• k彩平台登陆
  • AZ Parks Proposal
  • Archive for October 2005

    "I Never Forgot I Was Lying"

    Via , comes of one of the young "accusers" in the McMartin pre-school sex abuse prosecutions, one of several witch-hunts from a mercifully brief era of a national day care sex-abuse panic.  While certainly abuse occurs, as is made clear from recent Catholic Church revelations, prosecutors used the excuse of "protecting the children" to justify all kinds of abuses of the fact-finding process (something we should remember in the Patriot Act era).

    The lawyers had all my stories written down and knew exactly what I had said
    before. So I knew I would have to say those exact things again and not have
    anything be different, otherwise they would know I was lying. I put a lot of
    pressure on myself. At night in bed, I would think hard about things I had said
    in the past and try to repeat only the things I knew I'd said before.

    remember describing going to an airport and Ray taking us somewhere on an
    airplane. Then I realized the parents would have known the kids were gone from
    the school. I felt I'd screwed up and my lie had been caught"”I was busted! I was
    so upset with myself! I remember breaking down and crying. I felt everyone knew
    I was lying. But my parents said, "You're doing fine. Don't worry." And everyone
    was saying how proud they were of me, not to worry.

    I'm not saying
    nothing happened to anyone else at the McMartin Pre-School. I can't say that"”I
    can only speak for myself. Maybe some things did happen. Maybe some kids made up
    stories about things that didn't really happen, and eventually started believing
    they were telling the truth. Maybe some got scared that the teachers would get
    their families because they were lying. But I never forgot I was lying.

    There is much more in the article, demonstrating how prosecutors manipulated children to get prosecutions. 

    This topic has resonance with me because I sat on the jury of such a case around 1992.  Earlier sex-abuse prosecutions were starting to look suspicious, but there was still a lot of incentive for prosecutors to push high-profile cases (after all, Janet Reno would soon become AG for the US, largely on the strength of a number of well publicized and in retrospect very questionable such prosecutions).  By 1992, though, defense lawyers had caught up and were better at highlighting the egregious tactics used by prosecutors to coax stories out of children.  Many of the tactics we saw in our trial were identical to those recounted in this article.  There was even an eerie parallel to this recent Vioxx case, as the initial (3rd party) accuser who first reported that the victim was being abused seemed more motivated by getting on Oprah than getting her facts correct.

    Update:  Neo-Libertarian has the details on I mentioned in passing.  Here is on "the Miami method" and several of Reno's unethical abuse prosecutions.

    She Was Asking For It

    While the "she was asking for it" defense has thankfully been purged from most rape trials (at least those involving strangers), it seems to be alive and well in the civil trial world.  Last week, a jury held that the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were only 32% responsible for their actions.  The real villain in this terrorist attack was ... the Port Authority, owner of the facility, who so thoughtlessly allowed themselves to get bombed.  More via and .  Based on joint and several liability, the PA now is on the hook for the entire $1.8 billion verdict.

    By the way, the "smoking gun" in the trial was apparently a recommendation the PA received (one of hundreds and perhaps thousands of suggestions of wildly varying quality) to close the parking lot to cars to prevent car bombs.  This helps reinforce my earlier point of why litigation insanity like this actually works to make the world less safe, because such litigation provides a strong disincentive for an entity to have any internal discourse on safety, since notes from this discourse can be held against it later. 

    It is always useful to think about what consistently applied policy would have satisfied the jury that the PA was not liable.  In this case, the jury's verdict was clearly "they should have closed the garage to prevent car bombings."  Now, lets apply that everywhere consistently.  This would basically mean that we close every car parking garage in the country, since they are all equally vulnerable to a car bomb.  Applying this further, wouldn't this same standard also result in closing all tall buildings to prevent airplane attack, closing all airports to prevent hijackings, and closing all government buildings to prevent bombings (well, maybe thats not so bad).  I have posted before about finding the absurdity from translating a jury's civil verdict into a consistent policy.  Here is one example:

    the exact wording on the complaint against the railroad is even better than I thought:

    [engineer] did not stop the train in a timely manner, and failed to
    yield the right of way to a pedestrian walking along the tracks in
    plain view"

    , even with full emergency braking.

    She and her attorney's further argue:

    the railroad was negligent for failing to post signs warning 'of the
    dangers of walking near train tracks and that the tracks were actively
    in useLets

    leave aside the obvious point
    about individual responsibility, and ask what would happen if this were
    the legal standard, to have such signs.  To make sure someone saw one,
    you would have to have one say every 30 feet.  Since there are that works out to a bit over 35,000,000 signs that need to be posted.  At $100 per sign this would cost $3.5 billion.

    Here is the serious point:  Never would any legislature
    pass a law that said there had to be warning signs every 30 feet on
    railroads.  It would be way too costly for little benefit.  At grade
    crossings today, we have signs and flashing lights and even gates and
    still thousands of people a year drive in front of trains on grade
    crossings.  So, if we would never require it legislatively, how have we
    gotten to a point where a jury might effectively retroactively require
    such signs, and assess a multi-million dollar penalty for not doing it?

    Halloween Myth-Busting

    I must admit that I always accepted the conventional wisdom that trick-or-treating was becoming more dangerous, with incidents of kids getting poisoned candy and the like.  According to , this is an urban legend.  In fact:

    Tales of black-hearted madmen doling out poisoned Halloween candy to
    unsuspecting little tykes have been around forever "” they were part
    of my Halloween experience nearly forty years ago. And every year sees the same
    flurry of activity in response to such rumors: radio, TV and newspapers issue
    dark warnings about tampered candy and suggest taking the little ones to parties
    instead of collecting goodies door-to-door. Even Ann Landers published a column
    in 1995 warning us against the mad poisoner, saying, "In recent years, there
    have been reports of people with twisted minds putting razor blades and poison
    in taffy apples and Halloween candy."

    It's a sadness that a holiday so thoroughly and greedily enjoyed by kids
    is being sanitized out of existence in the name of safety. Sadder still is there
    appears to be little reason for it.

    Though I've yet to find evidence of
    a genuine Halloween poisoning, I have uncovered a few isolated incidents
    initially reported as random poisonings that, upon further investigation, turned
    out to be something else.

    So relax and have a happy Halloween  (and yes, I will still probably visually check my kids candy tonight just to make sure -- its too easy and its an ingrained habit now).

    Politicians and Prioritization

    Imagine that you are in a budget meeting at your company.  You and a number of other department heads have been called together to make spending cuts due to a cyclical downturn in revenue.  In your department, you have maybe 20 projects being worked on by 10 people, all (both people and projects) of varying quality.   So the boss says "We have to cut 5%, what can you do?"  What do you think her reaction would be if you said "well, the first thing I would have to cut is my best project and I would lay off the best employee in my department". 

    If this response seems nuts to you, why do we let politicians get away with this ALL THE TIME?  Every time that politicians are fighting against budget cuts or for a tax increase, they always threaten that the most critical possible services will be cut.  Its always emergency workers that are going to be cut or the Washington Monument that is going to be closed.  Its never the egg license program that has to be cut. 

    I am reminded of this in driving long distance this weekend and I picked up, by one of those random late night AM skip-distance things, a station in Colorado, and it was full of commercials threatening dire consequences (old people will go hungry, kids won't get an education, emergency workers won't be there for your heart attack) if voters don't overturn TABOR, which is the tax plan that has, for over a decade, limited tax revenue collections to population growth plus inflation.  When I was in Colorado, I loved TABOR (the on why you should too) and really loved the tax refunds I often got because of it.

