Recent & Best of Random Fragments:

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

   Qwest + ESBI = Bull - Most of my bills are paid off automatically - through my credit card, or with an EFT from my bank.  Consequently, I don't pay real close attention to my bill on a monthly basis.  But, I do sort through them periodically.  Recently, I was going through my phone bills over the last six months.  The charge for local service and internet service runs about $60 a month.  So, I was ticking off the months - $60, $60, $60 - and I got to June's bill - $75.  Hmm.  I looked over the bill, and found this on page 3:  "Other Companies  ESBI ETS   Total Charges $14.95," and a reference to page 5.  So, I turned to page 5 and it shows ESBI as the letterhead instead of Qwest.  Here is what is printed on this page:

The charges on this portion of your bill are for non-telecommunications services and products ... This portion of your bill is provided as a service to ESBI."

     I was puzzled, to say the least.  I had just signed up for DirecTV, and wondered whether the phone hookup was related to this charge.  It seemed unlikely that they wouldn't bill me directly for all of their services.  So, I got on-line and did a search on ESBI (Enhanced Services Billing, Inc., although you wouldn't know that from the bill nor from their web site!).  I was deluged by web sites complaining about this "service."  I found nothing good.  Nothing.  I did find a couple of newspaper stories that were superficial in this regard.  But, not one single positive comment about this company nor about their "non-telecommunications" charges.  FYI, here are some of these sites:

     It was too late to talk with a real person at Qwest, so I sent them an e-mail (for which, I didn't get a reply for seven days!!).  Then, based on comments I read, I called the 800 number for ESBI that was on the phone bill.  The operator claimed that my stepson authorized the charges.  Of course, he didn't have any idea what this was all about - based on the web complaints, I thought that was probably the case.

     The next day, I did call Qwest and told them of my complaint.  The operator there tried to inform me that they are required to pass along bills like this and that mostly they are on the up and up.  I think she was just reading through a script and had no idea about any of this.  But, she was persistent about asking me if ESBI was going to credit my account.  I said I wasn't sure, but assumed so.  The Qwest operator decided the prudent thing to do was to credit me directly.  So, three cheers for her.  With some urging on my part, a block was placed on my line for "third party billing" so this episode should be over.  But, here are some observations:

Third party charges are obsolete.  The Qwest rep tried to pass this off on the deregulation of AT&T back in the day.  Maybe.  Her comment was that this provided customers a conduit for choosing a different long distance service, and having this charge showing up on their regular phone bill.  I pointed out that I have a separate long distance service and they charge me directly.  Well, that's the way it is these days.  Besides, nobody can foist third party charges onto my electric bill, nor my gas bill.  So, the "regulated utility" argument for these charges is silly.

Qwest must benefit.  While the rep claimed that Qwest had no choice in the matter, it does say on the bill that it is "provided as a service to ESBI."  And, I bet that ESBI pays for that service.  So, Qwest makes money here, without lifting a finger, and they can always claim to be innocent in this scam.

Qwest does benefit.  When I told the rep that I didn't want this to happen again - I have had this phone line for 20 years and this is the first time a third party charge has been made - she was reluctant to follow-through with an offer to block these charges.  She said that she "could see if a block can be placed on this line."  See what?  If Qwest was serious about the integrity of its customer service, they should be willing to put blocks on these charges at the drop of a hat.

Qwest inconsistent on customer service.  When I logged into my Qwest account, I was informed that I needed to get a security code, because "Qwest values the privacy of customer account information."  [It arrived yesterday, before the e-mail reply to my original complaint!]  Odd that they act so concerned about the security of my account, but turn the other way on these bogus ESBI charges.  Which is it?

ESBI is a sham.  Although the Qwest rep claimed that these charges are usually on the up and up, and somewhere I saw the claim that ESBI was one of the larger players in this market, just take a look at their web site to convince yourself that it is nothing but a sham.  Three pages - home, FAQ and customer service.  No contact information.  No history.  Only two questions on the FAQ page and one of them directs the reader to the customer service page, which is just a form to fill in.  Warning!!  Don't even think about filling in the form, unless you want to be snared by their scam. 

ESBI really is a sham.  When I talked to their operator, I was told that my stepson had "authorized" this charge.  But, the Qwest rep said that I was the only authorized user of the line.  So, how did ESBI conclude that charging me was legit?  Well, I don't think legitimacy has anything to do with it, so they couldn't care less about proper authorization.  Conceivably, anyone who doesn't like me could have signed me up for dozens of these phony-baloney services, even going so far as to claim to be me.

