But it's not that funny when the low-information, high-chatter reader decides to take it as gospel.
I'm referring to yesterday's ChronBlog story, written by former Village Voice Houston blogger Craig Hlavaty, detailing the so-called "high" fares at IAH. The problem with this report from the DoT is that it doesn't take several really, really important factors into consideration.
For one, this report doesn't weight for destination. In other words, many flights out of Las Vegas are booked to California etc. Short-haul flights that are lower in price. IAH, by contrast, has a much higher ratio of International/Domestic departures than does LAS. You can't just "leave that out" and hope no-one notices. As an example of this, note the following:
Using the travel-search site ITA Matrix I searched identical trips to London Heathrow, departing March 12th 2014 (a Wednesday) returning March 19th, 2014 (also a Wednesday) the results were as follows:
LAS: The cheapest flight option was on British Airways, the total fare was $1,101. United (the bane of the chron.commenters) matched BA with the same fare. This fare was also matched by Air Canada.
IAH: The cheapest flight option was on Turkish Airways, the total fare was $907. United still came in lower than the fare for Las Vegas at $1,037. This latter fare was matched by American, Lufthansa, Finnair, Iberia and several others.
That fare is readily searchable, so you should have no problem replicating the results if you don't believe me.
Looking at it domestically, IAH still comes out ahead. When searching a flight to New York, the following results are found:
(Same dates, from LAS & IAH to either JFK or EWR.)
LAS: The cheapest flight option was $378 offered by Jet Blue. American offered the next cheapest, single airline fare* at $395 and Delta offered an option for $407.
IAH: The cheapest flight option was $287 offered by American. Delta and American both offered single airline fares for $297 and United weighed in at $316 which is high for the IAH market but still well below the LAS Option.
To be fair, where Las Vegas excels is on flights to the West Coast:
(Flight from LAS & IAH to LAX, same dates)
LAS: The cheapest option is $80 on Spirit (More on that later) with the lowest realistic option being the $129 fare offered by American.
IAH: The cheapest option is $280 on Frontier, with United logging in at $336
Still, it could be argued that may of these domestic fares are driven by geography, and that would make total sense. When you factor in that a LOT of the workers/residents in Vegas come from the West Coast it's easy to see why fares from there have such a low average price. Then there's the Spirit factor to consider. Spirit's base fares are very low, however, they also charge for carryon bags, have fees for choosing your own seat and a host of other fares that you won't find on many other airlines. I would argue that the $80 fare is more realistically going to land somewhere in the $150-$200 range when all expected fees are taken into consideration.
Finally, fare class. This DoT survey does not take it into consideration and that's a mistake. It's impossible to gauge exactly how much of an impact the purchase of a Business Class or First Class seat has on average fares but, in a business-travel heavy City like Houston it will at least be material. Unless you have those numbers, comparisons of destinations etc. the DoT report is pretty much useless and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, it’s given attention, too much attention. Part of this is because J-school grads writing on travel today don't seem to be especially skilled at actually traveling. They struggle through security, describe airports as "chaos" and seem to be befuddled by basic travel principles. In other words, they're projecting their frustrations and ignorance onto the general public who, because it's the only narrative in town, are lapping it up. It's much the same as the Faux outrage that's brewing over TIME not including any female chefs in their recent Top 10 list. This has been, at various times, held up by the media as proof our society "still has a long way to go" when it comes to gender issues. Feminists have declared the entire eating population to be a bunch of misogynistic carnivores (not thinly veiled one would imagine) who are incapable of giving women their just desserts.
I would disagree with all of this. In my view when the media makes a gaffe it's not the fault of society, but the fault of the media itself. Just because a novice travel writer takes issue with an air travel industry they obviously don't understand, doesn't mean that we're getting screwed or are falling into the same traps as they. Additionally, just because one publication can't find a female chef it deems worthy enough to put in a Top 10 list, doesn't mean that society shares the same issues. I've never heard anyone say "Wow, this fish is good but it'd be better if cooked by someone with male reproductive organs" and I doubt neither have you. The fact is, it doesn't matter who cooks the food as long as it tastes good. And it doesn't mean much that LAS has a lower average fare than IAH because, in most instances, IAH can get you to your destination cheaper.
If you dislike United because of the silly notion that they "stole Continental from Houston" then there's nothing I can do to change your mind. If you've bought the lie hook, line & sinker then just continue to be strung along by the media and continue being angry. What's concerning to those of us who have some understanding of the travel business, is the continuing de-emphasis of IAH by United from a "main hub" to just "a hub". This is going to have profound effects on both the Houston economy and how we travel in the future. When the City decided to break a long-term agreement with IAH and, by extension, United just because Mayor Parker had her knickers in a knot there was never any discussion of the long-term consequences and what this could mean for the City. Yes, United handled it incorrectly by cutting unprofitable routes (that were on the cutting board already) and then blaming the HOU deal. It made them look petty and ridiculous. I'm not trying to defend them there. And the fact is there are plenty of reasons to not be a fan of United. It has become a very unreliable airline which has made many changes of late designed to cull out a large portion of its passenger base because they were (and continue to be) unprofitable. That said, you have to respect business decisions made with profitability in mind. This is, after all, a going concern.
