« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
Funding Amtrak
July 29, 2005
In 34 years of federally funded passenger service, one thorny question has never been answered to anyone’s satisfaction: Why should air transport and highways receive so much money from the government while a national rail passenger system is judged solely on whether or not it pays for itself? As TRAINS noted three years ago, “profitability is an ideological appeal; by using this hammer, critics destroy attempts to make rational comparisons of the public benefits of different transportation modes.”That ideology has spawned some damaging cultural effects. In the media, journalists and commentators continue using the phrase “money-losing Amtrak,” even though government highways and transit systems aren’t judged by their profitablity. Powerful lobbying groups like the American Association of Retired Persons have failed to support passenger-train funding, even though a growing segment of AARP’s constituency are rural residents, those losing the ability to drive or purchase a car, and those who can’t or won’t fly.
From the new September issue of TRAINS Magazine - an article entitled “The Fight Over America’s Passenger Trains” by Bob Johnston.
I love this magazine. I’ve been getting it for 10 years now, and, despite its railfan past, it really does contain much information about current freight and passenger rail. I especially like the City Rail news page and the Don Phillips editorial each month.
Posted by paul at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)
Back to the 60s
O’Hare Airport in Chicago is about to undergoe some big changes. A proposed $15 billion is going to be spent to add runways and improve the terminals. Why? Because O’Hare had the nation’s worst flight delay’s last year (according to this article).
Take a look at the Google map below (what would I do without Google?). You can see that the areas around O’Hare are established neighborhoods and commercial areas. There is little space for new runways and the like. The article doesn’t discuss the costs, but I’d imagine that the large price tag is due in large part to the cost of acquiring land around the airport. Chicago is going for its own new kind of urban renewal project here - destroying established areas in the name of one big project.
Personally, I don’t think this needs to be done. Why not expand another one of the airports around the area? One that might have the room. Why not get the airlines to promote travel through their other hubs. And, more speculation on my part, but I’d bet that the $15 billion cost will mostly be fronted by government, not the airlines and the travelers who use them. Who then will this be benefiting? Can’t we use the money for something else (or not at all - leave it with the taxpayers!)?
Posted by paul at 08:21 AM | Comments (0)
BP Needs Help
July 28, 2005
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal had an article about an explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas. That explosion killed 15 people. Just so happens that a large fire has erupted today at that same refinery. Eerie, eh? The first explosion cost BP $700 million in victim’s compensation, not to mention repairs to the facility. Something is wrong at that refinery, and it needs to be fixed soon. I suppose the biggest problem is that BP doesn’t have enough money to complete these upgrades. Ha, I don’t really believe that. But, if they were to increase gas prices to come more in line with the rest of the world, then maybe they could afford to do things without exploding. There is much more analysis here, but, alas, I am not an oil expert.
Posted by paul at 08:16 PM | Comments (2)
Living on Lake Mac
This Woodtv.com story reminds me of an incident this past Friday night. My mother and I came home from Ann Arbor to find a note from my father about the Coast Guard calling back. Weird.
Dad finished mowing the lawn and came upstairs to say hi. He then pointed us to the dock and mentioned he found a boat while he was mowing the lawn. What?
The boat was just bumping up against the dock. Not knowing what was up, he called the Coast Guard (at 6:45 pm). Well, since he was mowing the lawn, my mother and I were given the task of talking to the CG during a few different phone calls. I was told to go through the boat and look for evidence and clues. Well, I found a couple towels, a ton of empty beers and such, some Twizzlers, a money clip, cell phone and some keys. All quite odd. Slightly scary - if it weren’t for the fact that the motor was up and the anchor was out.
Obviously, the CG didn’t think it was a problem, because they didn’t come over to actually look over the boat until about 8:15 pm (they did respond to a reported boat fire about 20 minutes before coming to the house). Once they came, they picked up the cell phone and called the last number to call it (it had 8 missed calls). It turns out that each call was from the boat’s owner.
The owner had failed to properly anchor the boat while getting dinner from his campsite at the state park overflow campground. Personally, I think it was because he was trashed - noting all the empties in the boat.
