HinesSight

No lavatory on plane -- pretzels favored over beer

Oh yeah, flying is so much fun nowadays. Last Friday our Horizon flight from Portland to Burbank was delayed an hour while "a maintenance problem" was dealt with.

That's all the explanation we were given by the gate announcer. But given what happened on our return flight, there's reason to suspect that the problem lay behind the door of the all-important tiny compartment at the back of the plane.

Namely, the lavatory.

For several reasons I'm a big fan of airplane lavatories. One, I'm 62. And even though I've reported that my age-related urge to pee has been reduced quite a bit by medication, I enjoy knowing that a toilet is near at hand on a flight.

Two, I'm tall. I like to get up and walk around on the plane after an hour or two of sitting. The lavatory gives me a destination. If someone else is waiting to use it, even better, because then I get to stand longer before returning to my seat.

So I wasn't thrilled when a Horizon gal who manned womaned the microphone at our gate announced that a maintenance guy had been unable to fix the lavatory on the plane that'd take us back to Portland.

Her advice:

"Passengers should use the restrooms at the airport, because there won't be a usable lavatory on the Portland flight."

I was in pretty good shape, kidney-wise, since my prepare-for-the-worst mentality when it comes to airlines usually leads me to shun coffee and large beverages before a flight. But I felt bad for anyone who'd had a 20-ounce triple latte just before they got to the gate, or was suffering from diarrhea.

(Here's a no-lavatory story about such a situation.)

It sort of surprised me that a commercial airliner could embark on a two hour flight without a working lavatory. However, apparently there is no government requirement that passengers have a right to relieve themselves while in the air.

A Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said lavatories, or the lack thereof, are not a concern for regulators.

"That's not an aviation safety issue. It's a passenger or crew-member comfort issue," said agency spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen. "There is absolutely no requirement for any aircraft to have a lavatory."

That includes large passenger planes used for cross-country flights, Bergen said.

As we were preparing for take-off a flight attendant reminded us passengers that no lavatory was available. "You may want to keep this in mind when you make your drink selection," she said.

I did. When the beverage cart came by, I grabbed a bag of pretzel'ish snacks and responded "no thanks" to the drink offers.

So far as I could tell, nobody on the plane had an urgent need to use the non-functional lavatory. Still, it would have been a nice gesture for Horizon to give us some sort of compensation for the inconvenience -- 1,000 frequent flyer miles, for example.

My wife and I forked out $40 at the Horizon counter to check two bags, something that not long ago was done for free. Then we're "treated" to a two hour flight with no lavatory.

Like I said, flying is so much fun. Not.

I'm outraged about outrage -- let's calm down

Aren't you getting tired of people being outraged about, well, everything? I sure am.

And this means I'm getting tired of myself, because I've got a hair-trigger Outrage Gun that doesn't go a day without firing self-righteous bullets of condemnation.

Driving around today, channel surfing among various satellite radio news/talk channels, plenty of topics pushed my outrage button.

I can't stand Republican grandstanding on how Obama is handling the Libya situation. Right-wing talk show host Lars Larson said "The only good cougar is a dead cougar." Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is going ahead with his union-busting bill even though a judge said "Stop." Global warming deniers are holding up efforts needed to move us toward a cleaner, greener world.

Outrageous! I thought about writing a blog post rant on several of these topics. Then it hit me...

What I was really outraged about was all this outrage. It never ends.

Wherever you turn these days -- web sites, radio, TV, Facebook, Twitter, newspapers -- it seems like someone is extremely upset at what someone else is doing. Worse, the outraged individual feels like his or her emotional uproar is absolutely justified.

This is crazy. Way out of the ordinary.

I've lived through some pretty insane times during my sixty-two years; the Vietnam War brought out hugely intense fights between people with opposing views of the conflict. But this is different -- a pervasive societal polarization where Right and Wrong are seen as opposite shores with no bridge between them.

Choose your side. You've got to be on one bank or the other. No straddling permitted. Everyone who isn't 100% with you is fair game to be targeted by an outrage blast.

(Note to Lars Larson: most cougars should be left alone, though some may need to be killed. It depends on the situation. Wildlife management, like almost all significant social problems, takes a lot of careful study in order to figure out the best course of action. Simplistic platitudes like "the only good cougar is a dead cougar" are useless.)

Today our mail was supposed to be delivered after I'd had it held while my wife and I were away on a three-day trip. The woman who handles our rural route must have failed to notice the resume date I put on the "hold mail" form.

This has happened before. When I peeked in our empty mail box at 5 pm, I knew that it'd happened again. I started to feel an almost pleasurable sense of outrage well up in my easily-offended psyche.

"Geez! Now I'll have to stand in line at the post office tomorrow to pick up our mail! Why, that will take several minutes out of my day! I should complain to..."

Fortunately, the side of me that's been getting outraged about outrage kicked in. I realized that our mail deliverer almost surely is overworked and underpaid. She's under a lot of pressure every day. It's easy to miss a resume delivery date on one of the many mailboxes she's responsible for. Mostly she does a good job.

No big deal, I said to myself.

It isn't the end of the world if we have to wait another day to find out how many solicitations from animal rights organizations and political causes we got over the weekend (that's 90% of our mail, now that nobody writes snail mail letters any more).

I'm not going to go on a complete outrage fast. Getting upset with injustices and wrongdoings is natural. That's how things change for the better -- when enough people say "enough is enough!"

But I want to be more like the Britishers I hear debating on the BBC when I occasionally tune my car's satellite radio in an overseas direction.

They rarely raise their voices. They don't interrupt each other. They make their points clearly and calmly, then listen to what their opponent has to say. Outrage isn't in evidence.

Now, I'm sure people in Britain get excited, scream at each other, hurl insults, spout epithets. I doubt, though, that outrage comes to a boil at the same low temperature as in the United States.

I'm hoping that more and more Americans start to feel the way I do: outraged about our propensity for outrage. Somehow we've got to learn how to communicate reasonably with each other more, and shout angrily at each other less.

Photos of our Hollywood Hills weekend

We Oregonians enjoy putting down southern California: so crowded, the freeways!, smog, too many people. Etc, etc.

But whenever my wife and I visit my daughter and her family, who live at the bottom of the Hollywood Hills, I realize how much there is to like about this area. I wouldn't want to live there permanently, but for a weekend... delightful.

This time we were fortunate to be able to stay nearby in a cute, quirky, "bungalow" owned by friends of my daughter. They gave us a discount on the usual rental price, which was much appreciated.

So for a few days we got to experience what's it like to live on top of the Hollywood Hills.

The view is pretty spectacular, to put it mildly. I think that's downtown Los Angeles in the distance but wouldn't swear to it. The lower elevation Hollywood Dells, where my daughter lives, is in the near foreground.

Here's the view from the living room. At night the lights were mesmerizing.


We liked the eclectic creative interior design. It's an old concrete block house with a lot of character.


Laurel enjoyed browsing through the artsy coffee table books. One, "Alison Parker Confidential," had her believing that the photos of celebrities and other famous people in compromising positions were real. Eventually she read the intro, where Parker says that body doubles were used. Amazingly realistic.


Monkey and a martini. That's my idea of fine art.

Out of the back bedroom window we could see the (partially obscured) Hollywood sign.

This is another view of the living room. Comfortable and artsy.

I resonated with some refrigerator door inspiration.

Walking down the hill to my daughter's house we passed some classic Hollywood architecture.

This house had an amazing cactus garden. The "tree" on the left actually is a very large cactus.

This house had an yacht vibe to it.

Whenever we eat in the Hollywood area, I'm reminded of how crappy the vegetarian dining options are in Salem, Oregon (where we live) compared to the much more health conscious southern California restaurant scene. Here's the hummus plate with a tasty variety of bread that we got at Le Pain Quotidien. Loved it!


On our last night the setting sun cast a golden glow on a distant building. It was an L.A. moment. Flashy, large-scale, captivating.

Join the strike against Huffington Post

I've been a regular visitor to the Huffington Post web site. But why? Beats me.

I rarely read any news stories, because almost all of them are copied (some would say, stolen) from genuine journalistic sources like the New York TImes and the Associated Press.

I'd rather get my news from the original outlet. And in a more attractive format.

The Huffington Post looks like its trying to be the National Enquirer of the Internet. Gigantic flashy headlines mesh with sensationalistic celebrity gossip in a mix that never appealed to me.

I put this web site on my daily visit list because I thought that since Arianna Huffington was a serious supporter of progressive causes, the Huffington Post would be equally substantive and thoughtful.

I was wrong. It's shallow and derivative. Not to mention, sleazy.

It bothered me when I heard that Arianna Huffington had sold the site to AOL for $315 million, yet the legions of unpaid bloggers and other content contributors weren't going to get a dime.

That didn't sound progressive. Or fair.

Now I see that P.J. Myers, a pro-science and anti-religion blogger whom I like a lot, has amplifed his distaste for the Huffington Post in "Sweet Jebus, but I hate the HuffPo."

It's a woo-infested sewer, a cesspit of inanity and exploitation, and they cheat their writers. There is a strike/boycott in operation. This is what you get when an unprincipled, opportunistic hack like Arianna Huffington runs the show.

Here's what the Newspaper Guild says:

The Newspaper Guild is calling on unpaid writers of the Huffington Post to withhold their work in support of a strike launched by Visual Arts Source in response to the company’s practice of using unpaid labor. In addition, we are asking that our members and all supporters of fair and equitable compensation for journalists join us in shining a light on the unprofessional and unethical practices of this company. Just as we would ask writers to stand fast and not cross a physical picket line, we ask that they honor this electronic picket line … Working for free does not benefit workers and undermines quality journalism.

Cool. An electronic picket line. I shall respect it.

No more visits to the Huffington Post for me. Not that I was getting much from this web site anyway, but now I have a reason to un-favorite the Huffington Post from my Safari browser links bar.

My 2011 Mini Cooper S should bring perfect happiness

You might think that my expectations are too high, but I'm anticipating that the 2011 Mini Cooper S hardtop which just manifested in my driveway will bring me perfect happiness for the rest of my motoring life.

(Those in the Cult of Mini, which now includes moi, don't drive; they motor.)

Unfortunately for our pocketbook, when I said "manifested" I wasn't referring to a miraculous appearance of the Mini Cooper S. Via several blog posts I've been lobbying God for this to happen since my Mini lust began in 2003.

(See here and here; each prayerful plea was roundly ignored by what I can only conclude, somewhat illogically, is a non-existent divinity; this contributed to both my rejection of religion and a conclusion that if a Mini Cooper S ever was to enter my life, it would happen through the grace of my Social Security check, not God.)

Since so far I've only been able to drive the Mini from Portland to Salem, then around town here a bit, I can't be 100% confident that this car-of-my-dreams will bring me the unalloyed happiness that I so richly deserve after having postponed the consummation of my Mini love affair for eight freaking years.

First impressions matter a lot, though.

And after spending ninety minutes or so with my new best mechanical friend, I can tell that we're going to get along great. Why, look -- my beloved Thermos coffee mug fits perfectly in the front seat cup holder.

Many other features of the 2011 Mini Cooper S are equally appealing to me. But I'll leave descriptions of most of those for other blog posts once I've had more time to familiarize myself with the appealingly quirky nature of the Mini.

A few examples: the turn signals don't operate "normally" (whatever that means). Driving home it took me a while to realize that pressing up or down to a point of resistance activates a lane change feature where the signal blinks several times and turns off, while pressing past that point leaves the signal blinking continuously until it's cancelled.

My wife and I also puzzled over the fuel filler lid when I parked in our driveway and we began to wonder where the lever/button was to open the lid, as our other cars operate. It seemed funny that the Mini, which electronically is quite sophisticated, had a unlockable gas cap.

The owner's manual wasn't very clear on this subject. It merely said that if the electrical system has a problem, the fuel lid can be released via a compartment in the back of the car. But we could open the lid just fine. The problem was how to lock, not how to unlock.

Then it dawned on us that the car had been unlocked when we first got home. After locking the car, we found the fuel lid can't be opened. As with the wipers, this quirkiness makes sense, yet produced some initial head scratching.

