local politics, home-town edition

Colorado Lawmaker Censured for Kicking

Normally, I would say, oh, national media only put Colorado in the news to make fun of us for being hicks or if we're on fire (we = national forests) or something. That may indeed be the case here as well, but Douglas Bruce is an idiot. He used to be one of those right-wing crazies from Colorado Springs, but he was worse than most because he introduced a string of dumb Citizens' Initiative ballot measures that were generally bad. The one he's famous for is called the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TaBoR, sharing its name with a 19th-century silver magnate/senator from the state). Basically, it says that if, in any given year, the state collects more in tax receipts than it has budgeted to spend, the money MUST be returned to all taxpayers forthwith; the maximum allowable budget is indexed to the previous year's budget plus inflation. This doesn't sound terrible in the one-sentence version, but, practically speaking, it doesn't reflect the reality of state financing, which often carries money over to compensate for lean years, etc etc. It screws up one-off costs and led to consistently decreasing revenue for the state. A (hostile) measure, passed about a decade later, required state education spending to increase every year relative to the year before by at least the rate of inflation, and so the two measures combined left the state in a dire budgetary situation, which was remedied in 2005. Basically, Douglas Bruce is an "all taxes are bad taxes" libertarian who used poorly-worded and poorly-though-out referendums to advance his agenda.

And now that the state Republican party picked him to serve in the State House of Representatives to fill a vacant seat, he's part of the government itself. This is bad for him, since the people he basically decided were too dumb and irresponsible to either 1. exercise fiscal restraint or 2. pass his measure on their own are now his colleagues. But this is probably worse for his party, who picked him because, well, they wanted controversy? Basically, unless they get John Elway to run for governor next election (and I hear they already have the signs printed), they have
1. Tom Tancredo, the failed GOP Presidential candidate and general embarrassment (see: his thoughts on Miami, his breaking of his original promise about term limits, etc)
2. Wayne Allard, aka "The Invisible Man" (named by Time magazine), who is stepping down in 2008 rather than face a primary challenge from within his own party
3. Marilyn Musgrave, who introduced (more than once) the Federal Marriage Amendment (to the Constitution), and one of the few Congresspeople to win her district by a narrower margin with every re-election
4. none of the Governorship, State House of Representatives, State Senate, and a minority of Federal Congressional Representatives for the first time since 1983

I'm sure John Elway is getting sick of the calls.

proof positive

That I'm deep-down quite introverted. Maybe not like quiet/shy/agoraphobic introverted, but nonetheless: after a social and action-packed weekend, I basically took all day today to kind of decompress.

The weekend: WARNING - TRIPTYCH
-Dinner in Central with the HK Language and Cultural Exchange Group, which I found out about through Ramon and has become a point-of-contact into meeting new people here. The turnout at events is very good (~40), and there's always a mix of people I've met before and new people. This was followed by a (no door charge) visit to Beijing Club, the newest hotspot in Lan Kwai Fong. While the street-level bar scene there is pretty drunk-expat-laden and not all that pleasant, the members-only danceclubs have a lot more local people, more young people, and better music. Which meant it got really crowded and loud by like 2, so I left around 2:30 and got home a little before 4.

-Saturday morning I had to work. I spent part of the afternoon talking with Steph online about basketball and politics (*nostalgic sigh for college, when the marriage of such topics was common*), and then headed out to visit Jane, Dan, and Andy in Soho around dinnertime. I later met up with a friend from Budapest who happened to be in town, and we got Korean fried chicken and beer at the Korean bar in TST.

-Sunday, I met a friend from the Exchange group for dimsum in Tai Po (she grew up in the area), and then we went to a Serious Language Exchange event. I ended up spending the better part of two hours listening to Mandarin spoken between HK locals, Singaporeans, and a Mainland Chinese member of the group who had most graciously volunteered to walk us through some conversation practice. There were frequent pauses when everyone else checked with me to see if I was following what was going on (uh, sorta, most of the time), and I even attempted to relate a couple anecdotes. If I heard correctly, during Spring Festival here, it's ok (if you are unmarried) to visit couples you know are married just to ask for a red envelope. I'm kind of excited about this practice, although I don't know many married couples. Maybe we could arrange a "bring-your-spouse-to-work-day" around this time... Also, I found out that when signs in stores say "買一送一", the 送 actually means "give away", because the sign is speaking from the store's perspective. I always just just got the "buy one, get one" translation, and thought it had to do with receiving.
The language exchange was followed by bowling, which I turned out to have completely muscle-forgotten (or whatever the opposite of muscle memory is), but that's ok, because it was all in fun, right? And then a big group dinner, which included some Peking duck. All of Sundays events were subsidized by the HK government, because they were held at the HK Police Recreation Club (of which one of our members is concurrently a member in very good standing). Their facilities were extremely nice!

END TRIPTYCH

So yeah, it was a whirlwind and I didn't take enough photos, failed to get anything off my to-do list done, etc etc. A blast, for sure. I'm still picking up the pieces, facebook-request-wise! But tiring. Today I: woke up with my alarm, thought about it, and reset it for like an hour and a half later; got lunch, played around with the internet and let lunch get cold; taught primary school kids for an hour; played around with the internet and thought idly about the work I have to do this week; got a little dinner on campus; played some Tecmo Super Bowl; listened to Sondre Lerche's "Human Hands" like fifteen times; read a little. Generally avoided human contact. A recovery day, basically, though since I didn't do any drinking nor even really stay out very late yesterday, recover from what?

From socializing, I think. Some of the people in the Exchange group just seem naturals at meeting people / networking / being social / knowing what to do and say to make people feel comfortable. I think I've made a lot of progress in this department since the beginning of the year, say, when I just kind of mumbled and looked uncomfortable and tried to figure out if any of the women were checking me out (they weren't). But it's still hard--every social rule I learn, like business card exchange, leads to another rule-governed situation I know NOTHING about and just seems intimidating (a follow-up call?). Eek. Ick. It's just a lot to learn/practice, a lot to kind of keep in mind when you're just trying to talk to people. I'd like to think I'm now reasonably able to get by in group social settings with adults with completely humiliating myself, but I'm a long long ways away from where the real Type-A Extroverts are, the sort of people who gain energy from meeting new people and making introductions and arranging things. Phew. I still come running back afterwards to one of the several books I'm reading, to the small but fortunately semi-private space of my dorm room.

I don't know, frankly, what my goal is. Am I polishing social skills because I think one of the people I meet will get me a job offer somehow? Am I trying to forcibly change myself into a Type-A? If so, why did I spend ten minutes at dinner yesterday explaining my math thesis to a non-math person? That can't have been that interesting. Aiyah, with the in-person meeting I've been doing, I've fallen behind in email correspondence (again). As I said numerous numerous times recently (esp when visiting Andy and Jane), "Being an adult is difficult!" As it gets slightly more manageable, though, the question becomes, "So I can fake being an adult for a couple hours. What do I do now?"

The most disturbing statistic about the American subprime loan thing:
"Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which buy loans from mortgage lenders, have estimated that 15 percent to 50 percent of the subprime loans they bought in 2005 went to borrowers whose credit scores indicated they were qualified for prime loans."

Seriously, what? I've seen other numbers about discriminatory lending practices (most of which have been contested by lenders due to methodology), but the only methodology here is criteria used by a Government-Sponsored Enterprise regarding loan approvals. I don't even have anything articulate to say about this.

-----

Also, the Nuggets lost today in what was just an awful game to listen to (on internet radio). When they succeed, it seems like a foregone conclusion; when they screw up, it's like tonight, when they missed 11 free throws and shot 4-of-21 from behind the arc to lose by three. Oh, and while I was listening, they missed several layups and tip-ins, but still managed to shoot 49.4% from the field (which, doing a little math is 58.9% from two). It's just inexplicable how good they are at the mid-range iso game and beating their man off the dribble and throwing no-look passes, which are talent-intensive, and have even started out-rebounding a lot of teams, which is hustle-intensive, but SO BAD at things like open-look catch-and-shoots, perimeter defense, and, recently, free-throw shooting (tho they get to the line as often as any team in the NBA). Aiyah. Really fun to watch, but so hard not to yell at the tv about. Seriously, they should be winning games like tonight by a wide margin, not losing because they missed a bunch of ill-advised threes down the stretch.

in which I go to The Races

After months of intending to, I finally made it out to Happy Valley on a Wednesday for the races!It's an impressive facility, to be sure--grandstands stacked up, surrounded by high-rises, PACKED with people.
I took advantage of the 7:15 start time by playing around with night photography. And by that, I mean I had a beer and took some photos at the railing, most of which are jittery and incomprehensible. But, hey, it was fun, and I was next to two suit-clad businessmen doing the same thing (including some hilarious self-shots).

Note the horses coming around the final turn in the background of this one.

I also definitely did some gambling. I admit, I lost a little bit of money, but came close to breaking even (only placing HK$10 bets all night). All track-take in HK goes to the non-profit Hong Kong Jockey Club, so I figure it's not as bad as enriching some casino owner magnate. Something like HK$90 billion is wagered over the course of each racing season, too, so I figure I'm far from alone in enjoying a night at the track. (apparently HK's GDP is about HK$2 trillion, so track betting represents nearly 5% of that total)

I'm nothing short of impressed by how it seems like most HK people handle gambling (as seen both at the track and in Macau). First of all, they bet A LOT of money. I was sitting uncomfortably at the lowest-stake baccarat table at the Sands, only to see a guy take a seat next to me and throw down a HK$10000 chip. Likewise, as I stand in line at the cashier window, waiting to place my HK$10 bet card, the person in front of me is submitting a stack of bets (maybe six different wagering combinations on one race) and a couple five hundred dollar bills. Second, and I think more interesting, is the (to borrow that word from Sophia) equanimity with which everyone handles the results, win or lose. Yelling the number of your chosen horse as it runs down the stretch is ok, but beyond that there are few victory celebrations, and I've never seen people frown at defeat.

I think this is because of the way people approach gambling (this is why baccarat is the number-one casino game by a wide margin). People study the race cards printed in the daily papers obsessively, and halfway through a meet, they're covered in chicken-scratch notation in red and sometimes multiple other colors of pen. Baccarat players obsessively watch the previous hand results, some keeping track on scorecards, and rarely deviate from their plan (in the case of one player having a run of luck, maybe) regardless of how well it seems to be working out after any given hand. And there's no way anyone could make six bets on one horse race without some kind of complicated system to cover all the different wagers. What this seems to lead to is a real calm about surprising losses, even losses of a lot of money, because people believe that their system will pay off in the end.

In comparison, I guess I'm more of a casual gambler--as long as the stakes are low, I see the money I lose as the cost of having a fun evening. I may have lost a little bit wednesday night, but it was less than the cost of a movie ticket (even including the price of my beer and the HK$10 charge at the gate). And losing on most races makes the rare win that much more exciting. My winner this week:

There's also a really great dim sum place near the track, but I can't remember the name. Oh, and to get to Happy Valley from the MTR, you have to take the double-decker trolley, which is adorable. I'm really just happy that, even after five months here, I've been able to keep exploring!

more news that makes me angry

After a wonderful (if hurried) winter holiday in Denver and an also-wonderful visit by my fam to HK, I'm back in my dorm room again near Tai Po. At least it's not Seung Shui? But more on the whole triptych later. I just can't pass this up.

I like reading the NY Times. It's pretty good as a paper of record, as far as "mainstream" media goes, so I feel like I'm not going to miss too many significant events. I like a lot of their feature articles (the food section, cars, even sometimes real estate or fashion). And our politics are awfully close--they're huge Obama homers, for one. And they've locked up quite a stable of syndicated columnists. Maybe someday I'll broaden my horizons and start reading *two* papers each day, but I have a hard enough time justifying all my newsreading time as is. Oh, and I love their crossword, although now I think you have to pay to get the online version, so I've switched to the LA Times and Wash Post puzzles; I also like the bridge column, but that's mysteriously absent from nytimes.com, so that'll have to wait until I get a real job and can justify a subscription as a "status/luxury expense".

So yeah, the news articles that made me angry today weren't because the Times did a bad job of covering things, but rather because they picked really good things to cover that got me indignant.

First. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the Indiana voter ID law, and though the opinion won't be released for a while yet, the Roberts-led majority seems poised to not only uphold the law but also dispute the legal basis for the challenge in the first place. The ACLU used a "facial challenge", apparently common in voting rights cases, wherein the plaintiff does not have to prove that a particular individual WAS ALREADY disenfranchised, but just that the law could unconstitutionally disenfranchise them. The court apparently felt that Indiana's burden--voters who lack current gov't-issued ID cast provisional ballots which they then have to report to their county seat with either the ID or proof that they cannot pay within ten days--was not a particular hardship.

Here's where I get angry: Chief Justice Roberts, who's from Indiana: "County seats aren’t very far for people in Indiana.” The Times then notes, "Mr. Smith replied that the county seat in Lake County was a 17-mile bus ride from the county’s urban center of Gary."

Talk about condescending! Maybe when you have a cushy federal bench job that only requires you to hear cases once or twice a week it's easy, but most people have jobs that keep them busy during the hours that a county clerk's office is open. It's hard enough to get to the bank and back on your lunch hour! Maybe, maybe if election day were, I don't know, some kind of NATIONAL HOLIDAY or something it would seem more reasonable to me, but not as the law stands. Employers are not allowed to bar employees from voting if it conflicts with work (or something like that... I know there's a little protection), but a trip to the county seat is something else altogether, especially if it's undertaken on a day other than election day itself (is my understanding of voters' legal protection).

The plaintiffs then alluded to the situations of old people (an expired driver's license is NOT permissible under the law) and the indigent.

Scalia: “Why are we arguing about whether there is one-half of one percent of the electorate who may be adversely affected and as to whom it might be unconstitutional? This court is sitting back and looking at the ceiling and saying, oh, we can envision not the case before us, but other cases. Maybe it’s one-half of one percent or maybe it’s 45 percent, who knows. But we can imagine cases in which this law could be unconstitutional, and therefore, the whole law is unconstitutional. That’s not ordinarily the way courts behave, is it?”

I have to admit, I didn't read the plaintiff's briefs, so he may have a point that they're seeking more relief than their claims justify. But his reasoning is kind of absurd. That's *exactly* what the facial challenge procedure is intended to do. And if the government accepts that travel to and from a welfare office is sufficiently burdensome on the indigent to reimburse their bus fare, I don't understand how a trip to the county clerk (with proof of inability to pay for or otherwise secure a passport or other gov't issued ID, no less) is not a substantial burden.

I'm kind of hoping, actually, that the law is fairer than I give it credit for, and that the plaintiffs' demands are more stringent than the article alleges, because otherwise there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for this shrugging off of this case and the plaintiffs' claims. Voter disenfranchisement may be a partisan issue (due to who is being disenfranchised), but the tenor of the questioning excerpted in the article goes beyond bringing partisanship onto the bench. Ugh.

Second. A discussion by a former pollster and stats guy about why Hillary's NH victory was so "surprising", at least based on opinion polls taken in the last couple weeks. He suggests that people unwilling to answer surveys, who are on average poorer and less educated than the general population, were also people who strongly favored Hillary over Barack (which he attributes, in part, to race). Now, this kind of racism sucks, but it's not the reason I wanted to bring your attention to this article.

In primary election cycles, it seems that the impression of momentum is more important than the actual results. That's why the 2004 Iowa result crushed Howard Dean, the "expected" winner, why Mitt Romney is currently seen as being "in trouble" despite a stronger cumulative finish than any of the other GOP candidates, and why McCain all of a sudden disappeared from the conversation after the SC primary in 2000. Commentary seems to dominate substance when it comes to American politics in general--debates over bills etc are meta-debates over agendas, and elections are interpreted as meta-elections that show momentum or decline. Despite a relatively close finish, the 2008 NH primary result will in all likelihood be a significant setback for Obama's campaign because of its role as a meta-election. Instead of a remarkable show of support in a state many felt would strongly back his opponent, a few (apparently erroneous) polls now make it sound like Obama somehow faltered, that Hillary somehow made a comeback in a place where she had long been considered an overwhelming favorite. And that sucks.

It makes me feel like I ought to donate to the Obama campaign again, which I guess is a good net result, but gamesmanship is being allowed to outvoice the actual results (the People's Voice), which sucks.

Oh, and also today, Maureen Dowd excoriates Hillary in her column. It's scary vicious. But two article links is definitely enough for one blog post.