“There was panic in the parlours and howling in the halls,
There was crying in the cow-sheds and shrieking in the stalls”
From Mr. Toad’s song in “Toad of Toad Hall”
The above passage by A. A. Milne reminds me of our state government whenever the subject of controlling meth labs comes up. In 2005, the meth lab panic caused our legislature to put Sudafed behind the druggist’s counter. This bold move was going to deny meth lab chemists their magic ingredient.
Well, if one stupid law doesn’t do the trick, then it’s time to invoke “double secret probation.”
In the just-completed 2011 session, the legislature went all out. HB2946 made Sudafed (and several related over-the-counter medicines) a Schedule III drug which can only be prescribed by a physician. The bill passed the House with a large majority. The Senate deadlocked in a tie. Double secret probation failed.
Let’s pause for a moment and consider some common sense. Doctors are busy. Doctors don’t have the time to prescribe FDA-approved, over-the-counter medicines to everyone who gets the sniffles. But if they did have the time, they would charge for an office visit and examination.
Those who argued in favor of HB2946 would have you believe that doctors would call in a prescription for Sudafed whenever asked. The logic of this defense fails because the doctor is no longer writing a prescription for over-the-counter Sudafed. Under HB2946, the doctor would be prescribing a Schedule III drug, and it is terribly naïve to expect a doctor to “call it in.”
Politicians favoring HB2946 were quick to blame Big Pharma for lobbying against the bill. Big Pharma was accused of wanting to sell drugs above all else. While Big Pharma’s motives are just that, I still believe that Big Pharma was on the right side in this debate.
When the legislature first voted to control the sale of Sudafed in 2005, the noble body was treating all Sudafed buyers as if they were meth lab operators or suppliers. Think about it. All Sudafed consumers were restricted to buying 3 packs of pills per month; the only reason being is that such a limit would deny meth labs of a needed chemical.
You want Sudafed? Then, you’re guilty of something. And the beauty (in the state’s eyes) is that the state doesn’t even have to make a case against you. The state restricted Sudafed because the state said it will end up in a meth lab and that’s that.
Airline passengers are now presumed to be smugglers or underwear bombers. Hence, everyone boarding a plane has to submit to an unreasonable, and humiliating, search.
Schoolchildren are presumed to have contraband or weapons on their person or in their lockers. Hence, schools are locked down, police sometimes patrol the hallways, and pity the poor child that has medicated cough drops without permission of the US Surgeon General.
Did you know that the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 is Title VII of the anti-terrorism USA PATRIOT Act? Of course you don’t. Who has time to read the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that strips away our constitutional rights when it comes to illegal searches, illegal wiretaps, and any other form of illegal police snooping.
During the debate on HB2946, did you ever hear the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 mentioned? Of course you didn’t. Who wants to be reminded of another law that failed to win a single battle in the War on Drugs? If we keep being reminded of failed drug laws, then we might lose faith in our government.
So let me see if I understand this. The state wants to control meth labs. The 2005 West Virginia law failed to do that. The federal USA PATRIOT Act failed to do that. The federal Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 failed as well. But this time is different; if only doctors can prescribe Sudafed in West Virginia, then the problems of meth labs will go away.
Yes, that all sounds logical to me.
Consider this: The US Army occupies Afghanistan but is ordered to ignore the poppy fields and heroin crop. In February, three people in Harrison County died from heroin overdoses. And our state legislature is focused on Sudafed?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And along the way, the billboards all bear the same message: “There Ought To Be a Law.”
Friday, March 25, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Court Deserves Praise for Annexation Ruling
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently issued a ruling regarding the procedures that a city is required to follow when annexing property without an election, or what is more commonly known as a shoestring annexation. In the past, this process has ignored the rights of property owners abutting the highways used to extend city limits.
In Doering, et al v. City of Ronceverte, the court reversed the annexation of Stoney Glen subdivision into the city of Ronceverte. The city chose to follow the right-of-ways of three state highways (the shoestring) and then lasso the subdivision.
Writing for the court, Justice Menis Ketchum does an admirable job in explaining that property owners abutting certain state roads own the land under the roadway, and that the roadway is built on an easement. This is particularly true with the county road system that the state took over from the counties in 1933. Referring to the testimony of a Division of Highways right-of-way manager, Justice Ketchum wrote:
“… in the absence of documentation to the contrary, the holdings so acquired by the state were in the form of easements and right-of-ways, with titles to the underlying fee remaining with owners whose property abutted the roads.”
The Supreme Court ruled that certain property owners abutting roads leading to Stoney Glen were “… voters and freeholders of the annexed territory but were unlawfully excluded from the annexation process …” The court has made the correct ruling in this case, and the justices should be applauded.
But you won’t hear any hand clapping in city halls or county courthouses. You can rest assured that no county commission has ever considered property rights as set forth in Doering in past shoestring annexations.
I won’t say that the Supreme Court has opened a can of worms, but it has opened a can of Vienna sausages, a food that a late farmer friend of mine derisively called “lips and noses.”
The Greenbrier County Circuit Court previously ruled the land owners abutting the road lacked standing to file their lawsuit, and further, that these land owners “… failed to demonstrate any significant ownership of the property being annexed …” Doering corrects these errors.
