Recent & Best of Random Fragments:

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

   Biased "Inside NAU" - Senior Research Fellow Jay Greene just published a study through the Goldwater Institute titled, "Administrative Bloat at American Universities."  Using a government database, he finds that per pupil administrative employment/cost has been rising over the time frame studied, 1993-2007.  He argues (persuasively), that universities should be experiencing economies of scale so that these "overhead" costs should be declining.  [Not in an absolute sense, but in a proportional sense - that is, while student enrollment is rising, one would expect administrative costs to rise as well, but at a slower rate.]  Indeed, if they experience diseconomies of scale, then that means the university system is too big.  You can see his full presentation (45 minutes) at the Goldwater Institute home page as of now, or the copy posted up at YouTube.  It is well worth watching - he fills in some of the back story here as well as some of the controversy this study has generated.  His basic argument is that the subsidization of universities, by the state and federal governments, provides administrators the distorted incentive to grow their own budgets and salaries.  In a market economy, where students are paying the entire cost of these services, that wouldn't happen (because students wouldn't see any benefit and would go elsewhere).

     So, how do you think university administrators will react to this study?  Well, no surprise, they don't like it.  A short article on this study appeared on the front page of the Daily Sun.  Most of the comments on-line indicate that the writers didn't understand the argument, nor took the time to actually read the report.  The story also included comments from Tom Bauer, who is the director of the university's Public Affairs Office.  Shortly thereafter, his office, which e-publishes a weekly newsletter called InsideNAU, had their lead story blasting away at the Goldwater study.  That surprised me because this newsletter is generally the model of boring cheerleading for the university.  The newsletter characterized the GI as a "politically motivated think tank" and as "a special interest similar to those they are quick to criticize."  Instead of acknowledging that this can be a problem, and one that the university has to monitor, they have taken an aggressive stance of attacking the messenger to distract us from the message.

     Indeed, the justification for their disdain for the study, as it may relate to NAU, was stated in five bullets:  NAU's tuition is lower than peers, enrollment has grown quite a lot, NAU has a lot of residential students, it has extensive "distance learning programs," and that more research is being done.  The first three are totally irrelevant to the arguments of this study.  The last two seem relevant, but if the university isn't going to quantify their impact, all they do is lead to the false impression that administrative costs have risen faster than enrollment because of an ever faster growing distance program and research agenda.  If that were true, they would trumpet this result and say, "See, we are the good guys that have actually reduced administrative bloat."  But, sadly, they didn't.

     So, I got into this when a colleague sent me a note asking, "Why are conservative or libertarian think tanks the only institutions that are politically motivated?"  Exactly.  They would never characterize any other group this way, and it just goes to show you the inbred bias that permeates the university culture.  I penned an e-mail to Bauer and copied a contact of mine at the GI:

     The response by Bauer was disappointing to say the least, but not exactly unexpected:

     Maybe he just doesn't get it.  Which tells me the bias is pretty deeply ingrained.  And, if you think an apology is coming, don't hold your breath!

Sunday, August 29, 2010

   The LCD Bumper Sticker - I have this feeling like I am the inventor of a few items over my life.  I don't know if it is some kind of evolutionary survival tool - that I have this feeling - or, if it is real.  When I was working the graveyard shift at the Colorado National Bank in 1976, I wore a set of headphones that tuned in radio stations.  I dreamed up an alternative, where you could play tapes.  And, according to Wikipedia, Sony developed their famous Walkman just a couple years later.  So, I am probably due huge amounts of money.

     At the same time, I also invented (in a virtual sense) the moped.  There had always been motorized scooters, but my vision seemed to presage the huge jump in demand in the late 1970s/early 1980s.  Well, at least I think so.

     And, in an earlier blog, I commented on the idea of self-orienting maps.  Since we now have a nice way to time stamp our ideas, I am pretty sure that when this comes into being, I will be credited as a co-creator.  Of course, I won't have been responsible for any of the real work, but, hey, it's still my idea.

     So, in that vein, I have recently invented the LCD bumper sticker.  Not a bumper sticker that has lousy looking LCD script, like they sell over at Zazzle.  Yeech.  [Although, I have bought some cool stuff from them.]  And, not the lame looking LCD license plate holders that apparently exist somewhere.  No, I am thinking about a device that would attach to your bumper, or car trunk, that would be an LCD screen.  It would be bright and clear, like cell phone displays are.  You can plug it into your trailer hitch connection to power it on when you drive, so it can be off (or removed for storage) while you are parked.  What is doubly cool about this is that you can program in new bumper stickers all the time!  I think it would sell like hot cakes.  Feel like a jerk for putting on that Obama/Biden sticker a couple of years ago?  Well, now you can remove it, or change it to something more appropriate, like "Don't build the Ground Zero Mosque."  Is your favorite team playing a tough game this weekend?  Then, change out your sticker to read, "Broncos Rule! Raiders Suck!"  [That was just an example.]    Maybe you'd like to display a cool scenic photo you took of the Grand Canyon.  The possibilities are endless.  And, you can download new stickers from the web and send them to your device wirelessly.  Or, hook them up to your computer to download new images.

     I suspect they'll be a bit pricey at first, which is why you won't see Ron Popeil pitching them.  But, I am sure that people will really snatch them up.  I did some web searching and found that VW had plans for a similar thing back in 2006.  But, it seems that it was built into the bumper, and I have never seen them.  I'll take two when they come out.

Friday, July 30, 2010

   Friedman Birthday Party - After Milton Friedman died in 2006, Tom Jenney decided to host a casual meeting of folks on the anniversary of Friedman's birthday - July 31.  Jenney is the State Director of the Americans for Prosperity - Arizona organization, which had been the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers.  I first met Tom back in the late 1990s, when he was working at the Goldwater Institute and they were publishing a monograph I wrote on transportation issues at the Grand Canyon.

     I had been thinking of emulating Tom's annual celebration.  Maybe next year.  This year, I decided to trek down to Phoenix to help mark this day.  Well, actually, a day early.  The meeting was held at Mama Java's on Friday night (the 30th) even though Friedman was born on the 31st.  Well, it's not a perfect world!   It was a nice small, intimate, venue and we pretty much took over the place for a couple of hours.  I had some kind of iced dark chocolate mocha something-or-other, with whipped cream, and it was fabulous.

     The night started off with an hour long video on Friedman's life.  Cara Lynn and I sat with Claire, a summer intern at Goldwater, and Robert Teegarden, a consultant/advocate of school choice.  [You can see a little bio on Robert, who is a board member of the ASTOA.]  Then, Tom turned it over to Clint Bolick, also from Goldwater, and Robert to talk about school choice issues, about which Friedman was heavily invested.

     We wrapped up the festivities with an old video that Tom dusted off.  He was doing a sound check on an upcoming interview of Friedman, and was operating the camera (at the Cato Institute).  Consequently, he decided to quiz Friedman on some economic issues, primarily economist Steven N. S. Cheung's take on the famous "Fable of the Bees."  Perhaps it will land on YouTube someday??

     Being an economics student as an undergraduate, I know I was exposed to Friedman's ideas, but I can't say that anything in particular stuck with me.  In graduate school, at the University of Hawaii, there were some strong Friedman supporters and, indeed, he had made a visit to the campus sometime in the years before I attended (so, before 1977).  But, I mostly fell in with the Keynesian types here, and didn't pay much attention to Friedman, beyond what was required in my coursework.

     In 1984, while on a year-long leave of absence from my Ph.D. program, I found myself in Flagstaff, teaching an introductory course in microeconomics at the local community college.  [Actually, it was an extension of a CC from another county - we didn't have a CC in our county at the time.]  The class was being taught by a local banker who got transferred off to another state barely a week into the class.  I happened to be around and got tapped to replace her.  She had scheduled video showings of Friedman's Free To Choose series.  She got the bank to pay for the loan of these videos, so I decided to keep them on the schedule.  I was mesmerized by them.  I would say that this was the beginning of my shift in philosophy, away from the Statist viewpoint and toward the individualist viewpoint.

     Later, I would say it was in the late 1980s, when I was finishing up my Ph.D. and teaching at the UH, I read Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom.  From the very beginning, I was bowled over.  I soon made it required reading in some of my classes.  I haven't continued to use this book, although I still have a high regard for it.  [These days, in my principles classes, I use Anthem and How Capitalism Saved America.]

     A great time had by all.  For some more on Milton Friedman, consider these links:

Friedman's autobiography, written for the Nobel foundation, upon the receipt of his Nobel Prize, but updated in 2005.

Rose and Milton Friedman started the Foundation for Educational Choice, to carry on his vision in this area.

An example of Friedman's clear-headed thinking doesn't get any better than in his famous essay, "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits."  Use it to tweak the noses of your liberal friends!

Go to BrainyQuote to find a boatload of cool things Friedman said.

And, finally, catch this short video on Milton Friedman's life:

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

   Fire as Failure - Over Father's Day weekend we had two big fires in Flagstaff which attracted quite a bit of national attention.  On Saturday (the 19th), the Hardy Fire was started about a mile from my home, although I don't think that it would have spread this far through residential areas.  Still, a local hotel (Little America) was evacuated, and we received a robo-call from the county that we should be ready to evacuate as well.  That fire was started by a transient, which is pretty much an annual thing here in the early summer.  As such, there isn't much we can do about this problem except bear the burden of fighting such fires.

     On Father's Day (the 20th), we had the much bigger Schultz fire.  It had erupted in a major way while we were having lunch at a local restaurant.  As we left, we drove up to Route 66, where I snapped the photo to the right when we were about a half block from city hall.  [No, I wasn't driving!]  We drove on up to McMillan Mesa, and parked in the lot of the USGS office, where we could more clearly see the origin of the fire - in the pass between Mt. Elden and the San Francisco Peaks.  That is where I took the picture to the left, showing the extent of the smoke pluming behind Mt. Elden. [Click on either photo to see a larger image.]

     This latter fire was started from campfire that was not properly put out.  It's still smoldering even now, nine days later.  And, it isn't surprising that the same old arguments are being made with regard to what should be done to prevent this from happening again - (i) increase education among campers, and (ii) close the forest during peak fire season.  The former is laudable, but doomed to failure, while the latter is an abject indicator of the failure of the Forest Service (and, by extension, the government) to adequately maintain the environment.

     We all know what must be done to prevent these fires - more monitoring and/or development.  But, without the budgetary resources to accomplish the former, we end up with awful choices like "close the forest down."  Here are some better solutions . . .

Provide developed campsites.  The camping in this area is mostly "at large," although there are some regular spots that campers use over and over.  Maybe some more developed camping areas (yes, for fees) would provide a better opportunity for the clueless to experience the outdoors without endangering everyone else.

Form volunteer forest caretakers.  We mostly have this problem for only two months - May and June.  Following a decent winter, May isn't usually a problem.  And, if the rainy season starts on time, July and August are usually better.  So, why not form volunteer groups that drive along the popular forest roads and take an inventory of campers in the evening, and then return in the morning to insure that all campfires are put out?  I am sure that plenty of people would sign up for such a group.  They aren't out to harass, or confront, anyone - just to make sure that nothing dangerous is left untended.

Revert to logging the forest, even if on a lower scale than the past.  One thing we can be sure of - people (or, firms) with private property at risk tend to take steps to reduce that risk.  Suppose that a firm had a contract to the timber in this area.  Wouldn't they find it in their best interest to provide the kind of monitoring necessary to protect their interests?  I should think so!  But, the politically correct way to think about this is that it is better to let 15,000 acres burn up than it would be to harvest timber on, oh, say 5,000 acres.

     I don't really expect any of the above ideas to take hold, because they go against the grain of sappy environmental thinking and the unwillingness for any government entity to reducing its power and authority.  Indeed, the local paper had a story about how a thinning project was to take place along Schultz Pass in 2007.  But, an environmental group appealed the project, and it never got off the ground.  Well, it's thinned now!  Too bad we can't sue these environmental groups for putting us all at increased risk.

Friday, June 18, 2010

   Atonement and Fear - The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has generated lots of heat, but little light.  The Congress had Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP (formerly British Petroleum, but, apparently, now just "BP") testifying yesterday on Capitol Hill.  In the grand scheme of things, it is useful to put BP's feet to the fire and do some investigating.  But, having Congress do this is . . . well, totally bizarre.  But, the whole event reminded me of something that Fox News Channel's Judge Andrew Napolitano always likes to say:

He attributes this to Thomas Jefferson, although there is more than a little dispute on that accord.  Jefferson probably would sympathize with the sentiment, even if he never actually uttered/wrote those words.

     Anyway, I was thinking of this quote as I was watching Hayward testifying.  It seemed to me that he had the look of fear on his face.  As if the explosion of Deepwater Horizon oil rig isn't going to cause BP enough pain and suffering, he knows that our government can completely ruin him.  So, he comes to the Congress, with hat in hand, head bowed before the almighty "representatives of the people," to atone for his sin - he runs a big oil company - and beg forgiveness.  Clearly, he is sorry about the accident.  How can he not be?  And, clearly, he wants to find out why it happened so that they can take steps to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.  That's just prudent behavior.  And, clearly, he accepts that BP will have to pay out lots of money to those that were harmed by this accident.

