Why I am not buying an air conditioner this summer

I got back to Montreal Thursday from six weeks in Seattle, and I stepped into the average
Montreal Summer: right now, my place is 31C (88F) and humid -- peak temperature for the summer, but it remains that way all night (that fantastic insulation which comes in oh so handy during the -20F winter nights).

My first thought: go get that air conditioner. I had two at my old place on Mont-Royal (bedroom, living room) that were old but sufficient; last summer, you'll recall I lived the troglodyte lifestyle in my sous-sol sub-let (un-AC'd) while I awaited the condo I already owned to empty out. I had become conditioned to live in 68F comfort, and I don't see why I should have to put up with this for the 6-8 weeks it lasts here.

For those of you who haven't yet visited me in Montreal, I bought a place last summer, and I'm loving it (even if I haven't painted it inside yet).



However, it has no air conditioning, at all. And, it's on the top floor, to where all the heat in the building traverses (again, great during winter time). It has everything I want -- except that A/C, it seems. So, I started researching, and I found my solution in the recipes section of the NYTimes.

Wha? Well, I'm putting off the purchase, because I came across a drink so cool and delicious, that I'm just stocking up on it, and that seems to be all I need. It's Iced Coffee.

Now, I know what you're thinking -- you've had it at Starbucks, it's okay, but you're not going to be replacing your A/C with it any time soon (and sure, I'll break down too and get the A/C later). But this Iced Coffee is special. It's unique. It's not like Starbucks. Because it's cold brewed.

The article's author described their first taste of it being due to a self-effacing coffee aficianado friend who kept politely declining their home-made iced coffee. The author eventually broke down and asked, "Why don't you ever drink my iced coffee?" and the pal staved-off, dithered, and finally admitted that he could no long stand to drink iced coffee unless it was cold-brewed.

You see, most places (and most homebodies) simply take the stuff they brew using their drip machines, put it over ice and hand it to you. Or, take their drip machine coffee, and put it in the fridge for later use. This makes for a bitter brew when it's encoldened, hardly the thirst-slaking smooth-drinking fistful for which summer heat begs. And it turns out, to make the sweet cold elixir of the angels, it is easier than making a pot full of drip.

Cold brewed coffee is familiar to anyone who's passed through New Orleans (I have not), where it is the summer standard. To make it: use 1/2 lb ground dark coffee and 2 quarts of room temperature water in a non-reactive container (glass pitcher, or a stock-pot). Mix, cover, and let sit for 12 hours on a countertop. Decant into another container, straining out the grind (I use a coffee filter). Voila, that's the base, ready to go; it will keep in your fridge for 2 weeks (I use mason jars). When you want Iced Coffee, pour into a glass with ice filled to the brim (but not packed). The dissolving ice lightens the load and cools the coffee. Add cream/sugar to taste. You will not drink a smoother, more delicious ice coffee anywhere.

Notes:

1) I use Maxwell House (and I usually wouldn't touch the stuff) and get great results, so no need for fancy coffee beans here.

2) "New Orleans" style iced coffee requires you make it almost double strength: 1 lb of ground coffee to 2.5 quarts of water, letting sit for 12 hours, decanting and straining into a storage container (again, non-reactive surfaces only!) Mix 1-1 with water, and/or cream.

Economics Do Not Lie

What does it mean to own an iPhone?

They're almost a month out now, and you can by them, readily, for $500 retail. When someone pulls them out in public, they're a superstar in the room -- the sudden silent attention of every eye.

And not just every eye, but every other designer in the world, too, such as Louis Vitton, who now makes cases to put the iPhone in (see them
Here ) for $225-$1120.

What? The case costs twice as much as the iPhone? So the thing meant to protect the iPhone and extend its life (presumably) is twice as much as the thing itself. In other words, you could wear the iPhone out, throw it away, and by another, and then another, and that's when you'd break even with just buying the case to protect the first one. Does this make economic sense? Only if the iPhone is more valuable than its price indicates.

