confirmation of a prejudice

I've always thought that Gustav was a an exceptionally sinister sounding name.

exit

So that's all over. Now that the big China-defining event has gone by, I wonder how the country feels. All that investment, propaganda and enthusiasm was poured into less than a months worth of activities.

Accross the rest of the world, little has changed in the opinion of China. Examples that solidified already existing opinion and prejudice were not hard to find, from underage gymnasts to rioting minorities. I think that the government of China thought that the Olympics would do a lot more for their reputation than it did.

Notes from Beijing

Beijing was the only place we went that we had been before. Obviously the impending arrival of the Olympics has changed much of Beijing. It’s cleaner, less litter and rubble than I remember. We actually saw the sky a couple of times, a rarity in any Chinese city much less the dirty capital.

Order and cleanliness has its costs. There were fewer vendors and less street food available. Better enforcement of traffic laws meant that it was much harder to hail a cab, as there are apparently no pickup zones all over the city.

The revamping for the Olympics has gone into the 11th hour, with many projects still half completed with a month to go. The underground walkways near the Forbidden City are being retiled, and (for whatever reason) reek of turpentine. The new subway lines are mostly completed but have done little to relieve the crowdedness of the rush hour train, where the last person on to the train is often physically crammed into the car by the platform cops. The subways also switched over from paper tickets to a BARTesque card system halfway through our trip. The new system proved as baffling to the residents as it was to us. The stop in front of the main Beijing Rail Station was a particular disaster, with one entrance not selling tickets and another subject to bizarre and unpredictable closures. We were effectively prevented from using the subway system after the changeover.

Beijing has also been busy redecorating its historic sights, something which is usually a mixed blessing. All of the ancient structures get some shiny paint and a few new decorations of dubious authenticity. We caught the old summer palace (圆明园) in a state of half renovation.

We don’t do a whole lot o touristing about in Beijing. We mostly enjoy the food, and take a break from rushing around to see everything. Beihai park (北海公园), built on the sight of Kublai Khan’s old palace, was certainly a nice place to stroll around.

Dongyue temple (东岳庙 ) was also a fascinating excursion. It’s odd to find a temple that serves as both a place of worship and a tourist location. Dongyue is filled with strange statues demonstrating the types of things that you find in the various Daoist afterlife departments. That’s departments, as in Department of Motor Vehicles. There are seventy-six such departments in the Daoist afterlife, including the Department of Animal and Insect Births (busy one, that), and the Department of Implementing Violent Deaths. One is left with the impression of a bureaucratic religion where, if you lose your receipt, you are forced to wander the earth forever.

We also tried out Beijing Opera for the first time, which was colorful and screechy. On account of extreme jetlag, it turned into the single most expensive nap that I have ever taken.

Language in Beijing has its quirks, but in general is one of the easier places for me to deal with. A lot of people there can speak okay English, but expect you to speak Chinese. I rather like that, as it encourages learning, and is a product of Beijing cosmopolitan environment. I’ve found that Beijing is one of the few places where if you ask a question in Chinese, people will actually answer you, as opposed to exclaiming “你说话 !” (You spoke!)

The Beijing accent is easy for me to understand, as it is close the variety of Mandarin that I am most familiar with. However, there is no way in hell I would ever attempt to speak in the Beijing dialect. Beijing ren tend to add an “r” (儿) sound to some words, a quirk that makes Beijinghua sound like either a hungry cat, or Chinese spoken with a pirate accent (“yar!”). The trouble is that I just can never figure out which words are going to get the “+ r” treatment. It also just strikes me as weird that some foreigners prefer to use the Beijing dialect. No other dialect in China gets this treatment; you don’t hear anyone learning Shandonghua or trying to learn shanghainese (with its bizarre tonal structure).

The food is good, with a bevy of Sichuan restaurants as well as many locations devoted to Beijing’s own “use the entire pig” take on cuisine. And yes, the roast duck is delicious, but I was delighted to discover that there is a cheaper fried version of it, that’s just as awesome.

vacation time!

It's not like I've been posting a lot lately, but I'm about go off for a two week jaunt to China (Beijing and Xi'an, specifically). The next post from me will probably be form some smoky, ill-kept internet bar in China.

Cheers

california courts make themselves a nuisance in my life

No doubt you've heard about the ruling against Starbucks in the CA tip-pooling case. The Girl is a supervisor there, and is in line for about $1.50 pay cut until some equitable solution is found.

Like many supervisors, being cut off from the tip pool would bring her pay to roughly an equal level with the baristas she supervises. She is, of course, considering asking for a demotion.

I'm no expert on California labor law, but on it's face the ruling seems kind of goofy. The relevant section of labor code and it's definition of agents who could not be given tips:

"...(d) "Agent" means every person other than the employer having the
authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or control the
acts of employees.

Supervisors at Starbucks can not hire or fire employees. They supervise, obviously, but when I check somebody's code or give them advice on how to make their Excel equation work properly, that doesn't make me management. Supervisors direct and control baristas, but so do other baristas. Maybe no one should be given tips.

Truth be told, Supervisor don't have much in the way of official power at Starbucks. They can't even formally punish anyone without written approval of the manager (who does not get tips). Roughly 90% of the job is the exact same as well-respected barista. They're paid hourly and make up 1/2 to 1/4 of those serving customers at any given time.