     But, in an era where the government can take over banks and car companies, it surely looks like BP is poised on the brink of a different abyss.  One where the government imposes so many penalties upon them that they must fail.  At least, fail insofar as being a privately-held company.  I can far too easily envision a future where the federal government is the major stockholder in BP.  And, that is chilling.  Or, worse - tyranny.

Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, testifies before Congress.	Judge Andrew Napolitano, not to be confused with our ex-governor.	Thomas Jefferson, to whom the quote is often attributed.

     I suppose it was too much to hope for that Hayward would go to Congress and "give 'em hell."  But, that's just not in the cards these days.  If he spits in their eye, they'll just rake him over the coals and then take his company.  I am reminded of some of the capitalists in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged that don't hold back in criticizing the government for its regulation and control of business.  Where are these capitalists today?

     Still, I must admit that I am getting a little satisfaction from BP's squirming.  They have been a leader in cozying up to the green movement and embracing the whole global warming nonsense.  And, they have contributed more to President Obama's campaign than they have to any other politician in the last thirty years.  So, if they do some twisting in the wind over this oil spill fiasco, I'm not going to be too sympathetic to their circumstances.

Friday, May 14, 2010

   Immigration Idiocy - The illegal immigration law that was recently passed by the state legislature has raised complaints from the usual suspects - those that can't read, or won't read, and want to put all issues into the framework of race.  Unfortunately, that included the esteemed members of the Flagstaff City Council who are clueless when it comes to understanding the proper role of government.  Also clueless is the Faculty Senate at Northern Arizona University.  But, that's nothing new.  So, can it be of any surprise that they voted overwhelmingly to condemn this new law, and characterized it (the law) as racist?  No.  So, I penned this retort to this action, which ran in the paper this past Tuesday:

     Most of the web comments, both to the original article and to my letter, agreed with my basic contention.  Indeed, I don't think you can find a better example to illustrate the shallowness of the Faculty Senate than to go out to their website.  On the right-hand side, you'll see a virtual suggestion box.  Upon a moment's reflection, you will note that it is, in fact, a shredder!  So, that's where all the good ideas go.  Another letter ran today, also critical of the Faculty Senate, where the writer chastised them for this "[g]reat exercise in critical thinking."

Friday, April 30, 2010

   We Don't Need No Stinkin' Mules - The National Park Service is considering dramatic changes in allowing mule riders into the Grand Canyon.  I attended a scoping session last year and wrote a blog on the topic.  At the time, I was quite sure that officials were looking for ways to reduce the number of mules in the canyon.  And, so it is.  The park issued an Environmental Assessment this past March.  In it, their "proposed alternative" calls for reducing mule riders traveling along the Bright Angel trail by some 75%.  They proposed to totally eliminate the day trips to Plateau Point, and reduce, by half, the number of riders allowed to go to Phantom Ranch (from 20 to 10).  As the editor of the local paper wondered, why allow any?  Why, indeed?  Well, I have been planning on penning a letter, or even trying for an editorial on this topic, but wanted to do so before the close of public comments.  Alas, that is today.  So, I did go to the Park Service site and submit a comment electronically.  Perhaps, I'll get a chance later to send something to the paper.  Here's my beef:

     I should note that there aren't any mules currently going to Plateau Point.  Those rides were "temporarily" discontinued while trail work continues on the South Kaibab trail.  That work shut down that trail to mule traffic and is expected to last a couple of years.  [Yes, longer than it took to build the trail in 1924!]  Consequently, all Phantom Ranch mule riders are coming back up the Bright Angel trail, and all the pack trains, hauling supplies to Phantom Ranch, are going down, and coming back up, on the Bright Angel.  So, with all that traffic, the day trips to Plateau Point have been dropped.  This proposal would make that change permanent.

Friday, April 23, 2010

   Free (Market) Health Care - The local paper ran a story about a freshman student at NAU that required expensive tests and surgery while being uncovered by any insurance.  Presumably, this was meant to show how bad the system is, and how much better it will be with under the reforms recently passed.  It quickly prompted me to pen a letter, which ran in the paper today:

The editor had written that he wasn't running many letters criticizing the health care reforms because he just wasn't getting any.  Maybe I'll start writing on this topic more regularly.

Friday, April 9, 2010

   Common Sense II - This is the second in a multi-part review of Glenn Beck's Common Sense.  I really should be doing my taxes, but, heck, I still have almost a week to get them done!

III. The Political Weapon of Choice:  The U.S. Tax Code
     Complaining about the tax system is almost . . . well, American!  Doing something about it, on the other hand, seems well nigh impossible.  Beck recites the well-known abuses of the system - it is too complex and it is expensive to comply with.  And, of special hypocrisy, are the tax problems top Obama Administration advisors (Geithner, who got in as Treasury Secretary, and Daschle, who didn't get in as HHS Secretary), as well as the top tax-writer in Congress (Charlie Rangel).  Why is this?  Beck's observation is the system is so convoluted because politicians want to reward friends and punish enemies.
     Beck notes that if we had to pay our taxes in-kind, we'd have rebelled a long time ago.  He muses about Thomas Sowell's idea that we should make election day April 16, the day after tax day.  That might lead to a better system.  I also noted down this quote from George Washington, which I thought was great - "Government is not reason . . . it is force."  I wish more people would see it that way, too.

IV. The Perk and Privileges of the Political Class
     Beck is especially critical of Congress, and with good reason.  While they say they represent the people, their salaries place them in the top 5%.  And, while the public approval rating for them is abysmally low, their re-election rates are astronomically high.  How is that?  Well, they rig the system to insure their continuation in power.  As noted in the previous chapters, they use the tax system to reward friends.  They also establish sometimes convoluted Congressional districts, through the gerrymandering process, that insures political party stability.  And, while we don't have royalty in the U.S., there has risen up a distinct political royalty - e.g., the Kennedy and the Bush families.
     While politicians promise ethics, transparency and accountability, they only deliver on increasing their control over our lives.  I agree with Beck that "all governments are fascist in nature."  That is, they all look for ways to expand their power and control.  Our founders set up a system of limited government, but politicians have successfully chipped away at that ideal for two hundred years.  How can we return to those principles?  Beck argues that the bottom line is that we must have term limits for all political offices.  It is a simple idea, and it tends to appeal to the typical voter.  Maybe it will actually work.  But, I'm not holding my breath on this one.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

   The 3 Foot Rule - Recently, a bicyclist contended that a city bus did not give him three feet of clearance, and videotape from the bus shows that this was, in fact, the case.  But, the cyclist was in a bike lane and the question that began to swirl about was whether he was due this minimum distance.  After some thought, the city attorney decided that the bicyclist  was right and asked the police to ticket the bus driver.  The local paper editorialized on the matter, and while the editor wondered if we weren't splitting hairs here, he didn't really dispute the city's conclusion.  But, they also published the relevant law, to wit:

     Well, I am a reasonably smart person, and as I read the law, the city's conclusion seemed unwarranted.  I did some web searching on the meaning of "overtaking and passing."  I found a lot of references to this phrase, and a very good review at Wikipedia.  Interesting, much of this comes from other countries.  But, the bottom line seemed to be this - the phrase refers to making a maneuver where you go from being behind someone to being in front of them.  Driving by someone in another lane is not what "overtaking and passing" means.  And, if it does, then we need another phrase to describe the action I've just described.  So, I decided to post off a quick letter to the editor, which ran on Tuesday, April 6:

 
     I used to have a traffic engineering handbook around the house, but must have gotten rid of it some years ago.  One of the things I picked up from this tome is that, like lawyers, engineers are pretty careful with using words that have particular meaning, even if we often toss them around more casually.

     While I have written a number of letters and editorials on what I thought to be much more contentious issues, I was surprised that as of today, some four days later, my letter is in the "most commented" category, with more than twenty replies.  Some nice, some not.  I thought to jump in, but I thought my letter was, if anything, somewhat pedantic.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

   Common Sense I - While I am technically still in the midst of reading Atlas Shrugged, I have decided to do a close read of Glenn Beck's Common Sense.  I picked it up last summer and read through part of it.  But, then I set it down and haven't taken the time to go back and finish up.  So, I offered the chance to discuss the book to the two campus clubs to which I am the faculty advisor.  In preparation of such a discussion, I am reading the book with pen and paper in hand, so that I can better think about the issues and themes that Beck raises.  So, herewith is the first part of what I plan to be a five part review of Beck's work as well as of Thomas Paine's original, which is included in this volume.

Note & Introduction
     Beck is clearly passionate about his beliefs and unafraid to express what he thinks.  But, he is also unequivocal about this being a "non-violent" crusade.  At regular (or, not) intervals, he will stop and reiterate that this is not about violence.  He does the same thing on his TV show.  His critics may slam his style, as well as his views, but they never laud his unrelenting advocacy of peaceful change.  So, they aren't serious critics.
     His description of who "we" are is an excellent portrait of the middle class.  But, instead of using that phrase, he paints the picture, so that we can read it and nod with agreement - yes, that is who we are.  He is scathing with regard to politicians and their lip service to the American people.  He writes that we are not activists, but we are frustrated.  This theme reminded me of Nixon's "silent majority" - people who stood with his "values" but weren't about to go out into the streets and march around.  I think there is something to this connection and that Beck is tapping into the same segment of our society.

I.  The Reshaping & Redefining of America
     Beck is keen to write about our discomfort at the way things are.  But, it all seems rather vague and general.  I suppose that reflects our current situation.  On the one hand, we hate politicians, yet, on the other hand, we keep voting them back into office.  His argument that we are inevitably drawn to a "life of ease," thus sacrificing our freedoms and liberties captures the difficulty in getting people interested in the discussion to begin with.  We may empathize with Peter Finch's character in Network when he sticks his head out the window and cries out, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."  But, then what?
     I think Beck is right when he notes that most Americans don't really know what they believe.  Partly, this is due to just taking our situation for granted.  But, also, I think it is the inherent difficulty in getting people to sit down and say to themselves, "You know, I like the idea of self-rule and freedom."  It seems like it was easier to do this during the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War and WWII, but that it is quite difficult for people to hang their hats on those ideas when not faced with such overt calamities.
     Well, and that tells us what Beck is railing about - covert calamities.  Ones that are hard to define precisely.  Ones that almost inevitably get boiled down into dueling catch phrases ("Kill the Bill" vs. "Health Care for All").  I agree wholeheartedly with Beck's observation that government is an "unreliable ... partner in safeguarding ... liberty."  But, then people want prescription drug coverage, and they want to use public transit, and they like the idea that poor and disadvantaged people get taxpayer help.  In a contest between principles and specifics, it is very hard for principles to win out.

II.  Money - The Real Opiate of the Masses
     I don't know if most readers get the reference to the subtitle here - Karl Marx (but, on the topic of religion).  I don't think that "money" is the right term here, but it is an easy target for Beck.  His discussion about the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, et al.) is spot on.  The problem is that everyone wants a free lunch, and, as any economist will tell you, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  Beck's relating this to Ponzi schemes in general, and Bernie Madoff in particular, fits in with my take on the true problem.  And, while Beck argues that this is a current dilemma, I would respectfully disagree.  Of course, Charles Ponzi was from an earlier era.  And, when we talk about the housing bubble, certainly many of us will call to mind the famous tulip bubble that infected the Dutch in the 1600s.
     So, I am not convinced that politicians are any better than they were in the past.  The harkening back to the good old days, when character mattered, is . . .  well, disingenuous.  A book I have my students read is Thomas DiLorenzo's How Capitalism Saved America.  I was fascinated by DiLorenzo's cataloging of political abuses in the early days of the Republic, when many states (and, later, the Confederate States of America) actually wrote into their constitutions prohibitions on the use of tax money for road improvements.  These were early examples of unfunded liabilities, or debt gone bad, which almost bankrupted many states.
     When it comes to debt issues, I agree with Beck that it is out of control.  But, debt, in and of itself, is not bad.  And, the relative level of debt we have had was much higher following WWII.  So, I would argue that there is more nuance here than Beck is willing to consider.  And, when it comes to our "dependence" on foreigners when we sell our debt, I take a different view.  If the Chinese decide they don't want to buy our debt, it will hurt them as well as us.  But, to the extent that it makes it harder for us to sell debt, raising interest rates in the process, so it helps galvanize us to oppose this debt.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

   Ken Burns' Avatar - When PBS aired Ken Burns' 12 hour documentary, "The National Parks," I recorded it for later viewing.  This past week, I have finally gotten around to watching it - pretty much an episode each night.  I am through four episodes and have two left, but feel compelled to do a bit of blogging about what I have seen so far.

     On the one hand, at least this epic isn't all about race, which is the theme of his earlier works, The Civil War and Baseball.  I think that race has to be a major theme of the "The Civil War," but he pushes the agenda a bit far in that  documentary.  Still, I give him 5 stars for that film and I own a copy.  But, then he goes over the top with this theme in the later "Baseball" documentary, which led me to get tired of it and stop watching somewhere along the way.  At least in "The National Parks," the issue of race (primarily with regard to Native Americans) seems more muted.

     That got me to thinking about it a bit more.  Clearly, we can all despise the fact of the Civil War, so making it all about race and an indictment against white Americans works.  And, really, baseball is just a game, so who really cares if that story can also be made all about racial injustice?  But, the parks story presents a filmmaker like Burns with a dilemma.  While he could make this all about race, too, he is in a bind since he wants to extol the virtues of the National Parks.  Flawed though those virtues are.  So, I am glad that he had to squirm in making this film, and couldn't play the same race card he usually does.

