Nephew #1 arrived yesterday evening while I sat a mile away talking with the manager of San Benito House and, apparently, challenging people to a Scrabble game later today. Nephew #1 is a much lighter sleeper than the rest of us, which causes him frustration, and when he gets frustrated he sets out to determine how much noise is required to make everyone exactly as light a sleeper as he.
Fortunately, I'm on Chicago time, so getting up at 5am PST (7am CST) does not bother me. And it gives me some time to read the articles that crossed my inbox overnight:
It's still an hour before dawn here, so I'm rocking out the nearly-empty Peet's, about to resume some client work. I promise another photo of the ocean before I return home tomorrow.
Check these out:
More later, including, I expect, more photos of the ocean. Why? Because ocean.
Update: Speaking of the ocean, via George Takei's Facebook feed comes this gem. Just read the product reviews.
The intemperate, irascible judge's dissent in U.S. v. Windsor is the gift that keeps on giving:
For the second time in a week, a federal judge embraced U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent from this summer's ruling overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a case challenging a state's ban on gay marriage.
Scalia was adamant in his dissent that the logic of the DOMA decision would result in state bans being overturned. In his decision Monday declaring that Ohio must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages on death certificates, federal district judge Timothy Black wrote: "And now it is just as Justice Scalia predicted -- the lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot -- i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."
It brings to mind a conversation between the Pirate King and the Major General in Penzance:
Major General: You would rob me of the last remaining props of my old age, and leave me unfriended, unprotected, and alone!
Pirate King: Yes, that's the idea.
Thank you once again, Justice Scalia, for your prescience.
A couple of days ago people wigged out that car-share service Uber had significantly increased prices during a snowstorm out East. I posted on Facebook that this made perfect sense, and people getting all mad about it just didn't understand economics.
Today on his blog, Krugman adds Keynesian context:
Uber, it turns out, doesn’t charge fixed prices; it practices surge pricing, in which prices depend on the state of demand. So when there’s a snowstorm or something that makes everyone want a car at the same time, prices go way up — sometimes sevenfold.
This makes a lot of sense from a rational economic point of view — and it makes people totally furious. It turns out that people are OK with fluctuating prices when it’s really an impersonal market — but they get really angry at any hint that someone with whom they have some sort of ongoing relationship is exploiting their distress. In fact, Uber’s surge pricing is really bad public relations, and I won’t be surprised to see the company modify its strategy if only for marketing purposes.
What does this have to do with [Keynesian macroeconomics]? Well, back in the 1990s the economist Truman Bewley...found...that issues of fairness and morale were key. Employers didn’t cut wages, even when unemployment was high and they knew that employees had no place to go, because they believed that morale and workplace cooperation would collapse if their employees felt that the company was exploiting a bad economy for its own gain.
This was part of a set of posts he's written concerning the difference between saltwater (Keynesian) and freshwater (anti-Keynesian) economics.
On a similar theme, in his column yesterday Krugman made a solid argument that UK Chancellor George Osborne is a stooge. I have to agree; but why Ed Milliband doesn't run with this (or at least with the sound economics behind saying it) I cannot figure out.
Just a day after New Mexico allowed marriage equality, Utah has become the 18th U.S. jurisdiction to do so:
At about 4:15 p.m. ET, the AP wire reported that a federal district judge had declared Utah's ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. Within an hour, one gay couple reported on Twitter that they had gotten married.
Now 123 million people live in marriage-equality jurisdictions in the U.S., 38.8% of the population. (Yesterday's number statistic left out New Jersey. Oops.)
The New Mexico Supreme Court was unanimous:
New Mexico's highest court ruled on Thursday that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry.
"We conclude that the purpose of New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their children if they choose to raise children together, and their property," the court's ruling read. "Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the government interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified."
With this ruling, New Mexico joins 15 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex marriages. That means 111 million people in the U.S.—36% of the population—live in marriage-equality jurisdictions.
The opinion is here.
After going to the Korean history museum on Sunday, I went over to the War Memorial. This isn't entirely a memorial to the Korean War, though about half the building is devoted to it. The basement has artifacts and busts commemorating two millennia of wars on the peninsula.
Outside the memorial building is an assortment of weapons from World War II onwards, including OH MY GOD THAT IS A B-52:
A B-52 that children can climb on, apparently:
They also have a Nike missile next to a SCUD, which was disconcerting. (Not nearly as disconcerting as discovering that I live 2 km from a 1950s-era Nike battery. Yes: we had nuclear bombs in Belmont Harbor.)
I've threatened promised to talk more about the Korean War's influence on Seoul, and I will, possibly even this afternoon. At the moment, I'm about to check out of the hotel and spend my last couple of hours exploring the city. Plus, I found a sushi place. I can't leave East Asia without getting sushi!
With only a few hours to go before I jet out of Chicago, I'm squeezing in client work and organizing my apartment while on conference calls. Also, I'm sending these to my Kindle:
Back to debugging...
Illinois' marriage equality act doesn't take effect for 7 months, but Federal District Judge Thomas Durkin (and I) believes the law's passage is enough to let a couple settle their affairs as they intended:
Vernita Gray and Patricia Ewert, will be issued their license early by the Cook County clerk’s office because one of the women is currently battling terminal cancer, their attorneys said.
County Clerk David Orr said he would comply with the order by U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin
Orr said he also welcomed the ruling.
“As a supporter of same-sex marriage, I’m pleased Judge Durkin granted relief to Patricia Ewert and Vernita Gray in this difficult time,” he said in a statement.
This is the right result. The couple have a compelling reason to marry, and a delay would needlessly complicate their lives even though marriage will be generally available to all couples in just a few months. There's a little part of me that says the state marriage law should prevail here, but a bigger part of me that demands to know why the legislature put in an 8-month delay in the law's implementation. It's not like any of the county clerks has to remodel their offices to accommodate marriage equality; they just have to produce marriage licenses.
So, good on Judge Durkin. This is not the first time I've wanted to buy the man a drink. I expect it won't be the last.
Wow, this weekend was busier than I anticipated.
You know what's coming. Links!
Only a few more hours before I leave for the weekend. Time to jam on the billables...