02.07.10
Posted in Liberty, Society at 20:11 by RjZ
Of course Ms. Sarah Palin gets too much press already, but with her new job at Fox News that’s not likely to stop any time soon. Speaking of Fox News, she responded on “Fox News Sunday” to chants of “Run, Sarah, Run” that she would consider a 2012 run for president “if it’s the right thing to do for our country.”
Later in that interview she also explained “We’re at war and these are acts of war that these terrorists are committing and we need to treat them differently,” she said. “I don’t think terrorists are worthy of rights that people like my son fight and are willing to die for.”
It’s surely a populist view, but what the real headline here is that she doesn’t believe in the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and for which her son is fighting. Any not-yet-convicted terrorists are innocent until proven guilty. Under the leadership of George W. Bush, and perhaps Sarah Palin, they are not guaranteed any such rights. They are guilty, and sit in prison, regardless of their actual status. With their freedoms, so go our own.
President Obama has attempted to remedy this situation. Some wish he would do so faster, while in these efforts to respect the constitution, Ms. Palin sees an opportunity to strike a populist blow and ignore human rights.They’re terrorists, you say! Maybe. Probably, even, but that’s the point. One of the foundations of the great constitution of the United States is that we don’t presume guilt, rather innocence. They’re not citizens you say. Nope, and they may not deserve every right and privilege of American law, but due process seems the only way to even arrive at the truth of their guilt or innocence. Americans didn’t come up with this system; it predates our union; but we have successfully employed it for over 200 years, and it’s part of the strength of this nation.
I don’t know what Ms. Palin actually thinks her son is fighting for, unless our ‘way of life’ really does just mean Church and snow mobiles.
![]()
61 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
12.22.09
Posted in Society at 17:55 by RjZ
Like I do every year, I opted out. I am not running around finding Christmas gifts for friends and family and, inspired by my stingy behavior in previous years, I can assume they are treating me the same. Like every other year, I read about the stress of struggling through shopping crowds and hear stories of stress from choosing, buying, wrapping presents and I am surprised how easily everyone forgot the economic collapse around us.
My family was nominally Jewish. Sometimes we celebrated Chanukah; sometimes we had a tree, decorated with blue and white, of course. I didn’t always get to open presents on Christmas morning, and looking back, not necessarily expecting anything worked out to be one of the best gifts I received. Today, I enjoy the relaxing, low stress time of year. So, with all the extra free time, I’ve given some thought to the holiday gift exchange frenzy that I thought I’d share.
Blame the feminists.
Alright, this is a stretch, but hear me out. Back not so long ago, people used to get gifts not that they needed. Few children are receiving a new bicycle for Christmas this year. If they need a bike, they’ve already got one. Christmas gifts are more expensive, but can’t be spoiled by ‘need’; gifts ought to be what you want!
I think it all started with my mother. Like many women in the Feminine Mystique age, she grew tired of getting mixers and irons and vacuum cleaners for the holidays. Rightfully, my mother pointed out that a new vacuum was a gift for the house and not for her. Arguably, she was the one who was going to do the vacuuming, so any tool that could make that job easier would clearly benefit her, but this wasn’t an argument my father was willing to make. Smart man. Not alone in that conclusion, I think.
The idea caught on, and pretty soon nobody was getting new ties and shoes. Those weren’t considered gifts, but rather necessities. Nobody wants a new vacuum cleaner or dress shirt, even if they need one. As long as we have enough money (or, apparently, can borrow it) people want things that they wouldn’t think to buy for themselves.
The perfect gift
I am not anti-sentimentalist. I understand that people enjoy giving and receiving gifts. For example, I think the perfect gift is something that you didn’t even know that you wanted, yet shows that the person who selected it really understands you and cares about you. There’s no need for it to be expensive or even practical. Often families aspire to get a person on their list a gift of something they would like, but wouldn’t likely buy for themselves. It’s almost the same thing and a lovely strategy, but it still leads to gifts of things that I didn’t value enough to save up for, but still wound up having. Maybe I didn’t need that blu-ray player so much after all?
In his now (in)famous article, Wharton School professor of business Joel “scrooge” Waldfogel puts a value on “The Deadweight Cost of Christmas.” He estimates about 10 – 30% lost value of the gift. In other words, even if you really needed a sweater and your auntie bought you one, it still might not be exactly the one you would pick out on your own. Of course Dr. Waldfogel doesn’t put an economic value on the sentimental value of gifts, but then again he doesn’t put any value on time it takes to take an ill fitting pair of socks back to the store for an exchange. Nor does he put a value spending money you didn’t have to get something that’s not quite as desirable (or even downright ridiculous) as what you might have spent the money on yourself.