The county tax assessor does not discriminate the easement from the underlying land. Thus, the landowner is taxed for land he cannot use for his purposes. In the aggregate, this amounts to a hefty property tax bill. Typically, a county road easement is 30 feet wide. For every 1,000 miles of county roads, there are 3,636 acres of land covered by a road easement.
Indirectly, Doering may have opened the question as to whether land taken by an effectively perpetual, county road easement, the use of which is controlled by the state, is taxable by the state.
The determination of who owns the land under our roadways is often confusing. As mentioned above, most of the county roads follow easements over private lands. There are exceptions, however. For example, sections of the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike in Randolph County (built in the 1840s) reverted to county roads when U.S. 250 replaced part of the turnpike using a different route.
Modern roads such as interstates and Appalachian Corridor highways are built on land condemned by and purchased by the state. Again, there are exceptions. Appalachian Corridor D follows, but not always, U.S. 50 from Clarksburg to Parkersburg. U.S. 50 follows, but not always, the Northwest Turnpike from the 1830s.
You can hire the best lawyer in the state to examine the title to your land, and that lawyer won’t be able to find all the property records regarding highway ownership. Some records are located in the local courthouse. The Division of Highways exclusively maintains some other records. Some records are located in Virginia courthouses or the state capitol at Richmond. And some records are lost to time because the courthouse in West Virginia or Virginia burned to the ground.
The state, then, should use Doering as an impetus to reconcile its highway land records and make those records available to the public at the appropriate courthouse record room. This reconciliation is needed.
As of this writing, the city of Clarksburg and the Division of Highways are at loggerheads as to who owns portions of Chestnut Street in that city. In 1863, the mayor of Clarksburg knew whether Chestnut Street was a city street, an easement or a Virginia turnpike. Why is this now a mystery?
Property rights are an integral part of democracy and capitalism.
In reversing Doering, the Supreme Court deserves praise, especially since this ruling recognizes the standing of property owners in an annexation without election.
In Doering, et al v. City of Ronceverte, the court reversed the annexation of Stoney Glen subdivision into the city of Ronceverte. The city chose to follow the right-of-ways of three state highways (the shoestring) and then lasso the subdivision.
Writing for the court, Justice Menis Ketchum does an admirable job in explaining that property owners abutting certain state roads own the land under the roadway, and that the roadway is built on an easement. This is particularly true with the county road system that the state took over from the counties in 1933. Referring to the testimony of a Division of Highways right-of-way manager, Justice Ketchum wrote:
“… in the absence of documentation to the contrary, the holdings so acquired by the state were in the form of easements and right-of-ways, with titles to the underlying fee remaining with owners whose property abutted the roads.”
The Supreme Court ruled that certain property owners abutting roads leading to Stoney Glen were “… voters and freeholders of the annexed territory but were unlawfully excluded from the annexation process …” The court has made the correct ruling in this case, and the justices should be applauded.
But you won’t hear any hand clapping in city halls or county courthouses. You can rest assured that no county commission has ever considered property rights as set forth in Doering in past shoestring annexations.
I won’t say that the Supreme Court has opened a can of worms, but it has opened a can of Vienna sausages, a food that a late farmer friend of mine derisively called “lips and noses.”
The Greenbrier County Circuit Court previously ruled the land owners abutting the road lacked standing to file their lawsuit, and further, that these land owners “… failed to demonstrate any significant ownership of the property being annexed …” Doering corrects these errors.
The county tax assessor does not discriminate the easement from the underlying land. Thus, the landowner is taxed for land he cannot use for his purposes. In the aggregate, this amounts to a hefty property tax bill. Typically, a county road easement is 30 feet wide. For every 1,000 miles of county roads, there are 3,636 acres of land covered by a road easement.
Indirectly, Doering may have opened the question as to whether land taken by an effectively perpetual, county road easement, the use of which is controlled by the state, is taxable by the state.
The determination of who owns the land under our roadways is often confusing. As mentioned above, most of the county roads follow easements over private lands. There are exceptions, however. For example, sections of the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike in Randolph County (built in the 1840s) reverted to county roads when U.S. 250 replaced part of the turnpike using a different route.
Modern roads such as interstates and Appalachian Corridor highways are built on land condemned by and purchased by the state. Again, there are exceptions. Appalachian Corridor D follows, but not always, U.S. 50 from Clarksburg to Parkersburg. U.S. 50 follows, but not always, the Northwest Turnpike from the 1830s.
You can hire the best lawyer in the state to examine the title to your land, and that lawyer won’t be able to find all the property records regarding highway ownership. Some records are located in the local courthouse. The Division of Highways exclusively maintains some other records. Some records are located in Virginia courthouses or the state capitol at Richmond. And some records are lost to time because the courthouse in West Virginia or Virginia burned to the ground.
The state, then, should use Doering as an impetus to reconcile its highway land records and make those records available to the public at the appropriate courthouse record room. This reconciliation is needed.
As of this writing, the city of Clarksburg and the Division of Highways are at loggerheads as to who owns portions of Chestnut Street in that city. In 1863, the mayor of Clarksburg knew whether Chestnut Street was a city street, an easement or a Virginia turnpike. Why is this now a mystery?
Property rights are an integral part of democracy and capitalism.
