8:06 pm - Evening settles over the San Rafael Swell 2010.06.11
I flit between melancholy, elation, and despondency. Same days I'm seized with passion, with purpose. I run. I read. I connect and engage. Live fully and richly. And some days ... I withdraw. I evade my responsibilities. I avoid my inbox. I turn off my phone. And drink beer and watch shitty television. And write run on sentences.
Hello, blog. It's been a while.
I'm neurotic, at some level. Of course, we all are. But, of late, I worry more about my mental health. Not the sort of thing I should be publishing publicly on my blog, of course.
I believe I have a bright mind. And, when I apply myself, I create things I'm proud of. Nothing likely to change the world, but at least things tangible and--sometimes, even--of quality. I think I could do a lot, if I applied myself. But I've consistently failed at that. At consistency.
I'm homeless. By choice, of course. I'm not homeless--I live on the 83% of Utah that's publicly owned. By executives, prodigies, and derelicts, alike. Price (UT) isn't my home. But right now it's my hub.
At the heart of it are menacing dreams of grandeur. Or are they? Some days ... self delusion. But some days ... dreams that seem completely attainable.
Resignation. To a life of obscurity. To quiet desperation (that hackneyed phrase). I have some Henry David Thoreau. That I've been meaning to read. But instead I watch Modern Family to fill that void. The void of things I should be doing. That rushing void of missing something completely withing reach, because you've stumbled. Stupidly. Clumsily. It's funny--that you can fall so far in so little space. Some days.
Utah is amazing. It's its weirdness that keeps it good--at least that was the conclusion. Around a campfire in the middle of no-where, a few nights ago. New acquaintances, happening to be in the same middle of no-where. The only. A campground not on the maps. A campground where gathering wood is prohibited, and filled with drift wood. The visitors there being sufficiently respectful (or sufficiently few) not to crush the twenty feet of cryptobiotic soils between fire pit and drift wood. How unexpected. And wonderful. Derelict drift wood, in a campground overlooking Cathedral Valley.
From my journal, a few nights ago:
Some pictures from Nine Mile Canyon:
Hello, blog. It's been a while.
I'm neurotic, at some level. Of course, we all are. But, of late, I worry more about my mental health. Not the sort of thing I should be publishing publicly on my blog, of course.
I believe I have a bright mind. And, when I apply myself, I create things I'm proud of. Nothing likely to change the world, but at least things tangible and--sometimes, even--of quality. I think I could do a lot, if I applied myself. But I've consistently failed at that. At consistency.
I'm homeless. By choice, of course. I'm not homeless--I live on the 83% of Utah that's publicly owned. By executives, prodigies, and derelicts, alike. Price (UT) isn't my home. But right now it's my hub.
At the heart of it are menacing dreams of grandeur. Or are they? Some days ... self delusion. But some days ... dreams that seem completely attainable.
Resignation. To a life of obscurity. To quiet desperation (that hackneyed phrase). I have some Henry David Thoreau. That I've been meaning to read. But instead I watch Modern Family to fill that void. The void of things I should be doing. That rushing void of missing something completely withing reach, because you've stumbled. Stupidly. Clumsily. It's funny--that you can fall so far in so little space. Some days.
Utah is amazing. It's its weirdness that keeps it good--at least that was the conclusion. Around a campfire in the middle of no-where, a few nights ago. New acquaintances, happening to be in the same middle of no-where. The only. A campground not on the maps. A campground where gathering wood is prohibited, and filled with drift wood. The visitors there being sufficiently respectful (or sufficiently few) not to crush the twenty feet of cryptobiotic soils between fire pit and drift wood. How unexpected. And wonderful. Derelict drift wood, in a campground overlooking Cathedral Valley.
From my journal, a few nights ago:
I don't think we've evolved to ponder the meaning of life. We've evolved to struggle. And in the absence of struggle ... we're left with too much time to ponder. Without struggle, we've lost our raison d'etre We've evolved more intelligence than we need. Evolution-wise, we've succeeded. We've won. We all survive now. Our species has succeeded and filled the earth. Been fruitful and multiplied.
And now we're left with only questions. With an existential need for something as real and as compelling as struggling for existence, for survival.
