|
Tuesday,
April 29, 2008
 Iraq
War at Five - The
previous editorial on guns ran in the paper on
the weekend at the start of our spring break. I had planned to
be hiking in the Grand Canyon for some eight days, but was stymied by
the snow packed roads on the north rim. Consequently, I only
ended up doing a couple of days of cross-country skiing before
returning home. I did write up a story for the paper on this
mini-adventure, which they published under the title, "North
Rim Skiing Likely to Last." The bottom line here is
that I was home during most of the spring break and had the
opportunity to get another editorial in the paper for the following
weekend. The Iraq War had just "turned" five years old
this week, and the paper ran an editorial
on the conflict, lamenting on the "futility of peace" and
arguing that it is time to go. Well, we didn't have an editorial
board meeting this week, so this was not a topic of discussion among
the group. And, I thought that the tenor of the editorial was
totally wrong. So, I decided to pen a counter; my
editorial
ran on March 23.
|
 Editorial
Board Sounding: Future Peace Worth the Sacrifices
As General
Sherman noted, “War is Hell.” And, so it is.
Brutal, bloody, rife with paradox. What is interesting
about the American experience with war is that we don’t
fight for the expansion of our territory, our acquisition of
Guam notwithstanding. While we are not, and should not
be, the world’s policeman, we have come to accept that our
might, and our blood, can be used to help make the world a
better place. We fought against Germany and Japan, and
turned to rehabilitate them, not subsume them. Is not
the world better off as a consequence? Of course it is,
and we take it for granted.
In Korea,
can there be a starker contrast between the north and south?
Would the world have been better off if we had consigned the
millions of South Koreans to the cruel fate of their northern
kinsmen, surviving under the pathological two Kims?
South Korea didn’t become an instant and vibrant democracy.
Far from it. But, they have evolved into a nation that
would be considered a role model for Iraq.
Conversely,
in Vietnam we lost sight of our objectives, and with the
myopic nature of politics, cut a bad deal to end the war
“with honor.” Soon thereafter, we were watching on
as the horror of the killing fields enveloped neighboring
Cambodia.
Yes, Iraq
is a mess. But, a generation, or two, from now, perhaps
the world will recognize the value of the sacrifices made.
Or, perhaps they’ll just take it for granted.
Dennis Foster has a Ph.D. in
economics, teaches at the university level, is an avid Grand
Canyon hiker and encourages contributions to www.soldiersangels.com. |
I think the main point is pretty
straightforward - we should contemplate the notion that this is going
to be harder than we thought, but that is the nature of war and
peace. I was going to include the fact that casualties during
five years in Iraq still are less than an hour along the Bloody Road
at Antietam. Perspective is everything. And, since we no
longer have a military draft, those soldiers that do enlist know that
they may face some danger.
Some weeks later this topic did come up in our editorial board
meeting. Although some argued that it was obvious that we've
failed in Iraq and should leave, I remarked that the "boots on
the ground" - the men and women doing the heavy lifting over
there - are supportive of their efforts to bring some sanity to this
region. Despite the price tag, which is a different issue, the
views of our soldiers should carry some weight in these discussion,
but often aren't.
There was some blowback from my letter, and a counter letter
by Marcus Ford. We have clashed before, and will certainly do so
again. But, his point seems to be that America is better defined
by its conflict with the Spanish and the Indians than it is by our
conflict with Germany and Japan. Too bizarre.
|
|
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.
|
|
Saturday,
April 12, 2008
Guns
and Schools
- Someone
at the state legislature has been kicking around the idea of allowing
guns in restaurants and in schools. The usual hue and cry erupts
in opposition, implying that people will be shooting up these
places! How bizarre can you get? Indeed, one of my
compatriots on the editorial board wrote a dissenting opinion on this
topic and included the suggestion that two year olds would be carrying
guns. The editorial
ran on March 16.
|
Editorial
Board Sounding: No magic wand will make schools safe
“What if
… ?” That seems to be the major argument against
allowing citizens to legally carry weapons in public places,
especially in schools. This argument is rooted in the
“magic wand” theory of public policy – with a simple
wave we can declare schools “gun-free” zones, and these
places will be safe. Of course, reality is quite
different. Our current law really means that only
homicidal maniacs may carry weapons into a school. In
the world I live in, incentives matter, and this law does not
create the right kind of incentives. [Yes, even
homicidal maniacs respond to incentives.] Those that are
pushing to allow guns in schools are at least trying to change
this incentive structure so that students, faculty and staff
are not subject to this perverse consequence of the magic
wand.