In reversing Doering, the Supreme Court deserves praise, especially since this ruling recognizes the standing of property owners in an annexation without election.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Leaders May Promise Jobs, But Not Workers
A West Virginia election is a lot like the game of musical chairs. There is a great fanfare of trumpets. Then, all of the incumbent politicians who have been sitting on folding chairs jump up and run around in circles until the tooting stops. Occasionally, a chair will be removed from the dance floor, and one politician will have to go home or take a politically appointed job.
In our last election — the one for the open U. S. Senate seat — no chairs were removed, and every politician involved ended up in a different chair. Once everyone was seated, the “sitants” thanked the voters for voting and then joined together to sing a chorus of “We must create jobs.”
Let’s be positive for a moment. Let’s give the new senator, the new acting governor and the new legislative leaders the benefit of the doubt. Let’s ignore history and assume that West Virginia politicians can actually create jobs.
The thought has occurred to me that if 10,000 private sector jobs were created, there might not be anyone here to fill them. The reason is due to the demographics of our state’s population. West Virginia’s population has several negatives that could thwart an attempt to create even a modest 10,000 jobs.
The state’s population peaked in 1950 and has never recovered. West Virginia went from six congressional districts in the 1950s to the present three after the 1990 census. These three lost seats in the House of Representatives (and the influence their seniority might bring) could very well make the difference in keeping the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency from shutting down the state’s coal and electric power industries.
Influence in the nation’s capital does correlate to a state’s economy. West Virginia is more likely to lose another House seat in the foreseeable future than gain one.
West Virginia’s population has the third-highest median age — 40.6 reported in 2008. Even more telling is that the state ranked second in its share of population older than 65 at 15.6 percent. For the most part, people over 62 are considered out of the work force in any survey measuring the available workers for new business start-ups. Even though the 62-plus crowd (19.2 percent of the state’s population) tends to be dependable and productive, the fact remains that they are the most expensive employees to hire.
On the other end of the age curve, people aged 21 and younger (25.3 percent of the state’s population) are considered to have little or no meaningful work experience. When added to the over-62 population segment, some 45 percent of West Virginia’s population is not considered available for hire.
The 2000 census reported that 14.8 percent of West Virginia residents had a bachelor’s degree or higher as compared to the national average of 24.4 percent. The Lumina Foundation for Education recently reported that West Virginia has the fewest college graduates among working adults (ages 25-64). Even more depressing is the 54 percent of working adults with a high school degree.
The 2000 census reported that 22.5 percent of West Virginians were disabled as compared to a national average of 16.4 percent.
For 2009, West Virginia’s obesity rate has been estimated at 31.7 percent, the third highest in the nation. Obesity correlates to the overall healthiness of the work force.
West Virginia revamped its jails and maximum-security prison during the past 20 years. These facilities have been overcrowded for some time. Given the newness of our jail system and given how fast it overfilled paints an unflattering picture of the state’s 25-64 age group, the most likely people to be locked up. The experts predict a need to almost double the regional jail cells in the coming decade.
The last demographic worth considering is substance abuse among people aged 25 to 50, the prime work force. No single statistic adequately reflects the extent of drug abuse and alcoholism in West Virginia. But the numbers that we can find point to high rates of addiction. For example, there are nine for-profit methadone clinics in the state.
When the recession began in 2008, the state’s unemployment rate was 3.7 percent, or 29,800 unemployed. Assuming the recession ends and the state unemployment rate returns to the 4 percent level, it would be next to impossible to find workers to fill 10,000 new jobs.
I will give the politicians credit where credit is due for creating jobs in a recession. Total state and local government employment increased from 122,900 to 129,700 (17.34 percent of the non-farm work force) during 2010.
Just what we needed — another 6,800 government employees.
In our last election — the one for the open U. S. Senate seat — no chairs were removed, and every politician involved ended up in a different chair. Once everyone was seated, the “sitants” thanked the voters for voting and then joined together to sing a chorus of “We must create jobs.”
Let’s be positive for a moment. Let’s give the new senator, the new acting governor and the new legislative leaders the benefit of the doubt. Let’s ignore history and assume that West Virginia politicians can actually create jobs.
The thought has occurred to me that if 10,000 private sector jobs were created, there might not be anyone here to fill them. The reason is due to the demographics of our state’s population. West Virginia’s population has several negatives that could thwart an attempt to create even a modest 10,000 jobs.
The state’s population peaked in 1950 and has never recovered. West Virginia went from six congressional districts in the 1950s to the present three after the 1990 census. These three lost seats in the House of Representatives (and the influence their seniority might bring) could very well make the difference in keeping the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency from shutting down the state’s coal and electric power industries.
Influence in the nation’s capital does correlate to a state’s economy. West Virginia is more likely to lose another House seat in the foreseeable future than gain one.
West Virginia’s population has the third-highest median age — 40.6 reported in 2008. Even more telling is that the state ranked second in its share of population older than 65 at 15.6 percent. For the most part, people over 62 are considered out of the work force in any survey measuring the available workers for new business start-ups. Even though the 62-plus crowd (19.2 percent of the state’s population) tends to be dependable and productive, the fact remains that they are the most expensive employees to hire.