What to get for the person who has everything?
We face this challenge more often since society encourages us to fulfill desires instead of identifying a needs in our loved ones and friends. People with sufficient resources already have an iPod or a digital camera. I’ve already hinted at how difficult it is to buy clothing that is perfectly to someone’s taste and actually fits.
I did a brief survey at work of how many men buy sexy lingerie for their significant other. The enticing idea just doesn’t work. Women who don’t actually share the measurements of Victoria Secret models can barely find lingerie that fits and flatters all by themselves. Armed only with a size and imagination, the men I interviewed seemed to have realized, by their almost unanimous, and singular attempts, that buying what they thought would be awesome is a bad idea at best.
If the goal is get something someone really wants, we risk getting something they quite likely already have, or it’s just too expensive to justify. Families who try to overcome this problem by pooling resources are faced with far greater risk in gift giving. Buying a trinket that isn’t exactly what you brother wished for, but at least it has relatively little deadweight cost. Buying a GPS receiver with just the right features much harder to figure out, and the cost for failure is greater.
Fine, that’s where gift cards come in. Yet, even here, there is deadweight cost. If I am on my way to Best Buy anyway, there is little downside, but if the object of my desire is not available, or I’ve found it cheaper at REI, my choices have been needlessly limited. Of course, the ultimate gift card, cash, might work. Except, of course, exchanging cash would be pointless, wouldn’t it? It certainly doesn’t do a very nice job meeting the sentimental value of gift giving.
Deadweight cost isn’t a problem of wealthy and privileged alone. The less you have the greater the impact of deadweight cost. The disadvantaged child will likely appreciate even simple gifts. Of course, people suffering through these hard times can really use the change an unneeded gift brings beyond just the necessities. Yet, taken to the extreme, a starving child can’t eat a doll.
Unintended obligation
Suppose I decide, solely from the kindness of my heart and honestly with no expectation of anything in return, to buy you a gift, say, a game for your new PlayStation 3? It’s a nice gift, not too expensive, and might be something you really want. Where’s the cost here? No matter how sincere I was in expecting nothing in return, I bet you’re a nice enough person. While playing that game later, you’ll get to thinking ‘wow, that was nice. You know, I really ought to get him something!’ Come on, you feel obligated. You may not be annoyed by my gift and exchanging them will probably improve our friendship with all the warm feelings we get from thinking of the nice gifts we got, but you’re still out there paying for this new game with your time and money, and if you really wanted Final Fantasy 13 you probably would have just bought it.
Even in the best case scenario, a stronger friendship and a great new game, you’re now out buying something for me that you didn’t intend to. Indeed, I don’t really need it, I wasn’t kidding when I said there were no expectations, and yet, my selfless act has created extra work and stress for you—that’s the opposite of what I intended, but there is almost no way around it.
Imagine there were no gifts
If folks really do love the carols and cheer, if the holidays are really is about family and friends, why don’t more of them join me? There are plenty of stories of families opting out this year, just like I do, although many of them are about how angry the rest of the family was at ruining their fun. I hope they can still find some joy in it as I do. If the spirit of Christmas really is about creating memories together, then do it. Make your own decorations for the tree. Light the Channukah candles together. Eat. Go for a hike together. Write each other a poem. Read a story. Turns out being stingy can increase value for everyone. The absolute deadweight cost is decreased, but the joy and warmth of each other is hardly diminished. Do you really need a new 46” flatscreen LCD with 3 HDMI inputs, internet access and 10000:1 contrast to make this time of year complete?
Note: this article is not a veiled gift list. Really.
![]()
108 views Permalink
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ...
12.16.09
Posted in Society, Travel at 12:29 by RjZ
Perhaps it was a bit foolish. While tourists, both Western and Chinese, loaded into the Yungu cable way to take the tram up to Huangshan (literally, yellow mountain) we began our hike up White Goose Ridge to the plateau at the top of the scenic area, nearly 700 m (2300 feet) of steep stairs above us. This east ridge is the easier way up to the UNESCO recognized area which is a jumble of incredibly steep peaks and over 50 km of improved trails going straight up and down them. The trails are mostly stone stairs, sometimes broad and even, other times narrow and much closer to a ladder than a staircase.
