August 30, 2005 at 2:17 pm
(Environment)
I’m finding the NY Time’s most popular article list interesting. For instance, here is today’s top article, a reader-written piece on protecting National Parks . The piece itself is worth mentioning, but it’s also interesting to speculate on why it would, of all the articles published recently on the Times website, be the most emailed. One imagines people sending it to friends out of anger or frustration, to vent or to encourage action. I would also speculate that most of the people who would email this particular column are doing so because they agree with the writer rather than disagree, based on the presumptions that Times readers are typically left-leaning and that the column probably elicits a stronger response from people who agree with it.
If that’s true, it is sort of interesting…if so many people are so strongly opposed to a policy of letting snowmobilers have at the National Parks, why is such a policy even being considered? My suspicion is that a policy that concedes destruction of the National Parks would be very unpopular (but it doesn’t hurt to fight it vocally). But clearly there exists a significant segment of people who honestly believe that the most efficient allocation of this huge public resource is to open them to recreation. They will never be able to grasp the concept that something can have value without having tangible value.
We may not be able to change the fact that some people have unfailing faith in pure capitalism. But perhaps we can appeal to that faith. Wouldn’t a far better solution be to encourage private development for snowmobiling and jetskiing and such activities? Access might in fact be cheaper for the snowmobiler or jetskier (in a National Park, they would have to pay a fairly steep access fee). Republicans often propose privatization as a good thing–why not here? This allows public land to be dealt with by the public sector, as it should be and it allows the for-profit enterprises to act unencumbered. And, it continues to support the current policy of preserving certain areas. In fact, I would go a step further–allow access to the National Parks only to people who can prove they at least understand certain principles along the lines of what Leave No Trace teaches. People who pass a test earn the privilege to enjoy the parks much as people who can prove their ability to drive safely earn the privilege of driving a car. It would be cheaper and easier for the weekend dirt biker to go to the private park while the public land is less crowded and easier to preserve. And I’m sure the average snowmobiler would call LNT wimpy environmentalist bull, but that’s fine since they’d never need to pay attention to it anyway.
Comments
August 29, 2005 at 9:10 pm
(Education)
I’m not thinking too hard these days, so I’ll just piggyback off a mainstream writer’s column, in this case Bob Herbert’s column on education.
The main points, plus my 2c worth: First, poor urban and rural kids get the worst luck and thus to be born poor in the US is already a point against you. Second, something needs to be done. Man, it’s frustrating to hear that over and over. Everyone values education yet most people are reluctant to pay for it. Inner city districts have a shallow tax base, and suburban ones have a tax base that is anti-tax (unless you threaten their football team). Teaching salaries aren’t competitive and buildings are falling apart. In many, many Colorado districts, trailers serve as classroom space on a semi-permanent basis. This isn’t just true in fast-growing areas–the same holds true for some well-established neighborhood schools in places like Aurora and Denver.
Bear with me as I go off on a tangent…currently, the going price of a condo in our complex is about what we paid two years ago. Some realtors think they should be considerably less. And yet, last year a place across from us sold for 15% more than the average. And, it sold very quickly. This makes me wonder: was that place overvalued or are the rest of the places in the complex undervalued, so much so that the potential buyers that would snap these places up aren’t even looking at them? This may be wishful thinking on my part, but I vaguely remember the economic concept: if you price something too low, people will suspect a lack of quality and shy away from it.
So my 15-minute theory of the day is this: Perhaps education is so “undervalued” that we aren’t willing to pay. The thinking being: obviously schools aren’t doing their jobs now, so why should we give them more money? But what if a substantially larger portion of our tax dollars went to education, schools improved, salaries became more competitive with other professions? Would that loosen our purse strings a little?
Comments
August 26, 2005 at 8:55 pm
(Education)
I came across this college ranking which is meant to be an alternative to the USNews version that comes out each year.
Washington Monthly is somewhat left-leaning, and their rankings are taking into account among other things how colleges improve social equality. No surprise then, that Ivy Leagues faired worse and state universities faired better. I think this is a great criteria for the rest of us–Harvard is good but to what extent (as an undergrad at least) are you paying for the name? WM’s criteria indicate that something is sacrificed (but not horrendously so).
I should mention that my alma mater, whose odd name usually elicits no more than vague signs of recognition, rose significantly in the poll. (Most of my fellow students were on healthy merit scholarships.)