Still,
there might be some middle ground here. How about
allowing only holders of CCW permits to be so armed in public
venues, when such venues don’t otherwise screen for weapons?
Perhaps the requirements for the CCW permit can even be raised
a notch or two as well – for example, some proficiency
requirements and biannual renewal classes to keep up with
legal issues.
Another idea is to keep the gun
ban in place, but to require the installation of non-lethal
devices, like tasers, throughout a facility, as is done with
fire alarms, and with increasing frequency, defibrillators.
This certainly would go a long way to creating the right
incentives without arousing all the “what if" arguments.
Dennis
Foster has a Ph.D. in economics, teaches at the university
level, is an avid Grand Canyon hiker and doesn’t own a
gun, but knows people who do. |
I try to use this platform to not only criticize, but also to make
suggestions. While it may seem more than a bit off the wall to
argue for installing tasers
like they were fire alarms, I rather like the idea. In keeping
to the word limit, I had to drop a line I really liked about the
homicidal maniacs responding to incentives - "that's why they
attack schools instead of motorcycle rallies." See, they
are rational. Just go ask Nobel-prize winning economist Gary
Becker.
|
|
Thursday,
April 10, 2008
Sky
High Subsidies Unnecessary
- The
city council wants there to be more daily flights from our local
airport, into which we have poured millions of dollars to spruce
up and which the Feds have spent millions on runway improvements.
Probably not the best use of public funds, but its a done deal. But,
it gets worse. To "promote"
competition, the city has been willing to pay up to a million dollars to
guarantee passenger loads in order to attract another airline.
Alas, does anybody understand the principle of competition? It
seems not. So, time to speculate about what a truly free market
would look like. The
editorial ran on March 9.
|
Editorial
Board Sounding: Privatize Pulliam Airport and let the
free market work
Although
there are a myriad of rules that apply to government airports,
what if Pulliam were privatized and competitively operated . .
. ?
A traveler
arrives at the airport to find plenty of parking, thanks to
the new J.W. Powell Parking Garage. Built in less time
than it takes to have a second reading on parking meters, it
provides wintertime travelers great shelter. Or, park in
one of the private surface lots, and save a few bucks.
Once in
the terminal you can check in at a computer kiosk, or with a
“flight agent.” They can help you with a reservation
on any one of the twenty flights scheduled for today, like the
Southwest flight to El Paso, or the Continental flight to
Denver. And, don’t forget that a new start-up airline
has a noon flight to John Wayne Airport out in California.
Flights
change daily. Airlines don’t need to contract to
provide a specific level of service for a specific period of
time. All they do is bid on landing and take-off
windows. Airlines publish schedules about a week in
advance, although some schedule particular flights up to six
months in advance. Some airlines have come, and gone.
Some successful travel destinations have been a surprise, like
the twice monthly flight to Lincoln, Nebraska.
Instead of
using taxpayer money to pay for airline service, let’s use
this opportunity to let the vibrant, creative and dynamic
forces of the free market work their magic. No, we
can’t? Yes, we can!
Dennis
Foster has a Ph.D. in economics, teaches at the university
level and is an avid Grand Canyon hiker. |
Shortly after this, the council agreed to put up $600,000 to get
Horizon Air to sign on for two (yes, 2!) daily flights to Los
Angeles. So far, Horizon plans to have one of these flights stop
in Prescott, lengthening the flight time. And, these flights
will be turboprops, not jets, which was the whole point of the runway
extension to begin with. The problem, of course, is that the
city wants the airline to sign a long-term commitment, which deters
true competition here.
Another
interesting aspect here is that the presumed purpose of this new
service will be to promote business growth in Flagstaff. That
is, if there is regular service to L.A., as well as to Phoenix (the
existing service), then new firms may be more easily enticed into
locating here. Not only does that seem absurd, but now there's
proof positive - Horizon is now touting this
service as "Flagstaff/Grand
Canyon," meaning that they will be catering to the tourist
market, not to business travelers. Who'd thunk it?