     Still, he does have another card to play - businesses are bad and greedy and we should hate them.  So far, over the course of six hours, the drumbeat against business has been unremitting.  Even when a business seems to be getting good treatment, there is usually a twist in the end - for example, the railroads helped to preserve some places, but it was so they could profit, hence they could not be trusted.  A particularly memorable story involved James Hutchings, who built a hotel in Yosemite Valley.  He was roundly criticized in the narration, and one early tourist is quoted as complaining about the cloth dividers which separated the upstairs rooms.  The intent was clearly that Hutchings was trying to scam tourists by charging a lot and providing little.  Yet, in the next breath, the narration goes on to describe how Hutchings hired John Muir to build a sawmill and that one of the first things he built were walls to separate the hotel rooms!

     The story of the Grand Canyon is also long on indictment of business, especially in the form of Ralph Cameron.  Yet, there is no mention that Cameron actually bought the Bright Angel Trail from the previous proprietor - the implication is just that he owned the trail by being there.  And, while the Kolb brothers get generally good coverage, not a peep about Mary Colter, nor the Fred Harvey Company.  Indeed, I am quite astonished at how many spectacular shots of the eastern portion of the Grand Canyon have been shown without a single sighting of the Desert View Watchtower!

     So, it seems to me that this 12 hour indulgence in anti-business rhetoric is really just Burns' version of James Cameron's Avatar.  Really cool pictures, but the story drags on far too long, and no 3-D glasses.  I guess that expecting Ken Burns to be "fair and balanced" was just hoping for too much.

Friday, February 12, 2010

   SCOTUS for Free Speech! - The Supreme Court struck a blow for free speech with the recent Citizens United decision.  The case revolved around whether certain McCain-Feingold restrictions were constitutional.  The group, Citizens United, had put together a political video, but decided that circulating it would violate the law and took their challenge to the highest court in the land.  To my mind, the whole campaign finance reform movement has been a farce, at best, and wholly antithetical to the precepts of the first amendment to the constitution, at worst.  I can vividly recall seeing video footage of Warren Rudman (Rep) and Eugene McCarthy (Dem), both retired senators, walking up the steps of the Supreme Court Building, in contesting these laws.  But, I don't remember the specific circumstance, so I couldn't find a web link.  Still, McCarthy was an early opponent of these laws, and participated, at some level, in the reasonably well-known Buckley case.

     One might think that liberals would be more inclined to embrace free speech, but I am coming to the conclusion that the only two "values" liberals really have are (i) government is good, and the bigger, the gooder; and (ii) business is bad, and the bigger, the badder.  Still, the ACLU took Citizens United's side in this case, and the Huffington Post has an unusually cogent and thoughtful commentary up on its site by the former executive director of the ACLU.

     So, there are issues here that have been debated for some time.  The ruling by the Supreme Court is not especially broad, although there is talk that McCain-Feingold is headed for the trash heap.  In the local paper, they published a special commentary on this subject by an academic at NAU's Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.  Given the venue (the paper's ad hoc "Coconino Voices" column) and the extended length, one might expect a polite and civil commentary.  Sadly, that was not the case.  Instead of taking the high road, Robert Schehr launched into a screed against the court, calling for the impeachment of the justices voting for free speech (i.e., in the majority).  Well, I couldn't resist penning a response, and the paper published my letter yesterday.  Of course, I don't get as much space as Schehr did, but I think I got my point across:

A few other points are in order here:

The Barack Obama story.  The CU web site mentioned this tidbit, but I went web searching to insure it was accurate before including it in my letter.  Indeed, I sent the letter to the editor (rather than use the on-line submission) in order to include that support, because I feared that he would think it was nonsense and we'd have to dance around the issue, or that he would drop it out of the letter, and I didn't want that to happen.  So, the state of Illinois has a Campaign Disclosure site, where you can search their database for this information.  I did two searches - one for "Citibank" and another for "AstraZeneca" (in the "Last or Only Name" box) and got a list of their contributions.  They both made small ($1000 and $500) donations to the "Friends of Barack Obama," one in 2001 and the other in 2002.  These are exactly the kinds of corporate donations that have people up in arms.  They were, of course, for his campaign for state office, not his race for the U.S. Senate - such a donation would be, and still is, illegal.  AstraZeneca is a British-owned firm, although the donations came through their Delaware offices.  So, in his State of Union address, I don't know if Obama is being disingenuous, or just plain hypocritical, when he said, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Money as free speech.  When I first read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, I was instantly convinced by his argument that political freedom is an illusion without economic freedom (although the reverse need not be true).  That is, you can't exercise any political freedom without economic resources.  So, if you don't have access to money, you don't have the ability to operationalize any political freedom.  Powerful stuff.  And, quite frankly, in a country where the political opinion is pretty much 50-50, the "money" isn't just on one side of the political spectrum.

There are risks from corporate donations.  Most opponents, Schehr included, make the mistake of thinking that giant corporations can just pour money into a campaign and win.  Laughable.  First, stockholders may react quite unkindly to this kind of expenditure, and even write restrictions into their own firm.  And, again, in a 50-50 country, can a firm, especially a giant firm, really afford to potentially alienate half its customer base?  I don't think so.  Consider the left wing opposition to advertisers on Glenn Beck's most excellent show on Fox News.  These advertisers never endorsed Beck's opinion of anything, and he isn't running for office, yet they were cowed into pulling ads on one of the most widely seen shows on cable - which is what advertisers want.  So, how likely is it, really, that they contribute money directly to a political campaign?  Slim and none.

Corporations need not be large.  The other big issue here, which I mention in the letter, is that the complaining about "corporate donations" only presumes large corporations.  As I just noted, these firms would be skating on thin ice to engage in much of that kind of activity (if legal).  More likely, you'd get small groups that have to incorporate in order to conduct their business.  And, they are the ones most likely to jump into the political fray - e.g., the Swift Boaters of 2004.  The "corporate" designation is legal necessity.  But, all you ever hear about is the scare tactic of the big corporation.  Indeed, here in Flagstaff, one resident has a business selling t-shirts.  A couple years ago, he was selling shirts that said, "Bush lied.  They died." along with the names of fallen soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Despicable.  But, the state legislature decided it should be illegal.  Also, despicable.  And, eventually overturned by a court.  The main argument was that he shouldn't be allowed to profit from his free speech.  Yeech!

Some large corporations are exempt from McCain-Feingold.  Surprised to learn that "media" corporations don't have to abide by some of the McCain-Feingold restrictions?  Well, not really, when you consider how politics is done.  And, I suspect that most people would probably agree with the exemption, but it is still a case of playing favorites - only certain corporations get free speech rights!  Indeed, over the last election cycle, there had been some talk of prohibiting bloggers from political speech as part of these ridiculous laws.  So far, that hasn't happened.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

   In Search of Dreamers - Over the Thanksgiving break of last year, I was able to backpack into Trinity canyon, so that I could "finish" up my spring break hike that was cut short by an accident.  I was interested in being able to spend some time looking for traces of an old survey crew.  Bill Ferris and I found the sites I wanted to find and got some great photos.  Bill wrote up a great trip report on his blog, and I solicited the local paper for an opportunity to write about our little adventure.  The editor was quite interested and my story ran on January 19, 2010.  The story appears below, although I have added in a number of photos that were not in the paper.  With time, I expect to add this full story in the Hiking Grand Canyon section of the Kaibab Journal.

In Search of Dreamers by Dennis Foster      In 1916, George K. Davol convinced the Santa Fe Railroad that it would be worthwhile investing in a project that would enhance the allure of the Grand Canyon and entice more tourists to visit that awesome natural wonder.  The project was an aerial tramway that would stretch between the two rims of the mighty canyon.  Passengers would “sail” over a breathtaking landscape as they plied their way down from Hopi Point to Dana Butte to the Tonto plateau and then up to the Tower of Set, and further up to Horus Temple and Osiris Temple, then crossing over Shiva Temple before touching down on the North Rim. Click on any of the photos, below, to see a larger image.  1919 survey crew poses at North Tonto camp.  We found the campsite - a terrace in Trinity canyon.       Today, we can only half close our eyes and imagine such a spectacular voyage.  In the fall of 1919, barely six months after the Congress designated the Grand Canyon as a National Park, Davol, with the blessing of the Park Service, began his survey.  It would involve at least a dozen men, last more than three months and chart out a route to the Tower of Set before the vagaries of winter closed down their efforts.  In the spring of 1920, the Park Service nixed the project, and the survey was never completed.      Fast forward to November of 2009.  Bill Ferris and I have plans to hike into Trinity Canyon, west of the popular Phantom Ranch.  We have six days to reach the spot on the Tonto plateau, below the Tower of Set, where I had to be airlifted out of the canyon this past spring, when I suffered a debilitating injury to my foot.  That accident prevented me from completing a nine day hike from Crazy Jug Point to the South Rim, and I was quite keen to “finish” this trek in the manner I had intended. Some of the 1919 crew pose at the site of their 1919 "North Tonto" camp.  Bill and I tried to recreate the pose, but we seem to have suffered from some kind of mirror-image bias!  To the right is the supply tram link that brought supplies up to the north Tonto, near the campsite on a higher terrace.      With six days, we had time to do some exploring.  So, I brought along some old photos of this 1919 survey.  They rigged up short “supply trams” across the canyon to facilitate their work, and I suspected that we would be able to find the remains of one such tram terminus, on the Tonto plateau, as well as their nearby campsite.      Ninety years after the survey crew departed, we found their campsite on a flat terrace by matching up this location with the old pictures.  Lucky for us, as the site looks to have been scrubbed clean – all we found in the area was a washer, a nail and a small bolt.  It appears that they did a good job of cleaning up after themselves. The survey crew mans the top of the supply tram link on the Tonto, north of the Colorado River. Below, I pose in the spots where two of the survey crew were stationed.  I didn't like the exposure of the spot where the third crewmember was standing - there was a drop of over a hundred feet!       We turned our attention to the tram site and wandered along the rim of the Tonto plateau, overlooking the Colorado River.  Aided by the old pictures, we soon stumbled across supplies left behind and tucked away under a ledge – coils of rope, small buckets of screws, bolts and nails, some kind of gate, and odd pieces of the machinery used to make the tram work.  There may be more in this cache, but the mice have had many decades to pile up sticks and twigs in the gaps.  Given its rather obscure location, I would not be surprised if we were the first ones to gaze upon this site since the survey crew stuffed these supplies under this ledge, no doubt expecting to return the following spring to continue with their work. These blocks mark tram terminus.  Bill perched above cache overhand.  Coils of rope and buckets.       We had rain the last night we were in Trinity.  And, we could see snow on the rims in the morning.  Not entirely unlike the Davol survey crew’s experience.  We packed up and made our way back to the campground near Phantom Ranch, leaving behind the dreams of a different era. Dennis Foster has been hiking in the Grand Canyon since 1977 and has spent over 300 nights camped in the canyon’s backcountry. ******************** For more information: To learn more about this survey:  Read Jim Ohlman’s “The 1919 Transcanyon Aerial Tramway Survey,” in A Gathering of Grand Canyon Historians, edited by Michael F. Anderson, and available from the Grand Canyon Association. Photos from the survey:  Visit the Special Collections and Archives Department of Cline Library at Northern Arizona University.  The Robert Ryan Collection (he was a member of the survey crew) is available on-line. Grand Canyon:  To learn more about visiting the Grand Canyon go to www.nps.gov/grca.  Follow the link to “Backcountry Hiking” to learn about the permit system for inner canyon camping.  OR www.grandcanyonscout.com .

     The paper only used the old photo of the group at the campsite, and the photo of Bill and I posing, but none of the materials left under the overhand.  Bill and I are now keen to search for the terminus on the south Tonto.  And, I am still interested in finding the final campsite, located atop the Redwall, north of the campsite we found.  That was, in fact, the main object of my interest, but the route up through the Redwall looked more than a little rough, so we decided to look for the remains of the Tonto operation.  Also of interest, to me at any rate, is that the editor choose to use my working title as the title for the newspaper article.  A first, I think!  Invariably, he changes my titles, to make them more interesting.

Monday, January 4, 2010

   Signs of the Times II - Happy New Year!!  And, New Decade!!  Time for some more signs of the times . . .  Click on any photo, below, for a larger image.

     At Flaming Gorge, in northern Utah, we stopped at the visitor's center.  Pretty nice place, with good camping facilities and nice opportunities for outdoor activities that seem to have a minimum of government regulation.  Still, the sign for the restroom struck me as odd, especially if you happen to be thirsty!

     We had stopped at Flaming Gorge on our way to a mini-vacation at Yellowstone.  While there, we toured all the main geyser areas.  Parking was a problem during the height of the day.  And, not surprisingly, there was also quite a bit of congestion at the public restrooms.  When people line up for a pit toilet, you can pretty much figure that there is some problem with management at this national park.

     As a frequent visitor to Grand Canyon, I have always chuckled at how the Park Service puts locks on the toilet paper.  Not surprising, really, since it is a particularly valuable commodity.  It is a great example of Adam Smith's diamond-water paradox.