Like many, I would love for airfare to be cheaper. Most of us would like most of everything to be cheaper. But that's not the way the world works. United, American, Delta and even Southwest have to turn a profit. The days of being a "loss leader" but making it up in volume are long gone. Loyalty programs, designed to ensure repeat travel, are going the way of the Dodo as well. Sure, they'll still be around in some fashion but the days of qualifying at a higher tier for a song and then scoring upgrades to exotic locales are in the past. Air travel, for better or worse, has been re-imagined as a white good, with no emotional attachment to ensure loyalty the future state is one of free agents price shopping with little else under consideration. In Houston, this means that (if you're honest) you're still going to use United for a bulk of domestic travel because of their routing network, but that you now have options, especially Internationally that are going to suddenly be in play. IAH will no longer be the "main hub" for United but it will still be "a hub" of importance so it's not going to be world ending, but it is going to be much worse having two CLE type hubs in Houston instead of one EWR. That's the big travel story that the media should be telling, not some silly average fare price story that's not even relevant to how you travel.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
College Football Predictions (Week 12)
Some odd lines this week, which either means Vegas thinks the public is out of line or they think they know something everyone else doesn't.
Without further ado......
1. Washington @ University of California Los Angeles(-2.5) - WU 13 UCLA 35 - On the road, away from their new digs, the Huskies are not the same team. UCLA has some tough losses, but they're talented and I think Hundley is getting better and better.
2. Cincinatti @ Rutgers(Even) - Ciny 42 RU 14 - Rutgers is falling apart right now. Do people not remember what UH did to them at home?
3. Iowa State @ Oklahoma(-24.5) - ISU 14 OU 24 - No offense to my OU fan friends but, given the state of this offense, how can you even predict OU to score more than 24 points in any game right now? Much less cover by 24.5? No way.
4. Georgia @ Auburn(-4) - UGA 17 Aub 42 - Lost in all of the injury talk surrounding Georgia is this fact: The Bulldog's defense has not been stellar this year. This is not the same Chizik coached confused Tiger mess from last year.
5. Miami(-3) @ Duke - The U 24 Duke 27 - There's no way I'd bet this game, but I'm going to go ahead and call the upset for the Dukies because it's basketball season, and this team deserves to be paid attention to after years of struggle. Cutcliffe for coach of the year.
6. Oklahoma State University(-3) @ University of Texas-Austin - OSU 34 UT-Austin 17 - I tried to give the fighting Mack's a chance, but after that last showing against West Virginia? OSU cruises.
7. Texas Tech @ Baylor(-27) - TTech 17 Baylor 52 - 27 feels about right in this game. Tech is falling apart and Art Briles' team is firing on all cylinders.
8. Stanford(-3.5) @ USC - Stan 27 USC 13 - USC is playing better of late, but Stanford is (by far) the best team in a very good PAC12
9. Houston @ Louisville(-15.5) - UH 42 Loserville 35 - I about dropped my coffee when I saw this line open up at 17.5 for Loserville. Did the odds makers not watch both these teams play common opponents? I think Houston wins here and their turnover happy defense is going to give Bridgewater fits.
And finally.......
Michigan @ Northwestern(-3) - Blue 13 NW 35 - A better line here would be O/U for Michigan's rushing yards, which I would set at 20. Sadly, given the sorry state of the team right now I'd have to take the under. I'm not sure what's happened, but Hoke & Co had better fix it quick or Michigan could be looking at a coaching change, again. C'mon Blue, get it together.
I need a big week here to have a shot at finishing the season better than .500 ATS. A couple of these upsets go my way and that could happen. Good luck.
Without further ado......
1. Washington @ University of California Los Angeles(-2.5) - WU 13 UCLA 35 - On the road, away from their new digs, the Huskies are not the same team. UCLA has some tough losses, but they're talented and I think Hundley is getting better and better.
2. Cincinatti @ Rutgers(Even) - Ciny 42 RU 14 - Rutgers is falling apart right now. Do people not remember what UH did to them at home?
3. Iowa State @ Oklahoma(-24.5) - ISU 14 OU 24 - No offense to my OU fan friends but, given the state of this offense, how can you even predict OU to score more than 24 points in any game right now? Much less cover by 24.5? No way.
4. Georgia @ Auburn(-4) - UGA 17 Aub 42 - Lost in all of the injury talk surrounding Georgia is this fact: The Bulldog's defense has not been stellar this year. This is not the same Chizik coached confused Tiger mess from last year.
5. Miami(-3) @ Duke - The U 24 Duke 27 - There's no way I'd bet this game, but I'm going to go ahead and call the upset for the Dukies because it's basketball season, and this team deserves to be paid attention to after years of struggle. Cutcliffe for coach of the year.
6. Oklahoma State University(-3) @ University of Texas-Austin - OSU 34 UT-Austin 17 - I tried to give the fighting Mack's a chance, but after that last showing against West Virginia? OSU cruises.
7. Texas Tech @ Baylor(-27) - TTech 17 Baylor 52 - 27 feels about right in this game. Tech is falling apart and Art Briles' team is firing on all cylinders.
8. Stanford(-3.5) @ USC - Stan 27 USC 13 - USC is playing better of late, but Stanford is (by far) the best team in a very good PAC12
9. Houston @ Louisville(-15.5) - UH 42 Loserville 35 - I about dropped my coffee when I saw this line open up at 17.5 for Loserville. Did the odds makers not watch both these teams play common opponents? I think Houston wins here and their turnover happy defense is going to give Bridgewater fits.
And finally.......
Michigan @ Northwestern(-3) - Blue 13 NW 35 - A better line here would be O/U for Michigan's rushing yards, which I would set at 20. Sadly, given the sorry state of the team right now I'd have to take the under. I'm not sure what's happened, but Hoke & Co had better fix it quick or Michigan could be looking at a coaching change, again. C'mon Blue, get it together.
I need a big week here to have a shot at finishing the season better than .500 ATS. A couple of these upsets go my way and that could happen. Good luck.
