to Mankiw for suggesting a Pigovian tax on gas but it seems not to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting enacted by a politician.

DeMint Amendment Fails

Today the Senate is debating the economic stimulus bill (HR1) that came over from the House and voting on amendments. One was proposed by Senator DeMint (R South Carolina). HR1 contains the following language:

(3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—

(A) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities, including maintenance associated with any permissible uses of funds described in paragraph (1);

(B) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public;

(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—

(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or

(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or

(D) construction of new facilities.

Senator DeMint's amendment is to strike section (C) above, which makes it illegal to use stimulus money to fix up buildings used for religious activities. Note that if the religious use of the facility is not "substantial", stimulus funds may be used.

I listened to part of Senator DeMint's argument for his amendment on C-SPAN (perhaps doubling it's viewership). His main concern is that a person's right to exercise their religion, for example by praying or discussing religion in a public speech or offering an invocation before graduation, will be compromised should the place of this expression be an institution that received stimulus money. Are not the restrictions on stimulus spending simply restrictions on spending? Does anyone think that if the University of Texas receives stimulus money, then the Longhorns can no longer play football in their stadium because the stimulus money cannot be spent on the stadium?

DeMint also appeared to give an argument against his own amendment. He stated that the courts have held that religious groups have the same rights as non-religious groups, which might mean that the fellowship of christian athletes has the same right to use a meeting room as the coed rugby team. The stimulus bill does not change this.

The vote on the amendment was 43 ayes and 50 something nays, which looks like it followed party lines. If the Republicans in Exile are to come back, they first need to shed their theocratic tendencies.

Frosty Nixon

When Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency in August of 1974, I was 21 years old and residing in Tincup, Colorado at a boys camp. People my age hated Nixon. His resignation was convenient for me as I had vowed not to reenter the real world as long as he was still in office. This was not much of a threat as the economy was down then and job prospects for a newly-minted Harvard graduate were not overflowing.

Why did we hate him? He was a crook. When a president stands before TV cameras and says "I'm not a crook", that's pretty much a tip off that he is a crook. Anyway, the evidence would eventually emerge.

By 1977, when the Frost/Nixon interviews first aired, the country had moved on. Nixon's hand-picked successor, Gerald Ford, had given him a full and complete pardon, then paid the price in the '76 election as Jimmy Carter won the presidency. The 1970's were a return to bad economic times, as the prosperity of the post-war economy withered under the burden of the Vietnam War, expanded social programs, and the oil crisis. People had other things to think about than justice for Richard Nixon.

When the interviews started, everyone wanted to watch, not so much for closure, but because we wanted to see him squirm. It was entertainment, not totally unlike today's reality TV shows.

The performance by Frank Langella, portraying Richard Nixon, in the movie Frost/Nixon was one of the best I have ever seen. Much of it is done in close-up, and here Langella speaks Nixon's mind, without saying a word. Nixon was a strange character, awkward in social contexts, driven by ancient demons, and never confident in his success. His immense vulnerability is perhaps his only endearing quality.

Frost is played Michael Sheen, who is good enough, but does not physically resemble the Frost that I recall from those days. It was nice to see Rebecca Hall playing Frost's girlfriend-of-the-month, Caroline Cushing. Nixon was mildly obsessed with Frost's personal life and fornicating ways. Director Ron Howard left us to wonder exactly what went on between Frost and Cushing, a Nixonian perspective.

The movie itself is well paced and full of suspense, much like Rocky or A Few Good Men (another Kevin Bacon movie). In summary, I say "well done, Opie." Nixon's legacy got polished a bit with the truth.