The footprints are cool. But what really had an effect on me is how vividly this picture portrays the power of geologic forces (combined with time). This wall of rock was obviously once horizontal.
Dispatches from District 48
Posts tagged ‘pictures’
The footprints are cool. But what really had an effect on me is how vividly this picture portrays the power of geologic forces (combined with time). This wall of rock was obviously once horizontal.
Former Arizona State Parks director Ken Travous takes to the editorial page of our local paper to criticize current park management and the Arizona legislature for not sending enough money to parks"
Things were looking pretty good, and I guess that’s the problem. In some odd kind of way, employing some type of sideways logic, the Legislature deemed that if State Parks is getting along well, it must be out of our control. So, after 15 years of parks acting like a business, the Legislature decided to act like a government and take their money. A little bit here and there in the beginning, to test the public reaction, and then in breathtaking swaths.
Heritage Fund ... gone. Enhancement fund ... swiped. General fund? No way. A $250,000 bequest? Oops, they caught us; better put it back.
State Parks now has a mountainous backlog of maintenance projects all because the Legislature would rather wholly own a failure than share a success. We need to put people in the halls that care about those things that we want our children to enjoy, and a governor who will stand in the breach when the next onslaught appears.
I agree with Travous that our parks could use some more funds. But what Mr. Travous ignores is that the seeds of this problem were very much sown on his watch.
Travous points out that revenues in the parks expanded to nearly $10 million when he was in charge. But left unsaid is that at the same time agency expenses on his watch ballooned to a preposterous $33 million a year**. At every turn, Travous made decisions that increased the agency's costs. For example, park rangers were all given law enforcement certifications, substantially increasing their pay and putting them all into the much more expensive law enforcement pension fund. There is little evidence this was necessary -- Arizona parks generally are not hotbeds of crime -- but it did infuriate many customers as some rangers focused more on citation-writing than customer service. There is a reason McDonald's doesn't write citations in their own parking lot.
What Mr. Travous fails to mention is that the parks were falling apart on his watch - even with these huge budgets - because he tended to spend money on just about anything other than maintaining current infrastructure. Infrastructure maintenance is not sexy, and sexy projects like the Kartchner Caverns development (it is a gorgeous park) always seem to win out in government budgeting. You can see why in this editorial -- Kartcher is his legacy, whereas bathroom maintenance is next to invisible. I know deferred maintenance was accumulating during his tenure because Arizona State Parks itself used to say so. Way back in 2009 I saw a book Arizona State Parks used with legislators. It showed pictures of deteriorating parks, with notes that many of these locations had not been properly maintained for a decade. The current management inherited this problem from previous leaders like Travous, it did not create it.
So where were those huge budgets going, if not to maintenance? Well, for one, Travous oversaw a crazy expansion of the state parks headquarters staff. When he left, there were about 150 people (possibly more, it is hard to count) on the parks headquarters staff. This is almost the same number of full-time employees that were actually in the field maintaining parks. As a comparison, our company runs public parks and campgrounds very similar to those in Arizona State Parks and we serve about the same number of visitors -- but we have only 1.5 people in headquarters, allowing us to put our resources on the ground in parks serving customers and performing maintenance. None of the 100+ parks we operate have the same deferred maintenance problems that Arizona State Parks have, despite operating with less than a third of the budget that Travous had in his heyday.
I am not much of a political analyst, but my reading is that the legislature cut park funds because it lost confidence in the ability of Arizona State Parks to manage itself. Did they really need to cut, say, $250,000 from parks to close a billion dollar budget hole? Arizona State Parks had its budgets cut because the legislature did not think it was acting fiscally prudent, like cutting off a child's allowance after he has shown bad judgement.
I have met with current Director Bryan Martyn and much of the Arizona State Park staff. Ken Travous is not telling them anything they do not know. Of course they would like more funds to fix up their parks. But they understand that before they can expect any such largess, they need to prove that Arizona State Parks will use its funds in a fiscally sensible manner. And I get the impression that they are succeeding, that the legislature is gaining confidence in this agency. The irony is that Arizona State Parks will be able to grow and get more funds only when it has overcome the problems Travous left for them.
** Footnote: Getting an actual budget number for ASP is an arduous task. I once talked to a very smart local consultant named Grady Gammage who worked with parks and finally despaired of accurately laying out the budget and allocating it to tasks. What this achieves is that it allows insiders to criticize anyone they want as being "misinformed" because almost any number one picks is wrong. The $33 million figure comes from outside consulting reports. The headcount numbers come from numbers the ASP information officer gave me several years ago. Headcount numbers are different today but the ones above are relevant to the agency as it existed when Travous left.