Monday, November 11, 2013
College Football Week 11 (Results) "Meh"
At some point, my feeling that I have a handle on this season is going to pay off. Straight up I'm fine, clocking in at a blah 6-4 this week and 70-29 for the season. That's not too bad. Against the spread however I had a blah week at 5-5 which leaves me at 45-52-1 for the season. Considering the minimal time and effort I put into this, that's not bad, but I'd sure like to have a winning week before the year ends. Maybe these last few weeks and bowl season can pull me out of the negative?
Without further ado: Let's take a look at the week that was......
1. 'Bama. The LSU game was much closer than the 38-17 score might indicate. The fact is LSU is a deeply flawed team under Coach Miles. But this year's Bama team is flawed as well, especially on defense. Good passing teams give the Tide fits. FSU is a good passing team, with athleticism and a good defense. I don't think the Seminoles are likely to beat Alabama, but I think they might at least have a chance should they make it to the B(C)S Title Game.
2. Oregon. My gut feeling here is that Oregon was exposed. But then you have to realize that Stanford is a lot better than I (and many others) thought they were. That loss to Utah is a puzzler, but they got all over Mariota and the final score of 20-26 doesn't reflect just how dominating their performance really was. Is this the end of Oregon in the National Championship conversation? Possibly, for many years to come.
3. Baylor. This is going to anger a LOT of Baylor alums but the fairest question to ask about the Bears is whether they are this good, or is the Big Twen this bad? They trounced a formerly highly regarded OU team 41-12 in a game that wasn't that close. The problem is, OU's offense is abysmal which might have made Baylor's defense look pretty good. You can write off Baylor's slow start to nerves. This is the first time they've been in a game this big this season.
4. Texas. Wouldn't you know it, the week I decide to believe UT-Austin has turned it around they go out and lay a stinker against West Virginia. Yes, they won 47-40, but they had to go to overtime and looked less than impressive in doing so. I said at the time (on Twitter) that this UT-Austin team has to be one of the worst in the country that's leading a conference. I still stand by that sentiment.
5. Houston. I have to hand it to the Coogs, they played a lot better than I thought they would, only losing 14-19 to a very strong UCF team. Amazingly, the Louisville vs. UH line opened up at -17 1/2 Louisville on Sunday. If you're of a gaming persuasion I'd suggest jumping all over that line before it moves down. Based on their play against UCF, I'm going to have a hard time not picking UH to pull the upset here.
6. Duke. The Blue Devils are 7-2. Let me say that again: The Blue Devils are 7-2. Congratulations coach Cutcliffe.
7. Florida. Some people are questioning whether or not it's sane for Will Muschamp to be on the hot seat. I've seen Florida play before their QB Driskoll went down with injury. Yes, it is a fair question.
8. Florida State. I'm not sure if he has a prayer of winning the Heisman, but Jameis Winston might be the best player in College Football. For that matter, Florida State might be the best team in college football right now. Of course, they could look much worse against Bama if Saban has a month and a half to prepare for them.
9. Notre Dame. So they will NOT be in contention for a B(C)S bowl. That this below-average team needed to lose to Pitt for people to realize that illustrates just how bad a system the B(C)S was.
And finally......
10. Michigan. Aw Blue. Saturday's debacle against Nebraska now means that Michigan has rushed for -69 yards over the last two weeks. That's exactly 69 yards less than Bo Schembechler has rushing over that span of time. He probably gets one more year to turn it around, but Hoke and Co. are increasingly looking like a program in decline. This must change.
Top 5:
1. Alabama
2. Florida State
3. Ohio State
4. Baylor
5. Stanford
Misc. - Eastern Michigan finally fired Ron English on Friday. They did this because the AD reportedly saw a film with English using gay slurs in a speech to his players. In my view this is a coward's way out. Ron English was fired because he was 1-8 this year and 11-46 overall.
Top Conferences:
1. SEC - Until someone knocks them off.
2. PAC12 - Nipping at the SEC's heels
3. ACC - Weak at the bottom, but pretty solid at the top.
4. B1G - Looking better and better every week.
5. American - UCF, UH, Louisville and Cincinnati are better than Baylor, UT-Austin, OSU & OU right now.
6. Big Twen - Down year but this could be the new norm for a horribly ran conference that's in danger of being torn apart.
Week 12 picks coming......
Without further ado: Let's take a look at the week that was......
1. 'Bama. The LSU game was much closer than the 38-17 score might indicate. The fact is LSU is a deeply flawed team under Coach Miles. But this year's Bama team is flawed as well, especially on defense. Good passing teams give the Tide fits. FSU is a good passing team, with athleticism and a good defense. I don't think the Seminoles are likely to beat Alabama, but I think they might at least have a chance should they make it to the B(C)S Title Game.
2. Oregon. My gut feeling here is that Oregon was exposed. But then you have to realize that Stanford is a lot better than I (and many others) thought they were. That loss to Utah is a puzzler, but they got all over Mariota and the final score of 20-26 doesn't reflect just how dominating their performance really was. Is this the end of Oregon in the National Championship conversation? Possibly, for many years to come.
3. Baylor. This is going to anger a LOT of Baylor alums but the fairest question to ask about the Bears is whether they are this good, or is the Big Twen this bad? They trounced a formerly highly regarded OU team 41-12 in a game that wasn't that close. The problem is, OU's offense is abysmal which might have made Baylor's defense look pretty good. You can write off Baylor's slow start to nerves. This is the first time they've been in a game this big this season.
4. Texas. Wouldn't you know it, the week I decide to believe UT-Austin has turned it around they go out and lay a stinker against West Virginia. Yes, they won 47-40, but they had to go to overtime and looked less than impressive in doing so. I said at the time (on Twitter) that this UT-Austin team has to be one of the worst in the country that's leading a conference. I still stand by that sentiment.
