Mud, mud, mud

I know everyone complains about the mudslinging political campaigns in his/her area, but I swear the current crop of races in Alabama is the worst I’ve ever seen. Here’s a few of the high (low) lights:

One candidate for Chief Justice cuts and pastes excerpts from an interview given by his opponent. The excerpt makes it appear she is lying through her teeth about accepting contributions from the gambling industry. Not to be daunted, his opponent has accused him of accepting almost $1 million of oil industry money, even though the method used to arrive at that claim is patently ridiculous. In addition, her signature ad plays “This Little Light of Mine” in the background while showing her parading around in a black robe like a judicial angel, sent to save us all from her evil opponent.

Until today (more on that below), my favorite spot was an ad set to the tune of the Green Acres theme song. It’s the familiar Green Acres tune, but it accuses the incumbent of spending all his time traveling the world on junkets paid for by lobbyists. The ad even features a character with a (bad) French accent implying this loser spends his time sipping coffee and eating pastries in France (of all places) rather than fighting for the common man down in Montgomery. I happen to strongly dislike the target of this ad, but I’d almost vote for him anyway just because this ad is so ludicrous.

As of today, though, my favorite is a spot attacking a candidate for his family’s interest in a chain of gas stations. First, one of the stores in the chain was charged with price gouging after Katrina last year. They settled and I’ve never really figured out why a few stations were charged when it seemed all stations jacked up prices about 70 cents following Katrina. Regardless, it hasn’t been shown, at all, that this guy has any hand in the actual operations of the business. Now, though, his opponent has gone lower. Evidently one of the “family” stations had a leak in one of its underground gas tanks and the leak went undiscovered for a long period of time (maybe years). In the meantime, a 5-year-old girl in the neighborhood contracted leukemia. This story came out last year, but it seemed like a “years long” story and, again, I never saw the candidate mentioned in any story about the tragedy. Now, though, the opponent all but accuses this guy of heartlessly causing this little girl to get leukemia. It’s a really tacky (with all the Southern connotations of that word) ad. Honestly, it ends with something like, “If his family business caused this little girl to get leukemia, how can we trust him to look after our needs.” This one really disappoints me because I’d been planning to vote for the guy running the ad. Now, though, I may have to reconsider.

Surprisingly, the cleanest race may be for governor. The incumbent has such a strong lead, it just seems pointless to get too nasty. His opponent has tried, though (and he has slung some mud as well). I find it hilarious that a Democrat (the opponent) is attacking a Republican (the incumbent) because the Cato Institute [Edit: I don't think it was Cato, maybe Heritage? I don't remember.] says he’s not conservative enough. How weird is that?

Oh, I forgot the lieutenant governor’s race. This used to be a powerful office in AL – making committee appointments, deciding which bill went to which committee, etc. Back in the 1990s, though, a Republican won the office and the state Dems freaked. They immediately rewrote laws to completely strip the LG of all power. [I’m not kidding, they were able to do that.] Now it’s basically a ceremonial position, though this year’s candidates are viewed as wanting the office to position themselves for gubernatorial runs next time around. Anyway, the choice comes down to the scion of an AL dynasty and a lobbyist whose main bragging point in his ads is, “Vote for me; I’m tall.” Seriously, the guy goes by the nickname “Tall Luther.”

It’s all pretty strange. Thankfully it’ll all be over next week.

That's a winner!

For those of you who don't recognize Jack Buck's trademark call, the Cardinals won the World SeriesD! Thanks to Mel and Thailand Jeff for their (sort of) congratulations. It was sweet. Though I didn't pitch, hit, or field a single ball in the 2006 season, I have to admit to uttering the phrase "WE won" after it was all said and done. Hey, I've been suffering (okay, not relative to Cubs fans, but they set a high bar for suffering) almost 25 years since the last title. I barely even remember that one and after 1985 and 1987 slipped through our fingers, it seemed a title might never come. Now it has.

Not much time today, but I did want to point you toward this story on the .victory celebration thrown by St. Louis. I know it's a cliche, but Cards fans are true baseball fans.

It sounded like one long stadium curtain call. It looked like a horizonless sea of Cardinal red, as if every available Redbird shirt and hat had been pressed into service.

Attendance was estimated at 500,000. This from a city with a population of just under a million people (if you count the suburbs). That's pretty impressive.

So were all 500,000 of these folks aged Peter Pan's who just refuse to grow up? No.

"The Cardinals are a way of life," said Teri Mack, a grandmother from St. Charles, as she stood with her family along the parade route. "This is what it is all about."
...
Fans were mindful that 24 years had passed since the last Cardinals' World Series title. An entire generation of fans had gone without knowing what it was like to win it all. So now fans of all ages wanted to savor it with a celebration.