    TABOR provides a fairly constant revenue stream to the government, in good times and bad.  When times are good, the government is flush, and when times are bad the government runs short (due to unemployment payments, more welfare, etc.).  Many of us in cyclical businesses deal with this all the time, and seem to be able to cut marginal programs added in good times that we can no longer fund in bad times.  Politicians are incapable of this.  Many businesses also underspend revenues by a wide margin in good times, knowing they will need the reserves in bad times.  Politicians are also incapable of this.

    On Tuesday, Colorado voters will decide if they will require Colorado politicians to take the same responsibility for fiscal management that everyone else does in their private business lives, or if they will bail them out of their incompetance with more of their money. 

    Going back to my example of suggesting in a budget meeting that you will cut your best programs and people in a budget crisis, would you expect to get more budget or to be fired?  Why can't we do the same with politicians?

    Update: Bummer.  Coloradans voted to roll back TABOR.  Glad I don't live there anymore.  .

    Senator Coburn Makes Another Run at Fiscal Sanity

    Apparently not daunted by the how the :

    Dr. Coburn, joined by Senators Sam Brownback, Jim DeMint, John
    Ensign, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and John Sununu, proposed the
    following actions to offset hurricane relief spending:
    "¢ A freeze on cost-of-living adjustments for federal employees,
    including members of Congress, with the exception of law enforcement
    and military personnel.
    "¢ A two-year delay in implementation of the Medicare prescription
    drug benefit except for low-income seniors who would receive $1,200 in
    assistance with their drug discount cards.
    "¢ A requirement that those with higher incomes pay higher Medicare
    Part B premiums in 2006, rather than in 2007 as currently scheduled.
    "¢ Eliminate $24 billion in special project spending in the recently passed highway bill. 
    "¢ A cut of 5% to all federal spending programs except those which
    impact national security, with 1% set aside for funding of essential
    The package of offsets proposed today could save the American taxpayers nearly $130 billion over two years.          

    Arizona is the only state who had both its Senators support the first Coburn amendment, but I am never-the-less writing both to encourage them to hold tough. 


    AZ Republic Takes Shot at Oil Companies

    In a remarkable example of an called "Fueling Contempt" on the front page of the AZ Republic, the Republic leads with this line:

    Reaction to major oil producers' staggering profits ranges from rage at
    the pumps to calls for profits to be reinvested in exploration,
    alternative-energy research or simply returned somehow to the public.

    The article is mainly focused on the profit announcement at Exxon-Mobil, so I will use their numbers to put "staggering" into context.  E-M announced profits of   For those who cannot divide, that is a profit margin of 9.9% of sales.  Since when is a profit margin at a cyclical peak of 9.9% considered "staggering"?  Microsoft makes 30%, in good times and bad, with a fraction of the investment or risk X-M takes.  selling toothpaste and detergent but we are going to begrudge oil companies 7.6% on average and 10% in their best quarters?

    The article does absolutely nothing to put the profits in their proper context, though I was able to do it in one paragraph.  This is the only context the article offers:

    The oil companies assert that their profits are no larger than other
    businesses and that they just look big because it is a big business.

    Exxon Chairman Lee R. Raymond said in a statement that the company
    "acted responsibly" in its pricing and said its fourth-quarter profits
    would come nowhere close to the $9.9 billion in the third quarter.

    That doesn't necessarily wash with Adrienne Valdez of Phoenix.

    "I can't afford to buy socks because I am paying twice what I used to
    for gas," she said. "It's not right that they should be making billions
    at our expense."

    In Phoenix, gas prices soared to $3.14 after Hurricane Katrina hit the
    Gulf Coast. The average Valley price per gallon, which has been falling
    in recent weeks, was $2.72 Thursday, according to AAA Arizona.

    Bruce Trushinsky, owner of the former Moon Valley Exxon station at 1901
    W. Thunderbird Road in Phoenix, called Exxon Mobil's $9.9 billion
    quarterly profit "disgusting."

    He became so upset at the $7.6 billion profit posted by the company in
    the second quarter that he canceled a longtime branding agreement.

    "I ripped down all the Exxon signs and threw them in the garbage,"

    he said. Now, after 30 years, Moon Valley Exxon is Carmel Automotive
    and Fuel. Trushinsky said the high wholesale prices charged by Exxon
    were devastating to his business and that the last straw was when the
    company canceled its dealer-incentive program.

    "They cut us off, then they announced their (second-quarter) profit increased $2 billion."

    This is populist crap, and is the reason the MSM cannot be taken
    seriously when they say that they are neutral reporters.  They are not
    reporting, they are cheerleading an anti-oil company bigotry that has
    existed for decades.  I think that the E-M management should be embarrassed to make such a small return in their best quarter.  Shareholders should take management to the woodshed for investing and risking so much in a cyclical business and making so little.  For gods sakes, they make a lower margin than Jif peanut butter earns.  Is anyone suggesting that we impose a windfall profits tax on Charmin?

    I find the title of the article "Fueling Contempt" interesting - I am not sure if it was meant to refer to high oil company profits or if it was just a statement of intent for the article.

    Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for
    inflation, in gasoline tax revenues"”more than twice the amount of domestic
    profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period

    This is just gasoline taxes - it does not include income tax payments, property tax payments, and oil lease royalty payments.

    Wal-Mart and The Minimum Wage

    Apparently, though I can't dig up a link right this second, Wal-mart is putting its support behind a higher minimum wage.  One way to look at this is a fairly cynical ploy to get the left off its back.  After all, if Wal-mart's starting salary is $6.50 an hour (for example) it costs them nothing to ask for a minimum wage of $6.50.

    A different, and perhaps more realistic way to look at this Wal-mart initiative is as a bald move to get government to sit on their competition.  After all, as its wage rates creep up, as is typical in more established companies, they are vulnerable to competitors gaining advantage over them by paying lower wages.  If Wal-mart gets the government to set the minimum wage closer to the wage rates it pays, it eliminates the possibility of this competitor strategy.  Besides, a higher minimum wage would surely put more low-skilled people out of work, increasing the pool of people Wal-mart can hire  (and please do not bring up the NJ convenience store study that supposedly shows that higher minimum wage increase employment - no one in their right mind really believes that demand for labor goes up when the costs go up).  I am not sure what the net effect on Wal-mart's customers would be -- some would have more money, from higher wage, and some would have less, from fewer hours or due to being laid off.

    I have defended Wal-mart in the past, but I am going to stop if they become the new auto or steel industry and use the government to protect their market position.  Already they are losing my sympathy with their whoring for local relocation subsidies and eminent domain land grabs.  I wrote on minimum wage from a small business perspective here.

    Pumpkin Carving Contest

    The Fat Triplets are having an .

    Libertarians Adrift

    While it comes as no surprise to me, Republicans are making it official:  After dallying with small government notions in the eighties and nineties, under George Bush they are refocusing themselves on statism.  Going forward, Republicans see themselves locked in an arms race with Democrats over who can spend more and advocate more statist controls.

    This news comes to us via conservative David Brooks, via :

    [Brooks] rejects Bartlett's charge that Bush has betrayed conservatism. According to
    Brooks, "Bush hasn't abandoned conservatism; he's modernized and saved it." As
    Brooks tells the story, "conservatism was adrift and bereft of ideas" until
    President Bush came along.

    Almost single-handedly, Bush reconnected with the positive and
    idealistic instincts of middle-class Americans. He did it by recasting
    conservatism more significantly than anyone had since Ronald Reagan. He rejected
    the prejudice that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad, and
    he tried to use government to encourage responsible citizenship and community
    service. He sought to mobilize government so the children of prisoners can build
    their lives, so parents can get data to measure their school's performance, so
    millions of AIDS victims in Africa can live another day, so people around the
    world can dream of freedom.

