The Chronicles of San Diego, Part II

Business travel is frequently vexing because you spend so much time alone when the work day is over. It's hard not feel like a social pariah when you walk into a restaurant and say, "Table for one." Consequently, it's tempting to take get carryout or take delivery in your room every night, but your waistline will definitely suffer. Truth be told, the only perk of company travel is dining on the company dime, so you ought to enjoy it even if you travel alone.

Nearly every part of the country has some regional cuisine that is done really well, so there's no reason to suffer through the generic chain food, regardless of where you are. Inevitably, company meetings and such will be at Chili's or some other place you've been a million times, so don't eat there unless you really feel the need to eat something you've already eaten before.

Still, it can be hard to travel and eat alone. Here's what I do:

• Use the web. Type in your current location and see what local restaurants are well rated. There are gems in most places. I had amazing shrimp in Sunnyvale and excellent lamb chops in Harlem because I did a little searching.
  
• Order a beverage. I don't drink, but I always order a beverage of some kind. This automatically ups your check just a little bit and gives your server an excuse to visit your table. You'll inevitably get better service.
• Don't be afraid to sit at the bar, even if you don't drink. I usually get great service from the bar, and there are almost always TVs or music or something that is much less alienating than sitting in a booth by yourself.
  
• Stretch out the meal. When you dine alone, you'll notice that your food arrives much faster, and you finish quicker because there's no one to talk to. Even at a really nice restaurant, you can be in and out in well under an hour, and then you'll inevitably feel unsatisfied. Besides making a deliberate attempt to slow down, I frequently order a soup or an appetizer with dinner, just because it makes the meal more of an experience.
• Ask about the specials. Unless you're at the Cheesecake Factory, the specials are usually actually special. They're the freshest ingredients, chef's specialty, or whatever. Your server will definitely know what most people order.
  
• Get used to the alone-ness. Relish it. Once you go to a movie by yourself, you'll wonder why you ever try to corral a group of people to try and go to a movie. Dining alone can be the same way.
  

This week in San Diego has been a culinary masterpiece. I come here often enough that I have some of my favorite haunts. First is Point Loma Seafoods: a fresh fish market that also serves lunch. They have AMAZING chowder. Warning: they only take cash. Second is Phil's: Texas style BBQ, great blues. Beef ribs that would satisfy Fred Flinstone. Warning: closed on Mondays. This time, I also visited the Chart House at Dana Point, and it was simply amazing -- great view.

The Chonicles of San Diego, Pt1

Once again, I find myself on a work trip. When people ask me about what's new in life, the thing that usually comes to mind is my latest or upcoming travel, because so many people seem interested in the novelty of getting paid to travel. Sometimes I think people assume that it's exotic and exciting; lots of power suits and power lunches and really intense motivational speeches in high rise buildings. I hate to dash any illusions you might have, but right now I'm sitting in a mostly empty office in jeans and a t-shirt, blogging.

Still, I thought it would be fun to chronicle this trip on the blog. I'm going to see if I can come up with at least one good story for every day that I'm here.

I landed in San Diego at 11:30 this afternoon. I swear that we taxied FOREVER. It made me wonder if the airport is really like a big mall parking lot on Saturday, and the pilot tooling around in his 737 looking for a spot that's close to the food court but still doesn't make him walk through the lingerie section of JCPenny. In my mind I can hear the co-pilot yell, "Look! You passed a perfectly good spot right back there! We can WALK."


Still, the day has been good thus far. I enjoyed lunch at Point Loma Seafoods; a seared Ahi sandwhich and bowl of claw chowder. I'm sure we'll talk about food later, so I'll leave it at that. The highlight of the day, though, was this guy panhandling in the median of the street. He was walking up and down past the cars waiting to turn left. He held a sign that said: "BET YOU CAN'T HIT ME WITH A QUARTER."


How's that for a challenge?

I'm a victm!

In today's edition of "What I Learned", I'm taking you back to 1991, when cinema changed forever. This was the year that Hollywood proved three things: 1) that no film is too asinine to justify an even more asinine sequel, 2) acting skills are entirely optional in film making and 3) Death is really funny.