     OK, by now you are probably seeing the theme here.  This restroom is located along the main geyser loop that starts from Old Faithful.  We took this walk during our final morning staying at this location.  We both decided that this facility was one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, outhouse we have ever had to use.  It smelled so bad, that we couldn't even close the door while using it.  And, it is within walking distance of one of America's foremost natural wonders.  Good thing we can't capture the whole essence on the web!!

     On the other hand, the restrooms at Mammoth Hot Springs were pretty good, but unlike the inference from the sign shown here, it wasn't really all that big!!

     After our trip to Yellowstone, we traveled back home via Utah, staying for one night at Bear Lake and two nights at Arches National Park.  Along the way home from Arches, we passed this place, which may be a restroom, but we decided it was unwise to check it out!

     The sign, to the left, was on a table of British foods offered up at the Celtic Festival in Flagstaff.  You can click on it to see it better, but it reads, "Heat Damaged Chocolate Digestives.  Regularly $5.85.  NOW ONLY $3 each."  We almost bought some, but would we really have tried them?  Especially if they were heat damaged??  Probably not, unless we were next to some mammoth restrooms, where the was lots of TP (because it was locked in place), and we were able to get a cold drink after doing our business!  OK, time to get off my duff and get some real work done.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

   Hollow Avatar - The movie event of the season is the popular Avatar.  We saw the 3-D version at our local theater.  Of course, it was visually stunning.  The 3-D effect is quite good and the special effects are top notch.  The story, on the other hand, was a stinker.  The whole "bad guy industrialist" versus the "peaceful nature lover" is a tired theme, and not especially poignant here.  Better, on that score anyway, is Dances with Wolves, although I'd even rate that as "thick" on the sappiness scale.

     There are, however, two major complaints I have with the storyline, beyond the tired nature of the theme.  While watching, I was thinking that a prominent dimension was how a society with low/no technology can't co-exist with a society that has a high level of technology.  Wouldn't the story have been better if James Cameron had played this more as an inevitability?  Of course (spoiler alert!!), in the end, the "bad" guys lose, so that would have to change.  Still, I think that he could have done a better job of invoking our pathos by making the humans seem less "bad" and the aliens as less "noble."  Ambiguity on this score would make this a movie to remember instead of one that will likely be soon forgotten.

     But, there is a more fundamental shortcoming to this story.  Upon a little reflection, the Na'vi are a rather sad race.  They seem cool, but really it is only true insofar as Sully learns about these new and different people.  But, then what?  What do they do?  They seem only to produce body decorations.  They don't have industry.  No universities.  No research and development facilities.  They are, at the core, intelligent animals that refuse to use their intelligence.  Some have argued that the story is a metaphor for the clash of cultures that occurred between Europeans and Native Americans.  But, really it is more like the "clash" between Europeans and the buffalo.

     Indeed, I was reminded of my trip to Antarctica.  We visited many penguin colonies.  Instead of being struck by the awesome beauty of nature I was more struck by the fact that their entire existence is built around survival - breeding and eating.  The Na'vi, at least insofar as they were presented in the movie, likewise seemed to live their lives the same way.  Some may argue that they were living in "harmony" with nature.  But, that means stagnation.  No inventiveness.  No intellectual curiosity.  None of the (best) attributes that we would ascribe to our humanity.  Maybe a better movie would have painted these aliens as glorified plants, albeit with some intelligence.  Then, the moral conflict of how humans treat them would have been more ambiguous.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

   The GC Permit Shuffle - Last month, the Park Service announced a new permit policy for backpacking in the Grand Canyon.  It eliminates the walk-in request, in favor of mailed/faxed requests, for the first month that permits are available.  For example, on June 1st, one can apply for a permit to do a trip in October.  Because the park is deluged with fax requests on the first of each month (well, not every month), if you walk in on the first, or even on the second, day of the month, you are likely to get your request filled well in advance of all the faxed requests.  That will change on February 1, 2010.  Now, only faxed requests will be taken during June for October hikes.  Walk-in requests will not be accepted until July 1st, for October hikes.  [Well, the walk-in will be treated like a faxed request - drop it off and they'll add it to the pile.]  There were a few letters printed in the local paper complaining about this policy change.  I thought to write a letter as well, but approached the editor about possibly writing a longer commentary.  He agreed, and my "guest editorial" ran in the Arizona Daily Sun on Wednesday, November 25th, the same day I left for a six day backpacking trip in the canyon.

Some further comments: 

The "fairness" issue.  This drives me nuts!  The Grand Canyon Hikers group on Yahoo was full of comments about how this made the process more "fair" by making the odds more equal.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  They only see that they are getting better odds, hence that it must be "fair."  Really, it is all about greed, but people usually don't want to admit that!  I addressed this issue before, when I noted that rarely do these people take a holistic view of these matters.  Which brings me to my next point.

Changing rules negates our choices.  The worst part of this kind of change is that it penalizes people who have acted on the incentive structure created in the first place.  Maybe the old rule was "bad," but we have been living with it for quite a while and have adapted.  Now, the time, energy, effort and money we have put into this adaptation is made worthless.  And, does anyone at the Park Service factor that into their decision-making?  Of course not.

A market-based solution still "hurts" me.  Another point that few seem to get is that I am worse off with a market solution.  Prices rise, and I must compete with the fictional backpacker from New Jersey for a permit.  If he/she is willing to pay more, they get the permit.  That is quite likely if it is their once-a-year trip to the canyon, versus being just one of a half dozen trips I make annually.  But, I understand the "fairness" of such a system and am willing to support it, even if it reduces my chances relative to the current system.

My web rating was quite low.  I only got 1.4, out of 5, stars on the web, with an amazing 53 chiming in.  Too bad the web comments were down (while the paper migrates to a new platform), otherwise I might have been able to get a lively debate going here.  I suspect that most of the negative scores came from river runners that hate commercial outfits and wish that they had a much smaller allocation.  But, as I noted in my commentary, if it wasn't for these commercial services, you'd probably have to plan such a trip a year in advance, which is just wasteful.

Privatizing would raise quality.  Absolutely!  It certainly can't lower it!  For years, I have dreaded an overnight stay at the Bright Angel campground because the restroom facilities are just atrocious.  If these campgrounds were private and competitive with one another, I don't think that would be the case.  Indeed, the restroom at Phantom Ranch is in much better shape.  Hmm . . .  Lesson learned!

Saturday, November 14, 2009

   Can Obama Govern? - A little more than a year after he was elected to the most powerful position in the world, the answer is unequivocal - No.  And, really, we shouldn't be surprised.  People who are good at one thing are rarely good at something else.  For example, we really don't expect that an NFL quarterback can be a good running back, or receiver, and certainly not a defensive linebacker.

     Still, we oftentimes will try to project competence across differing areas.  Candidate Barack Obama showed us his superior rhetorical skills.  From that, many projected that aptitude onto the ability to govern.  And, that hasn't worked out.  Obama seems to relish the idea of being President without really having any serious interest in governing in a manner that leaves us better off after his term(s) in office than we were before he started.  He jets off to Copenhagen to make an Olympics pitch.  He travels around the world speechifying on what is wrong with America.  He takes his family on a vacation to the Grand Canyon and Martha's Vineyard.  He seems mesmerized by the spectacle of the presidency and not so intrigued by its hope and promise.

     He dallies on the war in Afghanistan.  He pushes us into more dependence on the government.  He is reckless with how the government should spend taxpayer money, be it on the stimulus or health care, or, coming soon, the cap and trade boondoggle.  He associates himself with the most radical of ideologues.  Yet, I recall his stirring words during the campaign, when he implored us to work together to solve problems, when he promised "change we can believe in," when he was adamant about bipartisanship and transparency.

     And, those things have not happened.  He did not take on the mantle of the stern schoolmaster and force the cantankerous children that populate the House and Senate to sit down and chart an agreeable course into the future.  Instead, it has been the Democrat leadership that has taken control of the process and is steering us into disaster and calamity.

     Now, I don't really believe that Obama disagrees with the other Dems in terms of the policies being pursued.  But, that is not what he promised during the campaign.  But, why should we have expected any different?  He had not a shred of governing experience.  He only had experience as a successful campaigner and articulate speaker.  The conclusion that must be drawn, and it is not a surprising conclusion, is that Obama is a typical politician.  He is not exceptionally gifted at telling the truth, nor at rising above the fray of politics-as-usual.  While one may argue that the hope and promise was our fantasy projection onto Obama, I still remember his words.  And, they were not words I put into his mouth. 

Sunday, September 13, 2009

   Flagstaff Tea Party - It is hard to believe that it has been two weeks since the Tea Party Express rolled through our fair hamlet of Flagstaff.  I think it must be our auspicious position on Interstate 40 - a few years ago we were also favored with a visit from the Ending Earmarks Express - since we are smack dab in the bluest of the blue areas in this otherwise red state.  I guess that makes sense, as the government is the largest employer here, and by a long margin!

     The party started in the early evening, but folks started assembling well in advance of six o'clock.  One of the highlights was that we were featured on Fox News, especially at the front end of both the Hannity show and On The Record with Greta Susteren.  I taped those shows and could see part of my sign showing though those closer to the camera.  The two sides of my sign are shown to the left and right, above.  Cara Lynn also made a sign (see below) as did a colleague of mine who retired a few years ago - LOL to the right.

     The crowd was large and enthusiastic.  The folks running the show have honed their message and staged an event that is informative and entertaining.  While we had some mighty dark clouds threatening, we stayed dry.  We also heard from some local voices, including Tom Jenney, the Arizona director of the Americans for Prosperity.  Tom and I go back to the days he was the Communications Director for the Goldwater Institute.  We also heard from Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin, who is one of a small group of politicians that I really believe would be great for our state in a higher office.  While we currently have an unintended Republican governor (because Dem Janet Napolitano left to become Homeland Security Secretary in D.C.), I still like Martin's chances in the primary and general next year.

Click on any photo to see a larger image.
The "manufactured" crowd had manufactured signs? Not!!	I didn't even see this sign until near the end of the event.	The rally was held at the Tea Party Express buses.  No rain on our party.
As dusk gave way to night, the crowd remained strong and attentive.	I guess Dean Martin is running for governor - I pegged it in 2006.	Cara Lynn waves to passing motorists.

     There were a handful of protesters and they lined up on the opposite side of the street.  I didn't realize that they were protesting until we were about to head home and decided to spend a few minutes on the street waving to passersby.  There were some catcalls going on back and forth across the street, but it seemed mostly in good fun.

     On the other hand, I did have an interesting encounter with one of the food vendors, who asked why everyone was opposed to health care.  At first, I thought he was just making a joke.  But, he went on, and despite my attempt to be both reasonable and courteous, wouldn't really listen to any other view.  His opinion was succinctly stated as, "The job of government is to take care of us."  I don't think he heard my reply that there is no such role for government spelled out in the constitution.  But, I think that his view is exactly what the left-wing believes and it is so antithetical to the founding principles of our country that it is a wonder their heads don't explode from their inability to resolve the contradiction between liberty and freedom, on the one hand, and the desire to take what isn't theirs, from someone else, and justify it as being somehow "just."

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

   Is It Health Insurance? - There is so much awful about the current efforts to "reform" health care, that it is hard to find a place to start any critique.  The presumed motivation of lowering costs and making it more accessible seems laudable, but then the solution should be more competition and less government.  And, anyone who is paying attention to this issue knows that this juggernaut is moving in the opposite direction.  One slice of the current debate that has me constantly cringing is the issue of insurance.  We hear all about the millions of people without health insurance.  The contention is that we can (partly) solve our problems by roping these folks into an insurance pool.

     First, let's dispense with the magnitude of the problem.  When it comes to the actual number of "uninsured" there are easy ways to deflate these figures into something a heck of a lot less than the 47 million we often hear hyped in the media.  Take out 10 million illegals, 17 million that earn more than $50,000 a year and those that choose no insurance because they feel healthy, and you may be left with 7 to 8 million people.  That is something on the order of 2% to 3% of the population.  It hardly seems like a crisis point for the country.  And, under a free and competitive environment, I suspect that 80% of these people could be adequately served.

     But, this still begs the question of what is meant by " insurance?"  Simply put, insurance is a mechanism to protect your wealth when you encounter some event that would otherwise wreak havoc on your finances.  You are not insuring your house, or your car, or your health.  It is your wealth.  If you have no wealth, then insurance isn't especially an issue.  When we hear the argument about "universal coverage," we aren't talking about insurance.  We're talking about defined benefits, that pretty much everyone expects to access.

     You buy insurance to protect yourself from unexpected calamities.  You don't buy insurance to gas up your car, or replace the tires.  You don't buy insurance to paint your house or have a new roof installed.  One of the problems with health insurance is that these are exactly the kinds of items covered - doctor visits, shots, etc.  That is not what I want to insure against.  I expect to make those kinds of payments.  I want insurance for the big things - like cancer - that I hope will never happen.  One reason that the cost of insurance is so high is that the wrong things are being paid for, and I am quite certain that will continue under "universal coverage."