Certainly, nobody at City Hall!
Finally,
I decided to embrace Barack Obama's rhetoric by closing with his
oft-used refrain of "Yes, we can!"
|
|
Sunday,
April 6, 2008
McCain
in Prescott
- John
McCain was in Prescott yesterday to give a speech to mark a transition
in his candidacy for President of the United States. He had
wrapped up the Republican nomination some time ago, but took this
opportunity to restart his efforts insofar as wooing voters for the
general election in November. Barry Goldwater  had
used the courthouse steps, here in the territorial capital of
Prescott, to announce his Senate bids and his entry into the 1964
Presidential race. McCain has followed suit for his campaigns,
so this venue is becoming quite a tradition. Arizona's junior
senator, Jon Kyl (photo at right), provided the introductions.
McCain was also accompanied by his wife, Cindy, who also spoke to the
crowd.
The courthouse block was packed, but there was space to wend through
the crowd and there was still viewing space near the street. We
arrived right at 10 a.m., which was the advertised start time for the
speech. It didn't really get going until about twenty minutes  after
the hour. The crowd was supportive, but not fanatical.
There were some Obama supporters walking around with signs, but not
being disruptive. There were some other groups of protestors -
Ron Paul supporters, anti-war groups and even a group protesting to
"Help Save the Petrified Forest," pictured to the
left. I've never heard of this cause - maybe it was a late April
Fools joke? The Petrified
Forest National Park is only about seventy miles from where I
live, and I haven't heard of any preservation issues. Then,
again, maybe they were referring to the old movie,
starring Humphrey Bogart.
McCain's speech seemed to be a one-of-a-kind affair. He talked
at great length of Barry Goldwater and Mo Udall, both giants of
Arizona politics and both unsuccessful candidates for president, both
friends of each other and both from different parties. McCain
was really flying his bi-partisan colors today and probably will be
quite successful at winning over a lot of independents, even with the
contentiousness about the war.
After the speech, John and Cindy shook hands along the crowded line of
supporters. We got pretty close, but decided to head around the
back side of the courthouse to snap a few photos as the couple neared
the Straight Talk  Express.
Well, we really lucked out here. There weren't many people over
here, and when the McCains rounded the bus, they headed over to shake
hands. I was able to wedge myself into a spot where I could lean
over and got to shake hands with both. Any photos you might
ask? Well, no, because I was holding the camera! So it
goes.
After they boarded the bus, Cara Lynn and I headed across the street
to get some ice cream at Kendall's.
That hit the spot. The weather was pleasantly warm, and, during
the speech, the winds were calm. We wandered back to the bus,
where some TV interviews were going on, and stuck around until they
drove off. We had a nice spot standing on top of some kind of a
storage bin, from where we could survey all the goings-on in the
area. We also were well-positioned to wave to Cindy McCain, who
was standing alongside the driver as the bus pulled out of the
driveway.
 
In Prescott,
students get mixed messages.
While the
street parking for the McCain event was tight, we were able to easily
get a spot on the top deck of a parking garage just a couple of blocks
from the courthouse. From this vantage point we could see all
around the city. We could even make out the tops of the San
Francisco Peaks, which serve as the backdrop to our home in
Flagstaff. We watched as an Arizona DPS helicopter landed, and
then took off, from a middle school just a couple of blocks
away. I just had to get a picture of the school's sign
here. Do you think that the students at the "Mile
High" middle school would be able to notice that it was
"substance abuse awareness month?" Makes you wonder.
|
|
Thursday,
March 27, 2008
Bravo
for the Auto!
- The
park service has issued an Environmental
Assessment for its transportation plans at the Grand Canyon.
The editorial in the paper was standard stuff, calling for a
"world class" transit system for this "world
class" site. While I have opined on this at quite some
length, and even authored a guest
editorial on the park's current plan, I welcome the
opportunity to spout off once again on this topic. The
editorial ran on March 2.
|
Editorial
Board Sounding: Cars and Grand Canyon made for each
other
I suppose
that we all have our moments of fantasy, whether daydreaming
of tooling around intergalactic space on the U.S.S.
