Away with the Pixies
Well, I'm pleased to tell you that I have just ticked off another item on my to do list before I die. No, I'm still an ecstasy virgin – but thats something I figure I can do anytime – just waiting for the right moment. Yes, I've seen the Pixies. When I was 16, my brother got a 21st birthday present from a friend, Fergus. It was a tape called 'Surfer Rosa' by an unknown band called the Pixies. It was produced by Steve Albini from Big Black, a band my brother really liked. One day I borrowed this tape and shoved it in my Walkman and played it continuously for many weeks. I was smarting from the spurning of my advances on a girl I had a big crush on and somehow life sounded better thanks to the Pixies. It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

From then on, I bought everything the Pixies made. I'm pretty sure I had one of the first (if not the first) copies of Doolittle in New Zealand thanks to a friend in a record shop in England who airmailed it to me as soon as it was out over there (Doolittle was first released in England, despite the Pixies being an American group). It took another six months for Doolittle to be released in New Zealand.

The Pixies were from Boston and Boston became my favorite city, thank also to 'Cheers' and 'St Elsewhere', my favorite TV shows at the time. For many years, Boston was the city I wanted to go to (oddly enough, prior to this, I was obsessed with Detroit. I'm not really sure why – maybe I just thought the name was cool). I eventually got over my Boston obsession, thanks in part to being dicked over by an ex-friend who lived on Boston terrace (yes, that sounds pretty stupid, but hell – I was young). Ironically later in life I discovered that Boston is the Mecca for the kind of stuff I do (Diabetes research), so here I am.

In their lifespan, the Pixies never made it to New Zealand so I never saw them play. I always wanted to and had semi-satisfied my cravings by seeing post-Pixies groups, like the Breeders and Frank Black and the Catholics over the last few years.

It was with mixed feelings that I heard that the Pixies reformed to play the Coachella festival. While they were my favorite group when I was aged 16-21, I'm a little nervous about going to see Rock Dinosaurs. In particular, I do not want to be like one of those crusties who go every other year to see the Rolling Stones. Give it up, guys!

The Pixies split up in 1991(ish). My understanding of the split was that Frank wanted to assert his individual artistic merit and after not being taken seriously about it, he killed the band to show he was. The split was apparently acrimonious and I believe Frank and Kim have seldom talked over the last decade. The Pixies only ever had moderate commercial success. Kim Deal's spin off band, the Breeders had much more success. In particular, their album 'The Last Splash' was big and during the mid-nineties they were one of the top groups on the indie circuit. After a hiatus of a few years, they were back recently, but are not currently enjoying their earlier success. On the other hand, the last decade has not been so kind for Frank Black. His records have had very low sales and he has bounced from record label to record label.

In the last few years the Coachella organizers (Goldenvoice) have been trying to get the Pixies to reform for their festival. I imagine the monetary offer has gone up each year. Finally the relevant band members appear to have relented. They started off doing some warm-up dates in Western USA and Canada. Then, Coachella and after that a number of Summer festival dates in Europe (and also Brazil). They are then booked for some Lollapalooza dates and a few more big gigs in the US on their own. This is definitely the Pixies' 'filthy lucre' tour. Over the last decade the legend of the Pixies has grown. This is due in part to their music appearing in movies like 'Fight Club'. Also many artists have declared their love for and influence by the group. David Bowie covered the Pixies song, 'Cactus' on his most recent album. They have posthumously sold a significant amount of records. The accumulation of these factors has resulted in a huge interest in their reformation tour. Tickets for the Pixies have been selling out quickly worldwide. I tried to get to a pre-Coachella show at UC Davis (near Sacramento) only to find that tickets had gone within an hour of sale, only to resurface on Ebay at ten times the price. I'm happy they're doing it – I think that it is right that they should finally get some reward for the great music they made back in the late 80's and early 90's.

So how were they? - I hear you ask. Firstly, they played great. They were really tight and both Frank and Kim's voices were in great shape. Every tune they played was from their back-uncatalogued. There was nothing new. Furthermore, with a few exceptions the arrangements of the songs were pretty much identical to the way they were on their records. The exceptions were Kim singing 'In Heaven' and Frank slowing down the second half of 'Nimrod's Son'. It was all great, but greedy old me wanted more.

I've heard plenty of Pixies live shows on CD. Often the songs had evolved beyond their albums. I would have liked to see some of that in the show. But, the Pixies were clearly delivering what most of the audience wanted, so who am I to complain?

Also, Frank and Kim looked uncomfortable together on stage. There is nothing resembling camaraderie between the two. I think that the fact there is no new material being performed and little variation in the tunes from the albums to the fact that the current pixies (with all original members) are doing the bare minimum to put the show on the road. I wouldn't hold my breath for a new Pixies album. I also think that money is the only thing keeping them together, so if the money runs dry or Kim or Frank have got as much as they want / need then that will be the end of the current incarnation.

