|  
 | 
  
      
            |   | 
                    |   | 
        
          |   | 
        
          | Thursday,
          June 1, 2006  United
          93 
			 - The
          movie  United 93 
			 has
          been showing at the local theater, but ended its run today.  I
          finally went to see it yesterday.  It was, in a word,
          excellent.  There are no stars in the film, which heightens the
          realism.  Also, the choppy chatter of dialog rings real. 
          There is an unfolding of the story without any particular character
          development.  We really are given a "you are there"
          perspective, except that the movie does cut back and forth between the
          flight, some military air command post, the FAA post and various
          airport traffic controller facilities.  There is no action shown
          on the other hijacked aircraft, although it is the take-over of
          American 11 that triggers the official involvement.  Well worth
          remembering these events, especially if one only knew parts of the
          full story.  Watching this movie prompted a couple of thoughts
          that I think are relevant to this topic.
  Paradigm
          shifts can happen quickly.  
			What struck me at the time, and still 
			does, is how fast a paradigm shift can occur.  In this case, 
			the shift was from tolerance of hijackers to intolerance.  As 
			voiced by a couple of passengers in the film, we have a history of 
			dealing with hijackers that generally want to make a statement, or 
			try to extort particular concessions from some government.  
			They aren't particularly interested in killing the passengers, and 
			themselves, in the exercise, although they may threaten to do so.  
			But, after finding out about the planes crashed into the World Trade 
			Center, these passengers decided to act to thwart these terrorists.  
			A few held out for doing nothing (at least, as portrayed in the 
			film) despite the information that was coming in from phone 
			conversations by various passengers.  [Another interesting 
			aspect is the fact that such conversations could take place.]  
			The bottom line is that this paradigm - tolerating hijackers - is 
			over.  Although a great deal has been made about beefing up 
			security, and the attendant waste of tons of money, the events of 
			9/11 cannot occur again - four, or five, men armed with box cutters 
			will never be able to take over another airplane.
  A
          "what if" scenario. 
          We can all admire the efforts made by these passengers on that fateful
          day.  Yet, the object of this group of hijackers was the nation's
          capitol.  What if this attack had succeeded?  And, what if a
          significant number of representatives and senators had been
          victims?  Something inside tells me that our current "war on
          terror" would have a lot more support from the gutless wonders
          that "serve" on Capitol Hill.  Sure, there would still
          be questions about WMDs and the link between Saddam and
          al-Qaeda.  But, I bet there would be less hand wringing about our
          stirring up a hornet's nest, versus targeting individual hornets, as a
          long-run strategy to ending this problem.  A free and democratic
          Iraq, as flawed as it is (and will be) still can serve as an engine of
          change in that part of the world.  That idea represents the kind
          of vision that the first President Bush sorely lacked.
 | 
      
          |  
 | 
        
          | Friday,
          June 2, 2006  Markets
          do work 
			 - This
          past Wednesday, the local paper ran an editorial titled,
          "Consider responsible drilling on U.S. soil," by Philip
          Gold.  This was a reprint from its appearance in the  Christian
          Science Monitor.  The basic idea was that an impartial panel
          could select domestic drilling sites, weighing the relevant benefits
          and costs, and submit a single list to Congress for an up-or-down
          vote, as is done these days with regard to military base
          closures.  Well, it is interesting, but it still ignores the
          issue of why the government should be so involved in the first
          place.  But, what troubled me about Gold's editorial was that he
          claimed that, when it came to oil and gas, the market just didn't work
          - "According to common belief, high prices inevitably call forth both consumer conservation and increased supply...But it doesn't work that way." 
          Nonsense.  His reasoning was shallow in the extreme, and it lead
          to some rather perverse conclusions.  So, I penned the following
          letter to the editor:
 
            
            
              
                | To the
                  editor: Philip
                  Gold’s editorial contained some interesting ideas, but his
                  premise – that market don’t work – is dangerously
                  flawed.
                  
                   Yes, the
                  demand for oil is “inelastic.”  So what?  That
                  just means that it will take people longer to fully react to
                  price changes, assuming that these price changes are
                  permanent, in real purchasing power terms.  If the price
                  of Coke rises to $3 a can, consumers will respond right away -
                  buying Pepsi and other substitutes.  But, there aren’t
                  really good substitutes for oil.  When its price rises,
                  it takes a while to fully respond.
                  
                   How will
                  consumers react?  They’ll double up on trips, going to
                  the store on their way home from work.  They’ll cut
                  back on non-work travel, making fewer trips to Phoenix per
                  month.  They’ll go hiking up Mt. Humphreys rather than
                  drive to the Grand Canyon.  For some, carpooling will
                  become more convenient.  All these actions reduce our
                  gasoline consumption.
                  