"I may never live to see another one," said Donna Fencl, 64, of Fairview Heights.

"And it's my first World Series (championship) experience," said her 17-year-old granddaughter, Shannon Lillis, who prides herself on being able to name the Cardinals' entire 40-man roster.

See, that's what 17-year-olds should be doing: memorizing the 40-man roster of their favorite baseball teams.

Okay, okay, I'll stop "Card blogging" now. I promise I'll be back to more general rants soon. I just had to get in one last Ode to the Cards! Next year we repeat!!!

How well am I?

You may or may not know, but I have a great aversion to doctors. Now before anyone chastises me for this, I come by it honestly. Caffeine Mom – the healthcare professional – absolutely refuses to go see a doctor. Why? Because doctors are for SICK people. Yes, it can be frustrating to be in the Caffeine Family.

Anyway, the Health Sciences folks hosted some sort of “wellness screening” on campus today: one of those things where they check your blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, etc. One of my co-workers convinced me that I should go. She knows my aversion to doctors so she offered this thing as a “low discomfort” alternative. Sure enough, it wasn’t bad. The only invasive aspect of the whole thing was a finger prick to get blood.

So, how’s my “wellness”? Overall, I was pleased with my results. It turns out I need to lose just a few pounds, according to the BMI numbers. Big surprise there, huh? MY blood pressure and blood sugar stuff are fine. I was a little surprised, though, when my bone density number turned out to be a tad low. Hmm, I guess milk really does a body good. The more pressing concern though was on the cholesterol front. My total number was fine, but my HDL (the good cholesterol) was a little low. The wellness woman kind of pitched a fit about that, but I did some more research and I think she may have been overreacting a bit. Still, it probably wouldn’t hurt to try to get that number up a tad.

Okay, I figure you didn’t really want to know all this, but I just figured I’d share my (sort of) clean bill of health. Other than that, GO CARDS!

2 down, 2 to go

“We” are one step closer to triumph! Yes, the Cards won game 3, 5-0. Last night’s contest was a glorious game. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a better World Series pitching performance. [Of course, I’m limiting my sample to non-pine tar games.] 8 innings, 3 hits, 0 walks, 6 strikeouts – and only 82 pitches thrown. That’s pretty amazing. Yes, I know Don Larsen pitched a perfect game in ’56 (wasn’t it?), but I’m talking about games I’ve seen. I was torn in the bottom of the 8th inning. I was thrilled that the Cards were rallying for an additional run, but I hated the fact their half of the inning took so long that Tony decided not to have Carpenter go back out and pitch the 9th.

Now the Cards just have to win 2 before they lose 3. I’ve been skeptical the entire post season, but I’m starting to believe it could happen. The Cards could win their first World Series since 1982 (though they did get robbed in ’85 and I have thoughts about the ’87 Series as well). The two things that strike me as most unusual in this improbable run: They’ve won with pitching and they've won even though Pujols’ numbers haven’t been great, especially since the Padres series.

Regardless, I’m enjoying the run and I’m just hoping it can continue for 2 more wins. Those of you who aren’t baseball fans, … Well that makes me doubt your inherent humanity, but I promise I’ll be back to general carping next week. Some of my students already are sick of baseball talk. One girl today complained that she hasn’t been able to see something called “Prison Break” for weeks because of the stupid baseball games. I think she’s getting an F!

Dirtgate!

WARNING: Long, biased, sometimes technical baseball post to follow. Sorry, but it is the World Series and my Cards are in it and things are tied up one game apiece right now. I'm going to blog about it.

Okay, who out there believes Kenny Rogers' (the pitcher, not the singer) story that TV cameras captured nothing more than a "spot of dirt" on his pitching hand in the first inning of last night's game? Hello? Anybody? Of course it wasn't dirt! It was pine tar!

Okay, Rogers cheated (in my opinion), but he still pitched a jewel of a game even after washing off his "spot of dirt" -- at least that's what the experts all are saying. Well, there are several points I'd like to make about the game. I know some of these may come from a "sour grapes" attitude, but I'm okay with that.