Nevertheless, I was very happy to finally see them. I am hoarse from singing their tunes from the top of my lungs. I'm going home mostly satisfied. I may just attempt to see them at their Boston homecoming – if I manage to get tickets!

I hope to give a summary of the rest of Coachella soon.
- posted by Johnny @ 6:34 PM (3) comments

 
A Gay Old Time
Within a month the State of Massachusetts is going to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. While there have been some cities in the USA, most notably San Francisco that have already issued some gay marriage licenses, this will be the first whole state in the USA to do so. This is significant because the cities that have been issuing gay marriage licenses were really just short lived holes in the dyke (pardon the pun) and were quickly plugged by state governments. In the case of Massachusetts, the commencement of same-sex marriages has an air of permanence about it. There are going to be some very serious challenges to it taking place in the near future, but I think that despite these challenges, it is quite likely that gay marriages are now here to stay in Massachusetts. However, this ruling made by 'activist judges' in the Massachusetts Supreme Court may end up being diluted by the uncovering of a dirty little law from the past in this state.

Gay marriage has definitely been a political hot potato in this state. Democrat presidential hopeful, John Kerry may well view coming from the gay marriage state as a thorn in his side. All indications are that Bush's campaign manager, Karl Rove, is going to exploit the link at every possible opportunity. Already George Dubya has announced his support for a proposal to amend the US constitution. Bush knows that this is merely campaign posturing. The numbers required in the US Senate and Congress for a constitutional change are far beyond the apparent numbers supporting Bush's proposal. Even within the Republican caucuses there is a significant number that are uncomfortable with introducing constitutional changes on this issue at the federal level.

Kerry, himself actually opposes gay marriage, preferring the civil union model of Vermont. Nevertheless, Kerry would rather each state decide for themselves whether to allow gay marriages or not. Kerry is beginning to get a reputation for sitting on the fence and rather than taking clear unequivocal positions on policy. For example, apparently Kerry is personally opposed to abortion but supports a woman's right to choose. One hopes that the fence he's sitting on has sharp spikes!

My initial opinions on the gay marriage issue was why care? Marriage is a cheesy institution. They should be pleased they are free of it. Lets ban marriage altogether! After being slapped around a bit I now realize how important this right actually is in this country and elsewhere. Apart from the obvious things like property rights and adopting children, in the US the right to share a health insurance plan with your spouse is a hard fought right and one that morality suggests should be shared with gay couples, regardless of religious objections.

Health insurance is essential in this country. Nearly 44 million Americans were uninsured in 2002, but many more are under-insured. What I mean is that insurance plans are definitely not created equal. The major division, or the 'Two America's' if you like, is between 'group' and 'non-group' plans. Group plans are almost always associated with an employer group. Your employer either by being a big company or clubbed together with other employers generally negotiate a good plan by being able to use the power of large purchasing (lots of employees getting the same plan). What normally then happens is that the employee pays a certain proportion of the plan (in my case 50%) and the employer pays the rest. Non group plans, which you usually end up on if you don't have a job or your employer doesn't offer health insurance, are more expensive, cover you less and if you have a pre-existing condition (some ailment you already know about) you will be denied coverage for that condition.

Through my boss, I am insured through an HMO (health maintenance organization). It works pretty much like the New Zealand health system, albeit with more paperwork, but less surgery waiting lists. The catch is that to cover just me I pay $US170 a month, which is matched by my employer totaling a whopping $340 a month. That fee is actually relatively good. Many workers whose spouses are not eligible for group plans are able to include their spouse on a couples plan. The monthly fee for a couples plan is typically 2.5 times the cost of the individual plan (like mine). Nevertheless, again this is still a lot better than non-group coverage so many married couples tend to sign up for this plan.

Of course this is not available for gay couples as they cant get married. This really hurts if the spouse has some kind of chronic condition that stops them from working. This is where gay marriage would help many people in a precarious condition thanks to the screwed up system here.

It also raises the point that civil unions just don't cut it. Seeing as health insurers and employers potentially end up paying out more under these circumstances you can guarantee that they will try to get around a civil union if it is legally possible. A marriage on the other hand is very well defined and pretty much consistent across the USA if not the world. So much harder for an insurance company to screw you if you are married.

Obviously all of this is yet another argument for state-funded healthcare in this country. Unfortunately this is not going to happen anytime soon and something needs to be done now.

To understand what's going on with gay marriage in Massachusetts, first a quick tutorial on State Government in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth (sic) of Massachusetts is ruled by three groups of legislators, a senate, a congress and a governor. In essence the congress and senate pass bills which can be signed or vetoed by the governor. However, a veto can be overturned by enough votes in congress.

