Daily Archives: August 14, 2012

The Veil of Opulence

I absolutely love this Op-Ed piece in the NY Times by Benjamin Hale.

The idea behind the veil of ignorance is relatively simple: to force us to think outside of our parochial personal concerns in order that we consider others. What Rawls saw clearly is that it is not easy for us to put ourselves in the position of others. We tend to think about others always from our own personal vantage; we tend to equate another person’s predicament with our own. Imagining what it must be like to be poor, for instance, we import presumptions about available resources, talents and opportunities — encouraging, say, the homeless to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and to just get a job, any job, as if getting a job is as simple as filling out an application. Meanwhile, we give little thought to how challenging this can be for those who suffer from chronic illnesses or disabling conditions. What Rawls also saw clearly was that other classic principles of justice, like the golden rule or mutual benevolence, are subject to distortion precisely because we tend to do this.

Nowadays, the veil of ignorance is challenged by a powerful but ancient contender: the veil of opulence. While no serious political philosopher actually defends such a device — the term is my own — the veil of opulence runs thick in our political discourse. Where the veil of ignorance offers a test for fairness from an impersonal, universal point of view — “What system would I want if I had no idea who I was going to be, or what talents and resources I was going to have?” — the veil of opulence offers a test for fairness from the first-person, partial point of view: “What system would I want if I were so-and-so?” These two doctrines of fairness — the universal view and the first-person view — are both compelling in their own way, but only one of them offers moral clarity impartial enough to guide our policy decisions.

Those who don the veil of opulence may imagine themselves to be fantastically wealthy movie stars or extremely successful business entrepreneurs. They vote and set policies according to this fantasy. “If I were such and such a wealthy person,” they ask, “how would I feel about giving X percentage of my income, or Y real dollars per year, to pay for services that I will never see nor use?” We see this repeatedly in our tax policy discussions, and we have just seen the latest instance of it in the Tax Policy Center’s comparison of President Obama’s tax plan versus Mitt Romney’s tax plan. “He’s asking you to pay more so that people like him can pay less,” Obama said last week, “so that people like me pay less.” Last Monday he drove the point even harder, saying that Romney’s plan is like “Robin Hood in reverse.” And certainly, Romney’s selection on Saturday of Paul Ryan as his running mate will keep this issue in the forefront of our political discourse.

…

It is one thing for the very well off to make these arguments. What is curious is that frequently the same people who pose these questions are not themselves wealthy, nor even particularly healthy. Instead, they ask these questions under the supposition that they are insisting upon fairness. But the veil of opulence operates only under the guise of fairness. It is rather a distortion of fairness, by virtue of the partiality that it smuggles in. It asks not whether a policy is fair given the huge range of advantages or hardships the universe might throw at a person but rather whether it is fair that a very fortunate person should shoulder the burdens of others. That is, the veil of opulence insists that people imagine that resources and opportunities and talents are freely available to all, that such goods are widely abundant, that there is no element of randomness or chance that may negatively impact those who struggle to succeed but sadly fail through no fault of their own. It blankets off the obstacles that impede the road to success. It turns a blind eye to the adversity that some people, let’s face it, are born into. By insisting that we consider public policy from the perspective of the most-advantaged, the veil of opulence obscures the vagaries of brute luck.

…

The question of fairness has widespread application throughout our political discourse. It affects taxation, health care, education, social safety nets and so on. The veil of opulence would have us screen for fairness by asking what the most fortunate among us are willing to bear. The veil of ignorance would have us screen for fairness by asking what any of us would be willing to bear, if it were the case that we, or the ones we love, might be born into difficult circumstances or, despite our hard work, blindsided by misfortune. Society is in place to correct for the injustices of the universe, to ensure that our lives can run smoothly despite the stuff that is far out of our control: not to hand us what we need, but to give us the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The veil of ignorance helps us see that. The veil of opulence keeps us in the dark.

Institutionalized Racism in Hong Kong

Hong Kong has several laws that prohibit discrimination based on race. And yet the Hong Kong government itself discriminates based on race. I’m thinking of immigration. I have permanent resident status in Hong Kong, unconditional right of abode, and that was relatively easy to get. But what if I wanted a Hong Kong passport? It turns out that the rules are different depending on the color of your skin. In all fairness I suppose one must mention that this is due to laws laid down by China and not by Hong Kong itself. But that leads to a conundrum – of some sectors being immune from laws that should apply equally across the board.

If you want to apply for a Hong Kong passport, you are in essence applying for Chinese nationality. One is applying for a Hong Kong passport and not a China passport, yet the same rules apply to Hong Kong as they do for the rest of China. (Don’t leave comments about Hong Kong being part of China. Of course I know that. Duh. And yet there is a separate passport. Duh.)

