The Golden Gate

There’s this new expression that I’ve fallen in love with — “hysterical screedmongering.” I came across it this morning over breakfast. Ray Ratto’s columns for the San Francisco Chronicle’s sports pages are always entertaining, and in this morning’s Baseball Preview column , he came up with this absolute doozy: “This story has been reported to newsprint dust, with the requisite amounts of solid reporting and hysterical screedmongering.”

Hysterical screedmongering. God, that expression is just perfect.

It’s perfect in that it just so beautifully captures the kind of sloppy, yet foam-flecked writing that’s found, say, here — on San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly’s blog. As Ratto observes, hysterical screedmongering is distinct from “solid reporting,” and, I would add, it’s totally distinct from thoughtful opnion.

We’ll be taking on the hysterical screedmongers (like Supervisor Daly) and picking their hysterical screeds apart in future installments of The Golden Gate.

But for now, I just want to thank you, Mr. Ratto, for coining such a precise and elegant term. Precision is power, after all — and this new term brings a smile to my face every single time I see it.

Oh man. They are at it again on the newly expanded IMAO. with Signs that the Terrorists are Losing.

Over the past several weeks we’ve seem breathtaking scenes coming out of the Middle East. From Lebanon, to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and even Syria, the tide of real, liberal democratic reform seems to be surging and sweeping over the entire region.

Today we have two reports. The first — from The Washington Post — describes how Middle Eastern democracy advocates are using cell-phone text messaging to fight authoritarianism. (nod: Instapundit.)

And then DEBKAFile weighs in with this dramatic breaking news:

…complete collapse of pro-Syrian political and intelligence structure in Lebanon and abrupt withdrawal of all Syrian commands including key figure military intelligence chief General Ghazaleh.

(nod here to: Little Green Footballs.)

Yes, the tide of democracy and liberalism is rising in the Middle East. In fact, it looks increasingly like 2005 may be the “Eastern Europe in 1989″ for the Middle East.

Just keep in mind, the “anti-war” activists like A.N.S.W.E.R. have told us all along that these changes in the Middle East were “Not In [Their] Name.”

Duly noted.

Wow. You know, I can get it that the Mainstream Media (MSM) — and all of us, really — would dearly like to hear from some moderate Muslim voices in our world conversation. And in fact, there are some Muslims voices advocating a really liberal points of view (in the classic sense of the word, meaning “liberty”) — which place a high value on principles like tolerance, mutual respect and freedom.

Here’s a great example.

And, here’s another.

The thing is, let’s not let our eagerness to find more Muslim moderates turn in to kind of an optical delusion of the brain. Let’s not imagine fanatics and hatemongers into the sane, liberal, moderate voices we wish there were more of out there.

In other words: let’s keep our BS & hate detectors switched ON and fully engaged.

Here’s a report of a disappointingly delusional report from, of all places The Wall Street Journal which sugar-coats the viewpoints of the radical Islamic group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and their leader Salam Al-Marayati (nod: Little Green Footballs):

Salam Al-Marayati is notorious for telling radio station KCRW, within hours of the September 11 mass murder: “If we’re going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”

CAMERA has a long list of similar statements by Al-Marayati, supporting extremist movements and terrorist groups, vilifying Israel, and condemning US anti-terrorism measures. It’s disappointing to see the Wall Street Journal participating in MPAC’s propaganda campaign.

By all means, let’s seek out and chronicle tolerant and liberal Muslims wherever they may be. But let’s not be so eager to find them that we start trying to make hate-filled murder apologists into the second coming of Jefferson. No matter how noble their intentions, we should demand more from respected publications like The Wall Street Journal.

First off, Instapundit gives us a roundup of some of the latest, encouraging news to come out of Iraq, while noting that we often don’t hear about these the positive developments from our Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets. Summarizing Fred Kaplan’s latest piece from The New Republic, Instapundit hits on THE crucial question: “Kaplan wonders if journalists are so habituated to negative spin that they can’t, or won’t, recognize good news.”

I think that’s it, exactly.

Next, the always entertaining and insightful Christopher Hitchens weighs in with a startling piece about Iraqi WMD, “This was not looting: how did Saddam’s best weapons plants get plundered?”

Hitchens reveals that the New York Times has broken a major story: that several Iraqi weapons sites WERE, in fact, WMD-capable, if not WMD-containing, prior to March, 2003. And yet, in typical fashion, the ramifications of this revelation are being studiously ignored.