Enterprise, or plying one’s way along the rim of the Grand
Canyon in a speedy, clean and efficient light rail system.
Alas, these idle notions really are just fantasies and are not
likely to ever come true. Well, not unless someone
actually does discover the secrets of warp drive. We can
keep our fingers crossed on that score.
In the
meantime, we will have to content ourselves with visiting the
Grand Canyon by car, except for the 25 percent that come by
bus or train. How awful to have to use the lowly
automobile! Of course, when you really sit down to think
about it, the automobile is probably the greatest invention
ever made. Sure, the internet is pretty cool, and so is
not getting polio. But, you’d be hard pressed not to
at least include the automobile in the top five inventions of
all time. Hmm, I wonder where parking meters would fit
on that list?
The funny
thing about the Grand Canyon is that it isn’t at all like
Disneyland. It isn’t small and contained – it is
larger than our smallest state! And, most visitors
travel to the park, not through the park. Congestion and
frustration with the infrastructure at the park is a signal to
improve roads and parking, not a signal that hundreds of
millions of dollars need to be spent on a train ride through
nowhere.
Dennis
Foster has a Ph.D. in economics, teaches at the university
level and is an avid Grand Canyon hiker. |
A couple of ancillary comments:
Parking
meters.
This aside refers to the current issue of putting parking meters up in
downtown Flagstaff, basically to deter employees from using up the
spaces. I wrote on that topic, in this venue, earlier.
The
Disneyland comparison.
This is a funny one. The Daily Sun editor has often argued that
Disneyland is an appropriate model to follow at Grand Canyon. As
noted above, I disagree. However, most of the environmentalists
that immerse themselves in this issue would be appalled at this
comparison. Consequently, it strikes me that the newspaper's
commentary on a mass transit system resonates with very few
readers. Also, officials at the park have said, for years, that
they don't want to turn the Grand Canyon experience into one akin to
Disneyland.
The
train ride through nowhere.
My attempt to associate this with the famous "Bridge
to Nowhere", in Alaska.
|
|
|
|
Wednesday,
March 26, 2008
Government
& Competition
- My
previous editorial touched on the proper role of government, and I
felt that an additional commentary was appropriate. In part this
arose from the discussion we had in our editorial meeting, where the
notion that we (Flagstaff) somehow compete with other cities was taken
as an axiom of economic reality. I tried to dissuade my
colleagues of this idea, but I don't know if I was successful.
So, a bit more of a pointed argument, below. The editorial ran
on February 24.
|
Editorial
Board Sounding: Local government should serve, not
compete
There is
the idea that “we” are in economic competition with other
cities, counties, states and nations. That idea is
false. Businesses compete with one another, to maximize
profits for their owners; cities do not.
For more
than two hundred years, economists have understood that what
raises our standard of living is the increased specialization
of labor, which is used to produce the goods and services that
we are relatively good at producing. We call it the
“law of comparative advantage.” That is why oil is
pumped out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, why automobiles are
made in Michigan and why tourism businesses flourish In
Flagstaff.
Do we
really want the city, or county, to pick “selected
industries for growth and support?” I am sure that
some cities across the Midwest decided to do just that a few
years ago, throwing taxpayer money at the development of
ethanol plants. These “earth friendly” ventures are
now being cited as potentially significant contributors of
greenhouse gases. [Whether that will “cause” global
warming is, pardon the pun, still up in the air.]
I don’t
want my local governments to “jump start” business
ventures, be it an electric car company, a wind power plant,
or a biofuel facility that uses pine cones. If these
projects make sense, private capital will direct resources
accordingly.
I do want
my local governments to get more snow plows, fill more pot
holes and find a way to quiet train horns at two o’clock in
the morning.
Dennis
Foster has a Ph.D. in economics, teaches at the university
level and is an avid Grand Canyon hiker. |
|
|
|
|
For
some reason, I was unable to access my web site for quite some time. I don't know
what the issue was, but the folks at HostRocket have resolved it, and
now it is time to catch up on a few matters.