Josh Marshall for Pulitzer

I'm just getting my noms in early -- Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo should receive a Pulitzer prize for his work on the US Attorney's Scandal -- and thus become the first full-time blogger to win the Pulitzer prize.

An Existential Question for the GOP

As always with the GOP, it comes down to domestic political power, to all appearances their only reason for being. Washington Post today, Page A1:

House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.

Note the many possible concerns of a thinking, feeling human being that were not expressed: Their worries for the Iraqi people. Their concerns about whether the Iraq war is worth its ongoing cost in American lives (including their constituents'); in Iraqi civilian lives; in dollars. Their concerns about the continuing explosion in the deficit ($200B per year) that the war has created, and the global rise in Islamic radicalism that it is fueling. Any question of whether having our troops in Iraq right now does more harm than good.

No. Their only expressed concern is this: If the situation in Iraq does not improve, the Republicans will be thumped again in November 2008. In all likelihood, a majority of those present in the room with the President will be voted out of office.

Which raises my existential question for the GOP: What is the purpose of domestic political power if it does not allow you to raise these questions of ultimate ends – the lives of innocents; the good of the nation; the best and wisest uses of American power – in person, with the President of the United States, on one of the so-rare occasions when you have the opportunity?

New Fave Album

A little while ago on KCRW I heard Sergio Mendes'es remake of his bossa-nova hit "Mas Que Nada" that he did with the Black Eyed Peas and thought it was such a great mix of something old, classy and cool with something new, funky, and cool that I bought the album. It soon became my new favorite album: a lot of Bossa Nova mixed with rap (I never would have though it would work so well) and some cool, mellow stuff like a track with Stevie Wonder.

Quebec Anti-Anglos At It

We interrupt this solid month of rememberances of Gerry Ford to bring this other recollection from the 70s:

The Quebec Sovereigntist group, the FLQ, which carried out a string of bombings in the 60s and 70s in Quebec, is threatening to kill English-speakers in Montreal, for the month between February 15th-March 15th.
> They're targeting West-Island locales where people gather -- shopping malls, highways, and specifically businesses with signage which is not French-first, that sort of thing. It's not really clear what's bringing this out now. In the last election, the Sovereigntists did poorly -- following a scandal which brought down the ruling Liberal party, most Quebeqers changed their vote rightward -- to the Conservatives, who now rule Canada -- instead of leftward (ie., toward the sovereigntists, in the form of the Parti Quebecois).

So, other than this being horrendous, I'm not horribly worried. I live downtown, not on the West-Island (although, strictly speaking, by French Montrealers standards, downtown is the West Island). Sure, I work at the prime English language university downtown, so, maybe that's a target. Even so, the police don't believe the group is necessarily capable of carrying out the attacks; and I'm sure publishing that in the paper just discouraged the FLQ, and they'll probably just give up.

yikes.

2007 + 1 = 2008

It was only today that I realized - it is less than a year until 2008, the year we elect the first post-Bush President.

(Ford knew about lame duckhood - after the Nixon pardon, when his 70% approvals dove to the twenties... the current occupant does not have the sense to go as gently.)

The Onion as Prophet

Apropos our former President, I wonder what he would make of the transformation of the satirical publication The Onion from humor rag, to political commentary, to out and out prophet.

They're running a special feature marking six years of W, and it's a wonder to behold: Link.

A Month of Ford

In honor of the former President, all posts this month will be explicitly Gerald Ford-related.

A moment of silence, please, while we contemplate his contributions to our nation as President, football player, golf fanatic, and inflation-fighter.

