Accidental Blogger

Sexualizing Fast Food

April 14, 2009

I have never been impressed by overly sensual/ carnal language applied to food. I know, I know, sex too is a natural appetite and lust and gluttony can describe urges both above and below the belt. But for some reason, calling a piece of chocolate cake "sinfully delicious" doesn't make me want to eat it more. So it was not a surprise that I found the following article about marketing a burger with overt sexual imagery quite annoying.

When I watch the Carl's Jr. commercial featuring "Top Chef" host and mega-model Padma Lakshmi make hot sweet love to a Western Bacon Cheeseburger, I have many thoughts, some of which, I confess, are not entirely to my credit. The spot features the former Mrs. Salman Rushdie sitting on a brownstone stoop in a clingy sundress hiked up mid-thigh, cramming the giant burger into her educated maw and sucking barbecue sauce from her fingers and wrists. Let's not mince onions here: This is sex with a burger.

You might think that here, at last, television advertising might have crossed some sort of debauched Rubicon, or at least some tripwire at the Federal Communications Commission. Not even close. It's merely the latest chapter in the weird mash-up between sex and diabolically unhealthful fast food.

What gives?

Go ahead and read the whole unappetizing story and take a good look at the model, Padma Lakshmi aka ex-Mrs. Salman Rushdie #4. The only sentence you need to pay attention to is the one at the very end.

And so you have the impossibly lean and beautiful Lakshmi wolfing down a 1,000-calorie burger. Now that's hard to swallow.
Tragedy of the Commons = Rorschach Test? (Joe)

April 13, 2009

I was just reading about water law pertaining to the use of underground water. Making some point or another, the author invoked the tragedy of the commons, which got me to thinking — is it an inkblot?

An initial disclaimer: I'm not smart enough to understand the game theory aspects of this, i.e., that the tragedy of the commons is a multiple-player prisoner's dilemma. So maybe to economists it's more than just an inkblot on a Rorschach test.

For the rest of us, this is still probably one of the more well-known thought experiments out there. Basically, of a group of farmers neighboring a common plot of grazing land, each individual prefers to allow his goats to graze on the commons, rather than keeping them on his own inadequate land, but the commons will be depleted and rendered unsuitable for grazing after we reach some sort of threshold amount of grazing.

I know I have heard conservatives use the tragedy of the commons to make the point that we need private property. Private property is the only way the tragedy of the commons can be averted, they say. Otherwise all the grass will be depleted and then the goats will starve, and while there might initially be a mutton-based feast, soon thereafter there will be no goat's milk, and this is no good for anyone. Then the conservatives get together, read Ayn Rand, and sing Kumbaya.

But as someone with pretty clear liberal tendencies, my instinctive reaction is to disagree. Ayn Rand lacks literary merit and is even less meritorious philosophically, I would say, were I actually having this conversation. What we need is government control of the commons, with science-based regulations and monitoring, and a strict permitting system operated for the benefit of everybody.

And that's all well enough, as far as it goes. But there's at least a third option, which my first-year torts book is trying to get me to hear; unfortunately for it, I didn't pay attention that day when we skimmed over Coase, whose theorem posits that in the absence of transaction costs, the efficient outcome will be reached irrespective of initial distribution of legal rights. I'm not sure what a transaction cost is, so I look at my case book inquiringly. The goats do not starve to death for lack of grass, stupid, it snaps. Oh. Unless of course someone wants to build a golf course, or maybe a strip mall. But then all the goat farmers can just work at the Gap instead.

So we have, quite plausibly it seems to me, three options. One, we need to give individuals absolute private property rights. Two, we need some form of communism. Or three, it doesn't matter what we do, because the market will find a way to avert tragedy. That is, anyone can (and does) use the tragedy-of-the-commons argument to score cheap rhetorical points in order to make some sort of political claim, but at bottom, it's about as meaningful as a blot of ink, which by the way looks suspiciously like a cat climbing out of a sink.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something? Why is it prevalant, if it's so meaningless?
Taking the measure of a storm

April 13, 2009

Less than a year ago, I recounted my experience of living through a hurricane both before and after the storm. Although Ike was technically a Category 2 hurricane (falling 1 mph short of Cat 3), it has been repeatedly described as a monster storm and the devastation it wreaked on the cities of Galveston and Houston qualified it as the third most destructive hurricanes on record to have made landfall in the US.