The governor of Massachusetts is a mildly conservative republican called Mitt Romney. Mitt is a Mormon and is generally celebrated as the man who saved the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics (of course I'm absolutely sure that in Mitt's absence somebody would have saved it - can you imagine a collapsed winter Olympics in the USA?). Massachusetts also has a number of elected positions close to his offices that Mitt has to work with. These include Lieutenant Governor (the deputy), the Secretary of State, Treasurer and Attorney General. Notably, the attorney general is a democrat and while he is required to carry out the governor's legal wishes, his office and the governor's office seem to butt heads on a regular basis.

It should be noted that democrats fill 85% of the congress and 82% of the senate. With these numbers, the head of the democrat majority in congress, Tom Finneran is the most powerful lawmaker in Massachusetts. Tom is a firm conservative. Ahh!, you say - but isn't he a democrat? Well, there's no logic to this so don't bother trying to apply it.

The gay marriage issue in Massachusetts was introduced into the court system by an action on behalf of 7 same-sex couples. It eventually made its way to the state supreme court where the court ruled 4-3 in favor of the motion that barring gay marriage contravenes the state constitution and therefore this ban must be dropped. They also specified how soon gay marriage must be allowed to commence in this state.

This caused uproar amongst the conservative quarters of this state. The Catholic church, a highly influential institution in this state, have been smarting from the whole clergy abuse of children thing - this also had its epicenter in Massachusetts. The catholic hierarchy have used the opposition to gay marriage as a way to reunify a bitterly divided flock. It appears to have been a fairly successful maneuver.

Governor Mitt has been furious, but has found himself powerless. Tom Finneran, on the other hand, got his posse together and convened a constitutional convention. That is, a meeting of the senate and congress to begin putting together a proposed change to the state constitution. Approximately three multi-day sessions were required to fashion a proposed amendment of the constitution. Each time, the legislature became a circus with many religious and gay groups converging on Boston from all over the US, effectively to shout abuse at each other. After a lot of meetings and appropriate number counting a proposed amendment to the constitution has been fashioned. To be enshrined in the constitution it must go to a referendum which cannot be held earlier than 2006. In the meantime there is nothing to stop the commencement of gay marriages this month.

Again Governor Mitt is Furious. If such a referendum were to take place in Massachusetts today, gay marriage would be well and truly overturned. Recent polls suggest about 53% of the population are opposed to it. Mitt fears what most of us realize: after two years of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the public are going to realize the sky has not fallen and sooner of later they will become comfortable with it. Under those circumstances the proposed amendment to the constitution will likely fail at the referendum point. Thus Mitt wants to stop it at all costs. His only muscle in this area is legal and must be through the attorney general's office. Mitt tried and has apparently failed to get the attorney general to re plead the case to the state supreme court on the basis that gay marriage should not be introduced until the public has had a say via the referendum. The Attorney General, Tom Reilly (who has begun to put himself in the position of running against Mitt for governor) refused to put the case to the court as he considers there is no legal basis by which they can file. Mitt has now gone from furious to desperate.

On top of Massachusetts residents having access to gay marriages the concern is that the moral fiber of the whole country will be undermined by the river of homo's invading this state to tie the knot.

Then, recently, Mitt and his conservative buddies unveiled their new defense: a piece of legislation on the books from 1913. This legislation is now going to be used as a way to block people coming to this state to marry from states where their marriage would not be legal. With the plethora of states introducing their own 'Defense of Marriage' acts, it appears almost all out of state gay marriages would be blocked. The law in question was originally introduced to block mixed race marriages for people from out of state. This repulsive, racist piece of legislation should have been thrown out long ago. That such a thing could be used in this battle is disgusting. Mitt and his friends should be ashamed of themselves. Nevertheless, when gay marriage begins in Massachusetts this month, this act will be tested and used to block many gay marriages in this state. Legal proceedings will no doubt follow.

Amid all the craziness going on in Massachusetts over this, a rational voice on the matter come from an interesting quarter. Jesse (the body) Ventura served a short stint as a visiting lecturer at the Harvard University institute of politics, while normally a pretty conservative guy voiced his opposition to blocking gay marriage.
"How is my marriage under attack if two gays or lesbians down the street want to make a lifelong commitment to themselves?", he asked.

Amen Jesse.
- posted by Johnny @ 4:58 AM (0) comments

 
Hotel New Hampshire
Remember when you were young and you were first told the concept of democracy? You were probably given a line like – one person, one vote – that kind of thing. It was probably a few years after that (if ever) that you learned that in the 1981 NZ elections that Bill Rowling's Labour Party got the most votes, but thanks to jolly old First Past the Post, Rob Muldoon's National Party got the most seats and therefore became government and could more or less do what they liked until that pesky little Marilyn Waring started packing sads. While most people (apart from folks like Owen Jennings, Peter and Janet Shirtcliffe) were happy for Rob Muldoon to get another 2.5 more years, I suspect most of NZ regrets it. Hooray for MMP! Its a bit rough around the edges still, but its a damn sight better than the previous arrangement and, compared with all I've seen so far, a helluva load better than anything here in the US.