The Late Gerald Ford's Home: Golf Course Central

Reading that Ford was actually quite a talented athlete (he could probably wrestle Don Rumsfeld to the ground) and not the stumbler Chevy Chase physically manifested as metaphor for the "accidental President" (and, for a few well-broadcast trips and stumbles), I became curious about his golfing habit. I looked up where he lived: Rancho Mirage, CA . It seems there are some golf clubs there. Isolated as it is, in the desert, I tried to make a list of all the golf clubs/country clubs which appear within about 15 miles:

1. Escena Golf Club
   
2. Desert Princess Country Club
   
3. Cimarron Golf Reseort
   
4. Mesquite golf and country Club
   
5. Canyon Country Club
   
6. Indian Canyons Golf Resort
   
7. Tahquitz Creek Golf Resort
   
8. Mission Hills-Gary Player Course
   
9. Mission Hills Country Club
   
10. Mission Hills-Pete Dye Golf Course
    
11. Cathedral Canyon Golf and Tennis Club
    
12. Tamarisk Country Club
    
13. Morningside Country Club
    
14. Springs Country Club
    
15. Thunderbird Country Club
    
16. Tri-Palm Estates Country Club
    
17. Ivey Ranch Country Club
    
18. Classic Club
    
19. Marriott Shadow Ride Resort
    
20. Rancho Mirage Country Club
    
21. Sunrise Country Club
    
22. Rancho Las Palmas Country Club
    
23. Palm Dessert Greens Country Club
    
24. Desert Willow Golf Resort
    
25. Emerald Desert Golf and RV Resort
    
26. Monterey country Club
    
27. Portola Country Club
    
28. Lakes Country Club
    
29. Oasis Country Club
    
30. Palm Desert Resort Country Club
    
31. Mountain Vista Golf club
    
32. Shadow Mountain Golf Club
    
33. Marrakesh Country Club
    
34. Desert Horizons Country Club
    
35. Vintage Club
    
36. Eldorado Country Club
    
37. Golf Resort at Indian Wells
    
38. Indian Wells Country Club
    
39. Bermuda Dunes Country Club
    
40. Heritage Palms Golf Club
    
41. Indian Springs Golf and Country Club
    
42. Bighorn Golf Club
    
43. Ironwood Country Club
    
44. Reserve Golf Club
    
45. La Quinta Country Club
    
46. Rancho La Quinta Country Club
    
47. La Quinta Resort and Club
    
48. Tradition Golf Club
    
49. Hideaway Golf Club
    
50. Indio Municipal Golf Course
    
51. Golf Club at Terra Lago
    
52. Palms Golf Club
    
53. Trilogy Golf Club at La Quinta
    

That seems to be it. Now, just so's you know I'm not some barefoot yokel, I'm aware that "country club" doesn't necessarily imply a separate golf course. Even so, there's a bazillion golf courses there! Okay, sure, we probably shouldn't count the Ivey Ranch Country Club and the Classic Club, since those are east of I10, and god knows what kind of people are playing golf out there. I don't even want to know who came up with the brilliant "Plantation Club" -- I mean, why not go the whole nine yards and call it "Third Reich's Plantation Club", just to put everyone on notice?

Even so, takes your breath away.

Oh, it's in the middle of a desert. Did I mention that?

Who gives a flying fig about the middle class?

You may recall back when I blogged about "The Winner Take All Society", reviewed in the NYTimes "Class Matters" series in 2005, I pointed out that history seems to be telling us it is time to be rich, and not middle class. My reason: the cold war is over, so, thanks workers for all your hard work in defeating socialism, and now the very wealthy can go back to accumulating wealth, at your expense.

Well, it comes up again in the NYTimes
year in ideas as The New Inequality. It seems that even the average college graduate (Bachelor's degree) are barely seeing their earnings increase against inflation. So, college-boy? You've got a 50/50 chance of being on the losing economic divide. And, this year, two economists showed that the very 0.1 percent increased their pre-tax income to 6.8% of the total income, up from 4.7 percent 10 years ago, and from 2 percent in the 60s and 70s.

