The Sucky Tomato Problem

I recently moved from NYC to Los Angeles, and one aspect of my new city that never ceases to amaze me is the low cost of food. At the Honey Baked Ham, for example, I can get a delicious sandwich and two generous sides for a mere $5 -- about half of what I might pay for the same food in NYC. The fillings themselves are all top notch -- all, that is, except for the sliced tomatoes, which inexplicably suck. Unlike the lettuce and onions, which are invariably quite fresh, the tomatoes always seem to be a soggy mess. Even more annoying, I can see there are usually fresh tomatoes on the prep plate where they're kept. So why do I keep getting the sucky tomato treatment?

The answer is no -- it's probably the result of the server's perceptual bias. He sees himself in a race against spoilage, which he likely equates with waste. As a result, his instinct is to serve the oldest (and suckiest) tomatoes first. The problem is that there's so little turnover at the Honey Baked Ham, which is practically empty every day, that some tomatoes will almost certainly go bad by the time the next customer orders. As a result, there are always sucky tomatoes on the prep plate that the server feels compelled not to waste. It's a vicious cycle -- the server is constantly saving fresh tomatoes that customers will never taste.

The more rational course would be for Honey Baked Ham to treat sucky tomatoes as a sunk cost, and to always offer each customer the freshest tomatoes on the plate. Unfortunately, that's totally counter-intuitive to the server, who is unlikely to do so in the absence of a formal rule. I could, of course, simply demand that he use fresher tomatoes. But that strikes me as so NYC -- I'm trying to be a little less pushy in the laid-back environment of LA LA Land -- and the sandwiches are already such a good deal. My solution, therefore, is to publicize Honey Baked Ham in hopes that more customers will mean more turnover, thereby solving the sucky tomato problem.

So keep your fingers crossed, and try Honey Baked Ham -- for all our sakes!

I Want My iPhone Now!

Lately I've been making more amends than a participant in a 12-step program. After yesterday's release of the new Apple iPhone, however, you can add Steve Jobs to the list of people I'm sorry I maligned.

Back in September, I suggested that Apple was courting serious financial trouble if they failed to deliver on the much-hyped iPhone and/or widescreen video iPod with touchscreen capabilities. The recent controversy over questionable backdating of stock-options* just seemed to confirm my suspicion that Apple was rotten at the core.

But then they announced the iPhone, which actually made me to do the happy dance. Wide-screen video iPod with touchscreen, wireless, full-sized headphone jack, plus a phone -- the iPhone is everything that Microsoft's Zune could have been but wasn't. I immediately called my carrier (Sprint) to see when my contract expired.

It turns out my particular plan lets me cancel at any time, which prompted still more happy dancing on my part. But my relief and joy underscore the main drawback of the device -- its hidden cost. Most users will have to pay a significant penalty for canceling their cell phone plans, which may make the $499 (4GB) and $599 (8GB) price tag prohibitive for many in the short run.

Beyond that, however, most complaints strike me as premature. For example, I own a Lifebook tablet that operates by passive touchscreen, and I predict people will love navigating the system and internet by touch. I also think critics are wrong to dismiss this device simply because smart phones are purchased primarily by business types, who traditionally have been a hard sell for Apple.

I actually think the iPhone will eventually evolve into Apple's response to the Sirius Stilleto. Like many, I increasingly listen to the radio via the internet. And between Kinoma and Pocket Tunes, I can stream pretty much any audio on my Treo 650. Like the Stiletto, which switches automatically from satellite to wifi signal, the iPhone reportedly shifts from data network to wifi.

Granted, the iPhone is $150-250 more expensive depending on whether you buy the 4GB or 8GB version. That added price, however, includes the phone capability, web browsing, and 2-4 times as much memory (the Stiletto only has 2GB). And while I've never tried myself, I'm confident that it's easier to get a consistent cell phone signal than satellite reception in a city setting.

Along those lines, the big question for me is how many third party applications will be available for the iPhone. The Kinoma media player and Pocket Tunes are both products created by independent developers. Although Jobs stated that the iPhone runs OS X, it's pretty clear what he means is a stripped-down mobile version. My dreams will be dashed if there isn't a "widget" for streaming audio.

Beyond that, however, I'm sold. Like Eric Cartman and his Nintendo Wii, or those old ads for MTV, I want my iPhone now!

*The original sentence referred erroneously to "stock option grants."

Talking Point for the Day

Now that both John McCain and Lindsey Graham have explicitly endorsed the notion of a troop surge in Iraq, all further references should be to the "McCain-Graham Proposal." There's no point in pinning this on Bush -- he's been effectively neutralized by the midterm results. Better to tar and feather those two from now through the next presidential cycle with responsibility for supporting this outrageous sham of a policy.

Say it with me: "McCain-Graham Proposal"...

