Category Archives: Current Affairs

We San Franciscans are thrilled Rep. Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House and, like all good politicians, we hope she slaps as much pork as possible on every bill so SF can benefit from many a wasted federal dollar. (Update: See SNL’s truly hilarious Nancy Pelosi – SF Values skit!)

In addition to pork, Pelosi promises to emphasize:

California and San Francisco will have a stronger voice in the Congress, not only to promote our issues but to bring an entrepreneurial spirit to the Congress, a disruptive spirit so that we can bring fresh eyes to the challenges that we face and in the spirit of the American West come up with solutions that look to the future and not to the past.

Bingo.

The most amusing aspect of Pelosi’s rise is the chatter about "liberal San Francisco values."

Republicans don’t think about San Francisco unless they have to, notes The SF Chronicle. Some are even parlaying anger over Pelosi’s status into celebration that the San Francisco 49ers football team will likely move to Santa Clara. One commenter on friend Tim Taylor’s blog remarks:

Your city sucks. It is not surprising that your lame-ass liberal/Democrat motherfuckers in charge have lost the 49ers. Fuck San Francisco, and fuck the NFL.

Management guru Tom Peters is tired of this criticism. He issues an impassioned defense of San Francisco while admitting, "I’m pretty typical of the lucky ones from that glorious area … pretty "liberal"-libertarian on many contentious social issues (stem cell research, working on the environment) and a pretty well-off Entrepreneurial American Capitalist Pig Small-Business Owner." And like all good bloggers, Tom concludes with a personal, emotional plea: "Just shut the hell up."

In the end, no matter how much the rest of the country likes to make fun of this fine, foggy city, we can always take comfort in this fact, as identified by Republican strategist Dan Schnur referring to the Texas hometown of former Republican leader Tom DeLay: "The biggest difference between Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi is that no one wants to vacation in Sugar Land, Texas.’

Peter Singer, the famous animal rights activist and ethicist, writes about ten ways to make a difference when pursuing your cause (and changing minds). Here are the ten headlines. He offers details under each one. Thanks Ramit Sethi for the pointer.

1. Try to understand the public’s current thinking and where it could he encouraged to go tomorrow. Above all, keep in touch with reality.

2. Select a target on the basis of vulnerabilities to public opinion, the intensity of suffering, and the opportunities for change.

3. Set goals that are achievable. Bring about meaningful change one step at a time. Raising awareness is not enough.

4. Establish credible sources of information and documentation. Never assume anything. Never deceive the media or the public. Maintain credibility, don’t exaggerate or hype the issue.

5. Don’t divide the world into saints and sinners. [BTC: This is an excellent tip. Bifurcating the issue into good or evil is a recipe for disaster.]

6. Seek dialogue and attempt to work together to solve problems. Position issues as problems with solutions. This is best done by presenting realistic alternatives.

7. Be ready for confrontation if your target remains unresponsive. If accepted channels don’t work, prepare an escalating public awareness campaign to place your adversary on the defensive.

8. Avoid bureaucracy.

9. Don’t assume that only legislation or legal action can solve the problem.

10. Ask yourself: "Will it work?"

You’ve gotta love the Becker-Posner Blog. Each week Gary Becker and Richard Posner, two of the most prominent and prolific public intellectuals in America, take on a random topic in life (literally, any topic) and present their analysis. Then they respond to the 50-100 comments left on each post.

This week they pondered whether polygamy should be legal. I couldn’t help chuckle at some of the following phrases, which is so full of economics-speak that it generated a new business idea: create a reality TV show where economists and lawyers come together and chit-chat in their own languages. Ratings would skyrocket once the college market devises a new drinking game: one drink for each Latin phrase said by the lawyers and one drink each time “price” is uttered by the economists.

Household goverance under polygamy is bound to be more hierarchical than in monogamous marriage, because the household is larger and the ties of affection weaker; as a result, “agency costs” are higher and so the principal (the husband, as head of the household) has to devise and implement means of supervision that would be unnecessary in a monogamous household. (An additional factor is that women in a polygamous household have a greater incentive to commit adultery since they have less frequent sex with, and affection for, their husband, so the husband has to watch them more carefully to prevent their straying.) This managerial responsibility deflects the husband from more socially productive activities….