The reason, I repeat, is that there is no longer any idealogical constraint against becoming an old-fashioned robber-baron. Between 1920 and 1990, the Soviets would have scored political points with those governments we competed for, if our very wealthy were as wealthy as they are now. And, the average Bachelor's degree holder (average!) would have looked at the very wealthy, and said -- why am I working my ass off so that this joker can have a 9th zero after his income? And that joker can now think to himself, as he demands that 10th zero from the board that will give it to him, "if the workers don't like it, they can go to Cuba!"

This will not change until people look at their losing wages, and realize that they have no recourse but to band together -- either politically or socially -- to shame or produce enough fear in those who vote themselves the 10th zero, that they decide it's time for that increase in salary.

Really, what else changes the distribution in wealth?

Oh, no, I don't believe that a person can do $100,000,000,000 worth of work in a lifetime. I do believe they are benefiting from our legal structure, infrastructure, government, and workforce. Time to reprogressivize the income tax; and keep that inheritance tax in place.

Why George Bush Will Leave the Presidency

Here's the fundamental conflict:

1. The Iraq Study Group report makes clear that the Republican Establishment (personified as James Baker) will not permit George Bush to keep the Iraq war going through the 2008 elections. Either Iraq must be irrelevant by then, or someone who will make Iraq irrelevant by then must come forward to do it for George.
   
2. George Bush will not permit himself to become a President who lost a war. However, that is exactly what he must do, and before November 2007, if he is to make Iraq irrelevant by November 2008.
   

There you have it. The GOPer's solution? Bush leaves, and Cheney -- in "Nixon/China" redux, takes the office with the specific purpose of pulling out. Timeline? To effect a pull-out by end of 2007, Bush must telegraph his intentions to do so by April-May 2007. If he does not do so, look for the new "oversight" of Congress to take a strong bi-partisan tone. The Democrats will not mount impeachment alone -- they do not want the blame for an American government in disarray, after only just gaining back the Congress. So, the GOP will have to take a strong leadership role. Complicating this is the Presidential aspirations of congressional leaders: you can't impeach a president, and then run for President. So, the leaders (McCain, Clinton, et al) cannot take a public role.

Hagel Considers Run for Presidency

It is a great sign for the political status of the country, that someone as even-keeled, considered, skeptical and optimistic as Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) is considering a run for the Presidency.

See? You don't have to be an histrionic megalomaniac to run for President. The job is open to rational, practical-minded people, too.

It Is Always Darkest..

..when the ship hits the bottom of the ocean. Re: Derek's post "America's Darkest Day" below, those of us who live days thinking about the implications of principles extended to their logical end -- physicists among them -- cannot view the agreement of Congress and the enshrinement in laws the end of Habeas Corpus as anything but an enormous step toward the end of democracy and toward the re-establishment of tyrranical government.

The unassailable rights of an individual are the basis of social contract in a democracy; we each support a government, giving it enormous powers, but knowing that there are lines it cannot cross. We can speak out against it, and it can shout back, but it cannot lift us from our rock and toss us in a dungeon for doing so.. Because it is not illegal to do so, and if we were to demand a hearing with a judge to determine if there is legal basis for our imprisonment, the judge would conclude "No", and we're back home in an hour, because of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is why we can demand of a police officer to know why we are being arrested. Habeas corpus gave us the phrase, "Justice delayed is justice denied," and we cannot be held indefinitely.

Friends, that is now over in the United States. The United States government can now send people to prison, without justifying it to anyone, for no reason or for any reason whatsoever. They can hold people indefinitely without charge. You would one day, disappear, never to be heard from again.

The moderate enablers in the Republican party try to pat-down those spiky wet hairs: "This is only for terrorists", they say. "This is for enemy combatants." Friends, we have no rights if they are not held by everyone; and what the Republican Party has done is said "No one has these rights anymore", and now we are bickering over what category of person will be treated this way.