Here’s a key gotcha:

… a person whose application for naturalisation as a Chinese national has been approved shall not retain foreign nationality.

Here are the factors they look at:

Each application for naturalisation as a Chinese national will be considered on its own merits but consideration will be given to:

whether you have a near relative who is a Chinese national with the right of abode in Hong Kong
whether you have the right of abode in Hong Kong
whether your habitual residence is in Hong Kong
whether the principal members of your family (spouse and minor children) are in Hong Kong
whether you have a reasonable income to support yourself and your family
whether you have paid taxes in accordance with the law
whether you are of good character and sound mind
whether you have sufficient knowledge of the Chinese language
whether you intend to continue to live in Hong Kong in case your naturalisation application is approved
whether there are other legitimate reasons to support your application

Because … and here’s the thing ….

A “Chinese citizen” is a person of Chinese nationality under the CNL. Hong Kong residents who are of Chinese descent and were born in the Chinese territories (including Hong Kong), or persons who satisfy the criteria laid down in the CNL as having Chinese nationality, are Chinese nationals.

So none of the above applies if you are ethnic Chinese.

Chinese nationals of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with right of abode in foreign countries may, for the purpose of travelling to other countries and territories, use the relevant documents issued by the foreign governments. However, they will not be entitled to consular protection in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and other parts of the People’s Republic of China on account of their holding the above mentioned documents.

None of this evaluation nonsense and, more importantly, ethnic Chinese are allowed to have dual citizenship, non-Chinese are not. How is that legal? How is that fair?

Here’s the result (from today’s SCMP):

A businessman of Indian descent has been unable to gain Chinese nationality or a local passport even though his family came to the city nearly a century ago.

Furthermore, Philip Khan, 50, was born and raised in Hong Kong, and his late uncle fought against the Japanese in the second world war.

The businessman found himself caught in an identity crisis when he tried to run in the upcoming Legislative Council election and was told he was ineligible because he was not a Chinese national.

Khan, who speaks fluent Cantonese and has a trading business on the mainland, said the Legco ordinance went against the city’s Basic Law, which protected the rights of permanent residents to stand for elections.

In April, he tried twice to apply for Chinese nationality so that he could run for office. But immigration officers dissuaded him from even filing the applications, citing mainland nationality laws that require at least one of his parents to be a Chinese national, Khan said.

In June, Khan voluntarily took an oath before the immigration officers that he would renounce his Pakistani passport so that he could apply for an Hong Kong passport.

However, he later received a letter that said he had to prove he was a Chinese national.

To be sure, foreigners have been successfully naturalised in Hong Kong, including Ocean Park chairman Allan Zeman and district councillor Paul Zimmerman.

The Immigration Department says foreigners or stateless people can apply for naturalisation if they have relatives who are Chinese nationals, they had settled on the mainland, or have other legitimate reasons. Applications would be considered individually based on their merit, it said.

So, if you want to apply for citizenship and you’re not Chinese, better be white and rich and prepared to renounce the country of your birth.

I’ve thought about getting a HK passport. After all, this is my home and I have no intention of living in the US again. Hong Kong is my habitual residence. I have paid my taxes and I have enough money to support myself. On the other hand, my Cantonese and Mandarin are both border-line to varying degrees and some might question the bit about “good character and sound mind” but, come on, you know.

I did mention this to my mom and told her the requirements. ”You’d give up your US citizenship?” she asked. ”I’d have no choice, that’s a requirement.” ”But just think about what your grandparents went through to get it.” Which did and has given me a reason to hold off, at least for now.

I don’t expect this to change, at least not within my lifetime. I’m just sayin’ ….

Late Night Hot Dogs

Since I grew up in New York City (and I’m Jewish), I grew up eating kosher all beef hot dogs, mostly Hebrew National and Nathan’s. In the years since, I have developed a fondness for almost every kind of sausage but the all beef dog remains my comfort food.

Actually, few people know this about me but when I was 18 years old, I spent a few weeks one summer as a hot dog vendor, pushing one of those classic carts.

It was the summer of ’72 and I was working at the restaurant in the Bronx Botanical Gardens. After a few weeks the owner and I couldn’t stand the sight of each other and he couldn’t fire me since he knew my parents so he got me out of the restaurant by having me push one of these carts. I’d stand there all day in the shade dishing out “dish water dogs” on buns with sauerkraut and mustard (sometimes people complained that I didn’t have the classic red onion sauce, more on that later). After a few weeks of this, I quit and took off for London with a friend. (That’s another story too.)