What really made me curious was the speed at which the CG responded. It took us 45 minutes to even tell them that the motor was up and the anchor down, 45 minutes that a person could have been overboard had we not figured that out. Makes me slightly scared about chances of survival on Lake Mac.
The Petty Officer and I did get to quickly discuss the fireboat situation on Lake Mac. In his opinion, the City of Holland REALLY needs a fireboat, not some wimpy piece of crap like they have now. I’d tend to agree.
Posted by paul at 07:02 PM | Comments (0)
The Greening of Conservative America
I just finished reading The Greening of Conservative America by John R. Bliese. It is an informative book for any environmentally-minded person, but specifically for a Republican (conservative) such as me.
The book starts with a quick discussion of various environmental problems and traditional conservative responses. Professor Bliese then gets to the meat of one of the biggest environment problems – Environment versus Economy. After dispelling most conservative myths about the supposed toll of environmental regulations on the economy, Professor Bliese moves to a discussion about the definition of a conservative and how it applies to the environment. This chapter was one of the more beneficial ones for me. I knew certain things about the conservative mindset, but no one had ever really explained the traditionalist and libertarian distinctions to me before. Even though there are two distinct types of conservatism, a conservative view of the environment is still easy to form.
The basic premise of the book is that conservatives should be environmentalists, especially based on the theories of conservatism. Private property rights, the free market, responsibility and other ideas all come together to support environmental principles. Unfortunately, most conservatives (Republicans) today are far from supporters of such principles.
I suggest you read the expanded post to understand more about the book. I’ve taken a few of my favorite parts of the book and typed them out for you to read. Enjoy and comment. Much discussion is possible with this topic.
A collection of quotes from the book (either by the author or quoted by the author):
Consequently, as Wendell Berry, a Christian and an environmentalist, says, “our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it is the most horrid blasphemy. It is flinging God’s gift into His face, as if they were of no worth beyond that assigned to them by our destruction of them.�The overall conclusions are decisive: “States with stronger environmental policies did not experience inferior rates of economic growth and development compared to states with weaker environmental regulations. In fact the converse was true: states with stronger environmental policies consistently out-performed the weaker environmental states on all the economic measures… The environmental impact hypothesis, while theoretically plausible, has no empirical foundation.�
These conservatives unleashed their wrath against environmentalists over the [spotted] owl. But (except for a small group of populists) one never sees from them that same sort of indignation about the thousands and thousands of people laid off by corporate mergers or downsizing, even when the companies are earning high profits.
For example, pollution infringes on the freedom and rights of all of its victims. It imposes costs on them that should not be theirs to bear… As Gordon Durnil asks, “Is not the insidious invasion of our bodies by harmful unsolicited chemicals the most flagrant violation of our individual rights.�
All forms of pollution are violations of the conservative principle of freedom. As Tibor Machan emphatically contends, “capitalism requires that pollution be punishable as a legal offense that violates individual rights.� So, for principled conservatives, appropriate policies to reduce pollution are a means of protecting not only our health but also our freedom.
As Gordon Durnil says, “We conservatives bemoan the decline in values that has besieged our society… Why then should we not abhor the lack of morality involved in discharged untested chemicals into the air, ground, and water to alter and harm, to whatever degree, human life and wildlife. As a conservative, I do abhor it.�
Gordon Durnil observes that the coddling of criminals “really upsets most conservatives… But when the executive of some large conglomerate violates the laws by discharging some onerous substance into the water or air or onto the ground, we [conservatives] pay little attention… A conservative should believe that industry executives, as well as individuals, are responsible for their actions.�
Pollution in any form is a violation of the property rights of all its victims. If property is to be respected in principle, if property rights are to be enforced, then pollution clearly needs to be prevented as a matter of principle.
How far have so many conservative politicians and pundits fallen! There is absolutely nothing conservative about pandering to developers and polluters and extractive industries that want to maximize their profits be irresponsibly maximizing their negative externalities.
The direct costs of driving, according to market principles, are seriously underpriced. Consequently, we do too much of it. All of us who drive should face up to the fact that we too are welfare bums. We should get off the dole and pay our own way.