I do not think this judge was showing good Posnerian pragmatism. Here we have situation where the customers, supervisors, baristas and company had settled on a method of compensation that worked reasonably well for all parties. Then along comes one nuisance lawsuit, and now everyone has to find a new equilibrium. Was there an overiding interest in disrupting this agreement? Any good reason to redistribute money from supervisors to baristas? Is it even in the spirit of the law?

The answer to all three seems to me to be "no." The law looks to me like an attempt to keep the companies and businesses from taking tips from hourly employees, not an attempt to pick and choose which hourly employees get tips. But again, not an expert on labor law (though I'm pretty okay on the affirmative-action side by now).

But even given that the legal matters, it seems like a silly argument for our state to be butting into. With all the problems that California has, we need to be disrupting already functioning agreements, too?

Seems silly, that's all.

we do have a better press corps (Michael Spector edition)

If you haven't read it already, Michael Spector's article on the carbon footprint in the New Yorker is excellent. It details what we've learned since people have started attempting to measure exactly how much carbon is associated with each product.

I really hope that carbon labelling catches on. Though article makes clear its obstacles, labelling could really help us to understand what is and what isn't a major source of carbon emissions. Trying to do so without effective and clear measurement could be counter-productive.

The other thing that that I like about this article is it's sceptical take on the "Eat Local" movement. I've always thought there were two bad reasons and one good reason to eat local.

1. Local food has less "food miles" on it.
2. Eating local helps the money stay in our economy.
3. Local food is fresher, and has been bred for taste rather than durability of transportation.

I don't think food miles are a good way to measure carbon emissions, for the reasons Spector describes. "Our Economy" ought to include our whole country, at the very least. Foreigners and people from Missouri need and deserve our dollars as much as anybody else.

#3 is hard to dispute, as anyone who has experience the difference between farmer's market heirloom tomatoes and the indestructibly bland grocery store variety can attest. However it does pt us foodies into a bit of corner. It could well be that it's more carbon friendly to only eat mass-produced mass-shipped food. Then what would be do? Choose between my planet and my dinner? Makes me want to cry.

virtue of necessity

Well, I just sent off two of what I like to think of as "Nuisance Ex-Student" letters.

These are letters begging for references from professors that I haven't seen in 6 years from whom I was one student in a class of 30-40. The only thing I've got going for me in the memorability department is A) I'm more opinionated than your typical Davis economics student B) I had a certain fondness for using strange metaphors, forced analogies and odd puns (see Otisms) in my academic writing.

In regard to A) Davis had a lot skinny, geeky shy types in the econ classes. The rest of your typical class was filled out a fair share of befuddled jocklings and confused International Relations majors who had to take the development and international courses. My International Macro TA told me that on days that I didn't come to section he could hear the fluorescent lights buzzing. In regard to B) I'm not saying it's a good way to write, but it certainly isn't normal.

Anyway, Sac state is more a choice of convenience for me as far as Masters programs go. It seems like a good department and certainly a good enough department. So I spent part of the day looking through what electives I might take to fill out my 30 units, and found some stuff that I'm actually downright excited about.

ECON 251. Urban Problems, Economics and Public Policy. Historical development, economics and possible policy solutions of the most pressing problems facing central cities and urban areas in the U.S. are presented. Problems discussed include poverty, crime, urban abandonment/suburban sprawl, edge cities, deteriorating infrastructures, and fiscal stress. Cross-listed: PPA 251; only one may be counted for credit. Graded: Graded Student. Units: 3

ECON 181. Economics of Racism. Economic analysis of the origins and development
of racism, focusing mainly on its impact in the U.S. Differing theoretical
explanations surrounding racism will be compared and evaluated. Graded: Graded
Student. Units: 3.0.

Good stuff, and helpful both for the career and in general as a guy who likes to argue with people.

Moxie: get there early

On saturday, the girl and I finally got around to trying Moxie.

Moxie has a reputation, and a good one. Next to Biba's, it's probably the most well known temple of high-class foodstuffs.

And I like me some food. Fancy food, exotic food and plain food. I'm slightly more fussy than a garbage disposal, but I will pay for the good stuff. But we're not wealthy people, so we've had to wait quite a while to take a taste of Moxie.

So yeah, the food is good. Moxie does not dissappoint. I still prefer The Mustard Seed over in Davis. The Ahi was particularly delicious, and the mashed potatoes easily take the prize for the best mashed potatoes in Sacramento.

The service there goes by the philosophy that, the most important thing is that the experience be memorable. Our dinner started after 8, and our waiter seemed to be quite drunk. His exploits were impressive enough to warrant a bulleted list.

• He mixed up our order of ahi spring rolls with fried calamari.
• We ordered our entrees, but asked for a second to settle on our wine. After a moment, he came back with two glasses of someone else's wine, then asked what we would like to eat.
• He forgot we were there when it came to the bill, then asked me if had got it yet. When I said no, he asked if I would like another bill. Everyone was confused.

We were having a good time, and he was a friendly guy, so none of it was a big deal. Fact is, we were more entertained with every new blunder.

Plus, he gave us extra mashed potatoes.