Even with backpacks on, it’s not terribly difficult climbing, at least in the beginning, but that’s not to say it isn’t a sweaty, steep, and exhausting hike. We pass by loads of smiling tourists skipping down, but almost none going up. Yet, we’re not alone trudging up these stairs. Men carrying large loads of laundry in white sacks suspended on either ends of a bamboo bar across their shoulders are practically running down the stairs towards us. They are careful when the pass more men hoisting heavy steel gas bottles, probably filled with propane and as tall as the men themselves, onto their shoulders and up the mountain.
At the beginning of the hike the stairs aren’t so steep.
Too bad this part doesn’t last.
The bottles are balanced on their shoulders with the help of a bamboo stick and some rope which they use to balance the bottle on when they stop to take a rest. A few are wearing a vest with printing from the hotel they apparently work for over thin t-shirts or bare chests, and many have green army issued sneakers on their feet. Some have worn dress shoes. They aren’t all young, but most are friendly and find enough breath to respond to our “Ni hao” greetings.
At the top are several Chinese four-star hotels. They are not cheap by anyone’s standards and they’re not good value either, offering considerably less quality than two and three-star hotels I’ve stayed in elsewhere in China. There is no other option and everything is expensive on the mountain. Many, who have seen the porters carrying these loads, seem to understand. Since everything must be carried in, it’s understandable, they explain.
Except everyone has conveniently forgotten the cable car whisked them up here without breaking a sweat. There are several cable cars around the mountain and they don’t carry tourists at night. Couldn’t the hotels contract with them to carry loads of necessities up the mountain? Couldn’t they build their own cable car? The obvious conclusion is that it’s cheaper to use human labor than the cable car.
Except that doesn’t seem possible to me. There are probably hundreds of porters going up and down the mountain everyday. Perhaps more. Many of them surely live in Tangkou and other villages at the base of the mountain. I had already popped into a little grocery store at the base for some water for the hike. It didn’t appear to be a tourist trap of a grocery store and prices were similar, or perhaps a bit cheaper, than I had just seen in Shanghai or elsewhere in China. Of course, I don’t really know the real costs of living in a village in China, but I can bet it’s more than a couple of dollars a day. If the men are so cheap, how do they survive and raise their families in the villages below? This isn’t a particularly rural part of China and heating costs alone would break the bank of many a poor family living on too low of a wage, but houses and apartments, while small are hardly mud floored shacks. There just doesn’t seem to be a way to pay these men enough to even feed themselves and still be cheaper than simply loading the cable car a few times every day.
I’ve also heard that the Chinese government subsidizes many jobs in an effort to ensure that its citizens are gainfully employed and not sitting idle, plotting their leaders’ authorities downfall. It’s a plausible explanation, but it’s not clear how sustainable it is. For now, judging by their rush descending, it’s likely the men are paid on a per load basis and the wear and tear on their bodies is clear. The cost of the eventually necessary medical care is not so obvious; China has not yet solved its medical care problems.
Almost as interesting as the sights, China is constantly offering these sort of economic puzzles. Are these men subsidized by the government? Is it really cheaper, even in the short run, to pay hundreds of laborers when the idle cable cars are already there? What’s going on here? I never did come up with a satisfying answer. If you’ve got a better idea, discuss it here!
![]()
122 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
11.20.09
Posted in Society at 16:29 by RjZ
The U.S. American slang term “going postal” refers to several cases, starting around 1986, where unassuming United States Postal Service workers showed up at work and opened fire on their colleagues. According to Wikipedia, ”more than 40 people have been killed in 20 incidents of workplace rage” between 1986 and 1997. (35 of them in post office shootings.)
The United States Postal Service employs some 656,000 workers while the U.S. military is estimated at some 2.3 million strong. The military takes much greater care in selecting and training its soldiers than, presumably, the U.S. Postal Service, and, even though numbers for both change over time, even if we only assume that one tenth of the folks who join the military crack under the understandable pressure, the carnage should still amount to something like 350 times the USPS’s contribution (that’d be over 12,000 casualties).
And yet, our congress, lead to a large part by independent Joe Lieberman, is looking for signs of terrorism in the acts of Major Nadal Hasan. If the attention seeking senator can’t find terrorism in his investigation, the media at least hopes to pin the blame on the military and the ignored warnings of Major Hasan’s superiors. The senseless killing of 13 people people is obviously a tragedy. Blaming the military for this one-in-a-million (more lilke one in 2.3 million, even 100s of millions if we look back over the decades) is just headline fodder.