Sunday,
March 23, 2008
Government
& Business
- As
part of my continuing participation as a "public member" of
the editorial board of the Arizona Daily Sun, we are encouraged to pen
individual weekly comments, based on the editorials the paper has run,
or the topics we have discussed, but which haven't yet been
editorialized upon. Here is the third, in an ongoing
series. I am grateful for the opportunity, so am trying to use
this soap box to preach a little free market economics. The
editorial ran on February 17.
|
Editorial
Board Sounding: Keep government out of economic
development
Not a week
goes by that we don’t hear about some new government program
that is going to improve our lives. I am usually
skeptical about these efforts. This week the county
board of supervisors expressed interest in increasing its
bureaucracy to include “economic development,” a course
which Flagstaff has also been pursuing. Aside from the
huge potential for waste and mismanagement, my question is,
“Why?” What is the rationale for using taxpayer
dollars to fund this kind of endeavor?
The usual
response is that these efforts will generate higher paying
jobs. But, why is that the role of our city and county
governments? Quite simply, it isn’t. Using
government for these kinds of purposes should raise some moral
and ethical red flags. Government has one unique
characteristic that distinguishes itself from the market –
we are coerced into complying with its decisions, and to pay
the taxes it assesses.
Using
government to improve the public good should be a difficult
task, since there is virtually no end to how many projects
that can be dreamt up, be it an auto mall, or a convention
center, or an economic development agency. Let those who
are most likely to benefit from these kinds of projects fund
and promote them. Indeed, it appears that the city’s
agenda in this regard is to attract only a particular type of
business to town, making the use of taxpayer money even more
indefensible.
Dennis
Foster has a Ph.D. in economics, teaches at the university
level and is an avid Grand Canyon hiker. |
The editorial that ran in the paper, on this topic, basically
complained about the county wanting to duplicate the city's efforts at
economic development. Yikes! There used to be a group
called GFEC (Greater Flagstaff Economic Council) that was a
public-private entity which pursued economic development. The
city decided to end its participation in this group and to follow its
own economic development agenda. To me, that means some kind of
distorted focus on "green business." Using tax money
for this purpose is astounding, and, yet, seems to be done with little
or no opposition. It seems to me an excellent example of Milton
Friedman's argument that people don't organize to promote the
general interest. They only organize to promote the special
interest.
|
|
|
|
Monday,
February 4, 2008
The
Right to Park
- I
have penned a second
mini-editorial for the local paper, as part of my role as a temporary
public member of the board. The topic was about installing
parking meters in downtown Flagstaff. Apparently, there were
meters downtown in the past, although I don't have any memory of it -
maybe it was during some years in the late 1980s when I wasn't
here. It has received a good deal of attention in the letters
section of the paper, with many arguing that charging for parking will
push them out of shopping downtown. That is probably unlikely in
the extreme, and many places do provide parking. Still, it was a
good opportunity to think outside the box and to use this forum to
extol the virtues of markets:
|
Why
not auction off rights to parking?
by Dennis Foster
Some
downtown merchants want metered street parking to deter
workers from using up spaces all day. Some nearby
residents want residential permits to deter the spillover of
these all-day parkers into their neighborhoods.
In the
face of congestion, leaving this resource unpriced is an
inefficient solution. Despite that, private markets find
solutions, and do so in a variety of ways. Many
businesses build their own parking. [Take a look at
downtown Flagstaff on Google Earth.] If there are no
onerous governmental barriers, we should also see the building
of parking lots and/or garages. The market also responds
in more subtle ways – the development of malls for instance.
Malls usually provide sufficient parking, illumination for
night time patrons, and, in some cases, an indoor venue that
helps shoppers more easily visit multiple locations. In
fact, malls are an excellent example of sustainable practices
in resource use.
Still, if
there is congestion downtown, there should be ways to promote
more efficient use of on-street parking. While parking
meters are one solution, let’s go one step better by
auctioning off the property rights to this parking.
Then, business owners could prohibit parking outright, or
restrict it (“customers only”) or charge for it, with
meters. Even residents could buy parking rights in front
of their houses. These rights may not be unlimited –
they could last just a few years, and only apply during
business hours. We are likely to be best served in this
process by looking for market-type solutions to promote
creative outcomes.
|
Parking meter
technology is getting really interesting. The idea that you
can use a credit card, or some stored value card makes it more
convenient. The proposal for downtown parking isn't even to have
meters, per se, but rather a kiosk for each block where you have to go
and buy a permit, and, I guess, put it in your window.