On the other end of the age curve, people aged 21 and younger (25.3 percent of the state’s population) are considered to have little or no meaningful work experience. When added to the over-62 population segment, some 45 percent of West Virginia’s population is not considered available for hire.
The 2000 census reported that 14.8 percent of West Virginia residents had a bachelor’s degree or higher as compared to the national average of 24.4 percent. The Lumina Foundation for Education recently reported that West Virginia has the fewest college graduates among working adults (ages 25-64). Even more depressing is the 54 percent of working adults with a high school degree.
The 2000 census reported that 22.5 percent of West Virginians were disabled as compared to a national average of 16.4 percent.
For 2009, West Virginia’s obesity rate has been estimated at 31.7 percent, the third highest in the nation. Obesity correlates to the overall healthiness of the work force.
West Virginia revamped its jails and maximum-security prison during the past 20 years. These facilities have been overcrowded for some time. Given the newness of our jail system and given how fast it overfilled paints an unflattering picture of the state’s 25-64 age group, the most likely people to be locked up. The experts predict a need to almost double the regional jail cells in the coming decade.
The last demographic worth considering is substance abuse among people aged 25 to 50, the prime work force. No single statistic adequately reflects the extent of drug abuse and alcoholism in West Virginia. But the numbers that we can find point to high rates of addiction. For example, there are nine for-profit methadone clinics in the state.
When the recession began in 2008, the state’s unemployment rate was 3.7 percent, or 29,800 unemployed. Assuming the recession ends and the state unemployment rate returns to the 4 percent level, it would be next to impossible to find workers to fill 10,000 new jobs.
I will give the politicians credit where credit is due for creating jobs in a recession. Total state and local government employment increased from 122,900 to 129,700 (17.34 percent of the non-farm work force) during 2010.
Just what we needed — another 6,800 government employees.
Friday, January 7, 2011
We're in a Deep Hole ... and Still Digging
The number one song in America is "Ninety-nine Unemployment Checks in the Mail" (sung to the tune of "Ninety-nine Bottles of Beer"). The catchy lyrics, written by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, got much more air play than traditional holiday music during the past few weeks.
Before long, West Virginia lawmakers will be singing Nancy's song and raising unemployment compensation premiums. The popularity of "ninety-nine weeks of unemployment checks" has drained the fund (again). For the second time in two years, politicians will raise premiums rather than cut benefits, arguing that you cannot put a price on compassion.
Extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks may seem compassionate, but creating a long-term dole is a cruel hoax. Here are some fallacies about the dole.
Fallacy 1: The unemployed are required to accept suitable employment offers; they may reject unsuitable employment and continue to draw benefits. "Suitable" employment generally means a comparable or better job.
In a recession, the suitable jobs disappear first, e.g., the housing industry is in a deep downturn. If there is less demand for oak flooring, then there is less demand for Appalachian oak lumber. The local sawyer is laid off, as are most sawyers within a 50-mile radius.
There are no suitable jobs for the local sawyer. The sawyer has a choice between working for less money or drawing unemployment. He will probably choose the latter, even though he could earn more money by taking a lesser job because unemployment compensation has been sold as an entitlement similar to paid vacation.
Fallacy 2: Week 100 arrives, and jobless benefits expire. The unemployed worker accepts lesser employment. When he returns to work, he finds out that technology has changed the workplace. When he last worked, he was proficient using Windows XP. Now he has to learn Windows 7 just to get up to speed in this "lesser" job.
Spending two years away from the modern workplace guarantees that one's work skills will deteriorate. Not only does technology change, but so do markets. And in week 100, our unemployed subject very well may accept a job description that did not even exist when he last worked.
Fallacy 3: A middle-aged worker drawing the maximum, or near-maximum, jobless benefit can get by financially. But the worker has lost two of his most productive work years if he takes that route. The worker will not realize the cost of his "two-year vacation" until he reaches his 50s. Then he learns one of life's cruel ironies -- he doesn't have the stamina that he did in his 30s. He also will learn that businesses want to hire 30-somethings but avoid hiring 50-somethings.
This worker also will learn the hard way that the money he saved when he was 30 has grown in value. The money he saves at age 55 will grow very little before he retires.
Fallacy 4: When unemployment premiums go up, there is less money for a business to spend on equipment, facilities, wages and benefits. Politicians don't seem to understand the macro effect of this tax increase. Indeed, politicians seem to have tunnel-vision regarding unemployment compensation premiums as evidenced when Rep. Pelosi declared that unemployment checks stimulated economic development because the unemployed spend all of that money.
There is no economic theory -- not even Marxism -- that says long-term unemployment stimulates a nation's economy.
Fallacy 5: This is the "Atlas Shrugged" effect. Productive, well-run businesses are taxed to pay for these long-term unemployment benefits. Rep. Pelosi's philosophy regarding long-term unemployment benefits reads like a scene out of Ayn Rand's novel. As the novel suggests, you can only bleed the productive businesses for so long before they rebel and move their production to lower cost states or overseas.
Fallacy 6: After the unemployed worker has slept in for three weeks, he has gotten out of the routine of going to work. You cannot measure this effect like you could lost earnings, but most people will lose, or greatly diminish, their sense of self-worth the longer their idleness continues.