The story has legs because Major Hasan is a Muslim, and worse, has some rather silly ideas that his religion could mean that he and his brothers should be excused from some service. The U.S. military is still a volunteer affair; there are no conscientious objectors in the military today. If you signed up, you may be asked to do something you don’t believe in. Your job will be to follow the orders of your superior officer. If that isn’t working for you, you might consider not joining, or if you discovered this unfortunate reality a little late, you can seek a dishonorable discharge.
Aside from Hasan’s misguided views, it seems, given what we know so far, that it is unlikely he represents a terrorist cell of one inside our military or that he, in any way, represents the views of other Muslims in the military. Even if he was influenced by others, it’s still a stretch to call him a terrorist. After all, weren’t the media reports saying that his superiors knew he might not be all there? Which is it?
The military might be doing the best it can with people who don’t work out as well as expected, but there are bound to be some folks who slip through the cracks. Not to say we should do nothing when we identify depressed and unstable people, certainly those folks who, by the nature of their work have, or have access to guns (!) or that we shouldn’t keep an eye on folks who reasonably raise suspicion and are having weekly tea with Bin Laden’s right hand man. The silly thing is believing that enough control, regulation, and blame can actually avoid such out of the ordinary acts. Sad as it is, eventually, even this is bound to happen.
![]()
80 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
10.09.09
Posted in 2¢, Society at 9:03 by RjZ
I’ll just quote from the Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times:
“I am a genuine admirer of Obama. And I am very pleased that George W. Bush is no longer president. But I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace – Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka?”
I remember the complaints about Al Gore winning. I defended that choice a little here on this blog, but this is gone even further. Does this make sense to anyone who isn’t still starry eyed about our president? Aren’t we lead to believe the peace prize is about accomplishments and not just hope?
Update: The left don’t think he deserved it (he’s escalating in Afghanistan). The right think it’s pure politics (call it the not George W. Bush award.) The only way to make this a positive is for him to have the character to decline.
Update: Well, clever guy that he is, he didn’t decline, but instead accepted the prize “as an affirmation of American leadership,” and a “call to action.” It’s a thoughtful response, but I don’t think it will do at all. He will still live under the shroud of “he didn’t deserve it.” Good news, Obama won’t suffer as much as the Nobel Peace Prize which now will have about as much credibility as the Oscars.
![]()
123 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
10.08.09
Posted in 2¢, Society at 16:33 by RjZ
According to a recent Pew Form on Religion and Public Life report Nearly 1 in 4 people worldwide is Muslim. The report admits that the question being answered is how do people identify themselves. Freaked out American fundamentalists can relax that the 1.57 billion people who identify as Muslim is still fewer than the 2.25 billion Christians. Except that the report didn’t yet answer the more important question: religiosity, that is, what do people actually believe.
“Spiritual but not religious,” is so common it’s how folks describe themselves on internet dating services. ”I believe in a supreme being but no particular god or religion” is something I hear during barstool conversations. Surely many of these folks are sincere in their beliefs, and their unwillingness to sign up to some dogmatic, organized, religion, but, like many so-called “agnostics,” many of them are really just lazy atheists. Upon reflection they may not really believe in anything. If you doubt religion, then, honestly, until you come around to finding that faith, you don’t believe it in yet, even if some part of you is scared you might be struck by a godsent bolt from the sky if you say it out loud.
Their non-specified ‘god’ is much the same as Einstein’s god, it’s really just any part of nature that, even geniuses like Albert don’t yet understand and, well, it really is quite amazing.
As a rule these folks don’t pray. They don’t vote based on their lack of religion (except, perhaps, to avoid the religious extremists.) They receive little guidance and know, deep inside, that it’s not OK to steal or rape little children without having to read it in a book. Religion plays little or no part in their lives. It is not a place they go to for solace or thanks. Many of them would self identify as (nominally) Christian. I’ve even met a few say the believe in God when asked casually, because it just isn’t socially acceptable not to.