This weekend our family dog, the world's largest Maltese at over 12 pounds but still a small dog, was attacked by a coyote. They redid the golf course nearby into a links course and ever since we have had an enormous pack of coyotes out there -- the other night I saw a dozen hanging out together.
Yesterday the coyote got into a fenced area and grabbed Snuggles (please no name jokes today) in its jaws and was carrying her off when my daughter saw it and screamed and yelled until it dropped our dog and went away. If my daughter had had a gun, that coyote would have been blown away -- my daughter was in total mama bear mode.
We took the dog to the emergency animal hospital, and eventually to their surgery center. Snuggles was put on oxygen and an IV and within a few hours had a surgeon operate on her chest, stitching closed holes in her chest wall on both sides of her body. So that is how we spent our weekend.
Today she is doing OK, but is still sluggish and won't eat. We are hoping for the best, and that she will beat the odds (most dogs this size are DOA from coyote attacks). Here she is with her pink bandages, still in the oxygen tent.
Postscript: It was interesting to go through the process of getting emergency care in the veterinary world. At each step of the process we got a detailed cost estimate in advance of the charges we could expect. We were able to request her medical records at any time, and they were both detailed and impressive. Every step was documented. We saw her x-rays and got pictures and video from the surgery to show us exactly what damage had to be repaired and how they did it. The two locations we have been to (the local hospital and the surgery center) both are part of VCA, It has not been cheap, but the care has been impressive.
One odd conclusion to this is that there is something to be said for the old-style communal hospital ward vs. the private rooms of today. One of the reasons I feel good that they are keeping an eye on Snuggs (as the men of the household call her to avoid embarassment) is that all the critical animals are essentially in cages and enclosures in the same room, where someone always is there to see immediately if they are in distress.
Update: Got the bill today for the surgery. Pretty much exactly what they promised in advance. Not cheap -- I think I am going to rename this dog Steve Austin
Update #2: I don't really blame the coyote - nature red in tooth and claw and all that. Anger at the coyote is just cover for my personal guilt that we did not make things safer for her. We are making changes right now to give her a safer area to run around and do her business.
When people ask me about my business, one of the things that is hard to explain is just how deep and visceral the skepticism of private enterprise can be. I constantly have people take single words I might have uttered in the immediacy of a live TV interview and try to craft straw man positions for me out of them**. Sometimes it is not even something I said, but something where some lazy journalist has poorly paraphrased my position.
Here is a great example, where a Flagstaff writer (who by the way knows me and my phone number quite well but did not bother to interview me) tries to take my opposition to the government shutdown to paint me with some sort of entitlement. She lectures me that I don't actually own the land on which I operate, as if that is somehow news to me. You can read my comments if you are interested, but the issue with the shutdown was the lawlessness of Administration officials, not any sense that I am entitled to the land any more than my lease contract allows me to be. (As an aside, she seems to be expressing a strong theory of landlord rights, that my landlord (the US Forest Service) should have the absolute right to shut me down whenever they want. Why is it that I don't think she has the same position vis a vis other tenants and landlords?)
By the way, compare her straw man to my actual position on public land, which is likely to the Left of many of my readers:
In my history of public discussions on private operation of public parks, it is no surprise that I run into a lot of skepticism about having any private role at all. But I also run into the opposite -- folks who ask (or demand) that the government sell all the parks to private buyers. So why shouldn't privatization of parks just consist of a massive land sale?
The answer has to do with profit potential. Over time, if in private hands, a piece of land will naturally migrate towards the use which can generate the highest returns. And often, for a unique piece of land, this most profitable use might not be a picnic area with a $6 entrance fee -- it might instead be something very exclusive which only a few can enjoy, like an expensive resort or a luxury home development (think: Aspen or Jackson Hole). The public has asked its government to own certain unique lands in order to control their development and the public access to them.
Public ownership of unique lands, then, tends to have the goal of allowing access to and enjoyment of a particular piece of land for all of the public, not just a few. Typically this entails a public agency owning the land and controlling the types of uses allowed on the land and the nature and style of facility development. I call these state activities controlling the "character" of the land and its use. (One could legitimately argue that private land trusts could fulfill the same role, and in fact I have personally been a supporter of and donor to private land trusts. However, I am not an expert in this field and will leave this discussion to others).
Having established a role for the government in setting the character of the lands we call "parks," we can then legitimately ask, "does this goal require that government employees actually staff the parks and clean the bathrooms?"
