Blog: August 2005

Political blogs have built enormous communities of engaged individuals who communicate with each other online. People share ideas, debate, and become friends (and enemies) online. But sometimes there's just no substitute for old fashioned, face to face social interaction, and bloggers across America are increasingly supplementing their online conversations with one down at the local pub. In many cities, that means Drinking Liberally.

An informal, non-programmatic, free progressive social gathering is turning out to be the perfect complement to a vibrant local blogosphere. Some of the most successful Drinking Liberally chapters, in fact, are those with close ties to area bloggers. Philadelphia's chapter, instigated by top national blogger Duncan Black (Atrios), has blossomed not only into Drinking Liberally's fifth largest (as measured by mailing list size) but also a regular convocation for Philadelphia's blogging community, from topical conversation to drunken singing.

A blogger in Minneapolis took over the defunct local chapter, brought in other area bloggers, and quickly built it into a thriving community, the organization's tenth largest. And last week, a Milwaukee blogger called for the formation of a local chapter, and was quickly joind by a chorus of other local writers eager to meet and interact in person in addition to online.

The ideas and energy have often flowed in the other direction as well, from drinkosphere to blogosphere; liberal drinkers from Williamsburg, Brooklyn to Washington, DC started their own blogs, prompting the drinkingliberally.org Web team (i.e. me) to deploy a blog system on our server for chapters like Louisville and Cambridge, Mass.

Just as we saw - and Steve Gilliard so eloquently described during RNC Week at The Tank - when bloggers meet in person they form friendships which strengthen the blogosphere online, and have the enriching opportunity of talking with readers face to face. The bloggers can in turn utilize their wide online reach to grow and diversify the crowds at the physical get-togethers. Through this virtuous cycle, vibrant, thriving communities develop simultanously and symiotically both online and off, on the blog and in the bar.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

I just wrote that down by heart, and the only thing I got wrong were the conjunctions (I used "nor" instead of "or" in a few places, and didn't know that the last one is an "and").

This stuff is really important. I'm reading Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. A very weighty tome (especially since it only covers history up to Unification in 1898!), I'm only up to the period of British rule, but one thing that's very clear is how absent these freedoms, in particular, were during that time. Governors periodically tried to promote the Anglican church at the expense of other Protestant denominations, and even Catholics were never permitted to vote. Dissident pamphlets opposing corrupt land grants from Governors had to be printed in Boston.

The Establishment Clause ("no law respecting an establishment of religion") and freedom of speech have long been assailed, especially by the right. Lately, Republicans - espcially New York's Mayor Bloomberg - seem bent on curbing a less commonly discussed part of the First Amendment, freedom of assembly.

From denying a permit to peaceful protestors who wanted to gather in Central Park during the 2004 Republican National Convention, to harassing the Critical Mass bike ride, the Mayor seems to believe that if a group of people opposed to his policies wish to congregate peacefully, they must be led by "anarchists" and shut down to prevent "terrorism".

In Utah, police used military tactics and what many witnesses reported as excessive violence in breaking up a large outdoor rave concert last weekend. Crooks and Liars claims that "A source inside the Utah government reports that this action was undertaken out of fear that the Rave would be used to rally support for the protest against Bush's Utah visit."

Back in New York, Mayor Bloomberg tried to suppress yet another public gathering last week, this one a street fair whose organizer, Marc Ecko, received a legal permit. But when the Mayor heard that Ecko planned to spray-paint mock subway cars with graffiti-like art, he tried to shut it down. Judge Jed Rakoff stood up for the First Amendment, writing, "The City... claims the right to censor this exercise of free speech expression because, in the words of the Mayor on his radio program last Friday, the exhibition is tantamount to 'encouraging vandalism.' By the same token, presumably, a street performance of Hamlet would be tantamount to encouraging revenge murder. Or, in a different vein, a street performance of 'rap' music might well include the singing of lyrics that could be viewed as encouraging sexual assault. As for a street performance of Oedipus Rex - don't even think about it."

For many months anytime someone asks me what I've been working on, I can answer only with an enigmatic "it's secret." Many readers of this blog come from the link on the Google Blog, undoubtedly looking for some insight into the goings-on at Googleplex New York.

I can finally report that one of my five projects has launched a new feature. It's not enormous, but it's a very nice addition to the search experience on Google.com. Now, on certain queries where the first result is very strong, we add links to a few (usually four) pages within the site. This helps our users find the page they are looking for even faster and more efficiently, when the page they want isn't the site's home page.

You can see it on many queries, such as [eff], [daily kos], [boston], [hp],
and many others.

On the island of Martha's Vineyard lies a former Methodist retreat campground, now a nondenominational community of brightly colored gingerbread cottages surrounding a central tabernacle. Each Wednesday during the summer, the Tabernacle is home to a Community Sing, featuring songs like "I'm In the Swiss Navy" featuring audience gestures and jumping up and down.