How can ESBI make money?  It isn't difficult to see how ESBI can profit from this scheme.  Even if they refund and rebate angered customers, I think that only solves their legal liability.  But, they still make money in two ways - first, from those that don't catch on, and second, from the temporary holding of money that will be later refunded.  Consider how easily this works . . . 
     Suppose that ESBI signs up about 65,000 people a month to bogus services, at $15 a pop.  [Actually, it is some other "company" that is doing the signing up; i.e., in my case it was "Intelicom Messaging."]  That will rake in about $10 million.  A month passes, and everyone is refunded.  Meanwhile, ESBI gets to keep $10 million a month.  If this rolls over every month, then this is a perpetual holding.  At an annual interest rate of, say, 5%, they'd make $500,000 per year just from the temporary holding of this money.  If it usually takes two months to detect this fraud and get a refund, their annual rake comes to double this amount, $1 million.  If it takes four months, on average, then they get $2 million.  I doubt that ESBI has very high operating cost - after all, look at their web page!  ESBI probably hires out operators from India to deal with the refund issue, and may well be pocketing 80%, or more, of this income.

     The notion that ESBI is just a scam operation seems clear to me.  With a prompt refund policy, they may be able to keep their heads above water, legally.  But, it is still a scam.  Florida Governor Charlie Crist, when he was the state's Attorney General, filed a motion against Intelicom Messaging, and others, for fraudulent practices.  I don't know what became of that.  On the other hand, the FCC has ruled in favor of ESBI in a complaint lodged against their billing practices.  I don't see how that is possible when, as I noted earlier, doing a web search on ESBI will yield nothing but negative comments.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

   The Crystal Forest Caves -  Off the west side of Horseshoe Mesa, about four miles down the Grandview Trail, is a well-traveled route to the "Cave of the Domes."  I don't know where this name comes from, aside from the obvious description of features in the cave that are small domed rooms . . .  While this cave is relatively well-known by regular canyon hikers, there is a group of caves not too far away from the Domes cave, called Crystal Forest.  There are three caves here, and I don't know if each one is named, so I just refer to all three as the "Crystal Forest Caves."

  For the full story:
The Crystal Forest Caves of Grandview
in the Hiking Grand Canyon section of the Kaibab Journal

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.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

   Jicarilla Point Petroglyphs -  I had been to see the cool petroglyph panels below Jicarilla Point three times - twice in 1981 and once in 1991.  I haven't been able to track down any photos from my 1981 trips, and I only have a scant dozen that I took on the trip ten years later.  In this digital age, I have been doing a lot of repeat visits to special places like this, partly with an eye to compiling a much fuller photographic record.

For the full story:
Jicarilla Point Petroglyphs
in the Hiking Grand Canyon section of the Kaibab Journal

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

   The "Fairness" Dogma - When I am teaching, I try to impart this little nugget to my students - "I cannot treat you fairly; I strive to treat you equally."  As an example, I will sometimes talk about a student whose car breaks down in Phoenix, meaning that they are unable to return to school in time for an exam.  Should I give them a make-up test?  What about the student who decided not to push their luck, who also went to Phoenix, but returned to school a day earlier, so that if their car broke down, they'd still have time to get back to school?  Or, what about a student that decided to forgo a trip to Phoenix the weekend before a major exam?  How would giving a make-up exam be fair to the other students that took proactive steps to insure that they were here?  Well, there is the rub.  The student that missed the exam argues that it is "unfair" that they are penalized for missing a test for reasons "beyond their control."  Of course, the point is that we do have control over our actions, and we must accept the costs of our decisions, even though we have an incentive to try and shift those costs to someone else.

     I do take into consideration serious medical conditions, but even here it is a bit problematic.  Some years ago, a student missed an exam due to an auto accident that sent him to the hospital with a fractured skull.  Sounds like an easy decision on my part.  But, later I found out that the accident was his fault - he was driving drunk at the time.  So, I wish I could have changed my decision on that one, but so it goes.  Consequently, my policy on missed exams is pretty simple and straightforward - no make-ups are offered.  Period.  And, as a result, attendance for exams in my classes is pretty much about 98%.  So, the point here that I try to make to my students is that I treat them all equally, which is not fair.  I am not sure that they really get it, but there are plenty of examples of how government policy changes the rules of the game and, in the name of "fairness" in fact is an exercise in the opposite.

Grand Canyon Hiking Permits.  I was up at the canyon on Sunday, May 31 to stop by the Backcountry office and pick up a number for a place in line for the next day, June 1.  That is the first day that permits can be obtained for overnight hikes this coming October, which, of course, is an excellent time to hike in the canyon.  I was at the office at 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, an hour and a half after they opened.  Nobody was in the lobby, so I got to see a ranger right away, and I got number 71.  So, there must have been quite a few people there at 8:00 a.m.

     On Monday, June 1, I was up there again, this time to actually get a permit for October.  I showed up at 9:30 a.m. and the three rangers manning the office were up to number 30.  I got served at 11:00 a.m. and got all the permits I wanted.  Which is why people show up in person.  The alternative is to send a request to the office.  If you go through the mail, the postmark cannot be any earlier than June 1, even though it takes days to arrive at the office.  Or, you can fax a request in, starting at 12:00 midnight, which is what a lot of avid hikers tend to do.  Of course, they suffer from two problems.  First, they don't get served ahead of those actually present and in the line.  [In fact, a couple of years ago, I was there on November 4th, to get permits for March, and they still hadn't been able to go through all the faxed requests.]  The other problem is that you can't tweak your written request like you can do in person.  For example, on the Sunday I went up to pick up a number, I also got a permit for September.  Since the window for that month had been open for 31 days, I couldn't get my first 25 choices!  [Well, it was 25 variations on a simple plan, but there was always some bottleneck in making each option work.]  So, while I got my 26th choice, you can't get this kind of flexibility with a fax.

     So, on Monday, I was sitting next to a woman holding number 77.  She made a comment about how next year all permit requests will have to come in by fax, so that there is no advantage to those who are there in person.  Consequently, she deemed that this new system would be "fair."  I politely disagreed and commented that 20 years ago I made a lifestyle choice to live in Flagstaff so that I could maximize my ability to hike in the Grand Canyon.  I could have sought out other places to live, where I might maximize my income, but that isn't what I wanted to maximize.  So, I live in Flagstaff, where costs are higher than average with a job that pays less than average.  Indeed, it took years of working part-time just to get into a full-time teaching job.  So, if the system changes so that everyone who participates is given the same chance to get a permit, that change disadvantages me.  From my perspective it is "unfair."  I don't think that the park service will be compensating me for 20 years of sacrificed income.

     So, what is "fair?"  It is not the equalization of the chance to get a hiking permit.  Equal is equal, and not likely to also be "fair."  Who will argue that this is "fair?"  Clearly, it will be those that are advantaged by this change.  And, will anyone look at such a biased perspective and see it for what it is?  I don't think so.  And, what would be "fair?"  I have no idea, and I don't think anyone else does either.  [Well, to the woman next to me, and the man across the table from me, I suggested an auction for permits, which they both thought was unfair!!]  What I do know, is that the government makes the rules and we have an incentive to adapt our behavior based on these rules.  When the rules change, it negates the choices we have made, and that is certainly unfair.

     Some other examples of this process:

Canyon Forest Village.  When the Forest Service considered a land swap along the border of the Grand Canyon, the decisions made by a host of private economic agents (e.g., to build a hotel in Flagstaff, Williams or Tusayan) were negated and they faced the prospect of having their livelihoods  ruined as a consequence.  Canyon Forest Village would be built on land that no others could bid on, favorably located next to the park.  In reports I helped author, we argued that this was patently unfair.  While we all know the risks associated with market dynamics - someone could decide to build another hotel in these cities and compete away business from existing firms.  But, to now factor in the notion that the government can step in and make arbitrary changes that ruin your business is practically impossible to factor into rational decision-making.

Holders of Chrysler and GM bonds.  As I write this, some Chrysler bondholders have protested the government's plan for Fiat to buy up a bankrupt Chrysler, because they get less back on their investment than those that should be further back in the creditor's line.  The Supreme Court will take a closer look at this deal.  This arbitrary rearrangement of the economic landscape will come at a severe price - who will make long term investments in these firms if their rights can be unilaterally disposed of by the government?

Parties using Gold Clause Contracts.  In the 1930s, the Congress prohibited gold clauses in contracts.  These were popular when a lender was afraid that the currency was being devalued.  So, instead of being paid back in currency terms, the resolution of the loan was stated in terms of the value of some amount of gold.  Essentially, this is an inflation hedge.  In one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court, the Congressional Act was upheld.

  The problem with the government changing its policies and rules, predicated on "fairness," is that they undo countless rational decisions made by all of us.  We respond to our environment.  We mold our behavior based on the incentives that we face.  "Fairness" is unlikely to have anything to do with the political pressure for change exerted by special interests.

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.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

   Best Foot Backwards - This past March, I was able to start a fantastic spring break hike through the Grand Canyon, accompanied by hiking buddies John Eastwood, Bill Ferris and Chris Forsyth.  Although I had some hope that we could cover the intended route in eight days, there was an extra day built into the schedule to account for the fact that we were hiking on the north side of the canyon, off trail for all but one day, and, except for a couple of river parties we saw, alone.  Early on the eighth day, as we were climbing up a ravine upstream from 94 Mile canyon, I fell and sprained my foot.  Although in quite a bit of pain, I continued to hike up and out of the ravine, where we decided to make an emergency 911 call and my hike came to an end.  I wrote a story about this incident for the local paper

Click on any photo to see a larger image.
The pick up along the Tonto Plateau, below the Tower of Set.  Photo courtesy of Bill Ferris.	At the South Rim helipad with the SAR crew - Bryce, Brandon & Jessica.	At home after the trip to the hospital with my new boot and walking sticks.

and it ran on Thursday, April 2.  If you follow the link, you can read the on-line version, which, for some odd reason, is identified as being published on Friday, April 3), which is reprinted below, with my original title:

     There are some details here that couldn't work their way into the newspaper story, which I can raise here.  First, as a matter of some improbability, I just happened to take a photo of the spot where I was about to fall.  Chris had climbed up through these rocks, and Bill was just about to do so.  I was about twenty feet behind, and had a nice view looking up the ravine, so I snapped the picture to the right.  If you click on the photo, you can see a larger view, with the annotations.  Or, click here to just see the photo.  As you can probably see, it isn't really much of a spot.  We had been hiking for about thirty minutes, so were very fresh and a bit warmed up.  We were carrying a lot of water, but we were doing that every morning for the last few days.  The reason for my calamity was that I overreached for a small protruding rock surface with my left foot.  It was just a bit too high, so that when I pushed off with my right foot, there wasn't enough lift left in my leg.

     I didn't hike too far from this spot before giving up on carrying my pack.  Chris had offered to continue on and drop his pack at the top of the ravine and return to carry my pack up.  In fact, he and Bill hiked up quite a ways and then Bill shuttled their two packs the rest of the way to the Tonto level.  Meanwhile, John decided to shuttle his and my packs until Chris returned.  But, he changed his mind on this score and decided to carry both packs at the same time - mine strapped to the front of him, as you can see by the photo.  When we got to the top of the ravine, we were all resting together and talked over the situation.  Our best hope was that, while sore, I would be able to continue hiking, even if only slowly.  We would hope to make the water in Trinity, and, with a full night's rest, perhaps my foot would have improved significantly.  I was not hopeful on this score.  I have hiked on sprained ankles before, but this situation was quite a bit worse.  As I noted in the story, it took us about a half hour to reach a nearby saddle, where we revisited the situation and decided on the 911 call.  Altogether, it had been about four hours after my accident, so I think we gave it enough time to be sure.  Still, as long as I wasn't walking, I wasn't in any pain.  I could sit and rest and relax and feel just like normal.

     When the helicopter arrived, we learned that they had gotten the 911 message about 20 minutes after we sent it out - the signal goes to a facility in Texas and they have to track down the appropriate emergency responders.  Then, the folks at the Park Service had to do some investigating on who we were and what circumstances we were likely facing before sending out the copter.  The pilot, Bryce, was from Flagstaff and knew my colleague Doug Brown, and Doug's son, who was a student of mine some years ago and with whom I have been on a couple of hikes.  Jessica was the flight operations manager and Brandon was the EMT.  Only later did someone point out to me that we were not visited by the usual Park Service helicopter.  Where was that one?  In another twist of irony, it was sitting on the tarmac at an air show down in Phoenix, where Cara Lynn and Eric were for the day!  The NPS called her up, since she was listed as an emergency contact on my permit.  When I talked to her a short time later, she took the photo to the left, of the NPS bird down in Phoenix.

     Once on the ground at the South Rim, the NPS dispatcher, Della, gave me a ride to the Maswik lodge, where I would wait for my sister, Sue, and her significant other, Tom, to come and pick me up and drive me back to Flagstaff.  Just to provide full disclosure, I have included a photo of my foot, comparing it to my good one.  This was taken the next evening, and significant swelling would continue for some many days.

     Although I thought I would be back to normal in a couple of weeks, it has taken longer.  For the first two days, I stayed at home and needed to use both crutches to get anywhere around the house.  Then, for about five more days, I needed them only in the morning when I got up.  After moving around a bit, I found I was able to use just one crutch to get around the rest of the day.  I did that for about five days, and then switched to just using my hiking pole for light support and to keep from falling over while walking.  About two weeks after the accident, I stopped using the hiking pole, but I still walked slowly and with a noticeable limp.  It has now been just over one month and I am walking at about 95% of my normal speed and don't exhibit too much of a limp.  But, I can still feel soreness on the top of my foot, and won't try any jogging or hiking for some time to come.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

   Furlough Fantasies - The budget crisis is everywhere.  Here, the legislature has been looking to cut funding at the three state universities, including NAU.  As best I can tell, the administration is looking to cut about 20% from the budget, this year or next year, or both.  So it goes.

     There was an effort by the President's office to snag funds from a variety of sources on campus (sort of like rounding up the usual suspects in Casablanca).  But, soon, the talk turned to "furloughs."  And, that got my dander up.  Not because I don't understand that we have to cut somewhere, but, rather, because it is just a gimmick to accomplish pay cuts without saying that there are pay cuts.  That is the way government works (but, a private firm that tried the same tactic would likely get hauled up before some Congressional committee and slandered ad nauseam).  So, in the spirit of trying to help them get it right, I wrote this letter, which ran in the paper on Friday, February 27.

     The responses on the web fell into two broad categories - those that didn't understand the issue that the furlough was just a pretend arrangement and those that felt unduly snubbed by their being low wage earners.  Which means they haven't grasped the meaning of the golden goose fable.  I penned a response, as follows:

     I haven't heard anything through the grapevine about whether this idea is being taken seriously by the administration.  As Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "So it goes."

Monday, February 2, 2009

   Sunday in Cathedral - It is Super Bowl Sunday and the Arizona Cardinals are in it for the first time ever.  But, the weather is beautiful around here - crystal clear skies and temps in the mid-50s.  So, despite the allure of hot wings, beer and endless hours of pre-game hoopla, there was plenty of time for me to take a neat little hike in the upper reaches of the Grand Canyon . . . 

Read the full story:
Day Hike Down Cathedral Wash - Getting
to the river near Lees Ferry
in the Hiking Grand Canyon section of the Kaibab Journal

Saturday, January 31, 2009

   No Shingle Recession? - We had two big winter storms this past December which left lots of snow piled on the roof of my home.  Not surprising, of course.  But, it was taking a long time to melt off, and in the front, which is north facing, about a half foot, or more, of ice had formed on the eave, which dripped down onto the walkway and iced up every day/night.  I have a heated line run through the gutter in the front, and that has stayed clear.  But, the slowly melting snow and ice on the roof was getting under the eave and dripping down into the area leading to the front door.  A few businesses around town suffered some roof cave-ins as a result of these icy conditions and the paper ran a story about the dangers of letting ice dams persist.

    So, I decided that I should clear the ice off of the roof above the front door.  To do so, I had to start shoveling snow off the roof in the back, clearing a section and letting it dry off before clearing another section.  It took me four days to work my way up to the peak and down the north side.  Although I tried to be careful, I still ended up nicking and tearing some shingles.  Well, the roof is 18-19 years old, and at the end of its designated life anyway, so that's bound to happen.  But, one icy spot in the front, which I tried to pry up, loosened up a couple of shingles sections and those had to be replaced.

     I really wanted a professional to do the repairs, so I called a firm that I used to replace some shingles that blew off the roof back in June of 2007.  Over the phone I was informed that they "don't do repairs anymore."  Hmm, I wondered, even with a recession well underway, they must be lucky to be able to just give away this part of their business.  So, I called another firm.  I got an answering machine, so left my name and phone number.  A few hours later, not having heard any reply, I decided to call another firm, and left a message with the answering service.  That was on Monday, January 19th.  Granted, that is a holiday, but these firms are owner-operators, and there is a recession going on, so I figured that they were probably working that day.  Doesn't that make sense?

     Well, no reply on Monday, nor on Tuesday, and the weather forecast called for some rain/snow on Thursday.  So, Tuesday night I did some web research on replacing shingles - not too hard, but I had to buy all the tools necessary for the job, save a hammer!  And, on Wednesday morning, I was off to the Home Depot to get what I needed.  I had high hopes of being able to match the shingles pretty well, but was sorely disappointed.  For such a large store, they only had two colors of the 3-tab shingles I needed and one was white.  So, I got the other color (sage) and the tools I needed and did the repairs myself.  [Click on either photo to see a larger image.]  Not bad for a do-it-yourself job.  Besides the big spot, where I replaced two shingle sheets, I also had to replace a piece on the peak of the roof and I did some sealant repairs in about ten places around the roof.

     I did have one snag along the way.  The instructions called for popping the nails out of the existing shingles in order to remove them.  OK, but the first one I pried up didn't have any nails!  I looked quite hard, but nothing here.  So, I pried up the shingle under this one and felt the other shingle pop.  When I looked, I found that the shingles were not held in place with nails, but, rather, with staples.  Aha, I thought, that's why I found about twenty staples on the other side of the roof, where the blown away shingles had been replaced - the guy that fixed the roof left the staples just laying around a year and a half ago!

     Ten days have passed since then, and I still haven't received a call back from the two places I tried to get in touch with.  All I can figure is that their business model requires that they don't care about a potential customer unless that customer calls at least twice.  But, I thought there was a recession going on, and these guys certainly are not putting new roofs on new homes, since nobody is building new homes!  As an additional point of irony here, I have just been telling my students in Money & Banking that during economic downturns there is an increase in do-it-yourself activities as people try to cut corners.  But, now I'm wondering if there isn't more D-I-Y because nobody else wants to work?

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 14, 2009

   Clinton Home is Historic? - The Congress just passed a bill that sets aside millions of acres as federally protected wilderness.  And, this little tidbit - Bill Clinton's childhood home, which will get status as a "national historic site."  Such sites are administered by the National Park Service.  And, my question is, "Why does the taxpayer have to bear this burden?"  Bill Clinton makes millions giving speeches and writing books.  He can tap into many more millions from donations from others.  If he thinks that his boyhood home deserves special protected status, why doesn't he pony up the dough to make it so?