Many Europeans and Americans fall into the description I’ve laid out here, but far fewer Muslims do. In the west it is less socially acceptable to be Muslim in the first place (at least in the last decade it has become more challenging thanks to 9-11 and similar attacks in Spain and the U.K.) Muslims must stand against the criticism against them thanks to the acts of a few so it takes a certain courage and commitment to identify as such when anyone, including a survey, asks. Who knows how religious the citizens of the Iranian and Saudi theocracies are, but we can assume that they, at least outwardly, pay more than lip service to their self-identified religion.
I’m afraid, then, that the Christians might have something to worry about after all. At least if they continue to assume that there are 1.6 billion terrorists out there.
![]()
113 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
10.06.09
Posted in Society at 13:40 by RjZ
I’m not really a fan of the “public option” for health care being debated in the United States Congress. Generally, I’m in the camp that the government isn’t all that efficient at running things and I predict that, in the long run, the public option will become the go-to option for the nearly impossible to insure and will become a huge drain on our economy.
So why am I for it? Because most of the arguments opposed to it are wimpy strawmen that won’t scare away the tiniest autumn crow.
Public insurance will force us to ration care (or have death panels)
I certainly hope so. We can afford to give people a modicum of health care in this rich nation and it makes great economic sense to do it. It doesn’t make as much sense to do absolutely everything possible to heal someone with a 0.0oo ooo oo1 chance of survival. Sure, if I am that guy and the procedure the doctor is proposing as a one in a million chance of working, I’ll take the risk, but why should everyone else have to pay for my bet? I should probably go get some special (non-government) insurance for that. I bet there will be a few companies filling that niche.
Sadly, though, we already ration health care. Not by anything so sensible as need or success rate, but rather by employment and money. If you have enough money or the right employment, you get health care whether it’s likely to succeed or not. If you don’t, you’re out of luck.
Health insurance mandates force the healthy to pay for something they don’t need
It sure does. The libertarian me is pretty unhappy about it too. Fortunately, I’ve come to accept it in other parts of life because it makes economic sense. We can argue in the comments about the specifics but we generally are mandated to pay for things we may or may not use because society around us does use them and we benefit. Think roads, or another mandated insurance: auto insurance.
While college students will no longer get to imagine they’re so healthy they’ll never need insurance, in nearly every plan before congress insurance companies will give up something too. They will lose there right to refuse service to some individuals.
It makes economic sense. If I am a entrepreneur hiring employees for my rapidly growing business, then once I invest and train these folks, I’d sure like it better if they stayed healthy and returned that investment back to me. Just because they’re young and creative doesn’t mean they won’t get cirrhosis from all the drinking. Healthcare will get them back to work sooner. Above all, if we really would allow people to take responsibility for their choices, that is, to simply die in pain when they can’t pay for the health care they refuse to get, I might be OK without a mandate. As long as the uninsured (particularly those who choose to be) still get health care without paying, it makes sense to make not pulling your health care weight against the law.
The government will need to know how healthy I eat, whether I rock climb, or even if I engage in what they consider risky sex acts!
I made this very argument. When the government is paying for my health care, they’re going to want to make sure I am a good bet and not costing my fellow taxpayers an undue share. Private insurance companies already do this, but I don’t have to choose one that asks questions I don’t feel like answering. One mitigating factor is that when insurance is mandated people’s bad behavior is spread out against more payers and therefore less of a pain, so they’re less motivated to ask about everything.
As much as my brain keeps imagining a world where I sneer at overweight people and they sneer at my rock climbing, it’s a slippery slope argument. If we make even a step in this direction, we have to be prepared for every possible consequence regardless of how likely it is. Meanwhile, back in reality, in dozens of countries with a public option, this simply hasn’t happened. Shouldn’t we argue about likely possibilities, instead of unlikely ones?
Shouldn’t I be able to buy insurance anywhere I want, not just in my state?
Sure you should. Except for the unintended consequences of that plan. If we regulate insurance companies so that they all provide the same minimum of care, this might work, but that would mean more crushing federal regulation. Is that really what libertarians or conservatives want? If instead we let Arkansas decides to make its state attractive for health insurance companies and removes regulations such whether or not the companies may cancel insurance for no reason, but Colorado does not allow such practices, it seems pretty likely that insurance from Arkansas will be cheaper than Colorado. Indeed, insurance companies may find it profitable to open up offices in Arkansas just so they can offer the cheaper, competitive, and less effective coverage. So begins the race to the bottom.
Actually, I rather prefer that the ability to decide just how little or much coverage we get be as close to where I vote as possible. When Arkansas bans abortion coverage and doctors who believe in evolution (alright, now I am just being unfair…) I’d like to still have a choice of local coverage.
