Category Archives: Pedantry

A Summer Favorite

On a hot summer day, a young boy in Northern California pauses in the middle of his manic, unstructured day and decides it’s time for some food. Mom and dad are at work, so he’ll have to make do with whatever his limited culinary skills can throw together from the pantry and fridge. Cereal is nice, but wears on you after a while. Melting some cheese on a flour tortilla works nicely, and is a frequent go-to solution for mid-day snacks. The boy cracks open the refrigerator to grab the cheese, but lo! What’s the salad bowl doing in there? Put away the cheese, child: there’s macaroni salad to be had!


The way my family puts it together is pretty simple:

  • 1lb of ditalini pasta (aka “salad macaroni”)
  • 7 or 8 eggs
  • Mayonnaise
  • Celery
  • Red onion
  • Tobasco sauce
  • Salt
  • Black Pepper
  • White Vinegar

Dump the pasta into boiling water for about ten minutes and boil up the eggs. While they’re cooking, dice half the red onion and four or five stalks of celery. The quantities are vague because sometimes you’ll want your salad a little crunchier than others. Just make sure the resulting pieces are smaller than the macaroni.

Drain the pasta and dump it into a salad bowl. Shell the eggs and dice them. Add the eggs, celery, and onions to the pasta. Drop in four or five spoons full of mayonnaise. Set aside the spoon you used for the mayo. Splash some Tobasco onto the mayo, add a large pinch of salt and a couple grinds of fresh black pepper, and stir with a separate spoon or salad tongs. You may want to go back for more mayo if things are looking a bit dry, and you don’t want to pollute your mayo jar, do you? Leave the vinegar in your cupboard; it’s listed above because its most important role here is its absence. Refrigerate overnight and serve cold.

The recipe calls for mayonnaise, not tangy white salad dressing. I prefer Best Foods, which I understand is sold as “Hellman’s” in some regions. Salt, pepper, and pepper sauce are present for flavor, and should be added to taste. Note that the pepper sauce should just be adding a little depth here. This isn’t supposed to be a spicy salad. The celery is present for color and texture. You can make the salad a lot crunchier without changing the flavor much by just chopping up another stalk and stirring it in. The onion is present for color, texture, and flavor.

Blurring the Lines with Human Shields

Recently there has been a lot of talk about civilian casualties in the Libyan civil war. Terms like “indiscriminate shelling” are thrown about, painting Muammar Gadhafi’s troops as abject villains. I have no intention of painting them as otherwise, but something keeps coming to mind when I read such reports: why are we only hearing about indiscriminate shelling in rebel-held towns?

To turn this situation on its head, let us look at recent press regarding reform protests in Syria:

Syrian security forces fired bullets and tear gas Friday on pro-democracy demonstrations across the country, killing at least 49 people — including a young boy — in the bloodiest day of the uprising against President Bashar Assad’s authoritarian regime, witnesses and a human rights group said.

49 people killed? That’s terrible. Including a young boy? Those monsters! How could they… wait a minute, hold up there. Who the heck brought a young boy to a protest against a brutally-repressive dictatorship? Against a regime headed by the son of a man that reputedly massacred 10,000 to 40,000 people under similar circumstances in 1982? The Syrian security forces may well be callous, inhuman monsters to fire on a crowd of protesters, but somebody was seriously negligent to let their son attend such a thing. I’m not blaming the victim here, I’m just assigning a fraction of the blame to the people that were supposed to be responsible for him.

Going back to Libya, it seems that rebels have holed up in a close-quarters situation that exposes the local civilians to an undue amount of risk. If they had taken up positions outside the city, Gadhafi’s forces probably wouldn’t be attacking the city. They are using the city and its inhabitants as a shield, in hopes of staying the hands of their adversaries and stirring up the international community against their dictator’s atrocities.