There is no longer a need to be fit to survive.
Some pictures from Nine Mile Canyon:
 |
| Nine Mile Canyon |
[View Comments - 1] [Post Comment] [link] [top]
7:13 pm - Heisman v. Goldwater: Athletic Success and Academic Recruitment 2010.05.03
Abstract:
Download the full paper here: Mark_Egge-2010-Heisman_v_Goldwater.pdf.
Assuming intercollegiate athletic success leads to increased university applications, is this effect similar between research universities and non-research universities? To find out, 2001 through 2009 applicant statistics for 115 universities with NCAA Division 1-A football teams are analyzed. Athletic success at non-research institutions is found to increase subsequent applications by nearly 10%. Athletic success at research institutions, by contrast, produces a negative, non-significant effect.
Download the full paper here: Mark_Egge-2010-Heisman_v_Goldwater.pdf.
[View Comments - 0] [Post Comment] [link] [top]
3:03 pm - the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) 2010.03.20
I read and and (generally) enjoy www.NewWest.net--an online magazine covering news relevant to the Bozeman community as well as outdoor living in the Rocky Mountain West.
I've been annoyed of late, however, by the repeated tirades of one particular NewWest.net author, Bill Scheider, against the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA).
Enacted under the Bush administration in 2004, the FLREA's most significant effect was to increase user fees for public lands and pave the way for the privatization of campgrounds in our national parks. Now, I'm no fan of fees (who is?), but his plaintive whining lacks any reasonable ground in economic theory. I've exceeded my tolerance threshold. So, to "shut him up"--ha! No--just to vent my frustration--I've wasted an hour of my time trying to bring some reason to the discussion. I'm sure I've failed, but owing to the effort involved, I've re-posted my response here.
The particularly objectionable article that I responded to: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/obama_retains_bush_legal_defense_of_public_land_recreation_fees
The entire list of Schneider's rants on the subject: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/recreation_fee_chronology
(And, yes, I'm aware of the comparisons to be drawn between arguing on the internet running in the Special Olympics. I require no reminder.)
---
(Good heavens. I'm going to break a personal rule, here, and argue on the internet.)
Let's be clear: are President Obama's environmental policies everything that left-ist environmentalists had "hoped" for? No. Does that mean he hates national forests? No. The suggestion that Mr. Obama's environmental policies have so far been the same as Mr. Bushs' is hyperbolic, at best. Ken Salazar is no Edward Abbey, true--but also no Gale Norton.
To read Mr. Schneider's repeated polemics against the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), you'd think the act a bald-faced and pernicious attack on Americans' access to public lands.
It's not. Rather, the FLREA is simply a manifestation of the free-market/capitalist belief that user fees best allocate scarce resources between competing users. Nothing more, nothing less.
The grounds for reasonable arguement, here, is over the term "best". A free market environmentalist believes "best" to mean "most efficient". Mr. Schneider, it seems, believes "best allocation" to mean "most egalitarian". Disagreement with the free market allocation scheme naturally follows.
The economics of the matter is clear: assuming 1) sufficient crowding to reduce ALL USERS' enjoyment of a given recreation area / public land (owing to dislike of forests teeming with mall-like masses, or simply because crowds imply more impact, litter, overflowing parking lots, etc.); and 2) the availability of good (less crowded) substitutes (there's plenty of public lands around the Mount Lemmon area), THEN charging a user fee will actually increase the total amount of utility (roughly: enjoyment) users get from a fee-affected area.
The short explanation is: user fees mean fewer users, but more enjoyment for those fewer users. Let me try to explain:
Let's use Mount Lemmon (or, specifically the Sky Island National Scenic Byway) as an example. Given Mount Lemmon's relative proximity to Tucson, let's say that, on a given weekend, recreators will flock to Mount Lemmon up until the point that Mount Lemmon is so crowded that recreators are indifferent between going to Mount Lemmon and, let's say, nearby Catalina State Park (which, we assume, can accommodate many users and is not threatened by overcrowding).