The Legislature raised unemployment premiums 50 percent in 2009. We've blown through that money in less than two years. So, will the coming premium increase be even higher?
West Virginia has been down this road before. Some 20 years ago, the state borrowed heavily from the federal unemployment fund. To pay the federal loan back, the state taxed workers and businesses alike for about four years.
Yes, Nancy, unemployment checks do stimulate the economy -- in the worst ways possible.
Before long, West Virginia lawmakers will be singing Nancy's song and raising unemployment compensation premiums. The popularity of "ninety-nine weeks of unemployment checks" has drained the fund (again). For the second time in two years, politicians will raise premiums rather than cut benefits, arguing that you cannot put a price on compassion.
Extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks may seem compassionate, but creating a long-term dole is a cruel hoax. Here are some fallacies about the dole.
Fallacy 1: The unemployed are required to accept suitable employment offers; they may reject unsuitable employment and continue to draw benefits. "Suitable" employment generally means a comparable or better job.
In a recession, the suitable jobs disappear first, e.g., the housing industry is in a deep downturn. If there is less demand for oak flooring, then there is less demand for Appalachian oak lumber. The local sawyer is laid off, as are most sawyers within a 50-mile radius.
There are no suitable jobs for the local sawyer. The sawyer has a choice between working for less money or drawing unemployment. He will probably choose the latter, even though he could earn more money by taking a lesser job because unemployment compensation has been sold as an entitlement similar to paid vacation.
Fallacy 2: Week 100 arrives, and jobless benefits expire. The unemployed worker accepts lesser employment. When he returns to work, he finds out that technology has changed the workplace. When he last worked, he was proficient using Windows XP. Now he has to learn Windows 7 just to get up to speed in this "lesser" job.
Spending two years away from the modern workplace guarantees that one's work skills will deteriorate. Not only does technology change, but so do markets. And in week 100, our unemployed subject very well may accept a job description that did not even exist when he last worked.
Fallacy 3: A middle-aged worker drawing the maximum, or near-maximum, jobless benefit can get by financially. But the worker has lost two of his most productive work years if he takes that route. The worker will not realize the cost of his "two-year vacation" until he reaches his 50s. Then he learns one of life's cruel ironies -- he doesn't have the stamina that he did in his 30s. He also will learn that businesses want to hire 30-somethings but avoid hiring 50-somethings.
This worker also will learn the hard way that the money he saved when he was 30 has grown in value. The money he saves at age 55 will grow very little before he retires.
Fallacy 4: When unemployment premiums go up, there is less money for a business to spend on equipment, facilities, wages and benefits. Politicians don't seem to understand the macro effect of this tax increase. Indeed, politicians seem to have tunnel-vision regarding unemployment compensation premiums as evidenced when Rep. Pelosi declared that unemployment checks stimulated economic development because the unemployed spend all of that money.
There is no economic theory -- not even Marxism -- that says long-term unemployment stimulates a nation's economy.
Fallacy 5: This is the "Atlas Shrugged" effect. Productive, well-run businesses are taxed to pay for these long-term unemployment benefits. Rep. Pelosi's philosophy regarding long-term unemployment benefits reads like a scene out of Ayn Rand's novel. As the novel suggests, you can only bleed the productive businesses for so long before they rebel and move their production to lower cost states or overseas.
Fallacy 6: After the unemployed worker has slept in for three weeks, he has gotten out of the routine of going to work. You cannot measure this effect like you could lost earnings, but most people will lose, or greatly diminish, their sense of self-worth the longer their idleness continues.
The Legislature raised unemployment premiums 50 percent in 2009. We've blown through that money in less than two years. So, will the coming premium increase be even higher?
West Virginia has been down this road before. Some 20 years ago, the state borrowed heavily from the federal unemployment fund. To pay the federal loan back, the state taxed workers and businesses alike for about four years.