                   Over time,
                  we are likely to see more dramatic changes – people living
                  closer to work and buying more fuel efficient cars.  Yes,
                  markets do respond.  After all, many Japanese companies
                  profited quite well by satisfying Americans' demand for high
                  gas mileage cars back in the 1970s.
                  
                  The illogical consequence of
                  Gold’s premise is his suggestion that domestic supplies be
                  priced “below market prices, as a stabilizer.”  Ouch! 
                  Pricing any good below the market price doesn’t stabilize
                  anything.  It only creates a shortage, forcing consumers
                  to pay in other ways – standing in line, buying gas only on
                  certain days, or offering under the table payments to insure
                  they aren’t left holding the empty gas can.  It is a
                  recipe for chaos. Dennis FosterFlagstaff, Arizona
 |  | 
      
          |  
 | 
        
          |  Wednesday,
          June 7, 2006
  Lies,
          Myths & John Stossel
          
          - Last week, the 
			Goldwater
          Institute 
			
			sponsored a luncheon featuring ABC News
          reporter/commentator 
			John
          Stossel.  He 
          has been on the road recently, plugging his new
          book,
          
			Myths,
          Lies and Downright Stupidity.  Although he has been an
          unparalleled champion of free markets and economic liberty for many
          years, this is only his second foray into the book market, and his
          first one wasn't all that long ago.  I was quite interested in
          attending this lunch, and was accompanied by my wife, Cara Lynn, and
          two of my students (my treat).
 
			    
          Stossel has been a favorite of mine for many years.  I was first
          introduced to his work when I sat through a colleague's class when
          they were watching Stossel's "Is America #One?" video. 
          I soon ordered a copy to show in my classes, and, since then, have
          added two other of his 20/20 specials:  "Greed" and
          "Tampering With Nature."  My students really like these
          videos - I think they are eager to hear from someone that makes sense
          of the world around them, and cuts through all the mumbo jumbo.  Needless to say, the presentation was excellent, and, not
          surprisingly, well-received by a packed house at this event. 
          Stossel is, I think, taken a bit aback by a room full of
          supporters.  Afterwards, he signed copies of his new book.
 
			    
          I am about half way through the book and it is a great read, although
          depressing in the sense of how much junk goes on around us. 
          Stossel seems rather reserved in his speaking roles, but, in the book,
          he really has taken off the kid gloves and is much more explicit about
          what he thinks of people that work to limit our liberties.  [But,
          not as explicit as, say,  Penn
          & Teller.]  It may just make it to my "required
          reading" list for my economics students next spring (but, then,
          I'd likely have to give up the excellent book,  How
          Capitalism Saved America). 
           | 
      
          |  
 | 
        
          |  Thursday,
          June 15, 2006
  The
          Woody Fire 
			 - Late
          yesterday afternoon, Flagstaff residents found themselves
          suddenly under billowing plumes of smoke.  It isn't all that
          unusual for smoke to blow through the area, from distant fires, but
          this one was close.  My wife, Cara Lynn, spotted the plume from
          I-17, at the airport exit, at about 4:15 p.m.  As her son lives
          in the same general vicinity as the smoke, she
          decided to check it out.  She got on I-40, westbound, and just a
          couple of miles down the road took some photos, below, with her camera
          phone.  While the local paper has described this fire as starting
          at 4:40 p.m., they are certainly off by about an hour.  In the
          second picture, below, she had just passed by three fire engines that
          were responding to the fire.  She said that, while passing by the
          fire, she could feel the heat quite intensely.  After getting
          home, she e-mailed these three photos to  Channel
          3, in Phoenix, which ran them often over the next hour during
          their coverage of this fire.  They also posted them
          up on their web site as part of a photo gallery for this fire.
 
			    
          While the fire spread fast, and the high winds were really fanning the
          flames, fire crews responded quickly, and we had air tankers, as well
          as helicopters loaded with water buckets, fighting the fire by 6 p.m.,
          if not earlier.  We dodged a bullet on this one, in part due to
          the quick response of firefighters, as well as forest thinning, which
          has been an ongoing effort around this area for a few years, despite
          the protests of some  environmental
          nuts.  In an additional ironic twist, the local paper
          featured a front page story, yesterday morning, about police rousting
          out summertime transients, who illegally set up campsites in the local
          forests.  Ironic because the police were just issuing warnings
          and letting this activity go on for up to a week before taking
          definitive action!  That may change as a result of this fire, not
          that it was caused by a transient, but it does highlight the risks
          posed. 
            