Now wait, did you think I meant that death, as in dying, was funny? No, no, I meant "Death" with a capital "D" is funny. Specifically, this guy:

Figured it out yet? Yes, we're talking about this trio:

In case you forgot, the first time we encountered Bill and Ted on their Excellent Adventure, they used a time traveling phone booth to collect historical figures (as in actual people) for a report so that they don't flunk out of high school. In the end, we learn that Bill and Ted's totally non-heinous band is critical to the history of the world, and that's why they couldn't flunk history. (Nevermind the fact that they could have used the time machine to study, but whatever.)

Well, in 1991's Bogus Journey, evil robot versions of Bill and Ted are sent from the future to kill the good Bill and Ted and prevent them from playing in the battle of the bands. (MTV's take on the Terminator, if you will.) Good Bill and Ted meet a totally egregious loogie filled demise and then have to journey through limbo, hell, heaven and challenge Death to make it back to San Dimas in time to save the babes and rock the show. Sound awesome? Totally.

So awesome, in fact, that me and my nerdy high school friends suspended our traditional bickering about the plausibility of time travel to quote the movie incessantly. These were our favorites:

[Bill and Ted are falling to hell.]
Bill: Dude, this is a totally deep hole.

Ted: I can't believe Missy divorced your Dad and married mine.
Bill: Shut up, Ted.

Bill: Hey, you wanna play 20 questions?
Ted: Okay! I got one!
Bill: Are you a mineral?
Ted: Yeah!
Bill: Are you a tank?
Ted: Yeah!

Bill: Dude, there's no way I can possibly do infinity push-ups.
Ted: Maybe if he lets us do them girly-style?

Ted: Dude!
Bill: What?
Ted: Hell sucks!
Bill: Definitely!
Ted: We were totally lied to by our album covers.

Ted: Who's that?
Bill: Ted, it's the Grim Reaper, dude!
Ted: Oh. How's it hangin' Death?

Bill: Ted.
Ted: Yeah?
Bill: If I die, you can have my Megadeth collection.
Ted: But, dude, we're already dead.
Bill: Oh. Well then they're yours, dude.

[Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister]
Bill: You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes.
Death: Don't patronize me.

Death: Don't overlook my butt, I work out all the time. And reaping burns a lot of calories.

In fact, I say that we quoted these movies just a little too much. I totally blame them for my gross overuse of the words "totally" and "dude". I promise I am not a surfer stuck in 1988, just a victim of the most non-non-non-non-non-heinous Bill and Ted.

Laissez-"fair"?

Anyone else feel like they've been sucker punched in the groin by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" lately? The fall of Fannie and Freddie this weekend was the last straw. I was righteously indignant when my taxes were spent on artery clogging government pork, but I'm unconsolably incensed when they are spent to rescue profit mongering shareholders, home flippers, and people with irresponsibly large mortgages.

The thing that irritates me most of all is that I have to admit to myself that the government MUST step in. They have no choice. We can't let the two mortgage giants twist in the wind as they rightfully should, because there are lots and lots of honest, hard-working people who want that part of the American dream that is home ownership, and they need Mac and Mae to help them with their loans.

How did we get in this mess? I think it goes back to Adam Smith. Like many American industries of the late 80s and 90s, the banking industry experienced a fair amount of deregulation. Then, in the mid 90s, the economy picked up steam, and everyone was doing well. It seemed like deregulation was the way to go. Soon, the number of investment firms ballooned and everyone was getting into stocks and securities. It seemed like easy money. The problem was that companies were now beholden to very fickle shareholders who primarily wanted a higher stock price regardless of what it meant to the company. Executives were replaced, CEO salaries skyrocketed, and the temptation to satiate shareholders was so great that many companies start to post paper profits.

This all ended when the dot com bubble burst and Enron et al collapsed. At this point, the government had to step in like it had in the past. Sure, the market was free with deregulation, but too many people were too greedy. The markets and the companies that traded on them simply HAD to be more closely monitored. After all, a lot of honest hardworking people were hurt when their pensions and 401k burst along with the dot com bubble. In the end, it was the regular folk that were most hurt. The venture capitalists/investor types were only shaken up. And since there would be no more lucrative IPOs and acquisitions, they needed a new place to make their money. Unfortunately, they settled on the mortgage market.

Soon, the mortgage market heated up along with the real estate market. Interest rates were low, and everybody was getting into real estate. People starting flipping homes. Home ownership became a short term investment vehicle rather than a means to a permanent domicile. Investors loved it. Banks loved it too because they could sign people up for terrible variable rate mortgages which they could then sell to investors, who actually expected to see that 10 or 12% interest after the two years were up on the ARM. With deregulation, banks could be more aggresive in marketing mortgages to consumers, relaxing lending requirements, and could become very creative in how they bundled up the mortgages to sell to investors. Suddenly, "second mortgages" somehow became "home equity loans" and people could afford the cabin/boat/RV that they always wanted. It seemed like everyone was winning.

It was inevitable, though, that prices would fall. The market was saturated by real estate gurus, flippers, and investors clamoring for share price -- which had all speculatively inflated the market. Meanwhile, interest rates had been too low for too long. This had weakening the dollar, making US investments look bad in general, and causing general instability in the markets. When those investing in mortgages started to realize that there really is no such thing as a free lunch, they jumped ship, just like the home flippers and the family earning 100k a year and living in a half million dollar home on the bench.

The companies did their best the massage the numbers, hoping to hold out until the market rebounded. Mortgages were fundamentally sound, risk-free investments, right? Well, it turns out the Freddie and Fannie were counting some mortgages as capital assets, as if it was an absolutely sure thing that they would be repaid at the full interest rate. Well, who in their right mind is going to pay a 12% interest on a mortgage that is now upside-down? No one, that's who. The people buying the mortgages should have known it, too, as should the people trying to profit off of the hot market. Why people were willing to take such risks with something as important as a family's home, or millions of homes across America, I will never know.

So, are you mad yet? I hope so. Our tax dollars are going to be used to keep these companies afloat. In our efforts to be more laissez-faire, we end up being tens times less so, and exactly because we have to protect ourselves from all the capitalist asshats that assured us that a more market freedom would be better for us all.

Sotally Tober!!!

My dear friend Travis scored some free tickets to see Jack Johnson on Monday. I wanted to see Jack anyway, so this was a major windfall. What could be better than spending a warm summer night sitting on a lawn with a bunch of your friends and listening to cool island tunes? ...Doing all of that for FREE, of course. Add to this the fact that concerts are probably the third best venue* to people-watch, and you have a recipe for an enlightening evening.

We saw dudes that looked like chicks and chicks that looked like dudes; guys toking up and a girl really upset that the guys has toked up without her; lots and lots of drunk people and one guy who started his drinking by pouring the rum for his rum and coke out of his sandal.

The coup de gras, though, was the bear woman. I call her the bear woman because her size and look reminded me of a bear walking upright. She was also rubbing up against this very tall and long haired male in a way that remarkably reminiscent of a bear scratching against a tree. She was also very hammered. The whole thing looked an awful lot like this:



The highlight of the whole evening, though, was when the bear lady started to get her freak on a few yards in front of us. It was very a Woodstock-esque flailing sort of dance. In her hammered state, she meandered all over this couple's blanket and knocked over their overpriced soft drinks. As they reached down to prevent the beverages from soaking their blanket, the bear lady had the audacity to slur, "You guys should really put those somewhere else, you know..."

We looked at each other in dumbfounded amazement. They needed to move their drinks because she danced into them? Well, someone took as much umbrage to this as we did, and it was this pint sized gal next to us. She stood right up and accosted the drunk lady. I didn't hear most of the conversation, but the sight of a young 5' 2" and very clearly Mormon woman scolding an indignant, overweight and drunken hippie was something to behold. What was even funnier was the way the woman's husband very calmly watched the whole interaction seated on the blanket until it looked like it might turn into a poking and pushing match. At this point, he calmly stood up behind his wife, put his hands on her soldier, and said, "Dear, let's not forget that you have a 2 year old and a 5 month old at home..."

Well, the cooler heads prevails, the drunk hippie wandered away to scratch her back against the tree again , and we applauded the pint size defender as she settled back onto her blanket. One of my friends said, "We were so close to getting up; good for you!" And she replied, "I kind of wanted to go to Relief Society with a black eye." Her husband is probably still rolling his eyes and shaking his head in disbelief.


*My poll data indicates that state fairs and airports are the two other venues ideal for people watching.

Sometimes, I hate being right.

Eight years is a long time; about 1/10 of an American life span, and I'll bet you already know where this post is going. As I look at this year's Presidential race, I've spent a lot of time thinking about past races; specifically the ones in which I've voted. With the benefit of hindsight, it's enlightening to look back at what I thought then and compare it with how things have gone.

So, the 2000 election reminds me a great deal of the 2008 election. The outgoing President was unpopular, there were economic rumblings on the horizon, and I wasn't wowed by either candidate. In fact, I was downright worried by both of them. One seemed stiff, and out of touch, the other a bumbling country boy. In the end, I marginally favored the stuffy guy, despite serious reservations. In the end, it didn't really matter who I liked anyway, because my state was only going to go one way.

So, eight years later, it is interesting to look back at some of my misgiving about the man who would eventually become President. It's sad to say that I was right about some of them:

• Nepotism and cronyism: coming from an entitled upbringing with the attached good ole' boy mentality, I was concerned that Bush, rather than picking the best person for the job, would select advisers that most agreed with him. A certain amount of this is to be expected with any political office, but I think that a truly savvy politician will also bring in people of differing opinions and skills to create a well rounded administration. When Collin Powell, an internationally respected individual, departed as Secretary of State and Condoleeza Rice, a mediocre NSA chief, was selected as replacement, I realized that Bush was surrounded himself with "yes" men. Bush's failure in this area reached its apex when he nominated the woefully unqualified Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I think that the WMD debacle resulted largely from Bush's cronyism, as well as a woefully unprepared FEMA after hurricane Katrina.
  

• Ties to oil: the Bush family is well known for its ties to the oil business. Ties to any industry don't inherently make anyone unsuitable for office, but you have to accept a certain amount of deference to that industry while they're in office. In this case, Bush's oil and related energy policies have recently proved disastrous. The industry is enjoying record profits from record prices, which are contributing to the overall slowing of the economy. A more enlightened policy regarding energy, like updated mpg requirements and tighter environmental controls on electrical production might have actually spurred development in alternative fuels and energy as world oil supplies became inevitably tight.
  

• Foreign policy: as governor of Texas, one's foreign policy experience is limited largely to Mexico. And, to his credit, President Bush has does well, I think, with our neighbor to the south and immigration policy (though Congress wasn't helpful.) Worldwide, though, gaining a reputation as a bully was certainly not desirable. Though I think we must always act in our own self defense without waiting for international consensus, we must do so considerately and conscientiously. The younger Bush could have learned a great deal from his father in this area, who very delicately handled the collapsing Soviet Union and the first withdrawal from Iraq. Back then, Cheney as Sec. Def., provided a compelling analysis of what would happen in Iraq if Saddam was deposed: sectarian violence and political instability that would require an occupying force. I don't understand, why, then, we were so unprepared for what was going to happen. Needless to say that greater international support might have drastically altered the course of the conflict, particularly given the massive civilian casualties that have resulted in Iraq.
  

• Church and State: while I admire President Bush for being a man of faith, I saw his use of the evangelical vote as a double edged sword. I feared that his mixing of religion and politics could have undesirable consequences. This was realized by the failure of many of his faith based initiatives. Though a cause and effect relationship is certainly hard to establish, I find it extremely interesting that teen pregnancy rates have increased (abstinence only sex ed, anyone?) and abortion rates have not fallen. Meanwhile, the Republican party has become significantly more conservative as it has to court the increasingly vocal and fickle evangelical vote.
  

• Fiscal/Economic policy: though Republicans are generally thought to be fiscally conservative, their hawkish natures and continual desire to cut taxes frequently have the opposite effect. Bush seemed to fall right in line in this area. It was amazing to me that facing a recession, he elected to increase spending while cutting taxes and sending the nation to war. This ballooned the deficit, lowered confidence in American industry abroad, and began to slow the economic engine of the country. Couple this with the deflation of the housing market, and I think that the current administration shoulders a great deal of responsbility for our current predicament. It wouldn't suprise me too much if we soon find that laissez faire enforcement of the housing market contributed to our current situation.
  