Although Ike packed Cat 2 strength winds, it was a huge storm that covered a broad area and gave rise to storm surges way higher than would be expected from a hurricane of that intensity. Considering that a storm relatively low on the currently used Saffir-Simpson Scale of measuring hurricane strengths based on wind velocity did so much damage, some meteorologists now wish to devise a new scale to predict the effects of hurricanes more accurately by taking into account additional factors. That scale, they say, should take into consideration not just the speed of the hurricane but also the size of the "real" storm surge which cannot be calculated accurately on the current scale. According to Saffir-Simpson, a Cat 2 hurricane causes storm surges of 6 – 8 feet. Yet Ike gave rise to surges measuring up to 15 - 25ft. upon touching down in Galveston. Storm surges, say hurricane experts, do more damage to life and property than wind speeds.

AUSTIN — For this year’s tropics season, the National Hurricane Center won’t abandon the venerable Saffir-Simpson scale, which rates hurricanes on a familiar scale, from Category 1 to Category 5.

But the center’s director says any single index cannot begin to capture the local impact of a hurricane, a fact Hurricane Ike — only a Category 2 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale — made stark to residents of the upper Texas coast.

“If I could wave a wand and make it go away, I would,” said Bill Read, at the National Hurricane Conference in Austin on Friday. “It made sense in the era it was conceived, four decades ago, and now it’s ingrained in the culture.”

Attendees at the hurricane center have buzzed about the Saffir-Simpson scale’s inadequacies. KHOU-TV’s chief meteorologist Gene Norman said it needs to be modified to better account for surge. Greg Bostwick, a meteorologist at KFDM-TV in Beaumont, said his viewers couldn’t believe how “only” a Category 2 storm striking 90 miles away could flood one-third of Orange County.

Some hurricane scientists, such as Mark Powell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Hurricane Research Division, have been arguing in recent months to replace the Saffir-Simpson scale entirelySaffir-Simpson scale entirely. Powell said the scale is especially deceptive when it comes to storm surges, and when you review the data there’s simply no correlation between the category of a hurricane and the amount of land it inundates.

Developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by civil engineer Herbert Saffir and Robert Simpson, then-director of the National Hurricane Center, the Saffir-Simpson scale is simple and has gained wide public acceptance.

(more…)
Call Me “Betty Brown”

April 12, 2009

A Texas legislator has suggested that Asian Americans should consider changing their given names and adopt something simpler "that’s easier for Americans to deal with.” I understand that foreign names can be a mouthful and a bit confusing across language barriers. Have some Asians themselves confused things further by adopting "American" names for daily usage while keeping their "official" names on some documents? In any case who says that a citizen has any obligation to make things "easier" for politicians and bureaucrats? (link: Sanjukta)

AUSTIN — A North Texas legislator during House testimony on voter identification legislation said Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are “easier for Americans to deal with.”

The comments caused the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday to demand an apology from state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell. But a spokesman for Brown said her comments were only an attempt to overcome problems with identifying Asian names for voting purposes. The exchange occurred late Tuesday as the House Elections Committee heard testimony from Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

Ko told the committee that people of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent often have problems voting and other forms of identification because they may have a legal transliterated name and then a common English name that is used on their driver’s license on school registrations.

Easier for voting?

Brown suggested that Asian-Americans should find a way to make their names more accessible.

“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?” (emphasis mine)

Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said Republicans are trying to suppress votes with a partisan identification bill and said Brown “is adding insult to injury with her disrespectful comments.”

Brown spokesman Jordan Berry said Brown was not making a racially motivated comment but was trying to resolve an identification problem.

Berry said Democrats are trying to blow Brown’s comments out of proportion because polls show most voters support requiring identification for voting. Berry said the Democrats are using racial rhetoric to inflame partisan feelings against the bill.

“They want this to just be about race,” Berry said.

Brown has since then issued an apology for making the remarks.
Where’s the Bunny?

April 12, 2009

Beware of identity theft this Easter! (photos via my good friend Nancy)
Orin Kerr Accidentally Refutes Self (Joe)

April 10, 2009

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr has a post up, the polling data of which purportedly show that liberals are more willing to set aside the clear text of the law in order to reach a result which is not cruel and awful. Orin and I agree that non-deportation is the "compassionate" response; I disagree with his assertion that there is "no doubt" that deportation is the correct legal answer.

Basically, a guy named Pierre committed a crime, then attempted to kill himself by drinking battery acid. To keep living, he now requires constant medical care and tube feeding. He served his 10-year prison sentence, and the INS deported him to Haiti.

The basic question is whether a court can keep him here (the en banc Third Circuit said "no"). The only law which can keep him here is the Convention Against Torture,
which forbids deportation to a country where person probably faces
torture. "Torture" must be

intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from
him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him
or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her
or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any
kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity.