As did getting out of the car. I didn't think I needed the owner's manual to open the car door once I arrived in downtown Salem, but for a few seconds it seemed like that might be necessary.

Pulling on the door handle, nothing happened. I was locked in! Trapped! Then I pulled again and the door opened. Weird.

However, I learned from a card in the driver's side door pocket that's the way the Mini is designed to work: the doors lock while you're driving (oops, motoring); when you stop, one pull on the handle unlocks the door, and a second pull opens the door.

Live and learn. I can tell that with the Mini, I'm going to be doing a lot of both -- living (happily) and learning (about a great car).

Ann Coulter and Lars Larson are idiots about "good" radiation

As unoriginal as the title would be, I toyed with the idea of calling this post "Lars Larson is a big fat idiot." But since I wanted Ann Coulter to share in the idiocy, and she's a lot closer to anorexic than fat, I had to give up that notion.

Which leaves Coulter and Larson being plain idiots for claiming that low levels of radiation are good for you.I heard Portland, Oregon right-wing talk show host Lars Larson say this last week, citing the rarely-reputable Ann Coulter as the source of this amazing bit of scientific misinformation.

Of course, it isn't true. And it's astoundingly irresponsible for Coulter and Larson to say this given the scientific consensus.

In 2005 the National Academy of Sciences released a report which concluded that "even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects."

The report's focus is low-dose, low-LET -- "linear energy transfer" -- ionizing radiation that is energetic enough to break biomolecular bonds. In living organisms, such radiation can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to cancers. However, more research is needed to determine whether low doses of radiation may also cause other health problems, such as heart disease and stroke, which are now seen with high doses of low-LET radiation.

The study committee defined low doses as those ranging from nearly zero to about 100 millisievert (mSv) -- units that measure radiation energy deposited in living tissue. The radiation dose from a chest X-ray is about 0.1 mSv. In the United States, people are exposed on average to about 3 mSv of natural "background" radiation annually.

The committee's report develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. In general, the report supports previously reported risk estimates for solid cancer and leukemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates.

As a Climate Progress post said, who are you going to believe, citizens of Japan and people living near United States nuclear reactors? Ann Coulter (and Lars Larson), or the National Research Council’s Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation?

Coulter made her bizarre claim in "A Glowing Report on Radiation." She selectively cited some quotes about hormesis in a 2001 New York Times story, "For Radiation, How Much is Too Much?"

Hormesis is the unproven notion that a toxin can be beneficial in small doses, while harmful if more is ingested. The New York TImes story is decidedly more skeptical about radiation-related hormesis than Coulter let on.

Now, some scientists even say low radiation doses may be beneficial. They theorize that these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural defense mechanisms. As evidence, they cite studies, like one in Canada of tuberculosis patients who had multiple chest X-rays and one of nuclear workers in the United States. The tuberculosis patients, some analyses said, had fewer cases of breast cancer than would be expected and the nuclear workers had a lower mortality rate than would be expected.

Dr. Boice said these studies were flawed by statistical pitfalls, and when a committee of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement evaluated this and other studies on beneficial effects, it was not convinced. The group, headed by Dr. Upton of New Jersey, wrote that the data ''do not exclude'' the hypothesis. But, it added, ''the prevailing evidence has generally been interpreted as insufficient to support this view.''

Well, if that was true in 2001, it is much more true now -- given the above-mentioned 2005 review of the scientific literature which concluded that there is no safe dose of radiation.

Specifically, the committee's thorough review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear, no-threshold" (LNT) risk model, which says that the smallest dose of low-level ionizing radiation has the potential to cause an increase in health risks to humans. In the past, some researchers have argued that the LNT model exaggerates adverse health effects, while others have said that it underestimates the harm. The preponderance of evidence supports the LNT model, this new report says.

So even though it should be obvious, don't take health advice from Ann Coulter or Lars Larson.

Why? Because they're idiots when it comes to making rational conclusions from widely recognized facts.

I couldn't agree more with Comment #14 on the Climate Progress post:

These things are great! People like Coulter are becoming more and more blatantly idiotic. I think they’re setting the stage for their own demise.

In the meantime, let’s throw a “radiation party” for Coulter, Beck and Limbaugh to help them [live] a long and healthy life. Special invited guests: Inhofe, Morano, Monckton… and the whole cavalcade of conservative clowns.

Salem getting closer to being a sustainable city

I've lived in, and around, Salem, Oregon for thirty-four years. LIke most long time residents, I run hot and cold with our semi-fair city. There's a lot to like, but Salem's reputation for being boring, lackluster, passionless, and uncreative is well-deserved.

Part of our problem is proximity to Portland and Eugene, each about one hour driving time away. These cities are much more vibrant, green, quirky, exciting. Plunk Salem down in Nebraska and I bet lots of jaded people there would respond with This is a cool town.

Agreed. But we could be a lot cooler. Which is why I came away from a recent Salem Progressive Film Series presentation much encouraged.

The film was "The Nature of Cities." It explored how the natural world can be embraced by humankind's built environment. You can get a five minute synopsis via You Tube.

 

Even more inspiring than the film itself, though, was the panel of speakers who appeared after the showing. Chris Jones and Courtney Cox talked about the University of Oregon's Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI). James Santana, about Salem's oh-so-green Pringle Creek Community.

I was vaguely aware that students at the U of O were doing something or other here in Salem, having read a newspaper story about their ideas for invigorating the Liberty Road area south of downtown.

But Jones and Cox opened my eyes to what a big deal this is -- Salem having been selected as the second city (after Gresham in 2009-10) to get the benefit of something like 80,000 hours of student/faculty work.

So said the New York Times last August in an interesting story about Salem's involvement with SCI, "In Oregon, Students Seek Key to a Sustainable City."

If Salem's key to economic sustainability in the 20th century was brick-and-mortar buildings such as the mall, then what is the solution for today? Short on tax dollars, this city of 150,000 people is about to be long on ideas -- and perhaps a little paper, glue and elbow grease mixed in.

Roughly 600 University of Oregon students in 25 classes will devote 80,000 hours to Salem during the coming year. The novel program, part of the university's three-year-old Sustainable Cities Initiative, will focus on making Salem more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable.

Students in architecture, planning, law, journalism and business classes will explore how Salem could nurture green business clusters, reuse industrial byproducts, connect parks with bicycle paths, redevelop brownfields and design energy-efficient municipal buildings, among other things. Just as important, the students will consider market and regulatory barriers to implementing their ideas.

Just what we need: energetic creativity.

l liked it when Chris Jones showed slides of how the Salem riverfront looked before and after its redevelopment into green space, an outdoor amphitheatre, carousel, and more fun stuff -- replacing a bunch of rundown industrial buildings.

He said that several decades ago it would have been a crazy idea to envision the Willamette riverfront looking like it does now. But this is how cities reinvent themselves, by people coming up with seemingly crazy notions which turn out to be wonderfully appealing and workable.

Courtney Cox, a City of Salem staffer who is the lead contact with SCI, gave the Progressive Film Series audience an overview of the projects students/faculty are engaged with.

Pretty darn exciting. If even a few come to fruition, Salem is going to be a much better city than it is now. The key, of course, is bridging the gap between Great Idea and Done Deal.

When question time came, I raised my hand. My query to Chris Jones was one of those speechified questions where someone wants to get a point across in the course of asking for an opinion. It went something like this:

There's a reason why this film is being shown at a Progressive Film Series rather than a Conservative Film Series. Somehow right-wingers have gotten it into their heads that greenness and sustainability don't mesh with economic development.

Yet when I watched "The Nature of Cities," and saw examples of green urban development, my inner tourist said I want to go there! I want to shop there! I might even want to live there!

So isn't it true that economic thriving goes hand-in-hand with environmental sustainability? And how is it that conservatives aren't into conserving our Earth's precious resources?

Well, at least I eventually got to asking some questions. Chris wryly said he was glad he'd gotten such a simple question. And then proceeded to respond to it. As expected, he agreed with the premise that economic development and green urban design are sympatico.

My main concern, when it comes to Salem, is whether city government, and its citizens in general, have the knowledge, values, and commitment required to make great sustainable concepts into a great sustainable reality.