Especially given the large disparities in wealth in the United States, legalizing polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives, even harems, which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. The resulting shortage of women would lead to queuing, and thus to a high age of marriage for men, which in turn would increase the demand for prostitution. Moreover, intense competition for women would lower the age of marriage for women, which would be likely to result in less investment by them in education (because household production is a substitute for market production) and therefore reduce women’s market output.

Last night both George Soros and David Brooks were in San Francisco. I saw New York Times columnist David Brooks in conversation with Jane Wales, CEO of the World Affairs Council of Northern California.

I arrived at The Fairmont hotel, atop Nob Hill at the only place where each of the cable car lines meet, a bit early, so I read a book in the lobby. The person sitting next to me was an attractive, young 30’s woman who got on her cell phone and started screeching in the way a teenage girl does about Britney. Only for her it was excitement to see Brooks. (A sign I should enter the dating market?)

I, too, tremored with excitement to see one of my favorite commentators in-person (he even has his own del.icio.us tag). Brooks’ writing combines intelligence with humor. He calls himself a "comic sociologist". His book On Paradise Drive is hilarious.

The talk mostly focused on foreign policy and Iraq, but predictably Brooks sprinkled his remarks with many very funny lines. I was both surprised and not surprised that Brooks seemed pessimistic and discouraged by the world. Surprised because Brooks seems to be the resident optimist in a punditry that loves to bemoan. Not surprised because, well, with the Middle East right now it’s hard not to feel down. Overall, as impressive in-person as in print.

The WAC — of which I’m a member — continues to impress. Future programs this month include Tom Campbell in conversation with Lou Dobbs, then Bob Woodward, and Joseph Stiglitz. Jane Wales is one of the most impressive people I’ve ever met and a real treat for San Francisco.

Scattered notes:

• The enemy we’re facing — radical Islamists — may have a way of looking at the world that can’t be captured with our current vocabulary. It’s not simple ideology, or religion, or politics. It’s some mixture of that plus fantasy and identity. It’s hard to agree on a diagnosis, let alone a solution, to a problem that’s so hard to box.
• Iraq fiasco has shown we may not be able to defeat this enemy militarily.
• The Greeks knew that feeling like you’re making a difference — receiving recognition — is at the heart of human desires. (And when you vote, in a democracy, you feel respected and dignified.)
• The kind of bourgeois capitalism that’s defining upper class America says that we can find contentment in petty pleasures.
• Loss of confidence by Americans in every institution in American life the past few years.
• How to give a speech if you’re a pundit: name drop with crushing banality. "So I was talking to Dick the other day — uh, yeah Dick Cheney — and he confirmed that there are in fact three branches of government."
• Not enough troops in Iraq, but can’t raise the troop levels because of political cost to Bush. Bush would raise troops if generals asked, but they won’t b/c they don’t want to put him in that position.
• Iraq is succumbing to the rules of nature. If California had no police or state troopers and the criminals were let out of jail, it would look similar.
• We need to stay in Iraq. The best of bad options. If we left, the Iraqis who supported democracy in the first place would be the first to be killed.
• Bush has increased domestic anti-poverty spending and foreign aid to Africa more than any of his predecessors.
• Two strains of conservatism: Catholic social teaching tradition and the libertarian tradition. Bush subscribes to the former. This is the "compassionate" branch.
• An important polling question to watch is, "Do you trust government to do the right thing most of the time?" Right now it’s at a low.
• Civility in congress is low. At a Democratic congresswoman’s house in D.C. at a reception to talk about bipartisanship, a woman said, "I don’t hate Bush, but I regard him like the guy who molested my daughter."
• American people are "seldom wise, but often sensible."
• No evidence in any reports that political pressures altered intelligence. Every foreign intelligence agency and Saddam’s own generals thought he had nukes.

Some really upbeat news out of Washington, courtesy of the Atlantic Monthly (subs only):

Ken Calvert, a Republican representative from California, was caught in a car with a prostitute during his first term but, after putting out campaign literature implying that his Democratic opponent was gay, held on to his seat. Last year Calvert and a business partner bought a four-acre parcel of land in Riverside County for $550,000; after securing federal funds for the expansion of a nearby freeway interchange, along with federal money to support commercial development in the area, they sold the property for nearly $1 million. But Democrats say they are not running a serious challenger against Calvert, because the seat leans strongly Republican.

Ah. Don’t you feel better now?