Comments
August 26, 2005 at 8:30 pm
(Colorado)
In the same week that we began to see a big push to approve a hotel tax in support of tourism (which, proponents say, will bring in jobs), we also see the BRAC vote to close the DFAS office at Lowry.
The BRAC’s change in tone over which DFAS offices to keep open seems to have fairly clear political motivation. They traded the Denver office for one in Cleveland, one in New York State and one in Maine. Lots more votes in those places.
So Denver fails (once again) to get or hang onto jobs that are worthwhile, but we’re fighting to get new jobs that are essentially the iceberg lettuce of the job market–waiters and hotel staff. Worse, there is no reason to believe that an ad campaign will attract a significant number of people to Denver which is basically a cultural void. Colorado’s tourism industry is based on the mountains and doesn’t put too many people in Denver restaurants or hotels.
You can’t blame our leaders for trying though. They’ve been working pro-actively both to attract good jobs (Boeing had Denver on it’s short list) and keep existing ones (lawmakers from both parties lobbied to keep DFAS Denver open.) They’ve also been working on building up the cultural institutions that attract innovative people. It’s very frustrating, I’m sure. But I’m also sure that the answer to the region’s woes aren’t a hotel tax.
Comments
August 23, 2005 at 10:39 pm
(International)
I heard about Pat Robertson’s irresponsible comments from my Fox-loving co-workers. I was pleased to hear that they were very critical of those comments. It seems Robertson got a rise out of a lot of people and typically this sort of thing (see “Ward Churchill” or “Tom Tancredo”) really divides us into camps. Usually I’m in the opposite camp from many of my co-workers. So this was refreshing.
Maybe on a similar note, maybe not:
And remember when you’re out there tryin’ to heal the sick
That you must always first forgive them
–Bob Dylan, Open the Door Homer
Comments
August 19, 2005 at 9:33 pm
(Social/Economic)
I deal with long haul trucks daily, but I have no idea what this really means. When they first put the more restrictive rules (they allowed longer periods of driving but also longer periods of shutdown) into effect in 2004, it was supposed to affect our shorter routes (due to delivery appointment times) more than the longer ones. In the end, it didn’t make a noticable difference to me. Although the union is the big enemy of longer hours (raising the legal limit could allow companies to force the longer days on their drivers), it’s amazing to see how often drivers arrive at their destination long before they were scheduled. There have probably been more drivers shutdown due to running out of hours, but not substantially. It seems to me that drivers are driving for 12, 13, 14 hours anyway and not being stopped for it–and why not, if they can drop one load, pick up another and get paid for the hours. I suspect all this fancy legislation doesn’t accomplish too much in reality. Besides, my sense is that highway accidents involving sleepy drivers involve passenger cars far more frequently. The truckers, one imagines, have a far better idea of their limits.
Comments
August 18, 2005 at 10:42 pm
(Colorado, Social/Economic)
A study has suggested that Denver panhandlers get $4.6m per year.
The sponsors suggest that donating to aid organizations is more effective. This has always been my suspicion–at least then you know you aren’t buying booze or drugs. I was thinking about this yesterday as I do every so often when the Spearhead song Hole in the Bucket comes around on one of my playlists. The song deals with the dilemma…to give or not to give:
What’s going to happen if I give the man a dime?
I don’t want to pay for another brother’s wine.
What’s going to happen if I give the man a quarter?
Will he find a dealer and try to place an order?
What’s going to happen if I give the man a nickel?
Will he buy some food or some pork that’s been pickled?
I’m not responsible
for the man’s depression;
how can I find compassion
in the midst of a recession?
Later in the song, he decides that “my cup is half full, but his is empty.”
This song resonates with me…and if I happen to have change (which is extremely rare), I’ll give it to someone who asks knowing full well they could be cleaning up and that the problem won’t go away if we give out free money. But I feel like I could be doing more…what if I carried some small, cheap food item (granola bars) in my car to hand out instead of money? Donations are frustrating things because even if no homeless guy is getting free money, it’s altogether possible some administrator is. That, to me, could be worse. And once you do donate, the charity will try to become your favorite cheap suit.
I guess my answer is to continue to donate time to the Denver Rescue Mission, and hopefully find a way to help out with the Rocky Mountain Food Bank. Volunteering has the feel good factor without the drawbacks. Hey, it’s non-partisan, too.
Comments