The Z(i)to the G(men)

Dear Brian and Peter,

I know we've had our differences, especially of late. I'm not referring the re-signing of Barry Bonds -- I get the logic of that move. I'm talking about your acquisitions of Dave Roberts, Bengie Molina, and Rich Aurilia -- older players who seem destined for a decline in production. I'd frankly begun to wonder if the brain trust had departed with Ned Colletti for LA. But I'm writing to tell you that all is forgiven with the signing of the other Barry from across the Bay.

Several months ago, I commented on Only Baseball Matters that signing Zito should be the Giants' top offseason priority. My logic was simple: teams should build around their personnel and ballpark strengths like the Dodgers and Cardinals did during the 1980s. Like those teams we had the beginnings of a dominant pitching rotation and a defensive ballpark. A lefty ace with a track record of health merited opening the vault the way we did for Bonds over a decade ago.

And credit where credit is due, that's precisely what you did. Some of my fellow members of the lunatic fringe are already saying you paid too much and committed to too many years, citing the examples of Kevin Brown and Mike Hampton. Yet the former is an absurd comparison since Brown was 34 when he signed his mega-contract with the Dodgers. Hampton's example is only marginally more illuminating since he pitched in the high altitude of Colorado, which affects all breaking balls, even sinkers.

Besides, Zito's pitching style, which relies more on guile than heat (best curve since Bleyleven) makes him a sensible long term investment. A pennant race will provide the perfect backdrop for Bonds' hunt for Aaron's home run record, filling the stands and distracting from any steroid storm clouds that gather. And even after Zito's pitching skills decline, he'll still be able to mentor young pitchers like Matt Cane and Noah Lowery.

On that point about mentoring, keep your eyes on Dave Righetti this year. As a fellow southpaw, he should be able to improve Zito's numbers beyond the expected National League bump. If the latter languishes or regresses for any reason, watch for Rags to be on the hot seat...

Run, Barack, Run...

Regular readers of this blog (which is to say, me) will recall that I've been a big fan of Barack Obama since before the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when he catapulted into prominence with his remarkable keynote address. (Refresh your recollection of Barack's effortless eloquence here.) Recently, I analyzed the presidential hype surrounding the freshman senator from Illinois, concluding that he was basically running for Vice President. I still think that's true, but now more than ever I hope that I'm wrong.

What crystallized my conviction? Call it the grandmother factor. I had dinner on Christmas Eve with my gram who's 95 years old. During a discussion of politics, she turned to me and declared without prompting that she was absolutely going to vote for Barack Obama if he ran for President. I'll tell you, it sent shivers down my spine. Gram is no Republican -- she never voted for W -- but neither is she liberal. Her favorite tv and radio shows are Bill O'Reilly and Dr. Laura much to my chagrin.

The point is that Gram's political instincts are right about where the much of the rest of the country is right now. People are generally desperate for genuine leadership and vision, and Democrats specifically are hungry for a candidate they can support on election day without (as Tom Friedman so eloquently put it) holding their noses. After talking with Gram, it's clear to me that Senator Barack Obama is that candidate and so much more -- he personifies the Audacity of Hope.

So I say, let the nattering nabobs of negativism be damned. Run, Barack, run!

Paging Mary Poppins...

As usual, Slate's excellent legal commentator Dhalia Lithwick has cut right to the heart of the recent Supreme Court argument regarding EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gases:

Now, maybe it's because I have a toddler at home, but the EPA's argument, presented by Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, quickly sounds very familiar. 1) I can't clean it up; 2) Even if I could, I don't want to clean it up; 3) You can't make me clean it up; and 4) China is making an even bigger mess. How come China never has to clean it up? When and if all that fails, the EPA, like my son, just puts its hands over its eyes and says there is no mess in the first place.

(Full text here.) Sounds like the SG's office could use a visit from Mary Poppins...

Thank You, America

Two years ago, the American people wrecked my faith in representative democracy by re-electing one of the worst Presidents in American history. Yesterday, my faith was partially restored by a surge of popular will that swept away Republican control of the House, and quite possibly the Senate.

I honestly didn't think we'd do it. Two nights ago, I predicted to a friend that the Dems would retake one chamber but not both. I further argued against comparisons to 1994, when Republicans took control of Congress in their own electoral landslide. Never have I been so happy to be so wrong.

Assuming the Senate goes the Dems' way -- and signs in Montana and Virginia point tentatively to yes -- the similarities to 1994 are striking. One of the biggest has to be the losses of Republican incumbents like Rick Santorum and Lincoln Chaffee. Mirrors the losses in 1994 by established Democrats like Mario Cuomo and Tom Foley.

The defeat of the ultra-conservative Santorum and moderate Chaffee (who didn't even vote for Bush in 2004) confirm this was a rejection of Republicans across the ideological spectrum. By contrast, I'm unaware of any major Democratic incumbents at any level who lost this time around. That, too, mirrors the Republican Revolution of 1994.

So thank you, my fellow Americans, for finally doing the right thing. Let's hope you didn't wait until it was too late...