** Postscript: A couple of years ago I was asked to do an interview with Glen Beck on my proposal to keep open, via private operation, a number of Arizona parks slated for closure. It was the first time I ever did live TV, and a national show to boot. I had never seen his show but he had the reputation of being freaky and unpredictable, which just made me more nervous. Anyway, during the interview I said that typically an agency would contract with us for a group of parks, instead of just one, so the stars could help cover the cost of the dogs. This terminology is from a framework many business school students learn early, often called a BCG matrix (named after the Boston Consulting Group). It is a two by two matrix with market share or profitability on one axis and market growth on the other. Anyway, the profitable high revenue units within a company are stars and the unprofitable stagnant ones are called dogs (the profitable stagnant ones were cash cows and I can't actually remember what was in the fourth box). You can see this nomenclature is so established they actually put little pictures of stars and dogs in the boxes.
Anyway, it was a poor choice of wording, but the nomenclature is wired do deep in my now it just came out. The context of the entire interview was that I cared deeply about the parks and that I was offended that the legislature was going to let them close when there was an easy solution at hand. No matter. The #2 guy at Arizona State Parks took the video and make the rounds of the state park staff, highlighting my use of the word "dog" and inflaming their rank and file that I thought their parks were bad places and I was bent on destroying them, or something. Anyway, none of the Arizona Park Staff I have ever talked to has ever seen an operations manual for their parks but they have all seen the video of me saying "dogs."
Postscript #2: Don't ever think that consulting is different from any other business. When I was an McKinsey, we had piles of frameworks we used (the 7S organization framework being perhaps the most common and actually fairly useful, as its intent was to take focus away from structure alone in organizational work). Anyway, McKinsey had to have a growth-share matrix, but to try to differentiate this product a bit they had a 3x3 matrix rather than a 2x2.
Since I am somehow oddly onto a consulting tangent here, the single most useful thing I garnered from McKinsey was the pyramid principle in persuasive and analytical writing. I have talked to a lot of other ex-McKinsey folks, and almost all of them wonder why the pyramid principle is not taught in high school. I am not a believer in business books -- I am looking around my office and I don't think I see even one here. But if I had to offer one book for someone who wanted a business book, this is it.
I can understand the man bites dog appeal of a story about the press turning on Obama. But seriously, their biggest problem with this President's transparency is that he does not allow enough pictures of himself?
My daughter and I did the whole college visit thing last week -- 8 colleges in five days. In doing so, I was struck by the fact that all these great schools we visited, with one exception, were founded by rich people no more recently than the 19th century. Seriously, can you name a college top students are trying to get into that was founded since 1900? I think Rice University in Houston was founded in the 20th century but it is still over 100 years old.
The one exception, by the way, was SCAD, an art school in Savannah, Georgia. SCAD is new enough that it is still being run by its founder. I am not sure I am totally comfortable in the value proposition of an expensive art school, but I will say that this was -- by far -- the most dynamic school we visited.
So here is what I would do: Create a new not-for-profit university aimed at competing at the top levels, e.g. with the Ivy League. I would find a nice bit of land for it in a good climate, avoiding big cities. The Big Island of Hawaii would be a nice spot, though that may be too remote. Scottsdale would not be a bad choice since its bad weather is during the summer out of the normal school year and land is relatively cheap.
Then, I would take the top academic kids, period. No special breaks for athletes or tuba players. It would have some reasonable school non-academic programs just to remain competitive for students - maybe some intramurals or club sports, but certainly no focus on powerhouse athletics. We could set a pool of money aside to help fund clubs and let students drive and run most of the extra-curriculars, from singing groups to debate clubs. If students are passionate enough to form and lead these activities, they would happen.
And now I need a reader promise here - if you are going to read the next sentence, you have to read the whole rest of the article before flying into any tizzies.
And for the most part we would scrap affirmative action and diversity goals. We are going to take the best students. This does not mean its pure SAT's - one can certainly look at a transcript and SAT in the context of the school kids went to, so that smart kids are not punished for going to a crap public high school.
Realize I say this with the expectation that the largest group of students who will be getting affirmative action over the next 20 years are... white males.
What? How can this be? Well it is already nearly true. Sure, historically everyone has focused on reverse discrimination against white males when colleges were dealing with having twice as many men than women and they had few qualified black or hispanic candidates. But my sense is that few white males any more lose their spot in college due to competition from under-qualified minority candidates.
That is because there is an enormous demographic shift going on in college. In fact there are three:
So we scrap all this. If the school ends up 80% Asian women, fine. Every forum in one's life does not have to have perfect diversity (whatever the hell that is), and besides there are plenty of other market choices for students who are seeking different racial and ethnic mixes in their college experience. We just want the best. And whatever money we can raise, we make sure a lot of it goes to financial aid rather than prettier buildings (have you seen what they are building at colleges these days?) so we can make sure the best can afford to attend. Getting good faculty might be the challenge at first, but tenure tracks have dried up so many places that my gut feel is that there are plenty of great folks out there who can't get tenure where they are and would jump at a chance to move. You won't have Paul Krugman or Bill McKibben type names at first, but is that so bad?