I watched the 2000 presidential elections debacle at a distance in NZ. Oddly, the mess that it was has piqued my interest in the upcoming presidential election and also the senate seats – where the Democrats are facing an very serious battle to stay on the pace. Ironically, the turnout for the key presidential primaries has been remarkably low despite the high media profile associated with them.

Even though I'm in the US I'd have to say that I'm not quite right in the middle of the proceedings. This is because I'm in the state of Massachusetts. This state is so Democrat-leaning, even if the Democrats nominated a goat (or a donkey) to run for president, the majority here would vote for it! The Democrat support is even greater now that one of the state's most celebrated sons, John Kerry has almost got the nod for running against the Dubya. John Kerry's position is described by the news media as the 'Presumptive Nominee'. John Kerry, despite being in the US senate since 1984, is described as the 'junior senator'. This is because the other Massachusetts senator, Edward Kennedy (the younger brother of those other two more famous Kennedies) has been there longer.

Anyway, because of the clear voting patterns of Massachusetts, very little campaigning is or will actually be taking place here. Maybe the only role this state will play is hosting the victory party! I should also mention that Boston is going to be the host of the Democratic national convention, but I'll leave the details of that story to another date.

While Massachusetts is not a pivotal state for either the Presidential primaries or the actual election, a state that is lies right next door. New Hampshire is the first state in the presidential primary calendar. Iowa comes before New Hampshire, but Iowa has a caucus rather than a primary. Basically, the difference is that a primary is very much like a general election in voting style. People pick their candidate in a voting booth (ie secret ballot) and the whole thing is administered by local government. Caucuses on the other hand seem to be these closed door meetings that happen all over the state, where all the party members who want to participate come along and argue for a few hours before they come to a conclusion on who gets their support. Within the caucuses, the votes are not secret.

Because New Hampshire is right by Massachusetts and is a small state, many of the television stations that play in New Hampshire originate from Massachusetts. This meant that over the time of the primary, all the Democrat candidates vying for the nomination had ads on the local TV stations. The whole running in public for the right to be on a party ticket, seems a little weird to me. I remember when my uncle tried to get the nod from the Labour party to run for them in the Napier seat and it was nothing like this! It was interesting the kinds of approaches candidates would take when trying to show that they would be the best candidate to defeat George W. Although many wanted to attack their fellow Democrat candidates, this is viewed as a risky maneuver in primaries – especially when there are more than two candidates (it appears that both the attacker and the victim drop in the polls and the others pick up the pieces). Some candidates, eg Dick Gephardt and Joe Liebermann tried to against Howard Dean, but it didn't really work out for them in the end. As is similar in NZ, there are legal requirements on placing these ads. One thing is that the candidate must clearly say that they endorse the ad. Many of the candidates tried to incorporate this into some kind of message, so the time wouldn't be wasted. For example, John Kerry might say something of the lines...'I'm John Kerry and I endorse this ad because something has to be done now about the state of jobs in this country'. Dennis Kucinich, bless his soul, used this statement to show how low his social skills actually are: 'I'm Dennis Kucinich. Do I support this ad? You Bet!'

One of the interesting thing about the presidential election process is that the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary do hold a significant sway in the scheme of things. Definitely this year they were able to pinpoint a candidate who went on to win, when quite frankly, up to the day before the Iowa caucuses, nobody had a clue as to who would emerge as the front runner. The candidates know this and therefore they try to spend as much time campaigning as possible in these two states. Given that they are both small states, population-wise, it means that it is very easy to get up front and personal with the candidates involved. Once the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are over, then things tend to go national and change from little 'Town-Hall' meetings into giant rallys.

With this in mind, K. and I decided to go up to New Hampshire in the final weekend before the primary to experience this major, but somewhat eccentric, part of the presidential election process. Our goal was to shake the hands of as many candidates as possible. I'm sad to say, we weren't as successful as we hoped, but nevertheless it was a fun and somewhat educational day.

The New Hampshire border is a half hour drive away and normally the entry into it is uneventful. There are a few small things that tell you that you are in the state, such as the welcome to New Hampshire sign with the somewhat terrorist-style motto 'live free or die'. Also on that sign is a geologic formation known as 'the old man in the mountain'. It is used quite regularly as an identifying symbol of the state. Unfortunately the formation fell down a year ago, and where there was a face there is but a hump! Also when you enter New Hampshire you are told that all under 18's have to have their seat belt done up, but it is apparently 'common sense for all'. I use the opportunity to undo my seat belt for the first five minutes before I come back to my own senses.

On this visit the entry into New Hampshire was a culture shock. Visitors were left with no doubt in their mind that there was an election going on, and soon! It seemed like every house had a hoarding supporting one candidate or another.