    "Government should help people improve their lives, not run their lives,"
    Bush said. This is not the Government-Is-the-Problem philosophy of the mid-'90s,
    but the philosophy of a governing majority party in a country where people look
    to government to play a positive but not overbearing role in their lives.

    Barf.  The last sentence contains a pure contradiction:  There is no way for government to play any role, positive or negative, without being overbearing, at least to some.  There is no way for the government to improve some lives without running others.

    Despite what politicians may argue, the government has only one unique quality no one else can match.  They are not uniquely smart, or uniquely capable, or uniquely compassionate, or uniquely efficient, or even uniquely able to run large organizations.  Their only unique capability is to deal with people by force, and to use force and the threat of force and imprisonment to compel individuals to do things they would no choose to do themselves.

    This unique ability to use force is necessary to the government in fulfilling its core roles of protecting us from the use of force from outside our borders (military) and protecting its citizens from the use of force or fraud by other citizens (police and courts).  When the government uses its unique ability to coerce in other spheres, there are always winners and losers.  That is because by definition the government is using force to cause an outcome or a decision that people would not have made on their own, based on their own self-interest and of their own free will.  So when politicians blithely say things like "help people improve their lives", what they ALWAYS mean is using force to compel someone to do something they would not have to do in a free society.   

    For this reason, there is no such thing as having the government "play a positive but not overbearing role in their lives".  The best you can hope for with such an activist government system is to hope that the government plays a net-positive role in your life, while being overbearing to others.  Which pretty much sums up why politics are so high stakes today - if government is about sacrificing one group to another, I want my guy in there so he can be overbearing to some other group for the benefit of mine.

    I dealt with these same themes a couple of days ago in this post, where I said "the entire Republican and Democratic platform each boil down to 'we
    support government intervention except where our major donors oppose
    it'".  My summary statement on the full range of government interference with free individual decision-making is here.

    Update:  While Marginal Revolution is still optomistic for libertarians, they point out that "progressives" see the opportunity now for real expansion of socialism in this country

    Democrat :

    If you did have a progressive president, there's no longer a
    particularly large amount of popular resistance to expanding the activist state.
    Even most Republicans don't especially care about small government.

    Archiving Coyote Blog in Print Form

    Recently, I just finished a two-book archive of the first year of Coyote Blog.  Today, I got the books (or ) in the mail and they look great!

    k彩平台登陆Coyote_cover_1 k彩平台登陆Coyote_back_1

    Why, one might ask, did I put my blog in a book, when everything is archived by pressing links right over there to the right of this page ------>

    The first reason was for my dad.  My dad is 80-something and refuses to join the Internet age, but he would like to read my blog.  So, I produced a couple of volumes of my blog posts to give to him for Christmas.  (See, that's how confident I am that he is not reading this online -- I just published the contents of his present).

    The second reason is based more on my having been a part of computers since getting an Apple II back in the late 70's.  Electronic media are not necessarily the greatest for archiving.  I wrote a lot of neat little games on my Apple II.  I wrote programs in college in pascal and assembly language on an S-100 bus C/PM computer.  I wrote programs in SNOBOL on cards for the mainframe at Princeton.  I received hundreds of emails on early CompuServe email.  Anyone know where all that stuff is today?  Neither do I.  Already I remember some cool web sites with content that seems to be gone from the Internet.   There is some kind of reverse-Moore's Law here that, if concocted, would say that the cost and complexity of reading and retrieving electronic files doubles every five years it ages.

    So I decided to create a paper archive.  In the end, it cost me about 8 hours in formatting time and $30 in publishing costs to get the first year of Coyote Blog in book form.  For anyone who is interested, here is what I did:

    First, I picked a printer.  It was important to do this first, since it determined what format and formatting I had to get the electronic files into.  I first considered .  The advantage of this service is that they can suck all of the content they need right off the web site, really making the process quick.  I decided not to go with them, because (at least 4 months ago) they did not retain any of the HTML formatting.  This means that the blockquotes I make heavy use of just became regular paragraphs.  As a result, a reader could not tell the difference any more between my writing and what I was quoting.  This caused me to look for another option, but you might still want to check it out -- I know their product is maturing so they may have more functionality today.  There is also a Beta going on right now at that might be a good option soon.

    These were the only two direct print from blog options I found - if you know of others, please add them to the comments section.  So, I then turned to the print-on-demand self-publishing world.  has done a few things for me in the past, but I decided their print on demand was a bit too pricey for this.  Based on a few recommendations, I chose to publish.  I thought their pricing was reasonable, and I liked their royalty and pricing flexibility.  While I don't intend to sell the Coyote Blog archive, I am close to self-publishing a novel and I wanted to give Lulu a test spin.

    Once I chose Lulu, I then needed to choose a format.  I knew I wanted a Perfect Bound book, and, scanning the pricing calculations, it was clear the cheapest option was to go for 8-1/2 by 11, since this reduced page count.  Having decided this, I , which made sure that I had all the margins and gutters and such right.

    Now came the tedious part.  I wanted the posts to be in chronological order, but my blog displays in reverse date order.  I had to temporarily change the way the blog publishes.  Then, with the posts now in the right order, I just copied and pasted the text right off the site monthly archives into the word template.  I did some trial and error - cutting and pasting out of explorer gave different results than out of Firefox.  Pasting as HTML gave different results than pasting as rich text.  Eventually I got what I wanted.

    Now came the really really tedious part.  I went through and did a few different edits, actually working in Open Office writer because I find it easier for this type work than Word:

  • I changed the font from sans serif Arial to a more book friendly serif font (patalino)
  • I deleted posts that had no value without the links (posts like "check this ") and some but not all my frivolous picture posts
  • I added monthly chapter headings
  • I played around with font size and line spacing for readability (remember, the first reader of this will be in his eighties)
  • I added an index with the page numbers for the monthly chapter headings as well as page numbers for may favorite posts.  I did the latter by setting the titles of my favorite posts to "heading 2" rather than "heading 3" for the other posts.  Both had the same formatting, but I told the contents to only index down through heading 2, but not heading 3.
  • I cleaned up a bit of spelling
  • When it was clear the whole was too long for one book, I broke it into two books
  • (update:  Several people have misinterpretted the "tedious" and "a lot of work".  This was really just minor whining.  The time spent taking the electronic material and finishing it out into a book was about 0.1% of the time it took to actually write the articles the first time around on the blog or that it would take to write a 800 page two-volume tome from scratch.)

    Since I was using Open Office, it was easy to just save the final file as a pdf and upload it to Lulu.  Lulu also provided templates for the covers (front and back) and I did some simple work on the covers, uploaded everything, and two days later the books were in the mail.

    I have posted excerpts from the files with links below, both word and pdf, so anyone who is interested in trying blog printing themself can see what I did. 

    You can see the book here in my , which has both the electronic and paper versions available for sale.  I am NOT recommending anyone buy it - I just wanted to test Lulu for future projects (verdict:  I was very happy with the entire experience).  The only reason you might buy one is to see a sample if you are considering a similar project.  The cover looks great, and the paper quality is first rate.  The text printing is good but the non-cover graphics printing leaves something to be desired, but that was probably the fault of the source file having low-res graphics.  (update:  Welcomek彩平台登陆 to readers!)

    As a final note, in the extended post I have put the text of my forward for the volumes which explains some of the shortcomings of paper blog publishing:

    Continue reading ‘Archiving Coyote Blog in Print Form’ »

    More on California Bounty Hunting

    , which

    contains a sneaky, little-discussed provision that will empower trial
    lawyers to file bounty-hunting suits against pharmaceutical companies
    if the companies charge prices "that lead to any unjust and
    unreasonable profit", with a minimum $100,000 plus fees guaranteed to
    plaintiffs if a jury agrees that they have proved this (very hazily
    defined) offense.