     If we are all going to use the coverage, then it isn't insurance.  Over time, we will have to contribute as much into the system as we get out of it.  Now, that isn't perfectly true, since this will also be like "progressive" taxes - richer people will pay more.  But, insurance isn't about richer people paying more.  It's about individuals paying the expected amount of the weighted odds of "collecting" on the insurance.  That is, if you have a 1% chance of a total loss to your $200,000 home over a twenty year period (e.g., fire), then your insurance would cost $2000 over that time frame, or $100 per year.  If the odds are 100%, then there is no insurance you can buy!  That's the way it works.

     So, if we all expect to use health care, say to the tune of $500,000 each, then that is what we'll have to pay for.  You can't insure against it.  You can only tax people this amount in order to "cover" us.  That is a fraud.  Insurance is insurance.  Benefits are benefits.  Confusing the latter with the former is just another example of political doublespeak.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

   NAU Parking Newspeak - There are so many colossal issues to write about (health scare, cap and tax, and innovation-killing taxes, to name a few), that it is easy to be overwhelmed by such a task.  So, I'll defer on those for now, and focus on a local matter that has me especially irritated:  on-campus parking at Northern Arizona University.  Last year I paid $60 for a permit in an unpaved lot on the edge of campus.  This "yellow" permit was good only in that one lot, Monday through Friday, from 7:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

     Right next to this yellow lot is a paved commuter lot, which requires a "black" permit.  During the summer, this lot is mostly empty.  Since it can rain a lot during the summer, the yellow lot can become quite a mess.  So, at the end of this past spring term I wrote to our Parking Services and asked if they wouldn't allow the yellow permit parkers to use the adjacent lot during the summer, which would help extend the life of the unpaved lot.  [I also blogged about this last summer - Spaces, Spaces, Everywhere]  The reply I got was disheartening - this lot was scheduled to close down this summer, paved, and turned into another commuter lot.  The yellow lot was to be no more.  The income effects on me are significant - today I bought the only kind of permit available to me, at a cost of $314.  That's more than a whopping 500% increase in parking fees for me!

     So, today I have been looking over the Parking Services' website, and I am just amazed at how good an example it is of fuzzy logic, misdirection, obfuscation, and, well . . . Orwellian newspeak.  To wit:

The purpose of meters.  The home page notes, "Meters on campus have been reduced to open up more student parking. Meters are intended for visitors. Student permit owners are prohibited from parking at meters."   Well, I understand that parking should be made available to visitors, and I understand the notion that the metered parking should be reserved for these visitors.  But, why is the prohibition only applied to students?  I wrote to Parking Services and asked if faculty could park at the meters and received a reply of "Yes," noting that, of course, we have to pay for the meter.  So, if they are intended for visitors, but employees can park there, but students can't, what do we conclude?  It's not rocket science.

The purpose of the "Park N Stay" lot.  From the home page, "Park & Stay, originally intended for residential students as a means to decrease vehicles driving on campus, was only being used by commuters. Therefore, it will be paved and converted to commuter parking."  This is false.  The lot was designed to do exactly what it says - get people to park in this one lot and walk, bike, or bus around campus.  The point was to reduce on-campus traffic.  And, the idea is sound.  The fact that a lot of folks like me (especially, the staff), who work on that end of campus, found this to be a nice choice doesn't negate the fact that I did not drive around campus to other lots (my permit wouldn't be valid).  Now that the lot is being paved over, the justification for it has changed in order to validate this decision.  I don't know if this would make Orwell proud, or have him rolling over in his grave.
     Also, I should note that declaring it as "intended for residential students" is also disingenuous.  Those students have to buy "red" permits and can only park in their residential zone on campus.  That is, they have no ability to drive around campus to other lots during the day anyway!

Efficiency is in the eyes of the permit holder.  We have only four categories of parking permits - employee ($314), student commuter ($324), student on-campus resident ($324) and our new parking garage ($418).  Insofar as the latter is concerned, the web page states, "Parking Garage permits will only be permitted to park in the garage to ensure this facility is efficiently used and vehicles are not taking a second parking stall elsewhere on campus."  How is it possible that a full garage is a meaningful measure of efficiency?  Well, it isn't.  But, it is symptomatic of the kind of "thinking" that goes on in government agencies.  Efficiency refers to how well we use our scarce resources relative to our needs and desires.  That's why my college dean has his own parking space, even though he is gone every other week on some kind of fund raising effort.  It would be the height of inefficiency to require him to stay at the college every day just so his parking space can be occupied.  [Of course, a better way would be to auction off spaces, maybe on a daily basis . . .]

The ecoPASS as fraud.  Don't want to pay to park on campus?  Well, there is another option - get an "ecoPASS" and ride the bus into school.  And, it's free!  Of course, it isn't free.  You have expend an inordinate amount of time, energy and effort to use the bus system, especially if you live many miles from campus.  On their ecoPASS page, they state, "Using your ecoPASS helps reduce campus traffic congestion, lessens the impact on employee parking, reduces air pollution, and expands the range of cyclists and walkers."  Does it?  Probably not.  You face increased congestion for on-campus bus services.  What lessening the "impact" on parking means is beyond me, but if it was something real, they wouldn't mind letting garage permit holders park somewhere other than the garage!  And, the last thing I want to see on campus is an increased "range of cyclists."  They are already a hazard to my health!  The web page touts the pass as a way to "Relax On Your Way To Work."  That doesn't sound like any bus system I've ever heard of.  In fact, I recently received an e-mail from a student of mine that just started working in Washington D.C. and has to take the not-so-relaxing metro to work every day.  Her take - "Being productive during the commute is tough, especially when you have zero personal space most days. Sometimes the occasional person tries to pull out a laptop and work on the train, and it never lasts long with how close people cram in. I generally just read the paper in the mornings, but a lot of people sleep, such as the fellow next to me this morning that I had to keep pushing off my shoulder."  Yeech!
     But, there is one more point here.  Not only is this a fraud insofar as our choice go, but it is an accounting fraud as well.  The passes are not free.  The university has to use taxpayer money to pay for them.  And, the bus line, also a government entity, will no doubt count this money as "revenue" rather than as part of its taxpayer support, thus claiming that they are moving closer to being a break-even operation.  I can already feel the chill running up and down my spine in anticipation of reading such a pronouncement. 

Friday, July 10, 2009

   Of Mules and Men - The National Park Service is considering whether to change property rights, with regard to mule travel, at the Grand Canyon.  There were some public "scoping" sessions back in early June.  I attended one, but there wasn't any formal decision to study and comment on - it was all very open ended.  I challenged one of the park spokesman here with the comment that there must be some agenda motivating all this time and energy.  I suspect it is an attempt to reduce and restrict mule travel in the canyon.  He said that the ongoing "conflict" between mules and hikers necessitated a periodic review of these conditions.  I suggested that the appropriate solution to dealing with any perceived "conflict" was to expand the trail infrastructure to accommodate more users, but that I doubt whether anyone at the park service would ever seriously consider such an outcome.  So it goes.  The photo, above, shows the mule barn at the Grand Canyon (click to see a larger image) - the oldest commercial facility currently being used in the United States, as I understand it.  Since the park finished its 1995 General Management Plan, this has been on the chopping block.  As usual, the idea is to preserve the structure and turn it into an interpretation site, while moving the actual operation somewhere else, mostly out of sight of the visitors!

     The deadline for commenting on this issue was June 22, and I didn't realize that until June 23.  Doh!  But, whatever action they decide to pursue, there will be another public airing, so I can comment then.  Still, I penned the following letter to the editor of our local paper, which ran on Tuesday, June 30:

A few other comments:

The selfish issue.  I am always amazed at how easily people fail to see the "selfishness" of their opinions.  Instead, they seem to think that their "vision" is a reflection of a true and just outcome.  I guess that makes them rather pretentious, and, as I infer, not at all tolerant of others.
     This issue is made even more awful, in my opinion, when I read some comments that mules should continue because they help those who cannot physically hike these distances.  The presumption is that if you are healthy enough to hike, you shouldn't be allowed to ride the mule.  Yeech!  I have only ridden the mules once, and clearly I am able to hike.  It was a fantastic trip - I was having a great time looking all around me at the Grand Canyon instead of looking down at the trail!

Expanding the infrastructure.  While nobody with any authority will ever consider this, I do have a more specific suggestion here.  Improve the Hermit's Trail and re-establish the old Hermit Camp.  In other words, turn it into a "Phantom Ranch Lite."  Don't allow the mules back on this trail, so that it can be a viable alternative for hikers, complete with canteen, bunkhouses, et al.  Re-establish the old tram as the supply conduit.  That way, the park would not only honor the history of the area, but actually build on it!

I am not such an outlier on this issue.  One other letter was published by the newspaper on this topic, and also in favor of the mules.  And, some of the Yahoo group (Grand Canyon Hikers) seem fine with the mules as well (although, perhaps a minority).  Also, when I was up at the park on July 1st to stand in line for a November hiking permit, another local came up to me and commented that he mostly agreed with me on the points raised in the letter, and he is well-connected to the liberal side of this community.  And, my letter received a 3.8 rating on the web (out of 5.0) with 29 "votes."  That wasn't enough to crack my way into the top 5, but a very respectable score all in all.

Monday, July 6, 2009

   Signs of the Times - I like to take photos of interesting, quirky, funny, sad, or just plain poignant scenes.  Often times, it is a photo of a sign that catches my attention (see here and here, for example).  But, not always.  I have decided to do a better job of collecting these images and posting them up on a regular basis.  So, don't be surprised to see more "Signs of the Times" in future entries of the Kaibab Journal.

Lucky for me, I didn't get caught.  I was hiking down to Indian Garden, on the Bright Angel Trail, in the Grand Canyon, on July 1st.  In the outhouse there, this sign was posted above the toilet.  Can you imagine having to pay a $100 fine because you had no trash?!
I really don't like the sound of this one.  I was in the Phoenix airport recently, and a deli outside of the security check point had this sign prominently displayed.  And, it is so wrong on so many levels.  First, doesn't "grab and go" seem vaguely criminal?  Then, who could possibly believe that buying a cold sandwich to take on the plane would make your experience akin to being in "paradise?"  Is it a cruel joke?  And, the kicker, which had me do a double-take, was the reference to a "security-friendly" sandwich.  Exactly, what is that?  Is it one that the security guards like?  Is it one that doesn't have more than 3 ounces of mayo?  Really, I want to know.
	Patriotic menu - I like it!  On the way back from Phoenix, we drove through the small hamlet of Pine, and decided to have lunch at HB's.  In the middle of the second page of the laminated menu is a photo of Mt. Rushmore and the words, "Freedom, Liberty, Peace, Trust, Justice, Harmony."  I don't know how they chose those six words, and it is something of a chuckler that right below this they feature, "The Lighter Side of HB's."  BTW, the food is great.
Not eligible for concealed carry permits.  One of my neighbors seems to have upgraded their home security system.  It isn't a very heavy duty tank, but it is a tank nonetheless!  Perhaps they know something about rising taxes that I don't???
St. Louis Tea Party - April 2009.  Cara Lynn was in St. Louis on tax day this past spring and caught the big tea party being held in the park downtown.  She snapped this great photo of the Arch, the old courthouse and this protester's Obama and Socialism poster.  Priceless.  [Click this photo to see a larger image.]

Saturday, June 20, 2009

   Beck for Prez? - As far as I can tell, Glenn Beck is on a huge upswing in popularity.  I might entertain the notion that it is just me.  That is, because he is more popular with me, does that mean he is more popular in general?  Well, maybe.  But, if he's getting dumped on by Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and the harpies at The View, he must be pushing somebody's buttons.

     I first saw Glenn Beck when he had his show on CNN.  When he showed up on Fox this spring, I was more dogged about catching his show, and loving just about every minute of it.  He is funny, articulate and appropriately outraged by the nonsense that goes on in our government.

     He is quite the multi-faceted entertainer, and doesn't really seem to miss a beat in selling himself to his audience.  In early June, he put together a tour covering six cities, including nearby Phoenix.  So, Cara Lynn, Eric and I headed down to the desert on June 2 for his "Common Sense Comedy Tour."  As a comedy performer, I'd give him a B, but his content makes him a unique and singular entertainer.  And, he is funny.

     So, the event was held at the Dodge Theater, where there is a giant board that displays messages you can send via text.  I tried to do so, but the learning curve was too long for me to get on before the show started.  Still, a couple of the comments were some variation on the theme, "Glenn Beck for President."  That got me to thinking . . . 

     One thing that distinguishes conservatives from liberals is that the former are likely to distain political office.  If you want a smaller government that does less, you probably don't really want to expend time, energy and effort to be a part of it.  I mean, wouldn't a libertarian basically run on a platform of, "I don't want to do anything?"  On the other hand, if you want government to be bigger and do more, you might feel compelled to jump into the fray so that you can help transform society into the image you'd like.

     I think that Glenn Beck might make an excellent president, but his message belies any such ambition.  He extols the virtues of individualism, freedom and liberty.  These tenets tend to work against the notion that we need a leader to follow.  And, it is difficult to use this tack if you want to build yourself up to be a leader.  It just doesn't work.

     Alternatively, consider a liberal.  Like President Obama.  He tells us that he can fix the struggling economy.  He can create (or, save) jobs.  He can transition us to a green economy.  He can stop global warming.  He can stop pollution.  He can solve our health care system.  He can . . . well, he can do everything!  That would seem to be the perfect criteria for "leader."

     In another vein, I decided to send a short note to Beck.  To wit:

Dear Mr. Beck, My family and I recently had the pleasure of seeing your Common Sense performance in Phoenix, although the 300 miles we drove, round trip from Flagstaff, meant we returned home in the early a.m. hours Wednesday!  Great stuff! You have made much of the curtailing of our economic freedoms, and I couldn’t agree with you more.  But, there is the obvious (or, is it?) fallout from these restrictions, perhaps best summarized by Milton Friedman in his classic, “Capitalism and Freedom:” "On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself.  In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom."  [Chapter 1, page 8, 1982 University of Chicago edition] When I first read this, many years ago, I was bowled over.  While economic freedom cannot guarantee political freedom, you cannot have the latter without the former.  Isn’t this a point that you should also be making?  Too many people fail to see the power of Friedman’s argument.  For example, if the government mandates pay levels for private sector employees, they automatically constrain how well these individuals can operationalize their rights to free speech.  Or, consider a different example - if the government decides I cannot get enough gasoline to drive to Phoenix, then I can’t participate in a Tea Party and my voice is made the weaker, as a matter of government policy.  This insidious result should frighten us out of our wits! Indeed, Friedman pulls no punches in this book, as he begins by critiquing the famous quote from JFK’s inaugural, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”  Writes Friedman: "Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society."  [Introduction, page 1, 1982 University of Chicago edition] Perhaps it is time to introduce a new generation of Americans to the insights of Milton Friedman. Keep up the good work! Sincerely, Dennis Foster

    
     While Milton Friedman passed away in 2006, many have started to make special arrangements to remember the famed economist on his birthday.  Mark your calendars - the date is July 31.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

   Shamans' Gallery - For some years, I have been thinking about a return to Shamans' Gallery, so that I can take some digital photos.  After my first (and only) visit in 1996, I thought that this could be done as part of a really long day trip from Flagstaff.  Cara Lynn was interested in going, so off we went on the Sunday before Memorial Day, 2009.

 
For the full story:
Tuckup Trail to Shamans' Gallery
in the Hiking Grand Canyon section of the Kaibab Journal

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

   Self-Orienting Maps, et al. - This past Memorial Day weekend, Cara Lynn and I took a day trip to see Shaman's Gallery (or, is it Shamans? or Shamans'? or, call it Gordon's Panel).  Anyway, on the road we were listening to the radio and some commentator on NPR was whining about the demise of newspapers and how they would miss the tactile sense of holding the news in their hands, while sipping on their latte.  Give me a break!  That got us to talking about how innovations are, by and large, improvements.  So, while I am not inclined to sit down with my cup 'o joe and a Kindle, I can imagine that innovations will continue apace and we will have a suitable substitute for the "newspaper experience."  Some years ago, I had heard of paper thin LCD screens that would allow for downloaded material into a book that you could read as a book.  [And, when you were done, you can just clear the pages.]  The technology goes by the name of "electronic ink," or "electronic paper."

     So, with our thinking caps on, we developed how this would work to supplant newspapers.  First, pick the newspaper size that suits you.  Then, hook up to the internet (hmm . . . can this be done wirelessly?) and download whatever paper you want.  Or, some combination of papers.  And, you can tailor the paper as you see fit - sports first, or national news, maybe with a cartoon at the bottom of each page, instead of all on one page.  You can read it as four pages, and hit scrolling buttons to advance to later pages.  Or, you can jump to the rest of the story you are reading directly.  At first, I doubt that this faux newspaper will really feel like a newspaper, but over time, it may well resemble the real deal.

     And, that led us to another innovation:  self-orienting maps.  As we were traveling along dirt roads, mostly unmarked, I was armed with a topo map and estimating our position by noting when we would meet up with intersecting roads.  Remarkably effective, although there are more side roads than are shown on the old map!  Well, the dilemma here is that maps are oriented with north at the top and we were driving south.  I have almost always kept the map in its printed orientation and made mental notes that roads on "map left" were going to show up on my right, and vice versa.  Yeah, that gets confusing.  But, on my recent spring break hike, I noticed that Bill Ferris always held his map oriented to his direction of travel.  Then, he just needed to read labels and numbers sideways and upside down.  After a while, I decided I liked this approach.  So, on our drive to Shamans Gallery, I decided to orient the map with south at the top.  That worked great, but we still had to contend with reading information upside down.

     But, we got to thinking about the newspaper idea and decided this technology would also work for maps.  First, it would be cool to just download your map onto a standard sized sheet (bigger than 8.5 x 11, I would think).  And (a drum roll, please), as you turned the map to orient it in the direction you are traveling, the labels and numbers would rotate with you!  Sign me up.  And, if you could write electronic notes on your map (with a stylus), you can then download it to your PC when you get home.  Probably there are plenty of other accessories that people would want on these maps.  Perhaps, I'll solicit ideas from the folks at the Yahoo Grand Canyon group.

Monday, January 19, 2009

   Dismantling Our Heritage - We went up to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon for a day trip.  We had a few things we wanted to do.  More on that later.  While up at Powell Memorial, we were dismayed to see that the park service has finally gotten around to dismantling the headframe to the old Orphan Mine, shown to the right (click any photo to see a larger image), which is probably about fifty years old.  It is a sad commentary on the NPS, which extols the virtues of historic structures, but only as long as they think that these structures are worth preserving.  For years, they have also wanted to tear down the Thunderbird and Kachina Lodge.  Thankfully, that has not yet come to pass.

     So, why were we up at the canyon?  Many reasons . . .

Kolb Exhibit.  I wanted to see the exhibit at Kolb Studio on historic mapping of the Grand Canyon.  [Until 2/15/09, you can read more about this here - Mapping the Grand Canyon. Later, visit their archives to find out more on this exhibit.]  These exhibits usually last for many months, so I do have ample opportunities.  But, we missed out on this during our December backpacking trip to Phantom Ranch.  This day trip afforded us the time to really peruse this exhibit.  I give it 4.5 stars - alas, no copies of Walcott's maps from the early 1880s were included.  An oversight, in my humble opinion.  Also, it is interesting to note that when Emory Kolb died, the studio was turned into a bookstore for the Grand Canyon Association, ending its historic use in favor of something else that the NPS endorsed!

Drive new & improved Hermit Road.  I also wanted a chance to drive the newly reconstructed Hermit Road (aka, West Rim Drive), which runs the eight miles between the Bright Angel Lodge and Hermit's Rest.  The road had been in very poor shape for a number of years.  I think that the park service should have added a direct road from Hermit's Rest back to the South Rim Village, so that hikers could access the trail here year round, without having to rely on the awful shuttle service.  But, it was not to be.  The new road looks just like the old road, except it isn't crumbling nor wavy.  But, no wider than before!  No bike lanes!  And, parking for the 2+ months of its being open to the public is woefully inadequate.  The photo, to the right, shows parking at Powell Memorial, which is typical of the viewpoints along this road.  Wouldn't some angled parking here have doubled the available spaces at little additional cost?  Probably, but that's not the way the park service thinks.  But, there was one major improvement, which gets my full support.  The restrooms at Hermit's Rest have been totally redone.  Now, there are four little building (see photo), each with two units.  They are roomy and include hand sanitizer dispensers.  There are also some vending machines here (drinks and snacks) and a water fountain that works during the winter.  A vast improvement over the older facility, even though these are outhouses and not flush toilets.

Meal Ready to Eat - a field test.  We also used this opportunity to try out some MREs that Cara Lynn got from an old friend.  MREs are "meals ready to eat" and are used by the military.  I tried one at home, but those are rather ideal conditions.  [Even so, I mistakenly added a package of salt to my instant coffee.  Bleech!  All I can say is that it sure looked like a sugar packet.]  Cara Lynn had a chicken and noodles meal, while I had the beef enchilada.  Very good, with just a little bit of a learning curve on our part.  The meals heat up when some chemical pellets are activated by air and water.  Works well to generating a hot meal, although the staying power of the "heaters" is not enough to really get your hot drink up to speed.  Still, I am impressed with the quality and variety of items included.  A slight breeze caused us to make sure everything got tucked under something heavy.  You can see Cara Lynn's meal to the right.  Yes, it included the M&Ms.  I would say that they are a bit too heavy for backpacking purposes, but they were nice on this cold Saturday in January.  We ate at the picnic area by the Hermit trailhead, as did three other groups of visitors.  Too bad you can only drive out here in December, January and part of February.  You wouldn't expect the shuttle bus riders to haul out picnic supplies during the rest of the year.  So it goes.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

   Klaatu Goes PC - We went to see the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still last week.  I give it three quarters of a star, but I'm not really sure why.  Maybe it was just the neat twist of the alien/s having landed years earlier and snatched some DNA to use to make a human that can be sent to us for the purpose of interaction.  Yeah, in the original, you have to believe that Michael Rennie was a human from another planet, as if that was the natural order of things.  Beyond that, there isn't anything about this movie to recommend.

     But, that is not why I am writing about this film.  Instead, my beef is that the film has stood the premise of the original on its head.  In the 1951 epic film, Klaatu has come to Earth to issue a warning to us not to take our fighting, now that we have nuclear capabilities, beyond our planet, which would threaten other worlds.  [Hmm, sounds a lot like the current Israel/Gaza conflict!]  Although he "came in peace," he was rude not to have called ahead - maybe then he wouldn't have gotten shot at!  Still, his character was supposed to be naive about the specifics of our culture and a big chunk of the film shows him getting to know us better.  His only demand was that he present his message to a diverse group that represented all the various peoples of the Earth.

     The new Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) is, well, an idiot.  He is supposed to know all about us, and even seeks out another alien living among us for a report.  Yet, he doesn't seem to understand how to communicate with us.  Indeed, he doesn't really have a message to relay to us.  Instead, he is here to destroy us in order to "save the planet."  I guess you could say that he is a metaphor for environmental extremism.  If they hadn't played him so serious, but, instead, more delusional (or, even insidious, like the villain in the new Bond film, Quantum of Solace) then I might have given this movie a full star.

     After seeing the new version, I pulled out my DVD copy of the original and watched that, paying closer attention to the message of the film, because I was sure that it had been totally perverted by the remake.  And, that is certainly the case.  I jotted some of the key passages in Klaatu's final speech, which left me admiring that film even more:

     To my surprise, I have just discovered that Klaatu is a libertarian!  While the filmmakers were not trying to promote this kind of interpretation, it is the inescapable result of how they sought to operationalize their anti-war sentiments.  Here is what we get from the passages quoted above:

Limited government.  This interplanetary association has only one purpose - secure individual freedom from aggression.  That is pure Ayn Rand material.  There isn't any aid and assistance to us, to help in our dismantling of weapons.  There isn't any interplanetary definition of marriage.   There isn't any common currency standard.  Nothing but just the protection of the individual from force of violence.  You can't get any more libertarian than that.

The state doesn't regulate behavior.  They just don't care what we do, as long as we're not violent.  No social conventions to enforce.  No behavior to criminalize.  A libertarian's dream world!

Free enterprise is embraced.  I love the line about pursuing "more profitable enterprises."  It doesn't have to refer to making money, but it explicitly allows for that outcome.  And, the concept of free enterprise is really the expression of capitalism.  I doubt that many viewers would walk away from the movie thinking that Klaatu's message is that capitalism is best, but that's what he said.

A strict enforcement of property rights.  The notion that the robot police force has a simple mandate, and that it is carried out automatically, and, apparently, swiftly, means that property rights are pre-eminent in this system.

A de facto encouragement of economic growth.  Capitalism requires property rights, lest there is no trade, and relies on voluntary transactions.  The threat of force and violence deter these transactions, so their elimination would sow the seeds of dramatic economic growth and development.

     So, while the new, politically-correct, version of this movie is a stinker, turning Klaatu into a bullying socialist tyrant, the original version gets five stars from me.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

   Financial Market Turmoil - With the recent turmoil in financial markets, and given my relative advantage in this area (I have been teaching a course in "Money & Banking" the last four years), I asked the editor (Randy Wilson) of the Daily Sun if he would be interested in an editorial on the topic under their "Coconino Voices" banner, which is an irregular platform for locals with expertise to spout off about things they know something about.  He was enthusiastic about this, and even though I finished it off on Friday (10/3), he got it on the main editorial page for Sunday.  While it has been a couple of days since then, surprisingly there are no web comments on my opinion piece.  That seems odd, although Randy told someone else that he did expect to see some letters come in on my editorial.  We'll see.  Still, my colleague Doug Brown, who is quite the polar opposite of me insofar as politics and economics goes, told me that he was asking his students to comment on my piece as part of a homework assignment.  So, that's good news and I'll be interested in hearing how they react to it.

     As you can note, the theme here is that there has been too much regulation in this industry and that our current (and future!) problems stem from these regulations, not from "greed" nor from "poor oversight," hence the nod to Hayek with the "fatal conceit" reference in the title.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

   The Five Ring Circus - I have never been much of an avid follower of the Olympics.  I have only seen bits and pieces over the years, although I do remember catching some of the major events from time to time.  This is especially true of the summer version, when there is so much else to do with my time, energy and effort.  The winter version, on the other hand, fills up dead space in my schedule.