5. Houston. I have to hand it to the Coogs, they played a lot better than I thought they would, only losing 14-19 to a very strong UCF team. Amazingly, the Louisville vs. UH line opened up at -17 1/2 Louisville on Sunday. If you're of a gaming persuasion I'd suggest jumping all over that line before it moves down. Based on their play against UCF, I'm going to have a hard time not picking UH to pull the upset here.
6. Duke. The Blue Devils are 7-2. Let me say that again: The Blue Devils are 7-2. Congratulations coach Cutcliffe.
7. Florida. Some people are questioning whether or not it's sane for Will Muschamp to be on the hot seat. I've seen Florida play before their QB Driskoll went down with injury. Yes, it is a fair question.
8. Florida State. I'm not sure if he has a prayer of winning the Heisman, but Jameis Winston might be the best player in College Football. For that matter, Florida State might be the best team in college football right now. Of course, they could look much worse against Bama if Saban has a month and a half to prepare for them.
9. Notre Dame. So they will NOT be in contention for a B(C)S bowl. That this below-average team needed to lose to Pitt for people to realize that illustrates just how bad a system the B(C)S was.
And finally......
10. Michigan. Aw Blue. Saturday's debacle against Nebraska now means that Michigan has rushed for -69 yards over the last two weeks. That's exactly 69 yards less than Bo Schembechler has rushing over that span of time. He probably gets one more year to turn it around, but Hoke and Co. are increasingly looking like a program in decline. This must change.
Top 5:
1. Alabama
2. Florida State
3. Ohio State
4. Baylor
5. Stanford
Misc. - Eastern Michigan finally fired Ron English on Friday. They did this because the AD reportedly saw a film with English using gay slurs in a speech to his players. In my view this is a coward's way out. Ron English was fired because he was 1-8 this year and 11-46 overall.
Top Conferences:
1. SEC - Until someone knocks them off.
2. PAC12 - Nipping at the SEC's heels
3. ACC - Weak at the bottom, but pretty solid at the top.
4. B1G - Looking better and better every week.
5. American - UCF, UH, Louisville and Cincinnati are better than Baylor, UT-Austin, OSU & OU right now.
6. Big Twen - Down year but this could be the new norm for a horribly ran conference that's in danger of being torn apart.
Week 12 picks coming......
Texans Fans: Ignore the CheerMedia, this ship cannot be salvaged.
Finding silver (or deep steel blue) linings in Sunday's 27-24 loss by the Texans to the Arizona Cardinals is a tough thing to do. If you watched the game you saw an offense that's sputtering, a defense that, unless JJ Watt makes a play, struggles to do much of anything and special teams that are anything but special. From a pre-season filled with anticipation and a (shaky) 2-0 start to a 2-7 record that includes a team-record 7 game losing streak this Texans team will go down as one of the most disappointing in franchise history.
So you wake up this morning and you think "Let's have some sober analysis on this team". So you turn to the former newspaper of record and you find: Randy "Larry" Harvey wasting several inches of copy space saying nothing, Jerome "Curly" Solomon telling us five things that we learned (but really didn't) and John "Moe" McClain pathetically telling us how pathetic and horrific the Texans are. Unfortunately, for the fan, not one of the Three Stooges have a clue and neither does the rest of Houston's CheerMedia. The reality is, this team needs an overhaul and it needs it now. Not later, right now. It should start against the Raiders.
That's not to say there's all that much you can (initially) do for the product on the field. The Texans are a bad team with a few good players; nothing is going to change that for the remainder of this year. As is commonplace in Houston, our media overstates the team’s talent and, for the most part, gives the front office a pass. The first thing that needs to happen is letting Rick Smith go. Not at the end of the season, now. Fire the GM who put the team in this mess (and in an impossible salary cap position), name an interim GM and start the search for the next guy. At this point it's better to get a new guy in place (and his talent evaluation staff) to get a jump on the next draft.
The 2014 NFL Draft is going to be pivotal. If the Texans want to compete any time soon then they're going to have to nail it. By "nail" it I mean that the first 4 round selections need to make meaningful contributions next year, and rounds 5 & 6 need to have potential. They also need to make some impactful free agent signings, probably to shore up a horrendous linebacking core. There's little evidence out there to suggest that Rick Smith is the guy to get this done.
Finally, quarterback. I'm not convinced that Case Keenum is the long-term solution, but he might be worth keeping around as a quality back-up, and short-term starter should the Texans be able to find their next QB in the draft. However, I do believe that they should wait until later in the draft to make this selection, offensive line is too much of a priority right now. No matter who is taking the snaps they're going to struggle unless you shore up this unit, and fast.
The way I see it there are only two players that are untouchable on this roster: JJ Watt and Andre Johnson. Everyone else is expendable. That includes Keenum, it includes Arian Foster (whose career might be finished anyway if what I'm hearing about his back injury is true) and the oft-injured Brian Cushing. Watt is the best defensive player in the league and should be considered the cornerstone of any rebuilding plan, and Johnson is still an elite receiver who will likely be the first Texans enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Keep those two, evaluate everything else, and start the rebuilding process now.
The good news is that there are several recent examples in the NFL of teams going from bad to good in one year, and that should be the expectation of Texans fans everywhere. Sadly, I have little expectation that any of this is going to happen. Bob McNair lacks the constitution to make wholesale changes of this sort, so we're going to hear a lot about "patience" and "building it the right way".
This is disappointing, because I've a feeling it means more of the same next year, and probably the year after that.