On one Wednesday in August, the Community Sing is followed by Grand Illumination, a single night for which the owners of every cottage decorate their porches and roofs with brightly colored lanters, and thousands of people throng to the campground. I got to witness this amazing festival for the first time this year.

August's edition of my monthly pilgrimage to Mountain View coincided with the Young Democrats of America's national convention, which I was able to attend for the evening sessions. Drinking Liberally threw a party Wednesday which packed the house and overwhelmed the restaurant's bar staff. That came on the heels of a terrific edition of the regular weekly DL (Tuesdays, Zeitgeist, Valencia and Duboce, 7 pm).

I'm on vacation all week this week, so posting will be light to nonexistent. Meanwhile, enjoy the pictures of San Francisco under a blanket of fog.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom wowed the Young Democrats of America, and me, at their annual conference on Wednesday. His message was simple, yet drew a contrast with many other Democrats: we should stand up for what we believe in, period. People will respect that, even those who disagree.

Newsom has been criticized by many for issing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco last year. But, he persuasively argued, when John Kerry claimed that he believed marriage should be between an man and a woman, most people just plain didn't believe him. He lost respect from those who supported marriage rights and credibility from those who did not. Instead, he should have stood up for equality. It's the right thing to do. It's what Democrats believe.

People respect a leader who stands up for himself and for what he believes. Democrats continuously fall into the fallacious trap of thinking that voters will make their decisions based on which politician agrees with more of their positions. Voters want a strong figure to follow. A charismatic leader who extolls a vision for a better future is very attractive no matter the specifics.

And Gavin Newsom did this. "I'm pro choice, period, exclamation point," Newsom shouted, to thunderous applause. We need more people like Newsom. State Senator Eric Schneiderman is cast from the same mold. A fierce partisan and persuasive speaker, he pulls no punches yet comes across as an appropriately zealous advocate for truth and justice. No matter what one's beliefs, that's hard not to be attracted to.

Justin argued that Newsom is the perfect argument for why we need a Democratic mayor in New York City. Too many Democrats believe that Bloomberg is a fine mayor despite being a Republican, because he has run the city efficiently. But Bloomberg has sucked up to state and national Republicans, burnishing their image through the use of New York imagery without getting much for the city in return. He hasn't pushed for progressive social principles or progressive economic policies. He has weakened unions and trod upon civil liberties. Meanwhile, Newsom is doing the exact opposite in every one of those ways, making San Francisco into a shining city of a hill - several hills, actually - of why liberalism is a viable and inspiring political philosophy. Conservatives may mock it, but they mock it because of its success, and its success will persuade millions.

At the Parks1 Mayoral Forum, Gifford Miller got the greatest applause and won the most fans when he broke out of the thoughtful, wonkish, mature discussion they had all engaged in and launched into a spirited defense of parks maintenance. Written down that doesn't sound like much, but his enthusiasm and eloquence made even maintenance funds exciting. Imagine what would happen if he exhibited that kind of fire all the time.

He'd be like Gavin Newsom.

And maybe, like Gavin Newsom, he'd be Mayor.

I've long been interested in figuring out the "end game" of the economic shifts we're currently going through. After World War II, the U.S. experienced an unprecedented period of prosperity, where wage growth and an increased quality of life created the "middle class" ideal of houses and picket fences for all. Today, wages aren't growing, jobs are moving overseas, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Where does this lead? Will we end up back in a post-Industrial Revolution, Gilded Age type society of abject poverty for most of society? Will automation generate an Asimovian leasure society where the only human work is highly skilled robot programming for a very few? Will social upheval doom democracy?

At Ren's wedding I had a very interesting discussion with another guest, Ernie, who works in Asian equity research (analyzing markets and securities in Asia). As we discussed topics ranging from trade deficits and currency exchange to urban planning, we evolved the following line of reasoning: if we continue toward a global free trade economy, then American jobs will shift more toward creative and service industries; wage growth will continue to slow, but the cost of living will also go down, increasing the quality of life - but only if housing can also become commensurately cheaper.

If this is all true, then the ideal "end game" is a giant Williamsburg: an America where writing or acting isn't a thankless career for all but a few celebrities, but actually a decent living; and where expenses for food, medical care, and most of all rent are low enough to sustain a populace engaged in these pursuits. It's the artists' paradise writ large.

I don't know enough about economics be sure to whether this is solid (and perhaps nobody really does), but follow me through this line of reasoning and post in comments where you think it might be wrong.

Free trade is necessary.

Most economists and politicians have reached this conclusion, but the populace as a whole has not, at least not yet. Most people are very concerned about jobs moving to less expensive countries. Other nations like France are trying to protect their high wages through short work weeks, but that is creating very high rates of unemployment.