Still, it is a typical one-size-fits-all government solution.
The idea of an auction (or, perhaps, just a chance to bid for spots in
front of one's business/home) for resource allocation is a favorite in
the economics literature, although enforcement costs can sometimes be
insurmountable. But, these days, that doesn't seem likely to be
a problem. If  residents
and business owners "owned" the parking spots, they can do
the monitoring of their use, making city enforcement costs lower.
The image, to
the right, I got from Google Earth. You can see a sharper image
at GoogleMaps, although I can't figure out how to rotate the
picture. This is the heart of downtown Flagstaff, and you can
note that there is a great deal of off-street parking. Part of
the "problem" may be that it is hard to legally allow
private property owners the option of renting out their spaces on an
ad hoc basis (i.e., because of absurd liability issues). That is
a good example of government failure. The resources could be
better used, but they aren't.
In my researching some of the issues involving parking meters, I found
that old meters are for sale in Des
Moines, for $15, and in Seattle,
for $15-$20. In Redwood, CA, the meter prices are altered
throughout the day to insure that about 15% of the spaces are empty,
that being deemed the efficient outcome. While this may be
considered efficient, I wouldn't necessarily call it "free
market parking."
|
|
|
|
Tuesday,
January 29, 2008
School
Size Matters
- I
have recently been accepted to sit on the editorial board of the local
newspaper, the Arizona Daily Sun.
Notwithstanding my many disputes with their editorial positions over
the years, I am always interested in participating to whatever extent
is possible. I once served as a public member in the 1990s, for
a three month stint, and, in 2005, participated in what they called
the "virtual
board." The current venue is interesting in that we
public members (there are seven of us) have the opportunity to opine
on the editorial subjects in our own column, which run in the Sunday
paper. Our main role is to provide discussion of our views on
subjects the editor has picked to write about. We help inform
his decision. While we are listed as members of the editorial
board, we don't necessarily have any control over the content.
So, being able to speak every week, in our own space, is an attractive
draw for me.
I let the first week go by without writing
any commentary on the topics we discussed. I had thought to do
something on the governor's proposal to make college tuition
free for students that maintained a B average from the ninth grade
through their graduation from high school. Lots to write about
here, but I just didn't have the time to do a suitable job. You
can read the Sun's editorial on this here.
In the second week there was a topic that I did have time to think
about. The paper's editorial
concerned some newly imposed penalties on middle school students that
were habitually late to class. I had no quarrel with the
editorial, but I thought it presented the opportunity to push the
focus here to the issue of charter schools (posted here):
|
School
Size Matters
by Dennis Foster
Should
school officials count tardy students as absent, with the
ultimate consequence being a loss of class credit? Seems
stern, but as Tuesday’s editorial pointed out, most of us
would agree it should be a “mandatory lesson.”
However,
there is another lesson here. When viewed against the
larger backdrop of other school-related issues – dress
codes, weapon and drug policies, off-campus rules,
transportation logistics, to name but a few – we are seeing
yet another “unexpected consequence” that has arisen from
the centralization of public education.
The model
of grouping together some seven hundred middle school students
for the purpose of education sounds like a textbook example of
a disaster waiting to happen. It is easy to imagine that
so many resources will have to be spent on controlling these
students that education becomes merely a fortuitous by-product.
The
centralized, monopolistic model is slowly being eclipsed by
the model presented by charter schools. Charters still
face many challenges, but their small student populations
alone yield enormous positive benefits in the educational
process. As long as parents continue to care about their
children’s education, even opposition from the entrenched
education establishment is unlikely to be successful at
preventing the continued growth of these new schools.
So, yes,
let’s applaud the efforts that keep students attending class
on time. But, let’s not lose sight of the flaws
inherent in this system and look forward to a future where the
city landscape is dotted with small neighborhood schools that
are vibrant learning centers. |
|
|
|
|
Sunday,
January 27, 2008
 Win
Pennsylvania!
