Chief of Police of Malibu

Here I sit, trying to simultaneously finish a book review I promised to somebody and a dissertation chapter.  It’s my first _real_ chapter, and it feels like I’ll never be able to really do it well.  But I’ve got to do it, so I guess I just will.

What else today?  Here in Oakland it’s sunny and in the 60s, it seems that yesterday Vermont was actually warmer, but there will not be any snow in this part of the world until the next ice age, while Vermont should get some this week.

Tomorrow is a momentous day, more or less, though most of the time I just wish these things would happen without me.

It’s just another
Reminder that time is quick
And I’m falling back

(Haiku Upon the Eve of the mark of three decades)

Today I read an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle criticizing the re-emergence of telecommunications monopolies in the United States.  Specifically, AT&T’s purchase of SBC and apparently imminent purchase of BellSouth looks to the author like a rebirth of the Ma Bell monopoly from the middle of the 20th century.  The author, Mark Cooper, the director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, sounds like he’s against monopolies, no matter what.

Is that a reasonable stance?  My view of monopolies has been shaped by my understanding of two concepts of economics, and perhaps I could get some responses to my suspicion that a purely anti-monopolistic standpoint is not very reasonable.  The two concepts are Economies of Scale (or Increasing Returns to Scale) and Diseconomies of Scale (or Diminishing Returns to Scale).  As I understand it, an industry or product is characterized by Economies of Scale when the larger scale the production is, the lower the cost per unit (ad infinitum?).  The implication of this is that the most efficient production is achieved if a single firm produces the entire supply for an economy.  Of course, the moral hazard of a single company invulnerable to competition supplying the entire market necessitates some kind of protection for the public, usually in the form of strict government regulation or even government ownership.  Many European countries’ rail transit systems operate on this theory, and until recently many developing countries’ telecommunications systems did as well.  In America, the US Postal Service provides one of the few last vestiges of this idea (inroads from private parcel services, which do not generally impact the market for envelope-sized letters notwithstanding).  Water provision, air traffic control, power grid management, and fire protection in the United States also operate pretty much according to this principle that some sectors are characterized by Economies of Scale to the degree that they are Natural Monoplies.  Could it be that telephony also is a natural monopoly?

The other concept, Diseconomies of Scale, is apparently the opposite of the first–the idea that the more you produce of something, the more expensive each unit is to make (increasing marginal cost).  The explanation of this usually has to do with increasing bureaucratization, multiplying levels of overhead costs, and the complexity of organizing production efficiently on a larger and larger scale.  If Diseconomies of Scale characterize a given sector, then the implication is that the smaller scale the production, the more efficient it will be.  Restaurants, dry-cleaners, graphic design, auto repair shops, and other services where national chains are seen as providing low cost only at unacceptably low quality (or where national chains don’t seem to be viable at all) are potential examples of Diseconomies of Scale.  If Diseconomies of Scale prevail in a given industry, then any attempts at consolidation should not only be suspect of reducing competition, but also of reducing efficiency in terms of production costs.  If Diseconomies of Scale prevail in telecoms, then AT&T’s actions are not economically rational, and perhaps should be questioned on that basis (though not a legal question), even before legal questions about reduction in competition.

The amazing thing about these two concepts, though, is that they seem to suggest either of two business models that are increasingly rare in America today: a government-regulated (or owned) national monopoly, or a small business with a few employees and perhaps a single or a handful of owners.  If these two economic concepts are realistic, why is more and more of our economy taken up by mega-corporations that are so far from "small business" as to practically resemble government bureaucracies (I have to make a customer service call to Bank of America this morning–I’m dreading it!)?  Many corporations are so big (especially in certain areas) as to practically resemble national monopolies, and yet if economies of scale prevails in such industries–if they really are Natural Monopolies–then why is there so little concern about the moral hazard of private individuals getting a near-monopoly the given industry?  Do our nation’s political and economic leaders simply not believe in the basic tenets of the economic theories that underlie market capitalism?  Or is there something wrong with economics that its theories of efficiency do not reflect reality?