So pray that the President does not decide to widen those categories. Because he has the power to do so. Any time. Against any person.

The rule of law! We have no rulers but the rule of law! But when our government removes those laws which bar their actions, which increases their powers to intimidate, supress and nullify those who oppose it, those powers will be used.

America's Darkest Day

I would argue that yesterday was the darkest day in modern American history. Forget political assassinations and days of mass murder, bad fortune in war or finance or politics: The day that our own elected representatives decide that we, their constituents and citizens of this democracy, are no longer entitled to the rights of habeas corpus (first enshrined in our legal heritage via the Magna Carta of 1215), nor necessarily entitled to legal representation, nor to the assurance that our own government will not torture us if it so wishes, is quite simply the worst manifestation of partisan demagoguery we have seen since the last World War.

We can only hope that it does not get worse from here.

Clinton the Demigod

It was only this week that I realized that, since leaving office and having a near-death experience, Clinton had ascended from the ranks of the ex-Presidents to become a demigod.

Key pieces of evidence:

• The Clinton Global Initiative raised $7 billion last week to combat poverty, disease in developing nations, and climate change;
• Clinton showed up on the Daily Show, and held is own against Jon Stewart;
• Clinton showed up on Fox News Sunday, and completely eviscerated Chris Wallace and the whole right-wing terror-propaganda apparatchik machine.

The last, you simply have to see (thanks to TPM for the pointer). Go there - now. Watch. And quake in awe.

9/11 and the Need for Closure

So the President has revealed the 14 suspects who were detained in secret CIA gulags abroad and moved them to Guantanamo. In announcing their transfer to Guantanamo, he pointed to the 9/11 relatives by his side and suggested the need for closure now, 5 years after the attacks.

Here is what closure is not: Detaining the chief suspects in secret locations while fighting court battle after court battle to avoid his responsibility to live up to the Geneva Conventions and our nation's laws. Failing to lay out the evidence against these men in any public forum, so that our enemies abroad can continue to claim that they are innocent. Failing to convict these terrorists in any court. Continuing to push for un-Constitutional legislation to set up special kangaroo courts for these suspects and these suspects alone.

Here is what closure would be: Trying these suspects and convicting them, using evidence presented openly to the whole world, and then locking them up in prison after a free and fair trial.

Personally, I think the Democrats should push for closure. 5 years is long enough.

Median Income Down in 46 of 50 States

In this diary posted on DKos we see that median income has dropped in 46 of 50 states 1999-2005.

This drop in median income is a direct result of Bush administration tax policies, which increase incentive of the very rich to hold the very real increases in worker productivity as corporate (and thus, their) profits.

Are you getting this?

Out of Iraq, Safer at Home

I've got the Democrats' campaign slogan. The Dems need a national platform, just like the GOP in 1994, because otherwise they will fight 100 separate races and fail to capitalize on the complete chaos that the 4-year Republican monopoly on power has created - for the party, for the Federal budget, for our armed forces, and for our standing in the world.

Out of Iraq:

• Pledge to begin a drawdown of forces in the first half of 2007
• Because 62% of the American public agrees with this policy
• Because the ongoing failure of our occupation is not making America safer, but quite the opposite
• Because anyone who wants to "stay the course" in Iraq will vote Republican anyway
• Because Bush & Co. are spending all their time talking about the importance of closing our eyes and trusting them
• Which plays right into Democrat hands if they are just willing to state this intention and put a stamp on it

Safer at Home:

• Pledge to pass legislation implementing each and every one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission
• Because something like half of these have not even been started on, 5 years after the attacks
• Because Katrina demonstrated that the Bush Administration has learned nothing about how to safeguard American lives in emergency situations, even when they have 5 days' warning
• Because one thing we know is that at some point in the next two years, Americans will be in crisis and will need their government's help, and we want that help to be there for them

The End of the Valerie Plame Affair

Richard Armitage admits to doing it all. Bit of a shocker.