So you wake up this morning and you think "Let's have some sober analysis on this team". So you turn to the former newspaper of record and you find: Randy "Larry" Harvey wasting several inches of copy space saying nothing, Jerome "Curly" Solomon telling us five things that we learned (but really didn't) and John "Moe" McClain pathetically telling us how pathetic and horrific the Texans are. Unfortunately, for the fan, not one of the Three Stooges have a clue and neither does the rest of Houston's CheerMedia. The reality is, this team needs an overhaul and it needs it now. Not later, right now. It should start against the Raiders.
That's not to say there's all that much you can (initially) do for the product on the field. The Texans are a bad team with a few good players; nothing is going to change that for the remainder of this year. As is commonplace in Houston, our media overstates the team’s talent and, for the most part, gives the front office a pass. The first thing that needs to happen is letting Rick Smith go. Not at the end of the season, now. Fire the GM who put the team in this mess (and in an impossible salary cap position), name an interim GM and start the search for the next guy. At this point it's better to get a new guy in place (and his talent evaluation staff) to get a jump on the next draft.
The 2014 NFL Draft is going to be pivotal. If the Texans want to compete any time soon then they're going to have to nail it. By "nail" it I mean that the first 4 round selections need to make meaningful contributions next year, and rounds 5 & 6 need to have potential. They also need to make some impactful free agent signings, probably to shore up a horrendous linebacking core. There's little evidence out there to suggest that Rick Smith is the guy to get this done.
Finally, quarterback. I'm not convinced that Case Keenum is the long-term solution, but he might be worth keeping around as a quality back-up, and short-term starter should the Texans be able to find their next QB in the draft. However, I do believe that they should wait until later in the draft to make this selection, offensive line is too much of a priority right now. No matter who is taking the snaps they're going to struggle unless you shore up this unit, and fast.
The way I see it there are only two players that are untouchable on this roster: JJ Watt and Andre Johnson. Everyone else is expendable. That includes Keenum, it includes Arian Foster (whose career might be finished anyway if what I'm hearing about his back injury is true) and the oft-injured Brian Cushing. Watt is the best defensive player in the league and should be considered the cornerstone of any rebuilding plan, and Johnson is still an elite receiver who will likely be the first Texans enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Keep those two, evaluate everything else, and start the rebuilding process now.
The good news is that there are several recent examples in the NFL of teams going from bad to good in one year, and that should be the expectation of Texans fans everywhere. Sadly, I have little expectation that any of this is going to happen. Bob McNair lacks the constitution to make wholesale changes of this sort, so we're going to hear a lot about "patience" and "building it the right way".
This is disappointing, because I've a feeling it means more of the same next year, and probably the year after that.
Friday, November 08, 2013
The not-so-soft Tyranny of Low Expectations
You, the American Citizen, are stupid. That's the summation of Obama's argument for the Affordable Care Act according to today's National Review Online essay by Jonah Goldberg. If only you understood how bad your healthcare is, understood its shortcomings, you would be more than willing to throw it into the dust-bin of history and rush over to the federally ran exchanges to pay (in many cases) much, much more for the plan you need. This is factish, so therefore it is beyond refute and not open to meaningful public debate.
Before we get out of hand this is not an anti-Obama or anti-ObamaCare missive. I'll allow others to make what I feel to be a fairly obvious case against both. What concerns me more is the spread of this idea into many areas of our lives, turning what was once identified as a "free" country to one where the only freedoms we will have remaining (if you still have the money) is to determine that one day you might wear a different color of shoes just to stand out.
You may be tempted to laugh at this but consider the following:
Currently, in Houston, the so-called "smart" class has decided that charity begins and ends with government licensing, that an act as simple as feeding a homeless person must be handled in the appropriate way. In New York, then Mayor Bloomberg decided that he knew, better than you, what you want to drink and what size you wanted it in. Efforts against these restrictive laws were met with charges that those against were "misguided" or "uneducated" on the issue. If only you understood more about the issue you would immediately fall in line and join the forces of good-for-you soldiers everywhere.
Again in Houston, the demise of the Astrodome bond issue has been met with charges of voter ignorance. Never mind that the plan put forward was slap-dash and more likely than not to end up in financial distress, name-calling such as "myopic fool" and "idiot" and "against historic preservation" were blanketed across everyone who tried to put 2 and 2 together but couldn't come up with 8.
For a long time the sardine urbanists have been telling suburbanites that their chosen lifestyle is one of ignorance, instead of the individual choice home-ownership used to be. For their tight-fiscal leanings Tea Party members have been at various times labeled with a anti-homosexual vulgarity (often by elected political officials or professional campaign consultants, never mind the anti-intellectual InterLeft), charges of "mouth-breathing", being ignorant, hicks, rednecks, or (my favorite) a group that shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions in the public realm.
Sure, all members of the good-for-you club have real reasons for feeling this way, too often however those reasons are not based in political logic, but are based in pure hatred and a child-like tendency to throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way. That America is a baby of a Nation is never seriously in doubt, that we are populated increasingly by citizens lacking intellectual and emotional maturity is becoming more obvious all the time. As a matter of fact (would I allow comments on this blog) I guarantee you that at least one commenter would try and point out my obvious stupidity for mocking them for calling names while doing so myself, the flaw in their logic obviously being that I'm not calling for their silence as they did (several times) with me on several issues. Its one thing to say your opposite's ideas are wrong-headed, poorly reasoned, of contain some other flaw. Without these things there would be no honest debate. The problem lies with trying to silence the other side because you lack the mental acuity to take their argument head-on.
This argument by censure style flourished in the climate change debate. Not only are there severe scientific concerns about reaching "consensus" based solely on computer models that appear to not be sophisticated enough to explain what is going on, there are smear campaigns against those who dare to question the veracity of the conclusions of their (supposed) intellectual betters. Unsurprisingly, this trend was started by one Albert Gore, a man so insecure of his position in life it led to rumors he was given lessons on manliness from Donna Brazile.
Were this limited to climate change it would be bad enough, I believe that the attempt to control our economy, movements, reproduction, lives, diet et al. stem from that movement and that there are horrible repercussions to allowing it to move forward. What we're seeing now is that this attitude is creeping into almost every aspect of political argument from the socialist/liberal/progressive coalition. Conformity is the new Freedom, society is the new individual and mediocrity is the new success.
No longer do Americans (except recent immigrants who still come here for a better life) aspire to "get ahead" on a large scale. To do so has been cast as greedy and wealth has been identified as something to be scorned, not as a measure of one's success. In fact, the accumulation of wealth in America today is often viewed as a character flaw unless, that is, you are wealthy and a member of the intellectually superior ruling class, many of whom (it's been recently identified) committed what would be considered fraud (and punishable by imprisonment) for members of the non-ruling class.
What has all of this led to? A de-facto prison state for one as well as a state where the once sacrosanct concept of free speech is now under serious consideration of being limited only to those who are employed by media corporations large enough to buy lobbyists to affect policy. Unfortunately, those who are spending time advocating free speech are all but admitting they no longer consider it their duty to perform the watchdog role that free political speech is supposed to ensure.
In short, we're being left with a mess. A mess of our own making, a mess that's come about because we've decided to believe those who tell us we can't do what they don't want us to do, that we NEED to live in efficiency apartments sitting asshole to elbow while they try to re-make America into something almost exactly opposite of their European ideal. They view America not as a great experiment in Democracy and self-rule, but as a gigantic 60 Trillion Dollar Man that only they have the understanding and know-how to rebuild. As part of the rebuilding process however they're only going to give you two choices, get in line or shut-up. Anything else will be met with censure, name-calling or (increasingly) imprisonment.
This is a scary thing and it should concern you greatly, regardless of what side of the political aisle you sit.
Before we get out of hand this is not an anti-Obama or anti-ObamaCare missive. I'll allow others to make what I feel to be a fairly obvious case against both. What concerns me more is the spread of this idea into many areas of our lives, turning what was once identified as a "free" country to one where the only freedoms we will have remaining (if you still have the money) is to determine that one day you might wear a different color of shoes just to stand out.
You may be tempted to laugh at this but consider the following:
Currently, in Houston, the so-called "smart" class has decided that charity begins and ends with government licensing, that an act as simple as feeding a homeless person must be handled in the appropriate way. In New York, then Mayor Bloomberg decided that he knew, better than you, what you want to drink and what size you wanted it in. Efforts against these restrictive laws were met with charges that those against were "misguided" or "uneducated" on the issue. If only you understood more about the issue you would immediately fall in line and join the forces of good-for-you soldiers everywhere.
Again in Houston, the demise of the Astrodome bond issue has been met with charges of voter ignorance. Never mind that the plan put forward was slap-dash and more likely than not to end up in financial distress, name-calling such as "myopic fool" and "idiot" and "against historic preservation" were blanketed across everyone who tried to put 2 and 2 together but couldn't come up with 8.
For a long time the sardine urbanists have been telling suburbanites that their chosen lifestyle is one of ignorance, instead of the individual choice home-ownership used to be. For their tight-fiscal leanings Tea Party members have been at various times labeled with a anti-homosexual vulgarity (often by elected political officials or professional campaign consultants, never mind the anti-intellectual InterLeft), charges of "mouth-breathing", being ignorant, hicks, rednecks, or (my favorite) a group that shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions in the public realm.
Sure, all members of the good-for-you club have real reasons for feeling this way, too often however those reasons are not based in political logic, but are based in pure hatred and a child-like tendency to throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way. That America is a baby of a Nation is never seriously in doubt, that we are populated increasingly by citizens lacking intellectual and emotional maturity is becoming more obvious all the time. As a matter of fact (would I allow comments on this blog) I guarantee you that at least one commenter would try and point out my obvious stupidity for mocking them for calling names while doing so myself, the flaw in their logic obviously being that I'm not calling for their silence as they did (several times) with me on several issues. Its one thing to say your opposite's ideas are wrong-headed, poorly reasoned, of contain some other flaw. Without these things there would be no honest debate. The problem lies with trying to silence the other side because you lack the mental acuity to take their argument head-on.
This argument by censure style flourished in the climate change debate. Not only are there severe scientific concerns about reaching "consensus" based solely on computer models that appear to not be sophisticated enough to explain what is going on, there are smear campaigns against those who dare to question the veracity of the conclusions of their (supposed) intellectual betters. Unsurprisingly, this trend was started by one Albert Gore, a man so insecure of his position in life it led to rumors he was given lessons on manliness from Donna Brazile.
Were this limited to climate change it would be bad enough, I believe that the attempt to control our economy, movements, reproduction, lives, diet et al. stem from that movement and that there are horrible repercussions to allowing it to move forward. What we're seeing now is that this attitude is creeping into almost every aspect of political argument from the socialist/liberal/progressive coalition. Conformity is the new Freedom, society is the new individual and mediocrity is the new success.