Pierre argues, and we assume to be true, that if he's sent back to
Haiti he will detained indefinitely in prison. Facilities can't
provide him with the medical care he needs, and he will painfully
starve to death over a course of days or weeks.

Orin's poll asks the reader to be the judge and decide whether the INS
gets to send him to Haiti, or whether he gets to stay here; it also
asks which side of the political spectrum the reader's beliefs or
preferences generally fall on. As it turns out, more liberals than conservatives would keep Pierre here; more conservatives than liberals would send him off to die an agonizing death.

(more…)
End of Watch (Sujatha)

April 8, 2009

.”End of Watch, April 4, 2009″ read the flashing sign above the Parkway as I headed home from work today. Was this a novel way of signalling some accident had created congestion ahead?
“Fallen Hero, PO Stephen Mahyle”, flashed the sign.
Three police officers, Stephen Mahyle, Eric Kelly and Paul Sciullo II fell in the line of duty as they responded to a domestic call and were felled by bullets fired by Richard Andrew Poplawski of Stanton Heights.
The analyses of the gunman’s motives have begun, ranging from insanity(favored by his relatives) to the hatred-filled inspiration of local right-wing talk hosts to his purported fear of having guns taken away by the Obama administration and Survivalist memes peddled by the likes of Alex Jones, 9-11 conspiracy theorist par excellence and Stormfront, an extremist website.
Three police officers lie in state at the City Hall, roads closed to contain the swelling crowds expected to pay their last respects to them.
For Poplawski, life will drag out into a series of trials, for the wheels of justice always grind much slower than the speeding bullets. If he’s lucky and gets a very good lawyer, he may even escape the fate of another similar conspiracy-loving survivalist type who rampaged 8 years ago and now still sits on death row: Richard Baumhammers.
End of Watch, caused by someone enamored of the End Times Watch.
Marriage by definition

April 8, 2009

First the Iowa Supreme Court, followed by the Vermont Legislature and now Noah Webster? Will the fact that dictionaries are giving a nod to same sex unions in their definition of "marriage," smooth the way for gay marriage?

Opponents of gay marriage generally have relied on two authorities, the Bible and the dictionary—the divine word and the defined word. A 2006 friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of anti-gay-marriage organizations in a Maryland marriage case cited no fewer than seven dictionaries to make its point. And when the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last week, it ignored the state's plea to abide by a dictionary definition that limited marriage to "the legal union of a man and a woman."

But in their latest editions, the dictionaries have begun to switch sides—though until recently, no one seemed to have much noticed. The American Heritage Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's have all added same-sex unions to their definitions of marriage.* The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily broke the news in March about Webster's, reporting that the dictionary had "resolved the argument" over gay marriage by applying the ancient term "to same-sex duos."

How, exactly, has the wording in the dictionaries changed? American Heritage went first, adding this to its definition of marriage in 2000: "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage." In 2003, Webster's included in its definition "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." In 2004, in its eighth edition, Black's added "same-sex marriage" to its marriage entry, recognizing that "same-sex couples have successfully challenged the laws against same-sex marriage" in a number of states. Even more interesting, 2008's Webster's Contemporary School and Office Dictionary says nothing gendered about marriage at all. The entry simply states that marriage is "the state of being united to another person as a contractual relationship according to law or custom." And the king of them all, the Oxford English Dictionary, since 2000 has included in the definition of marriage the phrase "long-term relationships between partners of the same sex."*
Kosher Coke – The Real Thing!

April 8, 2009

I am not an observant Jew. To put it more succinctly, I am not Jewish at all. Yet I look forward to Passover each year for one gastronomic reason – kosher Coca-Cola. I am not much of a soft drink lover either, tea and water being my beverages of choice. But when I do drink soda, I prefer ice cold Classic Coke or regular Pepsi to anything else. Both are familiar soft drinks of my childhood in India – delicious tingling beverages that brought much relief on hot sunny days at home, in restaurants or by the shack of a road side vendor.