The public option puts my choice in danger enough. Buying across state lines, without federal regulation (which I don’t want either) just makes the problem worse. Let’s attack one problem at time, shall we?
The public option will bankrupt insurance companies
The conservatives have been making two conflicting arguments. The government is no good at running things and providing value and contradictorily, that this horribly run government option will be so much better than private insurance that they’ll all go bankrupt trying to compete with a non-profit.
I am not so sure why were desperately trying to protect insurance companies—aren’t they only a step above the IRS and some unscrupulous lawyers? Still, why would they be unable to offer value that the public option cannot offer? The U.S. postal service is the public option for mail. It still exists, even if they’re not able to compete on a level playing field. UPS and FedEx are not required to deliver to every address in the nation. They can refuse your business if it’s too inconvenient for them, where the postal service may not. Yet somehow, in spite of the public option for mail, the private companies have thrived.
When I lived in Germany and the Netherlands, by the way, I was mandated to have insurance but was not allowed to just have the public insurance (I made slightly too much.) I bought insurance from a private company (admittedly one getting significant revenue from the government….) All the while I did not have to report on my diet, or risky hobbies. I am not an unqualified supporter of European health care, but it’s obvious that it’s not all doom and gloom.
So, given that we have a public option for postal service and insurance mandates for auto insurance and armageddon hasn’t actually started, perhaps we can try out this whole public option thing. President Obama offered the best option in his address to congress. Let’s put what we need in place (mandates, for example) and determine what good enough looks like and what we expect (something better than we have now with increasing costs and sick people being dropped by insurance companies for acne) and then let market see what it can do. The threat hanging over their head is that if we do not achieve the goals we’ve set, the dreaded public option will be initiated.
If the market does fail to deliver and the public option doesn’t fare better, then we’re back to the drawing board to figure out if this is problem we can really fix. Many will claim that there will be no way to turn back the clock on public option. I think they’re right—once an entitlement is started, there’s no good way to get rid of it. And yet I don’t know anybody my age or younger who believes that Social Security will be around for them. If the public option fails, it will cost a fortune and for a long time. Conservatives can enjoy the power they’ll receive to come up with a better idea, because the status quo just isn’t working at all.
![]()
135 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
09.11.09
Posted in Society at 11:58 by RjZ
In Colorado, it’s easy to think that global warming (human caused or not) isn’t going to have much effect on your life. At worst, less snow in the mountains and maybe more water shortages (which are quite a big deal, but, hey, I just planted xeriscape landscaping and others could too.) Too bad it won’t be this easy.
I just returned from the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness, where global warming is plain to see: bark beetle damage. Under normal circumstances the population of these little critters is limited by cold winters. For the last decade, they’ve been able to infest trees with impunity and the result is thousands of dead pine trees.
The aspens, meanwhile, are happy. They’re less sensitive to the bark beetle’s burrowing and they are likely to make significant advancements once these dead trees fall or burn and make way. While lugging my backpack through the high country and among the spreading stands of aspens, I began to speculate what the forest would be like as a result.
Aspens are beautiful. I’ve been told that they are the most photographed tree. Their white bark with strongly contrasting eye shaped markers where lower branches have fallen off as the straight trunked trees reach higher and higher are certainly stunning. Their golden, sometime fiery orange, fall color is legendary, as is the gentle quaking of their namesake leaves.
Still, I will miss pine forest. It’s shadier, for one. The thicker branches make hiking in even loose forests a cooler experience in summer and a warmer one in winter where the wind is blocked even at ground level. The acidic needles of pines, firs, and spruces also changes the forest floor; limiting tall flowering plants and favoring a delicate mix of lovely flowers, like the fairy slipper orchid, who have adapted to the sour soil. The aspen understory was filled, first and foremost, by more aspen, which grow like grass in dense thickets, and where trees weren’t sprouting, tall sunflowers and cow parsnip enjoyed the only slightly filtered light. Beautiful, sure, but try camping in it.
I saw a pair of pine squirrels vigorously fighting over territory and I imagined they’re not called pine squirrels by accident. They may not do well enough to be renamed aspen squirrels. I can only guess at the impact on other animals who depend on the eco-system that is so effected by the pines.