Our first stop was Portsmouth, a pretty seaside town in New Hampshire's very small coastline. Here, Wesley Clark was holding a rally in a small opera house. All this was taking place in winter and New Hampshire has fairly bitter winters. Everywhere we went that day in New Hampshire, temperatures were below freezing. Unsurprisingly, the audience had come along dressed up in jackets, hats, gloves and scarves. Before the event began, a coordinator informed the audience that this meeting was going to be filmed for a Wesley Clark ad that was going to be shown around the country. Because of this we wanted us to take all our warm weather gear off to de-New Hampshirise the event. Furthermore he wanted us all waving 'Vote for Wesley' hoardings even if we had just come there to hear what he had to say. Such things I thought were odd, but nonetheless entertaining, so I went along with it and kept the hoarding as a souvenirs that hangs proudly in my kitchen. Wesley, who had been recently accused of being too Hollywood, had Ted Danson and his wife introducing him. Ted's wife apparently was a childhood friend of Wes'. By the time we saw Wesley, Michael Moore had already said his 'deserter' comments and had been whisked away from the limelight. Apparently he was still elsewhere in New Hampshire campaigning for Clark, but Clark's campaign people wanted to putsome distance between Moore and Clark.

Wesley Clark gave an admirable if somewhat trite speech where he tried to take back the concept of family values by explaining what the term means to him. All he said was good, but trying reclaim 'family values' is going to be a lost cause. Just as gay now means homosexual, family values now and for the forseeable future means anti-gay. Much more important was to communicate what you would do different to George W if you took over. On the substance side, Wesley – showing his political inexperience – was a little weak. It was unsurprising that his campaign folded a few weeks later. It will be interesting to see where Wesley next turned up. Nevertheless, an entertaining rally, and amusing to brush past Ted Danson on the stairs (I was a huge fan of Cheers – but it hasn't dated well). But, George Wendt would have been better. Wouldn't ya just love to shout out 'Norm!'

After the rally, a rush back to the car to travel up to Rochester to see John Edwards. We got to the town quickly, but had a fair amount of trouble finding the local high school where John was speaking. We got there with ten minutes to spare. John's people had clearly underestimated how many people wanted to hear him speak and small school hall was jam-packed. We couldn't get in and were reduced to standing outside. Luckily though, we were right by where John had to pass to get into the hall. Handshakes all round! Of course, we didn't even get a look in the eye when the hand was shoved our way. Oh well, there goes my attempt at changing the course of history.

John Edwards is a southerner through and through. His accent sounds like Huckleberry Hound. His campaign platform of 'Two Americas' was true but very cheesy. I found it difficult to believe a guy that talks as slow as John Edwards could be a smart guy, but clearly he is. He had the audience eating out of the palm of his hand.

Having pressed the flesh and feeling a little claustrophobic, we left early in search of John Kerry in Hanover. Kerry's signature when campaigning in New Hampshire and Iowa was to host chili feeds with his colleague Edward Kennedy. Unfortunately for us, we had to abandon the trip to see Kerry as the roads we were traveling on were back roads and took us much longer to travel down than we hoped.

We decided next to head down to the largest city in New Hampshire, Manchester, to see what was going on down there and have dinner. What we saw was mobs of supporters of different candidates touring the place waving their banners, looking very cold. It seemed that most of these supporters from out of State and there was an attitude by many of the locals that they were fed up the process and were looking forward to it all ending.

Back on the road, next up - down to Nashua. A big democratic party fund raiser at the local Sheraton. All the candidates were going to speak at the event and Howard Dean planned to hold a small rally outside the event beforehand. At this point we rued not getting hold of a map and after driving around and around we failed to find the place. We did happen upon a Joe Liebermann rally, but one has to have some standards and we steered clear.

After doing the Tikki tour of the Nashua city center, we found out later that the Sheraton was on the edge of town in one of the many strip malls that inhabit these parts of most American cities. So, unfortunately, no Howard Dean. Howard is, in fact, a really nice guy who just occasionally says exactly what he's thinking with no forethought. Mark Singer's article in the New Yorker is a great read for anybody who thinks Howard Dean is just an angry little man. Often the things he gets the most trouble for saying are totally true. A major example was his comments that catching Saddam is not going to make people any safer. History has shown this to be true. The 'scream' was unfortunately taken out of all context and seems to have buried him. It seems that Karl Rove was very much looking forward to facing Howard Dean as George W's challenger, that Dean would be a sitting duck. I don't think that that was necessarily the case, but now we'll never know. Nevertheless, in a primary characterized by the number one issue of electablilty (lets forget about any substance), Howard lost to the more pragmatic and less dynamic style of John Kerry.

On this note we headed to our nice warm home back in Boston. We saw some, we missed some and we got very cold. Nevertheless, it was a definite cultural experience. Certainly one of the wackier parts of the process associated with appointing the leader of the free world.