In yesterday’s New York Times, amidst all of the hoopla over sex scandals, appeared a critique of what I think is the broadest and most frightening problem our nation faces–and it’s one we’ve created ourselves (and exacerbated in the past 6 years, after we’d begun to ameliorate it in the late 1990s). 

In its (totally free to view) editorial Deeper and Deeper the New York Times points out that as the Fed has raised interest rates this year, the interest our nation pays on its national debt is also rising, from $184b in 2005 to $220b this year.  Put another way, the balance on our national credit card is incurring finance charges of around $730 a year for every man, woman, and child in the country  It’s slated to go up to around $900 per person by 2008.  Keep in mind, this is merely the annual interest on our national debt, saying nothing about the principal.  If your family ran up a credit card balance that meant you were paying that much interest per year (and with no mortgage deduction or equity built up to make it more worthwhile), you sense something wrong.  You’d probably feel guilty about it, ashamed, worried that the moral sensibilities of our society would brand you prodigal or dissolute, and concerned the bankruptcy might loom in your family’s future. 

Not the Bush adminstration, though.  It is full of excuses.  There are two ways to pay down a ballooning debt: cut spending (like on the war in Iraq or on pork-barrel legislation) and raise taxes.  I think we should do both, but the Republican party, which has had sole control of both houses of Congress for all but 18 months of the last 6 years, can’t do either.  I’ve heard people call Republicans the "Daddy Party" because it supposedly provides strong leadership–but the dad they resemble most is Homer Simpson, who is wont to do things like blow the family’s savings on fancy, pointless toys.  It would be nice if the "Daddy Party" ever bothered to balance the checkbook–but apparently only the "Mommy Party" is imbued with enough responsibility to actually try and pay down the nation’s credit card.

So Massachusetts is about to choose its Democratic candidate for governor, and alas, I can’t participate.  Since August 22, when I spent over four hours at the California DMV in Oakland, I’ve been a California voter.  So I’ll get to help choose whether the Governator gets to stay in Sacramento for another four years, but honestly, I’m a lot more invested in the common weal of the community I lived in for most of the past 11 years.

So, I thought maybe if I e-mailed you guys, I might succeed in persuading you of my belief that Deval Patrick should be the Democratic candidate for governor.  The primary is next Tuesday, September 19th, and I think all of you may be eligible to vote in it.

Initially, I was in favor of Thomas Reilly for governor.  To be perfectly honest, it was because I thought that under Massachusetts’ ultra-liberal surface, there would be a resistance to electing an African American man as governor that would make it impossible for Patrick to beat a halfway decent Republican.  However, I saw Reilly and Patrick both speak at a forum at the K-school almost a year ago, and that began to change my mind.  I asked each candidate how they felt about taxes, and Reilly said he wants to lower them because they’re such a burden–he sounded to me like one of those recorded telephone calls.  He just thought that everybody hates taxes, and so he said what he thought I’d like to hear.  [In truth, Massachusetts taxes aren't that high.  Its income tax is not very progressive, and 5.3% is not a very high tax rate compared to other places (like California).  It also has a lower sales tax (5%) than states like California and Texas (8.5%), and unlike those states, it doesn't charge sales tax on groceries or most clothes, which helps lessen the tax burden on people who have to eat food and wear clothing.  Note, having examined Texas tax statutes, I stand corrected by the honorable K.G., that Texas doesn't tax food, generally, although the way food is defined, it might be taxed depending on where you buy it, which is why I think I had to pay 8.5% tax on a gallon of milk on Austin once, which I bought at gas station convenience store.  Also, the Texas state sales tax rate is only 6.25%, and only with the addition of local sales taxes does it rise above 8%.  The same appears to be true of California.  MA still has a lower sales tax, although TX has no income tax.]  In sum, Reilly’s statements reminded me of how the Republican party’s fiscal policy rhetoric has evolved in the past decade and a half: lower taxes no matter what, and we won’t care about deficits or debt or whether the government needs money to solve problems.