Meanwhile, China, India, and other smaller Asian nations have enormous numbers of people and rapidly growing markets. Right now, they export many goods to the U.S., and therefore the central banks of Asia are propping up the dollar. If they suddenly stopped doing that, our economy would crash. But they don't want to do that because their economies would crash too. And for the same reason, they don't want any big wars or other conflict. So the interdependence, as long as it continues, underpins a much greater level of global stability that ever existed in the past.

The types of jobs held by Americans will shift more to creative industries.

As the people of China become more prosperous, Chinese businesses will be able to sell to consumers there, reducing their reliance on the U.S., and the need to prop us up, creating a long decline. Or, perhaps U.S. businesses will develop products to sell to this enormous growing Chinese market, cutting the trade deficit and allowing our economy to stand on its own without declining.

These products aren't going to be manufactured goods, but they could be intellectual property of various kinds - software products such as operating systems and search engines, or cultural products like movies and music. We now have a race to grow the creative, export economy before losing the constant foreigh investment that sustains the import economy.

Wage growth will continue to slow, but the cost of goods and services will go down.

Wages in the U.S., Canada, Europe, etc. are much higher than in the developing world. It's unrealistic to expect that our wages would continue to increase at the rate they did during most of the 20th century. However, technological and scientific advances in manufacturing, medicine, food production, and other areas will make products cheaper and cheaper. Instead of needing to make more and more money, people can buy what they need for less.

Housing availability could become the next bottleneck.

One major area where people can't buy what they need for less is in real estate. Quite the opposite: housing prices in the most desirable metropolitan areas like Boston and New York have skyrocketed, to the point that most potential first-time home buyers are being priced out of the market. It's harder, not easier, to live in these cities, and rising unemployment and slow wage growth make it worse.

But people continue to want to live in such places - the rising costs are proof of that. And if the economy shifts toward entrepreneurial and creative industries, it's these very areas desired by the Creative Class that will be most needed. Whether creating a startup tech company or a movie, concentrations of creative people are a necessary ingredient.

Exurbs, therefore, won't be the engine of the economy. It'll either be major urban areas or else smaller cities that explictly attract the Creative Class. And either way, that means more housing in denser, transit-oriented, New Urbanism districts. The challenge is building such places, when most people in any area want to keep the density at whatever level it already is, preserving their own property values and the character of the area at the expense of others who would want to move there.

One way or another, if the above reasoning holds, then incomes will fall and large numbers of Americans will need cheaper places to live. Whichever cities accommodate them and build creative hubs will be the growth engines of the next generation. Those that don't will crumble. And either we provide enough housing at lower real cost than today, or we cope with widespread poverty, crowding, and homelessness.

The above reasoning: right or wrong? I'm not sure. What do you think?. History will be the ultimate judge.

A large amount of freight traffic to Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island is currently driven by truck along Canal Street in Manhattan, an area that hardly needs more traffic. So area Congressman Jerry Nadler has been pushing for years a plan to construct a rail tunnel between southern Jersey City and Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, allowing more cargo to be transferred to trucks in Queens and Brooklyn or taken farther out on Long Island by rail. Nadler's district also includes a small part of Brooklyn, which just happens to include the very spot where the tunnel would go.

The recent transportation spending bill (with the silly name of TEA-LU) includes $100 million toward the project.

Here's the DEIS (various PDFs) including a very interesting map of frieght lines in and around the city.

I guess it wouldn't have made any sense to route the tunnel via Lower Manhattan, build a passenger station, and use it for combined passenger and freight service, with freight moving outside rush hours? That was my first reaction, but clearly it would be much more expensive than the freight-only tunnel and would limit the amount of freight capacity.

Landing at San Francisco airport this evening, we approached the Bay Area from the north, giving me an amazing view from the Richmond-San Rafael bridge all the way down past the Golden Gate along the peninsula to San Jose. The entire Bay laid out at our feet.

And everywhere the sky was clear, except for a blanket of clouds and fog smack dab over the city of San Francisco, and one very small one over Richmond. Except for a patch around SoMa and Potrero Hill, the fog draped across the city down to San Bruno Mountain.

This is the way it always is. But nothing reminds us of it so starkly as seeing the entire Bay Area at once from the air, all the clouds concentrated over one space - the very space where the most people live. It's bizarre.

And freezing. I went from short sleeves in New York to a biting chill waiting for the AirTrain at San Francisco airport. Mark Twain was right when he said, "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco."

Forecast for San Francisco: Tuesday, cloudy, 67. Wednesday, cloudy, 69. Thursday, cloudy, 71. Forecast for Mountain View: Tuesday, sunny, 78. Wednesday, sunny, 84. Thursday, sunny, 88.

The U.S. Senate used to have the Singing Senators, and New York City has the Singing Speaker, mayoral candidate and more-traffic advocate Gifford Miller. The field of musical politicians is now joined by Brooklyn Congressional candidate Chris Owens, who jammed on his recorder at the end of a show of music and comedy at The Tank.