No longer do Americans (except recent immigrants who still come here for a better life) aspire to "get ahead" on a large scale. To do so has been cast as greedy and wealth has been identified as something to be scorned, not as a measure of one's success. In fact, the accumulation of wealth in America today is often viewed as a character flaw unless, that is, you are wealthy and a member of the intellectually superior ruling class, many of whom (it's been recently identified) committed what would be considered fraud (and punishable by imprisonment) for members of the non-ruling class.
What has all of this led to? A de-facto prison state for one as well as a state where the once sacrosanct concept of free speech is now under serious consideration of being limited only to those who are employed by media corporations large enough to buy lobbyists to affect policy. Unfortunately, those who are spending time advocating free speech are all but admitting they no longer consider it their duty to perform the watchdog role that free political speech is supposed to ensure.
In short, we're being left with a mess. A mess of our own making, a mess that's come about because we've decided to believe those who tell us we can't do what they don't want us to do, that we NEED to live in efficiency apartments sitting asshole to elbow while they try to re-make America into something almost exactly opposite of their European ideal. They view America not as a great experiment in Democracy and self-rule, but as a gigantic 60 Trillion Dollar Man that only they have the understanding and know-how to rebuild. As part of the rebuilding process however they're only going to give you two choices, get in line or shut-up. Anything else will be met with censure, name-calling or (increasingly) imprisonment.
This is a scary thing and it should concern you greatly, regardless of what side of the political aisle you sit.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Why Government doesn't always work (St. Thomas Example)
Having spent the last week in "Paradise" (more on that in a future post) I'm now back firmly in the lower 48 and, after catching up on the falsehoods, broken promises and outright lies surrounding Obamacare, thought it would be nice to take a look at government dysfunction on a smaller scale.
On a cab ride from Charlotte Amalie to Red Hook our cab driver Java Johnson (no, I'm not making that up) took us along the back roads and gave us quite an interesting history tour of St. Thomas at no extra charge. One of the best stories he told us was about the locally famous Bridge to Nowhere.
It seems that, back in the 90's, the government of St. Thomas received a bunch of cash from the U.S. Federal Government for flood control projects. There was an area outside of Red Hook that had some flooding problems which experts determined could be solved by moving the existing road approximately 500 feet, to a point where it crossed a creek. This, of course, necessitated the building of a bridge, and the seizing (through eminent domain) of several private residences and businesses.
At a cost of $1.5 Million the bridge was completed in 1997. It is a fine bridge, made of concrete and steel it's not a pretty thing, but (without maintenance) it still looks to be operable in 2013, IF you could drive onto it with a car. And that's the problem, you can't. Because after the bridge was built the remaining phases of the program stalled. The eminent domain seizures took longer than anticipated, the environmentalists started griping about gas contamination should the road be moved (one of the seized properties was a gas station with underground tanks) and the recession hit which dried up government funding. In short, the road was never constructed to tie into the bridge.
Fast forward to today and the bridge has become a source of comedy for the local population. As Java said to us "Many people got rich off making this very fine bridge to nowhere, and that's government in St. Thomas." As we got out of the cab at Red Hook I thanked Java for the cab ride, gave him a tip for the history lesson, and told him that, unfortunately, what we saw with the Bridge to Nowhere was pretty much government everywhere today.
In Houston (in case you're wondering) we have our own expensive boondoggle that made several connected interests wealthy, it's called MetroRail and in his recent State of Metro speech Metro board Chairman Gilbert Garcia admitted "It really doesn't go anywhere", forwarding my theory that, despite its size, Houston government operates much like one in a small town.
On a cab ride from Charlotte Amalie to Red Hook our cab driver Java Johnson (no, I'm not making that up) took us along the back roads and gave us quite an interesting history tour of St. Thomas at no extra charge. One of the best stories he told us was about the locally famous Bridge to Nowhere.
It seems that, back in the 90's, the government of St. Thomas received a bunch of cash from the U.S. Federal Government for flood control projects. There was an area outside of Red Hook that had some flooding problems which experts determined could be solved by moving the existing road approximately 500 feet, to a point where it crossed a creek. This, of course, necessitated the building of a bridge, and the seizing (through eminent domain) of several private residences and businesses.
At a cost of $1.5 Million the bridge was completed in 1997. It is a fine bridge, made of concrete and steel it's not a pretty thing, but (without maintenance) it still looks to be operable in 2013, IF you could drive onto it with a car. And that's the problem, you can't. Because after the bridge was built the remaining phases of the program stalled. The eminent domain seizures took longer than anticipated, the environmentalists started griping about gas contamination should the road be moved (one of the seized properties was a gas station with underground tanks) and the recession hit which dried up government funding. In short, the road was never constructed to tie into the bridge.
Fast forward to today and the bridge has become a source of comedy for the local population. As Java said to us "Many people got rich off making this very fine bridge to nowhere, and that's government in St. Thomas." As we got out of the cab at Red Hook I thanked Java for the cab ride, gave him a tip for the history lesson, and told him that, unfortunately, what we saw with the Bridge to Nowhere was pretty much government everywhere today.
In Houston (in case you're wondering) we have our own expensive boondoggle that made several connected interests wealthy, it's called MetroRail and in his recent State of Metro speech Metro board Chairman Gilbert Garcia admitted "It really doesn't go anywhere", forwarding my theory that, despite its size, Houston government operates much like one in a small town.
College Football Predictions (Week 11)
After a couple of weeks traveling (To Vegas and to the US Virgin Islands) I'm back and (sadly) not tanned, but ready to jump back in the fray of picking games incorrectly for your reading pleasure. A lot of big games this week, games that could go a long way toward telling us who will ultimately be in the B(C)S Championship Game. I'm waiting for ESPN to give it some silly moniker like "Shake Out Saturday".
Without further ado.......