First, after seeing "the spot" on TV, why in the world did (Cards manager) Tony LaRusa wait until between innings, after Rogers had been to the dugout, to call the umpires' attention to it. Gosh, Tony, don't you think the Tigers might have been watching the game too. Heck, Joe Buck (or maybe it was McCarver) said something like, "Well I bet that will have been washed off by the second inning. Sure enough it was. Actually I have a theory about LaRusa's delay in bringing it up. It's been widely reported that LaRusa and (Tigers manager) Leyland are best friends. I think Tony let his friendship get in the way of good managing. The spot should have been inspected, (I think) it would have been determined to be an illegal substance, and Rogers would have been ejected. Even if Detroit's bullpen had held St. Louis in check, 8+ innings of work from Detroit's pen would have changed Leyland's use of relievers the rest of the Series. I think Tony missed a huge opportunity here by not asking to have Rogers' hand inspected as soon as the cameras showed the spot.

Second, none of Rogers' or Leyland's or the umpires' "explanations" make sense. Nobody wants to acknowledge what happened, but I think it is interesting that ESPN has gone over video of Rogers' other post-season starts and they've noticed the magic clump of dirt in those games too. Gee, that's a stubborn clump of dirt, isn't it?

Well what about the other 7 innings he pitched -- after washing his hands? Weren't those pretty spectacular? I've got two points here, both of which will make me look like a nutcase. First, I'm not convinced that his pitching performance was that spectacular. No, no, I'm not making a "the best team didn't win" argument. I'm just saying the "greatness" of his performance might have been exaggerated. The Cards hit several sharp drives that just happened to be "at 'em" balls, hit right at Detroit fielders. [The Tigers, on the other hand, had several bloops fall in. BTW, has anyone asked Juan Encarnacion if he knows how to charge and catch a fly ball in the air?] Specifically, Pujols' laser shot to left with a runner on first should have made it a 3-2 game. I know, the game isn't played by "should ofs", but I'm just saying Rogers didn't really throw the "gem" some people are attributing to him.

My second point on the "well he still pitched great after the spot" is that I'm still not sure he was clean. The palm is not the only spot to put a foreign substance. Did anyone else notice a strange comment made by one of the TV guys after Rogers was taken out of the game. He said something like, "Look at Rogers going around shaking hands with his teammates. He hasn't even taken his glove off. That's unusual to see a pitcher do that." The TV guys didn't follow up on that, but I was suspicious. I've got to set this up. See Rogers is a left-handed pitcher, meaning he wears his fielding glove on his right hand. Now most people shake hands with their right hands, so imagine how awkward that "reverse handshake" thing looked as players would walk up to him, stick out their right hands, and then have to twist around to shake Rogers' left. Why? Why wouldn't he simply remove his glove and shake hands the usual way? I've got a theory?

Once upon a time I was giving an intermediate macroeconomics test when a student called me back to his desk/table to ask a question. I gave him a small hint as to a mistake he'd made in setting up the problem and told him to get rid of what he'd done there. Well this kid went to erase his work, but I noticed he was trying to erase just with his right hand. In other words, he wasn't using his left hand to hold the paper in place as he erased with his right. No, his left hand remained hidden under the table. As a result, the paper was scooting all over the table and it looked silly as hell. Of course it turned out the kid had a cheat sheet. That's what Kenny Rogers' handshakes reminded me of last night. I think he had something in his glove and he didn't want to the chance of being "outed" by the TV cameras again. No, I have no proof of that, but I really, really, really wish LaRusa had asked the umpires to search Rogers. That would have removed a lot of the doubt as to Rogers' performance.

Okay, I'm through complaining about Rogers'. My biggest complaint of game 2 actually lies with Tony LaRusa. I've already hit him for not pressing the "spot of dirt" issue, but his lack of action in the 9th inning defies explanation. Basically, the Cardinals got in a situation where they had the tying run coming to the plate with 2 outs in the 9th inning. Unfortunately, the Cards happened to have a couple of weak/questionable hitters coming to the plate. That's all right, I thought, Tony can pinch hit with Chris Duncan -- one of the Cardinals' better hitters and a legitimate home run threat and a left-handed batter (a significant advantage in the situation). What did Tony do? He let Preston Wilson (aka Mr. Strikeout) come to the plate. Luckily the Tigers pitcher hit Wilson with a pitch before he got the chance to strike out, so Tony avoided that disaster. Next, Jadier Molina came to the plate. Yeah, this is the same guy I criticized Keith Law for being so hard on. Actually this move didn't bother me as much as the decision to let Wilson hit. At least Molina has been "hot" during the post-season. Still, the least efficient offensive player in your lineup or one who has shown real power and ability. I just do not understand why Tony didn't pinch hit in at least ONE of those two situations. To me, that is the real "scandal" and it seems as though Tony is getting a free pass on it because everyone is obsessed with Dirtgate.

That's a winner

What a glorious night of baseball!!! In case you didn't know, the Cards won game 7 to advance to the World Series! Not only did they win game 7 (after losing game 6) on the road -- the first time a team has done that since 1975 -- but oh how they won. I thought my heart was going to literally stop after Endy Chavez's insane catch to rob Scott Rolen in the 6th inning. I won't go into detail, but let's just say there were some "not nice" words used in the Caffeine house right about then. Yes, it did seem the Mets were "fated" to win when the aforementioned Scott Rolen followed up his near home run with what might have been the most bone-headed error of his career in the bottom of the inning. Somehow, though, Jeff Suppan pitched out of an awful mess and kept things knotted at 1-1. Then the 9th inning. I'm not even going to try to describe that inning, but how beautiful was it to see Carlos Beltran (the Cardinal killer) watch a 2 strike curve float right through the heart of the strike zone? I'll tell you; it was great!

Okay, I'm through romanticizing the game. Once again, Jayson Stark does a nice job capturing all the emotion of the game without getting too sappy (if you're a baseball fan, that is).

Even when I'm not on cloud nine, I usually ignore those "THEY don't want us to win" arguments, but I am wondering about this Keith Law fellow over at ESPN. I noticed an earlier column in which he almost seemed offended that the Cardinals had the temerity to beat the Padres in the first round, but now he seems downright pissed that they'd dare unseat the mighty Mets. Some excerpts, with comments:

The Mets paid the ultimate price for their inability to get the Cardinals' worst hitter out, and the National League's best team was toppled by its sixth- or seventh-best team, giving us Fox's worst nightmare of a World Series -- and a pretty sizable mismatch to boot.

Wow, his first paragraph opens with a slam at Molina and then goes on to whine about (potential) TV ratings and dismiss the Cards' chances of even making it a good Series. That's a lot to get into a lede. How about paragraph 2?

Yadier Molina is a terrible hitter who had his Brian Doyle moment, fluking into a good series and hitting the series-clinching homer on a hanging changeup from Aaron Heilman in the ninth inning. ... Heilman decided to go to the changeup, a mistake given Molina's lack of bat speed and Heilman's velocity; pounding Molina hard in and going away with the changeup once ahead in the count is the best way to pitch to him. Still, if Heilman didn't hang the changeup, Molina probably would've missed the pitch entirely.

Another "dissing" of Molina and evidently Mr. Law has a crystal ball that tells him the awful Molina wouldn't have even made contact had Heilman not offered up the absolute worst pitch he's ever thrown -- or something like that.

Well what about the Cards' pitching? To everyone's surprise, the Cards somehow managed to get the best pitching they've had all year right when it mattered the most. Surely a few words of congratulation there, huh? Nope.

Jeff Suppan wasn't as sharp as he was in Game 3, but he stayed out of the middle of the plate and forced the Mets hitters to choose between waiting him out or swinging at pitches that were very difficult to drive. They chose the latter, letting Suppan off the hook despite his four unintentional walks and a hit batsman.

Suppan pitched into the 8th, giving up only 1 run and 2 hits. Even with the 5 walks (1 intentional) and 1 hit batsman, that's just 1.14 baserunners per inning -- 21% less than the NL playoff average for starting pitchers. Yeah you're right Keith, Suppan really sucked out there, huh?

We already know how Mr. Law feels about Molina's heroics in the top of the 9th, but what's he think about the thriling bottom of the inning? You know, the inning where Adam Wainwright got into a big mess and then pitched brilliantly to get out of it. While Law does at least acknowledge Wainwright's accomplishment in striking out two tough hitters with the game on the line, he can't pass up the opportunity to carp a bit:

It's worth mentioning that strike two on Floyd, while technically a strike, was about six inches above the top of the de facto strike zone. It's pretty awful to suddenly call that pitch a strike in the ninth inning of Game 7 and is yet another instance of the Heisenberg Strike Zone affecting a game.

I watched the replay a few times (thanks to my Tivo-like digital recorder) and the pitch was about 1.5 "ball widths" above the belt. Yes, that pitch is called a ball way too often, but Tim Welke had called a few up there throughout the game. Law greatly exaggerates the "unusualness" of that call.

While we're on that topic though, I'd like to pose a question to Keith Law. Hey, Keith, since you're griping about umpire calls affecting the game, what's your take on that "check swing" by Beltran in the first inning that led to the Mets only run of the night? I felt at the time (and again after replays) that Beltran did NOT check his swing and should have struck out right then and there. [Jayson Stark backs me up on this one. Gee, I like that guy.] The third base ump, though, gave him a reprieve and he went on to spark a 2-out rally that led to the Mets lone score. Why aren't you complaining about that one Keith?

I know I'm probably biased in my irritation at this column, but honestly it's the 2nd or 3rd time I've felt Law was unreasonably harsh on the Cards. After suffering a near legendary collapse at the end of the season and limping into the playoffs with the fewest wins of any of the post-season teams, they just won a thrilling game 7 to make it to the World Series. Would a few words of congratulations and respect be too much to ask? Evidently it is for Keith Law. It riled me.

Regardless, GO CARDS one more time. All we need is 4 more wins!

Social IQ

First I'd like to note that I'm NOT going to talk about (or link to) last night's game. Dang you, Scott Rolen. Okay, enough of that.

I saw something a few weeks ago in the Parade magazine (the Sunday paper insert) that raised my ire. Let me go ahead and state that I HATE those general quiz things that tell you what kind of person you are based on what your favorite color is or how fast you walk or what animal you think of when you hear the word "petunia". They just rile me.

Anyway, the Parade had an article concerning social IQ. It's part of this worry that today's generation is so "gadget oriented" that it doesn't know how to interact with real people. It's a continuation of the old idea that getting along with people is more important than being smart, talented, etc. There may be some truth to both those claims, but I don't see why people think it's a "crisis" or anything like that. What raised my ire, though, was a quiz they put in the article to measure social IQ. Readers were told to think about the following situations and compare their responses to the "socially intelligent" responses listed at the bottom of the article.

1. You’re involved in “speed dating,” where singles go from partner to partner
for a timed five-minute talk. When a round ends, the partners decide whether to
give their e-mail addresses for a follow-up. You want to make the best first
impression. So you:
A. Think of the three or four most impressive things about yourself and try
to cover them all in the short time you have.
B. Ask your partners questions about themselves, saying little or nothing
about yourself unless asked.

2. You’re a team leader at your company. One member upsets the rest because she loafs, so the others have to do much of her work. You:
A. Confront her in front of the others to teach her a lesson.
B. Take her aside and threaten to fire her if she doesn’t improve.
C. Tell her precisely what she’s doing that’s a problem and help her come up with specific ways to change.

3. A 14-month-old boy climbs onto a table where a lamp sits precariously. You:
A. Say, “No!” firmly, tell him that climbing is for the playroom and take him there.
B. Tell him the lamp might fall and leave him alone.
C. Shout an angry “No!” to get his attention and order him to get down immediately.

ARGH! Is there anyone of the planet who couldn't figure out the "socially intelligent" answers to these 3 questions? NO! Does that mean, when confronted with these actual situations, everyone would actually do B, C, and A? NO! Then what the hell was the purpose of this "quiz"? I passed it with 100%, yet I'm nowhere near "socially intelligent" in terms of interacting with groups of strangers, being an effective team member, etc. I'd HATE to meet someone who couldn't ace this quiz. To quote one of my students, "These questions are stupid." All these questions test is your ability to parrot the "acceptable" answers. Grr.

Of course the article's author has a book on Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. Man I can't wait to plunk down my $28 to get more insight like this. Geesh!

Anyway, GO CARDS! The Series awaits!

A grave matter

Sounds like a great idea to me. Where do I sign up?

On a related note, here's a wonderful Jayson Stark story on the momentum/sense of destiny of this year's version of my beloved St. Louis Cardinals. I usually detest the syrupy, romanticized, Field of Dreams type baseball stories, but this one is pretty good. Yes, I'll admit to a bias, but it's still a good tale. Of course I would like to sound a cautionary note. This sort of reminds me of what happened last year after Albert's huge home run off Brad Lidge. Everyone was talking about the Cards' unstoppable momentum and they promptly lost the next game and were eliminated from the playoffs. I'm trying not to get too excited (prematurely), but Carpenter is pitching tonight and I just have to believe he'll look better than he did in game 2. Right?

Regardless, GO CARDS!

Don't it make ...

my brown eyes blue. According to this story from today's Boston Globe, blue eyes have become much less common over the past century or so.

If the Census Bureau has it right, the 300 millionth American entered the United States kicking and screaming this morning. The odds are that this milestone American is a boy, born to a white family in a California suburb. He will have a 1-in-4 shot of graduating from college, will probably marry, father two children, struggle with his weight, and live to see his 85th birthday.

What he will probably not have -- that his grandfather likely did -- is a pair of blue eyes.

So what explains today's lack of blue-eyed folks? While many factors probably played a role, changes in marriage patterns in the last few decades may have been the biggest cause.

About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the epidemiologist who conducted the study.

A century ago, 80 percent of people married within their ethnic group, Grant said. Blue eyes -- a genetically recessive trait -- were routinely passed down, especially among people of English, Irish, and Northern European ancestry.

According to Grant, by mid-century, education level rather than ethnic group became the primary factor in selecting a spouse. Since education was becoming more "diverse", blue-eyed folks began marrying outside their own blue-eyed groups. Since blue eye color is a recessive trait (100% chance of "pass along" if both parents are blue-eyed, 25% chance if a blue mates with a brown), this led to the decline of blue eyes and the emergence of brown.

As I read this, I thought, "How cool." Then I began to wonder if the "ideal" of the blue-eyed beauty might be based on an ancient preference for someone who was ethnically pure. Turns out, there might be something to that.

Preferences for fair skin and blue eyes stretch back in Europe to at least the Middle Ages, according to Hema Sundaram , author of ``Face Value," a book about the history of beauty. For women in particular, especially those of European descent, fair skin and light eyes have long been seen as indicators of fertility and beauty.

As society has changed, however, beauty ideals may be changing too. While blue remains, by far, the most popular fake contact color, it's losing market share (down from 53 to 45%) to brown (up from 8 to 15%).

I'll admit that I can see no practical use for this in a "how can we make the world a better place" role, but I love the fact that people think about and investigate such things.

Actually, if you read the whole story you'll see this is a prime example of the "scientific method". The researcher became interested in eye color after he noticed that his elderly patients in nursing homes had much higher levels of "blue eyedness" than the general population. He hypothesized that blue eyes might have some link to longevity, but it turned out to be an omitted variable type problem. To me, this is a good example of research: The data did not support his original hypothesis, so he looked for an alternative explanation. Unfortunately it seems the more common approache is to "massage" the data or your model until they do support your hypothesis. Oh, that reminds me of a potentially bad use of data I read about today -- a new study showing a link between autism and television viewing among children -- but that'll have to wait until I have time to think about it a little more. Can't wait, can you?

New rule

Okay, I have a new camping rule. From now on, I will only go camping if I stick to established trails! Sure, you can still convince me to take a "bushwhacking" day hike and I'll still venture far off trail in pursuit of an elusive waterfall or a new shortcut, but NOT with a 35 pound pack strapped to my back!

As you might have guessed, I had some difficulties on my most recent camping trip. First, the positives. It wasn't too cold and I did get to see a new part of the Sipsey. Oh, and a lot of my new equipment worked very well. I'm nominating the Thermarest folks for a Nobel next year! Seriously, who could think about starting a war or such after a night on one of their sleeping pads? On the down side, equipment wise, the new "short" sleeping bag that I took a chance on is just a tad too short. I fear I am going to have to "gift" it to someone -- Merry Christmas, cousin Kari?

Regardless, the CAMPING experience wasn't bad. I left work early Friday and made it to the woods by early afternoon. I'd decided to explore a new part of the Sipsey and maybe find Clifty Falls. Though there is no official Forest Service trail to Clifty Falls, I relied on a sort of guidebook that claimed one would never realize the Clifty trail wasn't an official trail. The guidebook was right -- for the first couple miles. After a while the trail started getting rougher. I'd passed a couple of potential campsites when I finally came to a huge area of downed trees with no apparent path through. Not wanting to make a mistake I've made many times in the past, I backtracked about a tenth of a mile to a pretty good campsite. I figured I could scout a way through/around the barrier in the morning.

My original plan was to leave my equipment at the campsite and search for Clifty Falls with just my map, some snacks, and a large bottle of water. At the end of the day, I'd return to the campsite and head out. Friday night, though, I looked at the map and realized once I got to Clifty Falls I'd be darned close to a really easy trail back to my car. Shoot, that sounded better than backtracking over the sort of rough trail that I'd come in on, so I loaded everything up and headed out Saturday morning.

I did find a way around the big dead tree barrier and though the trail became very faint from that point, it wasn't a bad hike. Eventually, though, the path just disappeared and I was left to follow the creek the best I could. Even that wasn't too bad, but as I looked at the map more closely, I noticed the topo lines. There was a pretty serious elevation change between me and the falls and I'd noticed the creeks were all really low anyway (end of summer and all) so the falls probably weren' t that impressive. Plus, as I mentioned, the trail had disappeared and I had a 35 pound pack on my back. Finally, my handy GPS receiver told me I was only 0.6 miles (as the crow flies) from the easy path back to the car. Of course I am not a crow, but I did begin to look for a way out of the canyon/hollow I was hiking in. Some of the stone walls were pretty darned imposing, but I eventually found a "drainage" coming down into the canyon/hollow from the direction I wanted to go. The only problem was that there was still about a 10 foot, and VERY steep, wall to be scaled before getting up into the drainage.

I scouted severall places and I found one that wasn't too bad. It was way too steep, though, for me to climb with the pack, so I had to take it off and pitch it ahead a few feet at a time. Pitch a few feet, climb; pitch a few feet, climb, etc. I eventually got over that, but then the "thickets" began to grab at me. Honestly, it took a shade over two hours to cover those 0.6 miles. Heck, the last 300 feet took over 30 minutes. By the time I got to the trail I was exhausted -- and scratched up from head to toe. I'd fight through the briars and limbs and vines and think I had 5 or 10 feet of clear space when I'd discover the aforementioned briars, limbs, vines had grabbed my pack. It was very frustrating! I probably only walked about 4 miles Saturday, but I don't think I've ever been so tired at the end of the day.

Like I said, no more camping unless it's on well-travelled, cleared, official Forest Service trails. Every time something like this happens, I wonder how Daniel Boone or Davey Crockett or ... did it. Did they just stick to established native or game trails or was the undergrowth less of a problem due to more frequent fires or did they suffer as I did Saturday? I don't know, but I suspect they were better men than I.

Prize time

It's that time of the year. While I wasn't overwhelmed by this year's economics winner, I am pretty tickled by the literature (Orhan Pamuk) and peace (Muhammad Yunus) prizes.

Why do these awards please me? Well for starters, I'm always happy when the lit award goes to a writer I've actually read. Not only have I read some of Pamuk's stuff, but I thought it was pretty good (especially Snow) -- a rarity for me and the Nobel winner.

As for the peace prize, how cool is it that they recognized the role of economics in promoting peace and, more generally, prosperity? [I'll admit I'm biased.] As the guys at Marginal Revolution pointed out, though, it's funny that Yunus won the peace prize, yet he would never have been a serious candidate for the economics prize. Plus I was pleased the Nobel folks didn't use this as an opportunity simply to pick a vocal "America critic" as a rebuke to Bush. [Not saying he doesn't need some rebuking (in my opinion), but I'm glad they didn't use the peace prize for that purpose.]

Anyway, ... The forecast has been updated. As usual when I head to the woods, the temps have been revised downward. Now the forecast has lows in the mid- to upper-30s. Might be chilly in the woods tonight. I hope my new sleeping bag is long enough; I'd hate to be sticking out the top tonight. Brrr! Don't worry, I'll give a full report next week.

It's in the air

I can feel it. The weather is cooling off and the mornings now feel like fall. What's this mean? It means I'm going camping! Yep, the weekend forecast has highs in the upper 50s or lower 60s with lows around 40. Though I suspect the actual lows by the river in the woods will be a tad chillier, I'm planning on being in the woods late Friday afternoon. Of course I just realized this Friday is Friday the 13th. Given my tendency to lose the trail, fall in the creek, encounter wild hogs, etc. I'm wondering if I really should go camping on that day, but I think I will. I'm itching to try out my new gear (tent, sleeping bag, sleeping pad). Even if it is a disastrous trip, I probably can get a good blog post out of it. See what I'm willing to suffer for my readers!

Have a heart

Not much time today, but I thought I'd point you all over to this interesting post on organ transplants over at Marginal Revolution. It's long been acknowledged in the economics field that the prohibition on paying organ donors represents a type of price ceiling which inevitably leads to a shortage of organs available for transplant. I had not, however, thought about another "bad outcome" on the part of the transplant centers. Since the folks who perform transplants are not prohibitied from profiting, this creates a perverse incentive to establish too many providers.

Transplant centers are artificially high profit centers because they capture some of the rents generated by the shortage of organs. As a result, there are too many transplant centers in the United States and each center performs too few transplants. Practice makes perfect so when a transplant center performs only a few operations a year lives are lost.

Medicare requires that transplant centers perform 12 transplants a year to be certified but many programs are in violation of that standard with little consequence. Medicare is even thinking of reducing the standard from 12 per year to 9 in 30 months. As one specialist says "I wouldn't take my car to be serviced by someone who repaired nine cars over the past three years. Would anyone do that?"

It's easy to see how payments for organ donations might lead to an outcome straight from a Philip K. Dick novel, but there are some real costs to the current "altruistic" model and I wish policy makers would think about these a bit.

That's it for today, but read the whole thing if you're interested. It's short and it's pretty good.

Weekend notes

First off, a great big CONGRATULATIONS to my beloved St. Louis Cardinals. Just like the first round, I'm not expecting much of them in this series. As a wise philosopher once said, though, that's why they play the games, on any given day ..., etc. You know all the cliches; pick your favorite. I'm just happy the Cards won. Anything else will be gravy.

Second, I did go to Oxford for the weekend. It was homecoming weekend (though I didn't go to the game), but things didn't seem that crowded -- other than around the grove. Of course part of that might have had something to do with the fact that we were staying in someone's "weekend getaway" condo and it was within walking distance of the Oxford Square and all the downtown stuff. I'm not going to attempt to describe our lodgings. Let me just say I've seen how the other half lives -- they live much, much better than I do!

While most of you probably wouldn't be interested in the highlight of the weekend (visiting with old pal Angie and her family), there was one sort of/almost notable event. I kind of had a brush with fame when I offered to help this woman get her bicycle up on the sidewalk while holding a cup of coffee. If you know me very well it shouldn't surprise you that my attention was first drawn to the fact that she was riding a bicycle and holding a cup of coffee -- my kind of woman. Of course regular folks have trouble getting bicycles up over curbs while holding a steaming cup of joe in one hand, so I asked if she needed some help. She smiled and said, "No thank you."

Though I'd read that she was now living in Oxford, I had forgotten about it and so I didn't even realize who had spurned my offer of help. After Roger (Angie's husband) told me who it was, I wished that I had offered my help a little more strongly. The "Walter Mitty" in me quickly mapped out just how the story would have gone. Sigh, ... Oh well, I did consider stealing her bicycle (she left it unsecured on the sidewalk) and selling it on eBay. Would have shown her to turn down my assistance, huh?

Anyway, a good weekend. Now it's back to the salt mines and I'm already a ton or two behind.

WOO HOO!!!

I've been super busy this week and it's not likely to get any better (though I do get to go to Oxford this weekend), but I did want to take a minute to note the results of Game 1: Cards win, 5-1 -- wiht a Pujols home run! I don't expect them to go far, but for one day it was good to be a Cards fan. Hey, only 10 more wins to a championship!

She did what?

Hat tip to The Vol Abroad for this story from Knoxville about Brittany Gibbs' 15th birthday party. I can't summarize all the glorious excess, but note that

Her [the mother] inspiration for the event: MTV's popular and controversial show "My Super Sweet 16," which depicts wealthy teenagers planning over-the-top celebrations, especially birthdays. With most costing six figures, no expense is spared, nor any drama. Tantrums, pouting and ingratitude play important roles in the series, now into its second season.

Leslie and Brittany have been fans of the show since it began, and Leslie decided to throw her only daughter a party in the same vein. Though she wasn't willing to share the grand total cost of the party with us, suffice it to say it would meet MTV's standards.

Did you catch that? She imitated parties that cost six figures and her party would "meet MTV's standards." In fact, the mom did get MTV involved but she balked when she didn't approve of the song MTV wanted Brittany to sing.

"We realized they wanted to see a snotty little brat," Leslie says. "They wanted her to be flamboyant and over-the-top, the more attitude the better. That's not Brittany. She's pretty mellow."

Oh, she's mellow! So that explains the young boys stripped to the waist wearing a coating of glitter -- they were supposed to be "eye candy". I guess that also explains the silk invitations that cost $400 JUST TO SHIP from India and the LAP DANCE that Brittany and her mother received! Oh, want to guess her present? A $45,000 2006 BMW Z4. The girl is only 15 and doesn't even have a learner's permit yet! GEESH!

One of the Vol's commenters thinks they should have donated the money to a local charity. Well sure, but that's not my biggest beef. I'm not going to tell anyone how to spend his/her money [Well almost. I will tell you that you should NOT buy lottery tickets, but that's different.]. What I can't figure out is why the mother allowed the newspaper guy to do a story about the party. Sure, throw a six figure party for your daughter, but do you have to brag about it in the newspaper? I mean HOW did she think she'd come out of this looking like anything other than a spoiled Paris Hilton wannabe? Well, according to the mother:

"I don't care," Leslie says. "To each their own. It's about her. It's about me making this the best for her."

She continues, "Brittany's my baby, my princess. If I could do it even bigger, I would. She's so good (Brittany brought home straight A's on her first report of the school year). If she was a snot, a little brat, I wouldn't do this."

Oh, I didn't realize she made straight A's on her first report card of the year. That changes everything. Somewhere Thorstein Veblen is spinning in his grave.

Read the whole thing. I've read it a couple of times and it keeps getting better and better. Oh, the best comment on the whole thing comes from the Vol's husband. "I would never pay for my daughter to have a lap dance, by the time it would no longer be wholly immoral to do so, she could afford her own." Well said, Vol-in-Law.