    He has a roundup of posts on other California bounty-hunting laws.  I knew about a few of these, but the list is a lot longer than I suspected.

    Politics without Philosophy

    It may surprise some readers to know that I am a conflict avoider when it comes to arguing politics in social gatherings.  There are a variety of reasons for this, not the least of which is often a desire to escape substantive issues in the off-hours of my life. 

    However, one important reason I don't like discussing current events or other weighty issues with people (particularly in groups) is that many of the people I meet don't really have an underlying philosophy, but rather a hodge-podge of political positions stitched together from a variety of sources.  This makes it almost impossible to have a substantive conversation with them.

    When I have a disagreement with someone on matters of politics or economics or whatever, there are really only two satisfying outcomes:

    1. To discover that we share the same basic premises and philosophy, but have reached different conclusions from these premises.  Trying to figure out where we diverge is an interesting and generally informative exercise
    2. To discover that we have very different fundamental premises or assumptions about the nature of existence.  While perhaps not satisfying, this can at least save a lot of useless discussion.  For example, if you believe that we are all born with an obligation or requirement, kind of like original sin, to provide our fellow man with material comforts, while I do not, there is not a lot of point in the two of us arguing about redistributive taxation.

    Unfortunately, it is impossible to reach either of these conclusions with people who have no underlying philosophy that drives their ethics and political positions.  I remember one discussion with a woman who was taking all all comers over abortion, defending a woman's right to choose for her body.  So I asked her if she was therefore opposed to the government ban on breast implants.  "No, that's different, those are totally frivolous.  Women shouldn't have breast implants, its demeaning".  But, I asked,  isn't the FDA telling women what they can and can't put in their bodies.  "But its necessary, she says, because people don't always know enough to make the right decisions".  So, I follow-ed up, its part of the FDA's job to hold up drugs like the morning-after pill?  "No, that's just christian-right bullshit".

    How can you argue with this, when there is no consistent underlying philosophy?  Essentially her position boils down to "I support government intervention except when I oppose it".  And this is not unusual.  In fact, the positions she took are entirely consistent with the positions on these same issues taken at the .  Hell, the entire Republican and Democratic platform each boil down to "we support government intervention except where our major donors oppose it".

    The reason for this brief, really tangential rant was this morning when I was reading through some recent emails from a trade group I belong to called the NACS, or the National Association of Convenience Stores.  Because of changes in the market, the NACS represents a large percentage of the gasoline retailers in this country.  In the last two weeks, the NACS has:

    1. Opposed government "price gouging" regulations aimed at how gas stations price their product.
    2. Advocated government intervention in the pricing of credit card processing services, arguing that gas stations are getting gouged by banks today

    Could anything be more stark?  There are no values here, no philosophy, no core assumptions about the nature of man and man's existence.  Just a bald desire to be left alone yourself, but have the government intervene in your favor with everyone you do business with.

    PS:  Credit card processing rates piss me off as well, but you don't see me asking for the government to intervene.

    Pfizer's Role in Kelo Takings

    I have hashed through my pain over the Supreme Court Kelo decision any number of times, including my post before the decision, after the decsion, following up on more New London antics, and following up on abuses in other locations (and here).

    One of the first things I did after the decision was to write the CEO of Pfizer a letter, complaining about their role in getting the New London government to take peoples k彩平台登陆s so their managers could have nice views of the water.  I was surprised at the time that more people, particularly those on the left who don't usually need a good excuse to bash corporations, didn't put more blame on Pfizer rather than just New London.  However, up until now, Pfizer has claimed that the redevelopment plan in New London had nothing to do with them, and they just came in later as a tenant.

    Based on ($), the New London paper (hat tip: ), it is becoming more apparent that the Kelo takings were in fact driven mainly by specific requirements set by Pfizer, and that Pfizer was hip-deep in the redevelopment planning:

    Pfizer's Fingerprints On Fort Trumbull Plan

    Documents show the pharmaceutical giant was involved in the Fort Trumbull
    project form its inception, even before announcing its research center would
    expand into the New London neighborhood

    In mid-July, as commentators and politicians around the country decried this
    city's attempt to seize private k彩平台登陆s for economic development on the Fort
    Trumbull peninsula, a press release appeared on the Web site of Pfizer Inc.

    The pharmaceutical company, whose $300 million research complex sits adjacent
    to what remains of the neighborhood, announced that it wanted to set the record
    straight on its involvement in the Fort Trumbull development project.

    The project, the statement said, wasn't Pfizer's idea.

    "We at Pfizer have been dismayed to see false and misleading claims appear in
    the media that suggest Pfizer is somehow involved in this matter," the statement
    said. The writers said the company "has no requirements nor interest in the
    development of the land that is the subject of the case."

    But a recent, months-long review of state records and correspondence from
    1997 and 1998 "” when officials from the administration of then-Gov. John G.
    Rowland were helping convince the pharmaceutical giant to build in New London "”
    shows that statement is misleading, at best.

    In fact, the company has been intimately involved in the project since its
    inception, consulting with state and city officials about the plans for the
    peninsula and helping to shape the vision of how the faded neighborhood might
    eventually be transformed into a complex of high-end housing and office space,
    anchored by a luxury hotel.

    The records "” obtained by The Day through the state Freedom of Information
    Act "” show that, at least as early as the fall of 1997, Pfizer executives and
    state economic development officials were discussing the company's plans, not
    just for a new research facility but for the surrounding neighborhood as

    And, after several requests, the state Department of Economic and Community
    Development produced a document that both the state and Pfizer had at first said
    did not exist: A 1997 sketch, prepared by CUH2A, Pfizer's design firm for its
    new facility. Labeled as a "vision statement," it suggested various ways the
    existing neighborhood and nearby vacant Navy facility could be replaced with a
    "high end residential district," offices and retail businesses, expanded parking
    and a marina.

    Those interactions took place months before Pfizer announced that it would
    build in the city, on the site of the former New London Mills linoleum factory,
    and months before the New London Development Corp. announced its redevelopment
    plans for the neighborhood and the former Naval Undersea Warfare Center next

    The paper concludes:

    But in a series of recent interviews, several former high-ranking state
    officials confirmed what opponents of the project have long insisted and what
    the company continues to deny: The state's agreement to replace the existing
    neighborhood was a condition of Pfizer's move here.

    Current and former Pfizer executives, meanwhile, concede that the company
    expected a major redevelopment of the area to occur and offered guidance, but
    they strongly deny that they insisted on specific changes.

    Comment Registration Turned Back Off

    OK, I managed to kill all commenting, since the Typepad registration does not seem to work right.  I wish I had tested this when I first made the change.  I knew there was a problem when I tried to write as inflammatory as possible and was getting no comments.  I love the ability to get comments so I will, for now, leave commenting wide open and just cull the bot spam manually.

    The Senate Gets Its Temperature Taken

    Last week, the Senate got its temperature taken, with a vote that very effectively checked the health of the putative "World's Greatest Deliberative Body".  This was not a very invasive test, more like using an oral thermometer than having a colonoscopy.  Never-the-less, the results were stark:  The Senate is very sick.

    The test was called the Coburn Amendment, and was a test to see how attached the Congress is to pork barrel spending.  The reason that the test was fairly non-invasive was that it it sought to move the spending from only a few of the most egregious pork projects in the highway bill, and shift the money to infrastructure replacement in New Orleans, a use that garners substantial public support.  The bill was voted down resoundingly, 86-13  (though both of our Arizona Senators voted for it, more credit to them).

    is a pretty good summary.

    The charade [is] of endlessly mouthing the cliches of fiscal responsibility
    while taking to record levels the shameful practice of log-rolling - "I'll vote
    for your pet spending project no matter how bad it is if you vote for my pet
    spending project, no matter how bad it is."

    Members of Congress call it
    "congressional courtesy." Weary taxpayers don't.

    Closely related to
    log-rolling is the congressional maxim that "to get along, you have to go
    along," especially if you are a freshman or from a small state. Coburn is both a
    freshman and from a state with only a handful of electoral

    Senators and Representatives have been log-rolling since the First
    Congress, of course, but never before with the intensity of the current GOP-led
    Congress. Appropriations bills now routinely gain approval with hundreds or
    thousands of "earmarks," which is Hill-talk for pork barrel projects inserted by
    individual members to benefit their district or state.

    Patty Murray, of Washington, freaked at the prospect of losing her poetry shelter or whatever it is they proposed cutting from the highway bill, and threatened Senator Coburn with excommunication from the go-along-Senators-club.  .

    Murray (recorded):  You know, as the old saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I tell my colleagues, if we start funding for individual projects, your project may be next.  And so, Mr. President, when members come down to the floor and
    vote on this amendment, they need to know if they start stripping out this project, Senator Bond and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects, to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations.


    Jed Babbin: Well, does that bother you,  Senator? I mean, are you worried so much about Oklahoma projects?

    Tom Coburn: No. I don't ask for any projects.  I ran on a platform of saying the biggest problem we face in our country is financial and economic, and cultural in Washington, that if we don't change that, I promised you I will not earmark
    a thing until the budget is in surplus.

    JB: Wow.

    TC: So I don't have any earmarks.
    So I don't have any...you know, there's no power over me to withhold
    earmarks, because I have none.

    JB: Well, how tough is it going to be, though, to undo this culture of pork? I mean, the porksters are all around you. I mean, we're not naming names, but you're
                    outnumbered there pretty solidly, so...

    TC: Look, when the American people want things to change, they will change. Just as like in 1994, they changed? It's this year's time. Make them change. You know, hold them accountable. There's Democrats and Republicans up here, but we're all Americans, and we ought to be thinking about the
    heritage that has come before us, and the legacy that's going 
    to follow us. And the legacy that's going to follow us today is  a millstone around the neck of our grandchildren, because we're going to leave them so far in debt, and we haven't even begun
    to talk about how do we fix Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.


    Ahh, but saving best for last, there is Alaska.  Many months ago, I took some shots at the famous bridge to nowhere, and called Don Young the New Huey Long.  Now, even some Alaska residents are willing to give it up to help New Orleans:

    The amendment became a cause celebre on the left and the
    right, with watchdog and conservative groups reporting updates on their
    Web sites throughout the day. The Club for Growth alerted readers early
    yesterday on its Web log, or blog: "As of last night, the opposition is
    putting up a big fight. They sense this amendment, if successful, as
    establishing a precedent. A precedent where all pork is vulnerable and
    no lawmaker is safe."

    Later in the day, the Heritage
    Foundation circulated a paper, "The Bridge to Nowhere: A National
    Embarrassment," and noted, "fiscally responsible members of Congress
    should be eager to zero out its funding." Even the Sierra Club backed
    the amendment, noting, "We must fix the nation's existing
    infrastructure first."

    And, there is a curious twist
    to the story: Many residents of Alaska appear to support forfeiting the
    bridge money for hurricane relief. "This money, a gift from the people
    of Alaska, will represent more than just material aid; it will be a
    symbol for our beleaguered democracy," reads a typical letter to the
    Anchorage Daily News.

    Young, who made sure his state
    was one of the top recipients in the highway bill, was asked by an
    Alaska reporter what he made of the public support for redirecting the
    bridge money. "They can kiss my ear! That is the dumbest thing I've
    ever heard," he replied.

    Anyone want to be that a large portion of Mr. Young's campaign donations come from local construction contractors?


    The Baseball Closer Role is Nuts

    I am not really a huge baseball fan, but we generally watch the World Series, and the Astros pitching decisions in the seventh inning had me yelling at my TV again.

    In a previous post, I talked about my pet peeve of the closer position.  For non-baseball fans, here is the background:  Typically, starting pitchers make it about 6 innings on average, leaving a need for other pitchers to cover the last three innings.  Most relief pitchers who cover these later innings are not as good as the starting pitchers, or else they would be starting pitchers.  The exception is that most teams have a "closer", typically their best relief pitcher who is reserved for pitching the last inning (thus the name "closer").  I asked before why the closer always pitched the 9th, rather than whichever inning of the last three that the toughest batters were expected.  The answer I came up with was this:

    the explanation must lie in metrics.  If a manager loses a game in the
    7th, it is just a loss.  If a manager loses a game in the 9th, the game
    was "blown".  Newspapers and talk shows keep and publish stats on games
    blown in the 9th, but not games lost in the 7th and 8th.  Games lost in
    the 9th are in a sense portrayed as more of a management failure than
    games lost in the 7th, and this is made worse by the fact that a game
    lost in the 9th is somehow more psychologically devastating for fans
    and media.  Managers are not dumb - recognizing that they get dinged on
    their performance rating more for a game lost in the 9th than the 8th,
    they have invented the closer role.  General managers take a
    disproportionately large part of their salary budget for relief
    pitching and dedicate it to this closer role.

    You can even see this effect today, as everyone talks about Brad Lidge giving up a 1-run k彩平台登陆r in the 9th, rather than talking about the grand slam the bull pen gave up in the 7th.

    So here is what specifically drove me nuts last night:  Bottom of the 7th, the White Sox trailing 4-2, the Sox had managed to load the bases with two outs and had Paul Konerko, one of their best sluggers, up to bat.  The Astros were clearly going to switch pitchers, since the current guy had just walked two batters in a row.  The question was, who to bring in?  One announcer suggested they bring in Brad Lidge, their closer and the best guy available (short of bringing in a starting pitcher). The other announcer said, no, you can't do that, he will never make it all the way to the 9th.  You can't, he said, bring your closer in this early.

    Well why the hell not?  Are you really going to face a more dangerous situation than bases loaded with Paul Konerko up to bat later in the game?  Lidge, if he is their best guy, should have been in then, and pitched the 8th, and then they could have patched guys together for the 9th.  Instead, they sent in some other guy and boom, grand slam.

    Now, I will admit that Lidge's giving up the game-winning k彩平台登陆 run in the 9th taints my argument a tad, if only to make the point that Lidge may have not been as hands down superior to the rest of the bullpen as we may have thought a few innings earlier.  But that does not change the facts of the 7th inning:  The Astros were facing the most dangerous possible situation, in the heart of the Sox order, one worse than anything they were likely to face in later innings, but they chose not to put the person they thought of as their best available pitcher out of homage to this weird baseball conventional wisdom called the closer.

    I Thought This Was Just A Lame Conspiracy Theory at First...

    I had seen some Internet posts on this before, but I thought it was from the "Aliens were behind the 9/11 attacks" crowd.  :

    The pages coming out of your color printer may contain hidden information that
    could be used to track you down if you ever cross the U.S.

    Last year, an article in PC World magazine pointed out that printouts
    from many color laser printers contained yellow dots scattered across the page,
    viewable only with a special kind of flashlight. The article quoted a senior
    researcher at Xerox Corp. as saying the dots contain information useful to
    law-enforcement authorities, a secret digital "license tag" for tracking down

    Yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco consumer privacy
    group, said it had cracked the code used in a widely used line of Xerox
    printers, an invisible bar code of sorts that contains the serial number of the
    printer as well as the date and time a document was printed...

    The EFF said it has identified similar coding on pages printed from
    nearly every major printer manufacturer, including Hewlett-Packard Co., though
    its team has so far cracked the codes for only one type of Xerox

    The U.S. Secret Service acknowledged yesterday that the markings, which
    are not visible to the human eye, are there, but it played down the use for
    invading privacy.

    This kind of stuff really scares me.  Is there anyone out there that thinks that this won't be used to trace a leak, track down a whistle-blower, or identify an anonymous political critic?  And, even if you are able to conjure up trust that the US government will not use these codes for anything other than fighting counterfeiting, what about use of these codes by private parties?  Or, even more depressing, remember that these printers are being sold today in Chinak彩平台登陆, Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe, etc.  Does anyone at all doubt that these governments will use the print codes to identify and silence dissent?

    Shame on the government for instituting this program.  Double shame on HP and Xerox for going along in silence, joining the ranks of in making adjustments to their technology to make government surveillance and censorship easier.  I don't know of any legislative mandate that requires these printer companies to go along with this, so they are doing this voluntarily - sort of (see below).

    For those on the left feeling smug that this is solely a right-wing Bush-is-a-fascist problem, shame also on those who built the economic regulatory state that we live in.  In a truly free economy, HP and Xerox would likely have told the government to take a hike.  However, the government holds a huge regulatory hammer over corporations' head in so many realms that companies in our society find it difficult to tell the government off when they get this type of request.  Its the same story with airlines and banks, who feel compelled to share otherwise private customer data with k彩平台登陆land Security under the threat of having government retribution fall on them from any number of directions.  We have got to start realizing that government control of economic activity is just as much an imposition as government control of speech or the press.  Freedom of expression does not become voided just because money changes hands.

    .  Their comment:

    Would the Berlin Wall have fallen if East European governments had access to
    this kind of technology twenty years ago?

    Follow-up on Segregation at ASU

    Racially segregated classes at ASU may or may not still exist, and the University may or may not have ended them.  How's that for a follow-up.  FIRE does some more research here, and find:

    In fact, there's no reason to believe that the racial restriction on that class
    hasn't existed for at least eight years. And unless ASU is a university at which
    students sign up for a class directly with the professor (which would be truly
    unusual), ASU's administration had to be part of the effort to enforce the
    racial restriction.
    So why didn't ASU tell the truth in its letter to FIRE, especially if it
    was planning to abandon the racial restriction anyway (once it got caught, of
    course)? Probably because its administration didn't believe that anyone would
    really do the research and find out that legal segregation has flourished on its
    campus for at least the last eight years. This brazenness is shocking,
    especially considering that a from FIRE got ASU to on a Navajo history class. Are there other classes with
    similar restrictions just waiting to be discovered?

    Free Camping

    Running for-fee campgrounds on public lands often gets us into some controversy.  For example, many people wonder, sometimes in a fairly excitable manner, .

    However, there ARE many free camping opportunities on public lands, but because of Forest Service terminology, these are sometimes missed by the public.  In most cases, when the Forest Service has a named campground, it requires a fee because it has a number of minimum features for the facility:

  • Graded, and sometimes paved, roads and spurs
  • Bathrooms, and sometimes showers
  • Picnic table, tent pad, and fire ring / grill at each site
  • On-site host / security to enforce rules (e.g. quite time)
  • On-site operator with property and liability insurance
  • Water supply that is frequently tested and treated when necessary
  • Hazard tree removal
  • Trash and (for campgrounds not on a sewer system) sewage removal
  • Leaf blowing from trails and roads, site raking, painting, etc.
  • This stuff does cost money, and so the typical campground we run charges $12-14 a night, with 50% off for Golden Access patrons (i.e. senior citizens).  Heck, the insurance alone costs about $1.50 per night's stay, thanks to our friends in the tort bar.

    However, most National Forests offer what is called dispersed camping.  This is camping out in the wilderness, without any amenities, and, at least in most cases, is totally free.  Most of these camping areas don't have names, just locations and boundaries.   Expect to give up all of the above amenities, and be ready to pack your trash out, but you can still pitch your tent out in nature without charge.  And in many of these locations, you can get far away from other campers.  Just call the local ranger district () and ask them for information on dispersed camping.

    One proviso - the biggest problem with these dispersed, non-hosted areas is, if they are heavily used, they can be a worse experience than the paid campgrounds.  They can accumulate trash from thoughtless patrons, and they can get very rowdy.  Dispersed campgrounds attract the best of campers - those truly trying to get a natural experience; and the worst of campers - those who don't want to follow rules, don't clean up after themselves, and who don't want to shut down their loud partying just because it is two in the morning.  Many people who initially opposed paid camping are now big believers, since they have learned to value campgrounds with rules and security after a few late nights listening to loud generators and drunken parties.  Talk to the ranger district to know what you are getting into at a particular site.

    Comment Changes

    A couple of notes on comments:

    1.  I cleaned out a lot of past spam.  I am sorry for not doing this sooner.  If I decide I want to advertise bestiality or transvestite sex, I will do so myself.

    2.   I updated my ban list.  My ban list is based SOLELY on spamming.  I have not, to this date, felt the need to ban anyone based on contents of a real comment post, though I suppose with enough provocation that could change (this is NOT a challenge!!).  If I banned you by mistake, send me an email.  I am just trying to get some of the bots.

    3.  Going forward, I just can't stay on top of the bot-driven spam, so I am now requiring authentication.  Frequent commenters on other sites will know the drill, and many of you may already have a TypeKey account.  It is a simple, non-intrusive, one-time registration whose only purpose is to try to defeat the bots.  You can link to the registration right from the comment screen.  Sorry for the extra work.

    Update:  By the way, I had a blinding glimpse of what I guess is the obvious for most bloggers, but I have been missing a lot of my comments.  I read comments by looking over the last 8-10 posts each day and seeing what new things have been said.   I have never used the "most recent comments" screen in the dashboard Moveable Type gives me, except to attack spam.  I found, though, that many of my comments are coming in, presumably via Google hits, weeks or months after the post.  In particular, I get my most negative comments this way (for example, per a recent email, I am the spawn of Satan for posting this).  Sorry if I have been missing your comments, and I will try to keep up better in the future.

    Valeria Plame Affair and the Law of Unintended Consequences

    I must confess to being at a loss over the whole Valerie Plame leak affair, which strikes me as mostly a political battleground between the two parties, so I have not really tried to figure it out. 

    However, one thing struck me reading a story about it the other day:  The only thing that was clear to me was that folks on the left seem to envision an ultimate goal of bringing down either Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.  From a short-term political standpoint, I suppose this might be satisfying.  From a longer-term view, say out to 2008, it seems stupid to me.

    Let's take Karl Rove first.  I have to take the left's word for it that he is an evil political genius.  But if so, why would you want the guy out on the street.  Right now he is wasting his talents on a lame-duck president who can't run in 2008, and neither can his VP.  Why do you want to put this powerful piece of electioneering artillery out on the street, available to a Republican candidate several years in advance of 2008?

    The backfire from bringing down Cheney seems even worse.  As I pointed out a year ago, 2008 will be the first election in 50+ years where there is no incumbent VP or president running for either party.  There is nothing Republicans would love to do more than have a VP spot they could fill with a 2008 candidate.  The GOP Party apparatus would love it, because both Parties secretly long for a return to the day of smoke-filled rooms (rather than primaries) for selecting their candidates, and this would give Party leaders more control of the outcome.  There is nothing either party hates more than having Iowa select its candidates from an open slate - being able to choose a new VP would allow the GOP to effectively choose a front-runner.  The GOP would benefit no matter who is put in the position, because the suddenly have an incumbent running, with the advantages of being an incumbent, in 2008.  Does anyone doubt that the VP would suddenly get extra visibility over the next few years, as Clinton did for Gore?  Finally, Bush would love it, because it would give him another Miers-type opportunity to reward a friend (or crony, as your perspective may dictate) such as Condoleeza Rice.