The Forest Service sells timber at prices that do not even come close to covering the costs of sales, and this problem continues to this day. As Representative Jim Leach says, “The U.S. government is the only property owner I know of that pays private companies to deplete its own resources.�
Posted by paul at 02:43 PM | Comments (1)
Happy Birthday to Meer
Well, I knew it was coming, and then I let it pass. Tuesday the 26th was the one year birthday of this lowly little blog. Cool.
Posted by paul at 09:54 AM | Comments (0)
Energy!
Did you know that the Energy Bill contains tax credits for hybrids? Cool. It also contains credits for energy efficient homes and appliances. Neato.
Posted by paul at 09:41 AM | Comments (2)
Adventures in Airline Travel
July 26, 2005
I wrote the following post at the start of my day, before boarding my United flight from Chicago… I’ve added an addendum, but my basic point still stands.
Travel is a complicated endevour. I love to travel and I love all of the experiences that come with it.
I’ve been to 12 countries and about 40 states (Canada, the UK, Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic, and I’ve mostly missed only Southern states).
I’ve driven cars, vans and U-Hauls. I’ve ridden in motor homes and motor coaches. And, like yesterday, I’ve flown.
The biggest lesson I’ve learned while traveling is to always plan your trip, especially your big travel days, with as much leeway as possible. It’s much easier to go with the flow and remain calm when you know you’ve got time to spare.
Like yesterday. My Monday was a day of firsts. My first extremely delayed (or cancelled, I’ll never know now) flight. My first time on United or American Airlines. My first time in Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. And my first big security check.
You see, I arrived at the airport with only two people ahead of me, but by the time I left the ticket counter, there had to be about 50. For some reason, the plane could not leave Minneapolis/St. Paul, so they delayed it and tried to re-book people as best as possible. I was given a new itinerary that would (in theory) have gotten me back to OKC two hours earlier than expected. Instead, I ended up getting here four hours later (to give some perspective, from the time I left the house in Holland to the time I pulled up to my apartment, I could have almost driven the whole way, I’d say there as about a half an hour difference).
Why did this happen? Well, the United flight was delayed b/c of sudden strong thunderstorms in Chicago. So, by the time we flew into O’Hare, my American flight had left for OKC. I was put on standby for the next flight, and was given an actual seat for the second flight. I was lucky enough to get one of three empty seats on the standby flight, but, after getting comfortable in my seat, myself and two other passengers were pulled off (b/c we were standby) b/c the luggage on the plane was overweight. So I ended up taking the second flight.
I was annoyed and slightly frustrated, but knowing that I did not have any certain time requirements for my day really helped. I could watch the stress level increase for those business travelers who had meeting schedule for the afternoon and would not be making them… and I just kinda laughed at them (inside, of course).
One more note on airlines and their revenue losses. I have never been on a domestic Northwest Airlines flight with more than five empty seats, and yet NWA says its losing millions a day. On the other hand, the United and AA flights were full of extra passengers from other airlines and missed lights, making me wonder if they always have that many empty seats. If so, it’s time for them to cut their losses and re-schedule.
All in all, the day was ok. I don’t like being in an airport that long by myself, but it helped to have a book to read and people to watch (which, Dale, means I’ll have that book review soon).
Posted by paul at 03:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Nutmeg!
July 20, 2005
It seems that some people are watching American soccer. FIFA now ranks the US sixth in the world (see this ESPN.com article).
How happy I am to see that US Soccer is that highly respected… now all we need is to win some big games. Honestly, I don’t really know if the US deserves that high of a ranking, but, if you were to put the best players on the field, all healthy, I’d think it to be true.
Happy days. World Cup 2006 - Germany anyone?
Posted by paul at 09:19 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The UN has a Terror Alert System too!
July 19, 2005
This is a wonderful twist on the American terror alert system: UN Terror Alert System.
Posted by paul at 09:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Something Good to Say about Detroit!
July 13, 2005
Well, finally, an article with something good to say about life in Detroit. Ok, maybe it’s not about life in Detroit, but I think that the writer does have a great point to make. Sadly, he’s really talking about SE Michigan (where the money is), b/c that’s who helps Detroit survive, but it’s still good publicity.
Posted by paul at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Beer = More Income!?