We know the business community hires from Ivy League schools in part because they can essentially outsource their applicant screening to the University admissions office. So we will go them one better and really sell this. Hire any of our graduates and you know you are getting someone hard-working and focused and very smart.
I don't know if it would work, but hell, I am a billionaire, what's the risk in trying?
By now, readers will know that our company operates public parks and campgrounds in the National Forest without taking one dime of Federal money. We pay for the cleaning, maintenance, utilities, and staffing of the facilities entirely from the user fees paid by visitors at the gate. Because we take no government money(we actually make lease payments to the government) we have never been closed in past shutdowns, but we were closed last week as the White House overruled an early Forest Service decision and ordered us closed.
Well, here is a photo from yesterday of the parking lot of one of the recreation areas we operate and were forced to closed. Doesn't look very closed, does it?
As it turns out, yesterday the local Sheriff was concerned with traffic jams on the highway near here as people tried to park and walk in. It is a danger I warned the US Forest Service about way back on October 2 in a letter to Cal Joyner, the Regional Forester for Arizona and New Mexico (and was promptly ignored). The Sheriff forced the gate open and let everyone in.
The amazing thing I found out today, and confirmed through pictures and news reports, is that the Sheriff was accompanied by US Forest Service personnel who apparently accepted this action. This means in effect that the US Forest Service believes this site is safe to occupy by visitors without our company present to clean the bathrooms, take out the trash, monitor security, watch for fires, stop vandalism, etc. but is not safe, somehow, with us present and actively staffing the site. This obviously makes no sense and just points out how arbitrary the decision-making has been.
Starting yesterday morning I begged the US Forest Service to let us return to staffing the site (which should be an easy decision since, unlike opening National Parks, this would require zero dollars from the government) but I got no response.
We have also found numerous other sites operated by third parties like ourselves on US Forest Service land in Arizona still open. For example, the Oak Flats campground in the Tonto National Forest is still open for business. In addition, we know of at least three Arizona State Parks, including Slide Rock SP, that operate on US Forest Service land just as we do but who have not been ordered to close. I know that Fool Hollow SP operates with a special use permit very similar to ours, but unlike us, its permit has not been temporarily suspended and it is open for business.
In fact, I cannot find a single third party who operates on the National Forests in Arizona who have had their operations suspended except for the private campground concessionaires. The powerful ski associations got their operations on Forest Service lands exempted from the get-go, probably because they have a full-time lobbying staff in DC and I do not. The same goes true for BLM lands, where the BLM has not closed its campgrounds or parks to the public. And the same goes true now for the Grand Canyon NP, which has been reopened by the state of Arizona. In fact, we may be the only recreation operations on Federal land in this state that are still required to close.
Update: The Forest Service made us cease operations at the Locket Meadow campground near Flagstaff. After kicking us out, they have reopened the campground to the public (without any staff or services on site). It is absolutely outrageous that the US Forest Service believes that the campground is fine for public visitation but that our company must be banned from operating it. Clearly, the resource and the visitors are safer and better protected and better served with us there, so this can only mean that the Forest Service is for some reason arbitrarily targeting our business, rather than use of the land, for shutdown. I cannot think of any possible justification for this action. If the campground is safe for public visitation during the shutdown, it is safer for us to operate and keep clean and protected.
PS- I should say targeting private SMALL companies. Large companies with political pull seem to be getting the National Parks open where they have operations. Just like with Obamacare and nearly everything else in modern government, restrictions are passed on private enterprises but exceptions are granted to those large enough to have staff lawyers, full-time lobbyists, and who can bundle a lot of donations.
I don't like to recommend destinations that are really expensive (why get people excited about a place they can't afford to visit) but we splurged this weekend on the Enchantment Resort in Sedona, Arizona. It is the most spectacular location I have ever seen for a landlocked (ie non ocean-front) resort. It is almost impossible to do it justice in photos, because it sits at the end of a box canyon and is surrounded on three sides by red rock walls. Some pictures are here in the google image result. Expect to pay $300-400 and up for a night, though you will get a very nice room even for the lower rates, and large casitas for higher rates. As is usual for resorts, meals are crazy expensive -- its hard to get through breakfast, for example, for less than $20 a person. But the views and hiking and everything else here are just beautiful.