              
                | Click
                  on any picture to see a larger image (including the panorama,
                  above). |  
                |  |  |   |  
                | Approaching
                  fire, near the Flagstaff Ranch Road exit, along I-40. | Fire starting
                  point, along I-40. Photo taken just at 4:25 p.m.
 | Trees
                  engulfed in smoke, with flames at their base.
 |  | 
      
          |  
 | 
        
          | Monday,
          June 26, 2006 
  Local
          Hiking - Last Call
          
          - Last Friday the local forests were closed, until our monsoon
          season starts and the danger
          of fire abates.  Luckily, I had the chance to do a couple of
          outstanding  local
          trails just before that happened.  On Saturday, June 17, hiking
          buddy Russell, and his son, Russell (yes, no end of confusion there)
          climbed up to the top of 10,400 foot  Kendrick
          Peak, located a few miles north, and west, of the San Francisco
          Peaks, which loom so prominently over Flagstaff.  It was a
          beautiful day, but my dog, Scout, tired out in the heat of the
          afternoon.  Still we covered the 9 miles, round trip, in about
          six hours, including rest breaks and lunch at the top.  The fire
          lookout was being manned, but there wasn't anything going on at that
          time.  The lookout, and the small area at the peak, were swarming
          with flying insects, so we didn't really stay very long.  In
          fact, you can see the bugs in the group picture of us (click
          on any picture to see a larger image). 
          The panorama of the San Francisco peaks, above, was taken from the
          fire lookout.  Quite noticeable are the ski slopes (to the right,
          along the side of Agassiz Peak) and  Sunset
          Crater, to the left of the peaks.
  Russell and I had planned to climb Mt. Humphrey's, at 12,633 feet, the
          tallest in Arizona, on Saturday, June 24.  But, on Tuesday (6/20)
          we got word that the forests would be closing down that week, no doubt
          spurred on by the Brins Fire in Oak Creek Canyon.  So, we decided
          to get our hike in last Wednesday.  We were on the trail by 7
          a.m., and there were a few parties ahead of us.  But, it was cool
          and pleasant hiking all the way to the top.  We covered the 9.2
          miles, round trip, and 3100 feet of elevation change, in seven
          hours.  At the top, we could easily see the Brins Fire burning in
          Oak Creek, as shown in the photo, to the left, with Agassiz in the
          foreground.  For once, I didn't sign the register - the box was
          overstuffed with papers, and some were scattered about the area. 
          Too bad.  You'd figure that some forest service person treks up
          here on a regular basis and that they could keep this from
          happening.  Well, I'd think so.  And, here's another
          suggestion:
  Leave
          some trails open! 
          I have yet to hear of a fire caused by hikers and bike riders. 
          Yet, we are the ones that bear the brunt of these forest
          closures.  And, the forest service has solicited the services of
          almost 200 volunteers to keep the dirt roads and trails closed. 
          So, why not keep some open?  Like, the Snowbowl road for
          bikers?  Or the Mt. Elden Fatman loop trail for hikers?  We
          can use the services of these volunteers to monitor activities without
          really raising our risks.  But, no.  Instead, the forest
          service decides that closing everything to everybody is the best way
          to proceed.  I disagree.
 
			Related
          blogs:
  A
          Break in the Action 
  Snowy
          Mt. Humphreys 
  Highest
          Ranked Blogmeister in Arizona | 
      
          |  
 | 
        
          | Wednesday,
          June 28, 2006  The
          Union is No Prescription
          
          - Last week, nurses at the Flagstaff Medical Center voted down
          the efforts to organize a union, which were being spearheaded by a
          California nurses union.  Three cheers for the FMC nurses that
          voted against this effort to become parasites in a system that is
          already bleeding us dry.  I think that the main reason for this
          outcome is that most nurses recognize that the quality of their work
          environment will suffer, even if they get more pay.
 
			    
          The organizers had claimed that their main interest was "patient
          care."  What malarkey!  Too bad we can't impose
          truth-in-advertising to the union.  The only thing the union -
          any union - cares about is the wealth of its members.  And, it
          isn't necessarily interested in maximizing its membership, as that
          would reduce wages.  Given that unions have special legal
          protections, not afforded to business interests, they become nothing
          more than state-sanctioned extortionists.  The notion that
          workers should, as a matter of law, have rights to control and constrain
          a business' decisions is . . . well, it's just bizarre.  Property
          owners get to make decisions about how to use their property. 
          And, in the business environment, those are stockholders.  If
          workers want to control a business, buy their stock.  In the case
          of the hospital, a non-profit institution, they could give up some of
          their salary, say 25%, in order to become financial investors in the
          organization, with a seat at the table. 
			    
          That is not to say that businesses can just ignore workers. 
          Workforce morale is quite important to the success of any business,
          but unionization isn't going to create that morale.  Instead, it
          deepens divisions, engenders mistrust, and wastes resources. 
          And, it certainly doesn't benefit hospital patients.
           | 
      
          |  
 | 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
      
            |   | 
                    |   | 
      
          |   |