Furthermore, Hitchens goes on to reveal that the Times reporters have uncovered a systematic and pre-planned removal operation which was undertaken from April-May, 2003. Iin other words, WMD capability and any existing WMD were removed by Hussein’s military people before the US inspection teams showed up.

The overall pattern of the plundered sites was summarized thus, by reporters James Glanz and William J. Broad:

“The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. ”

My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn’t stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war. So now what? Maybe we should have taken Saddam’s propaganda seriously, when his newspaper proudly described Iraq’s physicists as “our nuclear mujahideen.”

My second question is: What’s all this about “looting”? The word is used throughout the long report, but here’s what it’s used to describe. “In four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 … teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. … ‘The first wave came for the machines,’ Dr Araji said. ‘The second wave, cables and cranes.’ ” Perhaps hedging the bet, the Times authors at this point refer to “organized looting.”

But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a “looter,” especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam’s Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.

I’d love to be able to expect a wide dissemination and aggressive follow-up by the big media outlets on this super-important story.

I’m not holding my breath, however.

Since we are talking about Capitalism, I think it is worth asking the question: what is capitalism? First of all, I think it is worthy of note that Marx, a long discredited economist, coined the terms “capitalism” while framing the debate that it was “bad”. Before that, it was simply liberty applied. So what then IS capitalism? I prefer this definition: The ability to freely associate for mutual benefit. Period.

But of course, we do not have capitalism in this Country. We live in a Mercantilist system. Alas, it is too easy to use the derisive term coined by someone whose thinking was in error and paint it as the modern day boogey man and then lock it in a closet.

From the “on the other hand” department: if you live in or near San Francisco, or you’ve been here on a visit, you’ve probably noticed that it’s really hard to find a place to park in San Francisco. Some times, it’s damn near impossible.

So what to do? You might think from what I said the other day that San Franciscco politicians would likely respond to such a situation by passing laws banning cars from the City, or taxing each vehicle that enters the City (and, in fact, proposals along these lines have been floated, in one form or another, over the past few years.)

But now a new idea is under discussion — one that would use the free market to address our parking crunch — “market rate parking.”

Essentially, market rate parking would cover areas of the City with new high-tech “super parking meters,” that would operate around the clock and charge something like $3 per hour. You’d be able to use smart cards, or your credit/debit card, to pay for parking. The City would gain more revenue, and the higher market prices would have people use only the parking they needed. (Regular meters now cost about $1.25.hour during business hours, and curb space is free all over town after 6 pm.) Also, you would do away with the phenomenon of people racing out to feed meters, and also do away with a good many of the “I ran out of change” type of parking tickets — most of which run $35-$50 per violation.

But more than anything else, charging a market rate for parking will end what is right now a de facto subsidy for car owners. San Francsico’s byzantine planning and development rules now require that a certain number of off-street parking spaces be included with every development project. The fact is, of course, that the developments in question invariably generate more auto traffic than the parking spaces the developers have been forced to include. Nevertheless, the costs of those parking spaces are priced into the rents and goods and services that get provided at these locations. In other words: right now, we ALL are paying for that “cheap and free” street parking that no one can ever seem to find.

This is a classic price/quantity dislocation resulting from a subsidy. It’s not a subsidy we think about much, but it is a subsidy, make no mistake. And the costs of this subsidized parking is borne by all of us in the form of higher costs for the goods and services we buy.

UCLA Planning Professor David Shoup makes this point in detail in his new book “The High Cost of Free Parking”, released last week by the American Planners Association press. His point is compelling — the free market may give us a solution to our parking woes that is more efficient — and more equitable — than the mess we’ve got now:

Charging market-rate prices for curb parking is economically efficient, and it may become politically feasible, but is it fair? Many people will initially say no, but they may change their minds after they think about it. After all, the complaint that charging for curb parking is unfair can be made against charging for almost anything. Motorists pay for most other costs of owning and operating a car (gasoline, tires, repairs, insurance, and the vehicle itself), but few see this as unjust.

If people pay rent for housing, why shouldn’t cars pay rent for parking? To judge whether charging for curb parking is fair, we can compare it with the current alternative — off-street parking requirements that increase the prices of everything else. With off-street parking requirements, even households without cars pay for parking indirectly in the form of higher prices for everything they buy. In contrast, when curb spaces are priced at market rates, only parkers must absorb the cost. Charging for curb parking is thus fairer than imposing off-street parking requirements, especially for those who are too poor to own a car. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey found that households with incomes less than $25,000 a year are nine times more likely not to own a car than households with incomes greater than $25,000 a year. Similarly, households living in a rented residence are six times more likely than homeowners not to own a car.