What happened after that is history. The swing from Dean to Kerry in New Hampshire continued across America. An electable, if somewhat boring candidate has been picked. A popular bumper sticker celebrating the swing from Dean to Kerry has emblazoned on it 'Dated Dean, Married Kerry'. Let's hope that the divorce doesn't happen before the end of 2004.

- posted by Johnny @ 6:32 AM (0) comments

 
Gas Guzzling
I'm sure if you drive a car, you've been feeling the pinch at the pump. Yes petrol prices, or gasoline, as they say around these parts, are definitely on the up again (note: if you try calling it petrol around these parts all you will get will be blank stares). Around these parts over the last year we have seen prices rise from $1.25 per gallon to $1.67. This is the price at generic gas stations in our neighborhood. There is this rather large and somewhat perplexing disparity between name brand service stations and their generic counterparts. Brandname gas stations such as, Mobil, Shell and Citgo, tend to charge up to 20 cents more a gallon. There seems a fair number of Americans that are convinced that somehow the quality of the gas and the additives added by the main brand stations are better on your car and are prepared to pay the extra. After listening to multiple discussions on the issue by David Rusell from the Consumer's Institute, I know this happens to be a load of old cobblers. Also the name brand stations charge even extra for full service, as in somebody pumping the gas into your car. My local cheap generic stations are all full service and staffed by very friendly Arabic gentlemen. It sometimes amuses me to think that maybe they can get cheap gas prices through contacts in the Middle East.

So with gas at $1.67 around here, things are looking a little bit grim. They could be worse, however. In California it has now hit the $2 a gallon mark. The difference is in the tax rate. California has much higher gas taxes which amongst other things they use to fund their extensive freeway network. Freeway as in no tolls! In Massachusetts there are a good number of toll roads, while in California there are few. I guess things even out in the end.

There are some transient factors involved in the price rise, such as the US entering the 'Driving Season', the refilling of US government emergency stocks and OPEC's current cut in production. There are, however, some significant indications to suggest high gas prices are here to stay. These include the still rising usage of gas in the US, the massive economic growth in China resulting in a large increase in fuel demand and the trouble in pumping out oil in Iraq anywhere near the predicted rate.

In a country filled with giant gas guzzling vehicles, I happen to have a nice little Honda Civic that runs on the smell of an oily rag (remember the ad for the Vauxhall Chevette?). We're also about to acquire a Mitsubishi Mirage with similar fuel economy. We might be paying a dollar or two a month more, so things are currently not too tight on our end. God only knows, however, how much these SUV drivers are paying and will be if things follow their current trend. Ha ha – I hope it hurts!

What can I say about SUV's? Much has already been said and I'll try not to bore you with the pile of rhetoric about this that has been spouted already. However, a funny idea somebody mentioned to me the other day was that the rate of average increase of size of the American vehicle is the same as the average rate of increase in the size of Americans. The number of SUV's on the road – they are becoming a large proportion of the vehicles on the road. Funnily enough though, when I head 4-5 hours north to Montreal (Canada), all of a sudden things are quite different. Up there the small car rules the day and the SUV forms a tiny minority.

Some of the suspicions we all have had about SUV's are proved to be true. Notably, an article by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker a few months ago obliterated the myth that somehow they are safer than regular cars. In fact, the opposite is true.

I don't know if NZers have had the joy of experiencing sensory overload that is the Hummer. I don't quite understand why many Americans find the need to drive vehicles that evoke memories of past conflicts. I can't help but think every time I see somebody driving around these crazy monsters that they are white trash with new money. There are even Hummer stretchline limo's out there. They are a regular sight in these parts outside the stadiums where the redsox, celtics and bruins play before and after the games. Again I ask myself why? Surely they have absolutely none of the glamour of a limousine and obviously you are not going to take them up mountains or through raging rivers.

Apparently the complaints department at General Motors has fielded a significant number of calls from unsatisfied new Hummer owners regarding their extraordinary low gas mileage. Well, duh!

A regular sight in Boston is a collection of vitriolic right-wing bumper stickers (decals) attached to the back of SUV's. I'm sure they're much more common in Republican-dominated regions. My fave is the linking of a CND logo with the slogan, “The Footprint of the Great American Chicken”. There are also a number of stickers with variations of “All Liberals are idiots” and “Gun Control: A Simple Solution for Simple Minds”. I have been tempted to stick onto my civic a bumper sticker from whitehouse.org saying “Bush '04: Quagmire Achieved”, but I have been dissuaded from this by suggestions that my car would be vandalized. So much for free speech.

This reminds me of the 18 wheeler truck I was following not so long ago which had great big mudflaps on either side the back wheels proudly proclaiming 'Jesus is Lord'.