From Today’s Wall Street Journal, an interesting editorial…
rink More, Earn More (& Give More)
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
July 13, 2005; Page A14
W.C. Fields once recommended, “Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake.” Traditionally, practical rationales for drinking were unconvincing, at best. More recently, however, alcohol’s reputation has improved as new benefits from drinking have come to light. Best known are the studies showing the health benefits of moderate alcohol use. It is now so well established that it is almost a cliché that red wine lowers the risk of heart disease. A new study by researchers at the National Cancer Institute also claims that drinkers may have a lower risk of lymphoma than nondrinkers.
Economists assert that benefits from alcohol are also financial, showing that moderate drinking is associated with higher earnings. If two workers are identical in education, age, and other characteristics except that the first has a couple of beers each night after work while the second is a teetotaler, the first will tend to enjoy a “drinker’s bonus” in the range of 10% to 25% higher wages. (Don’t get carried away with this information, though. Research also shows that beyond about two drinks per day, wages start to fall.)
While it is clear that drinking and prosperity are related, the reasons why are still obscure. Some economists believe that the health benefits of moderate drinking make for greater productivity. Others argue that alcohol is a social lubricant: People who drink together get along better, and make deals. Another possibility is that people who enjoy professional success tend to experience pressure, and so “self-medicate.” Whatever the reason, a little drinking might seem like a pleasant way to invest in one’s career.
Recently, while toasting the drinker’s bonus with a friend, he asked me whether drinking might not be related to virtuous behavior as well: Are moderate drinkers more likely to give to charity? A worthy question, so I did a bit of analysis and found that, indeed, moderate drinkers tend to be more charitable than nondrinkers. For example, 54% of nondrinkers contribute to charity each year, giving away an average of $1,100. In contrast, 62% of those who take one to two drinks per day have an average annual giving level of $1,200. The alcohol effect has diminishing returns, however: Just 40% of people drinking five or more drinks per day are donors, and they give only $230 per year on average. (So once you get past two or three, you have to stop claiming you’re “doing it for a good cause.”)
The only exception to the pattern of “charity drinking” is the case of giving to religious organizations, which sees a negative impact from alcohol use. For all other types of donations — to the poor, hospitals, schools, the arts, international aid, etc. — drinking pushes giving up.
Perhaps you are thinking that this is just a side-effect of income or education differences between moderate drinkers and abstainers. After all, teetotalers have lower average incomes than social drinkers, which might explain why they give less away. But the matter is more complex. Compare two people who are the same in terms of income, education and even religion, but where one drinks moderately and the other doesn’t: The drinker will give between $50 and $100 more to charity each year.
Shakespeare’s Pericles warned that, one sin “another doth provoke.” In the case of booze, however, the good news is that one sin a few virtues doth provoke. So what’s the practical advice in all this? As summer broils you, pour yourself a cool drink and raise your glass to your favorite charity. But stop at two and don’t forget to write the check.
Mr. Brooks is associate professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Posted by paul at 07:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Say Ya! to the UP, Eh!
July 12, 2005
Well, CNN.com had at least one good read today. I particularly like the local term “fudgie.”
They did fail to elaborate a favorite place of Hemingway’s, Seney National Wildlife Refuge. I tell ya, if you ever want to see some beautiful loons, check it out.
Posted by paul at 10:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Purity
If you want to read an interesting rant about radical Islam and the justifications some make for the murder they commit, read this entry. It comes from one of the blogs I regularly read. Very well said. I completely agree.
Here’s a short blurb, but I suggest you read the whole post.
“How perverse to imagine that you could advance yourself in God’s eyes by purifying yourself through killing someone you’ve judged impure.”
Posted by paul at 08:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Oklahoma City Light Rail?
July 07, 2005
I attended a public meeting about upcoming transit modifications in the OKC metro. It was interesting and informative. And, of course, it had its token local wacko activist woman. She is extremely adament about providing public transportation for people with disabilities… especially in rural areas (i.e. gravel roads). I thought her needs and ideas were quite out-of-line of the discussion at hand.