Because cars are unequally distributed in the population, charging drivers for the curb parking they use is fairer than forcing everyone to pay for off-street parking, even those who do not use it. Parking requirements take money from the poor to subsidize the better-off: drivers park without paying, while nondrivers pay without parking. I am not saying we should pay more for parking. Off-street parking requirements already force everyone, including the carless, to pay too much for parking indirectly. I am saying we should pay for parking directly. Cities can individualize–decollectivize–the cost of parking, so that we pay less for parking if we use less. While we all want to park free, we should not elevate this wish into a social judgment that charging for curb parking is unfair, especially when we compare it with the alternative — off-street parking requirements that impose a heavy burden even on those with the least ability to pay. Almost everyone will be better off by paying only for the parking they use and not paying the high costs off-street parking requirements impose on everyone.

Update, Mon. 3/28 5:42 PM: You can read an entire chapter of Prof. Shoup’s book here, as well as a paper by Prof. Shoup that thoroughly examines the costs of free parking and how it skews our transportation and planning processes. (Both documents require Acrobat Reader.)

Hey, what the…. We’re just getting started around here, and already the Federal Government is kicking around rules that might severly limit our activities. (Nod: Cox and Forkum)

Well, okay — I doubt they’re kicking around these ideas in order to put a stop to Jason and Rich in San Francisco. And, sure, maybe this is is all temporary sound and fury and it won’t go anywhere. But the very idea that McCain-Feingold’s regulations — which were designed to combat big-ass, multimillion dollar campaign finance abuses might now be used in an attempt to crack down or curtail the explosion of individual citizen-journalists known as “the blogosphere” must give us pause.

Obviously, here at The Golden Gate, we’re big believers in the power and utility of blogs. Hell, we like blogs so much, we decided to start our own! And, not to get to sentimental or poetic or anything, but I think blogs are a fantastic new addition o our democratic society — right in there with what Jefferson, deTocqueville et. al. had in mind for our democracy. People, expressing themselves, coordinating, getting involved in the ever-lovin’ societal conversation.

So, as I said, maybe all this McCain-Feingold hoo-hah isn’t going anywhere and this’ll all blow over in a month or two. Maybe.

But, just for exercise, let’s all go ahead and kick an email to internet@fec.gov and make our feelings known. We’ll tell ‘em we value free speech, and that free speech on the Internet should be the number one guiding principle for their deliberations.

Put more succinctly: “Hey FEC — KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY BLOG!”

Slugger Pushed Him Over the Edge, Baseball Journalist Says

A journalist who has covered baseball for his entire career called it quits today, blaming San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds.

Reporter Herb McCaugh, 52, who has written about the sport for the past twenty-three years, said that Bonds’ persistent refusal to answer his questions had finally pushed him over the edge.

In an angry, expletive-laden press conference, McCaugh took a parting shot at Bonds, whom he called “the sole reason” for his decision to exit journalism.

“Barry, you wanted me to jump off the bridge, I finally have jumped,” he said. “You wanted to bring me down, you’ve finally brought me and my family down. So now go pick a different person.”

Read the whole thing, for the Borowitz Report is always good.

As long as we are on price [in this case rent] controls, I must reference Dr Thomas Sowell who has thoroughly deconstructed the politically popular and entirely ineffective rent control. Here is a general sample:

Although there was no less housing space per person than before, the shortage was very real at existing prices, which were kept artificially lower than they would have been because of rent control laws that had been passed during the war.  At these artificially low prices, more people had a demand for more housing space than before rent control laws were enacted.  This is a practical consequence of the simple economic principle already noted in Chapter 2 that the quantity demanded varies with how high or low the price is.

Some people who would normally not be renting their own apartments, such as young adults still living with their parents or some single or widowed elderly people living with relatives, were enabled by the artificially low prices created by rent control to move out and into their own apartments.  These artificially low prices also caused others to seek larger apartments than they would ordinarily be living in.  More tenants seeking both more apartments and larger apartments created a shortage, not any greater physical scarcity of housing relative to the population.  When rent control laws expired or were repealed, the housing shortage likewise quickly disappeared.

Read the whole excerpt.

And for the serious students of what works, check out Basic Economics: a Citizen’s Guide to the Economy. HERE is a large sample [PDF doc] and HERE is where you can buy the whole book.

It is a must read for anyone who is interested in politics and things like rent control. it will give you a little reality around this oh-so-popular subject–empirical data.