    Opposing Hariett Miers

    I have never really waded into a debate about Supreme Court nominees before.  On John Roberts, my only comment was to laugh at how stupid the Senate confirmation hearings were.

    This time, I feel the need to make an exception on Hariett Miers.  In a previous post, I called her the anti-libertarian, and more than ever I am convinced that that assessment is correct.  Everyone inside of the beltway seems to love talking points, so here are mine:

  • She does not meet any sort of minimum qualification level to be a Supreme Court judge, politics notwithstanding.  This is a crony pick, pure and simple.  From George Will:
  • Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination
    resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such
    judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have
    given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice,
    Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on
    those lists....

    It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year,
    she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests
    and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of
    substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve
    into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents
    to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the
    Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of

  • She threatens to be a judicial Pat Buchanon:  Conservative on social issues, interventionist on economic issues.  In other words, the anti-libertarian.  From John Fund:
  • One White House
    source says the positions she took in staff meetings might surprise her
    business supporters. He said she leaned conservative on social
    questions and liberal on economic issues. Bruce Packard, a former
    partner at Ms. Miers' law firm, also cautions that she may be more
    complicated than people expect. 'She is very reticent to ever discuss
    her own views and liberal on issues other than abortion,' he told me."

  • Though not discussed very much, her leadership of the Texas Bar Association, which is touted as perhaps her highest judicial qualification (interesting, since its just a bureaucrat job) makes me very very nervous.  Someone is going to have to try to get control of the tort situation and start resetting the rules of courtroom procedure to bring more sanity to liability trials.  I guarantee that a person who headed the Texas Bar Association, k彩平台登陆 of some of the most outrageous millionaire tort lawyers in the country, is not going to do anything to bring sanity to tort law.
  • As a note, I don't really cast my vote one way or the other based on abortion -- I have a viewpoint on it, but its not my hot-button, or even in my top 10, issues.  However, I kind of hope Miers turns out to be clearly anti-abortion so that Democrats will find a reason to join some Republicans in opposing her.  Until that happens, Democrats seem to be following Napoleon's dictum of not interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake.

    Update:  and I would probably not agree on the reasons for opposing Miers, but you have to love this quote, explaining why she gets paid and I do this for free:

    So I am begging now. This is embarrassing. End it. Karl Rove: Either plant the
    500 pounds of cocaine you keep for such occasions in Miers' car, or trot out
    some actress to play her bitter, gay ex-lover. You have the power to end this.
    So do whatever it is you do. But end the unnecessary pain and suffering now,
    before someone really gets hurt.

    Update #2:  I oppose the Miers nomination.  Hopefully, this gets me registered for .

    Are k彩平台登陆owners the Largest Government Rent-Seekers?

    I read an interesting article in the NY Times, via , interviewing the CEO of k彩平台登陆builder Toll Brothers about housing prices.  His assertion was:

    "In Britain you pay seven times your annual income for a k彩平台登陆; in the U.S. you
    pay three and a half." The British get 330 square feet, per person, in their
    k彩平台登陆s; in the U.S., we get 750 square feet. Not only does Toll say he believes
    the next generation of buyers will be paying twice as much of their annual
    incomes; in terms of space, he also seems to think they're going to get only
    half as much. "And that average, million-dollar insane k彩平台登陆 in the burbs? It's
    going to be $4 million."

    I don't necessarily buy this whole story.  For one, Mr. Toll has business reasons for taking a public position that prices will keep rising - after all, his customers buy his product in part as an investment, and would be leery about paying current prices if they thought prices might fall in the future.  Second, as I have talked about a number of times with petroleum, when prices of any product start to rise, observers always tend to underestimate market and technology responses that might bring supply more into balance.

    However, the one exception I did make in my oil price posts was that government supply restrictions, both on lands that can be explored for oil as well as things like refinery permitting, may indeed put structural upward pressure on prices.  And in fact, this is where Mr. Toll puts the blame for high housing prices as well:

    Toll agrees with that the key force driving up prices is zoning and growth regulations. 
    In New Jersey it now takes Toll Brothers up to two million dollars in legal fees
    and ten years in time to get the permits necessary to build.

    Which got me thinking that k彩平台登陆 owners (of which I am one) may be the worst of all.  Most people are already familiar with the very large tax breaks for k彩平台登陆 buyers, in the form of the mortgage interest tax deduction, that is not available to people who rent or to people who borrow for purposes other than k彩平台登陆 purchase.  However, it may be that a much larger implicit subsidy to k彩平台登陆-owners is the government restrictions on new k彩平台登陆 supply.  By restricting supply, the government is keeping prices up for current k彩平台登陆-owners and restricting new entrants who might compete with our k彩平台登陆s in the resale market.

    Rates are Too High -- So Lets Limit Competition

    Apparently, some of our local politicians in the Phoenix area are upset about payday loan companies.  According the an :

    The stores cater to customers who live paycheck to paycheck who need
    quick access to a few hundred dollars for rent, car repairs or just to
    make ends meet. Banks traditionally don't make those type of small,
    short-term loans.

    So these stores provide loans to people no one else will touch.  And customers use their services of their own free will.  So what is the problem?  Well, not surprisingly, the rates on these loans are high, and the default terms tend to be drastic.  "Activists" think that people are making the wrong decision using these services, and, to be fair, I would certainly advise anyone who asked to try to find another alternative.  But what do my preferences matter?  Its easy for me to say in my middle-upper class hubris that such services don't make sense, but I have a steady job and ready access to bank loans.  In a free society, both I and those activists are free to convince people to not use these services, but its wrong to artificially limit people's choices out of some elitist sense that we can make decisions for other people better than they can for themselves.

    Besides, lets think about the alternative.  These folks are not going to get bank loans -- in fact many customers may be illegal aliens who are, post 9/11, effectively barred from the banking system.  The only other alternative before these payday loan companies were loan sharks, whose interest is even higher and whose penalty for non-payment even more dire. This reminds me of the people who decry Nike "sweatshop" jobs in poor countries.  "Activists" similarly decry these jobs as if the alternative is $25 an hour office work, when in fact the alternative is actually grinding subsistence agricultural work for half the pay.  You may not like the payday loan companies, but they are replacing a much worse system.

    But the really funny thing about this article is their proposed solution to the problem of rates for these payday loan services being too high.  Their solution?  Limit competition!  (emphasis added)

    Arizona now has more than 600 payday loan stores - with 165 in the [Phoenix suburb] Mesa area alone - and some residents are upset about it.

    "People are sick of it in west Mesa," said Dave Richins, a neighborhood
    activist and executive director of the West Mesa Community Development

    Richins and other critics claim the stores exploit customers with high interest rates.

    [Phoenix suburb] Peoria blocks the shops from opening within 1,000 feet of a competing
    store. Phoenix and Tucson are looking to that city's restrictions as a
    model for new rules in their communities, with action possible by early
    next year.

    Gee, I bet that will help keep rates down -- make sure there are no competitors nearby!  Lets make sure it is as hard as possible to compare rates, particularly since the customer base is one that can't afford the gas, or doesn't even have a car, to drive all over town shopping.  I wonder why no one is suggesting the same thing for gas stations to keep gas prices down, lol.