Yes, Nancy, unemployment checks do stimulate the economy -- in the worst ways possible.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Great Moments in Wintertime Literature
It was the night before Christmas, and it was snowy—very snowy—but not quite snowy enough to suit the tastes of the sometimes-intransigent Tiny Tim (grandson of Martin Chuzzlewit, who is not to be confused with the always-pleasant lad, Tiny Tim Cratchit, son of Bob (nee Robert) who was formerly employed at Scrooge and Marley), because Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge, to the rue of Seth Pecksniff, had already given Tiny Tim Chuzzlewit his Christmas present, a Flexible Flyer sled, and the snow was not deep enough to cushion the Baker Street cobblestones (actually large gravels washed up on the Cornish coast and used as London pavers), so the sled runners scraped on the cobblestones making a terrible, caterwauling racket, though, quite frankly, not all that caterwauling nor all that terrible, because snow, as you know, tends to muffle noise, causing the noise to dissipate rather quickly due to the phenomenon of the Doppler effect, which being something of a scientific law, the Doppler effect works just as well on Baker Street Hill as it does on the plains of Kansas, a flat or “flattish” landscape, where it presumably, and for comparison sake, rains as hard as it does on the plains in Spain (affirmed by the noted meteorologist Prof. Henry Higgins), and while the same can be said of snow in Kansas, Spain and London, at least regarding the application of the physical laws known as the “Doppler effect” at the same precisely-measured elevation above sea level as Baker Street Hill, and meaning that snow, whether wet snow or dry snow or icy, granular snow, compares equally in all three locations, the same outcome—the muffling effect—does not apply to the snows of Vermont, for as you must have been taught in public school, the man that Vermonters called “Robert Frost” (their white-haired apparition of “Jack Frost” as he is known throughout the rest of New England) wrote poetically of snow and its many pleasing qualities, not the least of which is the very noisiness of snow that the snow itself makes when it falls from the heavens and lands in the forest where, ironically indeed, trees do not make a sound at all when they fall in the same forest as does Vermont snow, yet Vermont snow does make noise if Robert Frost is to be believed, and he may be infallible in so far as we can determine, because these forests are populated wholly by maple-syrup trees, which of course, give the Green Mountains their name, at least in summer, but perhaps not in autumn as maple trees turn a blazing orange-red at that time of year, but as Robert Frost seemed to be a snow-creature—the Yeti poet, as Vermont Buddhists call him—he would not know of leaves, an ignorance that manifested itself in his once taking the wrong road in a yellow wood, and he probably knew not much about people, Buddhists or other ilk, as he often stopped by woods on snowy evenings, and further, would stop his horse-drawn sleigh without any farmhouse near, which in turn, caused his horse to give his harness bells a shake to warn (reportedly; albeit a human reaction in most cases) Vermont folk of the Yeti poet’s presence, but regardless of how often or how hard the horse jingled the harness bells, the only reply that the horse would hear was the sweep of easy wind and downy flake.
Another great moment in wintertime literature brought to you by David Allen.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Another great moment in wintertime literature brought to you by David Allen.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Friday, December 3, 2010
Where is that assignment with FOX News?
I am going to tell you a story that may well jeopardize my career as a contributor to The State Journal. I have kept this story secret for many years, but now it is time for me to fess up.
Some 20 years ago, I was foggy-brained enough to believe in the mission of public radio. I was even a monetary contributor to West Virginia Public Radio. I enjoyed listening to the Saturday opera and "Prairie Home Companion." I also fell swoon to the mellowing liberalism of "All Things Considered." I wanted to believe I could be tolerant of liberals, which, upon reflection, is what held me back for years from becoming an opinion writer for The State Journal.
Then one evening, while I was tuned to "All Things Considered," I had a revelation. An ATC reporter was broadcasting from the apartment of a San Francisco man who collected Sonia Henie memorabilia. If you don't recall her, Ms. Henie was an Olympic figure skating champion from Norway who appeared in more than a dozen films.
The collector had quite a lot of Ms. Henie's memorabilia, and you could tell that he had decorated his apartment almost completely with her mementos. But he had gone too far (in my opinion). He had Sonia Henie's underwear framed under glass and hanging on the wall.
It did not surprise me that a San Francisco man cherished Sonia Henie's underwear to the point that he had it framed. After all, there are a lot of San Franciscans of Norwegian descent. Garrison Keillor once considered airing a Norwegian-themed show from San Francisco and calling it "Bay Companion" ("Fjord Companion" in Scandinavian distribution).
But the Henie underwear show was too much for me. I figured that if public radio had the money to air a story about a movie star's framed underwear, then it didn't need my help anymore.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against collecting women's underwear. I used to collect women's underwear myself, but I had the good sense to keep it where it belonged -- in the glove box of my pickup truck.
I tell this story of my public radio resentment so that I will be renounced as a State Journal contributor. I want my Juan Williams moment. I want a shot at the big money at FOX News.
I must say that I owe my decision to come clean about public radio to none other than Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Had he not had the fortitude to recently denounce FOX News and MSNBC at a Senate committee hearing, then I would not be telling you about my falling out with public radio.
I also owe a measure of thanks to former NPR contributor Juan Williams because he had the inner strength to tell people that he felt uncomfortable seeing people in Muslim dress waiting to board his flight. I just hope that my story rises to that level of reprisal from National Public Radio.
I am told that Sen. Rockefeller knows people who know people who run the public broadcasting empire. If Sen. Rockefeller could use his connections to encourage NPR to renounce me and my opinions in The State Journal, then I just might have the credentials to apply for a job at FOX News. And then, like Juan Williams, I could have a big pay day.
There's more than payola to my wanting to be a FOX News contributor, however.
As you may know, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer is a FOX News contributor. Dr. Krauthammer is a quadriplegic. I am also a quadriplegic. You can take it from me that you never want to believe the opinion of just one wheelchair-bound pontificator. (Professor Steven Hawking excepted.)
To be fair and balanced, you should seek the opinions of two wheelchair-bound pontificators. Roger Ailes, I could be that second, wheelchair-bound pontificator at FOX News. I could even be unfair and unbalanced if that's what you need me to be. Put me in coach, I'm ready to roll.
Sen. Rockefeller, I am more like you than you think. I also believe the First Amendment is an anachronism that should be ignored whenever opinions are unflattering. Like you, I also agree that the old-timey, non-combative news format needs brought back. We need to go back to the days when politicians in Washington used the FCC to hold complete control over the airwaves and the broadcasters.
Of course, times were better back then. We didn't know any different.