• Intelligence: simply put, I thought Bush wasn't smart enough to be President. I'm not talking about his minor gaffes that made for comedy routine fodder, since those things happen to everyone, but I do think that being President requires a truly significant intellect. The economy, foreign policy, and budgetary matters are extraordinarily complex. No amount of bravado, charm, or humor can mask a failure to understand the issues. I think Bush's failings fundamentally stem from this, particularly in dealing with the economy and the budget deficit.
  

So, this may sound like a huge round of "I told you so", but that's not my intent at all. Nor am I trying to jump on the Bush bashing bandwagon. Instead, these are the things that genuinely concerned me about the candidate. There's no doubt that a similar list could have been made had Al Gore been president. In the end, your concerns regarding a Presidential candidate will almost certainly manifest themselves when the person is in office. Though the extent of such manifestations are totally unknowable, we can at least look at the curent state of the nation to see which flaws would hurt us the most.

Totally random...

• I don't understand lactose intolerance. By which I mean, why is called lactose intolerance? Who was that first person that said, "No! I refuse! I WILL NOT TOLERATE LACTOSE!" Somehow it seems like a misappropriate of a word that already has context in much more distressing issues like racial or religious intolerance. I think we should come up with a different name for lactose intolerance. Something like: "My parents failed me genetically because I can't eat ice cream or cheese without my stomach acting like Mt. Vesuvius."
  

• Where do my hangers go? I have acquired no additional clothing, and yet I do not have hangers enough for the clothes I have. The situation gets worse every time I do laundry. As a child I used to stretch hangars over my head and wear them around the house, but my head is of such a size now that they generally break, so I stopped doing that.
  

• Growing up, we never could find lids for the Tupperware. We had a whole drawer fully of lids (and twist-ties, thumbtacks, and junk), but apparently the lids went with some OTHER Tupperware. Now that I have my own house, all I have are lids. Seriously. Who is using all this lidless Tupperware? I did use a bunch once to measure how much water my sprinklers were putting on the lawn, but I'm pretty sure I gathered them all up.
  

• Why do Americans take perfectly good entrees and turn them into salads? Tacos, burritos, pizza, buffalo wings, etc. All these things are great foods by themselves -- how does serving them on a bed of lettuce with a lime/chipotle/raspberry/vinaigrette/sun dried kumquat dressing make them better? It certainly can't make them healthier...
  

• I'm convinced that most of the problems that women have with men result from women assuming that men are much smarter that we actually are. But rest assured, we REALLY ARE that stupid. Need proof? Tom Cruise: divorced Nicole. Tom Arnold: married Roseanne.
  

• We see a lot in the news about the dangers of leaving children and pets in cars in hot summer days. (Seriously people, DON'T DO IT!) But what about old people? The other day at Dick's market, there was a very surly looking 80 year old sitting in a sweltering Camry. The window was rolled down, but he looked like he was getting grouchier by the minute.

• I'm pretty sure that Wal-Mart wishes that the department of homeland security would scale back airport security so they can have their employees back.
  

The Dog/Cat Debate

I know that people feel strongly about their choice of pets. Me, I'm a dog person. It's not that I don't like cats, but they don't seem to like me. Growing up, my best friend had a Siamese named Rosebud. I was never anything but nice to that cat. But, every time she saw me, she would hiss like I was the undead:

So, I'm not a cat fan. I don't really dislike them though. I'm a sucker for the purring and all that, like anyone without cat allergies. Cuddle factor aside, I think it's pretty clear which animal is superior in the dog/cat debate.

My roommate, Dane, and I had this argument all the time. He thought that the cat's independence and cleanliness made it the perfect pet. He thought dogs were dumb -- primarily because they hung around with people, which Dane also thought were dumb.

And Dane was right. Dogs' have a weak point in that they are slaves to the affection of their humans (and vice-versa). But when it comes down to it, there's one argument that trumps them all in favor of the dog: There's no such thing as a "seeing-eye cat."