    The Perils of Prop 79

    California has another confusing slate of initiatives on the ballot for the next election, including several related to various interventions in pharmaceutical pricing  (helping to demonstrate that grass roots democracy can be just as tyrannical to individual rights as any other form of government).  Bill Leonard, of the California BOE, notes in his weekly email:

    Proposition 79 seeks to capitalize on public outrage over high drug prices by creating a new big government program that would supposedly mandate drug discounts for low-income Californians.

    It turns out that the initiative contains a little-noticed provision that will allow private trial lawyers to sue drug companies for the new tort of "profiteering in prescription drugs."  Under this sneaky provision, which will be effective immediately even if the drug discount program is never implemented (Federal approval is required), drug makers would be prohibited from demanding "an unconscionable price" or demanding "prices or terms that lead to any unjust and unreasonable profit." These terms are not defined anywhere in the initiative or elsewhere in state or federal law, so your guess as to what these terms mean is probably as good as mine.  A violation of this new offense would carry a minimum fine of $100,000 or triple the amount of damages (whichever is greater) plus court costs and legal fees.  You can see why the trial lawyers love this initiative!  It is bad enough to have government bureaucrats setting drug prices, but imagine having drug prices set by randomly-selected jurors!

    Can you imagine offering a product in a market and not knowing if your pricing was legal until after a jury trial?  Actually, until after multiple jury trials, since in cases like this there is effectively no restriction on being tried one, two, or ten thousand times for the same thing.  Not only will prices be set by a jury, but they will be set by the single most aggressive jury in what is sure to be an onslaught of trials.

    In case you have any confusion or failure of imagination as to how poorly this will work out, California tort lawyers have slipped this same provision into other laws, notably and the Unruh Act, which allows lawyers to .  Here is an example of Unruh at work:

    Molski, who lives in Woodland
    Hills, has sued dozens of Central Coast businesses, from the Santa Ynez
    Valley to Paso Robles, for alleged violations of the ADA. Among them
    are Firestone, Fess Parker and Kalyra wineries in the Santa Ynez
    Valley, Cambria Winery in northern San Luis Obispo County, and Fosters
    Freeze restaurants in San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay.

    A provision of California state law known as the Unruh Act allows Molski to demand $4,000 in damages per violation, per day.

    has said in the past that an average settlement is $20,000. He
    testified in the Los Angeles trial that he personally nets an average
    of $4,000 per settlement, after paying attorney's fees, Beardsley said....

    As of Friday, 528 cases were listed under Molski's name in federal civil courts....

    fighting Molski in court is Harmony Cellars in northern San Luis Obispo
    County. Winery owner Chuck Mulligan sees the L.A. decision as a good
    sign, but isn't counting on winning.

    just never know. A jury trial is always a crap shoot," Mulligan said.
    "I think the public sees through this whole quagmire that's going on.
    They claim they are trying to do something for society but it's really
    just pulling money away from society that could be used for jobs," and
    other purposes, he said.


    suit against the Hitching Post in Casmalia alleged a wheelchair ramp
    was too steep, and the bathroom wasn't accessible because the toilet
    was a half inch too close to the wall; and the sink was three inches
    too high, and the soap dispenser was too high.


    Stricklin contends the bathroom is fully accessible.

    restaurant's accessible and has been for a long time. Our mother is in
    a wheelchair. Of course it would be accessible," Stricklin said. "Every
    customer we have that's disabled has gotten into our restaurant, and
    we've never had a complaint."

    talked to about five people in Solvang and Cambria who have been sued
    twice in the last year," Stricklin said. "They're stuck. Unless you
    close your doors, somebody else can come along and sue you, and that's
    why we're fighting. If they can see that we're not going to roll over
    and settle, they'll think twice about going to trial."

    At least in the case of Unruh, there is a defined legal standard, even if suing for $4000 per day for violations of 1/2-inch are ridiculous.  Prop 79 would allow suits with no standards, except whatever a jury happens to come up with on a particular day.  And we all know how smart and thoughtful juries can be (from recent Vioxx case):

    Jurors who voted against Merck said much of the science sailed right over their
    heads. "Whenever Merck was up there, it was like wah, wah, wah," said juror John
    Ostrom, imitating the sounds Charlie Brown's teacher makes in the television
    cartoon. "We didn't know what the heck they were talking about."...

    ... [juror] Ostrom, 49, who has a business remodeling k彩平台登陆s, was also disturbed
    that former Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin and another top Merck
    official gave videotaped testimony but weren't in the courtroom. "The big guys
    didn't show up," said Mr. Ostrom. "That didn't sit well with me. Most definitely
    an admission of guilt."...

    One juror, Ms. Blas, had written in her questionnaire that she
    loves the Oprah Winfrey show and tapes it. "This jury believes they're going to
    get on Oprah," Ms. Blue told Mr. Lanier. "They only get on Oprah if they vote
    for the plaintiff."

    Previously, I made my own tongue-in-cheek suggestions for follow-ups to Unruh, but prop 79 may be worse than any of these:

    So, I would like to propose my
    own Unruh II law.  I propose that in California, every citizen now has
    the right to sue any other person they observe violating any sort of
    traffic law.  If you observe someone speeding, doing a rolling stop at
    a stop sign, failing to signal a lane change or turn, with a burned out
    tail light, not wearing a seat belt, jaywalking, etc, you may now sue
    them for $4000 per occurrence. 

    Coming in future posts, I will
    propose Unruh III to empower citizens to sue over health code
    violations, Unruh IV to empower citizens to sue over fire code
    violations, and Unruh V to sue anyone for any reason if they have a net
    worth higher than you do.

    It strikes me that my suggestion for Unruh V is where we are really going.

    Update: .

  • Recent Posts

  • George Floyd, A Memo to Conservatives
  • George Floyd, A Memo to Progressives
  • Another Climate-COVID Computer Modelling Similarity
  • Parallels Between COVID-19 Alarm and Global Warming Alarm
  • For the Left, Excess Hospital Beds Were "Too Many Deoderants" ... Until This Month
  • Archives

  • May k彩平台登陆
  • April k彩平台登陆
  • March k彩平台登陆
  • February k彩平台登陆
  • January k彩平台登陆
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • Categories

  • 2013 Shutdown
  • Accountability
  • ACME and Loony Toons
  • Arizona
  • Art
  • Banking and Finance
  • Blogging, Computers & the Internet
  • Books
  • Camping and Outdoors
  • Capitalism & Libertarian Philospohy
  • Climate
  • COVID-19
  • Coyote's Law
  • Crime
  • Data Analysis
  • Drug war
  • Economics
  • Education
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Equal Marriage Arizona
  • Financial Markets
  • Gaming
  • Gender
  • Gender & Race
  • General Business
  • Good News
  • Government
  • Health Care
  • History
  • Hobbies
  • k彩平台登陆 Theater
  • Humor
  • Immigration
  • Incentives
  • Individual Rights
  • International Affairs
  • International Trade
  • Investing
  • Labor Law
  • Liability / Lawsuits / Insurance
  • Media and the Press
  • Military and War
  • model railroading
  • Movies & Entertainment
  • Music
  • Numbers and Statistics
  • Organizations and Incentives
  • Other
  • photography
  • Police and Prosecutorial Abuse
  • Politics
  • Privacy
  • Private Recreation Management
  • Property Rights
  • Public v. Private
  • Race
  • Rail and Mass Transit
  • Regulation
  • Scams
  • Science
  • Second Ammendment
  • Small Business
  • Sports
  • Taxes
  • Technology
  • The Corporate State
  • Trade Policy
  • Trans-partisan Plans
  • Travel
  • Trend That Is Not A Trend
  • Trends from Single Data Points
  • Tripartisan Plans
  • Uncategorized
  • War on Drugs
  • Search

    WWW Coyote Blog
  • Statistics

  • Site Admin