Some 20 years ago, I was foggy-brained enough to believe in the mission of public radio. I was even a monetary contributor to West Virginia Public Radio. I enjoyed listening to the Saturday opera and "Prairie Home Companion." I also fell swoon to the mellowing liberalism of "All Things Considered." I wanted to believe I could be tolerant of liberals, which, upon reflection, is what held me back for years from becoming an opinion writer for The State Journal.
Then one evening, while I was tuned to "All Things Considered," I had a revelation. An ATC reporter was broadcasting from the apartment of a San Francisco man who collected Sonia Henie memorabilia. If you don't recall her, Ms. Henie was an Olympic figure skating champion from Norway who appeared in more than a dozen films.
The collector had quite a lot of Ms. Henie's memorabilia, and you could tell that he had decorated his apartment almost completely with her mementos. But he had gone too far (in my opinion). He had Sonia Henie's underwear framed under glass and hanging on the wall.
It did not surprise me that a San Francisco man cherished Sonia Henie's underwear to the point that he had it framed. After all, there are a lot of San Franciscans of Norwegian descent. Garrison Keillor once considered airing a Norwegian-themed show from San Francisco and calling it "Bay Companion" ("Fjord Companion" in Scandinavian distribution).
But the Henie underwear show was too much for me. I figured that if public radio had the money to air a story about a movie star's framed underwear, then it didn't need my help anymore.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against collecting women's underwear. I used to collect women's underwear myself, but I had the good sense to keep it where it belonged -- in the glove box of my pickup truck.
I tell this story of my public radio resentment so that I will be renounced as a State Journal contributor. I want my Juan Williams moment. I want a shot at the big money at FOX News.
I must say that I owe my decision to come clean about public radio to none other than Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Had he not had the fortitude to recently denounce FOX News and MSNBC at a Senate committee hearing, then I would not be telling you about my falling out with public radio.
I also owe a measure of thanks to former NPR contributor Juan Williams because he had the inner strength to tell people that he felt uncomfortable seeing people in Muslim dress waiting to board his flight. I just hope that my story rises to that level of reprisal from National Public Radio.
I am told that Sen. Rockefeller knows people who know people who run the public broadcasting empire. If Sen. Rockefeller could use his connections to encourage NPR to renounce me and my opinions in The State Journal, then I just might have the credentials to apply for a job at FOX News. And then, like Juan Williams, I could have a big pay day.
There's more than payola to my wanting to be a FOX News contributor, however.
As you may know, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer is a FOX News contributor. Dr. Krauthammer is a quadriplegic. I am also a quadriplegic. You can take it from me that you never want to believe the opinion of just one wheelchair-bound pontificator. (Professor Steven Hawking excepted.)
To be fair and balanced, you should seek the opinions of two wheelchair-bound pontificators. Roger Ailes, I could be that second, wheelchair-bound pontificator at FOX News. I could even be unfair and unbalanced if that's what you need me to be. Put me in coach, I'm ready to roll.
Sen. Rockefeller, I am more like you than you think. I also believe the First Amendment is an anachronism that should be ignored whenever opinions are unflattering. Like you, I also agree that the old-timey, non-combative news format needs brought back. We need to go back to the days when politicians in Washington used the FCC to hold complete control over the airwaves and the broadcasters.
Of course, times were better back then. We didn't know any different.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Our Egg Dilemma Tells America's Economic Story
I am an economist. The faculty of an American college tested me and gave me a certificate saying so. At no time during the testing period did I see a man behind the curtain.
The one (and only) thing that I learned from my studies is that economics is all about expectations. I realized this early on in Principles of Economics when I learned about the marginal utility of goods and services. The textbook taught us about the marginal utility of buggy whips—a teamster places a high value on one buggy whip, less value on a second, spare buggy whip, and even less value on a third buggy whip.
This makes perfect sense. If you have to reach for the third buggy whip, then the horse is either foaming at the nostrils or already dead.
What explanation were you expecting?
Adam Smith introduced the theory of capitalism and its invisible hand to shape the marketplace. Smith was spot on for his day. But in retrospect, people believed in and practiced laissez-faire economics every day. For example: the nation had progressed far enough from farm life to town life so that the butter and egg man drove through the neighborhoods weekly. No longer did every household need its own milk cow and chickens to enjoy buttered toast and scrambled eggs for breakfast.
As there was no regulation of food commerce to speak of, Adam Smith’s economic theory was more of an observation of common practices put into words. His theory continued to be relevant through the Nineteenth Century because housewives knew what butter and eggs were supposed to look and taste like. This was Adam Smith’s free commerce at its greatest—the knowledgeable consumer dealt directly with the competent supplier/seller.
When the Twentieth Century arrived, a new economic model came into practice. Grocery stores began buying butter and eggs and then, re-selling them. The store owner now decided the quality of butter and eggs as the consumer was removed from that part of the transaction. And, with his well-practiced thumb on the scale, the grocer could churn ten pounds of butter into twelve.
This brought on the beginning of top-down regulation of the marketplace. With it came the need of a new economic theory. John Maynard Keynes put his observations of common practices into words which eventually became his “General Theory” in1936. Keynes moved the debate from Adam Smith’s microeconomic practices to the then-maturing macroeconomic practices.
In the days when Adam Smith prevailed, a housewife dealt face-to-face with the egg producer on a weekly basis. Further, the housewife had either raised chickens herself or knew enough about eggs to know if the egg producer was selling fresh eggs.
Now we are at the end of Keynesian theory; huge companies inspected by huge government agencies produce most of America’s eggs which are, in turn, sold by huge grocery chains. This year, one of those producers recalled nearly 400 million tainted eggs with hardly an apology to the public. This egg recall represents top-down macroeconomic theory nearing its zenith.
American consumers are so ignorant about eggs that the Food and Drug Administration included the following paragraph in its egg recall notice: “What does the product look like?” That paragraph only tells the consumer the various brand names printed on the recalled egg cartons.
Regarding egg sales, Adam Smith’s theory no longer works because the consumer is unqualified to bargain with the seller. The egg seller is too small to supply a large customer like McDonalds.
In Keynes’ scenario, eggs are mass-produced to the point that eggs are no longer eggs, at least not in the taste sense. The next step will be irradiation to solve the annoyance of expensive recalls.
At some point during the past 200 years, we had the system down pat. Residential and commercial consumers expected fresh, germ-free eggs, and the marketplace delivered them. But we couldn’t stop there, could we? No, we allowed thousands of family-owned poultry farms to be priced out of business by a handful of mega-producers. We foolishly thought that government food inspectors would guarantee the previous high level of quality. But that never happened.
When Americans expect (read demand) fresh eggs again, then the marketplace will deliver them. A dozen eggs will cost more, but the improved taste and nutritional value will offset that price increase.
If Americans can re-learn how to do eggs, then they will have determined the right blend of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. If we cannot do eggs, then forget about solving the big problems.
Economics is all about expectations. How do you want your eggs?
The one (and only) thing that I learned from my studies is that economics is all about expectations. I realized this early on in Principles of Economics when I learned about the marginal utility of goods and services. The textbook taught us about the marginal utility of buggy whips—a teamster places a high value on one buggy whip, less value on a second, spare buggy whip, and even less value on a third buggy whip.
This makes perfect sense. If you have to reach for the third buggy whip, then the horse is either foaming at the nostrils or already dead.
What explanation were you expecting?
Adam Smith introduced the theory of capitalism and its invisible hand to shape the marketplace. Smith was spot on for his day. But in retrospect, people believed in and practiced laissez-faire economics every day. For example: the nation had progressed far enough from farm life to town life so that the butter and egg man drove through the neighborhoods weekly. No longer did every household need its own milk cow and chickens to enjoy buttered toast and scrambled eggs for breakfast.
As there was no regulation of food commerce to speak of, Adam Smith’s economic theory was more of an observation of common practices put into words. His theory continued to be relevant through the Nineteenth Century because housewives knew what butter and eggs were supposed to look and taste like. This was Adam Smith’s free commerce at its greatest—the knowledgeable consumer dealt directly with the competent supplier/seller.
When the Twentieth Century arrived, a new economic model came into practice. Grocery stores began buying butter and eggs and then, re-selling them. The store owner now decided the quality of butter and eggs as the consumer was removed from that part of the transaction. And, with his well-practiced thumb on the scale, the grocer could churn ten pounds of butter into twelve.
This brought on the beginning of top-down regulation of the marketplace. With it came the need of a new economic theory. John Maynard Keynes put his observations of common practices into words which eventually became his “General Theory” in1936. Keynes moved the debate from Adam Smith’s microeconomic practices to the then-maturing macroeconomic practices.
In the days when Adam Smith prevailed, a housewife dealt face-to-face with the egg producer on a weekly basis. Further, the housewife had either raised chickens herself or knew enough about eggs to know if the egg producer was selling fresh eggs.
Now we are at the end of Keynesian theory; huge companies inspected by huge government agencies produce most of America’s eggs which are, in turn, sold by huge grocery chains. This year, one of those producers recalled nearly 400 million tainted eggs with hardly an apology to the public. This egg recall represents top-down macroeconomic theory nearing its zenith.
American consumers are so ignorant about eggs that the Food and Drug Administration included the following paragraph in its egg recall notice: “What does the product look like?” That paragraph only tells the consumer the various brand names printed on the recalled egg cartons.
Regarding egg sales, Adam Smith’s theory no longer works because the consumer is unqualified to bargain with the seller. The egg seller is too small to supply a large customer like McDonalds.
In Keynes’ scenario, eggs are mass-produced to the point that eggs are no longer eggs, at least not in the taste sense. The next step will be irradiation to solve the annoyance of expensive recalls.
At some point during the past 200 years, we had the system down pat. Residential and commercial consumers expected fresh, germ-free eggs, and the marketplace delivered them. But we couldn’t stop there, could we? No, we allowed thousands of family-owned poultry farms to be priced out of business by a handful of mega-producers. We foolishly thought that government food inspectors would guarantee the previous high level of quality. But that never happened.
When Americans expect (read demand) fresh eggs again, then the marketplace will deliver them. A dozen eggs will cost more, but the improved taste and nutritional value will offset that price increase.
If Americans can re-learn how to do eggs, then they will have determined the right blend of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. If we cannot do eggs, then forget about solving the big problems.
Economics is all about expectations. How do you want your eggs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)