     Recognize the home on the right?  That is Mt. Vernon.  I'd like to think that everybody knows that this was George Washington's home, but education being what it is today, I can't be sure.  I visited here a few years ago and was quite pleasantly surprised to find out that it is operated and maintained strictly with private funds.  No taxpayer money is solicited, nor accepted.  As a consequence, the place is well preserved and it is made incredibly accessible to the public.

     Recognize the place on the left?  That is Meteor Crater, located about thirty-five miles from my home in Flagstaff, Arizona.  Like Mt. Vernon, it is also operated and maintained without taxpayer funds.  It was bought up by D. M. Barringer in 1903.  It has been preserved, used for research, and open to visitors.  Can anyone question the unique nature of such a place?  Need it be the taxpayer who supports the administration of this site?  Of course not.  Kept in private hands, it has been both preserved and enjoyed.

     It may well be that many of the items on the list of wilderness sites are worthwhile, but when something like Bill Clinton's home is included, even if the cost is relatively low, it stinks up the whole bill.  I guess we really can't expect any "change" from those greedy politicians that want someone else to pay for their toys and goodies.

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.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

   Warming Feud - In late November, at a meeting of the Flagstaff City Council, two members, Joe Haughey and Scott Overton, voted against new city rules and regulations, aimed at builders, to reduce greenhouse gasses that are, of course, the leading cause of the most dire problem we face in the modern world - hysteria over global warming.  At the meeting, they both expressed skepticism about what Haughey called, 'this global warming-climate change thing.'

     Of course, this led to some disparaging letters, the first of which was written by Bryan Cooperrider.  For the sake of completeness, and because it is short, here is what he wrote:  "According to council members Scott Overton and Joe Haughey, the "science for global warming is not entirely conclusive." Good grief -- these two should be the poster kids for why science education in America needs to be strengthened! I challenge them to name one credible scientist (no, Rush Limbaugh is not a credible scientist) who says global warming is not happening. It is flat irresponsible for elected officials to make such ignorant statements."

     For years I have thought about jumping into this debate.  But, I don't have any expertise in global climate matters.  I am just a reasonably smart person, who can read and evaluate arguments.  But, it seems quite clear to me that the activists that are pushing this agenda have used fear and intimidation to carry the day, and not a careful examination of the science.  Well, I couldn't resist responding to Cooperrider's letter, so I penned the following, which ran in the December 2nd paper:

     I did not pretend to have special knowledge in this area, but felt comfortable recommending a book about these "deniers."  Two of my colleagues actually made it a point to see me and comment favorably on my letter.  And, I also got a visit from Mr. Cooperrider!  He felt that meeting me was important and that I had misread his critique.  He claimed that the issue wasn't "man-made global warming" but just "global warming" itself.  I told him that it was unlikely that the council members were referring just to warming and that, while a bit sloppy, most people mean "man-made" even if they don't say it.  I thought more about his argument and penned an e-mail to him as a follow-up.  In fact, I re-read the original Daily Sun story, and in the second paragraph there is mention of the "doubt by two council members about the severity of global warming," which didn't question the warming, but just whether it was a dire problem or not.

     Then, on December 9th, there was a letter from Padraig Houlahan, who seems to be a pretty committed socialist, and writes occasional letters and whom I know from our association in the Coconino Astronomical Society.  He accused me of arguing against global warming (which, I wasn't) and that if I was going to accept the comments of skeptics, I should also accept the argument of skeptics in economics.  I replied on the web (you can see all the comments to all these letters by following the hyperlinks above) and tried to be civil and humorous.  I took exception to his notion that government is the solution: "I will grant you that the government had done a great job in the housing market, and is poised to finally restore efficiency to the automobile industry. It has a well-managed pension plan called “social security” and it is an excellent choice for the centralization of all health care in the U.S. Wait a minute . . . I don’t grant you any of those things. So, I will continue with my ongoing advocacy of free markets (and, of capitalism), arguing the case that government should be smaller and more limited and that markets should be freer."  His reply was not as courteous.  I made another reply, as did he, and I left it there.

     There were a few more letters in the paper, on both sides here, and the editor actually penned an editorial on the matter.  And, in today's paper, was a nice comment by David M. Monihan, Jr. that, "Rush Limbaugh . . . is a good entertainer, satirist and political commentator, but he's not a scientist. The only people I've ever heard refer to him as a scientist are liberals. That seems strange at first but then they seem to consider Al Gore a scientist."  Right on, David!