     So, since the games have begun in Beijing, I have tuned in a few times, on a sporadic basis.  And, what do I see?  Well, there is beach volleyball, some kind of handball version of soccer, some kind of stick version of broomball, archery, more beach volleyball, some "real" volleyball, water polo and some women's weight lifting.  I must say that I scratch my head and ponder exactly what the Olympics are supposed to mean.  And, then, there is the issue of how many medal opportunities a participant may have - for swimmer Michael Phelps it is quite high, while for a basketball player it must certainly just be one.  So, how do you compare the performance of the two?  Well, here are my suggestions . . .

Eliminate team sports.  To my eye, the Olympics should be about individual achievement.  So, team sports should be tossed.  No water polo.  No soccer.  No hockey.  No softball.  Those might be interesting games, but they should only appear in some other venue.
   Exceptions:  Teams where the competition is not one-on-one, like rowing and relays.

Eliminate games entirely.  I don't think chess is an Olympic sport . . . yet!  But, tennis is, and it shouldn't be.  The Olympics are a competition, but not one in a game.  No tennis.  No ping pong.  No badminton.

Eliminate competitions based on judging.  Any competition where the participant must look up to see how they scored among a set of judges doesn't cut it with me.  There must be rules for competitors, and some enforcement mechanism, but let's just throw out all the "sports" that get scored.  No pommel horse.  No rings.  No synchronized swimming.  No diving.  No trampoline.
   Exceptions:  Change the gymnastics "competition" into truly athletic events - who can jump the most pommel horses in one minute, etc.

Crown one champion.  Whoever wins the decathlon, or some variation thereof, would be deemed "the Olympic Champion."  Score this as currently is done, or come up with some alternative scheme that can produce an overall champion that excels across many fields.  The modern day triathlon is really a better indicator of who is "best" than is someone who wins nine medals in closely related competitions.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

   Taxes and Morality - When the issue of sales taxes comes up in the local arena, I am constantly amazed at how easy it is for supporters to make the argument that we should support such a tax, or its expansion, in part because visitors pay a sizable chunk of these taxes.  Well, it happens everywhere, but that doesn't make it right.  How often have you traveled somewhere and, upon inspecting your hotel room bill seen a line item called "room tax?"  It is the same principle - tax people who are just passing through and make them help to pay for local services which they aren't going to use!  It is the ultimate in taxation without representation.  And, yet, it enjoys such widespread political support.  I have never heard anyone raise the issue of the morality of such a taxing scheme.  While we are constantly barraged with issues of ethical behavior, how can such a lapse go so totally unnoticed?  The ballot measure to raise taxes to help fund the bus system has been touted as a sort of kinder and gentler tax since it is a sales tax and we get a lot of visitors in Flagstaff, who really are never going to use the bus system.  So, it's like free money.  I decided to address the issue with this editorial.   This comment ran on April 27.

     My comment about "making sense" was a retort to a letter published in the paper criticizing my earlier stance on the bus system.  The author of that letter, Marcus Ford, and I have tangled in print over the years and will likely continue to do so.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

   The Dirty Dozen - Such is the title of a new book by Robert Levy and William Mellor.  [The image to the right is linked to the Amazon web page.]  It is the story of the "worst" twelve Supreme Court decisions in the modern era, meaning since about the Great Depression.  Yes, way too many would otherwise come from the first hundred years!  Author Robert Levy was featured at the Goldwater Institute this past week as part of their "Who's Writing Now?" series, which Cara Lynn and I were fortunate enough to be able to attend this past Thursday.

     Levy gave a fascinating talk to the crowd of one hundred, or so, out on the patio behind the institute building.  He pursued a law degree in his mid-40s after having been a successful entrepreneur.  He clerked for Clint Bolick, who is currently the director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at Goldwater.  Bolick said that Levy, now a senior fellow at Cato, was the most unusual law clerk they ever had - during his lunch breaks at the firm, he would be on the phone to his broker buying and selling stock!  And, apparently, doing quite well for himself.  In fact, the firm not only offered Levy a job, but put him on their board of directors.

     Levy was a very engaging speaker and had the crowd listening in rapt attention.  The stories of these cases, chosen in part from a survey he and his co-author conducted among other lawyers, were fascinating, if brief for this venue.  Still he talked to us for close to an hour and took questions at the end.  Afterwards, we got a copy of his book (not available at stores until May 1), and Cara Lynn got Levy to sign a copy for us.

     The book is great.  The chapters can be read in whatever order you wish.  I started with some of the more peculiar economics-related cases - Wickard v. Filburn (Congress can pass a law that you can't grow wheat for your own consumption because it interferes with interstate commerce!); the Gold Clause Cases (where a building owner in Des Moines had to keep the rent on his 143,000 square foot office building fixed at $23,000 from 1933 to 1993 because the government ended the gold standard!!); Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (Congress can defer its legislative abilities to unelected bureaucracies - in this case the EPA - who can establish rules, determine penalties and adjudicate guilt!!!).

     Why is it that these cases are unfamiliar to me?  I am reasonably intelligent and well-read.  I guess that they just didn't make it into the educational curriculum at the schools I attended, probably because they are so crucial to the foundation of the current welfare/nanny state mentality that so infects the body politic.  Yes, we did cover the Dred Scott case, but that didn't make Levy and Mellor's book because it was an old case, and, of course, since overturned by constitutional amendment.  And, there is another thing.  Someone asked Levy if the notion that the constitution is a "living document" was legitimate.  Absolutely not, was Levy's response.  That notion denigrates the value of the constitution, making it meaningless.  Times do change, and the framers constructed a method by which we can amend the constitution to reflect those changes.  This has been done seventeen times.  Yet, we have been inculcated with the notion that the "living constitution" is some kind of special gift, when, in fact, it is a curse.  Two thumbs up.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

   All Quiet on the Western Front - In late October, we drove up to the Grand Canyon to attend the second annual Grand Canyon Hikers Symposium, sponsored by the Grand Canyon Hikers & Backpackers Association.  Great stories all day long.  On our way out of town, the sun was setting behind the helipad, in Tusayan.  We stopped and I was able to snag this great shot of the helicopters at rest. 

Sunday, October 14, 2007

   Nobel Peace Politics Prize - I am sure that the question is being asked far and wide, if not across the globe, then at least across the net - "How can it be that Al Gore is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?"  Exactly what has he done to promote peace?  I really can't think of a single thing.  Even a more broadly countenanced standard of "humanitarianism" eludes the former veep.  After all, did he use the bully pulpit of his Vice Presidency to rail against the genocide in Rwanda?  Well, no.  Has he been touring the world raising consciousness about the human tragedy of Darfur?  No, but maybe it's on his "to do" list.

     Certainly, Al Gore is not in the same category as last year's winner, Muhammad Yunus, who won for his pioneering efforts to create a micro-loaning bank that has helped the desperately poor, in Bangladesh, pull themselves out of poverty and, in making meaningful productive contributions, raise the standard of living in their localities.  That is humanitarian.  Indeed, the Nobel announcement for Gore cites "[his] efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."  Since everything that Dr. Yunus has been doing for the past thirty years has been to help people increase their contribution to "man-made climate change," one is left to wonder whether Dr. Yunus' prize will have to be returned.

     Upon hearing of Gore's selection, my spouse wrote to me and asked, "Does the Nobel Peace Prize mean nothing?" to which I responded, "Yes, it means nothing."  Here's a list of what is wrong with the Nobel committee's statement:

Measures are needed to counteract changing climate.  No.  Absolutely not.  That is the point that is made, over and over again, by Czech President Václav Klaus, most recently in a speech before the United Nations.

Man-made sources are significant contributors to climate change.  There is no evidence for this.  Most of the warming that has occurred over the last hundred years occurred before 1940, before humans made any significant contribution to CO₂ in the atmosphere. 

Al Gore is helping to "disseminate" knowledge about man-made climate change.  No.  He is disseminating his own message, but that he continues to duck debate proposals on this topic (see JunkScience and DemandDebate) tells me that he isn't interested in clearing the air on this topic.

     So, let's call this prize what it really is - The Nobel Politics Prize.  Indeed, if Gore gets his way, in terms of a command and control system that crushes economic progress and development, he'll make Rachel Carson's contribution to world-wide genocide seem like small potatoes.  Which is probably what we'll be eating.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

   When the Poor are Fat ... - The Trust for America's Health has issued its annual report on obesity in America.  I have no qualms with the bottom line (pardon the pun) - it is getting wider all the time.  Why, just last week, I was having breakfast with Sue and Tom, my sister and her mate.  Tom had just returned from a three week motorcycle cruise around a big chunk of the country and was noting how many fat people he saw on his travels.  I pointed out to him that the three of us had just ordered four breakfasts (at our favorite place - the Cracker Barrel), so we could split the order of pecan pancakes.  Well, none of us are obese, but we can each lose ten pounds.  Still, lifestyle is everything, isn't it?

     One thing that interested me about the report is the "connection" between obesity and poverty.  "Eight of the states with the highest poverty rates are also in the top 15 states with the highest obesity rates," according to the report (p. 15).  This observation should cause pause, not so much about the problem of obesity, but about the definition of poverty.  It seems clear to me that we have defined poverty in a dysfunctional manner if it can include people who eat too much.  I thought poverty meant that you didn't have enough income to properly feed, clothe and shelter yourself.  If poor people are fat, then they are, ipso facto, not poor.  There cannot be any other conclusion.

     A huge problem with the tenor and tone of this report is its advocacy for government involvement.  The report was funded by a private group, and, as best I can tell, it wasn't funded with any taxpayer money.  They seem to have a good handle on measuring the problem, and suggesting ways to combat it.  But, the report harps on the role of government, even to the extent of providing a host of public opinion survey results, showing how much people agree that the government should be involved.  Yeech.  Some of their proposals include:

-- "Restricting the sale of foods of poor nutritional value in schools."  [p. 45]
-- "Increasing the minimum food stamp benefit."  [p. 45]
-- "Providing subsidies to farmers' markets to accept Electronic Benefit Transfer cards."  [p. 46]
-- Provide "subsidies for growing fruits and vegetables."  [p. 46]
-- "Encourage new building design that encourages use of staircases rather than elevators or escalators."  [p. 79]
-- Use "[s]tate and federal transportation dollars ... for mass transit, sidewalk, and mixed use opportunities rather than be focused on highway construction."  [p. 79]
-- "The federal government should develop and implement a National Strategy to Combat Obesity."  [p. 93]
-- Require that "private employers and insurers ... ensure that every working American has access to a workplace wellness program."  [p. 94]
-- "Provide No or Low Cost Physical Activity Opportunities ... such as YMCAs."  [p. 97]

     There are many good ideas here, but using the government as the blunt force instrument to operationalize them is a huge mistake.  It is bad enough that we have to use government to deal with a host of real ills that afflict us.  But, this notion that something so controllable at the individual level must call into being a gigantic bureaucracy and boatloads of regulations is just mind numbing.

Monday, July 23, 2007

   Remembering Peppyr - For about a year, Peppyr had been feeling the ill effects of old age.  We celebrated her 15th birthday this month, with special dog treats from the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory.  But, her worsening arthritis, the loss of some forty percent of her weight, an increasing inability to stand, and a dramatic lessening of appetite, led us to have her put to sleep this past Friday.  She was a great companion and the first dog I've ever had.  The sadness felt by Cara Lynn, Eric and me is certainly a testament of how easily it was for us to project some of ourselves onto her.

      I have a great many fond memories of Peppyr.  I took her hiking a lot.  I can still see her trying to hop up the steep steps on her first hike on the Fatman's Loop at Mt. Elden.  She was to the top of Mt. Humphreys at least twice.  We would often hike up, and jog back, along the trails at Sandy Seep and the Inner Basin.  Our longest hike together was from the Inner Basin to the Mt. Elden trailhead parking lot.  We were both tired and sore for some days afterwards.

     She came along on many camping trips to the North Rim - Saddle Mountain, Jumpup Canyon, and Crazy Jug were favorite spots to camp.  The photo, on the right, shows us looking over a benchmark site above Hack Canyon in 2004.  I am reasonably sure that she was the first dog to walk across the old Navajo Bridge, below Lees Ferry, as we happened by there right after the new bridge opened for business (but, before the ceremony marking its use).  I also took her on some road trips - a couple of times to visit family in Denver, and once on a trip to Fargo.  But, mostly we spent our time together hiking, especially in Flagstaff.

     There are tons of humorous moments that I recall - like her chasing after snowballs in the deep snow of the front yard.  She would stick her nose into the spot where the snowball had landed and try to fathom what had happened to it.  She never did catch the LED pen light shining on the carpet.  Nor, did she ever manage to catch her tail, as I recall.  Also, she was great at holding a dog biscuit on her nose until I allowed her to lean over, let it slide off, and eat it.

     I got Peppyr from the Humane Society in August of 1992.  She, and two siblings, were the last of a large litter available for adoption.  Exactly what kind of dog she was, besides "Humane Society Special," was unclear.  She had a cool distinctive white tip to her always-curly tail, and her paws looked like someone had dipped her into white paint.  The short hairs on her spine would shoot straight up when she got into an attack mode, which wasn't very often.  She was very good at "fetch" but not so good at "let go."

     The decision to put Peppyr to sleep was not an easy one, but we'll have many good memories to keep with us.  During our final visit to the Canyon Pet Hospital, I should also note that the reception staff, the techs and our vet, Dr. Chris, showed us a great deal of kindness, consideration and professionalism.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

   Saving Places - A bout with the flu, a week backpacking in the Grand Canyon, and a boat load of grading have kept me relatively idle on the blog front.  Time to jump back in . . .