Ever since September 11 we have had different organizations using it to strike fear in the US population in my view have been totally inappropriate. The top of the heap would have to be a series of anti-drug ads that premiered at the Superbowl XXXVI (2001-2). The campaign ads insisted that by buying illegal drugs you are helping to fund terrorism. The ads found it unnecessary to provide any evidence of this. Maybe because there very little. Fortunately the US also has Ariana Huffington, a socialite activist and sometime gubernatorial candidate, who organized advertisements that using your SUV finances terrorism, an apparently much more provable link.

With the current oil situation and no immediate signs of it letting up, I recently heard an economic economist, Philip Verleger, a visiting fellow at the institute for international economics, recommend that sometime in the not too distant future, motor companies should be forced to buy back SUV's. I think with the large influence the US motor industry has in Washington, combined with the fact that these rises in gasoline tend to be gradual and also the reluctance of much of the US population to make waves, such a scenario is not likely in the near future. Some sort of sudden calamity is required for the general public to get up and act upon this issue. But, say, if the gas prices hit $4 a gallon sometime soon then maybe the general public, followed by those in government will be forced to act.

One of the more odd things to come out of the current gasoline price rise has been how the Dubya re-election campaign has attempted to show how despite things being bad, they'd be a lot worse under John Kerry. This has been on the basis that John Kerry once voted for a proposal that would have raised gas taxes by 50 cents. The reason being that this would have lowered demand and ultimately consumption at a time of tight supplies. The Bush ad labeled this as a “wacky idea”, despite it directly obeying the most basic economic principle of supply and demand. Maybe Bush's advisers missed their first economics class or maybe they don't believe there is such a thing as a finite supply of gasoline? But most likely it is just a cynical way of badly smearing the opposition over an issue in which the one accused had little control over the events and the accuser really has to shoulder a large chunk of the blame. Who knows what gas prices would be if the Iraq war and subsequent 'insurgency' had not taken place?

Still, hope is around the corner. There is now a growing number of gas-electric hybrid vehicles hitting the American streets from Toyota (the 'Prius') and Honda (a special 'Civic'). I don't know all the ins and outs of these cars, but my understanding is that you don't plug them into the mains, but they have an electric cell that is charged by the motion of the car and is unleashed most notably during in-town driving conditions. Apparently the fuel economy of these vehicles are phenomenal. Nevertheless, the increased cost in cars with this type of engine is such that at current gas prices, it is unlikely that there would be that the savings in fuel expenditure would outrun the extra cost of the hybrid car over its conventional equivalent. Therefore, currently the only real motivation for buying these cars is some kind of intrinsic personal belief that using less gas is a good idea in the long run. That is, the current market is tree hugging hippies with money. Nevertheless, in the big gas guzzling Mecca that is the USA there is so much demand for the gas-electric hybrid cars the manufacturers can't keep up! Consequently, waits for hybrid cars of up to one year have been reported. Quite unsurprisingly the clear demand and associated public relations with this type of vehicle, many other car manufacturers (including the US big three: Ford, GM and Daimler-Chrysler) have hybrid vehicles in development.

One interesting but in retrospect, inevitable outcome of the widespread development of gas-electric hybrid vehicles is that apparently now a hybrid SUV is in the works at Ford. According to reports, again the fuel economy of this SUV over other SUVs is a major eye-opener. A philosophical question in my mind has been...if in the future hybrid SUV's are the majority, should I still hate them? For now I think I will probably will. They still have a bad safety record with no impetus in the short term for this to be improved. Also with so many of them on the road, it makes it a lot more difficult for me to see all of the road in my little Civic thanks to the view-blocking power of these monsters. Finally it seems to me with my small experience of SUV owners that it is selfish idiots that are attracted by them and I don't think that is going to change any time soon.

I should make one last disclaimer here to all the SUV owners that know me...I don't mean that all SUV owners suck, it just seems that the frequency of SUV owners that turn out to be assholes is much higher than the general public. And for those friends of mine that own an SUV – I would like you much better if you sold the damn thing!
- posted by Johnny @ 12:26 PM (0) comments

 
Dunkin' Starbucks
I admit it. I was a coffee snob. To some degree I still am, but in my defence, living in Wellington, NZ, I could afford to be one. The plethora of comfortable cafes serving great coffee at a reasonable price fueled my addiction! It all began when in Form 7 a friend dragged me to Espressaholic in Willis Street and continued relentlessly until I left Wellington in 2001. I have no regrets. My fave places were Midnite Espresso, Eva Dixon's ('Don't go straight ahead, you don't wanna buy shoes'), and the Ballroom, but around Wellington there are at least twenty other shops with great coffee, tasty food and friendly atmosphere. All of these came pretty close to my top three. In Wellington I despised chain coffee stores. Why go to Robert Harris, Timms or Starbucks when there is something much better at the same price (or less) just down the road? My coffee life was great, if somewhat insomnia inducing.

But then I left.