One of the things I enjoyed was the resort had a native american climb onto a local rock outcropping a couple of times a day and play peaceful flute music that echoed around the resort. You can see a group gathered around to watch (update: A reader was nice enough to Photoshop out some of the haze using a levels command trick he taught me a while back -- you can compare below to this original)
It freaked me out for a while because I would here this low-volume music as I walked around the resort and I could not figure out where it was coming from (I kept looking for hidden speakers until I figured it out).
As an added bonus, the night sky is totally dark -- you are out in the wilderness about 15 miles from Sedona and out of site of any other habitation of any sort and almost completely surrounded by canyon walls. As a result, it is one of the few places where us city folk can see the Milky Way in all its glory (below is my amateur photography (you may have to click to enlarge to really see the Milky Way, but its there).
The restaurant there is quite good and there are excellent tables on the deck outside to watch the sunset. But if you want a slightly different Sedona experience (though equally expensive) the Restaurant at the L'Auberge resort right in the town of Sedona on Oak Creek is terrific. The food is great and the location on the creek is very romantic at night. Here is the view from my table right around sunset.
You can't get closer to the water than that!
Postscript: If you like the idea of creekside dining but don't want to blow a hundred bucks a person for dinner, I have eaten at a much less expensive, much less highbrow restaurant that had a very similar location. It is the Rapids Lodge Restaurant at Grand Lake, Colorado, and is a great place to eat on a trip through Rocky Mountain National Park before you turn around and head back to Estes Park. Here is the view from our table there:
PPS: Other US resort views I like: Highlands Inn, near Carmel; Hapuna Resort, Big Island, Hawaii; Sanctuary Resort, Phoenix, AZ (though the rooms really need an update); Trump Hotel, Las Vegas (located right on the bend of the strip so the strip view rooms look straight down the strip at night).
Update: In the spirit of equal time, a reader writes that the Enchantment Resort ruined Boynton Canyon. Its impossible for me to say -- I never knew it in its pristine state. I will say the resort itself does a pretty good job of keeping a low profile in the canyon -- no buildings that I saw over 2 stories tall, most of the old trees are preserved.
In a hard-hitting, incredibly researched piece of journalism entitled "Me & Ted", Josh Marshall polled his progressive friends at Princeton and found that they all thought Ted Cruz was an asshole.
Well, it turns out Ted and I went to college together. And not just we happened to be at the same place at the same time. We were both at a pretty small part of a relatively small university. We both went to Princeton. I was one year ahead of him. But we were both in the same residential college, which basically meant a small cluster of dorms of freshmen and sophomores numbering four or five hundred students who all ate in the same dining hall.
As it turned out, though, almost everyone I knew well in college remembered him really well. Vividly. And I knew a number of his friends. But for whatever reason I just didn't remember him. When I saw college pictures of him, I thought okay, yeah, I remember that guy but sort of in the way where you're not 100% sure you're not manufacturing the recollection.
I was curious. Was this just my wife who tends to be a get-along and go-along kind of person? So I started getting in touch with a lot of old friends and asking whether they remembered Ted. It was an experience really unlike I've ever had. Everybody I talked to - men and women, cool kids and nerds, conservative and liberal - started the conversation pretty much the same.
"Ted? Oh yeah, immense a*#hole." Sometimes "total raging a#%hole." Sometimes other variations on the theme. But you get the idea. Very common reaction.
Wow, so this is what famous journalists do? Hey, I can do the same thing.
I went to Princeton with Eliot Spitzer. He was a couple of years ahead of me but had a really high profile on campus, in part due to his running for various University Student Government offices. So I checked with many of my friends back in college, and you know what? They all thought Spitzer was an asshole. I was reminded that we all disliked him so much that when one person (full disclosure, it was me) drunkenly asked who wanted to go moon Spitzer and the governing council meeting next door, we got 30 volunteers. He was so irritating that he actually inspired a successful opposition party cum performance art troupe called the Antarctic Liberation Front (Virginia Postrel also wrote about it here).
Wow, am I a big time journalist now? Will GQ be calling for me to do an article on Spitzer?
Look, this is going to be true for lots of politicians, because they share a number of qualities. They tend to have huge egos, which eventually manifest as a desire to tell us what to do because they know better than we do. They are willful, meaning they can work obsessively to get their own way even over trivial stuff. And they are charismatic, meaning they generally have a group of people who adore them and whose sycophancy pisses everyone else off. In other words, they are all assholes.
This is the personality of the people we are electing to higher office. They have such an urge for control that they will not allow cell phone pictures taken of them in public. By personality, these people have to control everything. Is it really any surprise when they turn around and read our email?
From the article at the fabulous Photography is Not a Crime:
Hillary Clinton’s henchmen snatched a smartphone from a man who had photographed her giving a speech in Miami Thursday, deleting the image before returning the phone.