A bit from Al Jazeera on this subject that caught my eye:

Marine General James Cartwright, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the drones can help counteract the pro-Gaddafi forces’ tactic of travelling in civilian vehicles that make it difficult to distinguish them from rebel forces.

Those dastardly pro-Gadhafi jerks are using civilian vehicles to sneak out of the city. Because it makes them look like… Yeah, it makes them look like rebels. Because the rebels are hiding themselves amongst the civilians. Which makes the civilians look like targets.

Let’s keep in mind that both sides had a hand in this.

Earth Days

This year, I’m planning on celebrating four simultaneous Earth Days. Single Earth Day is evil. Cubic Earth day is the real deal. Wake up, people.

The above is a Wordle of the content of Timecube.com. The formatting was randomly pre-selected by the site, which I felt was too appropriate to tinker with.

Another reason we could make it

Not a sufficient or even sensible reason for California to just break off from the United States entirely, but something I realized last night: California has more teams in the NHL playoffs than Canada does. Canada has 33.3 million people, California has about 37 million. Of course, Canada has 225,000 registered minor players in Ontario compared to California’s measly 4,300.

Of the three NHL teams located in California,

  • The Ducks have 11 Canadian players
  • The Kings have 11 Canadian players
  • The Sharks have 18 Canadian players

Conversely,

  • The Duck have 0 Californian players
  • The Kings have 0 Californian players
  • The Sharks have 0 Californian players

While not as self-sufficient as Minnesota or Massachusetts at providing our own hockey players, I think California has demonstrated a more-than-adequate ability to import high-quality Canadians to supply all of our domestic puck-chasing needs.

Four More Years

Due to the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, we didn’t get a chance to re-elect George W. Bush and carry on his proud stewardship of our nation. Happily, we were able to replace him with a younger, healthier, more ethnic version to carry on his legacy. Looking at a few key policy matters that factored in to my personal voting decisions back in 2008, I see a bit of a pattern forming:

Subject G.W. Bush B.H. Obama
Tax breaks for the stupendously wealthy Yes Yes
Withdrawal date for Iraq Dec 31, 2011

Maybe Later
Occupation of Afghanistan Indefinite Indefinite
Airstrikes in Pakistan 42 times About 200 times
Airstrikes in Yemen Maybe once in 2002 Yes
Airstrikes in Somalia Yes Probably
Illegal detentions in Guantanamo Bay Started it Yes
Illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens Yes Voted for it
High-level investigation of war crimes Haha, no We don’t want to look back
Says we don’t torture Not torture, honest Not any more, honest
Bombing Libya Renewed diplomacy Dropping bombs like your moms
Can pronounce “nuclear” Nuke-u-ler Nuclear

I write this largely because of my disappointment in Mr. Obama’s speech yesterday. This man used to teach constitutional law, and now seems to think that Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution can be delegated indefinitely and for whatever whimsical purposed the president likes, that the 4th and 6th Amendments simply do not apply to anybody, and that Article 4 doesn’t make treaties like the Geneva Accords legally binding upon the U.S. government.

Miss you yet, George? I hardly noticed you were gone.

Hyperinflation and You

As somebody who listens to talk radio and watches news networks on a regular basis, I see a lot of ads from folks like Monex or Goldline. The basic premise is supported by the echo-machine narratives told by the newscasters and pundits, in a kind of disinformation kabuki dance. It goes like this:

The U.S. federal government runs at a deficit. The deficit currently stands at a very large number and contributes greatly to an even larger federal debt. Because the federal government owes this money in U.S. Dollars and the federal government can print additional money to honor these debts, the existence of this debt devalues the money itself. As the value of a dollar decreases, any asset that is defined strictly in terms of dollars would also decrease in value, so buy gold and be wealthy after the United States crumbles into financial oblivion. Gold is presented as both a supremely secure value and a good yield.

This is a pretty attractive chain of reasoning, if only it all added up that way. Rather than listen to the radio and TV pundits (whose paychecks are made possible by advertising from these gold-peddlers), let’s cast about looking for some other source of financial expertise. Let’s keep in mind that everybody has their interests and factors that influence what they say about markets. How about we don’t look at what anybody says about hyperinflation and the price of gold, and instead look at the actions of the bond markets?

When the United States needs another $80 billion to bomb an Afghan village into the dirt, the money can come from three sources: they can levy taxes and fees to replenish the treasury, they can print additional currency to produce the funds directly, or they can sell bonds on the open market. For political and practical purposes, the government is overwhelmingly predisposed to sell bonds. This is what many politicians refer to as “putting it on the credit card.” During the initial bond sale, the interest rates given are determined by auction. This means the Treasury’s bond yields reflect the value investors were willing to place on the good credit of the American government. Investors responsible for about 1.6 trillion dollars (the most recent estimate of our annual deficit) need to weigh all their options, including private financial instruments, securities, and commodities against the perceived dangers of economic and political instability and various actors’ credit-worthiness and arrive at an interest rate that is high enough to merit investment in Uncle Sam’s promise to return payment. Since U.S. Treasury bonds are paid in dollars, inflation has to be taken into account in that decision process.

Bearing in mind that you don’t play around with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on the open market without knowing your stuff (let’s assume a little faith in the intelligence and self-interest of big-time investors), the yield on a Treasury note needs to at least equal the expected inflation rate or it’s probably not worth buying. As of this writing, a ten-year note will pay out 3.58%. This means that the market-at-large thinks that inflation will be something short of that, averaged out, over the next ten years. We can figure out exactly what the market expects inflation to be by looking at the cost of inflation-protected bonds (which yield a guaranteed rate over whatever inflation ends up happening), which are at 2.45%. 3.58% (10-year bond) minus 2.45% (inflation-protected bond) is 1.13%.

Folks looking to sell you gold, and folks looking to sell ad time for folks looking to sell you gold, say we’re looking down the barrel at a sure-fired guaranteed financial apocalypse. $1,600,000,000,000.00 in bond sales this year says those people are full of it.

As for the notion that gold is a supremely-secure investment (by golly, it’s been valuable since the days of Abraham!), tell this to anybody who invested in gold at $1781.00 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) back in 1980. They can fetch $1432.00 for it today. If they’d bought a thirty-year treasury bond that same year, they’d have locked in about 9.8% at its lowest yield in June. Inflation since then has totaled 166.29% (cumulative), so a $10,000 investment in the T-bill would have yielded $165,222.89 in June of 2010. The $10,000 investment in gold at June 1980 prices (average was $672) would fetch you $21,309.52 at today’s price. Just keeping up with inflation would have fetched $26,500 or so.

Don’t be a sucker, and keep in mind when some chalkboard-scribbling pinhead is trying to get your scared about muslims and blacks and unions, they’re just warming you up for their advertisers.

Four years later

Did anybody really need an NFL game to be postponed for snow to know that somebody had misplaced this country’s collective backbone? I’d like to think we all learned that at least four years ago today, when guerrilla marketing got mistaken for lite-brite terrorism.

I think today would make a great opportunity to everybody to take a deep breath, count to ten, and realize that islamist terrorists do not pose an existential threat to western civilization. Neither does the cartoon network.

Easing Into Pension Reform

There’s been a lot of talk about excessive public pensions recently. A lot of it has been smoke and mirrors, with outrage about 50-year-olds retiring with 100% pay. I think it’s pretty obvious, if you calm down a little, that retirement packages for people in public safety roles that require intense physicality should be a bit different than for desk jockeys. If your house is on fire and your children are trapped upstairs, do you really want a ladder truck full of 63-year-olds to be your first responders? I didn’t think so.

Anyhow, it is true that public servants in California have pretty nice pension plans available. My wife, if she sticks around until she’s 55 years old, will be able to retire immediately with over half of her take-home pay and just about all of her benefits. That’s a big part of why it makes sense for her to stick around instead of seeking her fortune in the private sector. If we’re going to keep hiring new public employees, we’re going to have to attract them to their positions. We don’t conscript our DMV employees, so we have to pay them enough to get them to show up and stay and do their work. The current pension system is widely seen as an albatross around our state budget’s neck, but what should we do about it?

Let it burn. Keep the pension system substantially the same, and simply negotiate harder every time the public employee unions’ contracts expire. Here you run a serious risk of generating a lot of bad blood among the cogs that make the machine go forward. Work slow-downs and strikes would be more or less inevitable, and we could see a lot of our younger state workers simply jump ship for the private sector. This may not be the worst solution in the long run, but would require an inordinate amount of political courage.

Switch to 401(k). This tends to strike the general public and eminently fair. Private retirement plans in individual accounts are how most folks in this country build up their nest eggs, so why not public employees? Well, basically for the same reason that switching out Social Security for private accounts isn’t really feasible: without a continuing input of funds, the system dries up and leaves current beneficiaries stranded. These pensions are the result of negotiated contracts, and contracts have to be honored; if the state starts breaking its promises it cannot be trusted in future dealings like future labor negotiations, leases, or bond sales.

Two-tier Pensions. As a straight proposition, this makes a lot of sense, too. Existing employees are under and existing contract, so they keep their pensions. The state isn’t necessarily bound to extend those terms to new employees, so we set up a tier-two ghetto pension for new hires. This is probably how it will have to go down. I see the following levers that can be adjusted for our new second-class public servants:

  • Years served. The CalPERS pension schedule allows for retirement after as few as 5 years. This yields a maximum pay-out of only 12.5% of salary, but when you consider life expectancy in this country, that can add up in a hurry. A person that works for a CalPERS position from age 58 to retirement at 63 can be expected to live to about 84 years old. That’s 7.6 years of pay for 5 years of work. By comparison, a 23-year-old that gets a job and holds it down until he’s 63 would keep 100% pay upon retirement. He’s likely to make it to 80 years old (from the same CDC data) and will draw down 57 years pay for 40 years of work. That ratio’s just messed up. Younger workers are a better pension buy.
  • Retirement age. For positions that aren’t intrinsically hostile to older workers, bump down the vested portion of the pay scale way down for younger retirees. Fully-vested retirement payouts shouldn’t be available until the same age as full Social Security payouts. I think this is an option that most people looking to enter public service would recognize as reasonable, and would save the taxpayers years of personnel-years of double-pay for the same work.
  • The definition of the salary basis. For most retired public employees, their pension payments are based on a three factors: the number of years worked, the employee’s age at retirement, and the highest full year of pay earned during that time. This last item is the biggest source of concern when enraged citizens write in to their local newspaper’s editorial staff. There are some high-profile people like city managers and department heads that pull down rather alarming salaries as their base, unmodified pay. That has to be dealt with on an individual basis, but a lot of other folks puff up their retirement rates artificially with last-year promotions and special bonuses. A police officer, for example, gets additional compensation for SWAT qualification. Transportation department workers get additional pay for working outside where they are exposed to traffic. A lot of these bonuses are cumulative and become quite substantial. Maybe they shouldn’t factor in for retirement purposes; make the base pay for pension payouts exclude these bonuses and a fair amount of the anger-inducing individual pensions become much more palatable.

Assuming the politicians, voters, and union members involved aren’t willing to take the “let it burn” option, it seems that introducing a second-tier pension plan with adjustments to the retirement age and years served factors, along with an adjustment to how the basis pay is calculated is a pretty reasonable way forward.

Jobs & Taxes

In the American political arena we hear a lot of talk about tax cuts and economic stimulus spending. Tax cuts are nearly always thought of as reductions in the income tax, capital gains tax, or estate tax. Stimulus spending is nearly always thought of in terms of infrastructure projects (either through direct spending to contractors or through state and local governments). The stated goal in both cases is to get more money into consumers’ pockets that they will then spend back into the economy (through investment, grocery shopping, hookers and blow, whatever). A couple of key points keep getting skipped in the discussion:

Tariffs and Food Stamps.

When it comes to tax policy, there are very few people that work for a living and wouldn’t like a little less of their paychecks to evaporate before hitting their bank accounts. Any attempt to cover important government expenditures such as providing for the national security or honoring our Medicare and Social Security obligations through taxation is generally opposed as counter-productive. When you wish to discourage a behavior, you tax it. With this notion in mind, why tax people for being successful in a career that is in high demand? This is the argument that the working poor lean on when they vote for politicians that will slash the taxes of the fabulously-wealthy and cut programs that they might personally benefit from.

Income, capital gains, and estate taxes are all quite low right now by historical standards, and all relate to endeavors that the American public largely think of as Good. Work hard, invest wisely, pass your legacy on to your children. Baseball and Apple Pie right there, folks. But we didn’t always have an income tax. Where did we get the money to pay for our government before that? From another tax that is at a historic low: tariffs.

A tariff is a tax levied on imported goods. When you get a $200 tax cut and go buy yourself a new flat-screen television, a portion of your purchase price goes to your local sales tax. A portion goes to the taxes paid on the profit your retailer made on the transaction and contributed to the bottom line for that retailer paying its employees, who pay all the sames kinds of taxes you personally hate to pay. If you bought something made in this country, like maybe a nice new gun safe, you’d have the same sales and retailer taxes, plus the money for the manufacturer stays in-country where more taxes hit at the company and employee level, and the employees turn around and buy things for themselves, keeping the wheels turning and returning a lot more value for the $200 hit to the federal debt.

Low wages in foreign countries make it cheap to build things in places like China and Malaysia. Improvements in the efficiency of container-based shipping make it cheap to transfer goods across oceans. Super-low tariffs keep it cheap to get goods through customs. If we want to see American factory jobs start to increase again, one or more of these things need to change. Either the wages need to even out (higher Malaysian and Chinese pay or lower American pay) or the costs of shipping need to jump up (oil costs haven’t really put a dent in this yet), or the tariffs need to go up. Of the three, exactly one is under the direct control of our elected officials. Tariffs are a lever we have to influence the direction of trade, and are a subject practically foreign to public debate these days.

My proposal: tie the tariff rates directly to the official unemployment rate. Have a general tariff set at 5% plus the standing unemployment rate. Adjust this rate quarterly, by no more than half a percent per adjustment in either direction (this would help smooth out sudden changes and provide for a more predictable environment for businesses). With such a tariff scheme in place, when the United States job market is strong, our prosperous citizenry will be able to import goods willy-nilly, and when our job market is anemic, businesses will have all the more incentive to on-shore their operations lest Uncle Sam claw back arbitrarily-large chunks of their profit margins.

On the other end of the scale is stimulus spending. If you want to spend money you don’t have, you should at least get as much bang for your buck as you can. Tax cuts aren’t a good bet, because for every dollar of tax cuts less than a dollar of new economic activity is created. Pumping money into state and local governments doesn’t fare much better. What gets the best return? Food Stamps. For every dollar spent on Food Stamps, somewhere between $1.70 and $1.84 worth of economic activity is created. The money spent through food stamps tends to get re-spent within our economy, not sent off-shore or hoarded. A lot of that economic activity ends up paying for jobs for workers that pay taxes that pay for you roads and schools and fire fighters.

Encourage jobs, stay out of my wallet, everybody’s happy.

Who wants to raise your taxes?

There’s been a lot of talk about the American public’s rate of taxation, much of it from the perspective that we are currently overtaxed and that raising taxes would place onerous burdens on our individual liberty and collective prosperity. The following is a quick list of sitting legislators that want your taxes to go up this year, broken down by legislative body.

Continue reading