I was not aware that kosher dietary laws extend to soft drinks until just a few years ago (probably 2001 or 2002). During the Passover week that year, I happened to pass a special table displaying kosher goods for the upcoming holiday at my local grocery store and noticed 2 liter bottles of Coke with distinctive yellow caps among the items. I brought one home purely out of curiosity. It turned out to be a pleasant surprise – it tasted like real Coke, a nostalgic taste no longer found in the modern incarnation of the drink. Having never paid any attention to the ingredients in Coca-Cola, I had no idea why the kosher cola tasted so much better than the ordinary variety. A Jewish friend shed light on the mystery. Kosher Coke is made with sugar – it is indeed the Real Thing. In the mid '80s the Coca-Cola company led the way in switching to high fructose corn syrup as sweetener for soft drinks, ditching real sugar from the ingredients. No wonder the kosher Coke tasted so good – it invoked the happy times of youth. Since then every Passover season, I keep an eye out for this rare commodity – kosher Coke is as rare as it is ephemeral. It makes its fleeting appearance for just a few days around this time of the year and if one is not vigilant, it is gone. Last year I missed it. So, I am determined to obtain a couple of bottles this year. I was at the grocery store this morning looking for kosher Coke. It hadn't arrived. I talked to the manager and he assured me that he has some on order and I should check back tomorrow or the day after. Greedy though I am for this special concoction, I only purchase moderate quantities partly out of consideration for Jewish shoppers and partly because 2 liter bottles are not the best option for our household of just two members, neither of whom consumes carbonated drinks in large quantities. Most years I have only managed to find this large sized packaging. Just once, the store also carried cans of kosher Coke which I much prefer.

If you are too young to have ever tasted soft drinks sweetened with sugar and you didn't know about kosher Coke, do try to find some this week and taste the Real Thing. Read more about this special edition of Coca-Cola here.

Note: This post originally appeared on March 18, 2008. I am bringing it to the front for the Passover week that begins today.
RIP, Dr. Kutner (Joe)

April 7, 2009

Kutner committed suicide on House. First, if you don't watch House, you're missing out. Second, and this is really cool — this happened because Kal Penn is leaving to go be an associate director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. How often do you see an actor do that?
“M” Is For Money – In Marriage, At Least

April 7, 2009

Love and marriage? How about the global economy and marriage?

Indian bachelors in the US and other western countries used to be a coveted catch in the arranged marriage market back home. Not any more. With India's own economy improving and western job markets wobbly, many Indian brides (and their parents) are opting for marital bliss at home. With their own job prospects improving in the domestic sector, career women in India too find the lure of settling in a foreign country less compelling. The "Boy from Foreign" is no longer the marketable Prince Charming he used to be. (Link to the WSJ article via Razib)

Vikas Marwaha would normally be considered a good catch by Indian parents seeking a husband for their daughter. The 27-year-old software engineer earns $80,000 to $100,000 a year and comes from a family "of doctors and engineers," according to his profile on a matrimonial Web site.

But Mr. Marwaha works for a start-up Internet phone company in San Francisco. And because the U.S. economy is wobbly, that's a problem. Many Indian parents now are balking at sending their daughters to the U.S. to marry.

During a two-week wife-hunting trip to India in December, Mr. Marwaha interviewed 20 potential brides in 10 days. He says several parents asked him, "How has the recession impacted your job?" Mr. Marwaha says he assured them he hadn't been affected at all, but still he returned to the U.S. brideless.

Indian parents used to think it a plus to marry off their daughters to Indian men living in wealthier countries, including the U.S. and Britain. But as India has grown more affluent in recent years, the demand for overseas Indian grooms has been fading. While India's economy is also slowing down, it is still growing, and layoffs aren't as widespread as in the West.

"Even if something happens, in India there's a comfort" that the woman's parents are around to help, says Murugavel Janakiraman, founder of the matrimonial Web site Bharatmatrimony.com. Favorable responses to overseas grooms registered on his site have declined by 20% in the past nine months, he says. ….

Anisha Seth, 26, has been looking for a groom for two years now. But she feels "jittery" about considering nonresident Indians as possible options.

Ms. Seth says that if she were to move to the U.S. or to another developed country, she might not get a job quickly and would have to be dependent on her husband for a while. While she's open to the idea of giving up her independence, she worries that given the state of the U.S. economy, a groom based in America might not be earning enough to support her. For instance, Ms. Seth says she likes nice clothes and would like to have a flat-screen TV. "Is he really prepared to provide the kind of lifestyle that I have right now?" She expects a husband to earn more than she does.

Some brides simply see India as more livable these days. As salaries have gone up there, Indian married couples are able to afford houses, and young women with jobs have money of their own. In contrast, in the U.S., "people have to even clean their own toilets," says Hasit Dave, 55, who runs the Klassic Match Marriage Bureau in Ahmedabad, a city in the western Indian state of Gujarat.

Career-oriented Indian women, meanwhile, have grown concerned about their job prospects in the U.S. Sandeep Gohad, a Manchester, Conn., software consultant who's between jobs, got such questions during a two-month-long visit to his hometown of Pune, near Mumbai. He told bride candidates they would have a hard time getting a work visa in the U.S. And even if they did, finding jobs would be tough. He, too, came home single. An engineer or doctor "has absolutely no reason to go to the U.S.A. and work as a housewife," he says.
The Last Jew in Afghanistan

April 7, 2009

Here. Passover begins tomorrow. I wonder what Zablon Simantov will be celebrating.
Spring Time in Texas Redux

April 7, 2009

It is April in Texas and my friend Linda has again sent out some spectacular pictures of wild flowers ablaze in the countryside. This year, there are no surprises among the blooms as there was last year. Enjoy. (click to enlarge)
Ask, Tell? (Joe)

April 4, 2009

In an e-mail following up on the Iowa Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, Ruchira mentions the possibility of a challenge to the military. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means that openly gay (or bisexual?) members of the military are not permitted to serve, but everyone is supposed to just not mention it and look the other way.

During his campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama had promised to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Because it's a statute, we actually need the Congress to do it legislatively, although the Obama administration could arguably just refuse to enforce it. In any event, the Obama administration is enforcing the law and has recently — allegedly temporarily — given up on reform.

This is a little strange because repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell enjoys widespread popular support — far more than same-sex marriage (and, I suspect without fact-checking, more than civil unions). So you'd think it should happen easily through the political process. But right now it's not. The question then becomes, Is it going to happen through a court challenge?

I doubt it. The Constitution basically does apply in the military, but the Supreme Court has traditionally recognized "the unique nature of military society" in modifying constitutional requirements. This is true, for example, in the realm of criminal procedure. I suspect that if there's anywhere where the military will be entitled to deference, it's on an issue like this which purportedly relates to the military's ability to operate effectively.

In short, a court challenge, while not inevitably unsuccessful, would almost certainly be weaker than a challenge to marriage laws, and is thus further away. It's hard to believe that policy makers haven't fixed this problem, though, and I suspect they will long before a successful court challenge could be mounted.
Marriage After Iowa (Joe)

April 4, 2009

Yesterday the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien, holding that the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution requires the availability of same-sex civil marriage.

This is starting to look like a strong, and increasing, trend in favor of state recognition of same-sex marriage. Iowa joins the high courts of Massachusetts and Connecticut in mandating full marriage equality. (California, of course, had also done that, but its decision was overturned by Prop 8. Unlike California, Iowa's constitution is not absurdly easy to amend, so there is little chance of a similar amendment in this case.)

One thing I did not realize until just now is that we may soon see legislation (which was not mandated by courts) creating same-sex marriages. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, legislation is pending in Vermont, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. In Vermont it has passed through both houses, although the governor has threatened to veto it. In New Hampshire it has passed a house vote and is awaiting a vote by the senate. In New Jersey a bill has been introduced in the legislature; the governor has vowed to sign it. Legislative success would refute the complaints about judicial activism and a lack of democratic legitimacy. It would also further embolden courts to make constitutional decisions in favor of marriage equality.

The speed at which these decisions are now rolling out is also significant. The California Supreme Court decided its case less than a year ago; Connecticut decided its less than six months ago. With each case it becomes easier for the next state to cite it and follow in its stead. The fact that Iowa is widely regarded as the purple, mainstreamish leader of the heartland only strengthens the case. No one has ever accused Iowa of being full of pot-smoking hippies, or liberal, coastal elitists.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Minnesota follow, leaning heavily on its well-regarded neighbor of a supreme court. And what then? Wisconsin? No, sadly — we run into a problem at that point. Wisconsin is one of 29 states with a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; this group is comprised mainly of conservative states, but in addition to Wisconsin also includes Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon.

So let's say Vermont, New Hampshire, and New Jersey pass their legislation. The Minnesota judiciary follows Iowa. At least some out of a group including Rhode Island, New York, Maine, Washington, and Pennsylvania could be expected to follow, as well as possibly a surprise like New Mexico. Asking for all of that would be too much, but within a few years it's realistic to expect CT, MA, IA, NJ, NH, as well as, say, MN, RI, NY, and WA to have same-sex marriage. That's 9 states, 7 of them on the basis of judicial decisions. The figure could not go higher than 21 on state grounds, which is where the next interesting step comes into play: federal constitutional law. What happens then is harder to guess at — it's plausible that federal or state judges will want to be the ones to kick off a U.S. Constitution-based right to marriage equality, but if it happens too soon, the U.S. Supreme Court will kill it (unless Justice Kennedy is convinced by the growing state trend and wants to be the one to really top it off — he would obviously get that opinion).

In any event, this is great news out of Iowa. It's an important step toward legal equality for gay people in this country, and for now there is reason for optimism.

Recent posts

about

Easier for voting?