“That’s American politics,” one of the individuals in charge of preventing the presidential hopeful from being photographed told a Miami Herald reporter covering the meeting.
No, that’s Russian politics. Or Chinese politics. Or Cuban politics.
By the way (and I could be wrong here) Carlos Miller strikes me as much more Occupy than Tea Party in his political preferences. But he obviously doesn't pull any punches on his issue (legality of public photography) when his team is involved.
I was at a couple of art shows during my vacation, and saw a lot of photography. A staple of photography are the shots of Italian allies and colorful sea villages. I have one on my wall that I shot myself, the classic view you have seen a million times of Vernazza, Italy. My wife observed that these photos at the shows looked different than mine (she said "better").
The reason was quickly apparent, and I am seeing this more and more in the Photoshop world -- all the artists have pumped the color saturation way up. I had to do this a bit, because the colors desaturate some when they get printed on canvas. But these canvases friggin glowed. I see the same thing in nature photography. Is this an improvement? I don't know, but I am a bit skeptical. It reminds me a lot of how TV's are sold. TV pictures tend to be skewed to over-bright and over-vivid colors because those look better under the fluorescent lights of the sales floor. TV's also tend to have their colors tuned to the very cool (blue) color temperatures for the same reason. None of this looks good in a darkened room watching a film-based movie. Fortunately, modern TV's have better electronics menus and it is easy to reverse these problems, and my guess is there is less of this anyway now that many TV's are sold online based on reviews rather than comparison shopping in a store.
I am left to wonder though how this new super-vivid, over saturated photography would look in a home, and how it wears with years of viewing. Am I being a dinosaur resisting a technological improvement or is there a real problem here?
As you could probably tell from the scarcity of posts, I have been on quasi-vacation for a few weeks. Today I fly off to San Diego to go to Comicon with my son. Sorry, don't expect any Coyote Cosplay pictures.
I have been meaning to write on the new Obama Administration guidelines to colleges for treating speech as sexual assault and reducing the due process rights of accused students. But George Will does such a great job I am going to let him do it.
Responding to what it considers the University of Montana’s defective handling of complaints about sexual assaults, OCR, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a “blueprint” for institutions nationwide when handling sexual harassment, too. The letter, sent on May 9, encourages (see below) adoption of speech codes — actually, censorship regimes — to punish students who:
Make “sexual or dirty jokes” that are “unwelcome.” Or disseminate “sexual rumors” (even if true) that are “unwelcome.” Or make “unwelcome” sexual invitations. Or engage in the “unwelcome” circulation or showing of “e-mails or Web sites of a sexual nature.” Or display or distribute “sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials” that are “unwelcome.”
It takes some work to simultaneously violate this many Constitutional protections in one letter, but the Obama Administration continues to demonstrate its heroic determination to ignore that aging document.
By the way, I cannot find any story about a single university President in the whole country who has objected to these rules. What a bunch a spineless conformists we running universities.
A few things I would add to Will's comments:
Obama and the Left want a big new infrastructure spending bill, based on twin theories that it would be a) stimulative and b) a bargain, as needed infrastructure could be built more cheaply with construction industry over-capacity.
Since this is exactly the same theory of the stimulus four years ago, it seems a reasonable question to ask: What happened to the damn money we spent last time? We were sold a 3/4 of a trillion dollar stimulus on it being mostly infrastructure. So where is it? Show us pictures, success stories. Show us how the cost of construction of these projects were so much lower than expected because of construction industry over-capacity. Show us the projects selected, to demonstrate how well thought-out the investment prioritization was. If their arguments today have merit, all these things must be demonstrable from the last infrastructure bill. So where is the evidence?
Of course, absolutely no one who wants to sell stimulus 2 (or 3?) wants to go down the path of investigating how well stimulus 1 was spent. Instead, here is the argument presented:
Much of the Republican opposition to infrastructure spending has been rooted in a conviction that all government spending is a boondoggle, taxing hard-working Americans to give benefits to a favored few, and exceeding any reasonable cost estimate in the process. That's always a risk with new spending on infrastructure: that instead of the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system, you end up with the Bridge to Nowhere and the Big Dig.
In that sense, this is a great test of whether divided democracy can work, and whether Republicans can come to the table to govern. One can easily imagine a deal: Democrats get their new infrastructure spending, and Republicans insist on a structure that requires private sector lenders to be co-investors in any projects, deploying money based on its potential return rather than where the political winds are tilting.
This is bizarre for a number of reasons. First, he implies the problem is that Republicans are not "coming to the table to govern" In essence then, it is up to those who criticize government incremental infrastructure spending (with a lot of good evidence for believing so) as wasteful to come up with a solution. Huh?