Now, suppose the introduction of a High Impact Recreation Area (HIRA) user fee of, say, $20 for Mount Lemmon. Those who were previously indifferent between a crowded Mount Lemmon and an uncrowded Catalina State Park now go to Catalina. Those who get $20 worth of enjoyment from a less-crowded Mount Lemmon will now be indifferent between Mount Lemmon and Catalina.
Here's the difference, though. Those who get greater than $20 worth of enjoyment from a less crowded Mount Lemmon than Catalina State Park are now much better off. If one was previously indifferent between a free but crowded Mount Lemmon and Catalina State Park, but gets $30 worth of enjoyment from hiking in a less crowded Mount Lemmon, this person gets $10 worth of pleasure from the Mount Lemmon area that, if not for the fee, nobody would get in the absence of the fee.
In short, the user fee allocates a scare recreation area from those who value it less to those who value it more. When crowded, nobody gets much enjoyment (relative to other alternatives) from the area. When less crowded, at least a few people get considerable enjoyment.
(I'm sorry if I've explained this poorly--the concept certainly deserves better explanation.)
My point is simply this: there's nothing pernicious about the FLREA. The lawmakers who drafted and voted for the FLREA, I'll wager, love our public lands and resources as much as any who argue against recreational area taxes. They just happen to hold the view that user fees are the best (i.e. "most efficient") way to preserve and ensure access to our national treasures.
For my part, I love our national forests and parks. The only reason I've felt outrage about the increased fees for, say, privatized campgrounds in our national parks, is that I grew up paying $6, and now I have to pay $18. But if I'd grown up with the expectation that staying in an improved campground with such amenities as a fire-pit, clean, painted table, toilet, water, etc. cost $18, I'd have no quibbles. Better a campground priced at marginal cost than no campground at all.
(Let the flaming begin...)
I've been annoyed of late, however, by the repeated tirades of one particular NewWest.net author, Bill Scheider, against the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA).
Enacted under the Bush administration in 2004, the FLREA's most significant effect was to increase user fees for public lands and pave the way for the privatization of campgrounds in our national parks. Now, I'm no fan of fees (who is?), but his plaintive whining lacks any reasonable ground in economic theory. I've exceeded my tolerance threshold. So, to "shut him up"--ha! No--just to vent my frustration--I've wasted an hour of my time trying to bring some reason to the discussion. I'm sure I've failed, but owing to the effort involved, I've re-posted my response here.
The particularly objectionable article that I responded to: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/obama_retains_bush_legal_defense_of_public_land_recreation_fees
The entire list of Schneider's rants on the subject: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/recreation_fee_chronology
(And, yes, I'm aware of the comparisons to be drawn between arguing on the internet running in the Special Olympics. I require no reminder.)
---
(Good heavens. I'm going to break a personal rule, here, and argue on the internet.)
Let's be clear: are President Obama's environmental policies everything that left-ist environmentalists had "hoped" for? No. Does that mean he hates national forests? No. The suggestion that Mr. Obama's environmental policies have so far been the same as Mr. Bushs' is hyperbolic, at best. Ken Salazar is no Edward Abbey, true--but also no Gale Norton.
To read Mr. Schneider's repeated polemics against the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), you'd think the act a bald-faced and pernicious attack on Americans' access to public lands.
It's not. Rather, the FLREA is simply a manifestation of the free-market/capitalist belief that user fees best allocate scarce resources between competing users. Nothing more, nothing less.
The grounds for reasonable arguement, here, is over the term "best". A free market environmentalist believes "best" to mean "most efficient". Mr. Schneider, it seems, believes "best allocation" to mean "most egalitarian". Disagreement with the free market allocation scheme naturally follows.
The economics of the matter is clear: assuming 1) sufficient crowding to reduce ALL USERS' enjoyment of a given recreation area / public land (owing to dislike of forests teeming with mall-like masses, or simply because crowds imply more impact, litter, overflowing parking lots, etc.); and 2) the availability of good (less crowded) substitutes (there's plenty of public lands around the Mount Lemmon area), THEN charging a user fee will actually increase the total amount of utility (roughly: enjoyment) users get from a fee-affected area.
The short explanation is: user fees mean fewer users, but more enjoyment for those fewer users. Let me try to explain:
Let's use Mount Lemmon (or, specifically the Sky Island National Scenic Byway) as an example. Given Mount Lemmon's relative proximity to Tucson, let's say that, on a given weekend, recreators will flock to Mount Lemmon up until the point that Mount Lemmon is so crowded that recreators are indifferent between going to Mount Lemmon and, let's say, nearby Catalina State Park (which, we assume, can accommodate many users and is not threatened by overcrowding).
Now, suppose the introduction of a High Impact Recreation Area (HIRA) user fee of, say, $20 for Mount Lemmon. Those who were previously indifferent between a crowded Mount Lemmon and an uncrowded Catalina State Park now go to Catalina. Those who get $20 worth of enjoyment from a less-crowded Mount Lemmon will now be indifferent between Mount Lemmon and Catalina.
Here's the difference, though. Those who get greater than $20 worth of enjoyment from a less crowded Mount Lemmon than Catalina State Park are now much better off. If one was previously indifferent between a free but crowded Mount Lemmon and Catalina State Park, but gets $30 worth of enjoyment from hiking in a less crowded Mount Lemmon, this person gets $10 worth of pleasure from the Mount Lemmon area that, if not for the fee, nobody would get in the absence of the fee.
In short, the user fee allocates a scare recreation area from those who value it less to those who value it more. When crowded, nobody gets much enjoyment (relative to other alternatives) from the area. When less crowded, at least a few people get considerable enjoyment.
(I'm sorry if I've explained this poorly--the concept certainly deserves better explanation.)
My point is simply this: there's nothing pernicious about the FLREA. The lawmakers who drafted and voted for the FLREA, I'll wager, love our public lands and resources as much as any who argue against recreational area taxes. They just happen to hold the view that user fees are the best (i.e. "most efficient") way to preserve and ensure access to our national treasures.
For my part, I love our national forests and parks. The only reason I've felt outrage about the increased fees for, say, privatized campgrounds in our national parks, is that I grew up paying $6, and now I have to pay $18. But if I'd grown up with the expectation that staying in an improved campground with such amenities as a fire-pit, clean, painted table, toilet, water, etc. cost $18, I'd have no quibbles. Better a campground priced at marginal cost than no campground at all.
(Let the flaming begin...)
[View Comments - 1] [Post Comment] [link] [top]
| Teebs85 Apr 11th 9:30am |
tl;drOMG DID U NO TEH GERMANZ IMPLEMENTED SUMTING LIEK FLREA!? < Insert comparison invoking Godwin's Law here >. WAKE UP SHEEPLE! |
I'm headed in for back surgery next week (sometime--exact date TBD).
(I herniated a disc at L5/S1 while working in the Montana Conservation Corps during the summer of 2008. After ~6 months and two epidural steroid injections, I gained 95% pain relief. I had almost 12 months as a normal (well, relative to me, anyway) healthy, active 22/23 year-old, before a recurrence of pain in January 2010.)
Two additional injections have provided limited relief.
Dr. Speth will be performing an L5/S1 microdiscetomy. Should be a slam dunk: > 95% chance of success without any complications.
I'm a little scared--there's a very minute chance of paralysis or death. But I'm also a little excited. Heaven knows, I'm ready to be pain-free again. I'm ready to touch my toes again. Ready to sit comfortably again. Ready to be without any reasonable excuse to be cranky, lazy, flabby, reclusive.
(I herniated a disc at L5/S1 while working in the Montana Conservation Corps during the summer of 2008. After ~6 months and two epidural steroid injections, I gained 95% pain relief. I had almost 12 months as a normal (well, relative to me, anyway) healthy, active 22/23 year-old, before a recurrence of pain in January 2010.)
Two additional injections have provided limited relief.
Dr. Speth will be performing an L5/S1 microdiscetomy. Should be a slam dunk: > 95% chance of success without any complications.
I'm a little scared--there's a very minute chance of paralysis or death. But I'm also a little excited. Heaven knows, I'm ready to be pain-free again. I'm ready to touch my toes again. Ready to sit comfortably again. Ready to be without any reasonable excuse to be cranky, lazy, flabby, reclusive.
[View Comments - 0] [Post Comment] [link] [top]