Saddest, and silliest, of all, though, was the realization that the pretty white bark of aspen trees, which native Americans learned you could rub the powder from to use as a natural sunblock, is a perfect canvas for graffiti. Marked once, a heart surrounding John + Mary will remain right where the lovers put it, long after their divorce is final. Their testament does not, as some imagine, grow higher with the tree or grow over (except, perhaps, in very, very mature trees). If even one in a thousand visitors to the aspen forest think this might be a good place to record their love for posterity, the whole forest will be tattooed in no time.
![]()
104 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
09.04.09
Posted in Society at 15:15 by RjZ
I really intended to reduce the amount of political nonsense I write here, but, well, it’s easier then having to constantly come up with travel stories and, well, lately, I am annoyed. I’ve already mentioned earlier how it seems to me that the political right in the U.S. is really going pretty nuts about Obama and, biased as I may be (hey, I didn’t vote for him either) it just seems ridiculous. There are so many examples, I could make a new category and blog daily about it. This may explain how news channels and political blogs stay in business.
Latest blast? Obama is indoctrinating our kids through a back-to-school address. Really! Check out some of the comments in the link, including this one from Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer:
“As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology,”
Is he serious? This is just embarrassing. I’m appalled that this paranoid nut is indoctrinating his four children about how not to be critical thinkers. The president was elected, by more than half of the nation. The last time we elected someone our Commander in Chief could barely make that claim, and we let him talk to school children. Bush was busy reading schoolbooks upside down while the towers were coming down, and I didn’t hear the GOP chairman complaining about wasting taxpayer dollars then. He’s the president. We don’t have to like him or agree with him, but speaking to school children is hardly indoctrination. At a minimum it’s civics.
It’s even more embarrassing that many of the same people complaining have no problem with indoctrinating our children into the Christian faith, using tax dollars and government programs. These members of the GOP are, doing one useful thing; they’re making the best argument yet for small government. I, for one, sure don’t want any of them involved in making decisions.
![]()
110 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a square to vote)
Loading ...
09.01.09
Posted in Society at 12:08 by RjZ
“Somewhere in Texas a villiage is missing its idiot,” “National Embarrassment, International Disaster,” “Fuck Bush.” Do you remember them? Plenty of cars are still driving around with these stickers on their rear bumpers. A few of them can be seen peaking out from underneath “Obama08″ and “Hope” stickers.
Racist NObama sticker
I was never a fan of Bush’s religious inspired adventurism, curtailing of privacy and individual rights, and general inability to articulate a clear thought. I agreed with many of the sentiments implied by the bumper sticker conversation.
On the other hand, I am not a huge fan of Obamanomics and I am quite afraid of the giant Keynesian experiment going on right now. And yet is it me, or is the U.S. right wing even more shrill than the left? Calling Bush an idiot is a personal attack that might not be the most polite or appropriate thing to do to the president of the United States but it claiming the president wasn’t even born here (against all evidence to the contrary) in an effort to get him kicked out (sounds desparate); calling him a (reverse racist) as Fox commentator Beck has done strikes me as a stretch, even if the same shrill conservatives are happy to jump on it.
An acquaintance of mine called the Bush era democrats “treasonous” because the offered dissent about the war. Under that silly argument , couldn’t suggesting Obama is a Marxist socialist be categorized the same? Shoe doesn’t fit so well when it’s on the other foot, does it?
And then there’s the sticker I saw on the back of a truck parked at the Denver Airport. (You didn’t think it’d be on a Prius did you? Stop stereotyping!) Clever isn’t it? A slight modification of Obama’s graphic promotional graphics and we’re lead to believe the owner of the car thinks Obama might be a Muslim and that’s perhaps why we shouldn’t vote for him. It’s difficult to know for sure (the Census Bureau does not count religious affiliation) but there are something like 2 million Muslims in the United States, or around 0.5%. That’s round about the same as the number of Jews. Just a guess, but it’s not as fashionable to be anti-semetic as it is to be anti-Muslim.
It’s too easy for me to be biased, after all, I thought at least a few of the Bush bumper stickers were right on, and I don’t believe, as many conservatives claim(ed…during the Bush administration), that it’s not patriotic to bash the president, but don’t you agree that stickers like this are just shrill, racist, crap and really only succeeding in making the far right look stupid? (Except it’s doubtful that this sticker was on some racist, radical’s car…I’ve seen too many similar sentiments to assume this is just a rare case.)
![]()
106 views Permalink
(1 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