Second, he talks about requiring private lenders to be co-investors in the project. This is a Trojan horse. Absurd projects like California High Speed Rail are sold based on the myth that private investors will step in along side the government. When they don't, because the project is stupid, the government claims to be in too deep already and that it must complete it with all public funds.
Third, to the extent that the government can sweeten the deal sufficiently to make private investors happy, the danger of Cronyism looms large. You get the government pouring money into windmills, for example, that benefits private investors with a sliver of equity and large manufacturers like GE, who practically have a hotline to the folks who run programs like this.
Fourth, almost all of these projects are sure to be local in impact - ie a bridge that helps New Orleans or a street paving project that aids Los Angeles. So why are the Feds doing this at all? If the prices are so cheap out there, and the need for these improvements so pressing, then surely it makes more sense to do them locally. After all, the need for them, the cost they impose, and the condition of the local construction market are all more obvious locally than back in DC. Further, the accountability for money spent at the Federal level is terrible. There are probably countless projects I should be pissed off about having my tax money fund, but since I don't see them every day, I don't scream. The most accountability exists for local money spent on local projects.
NY Times has a great interactive graphic of Miami and OKC shooting by location on the court (roll over the face pictures to get the actual graphics).
It provides some insight as to why the NBA game seems to be all threes or points in the paint -- the mid-range jump shot just does not have the same return on investment (ie points per shot). Which begs the question, I suppose, as to why anyone shoots the mid-range jump shot at all (look at Battier's and Hardin's maps - they are almost all threes and layups/dunks). I suppose the answer likely takes the form of "you have to shoot mid-range to open up the other two zones", a sort of run to set up the pass in football strategy. Don't know enough about basketball to say if this is true.
Update: Also, the shot clock probably has a lot to do with it. Given infinite time, teams would be able to get the shot they want, but in 24 seconds sometimes you just have to loft one up as time runs out from wherever you are.
Here are the stats: Close range -- 1.19 points per shot, 3-point -- 1.08 pps, mid-range -- 0.80 pps
This time capsule of pictures of various music stars hanging out with Jimi Hendrix features a surprising number or people who died young.
I've already told the story of being in Manhattan on 9/11. Through the day, vehicles could leave the city, but they could not come back (even taxis). That evening, most people who could leave Manhattan had done so. We were stuck until the next day. We ended up finding a restaurant for dinner in Times Square that was open.
Times Square was just totally bizarre. There were no cars at all. Perhaps one car would pass every five minutes. A couple of guys were roller skating around the streets, I supposed just because they could.
I was reminded of this experience by this photograph by Lucie and Simon, who take pictures of cities and digitally remove the cars and people.
Here is my business problem:
On the positive side for Facebook, it is the only platform we have tried, from static web pages to blogs to Google to whatever, where we really get a good real-time interaction going with our campground customers. Its an easy platform for them to ask questions, provide feedback, and upload useful content about the campground (from pictures to reviews to videos). Many of my older employees are flummoxed by even the simplest computer tasks (I have had folks it has taken days of effort to teach how to get into their corporate Gmail account) but it is relatively easy to learn how to add an update or answer a query on a Facebook page (and by "page" I mean the corporate or business pages like this one here: http://www.facebook.com/RockCreekCanyon, not one's individual page).
But here is the problem: The Facebook staff changes FB's layout and user interface faster than a sugar-overloaded ADD 7-year-old gets tired of a new toy. I swear they have no reason for some of the changes other than "we're kind of bored with the user interface staying the same more than 3 months and some junior guy coded this timeline thing so let's make him feel good and put it up".
The shifting user interface is a training nightmare for my non-computer savvy managers. What used to be tabs across the top are now text links on the left. The Page admin panel changes almost every time I log on. And don't even get me started on the simply stupid dueling column format of the new pages, or the fact that useless information like number of people who liked the site in a given month take up enormous amounts of the timeline's real estate now. Just look at the page I linked above. For the first 2-3 scrolls, the right hand column is different data than the left column, but then suddenly it becomes an alternating home for data that at the top only showed up on the left. I am told that I can now pin a status update to the top, which will be nice, but at the cost of losing the custom landing page we used to have.
And woe be to he who actually develops for the platform, because he may soon find out that it all became wasted effort at the next over-caffeinated random user interface change. I just did a tiny, minor bit of coding (less than a few hours) that takes my page administrators' status updates and posts them as a news feed on our web site (ie here for the FB page above). I could do more interesting things but I have absolutely no confidence that, for example, the FB page RSS feed I used will still be supported tomorrow.