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.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

   Snowmaking Immoral? - I have often jousted with Marcus Ford, a fellow faculty member at Northern Arizona University.  Although our disagreements are generally polite, it certainly isn't because we have a foundation of mutual respect.  On August 22, the paper ran a letter of his, where he argued that snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks, at the Snowbowl ski lodge, was immoral.  Despite the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had just ruled in favor of Snowbowl, Ford argued that what was legal was not necessarily moral and raised the example of slavery to make his point.  An excellent example of hyperbole.  And, who will decide what is moral?  Apparently, Ford feels up to the challenge, since he decided that the city council's selling of reclaimed water to Snowbowl was "a mistake."  I quickly penned a reply, which was published in the paper on August 29:

I am not really a big fan of the Ninth Circuit Court, but they nailed this one on the head.  You can see their opinion here.  There is nice short write up about Shoemaker's ashes here and you can read about former Navajo President Hale's remarks here.  The sentiment expressed by Ford is quite ghastly, yet he received plenty of positive comments on the web.  Follow the links, above, to each of our letters to read web comments.  I was heartened, however, to note that his letter received a rating of 2.4 stars, based on 32 ratings, while mine has received 2.7 stars, based on 55 ratings.  Quite frankly, in liberal Flagstaff, that just doesn't happen very often.  But, there are a lot of people that are passionate about being able to ski up on the peaks.

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.

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.

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!" 

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:

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?  The editors suggest that, "annual park visitation has been flat for nearly a decade, in part because of its reputation for summer overcrowding."  How do they know this?  Well, they don't.  The mere act of writing (or, speaking) it will make it true.  After all, how can you survey non-visitors?  Certainly, some potential visitors may be off put by stories of the canyon's congestion.  But, most visitors are first time (i.e., only time) visitors.  I don't think the canyon's "congestion" is likely to be a deciding factor.  Inability to get a room reservation, on the other hand, may well be a deciding factor.  Still, it begs the question of why visitation is flat.  I would suggest that potential visitors are faced with lots of interesting choices for how to spend their time.  And, most "attractions" market themselves pretty effectively.  But, the Grand Canyon doesn't really do this.  It is not a destination.  And, yet, it could be.  But, the people that run the park service hate the idea that anyone would come to the Grand Canyon for any reason other than to genuflect upon the rim.  So, they have resisted each and every idea that would help carve out the Grand Canyon as a singularly spectacular visit.  The Hualapai Tribe is doing a better job (but, they have a long way to go) with their new Skywalk at the so-called Grand Canyon West.  

No, it isn't at all like Disneyland.  The editorial contends that "Grand Canyon Village is a mass tourism model no different than Disneyland, which has long shuttled visitors from giant, outlying parking lots by bus and tram to its entry gates."  First of all, the parking lot at Disneyland (the original one) was right in front of the gate to the park!!  Their transit options only developed over time.  Secondly, the draw of the Grand Canyon is . . . drumroll, please . . . the GRAND CANYON!!!  It isn't the village.  Visitors have no reason to wander around the village area.  The Grand Canyon is huge - practically the size of Delaware.  And what visitors want is access to the rim.  There is no reason why the village has to be so small, or so constrained to its current miniscule footprint.  It is an artificial scarcity that prompts wide-eyed urban planners into conniptions of buses and trams for visitor access when it is totally unneeded.
     One more salient fact, unmentioned in the editorial - Disneyland has parking for over 15,000 vehicles while the South Rim area has but 2400 spaces, and the "need" for about 600 more!

For those not in the know, the title for this essay is inspired by Ronald Reagan's famous retort to Jimmy Carter.

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.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Although it was a few years ago, my lunch with a California Condor, on a rocky ledge in the Grand Canyon has just been added to the Hiking Grand Canyon section of my blog. 

   Lunch with Condor #19 - [November 11, 2004] It is Veteran's Day, and there are no classes, which means I don't need to stick around in my office and can, instead, go hiking.  It was cool day, but not cold.  There was sun early, but quite a bit of overcast later.  And, despite some early missteps, it was a day to remember. . .

Read the full story - Lunch with Condor #19 in front of the Battleship

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.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

   Looking Glass Logic - This past Sunday, the Arizona Daily Sun ran an editorial titled, "Housing options need price tags and full debate."  The arguments made were built on such a flimsy house of cards, that I decided to pen a response and send it to them.  As the main thrust of the editorial was that the debate was over, insofar as government involvement in the local housing market was concerned, I thought about calling this blog, "Housing meets Global Warming."   As long as someone proclaims consensus, apparently there must be one!  The editorial concerned recommendations made by a $100,000, city-funded, study (Nexus Housing Study).  Here's the letter:

Some additional notes:

The "underpaid" class.  As noted, the editorial misses the point of what economists call the "full wage" of any worker.  By living in Flagstaff, instead of Phoenix, workers trade off summertime highs of 115 degrees (or, more) for wintertime lows that may dip below zero.  They trade off long commutes along congested highways, for short trips, even across town.  They trade off the desert for the mountains.  I have met people that don't want to make those trade offs, so they move elsewhere.  There is a constant rearranging of equilibrium conditions to reflect these underlying differences. 