- I
find that the talk of Michael Bloomberg running for president, as a
third party candidate, about as close as one can come to defining the
phrase, "smoke and mirrors." Although current polls
show some support, it is practically a certainty that if he were to
run, he'd be lucky to garner 3% of the nationwide vote. So it
goes with third party candidates, his money notwithstanding. The
closest analogy to a Bloomberg run might be Ross Perot's failed
efforts in 1992 and 1996, when Perot received a sizable chunk of the
popular vote, but no electoral college votes. But, I think the
analogy is flawed - Perot really was running for president, while
Bloomberg seems to be just posturing, and Perot had the cache of being
outside the political system, which Bloomberg does not. In the
1976 election, I spent time working for the McCarthy campaign.
He also showed remarkable polling strength in the months leading up to
the election, but fizzled on election day. I was attracted to
John Anderson's quixotic campaign in 1980, and that was a bust as
well. It is inevitable that third party candidates end up far
down in vote totals, even if they do influence the national outcome
(Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000).
Well, having dissed such a Bloomberg
campaign, I do have a fascination with the political process, and have
come up with a strategy that, I believe, has a decent chance of
putting Bloomberg in the Oval Office. I surfed out to an interactive
electoral college map, and made some selections, as you can see
below:
Based
on this distribution of electoral college votes, neither party's
candidate will win. The key, in this scenario, is who takes
Pennsylvania. [In 2000, it turned on Florida, and in 2004, Ohio
was the deciding call.] Well, Bloomberg has many billions of
dollars to spend. What if he only ran in Pennsylvania?
And, if he won? Well, then the contest gets tossed to the House
of Representatives. Hmm... Things get
interesting. The House can follow partisan lines and elect
either of the two major candidates, and we can "suffer"
through four years of contentious and divided government. Maybe not
such a bad thing! Still, I imagine that Bloomberg could now
spend many billions more in a nationwide effort to apply pressure on
the Congress to select him as a "compromise"
candidate. And, if he convinces the Senate to select the
national popular vote winner as Vice President . . . Well, if he
is serious, it could work. He may want to try and snag another
couple of states away from the Dems and the GOP, like Ohio and
Michigan, to seal the deal.
|
|
|
|
Monday,
January 14, 2008
Grand
Canyon at 100
- Well,
not exactly. It was one hundred years ago, as of last Thursday,
that the Grand Canyon Monument was created, which was the precursor of
the national park. There were some stories and editorials in the
local paper, and I found a way to chime in on the topic. In
fact, what had happened is that the Daily Sun ran an article
about how the Verkamps were leaving the canyon, refusing to bid on the
property they had operated for more than a hundred years. Well,
surprise, surprise! I mentioned that possibility in a letter
back in August, which I put in my blog, Out
of Service. But the editor decided that I was being too
fanciful and he excised it from the published version! Well, we
went back and forth on that at the time, but he didn't relent in his
view. Well, now that has changed, and I thought it was an
opportunity to stick my nose back under that tent and he agreed to let
me write a "guest editorial" and run it in the Sunday paper,
opposite their own editorial about Grand Canyon:
|
A
Century of Control
by Dennis Foster
The news
that the Verkamp family will no longer fight to retain their
102 year old business at Grand Canyon should be met with
dismay at how officials who run the Park Service discount and
denigrate productive and competitive entrepreneurial
activities that open up this magnificent destination to
travelers from all over the world.
Over the
last one hundred years, the environment at Grand Canyon has
steadily deteriorated. Not the physical environment, but
the human environment. New hotels are built miles from
the rim. Restaurants are located without views of the
canyon. Indeed, even the Canyon View Information Plaza
doesn’t actually have a canyon view. And, the number
of competitors catering to visitors has steadily decreased.
The Park Service doesn’t like to deal with multiple business
entities, so they encourage the monopolization of services
within the park.
The
history of the park has been filled with contentiousness
between entrepreneurs and the government. From Ralph
Cameron to W.W. Bass, from Pete Berry to Dan Hogan, and from
Emery Kolb to the Verkamps, the stories are legend.
Cameron operated the Bright Angel trail, Bass ran tourists out
to the rim where he had built a trail, Berry built the Grand
View Hotel and Hogan operated the Grand Canyon Trading Post a
couple of miles west of the South Rim Village. All are
gone. They have lost their property rights to the
government. Their historic contributions to the
development of Grand Canyon are not maintained, not sustained,
not preserved.