Just like pizza, New Yorkers will argue incessantly about the best hot dog. Some will say it’s at Katz’s – and that’s a damned fine dog. Some will say Nathan’s, but only at the original Coney Island location. But for many of us, the ultimate dog became the one you’d find at Gray’s Papaya. ”Tastier than filet mignon!” their signs would proclaim. Or was that their competitor – Papaya King? Who decided that hot dogs and papaya juice should go together? It’s a New York thing. Gray’s has multiple branches in NYC but for 10 years I lived in walking distance of this branch:

It used to be 2 hot dogs and a small fruit juice cost just a buck. Now it’s more like 4 or 5 bucks I guess. I miss this place!

Oddly enough, for the longest time, an all-beef hot dog was one of the hardest things to find in Hong Kong.

City Super used to get occasional shipments of Hebrew National (maybe they still do; I haven’t shopped there in ages) but it was hit and miss. I’d only find them there about 1 out of every 5 times I’d shop there, and I’d buy as many packages as possible.

Then when Doghouse first opened in Wanchai, they were using an all beef dog for their chili dogs. (I asked several times but no one would tell me where they sourced them from.) My taste buds tell me that they now use a dog that’s a beef/pork mix. The now departed East End Brewery had a good one – over-priced but I often went for it. Presumably other places from the same owner, El Grande – Inside Out, Hong Kong Brewery) – still have the same one on the menu.

I’ve since found that Taste (a slightly higher end supermarket, one of many brands owned by Park & Shop and hence by Li Ka-Shing) stocks a US brand that I’d never heard of called Saag’s, which is not as good as either Hebrew National or Nathan’s but is more than good enough.

Of course, hot dog buns in Hong Kong suck sweaty donkey balls. They’re too small and too indifferent and only come in packages of four (whereas the dogs I buy come in packages of five). Not much I can do about that since my few attempts at making bread at home all resulted in disgusting gloppy messes.

Mustard I have. If you’re American (and of a certain age, I suppose), maybe you remember the TV commercial for Gulden’s Spicy Brown Mustard. ”Ever notice that hot dogs always taste better at the ballpark? Maybe it’s the mustard they use.” I bring back several bottles of that from the US each year.

Here’s something I learned – it takes a minute to heat up a hot dog in a microwave. It only takes about 3 minutes to heat one up in a frying pan on the stove – and the difference in taste is night and day, even if you’re using a teflon pan. Even better on the barbecue, of course, but my barbecue is two floors above my kitchen and it’s too big a deal to get it going just for a single hot dog.

Another thing I’ve learned – a slice of onion, chopped or diced, elevates the dog almost all the way to heaven. Almost all the way because it’s still not the NYC hot dog onion sauce.

And wouldn’t you just know it – the NY Times’ Jennifer 8. Lee, author of The Fortune Cookie Chronicles, came up with the history of this sauce.

The man behind today’s sauce, Alan S. Geisler, died last week at the age of 78,as The Record of Bergen County reported. Half a century ago, hot dog vendors went through the time-consuming process of making their own onion sauce, but Mr. Geisler’s version — made at the behest of a hot dog and bun supplier who later became his partner — superseded all of those. If you are slurping up the red onion sauce in New York (and likely elsewhere), chances are the sauce was made by Sabrett, the supplier behind Katz’s Delicatessen, Gray’s Papaya, Papaya King, the legendary Dominick’s truck in Queens and the “dirty water dog” carts.

The sauce — which is made from vinegar, onion, tomato paste and other ingredients– is the subject of much speculation and longing by displaced former New Yorkers.

A food technologist trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Geisler first came up with the sauce at the request of Gregory Papalexis, who was a close family friend of the Greek immigrant founder of Papaya King, Gus Poulos. The onion sauce became a hit, and Mr. Geisler and Mr. Papalexis later went into business together at Tremont Foods, which after some mergers and various names (including House of Weenies), has been absorbed into Marathon Enterprises. Mr. Geisler lived in New Jersey, but passed away in Florida.

Hey, if you live in the US, here’s a place that ships Sabrett hot dogs, the onion sauce and even Gabila’s knishes (sigh). (I have never found a decent potato knish in Hong Kong. The ones they serve at Main Street Deli are an abomination in the eyes of God and Man.)

I guess I’m gonna have to learn how to make this onion sauce. A quick search has yielded a lot of different variations (1,2,3,4) but the basics are the same and it should be easy enough to do. I guess I could make a batch and shove it in a mason jar or similar and it ought to last a decent amount of time.

So – if you’re not from Hong Kong but you live here now, what are the comfort foods you love that you can’t find here?