Home ownership rates.  Whenever I see someone point to an average and bemoan the fact that "we" are below it, I just cringe.  Averages are made up of high and low numbers.  Hasn't Garrison Keeler convinced us that it is a pipe dream for everyone to be above average?  So, the national average is 67% (actually, it is 68.4%).  For the current year, across the fifty states, and D.C., the average ranges from 45.5% (Washington, D.C.), 55.7% (New York) and 59.9% (Hawaii) to 78.4% (West Virginia).  In "principal cities" the rate (for the U.S.) is 54.1%.  Across the 75 largest metropolitan areas, the rate is lowest in New York City (53.6%), Fresno, CA (53.9%), Los Angeles (54.4%) Honolulu (58.4%), and San Francisco (59.9%) while the highest is in Indianapolis (79%).  Note that these are not city limits, but metropolitan areas.  Certainly, the rates would be lower inside of city limits (except for Honolulu, where the city is the entire island of Oahu).
     And, that is true for Flagstaff as well.  The metro area, in the 2000 Census, is more than double the population of the city (116,000 versus 53,000), and had an overall home ownership rate of 61.4%, while the city had a rate of 48%.  Essentially, this means that home ownership rates in the local area, outside the city limits, are well over 70%!  While the editors of the local paper contend that local workers, commuting from outlying areas is "inefficient and ... undesirable," there is no support for any such notion.  They must be asserting that all 116,000 local area residents should be squeezed into the current city limits!
     Another issue here, which hasn't been addressed, is that Flagstaff is home to Northern Arizona University, which has well over 10,000 students.  This means that some demand exists for rental housing, not for owner-occupied housing.  This will skew the results for home ownership rates.  Having skimmed through the Nexus report, I can't find any adjustment for this demand.
     What about other places in Arizona?  Well, the 2000 Census gives home ownership rates for various places around the state.  The lowest rates are for Tempe (51%), Sierra Vista (52.2%), Tucson (53.4%), Bullhead City (60.3%), and Phoenix (60.7%).  The highest rates are for Apache Junction (82.1%), Peoria (84.3%), Gilbert (84.9%), and Surprise (88.3%).
     Well, these are the largest communities of our state.  Some of the smaller places, and their home ownership ratios can be accessed from this web page (put an * in the search box to see a list of Arizona places).  Here are the stats for some of these communities (from the 2000 Census) ranked from highest, to lowest, in terms of home ownership rates:

     Clearly this issue is not as cut-and-dried as the editors of the Daily Sun would have us believe - "The time for arguing over whether government should get involved in Flagstaff's housing crisis is over."  But, I think it is going to take more letters . . .

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.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

   Paycheck - Sci Fi Econ - One of my continuing interests is how economics is portrayed in science fiction writing.  I am a long-time fan of the sci fi genre.  I can remember reading a Scholastic Book, while in grade school, about a robot that wanted to see in color.  I was hooked.  I picked up many paperbacks throughout my high school years, including the I, Robot series, by Isaac Asimov.  I've been an off-and-on member of the Sci Fi Book Club for 30 years.  [If it wasn't for the required response cards, I would only have joined once!]  I can still vividly remember reading Asimov's Foundation Trilogy while I was in college.

     As I pursued an undergraduate degree in economics, and, eventually, a PhD in that field, I found myself intrigued by the representations of the economic landscape in science fiction.  From the bizarre, and untenable - like the lack of money in Star Trek, and the entire collapse of a planetary system, due to faulty monetary policy, in John Brunner's Total Eclipse - to the hopeful and inspiring - like Heinlein's rugged economic individualism in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

     I have been compiling a folder of miscellaneous notes over the years.  I keep thinking that I might craft together a course on the subject.  Today, that interest jumps out onto my blog.  I just watched Paycheck, for the umpteenth time.  And, as I have so many times before, I also read Philip Dick's short story that is the basis for the movie.  I like to remind myself how they differ.  The plot of the written story, at its core, involves a coming revolution against a government that has continually curbed individual freedoms.  We don't really get anywhere near the revolution, as the story concerns Jennings' search to follow the clues he sent himself in lieu of his expected paycheck.  In many ways, the story and the movie are similar - Jennings is a technical expert, hired to work on a secret project for a private company, who has his memory wiped at the end of the job, and who, now, must find his way through a world where people want to find out what he knows.

     And, yet, there is a fundamental difference between the story and the movie - in the movie, the CEO is the evil character, and the business is the vehicle for the destruction of mankind.  In the book, the CEO is a stalwart character, who is concerned about the destruction of liberty by the government.  Ah, that old Hollywood bias!

     So, there is a nice passage in the story that highlights Dick's vision of the future, at least insofar as this plot was concerned:

     Fascinating vision.  But, I can't say that businesses will really be able to fend off the intrusions of government, as portrayed in this story.  Still, we can dream.  Dick's stories have been regularly turned into movies, many of which are my favorites - e.g., Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, and Imposter.  For those who want to know more, here are some links:

Philip K. Dick Fans
A Life of Fantasy
The Hollywood Afterlife of Philip K. Dick

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.

For more, go to the Random Fragments Archive Index

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