     In the 1995 General Management Plan, adopted for Grand Canyon, the Park Service planned to demolish the Thunderbird and Kachina Lodges, which are located on the rim of the canyon, between the El Tovar Hotel and the Bright Angel Lodge.  Why?  I suppose the short answer is, "Because they can."  I think, though, that this proposal speaks to a deeper character flaw in the people that run the NPS, in general, and the Grand Canyon, in particular.  They hate tourists.  They don't want people to go to the Grand Canyon, and, if they must come, they don't want to stay near the rim.  I guess that having people really close to these magnificent views would somehow harm the canyon.

     In the late 1990's, I circulated a flyer around during the Earth Day celebration on the campus of Northern Arizona University, which asked people to write to the superintendent to "Save the Kachina" and to "Save the Thunderbird."  OK, so it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, since the nutjobs that attend these "rallies" are not really interested in development that promotes tourism.

     Thankfully, the park service has been unable to carry through with this part of its plan.  So, the lodges remain.  A few years ago, while the Canyon Forest Village proposal was getting the approval of our county Board of Supervisors, the demise of these lodges was the focus of some attention.  The board decided that 900 rooms, at CFV, was enough, but allowed for the possibility of future expansion, contingent upon the removal of the Kachina and Thunderbird.  Somehow, the notion that tourists should stay overnight 7 miles from the rim, rather than right on the rim, was thought to improve the quality of their visits.  Or, not.

     Last week, there was a "listening session" held at the Museum of Northern Arizona, where local park officials, including the Superintendent from Grand Canyon, would hear what people had to say about the parks.  I wanted to attend, and actually planned on it.  But, the information on the timing of this session was incorrect in the local paper, so, alas, I was unable to go and have my voice heard.  But, I am sure that all the usual suspects (i.e., local activists) did attend.  In a follow-up article on this event, in the local paper, former Grand Canyon resident, Bruce Aiken, made some disparaging remarks about the Kachina and Thunderbird lodges.  So, I thought to pen a quick response, which ran in the paper this past Easter Sunday:

     In 2018 and 2021, these two lodges will be 50 years old, and may become eligible to become historic sites.  It is not a slam dunk, and it is possible to get on the list earlier, but I will bet that the park service will continue to try to tear down these buildings before they can be officially recognized as part of our history.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

   The Unimportance of Education - For many years there has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with public education.  The basis for that discontent is the inability to produce students that are truly educated.  In the grade schools, the pressure to pass students through the system, without an education, can be somewhat tempered by vigilant parents.  And, the whole choice/voucher debate will, hopefully, push the system towards more and more competition.

     Education is, after all, a very personal and individual quality.  I often tell my students that I can't "teach" them anything; that "teaching" is a misnomer.  I can talk; I can cajole; I can threaten; I can entice; I can penalize; I can reward; I can even entertain.  But, I cannot "teach."  What is really happening is that students are learning.  Or, not.  I do try to help them, but, it really has more to do with them than it does with me.  I don't take any credit for the A+ student, but, neither do I take any blame for the F student.  I provide them with the opportunity to learn, and, then, I judge them accordingly.  Indeed, my primary task is to judge them, based on how they have demonstrated what they have learned.

     At the university level, where I "teach," we are constantly under pressure from forces that work towards an erosion of our educational standards for the students that we graduate.  The more robust the competition for students, and the less a financial role that is played by the state, the more likely it is that these forces will be effectively balanced by the desire, on the part of students and parents, that our college degrees actually represent the earning of an education.

     Of course, there have been critics.  The seminal work by Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, is a powerful indictment against a system that places more value on self-esteem than on developing a reasoning faculty in students.  A recent essay by one of my favorites, Arnold Kling, laments the proliferation of "Wizard-of-Oz diplomas" - ones that looks good on paper, but are hardly worth the paper they are printed on.

     At the university where I "teach" we are being quickly propelled towards a world where all we do is give out Wizard-of-Oz diplomas.  Our president has said, over and over again, that every graduating high school student in Arizona should go to college.  And, we are becoming blindingly focused on the "retention" of these students, since every student in our university means more money from the state and the feds.  Now, the public choice economist in me understands full well why the president of a large state university would argue for more students and argue for keeping them in school longer.  What does dismay me is that there aren't more (or, any?) voices out there questioning such a transparent conflict of interest.

     It wasn't too many years ago that the mindset of the administration was much more focused on graduates that were well-educated.  At least, that was the case in the business college, where I work.  [In the education college, they don't seem to have focused on education for at least a generation; for a prime example see one of my earlier blogs.]  The classes I am primarily responsible for, were described as "weed-out" classes by a former dean.  That probably sounds rather impolitic, but the mindset was that our graduates would be better-served with a diploma that actually means something about the level of their education.  A marketing student would call this the "branding" effect.

     But, now, that has changed.  Our current charge is to "produce diplomas."  There is the addendum of, "but, not by lowering standards," but that is just disingenuous double-talk.  The quality of our students hasn't changed, in any appreciable sense, in many years.  We don't really have much in the way of an admission standard.  And, they are, by and large, the products of a pretty awful public secondary school system.  On average, the students I see don't know how to write well, don't like to read much and are not inclined to think.  They believe that hearing me say something is equivalent to their having learned something.  And, we seem to be on the crest of a wave that will validate this belief.  I now tell my students that there are two goals they may pursue at the university - getting a degree and getting an education.  One is easier than the other.  One presents the illusion of success.  One will short-change them in the long run.

     I don't know how this will all turn out.  I suspect that we will delude ourselves that our standards have not fallen, while we watch more and more skilled work being done abroad.  There may be some private sector responses that will help to alleviate this proliferation of the Wizard-of-Oz diploma, but that requires students pay again to get the opportunities that were missed the first time around.  Over the years I have been teaching, one suggestion that I would make, that would likely raise the educational attainment of students in a dramatic fashion, is to raise the minimum age for college to 21, or 22.  If someone wants to go at 18, or 19, or 20, they can pay a premium for that option.  If they are very smart and test well, they can earn scholarships to pay that premium.  Otherwise, most of the students I see really would be better off by making their college years the ones from 22 to 25 rather than 18 to 21.  After all, the collapse of the social security system will necessitate later retirement ages anyway, so why be in a rush to start a 40, or 50, year career?  It probably would be less of a burden on parents as well, as they can insist that their children provide more financial resources for their own college education.  Well, it's just an idea.

Tuesday, August 1, 2006

   Smug Localism - The local paper ran a story about "buying local" put out by the Christian Science Monitor, titled, "Buying local may not always be best."  I thought it was an excellent piece, because it actually treated globalism proponents as serious and reasonable!!  That's a far cry from how this issue is usually treated.  I was going to send a quick e-mail to the editor commenting on what a good story it was.  But, there appeared a few disparaging letters over the last week and the editor, in his weekly column, pooh-poohed these views as "contrarian."  Well, so much for an enlightened press.  So, while I thought to write a letter in response, it wasn't until another pro-local letter appeared, written by Becky Daggett, the Executive Director of the Friends of Flagstaff's Future, that I was motivated to respond . . .

     There are other issues here worthy of mention.

Ad hominem attacks show weakness for "localism" argument.  Both Daggett and earlier letter writer, Ned Barnett, attacked the globalism argument by attacking the people who were representing the argument.  This is known as the ad hominem fallacy.  Why attack the argument when you can question the arguer?  Daggett's criticism was especially egregious in this regard by whining that a buy-local critic works for the Hudson Institute, which is funded, in part, by corporations like Wal-Mart.  She writes that, "This could be why Mr. Avery takes a dim view of supporting ... locally owned businesses."  Isn't it funny how these smug social activists cannot fathom the notion that researchers at conservative think tanks (like Hudson) actually believe in what they do?

What do we buy locally?  Clearly, we are quite motivated to buy goods and services that cost us as little as possible.  Some may get satisfaction from shopping at the local bookstore, versus the Barnes and Noble, but what they are buying is a bundle of services we can label as "ambiance."  Generally speaking, services are most likely to be provided locally, because it is costly for us to travel elsewhere.  Services like - lawyers, doctors, financial planners, realtors, auto mechanics, insurance agents, and so on.  Most of these services are provided for by locally-owned firms (perhaps sole proprietors) even if they are associated with regional, and national, businesses.  That is, my MetLife agent owns his own business. 

What is local?  Years ago, while serving a three month stint as the public member of the editorial board for the local paper, the Arizona Daily Sun, I was astounded that they (editors, reporters) didn't understand the concept of a locally-owned franchise.  That is, they thought any national chain business must be run by the corporation.  I tried to disabuse them of this notion, but I can't say that I was wholly successful.  I pointed out that the local Sizzler was owned by a second, or third, generation Flagstaff resident.  Conversely, a downtown coffee shop was opened up by a couple that had just moved to Flagstaff six months earlier from California.  Which is local and which isn't?  In fact, the California couple pulled up stakes the following year and moved on to Colorado. 

Beware the lazy social activist.  At the end of my letter, I reference the use of government to curtail our choices.  The background for this was the decision by the city council, a couple of years ago, to place size, and usage, limitations on retail businesses, expressly to keep Wal-Mart from locating a Supercenter in Flagstaff.  There was a petition drive to place the matter on the ballot, and voters overturned this decision.  But, I don't think that will satisfy these lazy social activists from trying to use government to restrict our freedoms in the future.

Some related blogs:
Wal-Mart Bashing - Critiquing the anti Wal-Mart movie, "The High Cost of Low Price."
Brown v. Foster - A comment on a debate I had with a colleague about the anti Wal-Mart movie.

Final thought - A remark from another colleague of mine, has lodged permanently in my brain, and seems apropos for this piece: "Why should I care about the Mom and Pop store?  Mom and Pop have been ripping me off for years."

Saturday, April 1, 2006

   Plenty of April Fools at Grand Canyon Trust - Well, not just at the Trust.  And, not just in April.  But, the recent efforts by a group called the Just Transition Coalition, of whom the Grand Canyon Trust is a member, will surely put other April Fool pranksters to shame.  However, it should be noted, that the JTC did get an early start, and their hoax may not end any time soon.  Let's break it down ...

The issue:  The Mohave Generating Station used to pump out over 1500 megawatts of power.  But, not any more.  Years ago, the Grand Canyon Trust was a partner in a lawsuit against Mohave's owners, asking that they be forced to clean up their pollution or shut down.  [I blogged on this in Lumps of Coal for Christmas.]  The clean-up costs amount to over $1 billion.  And, the visibility improvements at the Grand Canyon are likely to be zip - indeed, it will take an estimated five years of scientific observations to determine if there is any net benefit in visibility!

The ripple effect:  As is typical in the coal-fired electric power industry, there was only one supplier of coal for the Mohave plant, and that was from the Black Mesa mine, located on the Navajo Reservation and operated by Peabody Energy.  As a consequence of the shutdown at Mohave, the mine has also shut down, costing many hundred Navajos jobs that paid very well ($70,000+, which goes a long way on the rez).

The Just Transition Hoax:  The hodgepodge of environmental and social activist groups that form the JTC issued a statement claiming that the value of Mohave's pollution credits should not go to the owner, Southern California Edison, but, rather, to the Hopi and Navajo tribes.  They want $20 million a year, for the next 20 years.  Yes, Alice, we've completely stepped through the looking glass on this one.

     My characterization just barely scratches the surface in capturing the bizarre nature of the JTC statement.  Let's take a closer look at that statement, at least at the one published in the Arizona Daily Sun on March 20, 2006.

One may be excused for thinking that, based on this statement, there was no compensation for these resources.  Of course, that would be wrong.  The workers got paid, and paid well.  The tribes got paid, for the coal and the water, and paid well.  And, at many hundreds of miles away from the Mohave plant (further away than where I live in Flagstaff), they didn't bear any "burden" of pollution.

Well, let's see ... the groups of the JTC helped make it impossible for the plant to remain open, and now they want to be "compensated" for that action?  To make matters even worse, these groups opposed a plan to allow Mohave to continue to operate, at least temporarily.  And, there is no "debt" to repay - the tribes did not lend any resources to Mohave.

One wonders why the tribes haven't already spend funds for these kinds of developments.  Over the last 20 years, they have earned at least $1 billion in royalties from their coal and water.  Couldn't they have put away $20 million a year for these purposes?  Yes, they could have.

I don't know how spending $20 million, extorted from a company that has nothing to do with the contract between Peabody and the tribes, brings "justice" to people cheated out of billions of dollars!  This fanciful tale has not been endorsed by the tribal governments, which have benefited greatly from the coal and water royalties.  So, maybe this hoax will die a deserving death, sooner rather than later.  Meanwhile, the April Fools at the Grand Canyon Trust are most certainly busy working on some new scheme to bankrupt businesses, impoverish hard working families and denigrate the visitor industry in this region.

Thanks for reading the "Recent & Best of Random Fragments."
To access the complete archive, click on the image below.

A Journey to Antarctica
My log, with photos, is posted
through day 24 of 26.

Grand Canyon - Personal Interest & Park Critiques
Partial postings

Canyon Forest Village 
Partial postings

dfoster@kaibabjournal.com