Patrick, by contrast, turned my question back to me, asking me what I thought the government should be doing (I think he thought my very open-ended question was fishing for a pledge to lower taxes or something), and if I thought that the government does have responsibilities to fulfill (like garbage collection, road repair, etc), don’t we all have responsibility to help pay for it?  I think he was quoting Barney Frank when he said "Government is the name we give to the things we choose to do together," and then told me that if we do it together, we’ve got to pay for it together.  I agree: we can’t just borrow the money and hope for the best in the future–we’ve got to show some fiscal responsibility.

I was really impressed to hear a candidate talk so responsibly with regard to taxes, not just try and pander to those of us who don’t enjoy the chunks of our paychecks we have to surrender to the government (I don’t like it either!). 

Moreover, after being unimpressed with Reilly’s echo of today’s Republicans’ fiscally irresponsible rhetoric, I was unimpressed even more with his dithering about the state’s position on same-sex marriages.  I don’t think Reilly would do anything to derail Massachusetts’ same-sex couple from getting married, but I wouldn’t be confident in his defending those rights if they came under attack. [eg, from the Federal government, which in another flip of traditional Republican priorities now seems to be quite interested in interfering in states' rights to run things in the way they think best, as evidenced especially by the changes in the welfare reform act, as well as "No Child Left Behind"]

Deval Patrick, though, has come out as strong defender of the right to marry, and that makes me respect him, both because I agree with him, also for his forthrightness.

One thing that made me a little bit nervous was Patrick’s experience working for major corporations, which in many cases use anti-competitive practices to try and undermine the free market and harm the common good.  But having heard about Patrick’s background as a poor kid in Chicago (who got to go to boarding school & Harvard on scholarship) makes me feel more confident that in spite of having worked for the people who make millions of dollars off of Coke, Patrick is going to be both aware of and invested in the needs of the millions of people who drink Coke (and presumably, also those who drink Pepsi or water or whatever).

Finally, I’m rooting for Deval Patrick represents the kind of person who very rarely succeeds–an outsider in MA Democratic politics.  The MA Democratic party is probably one of the most insular in the country, because the state is not too big and the party is so dominant in the state.  But I think that makes party elites particularly vulnerable to losing touch with those who don’t spend most of their time running around Beacon Hill and Hyannisport.  While I usually agree with these party elites, I also think that every chance to inject new blood into the party should be availed of, so that the party doesn’t become ossified and brittle.  Both Reilly and Gabrieli represent the "good old boys" of Massachusetts politics. 

I don’t know as much as about Gabrieli, except that he’s quite rich and doesn’t seem to need much support from small-scale contributors to run his campaign (which makes me nervous), that he seems like kind of an opportunist, who stayed out of the race until the early leader (Reilly) looked weak, and then he jumped ship from being Reilly’s running mate to trying to win the nomination for himself, and that he’s been around Massachusetts politics for a long time and lost a few races (including as Shannon O’Brien’s running mate in 2002).  So while I know enough about Reilly not to like him, and thus suppose Gabrieli is better, I really don’t have nearly the same respect for him as I do for Deval Patrick.

Reading the Boston Globe’s endorsement of Patrick is what really inspired me to write this e-mail to you guys, because it included a few things I didn’t know about, most importantly his focus on helping poorer cities in Massachusetts ease their property taxes.  For those of us in this country who go to public schools, the accident (from a kid’s perspective) of whether our parents live in a high or low-property value school district is perhap the biggest single determinant of inequality. 

My parents choice of Essex Junction when we moved to Vermont, instead of living in a less-affluent community where their rent dollars would have gone further, enabled me to go to the kind of schools where I could get a public school education that could get me into Harvard, even though my parents’ income was well below the median for the area where we lived.  But a lot of smart, lower-income kids don’t have parents who make those choices, and so unless they get a rare chance like Deval Patrick’s to get a scholarship to boarding school, they get a far lesser education than kids who happen to live in a rich town (or whose parents can afford to send them to private school).  If "beleaguered communities", where property values are so low that even very high property tax rates don’t yield the revenue to provide decent educational facilities, could have help with resources to improve education (and lower their property tax rates), as the Globe told me Deval Patrick favors, that would do a huge amount to reduce inequality, and give every kid in Massachusetts a chance to get a good education and go to college.  That focus on resources for local decision-makers to provide better public services is a stance of Patrick’s that really resonates with my own beliefs on how to address the problems of inequality in our society, by both providing greater resources to those who need it, and also decentralizing decision-making.