I often raise the issue of "What is Normal" when discussing climate. The media frequently declares certain weather events as so "abnormal" that they must be due to man-made factors. A great example is the current Texas drought, which is somehow unprecedented and thus caused by CO2 despite the fact that the great dust bowl drought of the 1930's was many times larger in area and years in duration.
The EPA has a new slideshow purporting to aggregate these "abnormalities." While I could spend all year going through each slide, I want to focus on just one.
Now we all know that the EPA is just full of sciency goodness and so everything they say is based on science and not, say, some political agenda. And the statement and the pictures above are absolutely correct, as far as they go. But they are missing a teeny tiny bit of context. Here is a longer history of that same glacier (thanks to the Real Science blog for the pointer, this is a much better map than the one I have used in the past).
The 1948 position is way up at the top. You can see that the melting since 1966, which according to the EPA is an "acceleration," is trivial compared to the melting since 1760. Basically, this glacier has been retreating since at least the end of the little ice age.
Those who want to attribute the recent retreat to CO2 have to explain what drove the glacier to retreat all that way from 1760 to 1960, and why that factor stopped in 1960 at exactly the time Co2 supposedly took over.
By the way, this same exact story can be seen in glaciers around the world. Glaciers began retreating at the end of the little ice age, and if anything that pace of retreat has slowed somewhat over the last few decades.
This is a bit old, but Radley Balko linked this story about a many busted for taking pictures of a refinery
Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures “with no apparent esthetic value” is within Long Beach Police Department policy.
McDonnell spoke for a follow-up story on a June 30 incidentin which Sander Roscoe Wolff, a Long Beach resident and regular contributor to Long Beach Post, was detained by Officer Asif Kahn for taking pictures of North Long Beach refinery.
“If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery,” says McDonnell, “it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual.” McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters.
McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer’s subject has “apparent esthetic value,” officers make such judgments “based on their overall training and experience” and will generally approach photographers not engaging in “regular tourist behavior.”
This policy apparently falls under the rubric of compiling Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) as outlined in the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 statement of the LAPD’s “policy … to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism.”
Among the non-criminal behaviors “which shall be reported on a SAR” are the usage of binoculars and cameras (presumably when observing a building, although this is not specified), asking about an establishment’s hours of operation, taking pictures or video footage “with no apparent esthetic value,” and taking notes.
First, I think refineries are enormously interesting photography subjects (disclaimer: I used to work in the Exxon Baytown refinery) and I think they can be downright beautiful at night.
Second, I take pictures of industrial subjects all the time as potential guides for my model railroading. Incredibly-boring-for-most-people example here.
Well, I hesitate to recommend this movie, because the first three people I told about this as if it was some kind of clever discovery of mine said "Oh, yeah, loved it, saw it years ago." So maybe everyone else saw this movie a decade ago and I just missed it. But I really enjoyed an older Christopher Nolan (Inception) directed movie called Memento. It stars Guy Pierce (LA Confidential, one of my favorite movies) and Carrie-Anne Moss (Matrix).
The movie is about a man trying to get revenge on his wife's murderer. The only problem is that somehow, from roughly the point in time his wife died, he lost all of his short term memory. So he can never remember things more than a few minutes. He has to trust notes he has written (including tattoos on his body) for clues that he pursues.
The clever part of the movie is that it is shot backwards. Well, I don't mean everyone walks backwards. It is shot in a series of 3-10 minute clips with normal forward action, but then the clips are reassembled in the film in reverse order. The end of each scene is therefore usually the beginning of the previous one (though there is a second thread in black and white that moves through the movie in a slightly different way).
This seems crazy and confusing, until you realize that at any point in the movie, you are in exactly the same place as the protagonist - you know nothing about the past, or even, in the start of the clip, how you got there. Its not a casual movie that you can watch while you are doing something else, it requires some concentration, but it worked well for me. The most incredible thing is that despite the fact you know how it all comes out, the movie is incredibly tense and exciting -- you don't know why it came out that way, and the movie is full of twists and turns.
Postscript: There was a movie last year of completely different style - straight forward plot line, uneven acting, more of an action movie - that had a sortof kindof similar plot. The movie was called Vengence, and it was about a man who was losing his memory and slowly degenerating trying to find his daughter's killer. It is a totally different movie, but cribs some of the Memento plot devices, such as labelled Polaroid pictures as a memory device. It is pretty good, particularly for fans of Asian-style action movies, and is directed by Johnnie To.
Some cool pictures of abandoned buildings in Detroit. How do you abandon a public library and leave all the books? All these buildings appear vandalized. Could it be a sign of Detroit's problems that no one bothered to even steal the books?
I can't find the link right now, but these pictures remind me of ones posted a few years ago of Russian towns abandoned after Chernobyl.