Oh: here is a review of Basic Economics.

So, everybody knows that there’s not enough housing in San Francisco. And therefore the housing we do have is damn expensive. Part of that is due to geography: the city of St. Francis is surrounded on three sides by water, and there’s really no “new” land on which to build. So, perhaps it’s not surprising that we have some of the highest housing prices here — both in terms of rent costs and real estate prices.

We also have one of the strictest Rent Control laws in the nation and a byzantine set of severe restrictions and rules regarding building any kind of new housing.

Some of us think that these last two items make the problem worse, not better.

And yet, the predominant view on our Board of Supervisors is that we need yet MORE laws to “fix” our current problems.

Two of the current proposals under consideration by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are:

1) To require a payment of $4,500 to each tenant whenever a property owner takes a building off the rental market (ie: when the building’s owner(s) turn a rental building into Condominiums.)

2) To require that any new residential developments set aside 20% (or more) of new units for designation as “affordable housing” — priced well below market rates at a price set by the Supervisors. (The current rule — instituted four years ago — is that 10% of all new units now must be set aside in this way.)

“I honestly believe that what we call the housing crisis relative to units is going to stabilize in the next half-dozen years,” [Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin] told The Examiner on Tuesday. “Affordability is another matter,” he added, arguing that unless government takes a more active role, the shortage of low-cost housing won’t go away.

“You have to legislate your way out of this problem,” he said.

Ahhh, yes. “You have to legislate your way out of this problem.” This, in a nutshell, is the prevailing attitude among San Francisco politicos. I appreciate Mr. Peskin’s honesty.

But, perhaps — just perhaps — Mr. Peskin, it is, in fact, all those well-intentioned PAST attempts to “legislate [our] way out of” problems which have led to, or at least exacerbated, the current set of problems we have now.

So, can we at least put that notion on the table for consideration? Please?

Hello, and welcome. My name is Rich and I am the other primary voice of The Golden Gate. (We may feature other voices on here as guestbloggers from time to time. But that’s down the road a piece.) Right now, it’s my turn to step to the microphone…

> boomp, boomp< Is this thing on?

So, what are we up to here? Well, Jason’s done a good job of setting the tone thus far. You can look over there at the “Categories” sidebar and see the kinds of things we’re planning to talk about on a regular basis. So, stay tuned. This blog will be be a work in progress, and we’ve got our sleeves rolled up, and we’re rarin’ to go. We think you’re gonna dig what we’ve got in store.

All I’ll add at this point is that we tend to get real uneasy around orthodoxies and “given limits.” Both Jason and I are big on freedom and possibility. That said, we don’t always see everything eye to eye.

And that’s cool. Because, y’know, monoculture is inherently unhealthy and all that.

What else about me? I am a fifth-generation San Franciscan, and one of my particular areas of interest is the often zany and madcap world of San Francisco politics and culture.

Oh yes — and baseball. I’m real big on baseball. So, you will undoubtedly get the occasional baseball anecdote or metaphor from me.

Okay, that’s enough talking about myself, for now. Res ipsa loquitur, and all that.

~rich

Exposed by Democracy Guy.

is up over here .

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”–Thomas Jefferson

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. “–Thomas Jefferson

“Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. “–Thomas Jefferson

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. “–Thomas Jefferson

A 12mb audio file for you to listen to on the subject. May take awhile to download depending on your level of investment in broadband [or not].

Beats me. Here is an excerpt:

AUSTRALIAN soldiers drew arms to protect themselves from Jordanian peacekeepers after a Digger blew the whistle on other Jordanian soldiers’ sexual abuse of East Timorese boys. Corporal Andrew Wratten had to be evacuated and Australian commandos sent to protect Diggers in Oecussi, an East Timorese province in Indonesian West Timor, after he told the UN of the pedophilia that occurred in May 2001. The Australians drew their Steyr assault rifles after being confronted by Jordanians armed with M-16s, in an escalation of verbal threats triggered by the later betrayal of Corporal Wratten by a Jordanian officer in the Dili headquarters of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor. Corporal Wratten, who was working at a fuel dump in the enclave, was told by a group of children that Jordanian soldiers had offered food and money in exchange for oral sex and intercourse. The allegations involved East Timorese minors, all boys, the youngest of them just 12 years old.

Hat Tip: LGF

Oh, I figured it out: they have stolen more money in the biggest all-time financial scam [Oil for Food scandal which is the main reason Russia, China, and France opposed the invasion of Iraq], raped more boys [see above] and raped and prostituted more women [Congo "peacekeepers"] than anyone else.