1. Oklahoma vs. Baylor(-15) - OU 17 Baylor 45 - I just don't like OU here. Their offense is a shambles and their defense gives up way to many big plays. There has been a lot of chatter asking "What's wrong with the Sooners?" I'll forward the theory that they are suffering from an overall lack of talent this year.
2. Oregon(-10.5) vs. Stanford - Ducks 42 Stan 23 - The trendy pick is to call for the Cardinal to pull the upset. Not this year. Stanford is not as solid as last year and Mariota is no Freshman. They won't roll like they normally do, but I think Oregon will cover and the game won't be as close as the score will indicate.
3. Kansas State vs. Texas Tech(-3) - K-State 20 Tech 24 - Tech has taken a couple of bad losses but I don't think the Wildcats are very good. That said, I don't think the Raiders are that good either. Just not as bad as the Fighting Snyders this year.
4. Mississippi State vs. Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University - MSU 17 aTm 56 - The Aggie defense is bad, but the Bulldogs are just not very good.
5. University of Texas(-6.5) vs. West Virginia University - UT 42 WVU 17 - I've been down on the Longhorns all year. To be fair, they're playing better defense and their offense has finally decided to develop an identity that works. A lot of the shine has rubbed off of Dana Holgerson in the last two years. He needs to show that he understands there are two sides to every football team. Defense coach, you have to play defense.
6. University of Houston vs. University of Central Florida(-11) - UH 24 UCF 27 - I'm not sure why, but I think the Coogs will cover here.
7. Virginia Technical University vs. University of Miami(-6.5) - VaTech 10 The U 42 - Most of this line is based on the injury to Johnson, who makes the 'Canes a MUCH better team. That said I think the Hokies continue to get residual love from Beamer's past teams. The reality is they're not that good this year.
8. University of Central Los Angeles vs. University of Arizona - UCLA 42 'Zona 17 - Honestly, I'm having trouble figuring this line out. I've watched a LOT of Pac12 football this year and UCLA seems to be much better than the Fighting Rich Rod's. Besides, as a Michigan fan I ALWAYS root for Rodriguez to take a whuppin'.
9. Louisiana State University vs. University of Alabama(-12.5) - LSU 10 Bama 35 - If a line seems too good to be true, it probably is.
And finally.......
10. Nebraska vs. Michigan(-7) - NU 23 Blue 24 - Yes, I'm crazy for picking Michigan, after all Bo Schembechler gained 48 more yards than they last Saturday against Michigan State, but Blue at home is a different team than Blue on the road. And Nebraska is a big, heaping pile of Bo Pellini mess right now. Go Blue!
To sum up: I think the best teams in the country are the best teams in the country for a reason so Baylor, Oregon and Alabama all survive to keep the B(C)S muddled in the final months of its final year. Given the history of this failure of competitive sports, I think that's entirely appropriate.
Without further ado.......
1. Oklahoma vs. Baylor(-15) - OU 17 Baylor 45 - I just don't like OU here. Their offense is a shambles and their defense gives up way to many big plays. There has been a lot of chatter asking "What's wrong with the Sooners?" I'll forward the theory that they are suffering from an overall lack of talent this year.
2. Oregon(-10.5) vs. Stanford - Ducks 42 Stan 23 - The trendy pick is to call for the Cardinal to pull the upset. Not this year. Stanford is not as solid as last year and Mariota is no Freshman. They won't roll like they normally do, but I think Oregon will cover and the game won't be as close as the score will indicate.
3. Kansas State vs. Texas Tech(-3) - K-State 20 Tech 24 - Tech has taken a couple of bad losses but I don't think the Wildcats are very good. That said, I don't think the Raiders are that good either. Just not as bad as the Fighting Snyders this year.
4. Mississippi State vs. Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University - MSU 17 aTm 56 - The Aggie defense is bad, but the Bulldogs are just not very good.
5. University of Texas(-6.5) vs. West Virginia University - UT 42 WVU 17 - I've been down on the Longhorns all year. To be fair, they're playing better defense and their offense has finally decided to develop an identity that works. A lot of the shine has rubbed off of Dana Holgerson in the last two years. He needs to show that he understands there are two sides to every football team. Defense coach, you have to play defense.
6. University of Houston vs. University of Central Florida(-11) - UH 24 UCF 27 - I'm not sure why, but I think the Coogs will cover here.
7. Virginia Technical University vs. University of Miami(-6.5) - VaTech 10 The U 42 - Most of this line is based on the injury to Johnson, who makes the 'Canes a MUCH better team. That said I think the Hokies continue to get residual love from Beamer's past teams. The reality is they're not that good this year.
8. University of Central Los Angeles vs. University of Arizona - UCLA 42 'Zona 17 - Honestly, I'm having trouble figuring this line out. I've watched a LOT of Pac12 football this year and UCLA seems to be much better than the Fighting Rich Rod's. Besides, as a Michigan fan I ALWAYS root for Rodriguez to take a whuppin'.
9. Louisiana State University vs. University of Alabama(-12.5) - LSU 10 Bama 35 - If a line seems too good to be true, it probably is.
And finally.......
10. Nebraska vs. Michigan(-7) - NU 23 Blue 24 - Yes, I'm crazy for picking Michigan, after all Bo Schembechler gained 48 more yards than they last Saturday against Michigan State, but Blue at home is a different team than Blue on the road. And Nebraska is a big, heaping pile of Bo Pellini mess right now. Go Blue!
To sum up: I think the best teams in the country are the best teams in the country for a reason so Baylor, Oregon and Alabama all survive to keep the B(C)S muddled in the final months of its final year. Given the history of this failure of competitive sports, I think that's entirely appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)