Over the
last weekend in 2007, I hiked down the Hermit Trail and camped
near the site of the old Hermit Camp, built by the Fred Harvey
Company to accommodate mule riders. I wondered how it
might have been if this place, once considered the “heart of
the Grand Canyon,” was still a vibrant and energetic place.
Could a
modern-day Mary Colter get Park Service permission to build
another Phantom Ranch? Another Hermit’s Rest?
Another Bright Angel Lodge? Another Desert View
Watchtower? Most certainly not. Bold, innovative,
human influences are forbidden! In the early 1960s, the
owners of the Grand Canyon Inn floated the idea of an eight
hundred room hotel that would flow over the side of the
canyon. The next time you are at Powell Monument, along
the West Rim Drive, look to the east and imagine how many
visitors would have been drawn to such spectacular
accommodations.
It is
ironic that so many supporters of the park’s efforts to
detour, divert and discourage visitation embrace President
Roosevelt’s famous phrase to “leave it as it is,” but
fail to live up to his exhortation that “every American
should see” such an astounding natural wonder. I
believe that both can be accomplished.
The only innovation taking
place today is at the margin of Grand Canyon. The
development of Grand Canyon West, by the Hualapai Tribe, is
slowly taking shape. The completion of their
awe-inspiring Skywalk is just a taste of what is possible.
I expect that the enrichment of the Grand Canyon experience
will continue at GCW, while the Park Service continues to
smother the vitality out of the South Rim with their proposals
for a depressing mass transit system, and its antagonism
towards entrepreneurs like the Verkamps. Perhaps that
will take another hundred years. |
The editor chose a slightly different title, "Grand
Canyon: A century of too much control." Well, that's
fine with me. I was glad to write about the issues here more
broadly and appreciate the soapbox. I'll get back to this issue
and fill out some of the arguments made from the other side.
|
|
|
|
Thursday,
December 20, 2007
There
They Go Again
- Those
who read the local paper regularly may often get the feeling of deja
vu. Sometimes it is because they literally run the same story
twice, usually separated by a day or two. Indeed, one time, I
actually saw the same story three times - all exactly the same - in
the same week. Still, my comment today is on the newspaper's
editorial recycling. They don't run exactly the same editorial
more than once. At least, not to my knowledge. But, they
do recycle editorial content, usually without any additional insight
nor acknowledgement of new data. And, so it goes with their
editorial, "Rebalancing
Canyon access and natural experience critical,"
run in the Wednesday, December 12th paper. Once again we
are treated to the moans and groans of how crowded it is at the canyon
and how cars should be banned from the park. Aaargh! To
wit, I wrote a reply, printed in the paper on Tuesday, December 18:
|
To the
editor:
In your recent editorial on Grand Canyon, it is noted that
many visitors are “disillusioned” by waiting in lines at
the entrance station and spending time looking for a place to
park. The conclusion that you reach – that cars should
be banned from the park and that there should be a bus and
tram system to shuttle visitors in and out – is illustrative
of the logical fallacy known as the non sequitur (“it does
not follow”).
The
correct lesson to be drawn from these visitor comments is that
inconvenience matters. It degrades the quality of the
visitors’ experience. A bus and tram system would not
only add wasteful spending (the additional parking, after all,
will have to be built somewhere), but will also add to visitor
inconvenience, further degrading their experience.
Luckily, park officials seem to
have grasped this point. They have already constructed
more stations at the south entrance, and plan to add parking
at the visitor center. These kinds of infrastructure
improvements should go a long way to alleviating congestion
problems at the canyon. |
Well, I tried to keep it short and to the point. I have
commented before on logical fallacies, and may make it one of my
missions in letter writing. The 'non sequitur' has always been a
favorite of mine, and it just amazes me how easily people will connect
up two disparate notions just because they are juxtaposed
together. And, so it was here. More galling was their
contempt for the fact that the park service is actually addressing
these issues. The editors may not like what the park is doing,
but then they should tailor the editorial appropriately.
Lazy. A few more observations:
Why
is visitation flat? |