Clear moral authority in a world of moral relativism. Yup. Uh-huh.

A little humor to start us off: IOWAHAWK is at it again. pointing out the oh-so-obvious inconsistencies and ironies we experience in the world in a way that must leave the “other side” seething. [The other side for him, not me].

Day by Day rocks as usual, especially now with the FCC musing whether free speech is “legitimate”. Check him out and keep clicking the “back” link and read the strips for the last week [or more].

And last, but certainly not least, [I just like 3s] the Democracy Guy has a humor section that is not often posted to, but is quite funny to me. He is also a centrist and rational Democrat who worked on Bill’s campaigns who has been banned from Daily Kos, Atrios and MyDD for trying to talk sense. No, I am not linking to them.

Saw this in the Drudger Reporter today:

“St Patrick’s Day has claimed another victim: the world-renowned Hubris has not posted since March 17th. Insiders claim is it not due to his reported fascination with Patrick Swayze, and the recent depression stemming from maniacally watching Road House, but simply bad fish and chips. However lately, his corporate underlings have complained of him continually muttering “should’ve taken the Oscar” under his breath in meetings he is supposed to be facilitating. He is also reportedly growing a mullet. Developing…”

If you are an American citizen and you are politically active, it is impossible to be responsibly politically active unless you have read the Federalist papers. It is through reading the Federalist Papers that you can begin to truly understand the rules of the game we are playing in this Country [or supposed to be playing]. You can read them here for free.

UPDATE: read them before you go out and vote again.

If you are not reading Dr Thomas Barnett’s work, then you can not begin to understand the full scope of the GWOT. He puts war into the context of everything else and looks at it from 30,000 feet. His strategic view is the most complete I’ve seen so far in this domain. But don’t take my word for it… Check out his blog to see what he is up to, buy his book [soon to be books], and get the occasional analysis from him on specific news items.

The intention of this blog is to be a voice of rationality in a sea of emotional activism in SF. To question the seemingly unquestionable.

UPDATE…think LGF meets Instapundit meets Hubris [the satire blog] meets The Community of heart and love and compassion meets Ayn Rand meets Ken Wilber all sipping a cappuccino in San Francisco watching the sun set while speaking of many things.

There will be penetrative analysis on the WOT as well as an attempt to balance the perspective being displayed in the MSM in general and in San Francisco Group Think in specific.

We will take on a host of issues from entitlements to homelessness to business regulations to economics to war [in the context of everything else] to rent control. You name it, we’re going to look at it. I will personally be looking at it from The perspective of a libertarian with a Misean perspective on economics and a hawkish approach to the WOT. Rich will approach how ever he pleases. We expect to disagree on some issues and a rich dialogue [no pun intended] will ensue.

Comments are open to anyone who registers [your name and email will be used for no other purpose], however defamatory remarks and remarks that are ad-hominum and do not address the issues at hand will be deleted. Comments do not reflect the views of The Golden Gate.

Tired of the left-right polarization in the political discourse today? Feel like neither really characterizes you well? Don’t feel like a “centrist” either? Find yourself agreeing with the Democrats on some things and Republicans on others? Check out the 4 quadrant model here. Take the test. Enrich and deepen your understanding of yourself and others.

Looking for the best in integrative thought, where the brightest thinkers in all fields of human development and conscious evolution are gathering? Check out Ken WIlber and David Deida’s site Integral Naked . If you want to see what Ken thinks of the War in Iraq, bringing the Spiral Dynamics model into play, check that out here.

Here’s a sample:

there are second-tier reasons not to go to war. but there are also second-tier reasons to go to war. green doesn’t have a choice–it won’t go. second tier has a choice, so weigh the evidence carefully. second tier might indeed recommend war, it might not. but you can check and see if you are “merely” green by asking under what conditions you would recommend war. if you can’t think of any, ahem, welcome to green. still, the issue is enormously complicated, even through integral lens, so again, weigh the evidence carefully. The problem with this discussion at large is that it is entirely first-tier. blue says bomb the hell out of the evil ones; orange says, okay, but hurry, because it’s hurting the stock market; green says, no way, let’s be loving. first tier has such a hard time seeing big pictures, so it moves around within the partial value structures that define it. this is a discussion that i have stayed out of since doing WTC essay. it’s just a big first-tier food fight.

There are those who have volunteer armies. There are those who require service. Then there are those who encourage mothers to celebrate the suicides of their children.