In some parts of the US – New York and (believe it or not) Denver – there are plenty of great coffee stores with which to allow a resumption of my coffee snobbery. Maybe Seattle (the US 'home of coffee') is the same, but I'm not sure. I've never been there, but I'm suspicious that the great espresso Mecca is in fact - Chain City, USA.

Unfortunately (for my coffee snobbery) I chose Boston. Don't get me wrong. There is great coffee in Boston and cafes with nice atmosphere. However, normally the two don't meet. For 18 months I lived in the North End of Boston. This is a pretty Italian district famous for its quality Italian-American cuisine and tasty pastries. It also has awesome coffee. It was here that I learned that the Australasian practice of long blacks (my old staple) unnecessarily ruined an espresso made from quality beans. Oh well, I'll chalk the last decade of my life up to experience! Coffee in the North End was, however, ruinously expensive. Furthermore, the small, uncomfortably crowded stores that dealt these addictive drugs didn't want you sitting about too long. It was get in, get coffee and get out before I get my rather big cousin to send you flying. Around many of the university campuses (campii??) of Boston there were fairly comfortable cafes in the vein of a nice Midnite Espresso but virtually all of them served dirt in a cup.

The one place that I managed to find that had both a comfortable atmosphere and great coffee in Boston is 'Flour'. I can thoroughly recommend this place for anybody visiting Boston. One place though – in the whole of Boston – a place at least five times as populous as Wellington. One store was never going to be enough to fuel my coffee snobbery/addiction. What to do?

Boston, like many US cities is totally littered with chain coffee shops. Of course one of the biggest is the 'gourmet' chain, Starbucks. There are 122 Starbucks stores in the greater Boston area. Before I left NZ I had already established in my mind that Starbucks was the root of all evil. Some of my Boston buddies boycott Starbucks as its CEO has apparently expressed his and his company's support for Israel and in particular how Israel is handling its current crisis. I'm a little more pragmatic in my dislike of Starbucks. In my opinion they serve mediocre coffee at grossly inflated prices. I'm also unimpressed at their apparent anti-competitive tactics of opening up stores in very close vicinity to mom and pop cafes using their ability to absorb short term losses at one site to force the opposition out of business. I do not know if this is an intentional strategy but I see it happening here in Boston by Starbucks opening a store in Boston's coffee power-region, the North End and right beside other coffee stores in university districts like Porter Square (near Tufts University).

So, what's a coffee snob/addict to do under these trying circumstances? The most obvious answer was to lower expectations. Enter Dunkin' Donuts. You may be familiar with this chain. They've opened a branch in Auckland and my first experience of them was arriving at Los Angeles airport. They have spots all over the USA, but they are most heavily entrenched in New England (the region encompassing Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticuit states). The Suburb I live in (about the size of Petone) has seven stores! Yes, Dunkin' Donuts does sell donuts, but don't let that fool ya – their specialty is selling gallons of cheap, not unpleasant, filter coffee. Not quite at the level of snobbery I was used to in Wellington, but a good proletarian cup, comrade!

Dunkin' Donuts, founded in New England, has just clocked up its half century of existence. Like most of the chain restaurants / cafes in the USA, DD's is made up of individual owner-operated stores. In New England a large proportion of the hundreds in this region were established by Portugese immigrants. These immigrants have grown the stores they own into corporations within the corporation, and in doing so have made a fortune out of being the local Dunkin' Donut franchise holders. It has taken them a whole pile of risk and sweat to do so, so good on them – they're living the American dream!

The pseudo-upscale challenger from the west coast, Starbucks has been in New England for about a decade. Obviously they have taken a large chunk of the market share in this region. The clearest symptom of this was when in 2003 Dunkin' Donuts felt the need to fight back the challenge faced by Starbucks. They did this by spending a huge fortune on high-quality Swiss made automated espresso machines that they placed in a large proportion of their New England stores. All of a sudden, espressos in Boston have become dirt cheap. I, myself have almost died from overload of $1 espresso shots. Not quite as good as Eva Dixon's, but damn close and much cheaper. The strategy looks like its working. New England is one of the few areas in the US where Starbucks is not creaming the competition. Three cheers for living in a place with a little bit of taste (relatively speaking).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not just doing some kind of promotion for Dunkin' Donuts. I'm definitely not fond of the fact they have made a large donation to George Bush's 2004 campaign. The stores are also devoid of atmosphere and taste and are often dirty. But, their coffee is reasonable and cheap. My addiction is fed, if not my coffee snobbery. And, anybody who socks it to Starbucks is okay in my book!


p.s. As well as Flour there is a shop in Harvard Square called 'LA Burdick Chocolates'. Coffee isn't their specialty, but you can get the richest hot chocolate you have tasted in your life. I haven't managed to finish one whole cup yet, but the temptation is to keep on trying.
- posted by Johnny @ 6:34 PM (0) comments