In sum, I wish I could vote for Deval Patrick next Tuesday, but I’m hoping maybe I’ve persuaded some of you guys to do so.  Primaries are really important: moreso than the general election, they are where you get to genuinely express your political will, instead of just being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.  No one ever has a right to complain of being faced with a lame choice between the two major parties in November who has not tried to express his or her preference in the primaries that selected the candidates.  Please vote at least for somebody!

To      : Jim Anderson <jsepulveda@harvardclub.com>
Cc      :
Attchmnt:
Subject : Re: BECOME A PART OF OUR HARVARD CLUB FAMILY!
—– Message Text —–
Dear Mr. Anderson,

Over the years, I’ve gotten several different invitations from the Harvard
Club of Boston (I was Quincy House class of ‘99, and I’m now doing my
PhD).  I’d always thought that when I finished my PhD and got a teaching
job that paid decently, I would join then.  Then today I read in the Globe
that the Harvard Club of Boston is hosting a Republican fundraiser
headlined by Dick Cheney.

I don’t mind the idea that the Harvard club might be used for Republican
fundraisers (as long as it’s also used for Democractic ones, which I would
bet it most certainly is), but Dick Cheney is really beyond the pale.

The man who was orchestrating military aid for Saddam Hussein when he was
gassing Kurds in the 1980s, and then has repeatedly told as close as you
can get to bald-faced lies to the public in order to try and justify the
bloodbath he caused in Iraq that built the most enormous deficit this 
country has faced, whose former company has made billions of dollars in 
uncompetitive government contracts (an offense to the idea of free market
capitalism if I’ve heard one), should not be welcome at the Harvard Club.
It is not a public institution (like Harvard University), but a private 
club, and if this report is true, you can be sure that after this, I will
never join a club that would host such a man who has been so destructive 
to our country’s honor, economy, security, and very people (especially
its young people).

Harvard’s motto is Veritas.  If the Harvard Club of Boston had any shred 
of respect for it would not make itself a vehicle for a deceiver like Dick
Cheney to raise more lucre for his dissembling projects.

- Dan Epstein

PhD Student
Department of Government
Harvard University

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jim Anderson wrote:

>
> BECOME A PART OF OUR HARVARD CLUB FAMILY!
>
> Dear Mr. Daniel J. Epstein,
>
> A few weeks ago, we mailed you a complimentary issue of the Harvard Club of Boston Bulletin, our monthly magazine. We hope   
> you enjoyed reviewing it, and we welcome your comments and questions.
>
> More important, we would like to invite you to the Club for a visit so you can experience for yourself what so many of our
> Members enjoy. Call today for a complimentary tour, or make a reservation for one of the following events that are open to
> prospective members:
>
>
> Saturday, June 4:
> Our monthly Saturday Night Buffet Dinner. This all-you-can-eat buffet offers a spectacular array of culinary delights created
> exclusively for our Members. Available seating times are 6, 7:30 and 8:30 pm at the Main Clubhouse, 374 Commonwealth Avenue,
> Boston. The cost is $46 per person, all-inclusive (food only). Reservations may be made by calling Jennifer Sepulveda at
> (617) 450-4492 on or before Wednesday, June 2.
>
> Tuesday, June 7:
> Catch the Sox on wide-screen plasma TVs in the new Commonwealth Lounge at the Main Clubhouse, 374 Commonwealth Avenue. Root
> for the Sox as they return to St. Louis, site of their unforgettable World Series win last October. The first pitch is
> scheduled for 8:10 pm. Food and beverages may be ordered from our regular menu, which features lighter-fare and Tapas. Please
> call Jennifer Sepulveda at (617) 450-4492 for reservations no later than Friday, June 4.
>
> Thursday, June 9:
> The Downtown Club (One Federal Street, 38th Floor) hosts its monthly "Pub Night" featuring complimentary hot & cold hors
> d’oeuvres and reduced prices on beer & wine from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. Reservations may be made by calling Melissa DeLuke at (617)
> 450-8463 on or before Tuesday, June 7.
>
> There’s always something happening at the Harvard Club of Boston. And now, it’s easier than ever to join!
>
> Simply go to our website at www.harvardclub.com and click on "Become a Member."
>
> We look forward to seeing you soon at the Harvard Club of Boston.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jim Anderson ‘69, President

So today, Lincoln Chafee stood up to the powers that be in the Republican party, which he’s done only enough to make him my second-favorite Republican senator (after Arlen Specter, who has spoken truth to power more frequently and on more notable topics).  This time it was to delay again the committee vote on confirmation of John Bolton as UN Ambassador.  Bolton has actually been acting UN Ambassador for over a year now, since President Bush took advantage a rule that lets him actually violate the provision of the US Constitution that the US Senate "advise and consent" to executive nominations.  As you may know, if a position needs to be filled while congress is not in session to give (or withhold) its advice or consent, the president may appoint someone during the recess who may serve until the end of that particular congress (when the new congress is seated, which will be this coming January).

I heard lots of terrible things about Bolton when he was first appointed that made me think he was bad for the job (though the principal disqualification was his nomination by Bush, who mostly seems to make terrible picks for appointments, or undermines anyone halfway decent whom he gets accidentally, like Colin Powell or Paul O’Neill). 

But now that Bolton has had 13 months at the UN, I say that we can put all that aside, and judge him on his accomplishments.  Has he gotten Iran to back down on its nuclear weapons?  No.  Has he gotten North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program?  No.  Has he gotten the UN to crack down on genocide in Darfur?  Not really–the UN is supposedly going to come in and take over the peacekeeping force currently run by the African Union and give it the actual muscle and teeth to protect the people of Darfur from their own government, but the resolution the Security Council adopted says they’ll only do it if the Sudanese government agrees–that’s like asking an abusive husband for permission to come into his house and protect his wife from him.  Why would he ever agree?  And why did Bolton ever let the security council pass something so guaranteed to fail?  Perhaps because he’s incompetent (like Michale Browne), perhaps because he just yelled at the ambassadors from the other countries on the security council, instead of trying to persuade them.  Perhaps Kanye West was right when in discussing the response of Bolton’s boss to Hurrican Katrina he blurted out "George Bush doesn’t care about black people!"   I’m not going to be the judge, but is our guy at the UN, and he didn’t make the right thing happen.

In fact, I don’t know where he was during the negotiations over the cease-fire and UN force for Lebanon, but that almost fell apart when they French, who were supposed to lead the force, could get out of the security council straightforward permission to actually shoot and fight if they had to (there’s a great story that I haven’t seen people pick upon–the French were the ones bashing the UN because it didn’t want to let them fight aggressively!).

And I certainly have not seen Bolton make any effort to get the UN or any of its member states to help share the task of policing Iraq.  I also haven’t seen him denounce destabilizing dictators like Pervez Mussharaf whose military junta has been fomenting an insurgency in another attempted democracy the US set up with its army: Afghanistan.  Maybe Bolton’s done better on economic issues.  Has he gotten the UN’s economic organs to bolster pressure on China to let its currency float?  No.  Has he used his role as a US representative and influence with other countries involved with trade talks and promote furthering of agreements on world trade de-regulation?  If he has, it didn’t work.  Has he opened up the floodgates of US aid for women’s health in poor countries of the world that had been held back by a ban on providing funding to UN or other organs that provide contraceptives?  No.

So what has John Bolton done that would prove wrong everybody who said he was going to be ineffective?  Unlike most executive appointees, he’s had a trial period, and can be remove in 4 months just by the Senate sticking to its decision to withhold its consent, instead of flip-flopping on the subject.  Most executive appointees are accepted pretty much sight-unseen (especially in this administration, which has had control of Congress and refused to turn over much information about several appointees, including Bolton) and they can only later be removed by Congress by impeachment, which is an extreme measure and incredibly time-consuming and costly.

So why should the Senate now confirm Bolton, besides out of a slavish loyalty to a president who’s picked a lot of terrible appointees and terrible policies that have led us into a no-win war and an enormous deficit?  I can’t think of a good reason–and I hope Lincoln Chaffee and other sensible senators will continue to agree with me unless we see evidence otherwise.

In his column Europe’s New Boomtown in today’s New York Times, Tierney, a reliably conservative columnist, adulates Estonia’s recent economic success, chalking it up to the laissez-faire economic policies embraced by Prime Minister Mart Laar and inspired by Milton Friedman. 

Now Estonia is a great place–I’ve been there.  It’s beautiful and by all accounts it is an economic success.  But a couple of facts about the country are omitted that might bear upon the success Estonia has had: first in relation to the comment that it used be an "isolated, impoverished part of the Soviet Union".  Estonia, and the Baltics in general (but Estonia especially) was always one of the least impoverished parts of the Soviet Union, with far higher social and economic development than most of what became Russia, Ukraine, or the other post-Soviet states.  Also, although it was isolated from Moscow, Estonians could watch Finnish & Swedish TV even during Soviet times, because they were so much closer to Western Europe than the rest of the country (and they could understand it, too, since Estonian is about the only language related to Finnish in the world).  I don’t think that qualifies as impoverished or isolated–Estonia had an awful lot going for it when it got free of the Soviet Union.

The second important fact omitted is Estonia’s size: Estonia has about as many people as the state of Maine, and is about half the size.  Oftentimes, it is not very difficult to solve social problems when you have so few people and such a small area and so few interests to address.  In fact, I’ll bet that Maine, Vermont, North Dakota, and a lot of other small states could probably solve a lot of their social and economic problems if they weren’t weighed down by the kind of social problems that more complex, populous, and poverty-stricken parts of the country saddle our national government with (including the horrific policies that a certain very large state have thrust upon our country by sending its politicians to populate the leadership positions of our government).

Moreover, the ease of doing in Estonia and its trade openness of Estonia are probably more due to its size than to Milton Friedman.  Geoffrey Garrett and Peter Katzenstein have shown that small, industrial states in the post-war period have, because of their shrimpiness in trade negotiations, been forced to accept much more economic openness than larger states (like Britain, France, Germany, and America), who could get away with maintaining tariffs, subsidies, and regulations that made it harder for international companies to do business there.  Necessity, in many of these states, has been the mother of invention, and they have developed expertise in tiny niche industries, some of which have grown into not-so-tiny niches (cheese in Denmark, private banking in Switzerland, cell phones in Finland & Sweden, and perhaps now Skype in Estonia) focused on services, oftentimes, that they could even begin to export, having developed the ability at home to compete with big international competitors.  At the same time, to help those who lost out by globalization, these countries increased social spending not just for the poor, but for those who might become impoverished because of economic changes, with things like decent pensions for all, decent unemployment benefits for all, education spending that gives everybody great skills, and a national health insurance (which Estonia has–and I’d love to see John Tierney come out in favor of that!).

Finally, Estonia’s government, for all of the tax-lowering excitement that the idea of a flat tax Tierney clearly means to generate among conservatives, actually collects far more in taxes than the US.  Our government collects about 17% of our GDP in revenue, while Estonia collects about 23% of its GDP in revenue.  And in fact, Estonia, according the CIA world factbook, collects more revenues than it spends (a budget surplus–something debt-loving conservatives seem to know nothing about).  This is not surprising considering how much higher taxes must be.

So while John Tierney would like you to think that the US would be as great a place as Estonia if we all just did what Milton Friedman told us, if you look at the facts, you find that what we should do is raise taxes from 17% of economy to 23%, stop running budget deficits, provide single-payer health insurance system so everybody can afford decent health care, and raise social spending overall.  All those ideas I think are great (except perhaps that raising taxes by so much too quicly might cause serious dislocation).  But you’ll never hear them from John Tierney, because like so many conservatives, he loves Milton Friedman and other ideological theorists, but has no truck with getting outside the bubble of his own (and Friedman’s) ideas to look at facts or economic studies based thereon.

So the idea of having to pay for media content definitely annoyed me when I first heard the New York Times was going to start charging to read its columnists over the internet.  After all, news on the internet has always been free!  And there are lots of other free venues out there.  However, after talking to a friend of mine, who actually worked for a time on the New York Times web division, I realized that newspapers like the New York Times have been really suffering from the competition of free news over the internet, and from cable (drivel) news.  However, they are still some of the best sources of really well-informed journalism and sophisticated thinking in the media universe.  And in fact, it would be a real shame if the wonderful advent of the internet led to the downfall or hollowing-out of some of the best news organizations in the country.  Something like this already happened at the LA Times, which had to fire a large proportion of its newsroom staff sometime last year.  So I decided that while I would like to read my news & opinion stuff for free, if I really wanted high-quality journalism, I should be willing to pay for it.  So I’m willing to pay the New York Times the $40/yr to read their columnists.  I especially could not get by without Paul Krugman, who I think provides more actual information in his columns than anyone else, and whom a lot of people whose grasp of economics is only basic could really advance their understanding of how the economy works by reading.

That said, I’ll get to my first Reaction, to a column by John Tierney about Estonia (which I’ve visited–I wonder if Tierney has?)

So it’s the Day After Labor Day, the first day of school (at least, I think that it ought to be the first day of school).  So it’s time for another overdue update.

A little over two weeks ago, Marcy & I left Brazil.  Three weeks before Labor Day Weekend we had our last day at the beach in Ipanema, then on Wednesday, Aug 16, we got on a plane, and on Thursday we arrived (three hours late, including one hour waiting on the runway after we landed) back in LA.  Friday we picked up a U-Haul in Simi Valley (30 miles from Marcy’s parents’ place, where stuff was, also the ultimate venue of the Rodney King trial, and a reference in the Big Lebowski, and an exurb larger than Cambridge, MA, if you can believe it), goodness knows why we had to go there to get it.  Saturday, after packing up all of our things, we drove up to Oakland, where we are now happily ensconced in our really great apartment where we also help out Sheila, our landlady.  Marcy has started classes (before Labor Day!) at Berkeley for her PhD, and I am facing the last mountain of my PhD: writing my dissertation.

So that’s our life here in lovely Northern California.  I’m trying to adjust, and I think I’m getting the laid-back thing, though I’m not yet wearing flowers in my hair.

The new life of my blog will be some updates on my life, but I’m mostly going to try and devote it to reactions to things I read in the press (especially in opinion pieces) which I often feel need another perspective or additional information in order to be judged accurately.  Thus, positioning myself in reaction to what’s out there, I’m becoming a reactionary, much like the Chief of Police of Malibu.

I’ll try to stay on topics I have some expertise in, though I can’t promise to.  I also can’t promise to stay off of "Times Select", the pay service for NYT columnists.  In fact, although I don’t like to pay for things like that, I’ll begin with a post about why I decided to do so.

Ok, I have no justification for the fact that’s been so long since I updated my blog.  Let’s go backwards, like that episode of Seinfeld when they went to India.

I’m currently in Goiânia, in the middle of Brazil, on my final (thank goodness!) research side-trip.  I got here last Wednesday after an 18-hour bus ride (no room left in the budget for plane tix).  It’s a rather small city, for a state capital,although it’s not too far from Brasília.  The state of Goiás is kind of like the Kansas of Brazil.  It’s not hugely sophisticated and there’s not a lot to do, but the people are very nice, everything is cheap, and it’s quite safe.  Last night I went for a long walk after dark through some neighborhoods of town I don’t know at all, but it all felt perfectly safe (I wouldn’t do that in Rio–or even in some parts of Cambridge).

Marcy, alas, is not here with me.  She’s back in Rio with her sister Amy & her cousin Erin, who are visiting this week.  They arrived this past Friday and went on a little trip to a beachtown this week, while I’m here.

So I arrived in Goiânia on Wednesday, the 19th, and had left a scant three days after returning to our Rio from our last trip, when Marcy & I went to the Amazon.  This trip was purely vacation–no research, which felt really nice and also quite odd, in a way–not having something hanging over my head on a trip.  We spent 5 days on a lodge on a lake about 100 miles southeast of Manaus, the capital of Amazonas state.  We fished and swam and walked in the jungle and met a lot of bugs, and some nice people, and saw a lot of pretty birds, some caimans (like alligators, except they have no tongue), and a bunch of dolphins (a couple of the pink ones, which were really amazing).  Marcy took a whole bunch of great pictures, which you can see here:

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=8AcuWrlk4atWFX

So before we went to the Amazon, I had been back in Rio for just a week, during which time Marcy’s friends Josh & Sarah visited us.  I got back to Rio on June 29th from Salvador, where I had been doing more interviews, although interrupted by a whole bunch of world cup games.  I had left for Salvador on June 16th, along with Marcy & her parents.  We were all in Salvador together for a weekend, and then I braved the Brazilian roads and we the four of us rented a car that I drove up to Praia do Forte, a beach town an hour north of Salvador.  Marcy & her parents went back to Rio on June 21st, and her parents went back to Los Angeles a few days later.  Marcy took some great pictures in Salvador & Praia do Forte, many of them in the aftermath of Brazil’s world cup victories (which came to an end a few day before we left for the Amazon–they lost in the quarter-final to France):

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=8AcuWrlk4atWEx

Before Marcy’s parents arrived, Marcy & I had been in Rio for just a week since returning from our trip to the South of Brazil, where we were in the state of Santa Catarina & Paraná, which are very nice, and where I got a lot of research done.  We saw some really pretty sites, too, especially on the Ilha da Santa Catarina, on the land side of which is Florianópolis, the state capital, and on the sea side of which we stayed in a nice B&B for Marcy’s birthday weekend, when Marcy unfortunately got very sick after a sumptuous birthday dinner at a this cute little French restaurant we found.  In Paraná, we took a weekend day from our time in Curitiba to take a scenic train ride on an old rail line that goes over the mountains to the sea.  We didn’t make it all the way to the sea, but we made it as far as the picturesque village of Morretes.  Again, Marcy, who you’ll have realized by now is a very gifted photographer, took some great pictures.  Here are three links that show pictures from the South of Brazil, as well as from our first trip, up to Maranhão (I think I covered that in a previous blog?), and from Rio.

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=8AcuWrlk4atWEC

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=8AcuWrlk4atWET

http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=8AcuWrlk4atWET

So that should bring us up to date, then.  I’ll be in Goiânia one more day trying in vain, probably, to get an interview with somebody from the Partido Liberal and somebody from the Partido Progressista.  Then tomorrow afternoon I’ll get on the 18-hour bus back to Rio and have one day to hang out with Amy & Erin before they go back to the US.  Then in just three more weeks, Marcy & I will be heading home oursevles, leaving on Aug 16, arriving Aug 17 in LA, picking up a U-Haul Aug 18, and on Aug 19 & 20 moving a bunch of furniture that Marcy’s parents have very generously given us up to Berkeley, where we will take up residence helping out our new landlady, Sheila Wander, in the hills above Oakland, and will be ensconced for a period of a least one year.  It will be the first time that I’ve spent an entire academic year in the same place without having to go abroad and do field research since 2002-2003, and I can’t tell you how happy I will be to have a rest from the peregrinations of the past few years!

I promise I’ll do better at keeping up this blog, even if there’s little interesting to report.  Take care, all.

- Dan