The transportation study being discussed regards dedicated right-of-way transit projects. The ideas being discussed range from HOV lanes to streetcars. There are opinions about all of the options, but I was pleased to see that the local leaders are discussing all options. We’ll see where the study leads - it’s only half-completed. Another round of public meetings comes in September, and the final round comes in November. It’s exciting to actually live in an area where light rail and/or streetcars may be coming to fruition. Better than Detroit/SE Michigan, that’s for sure. :)
Posted by paul at 09:23 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Cookin’
Some of you may know that I like to grill, cook and do a little baking as well (mostly pastries and cheesecakes). Well, living in a new apartment has given me the opportunity to test out my stove and get used to electric cooking once again. My place in Ann Arbor was all gas, which I love. Currently, I still prefer gas to electric, but I’m fine using this electric stove.
My use of the oven has been interesting so far. The first couple things I made (cinnamon rolls and a coffee cake), cooked rapidly and burned on the edges. I guessed that my temperature controls were off, so when I cooked a pizza and later some orange rolls, I turned the knob down a notch, but still had some burning. So Wednesday I went out and bought an oven thermometer to test my oven’s temperature. Well, tonight I figured out my problem.
I had set the oven to 450 so that I could bake a pizza. Well, before placing anything in the oven, I took a look at my oven temperature, according to the new thermometer. It was a balmy 550. 100 degrees over what it was supposed to be. Holy heat Batman!
However, fixing this is not as simple as knocking down the temperature setting by 100 degrees. When I do that, it actually gets to a correct temperature (i.e. 325 on the oven knob results in 325 on the oven thermometer). This is somewhat frustrating. As a cook, I like to be able to trust my equipment, which is why I cannot wait to buy my own home and be able to install new equipment so that I can provide wonderful meals for Christa and I. Soon and very soon, if all goes well, I’ll be able to do so.
Posted by paul at 04:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Movin on Up!
The Baker Lofts seem to be doing quite well. And I don’t say this just by noticing that many of the units are already taken. I say this because my webcounter is continually logging hits by people searching for some variation of Baker Lofts and/or Scott Bosgraff. Kudos to him.
Posted by paul at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Get Over It
July 06, 2005
Justice Souter is under attack. After voting in favor of Kelo, a group of people are suggesting that they have his hometown use eminent domain to take Justice Souter’s home and turn it into a hotel.
The first time I heard it, I chuckled. The second time I said “give me a break.” By the time I heard it the third, I was quite sick of the suggestion, especially since I’d read the opinions and dissents of Kelo. Now, the more I hear about it, the more I get annoyed at it.
Asking a small New Hampshire town to proceed with eminent domain proceedings against a Supreme Court Justice is quite harsh. I’m sure he’d use all means necessary to prolong the proceedings, and I’m sure he’d get a pretty penny as just compensation.
Also, the Kelo ruling says nothing about random property-seizures. The Court points to plans and ensuring that the seizure fits into the character of the whole area. A hotel in the middle of a residential neighborhood is farfrom that. If his house was on a commercial street, I might understand more.
Furthermore, these conservative nuts who are proposing this hotel are taking the Kelo ruling too seriously. Yes, the ruling allows the use of eminent domain for economic development, but the ruling also mentions that states still have the ability to restrict this type of eminent domain usage. That’s the key. People should focus on the state legislatures, not the Federal court! For goodness sake, the Court even mention’s Michigan’s case law regarding eminent domain for ED in its opinion (well, in a footnote).
People are focusing on the Federal Court much too much lately. We need to focus on State Legislatures and Courts. Hmmph. Rant over.
P.S. Something interesting… On Sunday, the man giving the final prayer mentioned the Supreme Court 10 Commandments decision and asked God for the opression to end… Christa and I were flabbergasted, to say the least. The final prayer went for about 10 minutes, in which he also mentioned old Roman warriors, a couple random old Bible stories, and of course, the attacks on Christianity in the U.S.
Posted by paul at 09:56 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Judging Away
July 01, 2005
Well, all that speculation and what do we get? O’Connor retiring instead of Reinquist. Who would have thunk? It seems to me that Bush may have the responsability of appointing two justices during his term. Now that would be interesting…
Hehe, reminds me of an episode of the West Wing that I saw on Monday. The Democrat president makes a deal with the Republican congress to appoint one left-wing and one right-wing judge. Hmmmm.
Posted by paul at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack