C'mon NY Times

I may turn out to be VERY wrong on this issue, but I do believe the NY Times is "drinking the Kool Aid" on the Republican conspiracy to "get" former AL governor, Don Siegelman.

For those of you who don't know, Siegelman was indicted and convicted in federal court on charges that he essentially sold a seat on a state board for large contributions to his campaign to bring a lottery to AL. [Note: Guy Hunt, former Republican governor, suffered a similar fate after he left office.]

My opinion on the case was a bit divided. On the one hand, it seemed VERY clear that he did engage in some tit-for-tat fund raising. On the other hand, it seemed to me that lots of politicians were doing the same thing. In the end, I was pleased with the verdict for three reasons. First, it sent a message that politicians could be tried and convicted for shady backroom deals. Second, his entire administration seemed to be one sleazy deal after another -- from the incredibly inflated price he got for his house to the mysterious motorcycle gift he received. I hate to make such judgements, but where there's THAT much smoke, well something likely is on fire. Finally, and I realize this isn't a criminal justice argument at all, I thought he was a lousy governor. He ran on a single idea -- bringing a lottery to AL. Once the voters rejected a lottery in a state-wide referendum, well he sort of just took his ball and went home.

Anyway, ever since his conviction his supporters have been trotting out this "vast right-wing conspiracy" argument. You know who the real culprit was? It was Karl Rove! Was Karl happy that a Democrat attempting a political comeback was facing legal trouble? I'm sure. Would Karl have helped the case if he could? Probably. But what's the evidence backing the Rove conspiracy theory? Well there's a former Republican party "worker" who ties the whole thing to Karl. Problem is no one in the state Republican party claims to really know her. They say at most she was a low-level volunteer on some campaigns. No way, they say, would she have been allowed in on the inner workings of a vast national conspiracy. In a cynical way, that argument makes a lot of sense. On top of that, she keeps throwing out more and more explosive accusations. First, it was mostly things like, "I heard X say that Rove wanted to be kept up to date." Then it moved on to "I was present in a conference call where ..." type claims. Now, months after giving a sworn deposition about the whole thing, she claims Karl Rove personally asked her to try to get photographic evidence of Siegelman engaging in an extra-marital affair. I don't recall the exact details of the story, but I think she said he wanted naked pictures.

As you can probably tell, I'm skeptical of her story. I wouldn't entirely discount the idea of Rove-led conspiracy, as he seems to be a pretty intense, win at all costs, kind of guy. I do, however, have trouble believing he would dirty his hands directly in the mess by asking someone to get dirty pictures of Don. Further, I REALLY can't believe he would ask someone so marginally connected to the Republican party. I'll admit it, I'm suspicious of the woman's motives.

So how does this relate to the NY Times? Well this past weekend 60 Minutes ran a big story on the Siegelman case and the claims of a Republican set-up. [I hate all such "news" programs, but that's another post for another day.] During the week leading up to the program, there was much talk in the local media about the coming story -- "don't miss this week's episode!" and things like that. Well it just so happened that there was a "technical glitch" of some sort at the local CBS station during part of the Siegelman story. Yes it was embarrassing to them and it made them the butt of many conspiracy-related jokes, but WHNT (I believe) did all it could to atone. They replayed the segment during the 10:00 news and then again on the 6:00 news the next night. Still, some have latched onto the fact that WHNT is owned by a media company that has ties to Bush and the national Republican party.

When the right-wing crazies concoct these weird theories (e.g., the Vince Foster suicide), I don't recall the NY Times writing editorials furthering them. Yet, they chose to weigh in on this issue:

In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run
a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign:
“Sorry, Cable Trouble.” Audiences in northern Alabama might have suspected the
same tactics when WHNT-TV, the CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a
“60 minutes” segment that strongly suggested that Don Siegelman, Alabama’s
former Democratic governor, was wrongly convicted of corruption last year.
[...]
In this case, if the blackout was intentional, it may also have
been counterproductive. Rather than take attention away from allegations that
Mr. Siegelman was the victim of a partisan campaign, WHNT’s technical glitch
seems to lend support to the charge.

This is too much. First, notice the claim that the 60 Minutes segment "strongly suggested" that Siegelman was wrongly convicted. Of course the segment strongly suggested that -- it's what those programs do. They take a multi-faceted issue and then air a strongly leaning version designed to inspire righteous indignation among the viewers. That's why people watch!

Further, the Times' stance reeks of regional snobbery. Do they really suppose that this devious plot to keep the segment off the air in the HSV market would have kept anyone from knowing about the claims. The story had been in the news for days before the program aired. Plus, the HSV area is the most tech-savvy part of the state! I guarantee that many interested viewers had already watched the segment online by the time WHNT was able to rebroadcast it. Finally, as the Times admits, such a plot would not even work in today's information age. Everyone knew about the story and any attempt to block it at the local level would have been doomed to this exact fate -- generating additional attention to the story. Don't you think the "masterminds" that were able to get an innocent man convicted in federal court would have figured that out? I seriously doubt the NY Times would have even considered such a plot could have worked on a more "sophisticated" population. Rubes in AL, though, well heck, just keep them in the dark.

The whole thing makes me angry.

Balanced media?

No time today, but I did want to point y'all to something -- if you're interested.

Everyone (except the media) complains about media bias. Economists are no different, especially when it comes to news articles about proposals for new stadia (see, I can use fancy word forms) and other public works boondoggles. We think members of the media tend to be much too receptive to the "pie in the sky" claims made by proponents of the projects. [A recent study (can't find the link right now) showed this indeed to be the case. Reporters were much more likely to quote or cite proponents than opponents, etc.]

Anyway, the guys over at Sports Economist pointed me to this recent piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer about a proposal for a new soccer stadium (yes, I said SOCCER) that is supposed to revitalize a dirt-poor area of Philly. In this case, I think the reporter does a good job of presenting both sides of the neighborhood boost vs. boondoggle argument.

In fact, I couldn't decide for sure which side he believes -- though I'd like to think he'd come down on the side of all that is right and good. It reminded me of my first philosophy prof. We covered a big section on the existence of God and I never was able to tell which side he came down on. Only later did I find out he was very active in his local church parish. I thought that was pretty cool. Anyway, read the article if you have any interest in this stuff. It's not long and it does a good job (I think) of looking at both sides.

Honest admission: I realize the article may not be balanced at all. I may be falling into the "fair and balanced" trap of political news. It may be that the guy agrees with my view and that's why I think it's "balanced". Read it yourself if you want to check the impartiality.

Unintended consequences ... AGAIN

It isn't out yet, but according to a forthcoming article in the Journal of Public Economics, smoking bans increase drunken-driving fatalities:

One might expect that a ban on smoking in bars would deter some people from showing up, thereby reducing the number of people driving home drunk. But jurisdictions with smoking bans often border jurisdictions without bans, and some bars may skirt the ban, so that smokers can bypass the ban with extra driving. There is also a large overlap between the smoker and alcoholic populations, which would exacerbate the danger from extra driving. The authors estimate that smoking bans increase fatal drunken-driving accidents by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county.

Though I was against it on principle, I must say I'm enjoying the reality of Decatur's smoking ban. It really is nice to be able to go to restaurants and the one nice bar in town without reeking afterwards. Though I will admit to liking the outcome of the ban, I shuddered when I saw one of the conclusions these researchers drew from there study. Think about it; wouldn't this study might you discount the "wisdom" of future bans? I'm not saying you'd change your mind about it, but wouldn't it at least give you pause? No.

Assuming a smoking ban is still worth it, the results suggest the need for a more aggressive approach to drunken driving - or a nationwide smoking ban.

Yes, smoking bans lead to more drunken-driving fatalities, so we need MORE bans! Now in reality, that's perfectly in keeping with the results of the study -- and sort of creative to boot. The problem arises from bars in neighboring jurisdictions that are not subject to the ban. So one way to fix the problem is to outlaw "neighboring jurisdictions" and make everyone subject to the same ban. Yep, it'd work, BUT ... Want to bet whether this would have an unintended consequence as well? I know which side my money would be on.

NOTE: I just noticed an interesting contrast between the policy prescription in this study compared to that for dry counties next to wet counties. I've got a million things to do today, though, so I'll have to come back to that in a couple of days. Yes, a cliff hanger. I'm sure you can't wait to read my thoughts. Right?

Juicing

Okay it looks like I'm finally going to have to talk about the steroids scandal in my favorite sport. Actually, I'm only going to talk about the steroids issue briefly. But I am going to have my say about the most noted player to be implicated so far: Roger Clemens.

In case you've been pulling a Rip Van Winkle for the past couple of months, Roger the Rocket has been accused of being a juicer. Anecdotal evidence does suggest something suspicious. Roger was a great pitcher, but, as players do, he seemed to slip a little as he aged. Then he amazingly returned to his earlier (if not better) form, won a bunch of Cy Youngs, and became the darling of MLB. On the other hand, Clemens has been ADAMANT in his denials -- more so than you'd think he would be if there were a smoking gun out there -- and the only public evidence so far has been the word of his accuser, his former personal trainer.

Here's an update as of where things stand right now.

The big news in the update is that the former trainer now claims he has a bunch of syringes with traces of banned substances and Clemens' blood on them. One does wonder why someone would keep stuff like that for 7 years, but due to today's CSI culture, that seems like pretty good evidence -- if it's true.

Roger, the former trainer, and other folks are supposed to testify before Congress next week, but yesterday the Rocket and his team of lawyers and a PR guy went office hopping around Congress, just to show what a great guy he really is I guess. Evidently I'm not the only one who wondered just what he was doing "lobbying" on Capitol Hill:

"It's highly unusual, and that's why I think one would try to determine the rationale for it. What is he trying to accomplish?" Davis [D-IL] said in an interview with The Associated Press before Clemens arrived. "I am willing to hear him out and hear what he has to say."

Regardless, that's not what I want to talk about. No I want to talk about Roger's press conference he held at the end of the day. Well I say Roger's press conference, but he said almost nothing. No, it was just a chance for his lawyers to take turns besmirching McNamee (the former trainer). I had the TV on ESPN and I happened to catch a few minutes of the spectacle. It was sickening.

The "good old boy" lawyer from Houston stood there and fulfilled every slimy lawyer cliche in the book. He called McNamee a "not well" person, accused him of being "out to get" Roger, and brought up his connection to a past allegation of date rape. Charges were never filed, but the good old boy said the police sure thought there was a crime. He even painted McNamee as a whining sycophant who begged Clemens for some Springsteen concert tickets one time. The lawyer said something like, I guess if Roger had been able to get those tickets for him we might not even be standing here today. Now "unbiased" stories I've read have made me think McNamee might not win any citizen of the year awards, but this just seemed like overkill.

In fact, the more I watched, the more sympathy I felt FOR MCNAMEE. During it all, Roger just stood in the background, watching. Why, I wondered, would he allow this blatant smear campaign from his own people? Doesn't he realize it's going to create more sympathy for the guy? Then I remembered -- Roger is a bully. And bullies don't think that way. You cross me, I'll run you down. There's no strategy, just the law of the jungle.

I used to be a big Clemens fan, but he has really worn on me the past several years. I'm just fed up with his annual retirement dance. He "retires" but then, come mid-season, he comes out of retirement to "save" the chosen team. This past year's circus at Yankee Stadium was the last straw for me. I know the power of the spotlight has to be a mighty pull, especially for someone with the competitive juices of a pro athlete, but I'm tired of it all. Retire Roger. Go back to Texas with your reputation as one of the all-time greatest pitchers intact.

Now, of course, that is not possible. Roger HAS to fight this charge. I think, though, his defense is about to undergo a subtle change. I could already see signs of it in the press conference yesterday. I predict soon it's going to be that he never KNOWINGLY took anything. If McNamee injected him with banned substances, it was without Clemens' knowledge. I have no proof; it's just a feeling I got from listening to the good old boy lawyer yesterday.

The worst part is, I think it's much ado about (almost) nothing. Yes, the whole thing is a disgrace for MLB. The owners and the players' union should be ashamed that they allowed this to happen. That's the key thing, though; it did happen. For the past several years I believe illegal performance enhancers have run rampant in MLB. I suspect a great many players have used "something unnatural" to help them out. Given that, I don't see any way to downgrade one player's performance during the period. If you were the dominant hitter or pitcher during the steroid era, then you're just as deserving of acclaim as if you'd dominated during the dead ball era, the amphetamine era, or any other baseball era. It does mean you can't compare raw numbers from today's players with those of other eras, but that's true about other times as well. Baseball needs to 'fess up and promise to do better (which they've done), the talking heads need to tsk tsk (which they've done), and Congress needs to butt out (which they won't do).

Finally, all those Hall of Fame voters need to accept the reality of the steroid era (and hope it's on the way out). It will be harder for them to evaluate players, given that the old "automatic" numbers like 500 home runs don't mean so much anymore, but there's a plethora of tools to help them do that. When their times come, vote in Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds on the first ballot. They are Hall of Fame players who dominated the game the way very few ever have. If you truly believed they were the only players using "juice", I could see an argument for keeping them out, but c'mon! We all know that's not true.

So keep working to get the juice out of the game, but baseball has to get past this witch hunt mentality about who used and who didn't. Oh and Roger -- shut up and retire for good!

The road to Shangri La

As you should know, I'm fond of playing in the woods. As you also should know, the Sipsey Wilderness Area (contained in the Bankhead National Forest) is my favorite place to play. Well this past weekend the weather was so nice that I felt I had to get out in the woods. I toyed with the idea of a camping trip, but I didn't want to go to the hassle for just one night. So I settled on just going to the Sipsey on Saturday for an extended day hike.

Actually that's not quite true. I didn't go to the Sipsey. Instead I chose to explore parts of the Bankhead Forest outside the actual Sipsey Wilderness Area. [That's splitting hairs, but I want to be accurate in case anyone tries to visit the places I'm going to describe.] Specifically I decided to try to locate Shangri La Falls. I've only seen one printed reference to Shangri La and it doesn't appear on any official map. Through I friend-of-a-friend, though, I received a hand-drawn map showing me the purported location. I didn't have great faith I would find the area, but I figured I'd give it a shot. Plus, I had a couple of "backup" locations in mind in case I had to scrub my original mission.

In the end, that wasn't necessary. Shangri La was right where it was supposed to be -- and it wasn't even that hard to get to. I've spent a lot of time in the Sipsey/Bankhead and I think this area may be the most beautiful I've seen. Seriously. Unlike my unfortuate experience with Lower Caney Falls a couple of years ago, I was able to climb down into the "canyon" and walk along and around the falls for some distance. Even without the falls, the canyon would have been breathtaking. It looked like something out of a sci-fi "in the days of dinosaurs" flick. The vegetation, the weird rock formations, the eerie green water, ... All of it just looked very "other worldy".

So anyway, all that would have made the trip worthwhile. After climbing out of the canyon, though, I explored up the creek and found the ruins of a grist mill right next to what now may be my very favorite Sipsey/Bankhead waterfall. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get down into the canyon go get better views of the fall and the grist mill. I plan to go back when I have more time (it was kind of late in the day by then), and maybe someone with me, and see if I can find a way down to get a better look. The best part of all: I was out there for more than 6 hours and I didn't see another person.

Oh I also verified that wild turkeys do indeed fly! And their flapping wings make a tremendous amount of noise. More on that later. For now I'm just going to post some pix. They are: Shangri La Falls, the weird canyon, the falls at the grist mill, and the ruins of the mill. Gotta' run.

Am I a Luddite?

When it comes to technology, I'm not sure where I fit. In general I'd say I'm certainly a late adopter. For instance, 6 months ago I had never owned a cell phone and I still do not have an iPod or any type of MP3 player. Further, though I know I'll eventually own one, I have absolutely no (current) interest in a fancy plasma/LCD TV set.

I maintain that it's not a true Luddite tendency in me; rather it's that most new tech gadgets just don't excite me enough to part with my hard earned specie. [Yes, I have been described as "cheap" a time or two.] On the other hand, I've had a GPS receiver and a DVR for years because I immediately saw the inherent joy those devices would bring me. And once I became convinced that getting a cell phone and dropping the land line would simplify my life, it only took me about 3 months to get one. Hey, I never said I acted immediately!

The thing I dreaded most about getting a cell phone was that I would no longer have my "horribly out of touch with modern life" example to use in class when explaining the rationing function of markets: making sure products/services go to those who value them the most. I KNEW I was out of touch on the cell phone thing, but just the other day I found out that I'm still incredibly out of touch with another modern-day "necessity": high speed internet service.

We were talking about that incredibly stupid (in my opinion) website that lets you track your pizza online. Why, pray tell, would anyone need to know exactly where his pizza is at any particular moment? It doesn't get the pizza there any faster, so why bother? My students, on the other hand, seemed to think it was a great idea. When I brought up the "why bother?" objection they rejected that out of hand -- it's NOT a bother. That's when I told them I didn't even HAVE internet service at home. They were STUNNED! How could I NOT have high speed internet at home?

Now I know many people have that service now, but I didn't realize just how accepted it has become. My view is that I'm at the computer for large parts of most every day; why WOULD I want to take that home with me? Strangely enough, it made me feel better that I'm still offbeat.

Anyway, all this came back to me when I read a column (by a college educator) in the Washington Post. Jeanne Marie Laskas broke a shoelace and her students decided she needed a new pair of boots. When she pointed out there was no reason to get rid of a pair of shoes just because a lace broke, they then got into a debate over repairing versus replacing items. She again pointed out there was no repair to be made -- she simply needed to get a new pair of laces. Admittedly, she was a little lost when it came to just how to do that, but once she solved the problem she was sort of pleased with the simplicity of the outcome:

When I found the shoelaces, it felt like a victory. They were on sale for 48 cents. They were brown, 45 in/114 cm, Fashion Laces, Women's Low Cut 5 - 6 Pair Eyelets. Nothing more on the packaging. No promises of better tying power or advanced microfiber technology, nothing organic, nothing green, no information about animal testing associated with or without the making of the laces, no Web site listed for further lace information.

Just: 48 cents. A pair of laces. End of story.

I think she'd "get" me.