A few days after seeing the film and hearing James Santana speak, I headed off to his Pringle Creek Community to see how it was coming along. It had been several years since I'd visited this 32 acre offshoot of the much larger Sustainable Fairview development, which is coming along considerably more slowly than Pringle Creek.

It was good to see that a half dozen or so green homes have been built, though this is a small fraction of what's in the master plan. I went on an Open House day, so got to chat with several homeowners about their decision to be Pringle Creek Community pioneers.

All were friendly, welcoming, and (not surprisingly) knowledgeable about green building practices. I especially appreciated how the woman who owned the first house I visited was pretty calm when we heard frantic barking coming from her front porch.

"My dog is tied up outside," I said. "Do you have a cat?" Indeed she did. But no harm was done and the cat was quickly brought inside. After that, Serena, our dog, was eager to move on to tne next open houses. Unfortunately (for her), no other curious cats poked their heads around a wall to see what sort of canine was leashed to a porch railing.

I hope Pringle Creek Community prospers.

And that its green vibe eventually encompasses all of Salem. The University of Oregon's Sustainable Cities Initiative is going to give us some terrific ideas. Now we just need to commit to making them happen.

Americans are over-reacting to Japan radiation scare

Yes, I'll admit it. For a few days I was one of the many Americans who are freaking out over the prospect of dangerous nuclear radiation reaching our shores from Japan. I anxiously sought out potassium iodide and ended up ordering some.

But facts are different from fears.

As my wife and I learned more about how much radiation is likely to make it across the Pacific Ocean into Oregon, even in a worst case scenario, we became a lot more relaxed about our personal situation -- though still deeply worried about the people living near the damaged reactors.

Some of the many reassuring articles that are based on science rather than emotion are here, here, here, here, and here. For example:

Inside Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco, scientists, engineers, and meteorological experts were analyzing those charts and maps to help policymakers predict where radioactive isotopes could travel.

"The models show what happens if the situation gets worse, if the winds change, or if it rains to predict what could happen," National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Damien LaVera said. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said they see no radiation at harmful levels reaching the United States, and we're not seeing anything that is inconsistent with that."

I realize that in some circles (mainly right-wing and religious), scientists aren't trusted. Why, they consider that human-caused global warming is happening and that evolution is true. Gasp!

To me, the situation is akin to the classic adage about fishing: "The worst day fishing is better than the best day working." I change that to say: "The worst prediction by reputable scientists is better than the best prediction made by anti-science ideologues."

So don't worry about Japan's radiation until there is something to really worry about. And remember: I was blown away by a nuclear bomb when I was a kid, and am still blogging away at sixty-two.

As I said in that post:

Whenever I fret too much about modern environmental degradation, I like to think back to the not-so-good old days of the 1950s when the United States conducted over 150 above ground tests of nuclear weapons.

Most of these were at the  Nevada Test Site. In 1955 my mother, who was divorced, moved with me to Three Rivers, California. Three Rivers is in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, on the other side of which lies Nevada.

Nowadays people worry over miniscule bits of contamination in our food, water, and air. Back in the '50s it was no big deal to set off honking large nuclear bombs above ground in the Nevada desert, spewing radioactive material all over the place.

Yes, it's good to be concerned about nuclear radiation.

But we need to keep things in perspective. And right now too many people in the United States are worrying way too much about themselves, and way too little about the Japanese who may actually be in danger.

One option to deal with New York Times online fees

I love the New York Times web site. So it was disturbing to learn that soon unlimited access to the site is going to cost from $15 to $35 a month.

At first I thought, "I'll head elsewhere in cyberspace to get my news."

But then I realized that (1) there's nothing like the New York Times, and (2) the NYT could go out of business if people aren't willing to pay for online content.

Reading comments on a story about the digital subscription plan, I saw a response from corporate communications staffer Eileen Murphy that generated an aha! in me.

All Home Delivery subscribers (7-day, Monday-Friday, Weekender, Sunday Only, etc.) will receive the All Digital Access product for free.

Our neighbors across the street here in rural south Salem (Oregon) get the Sunday New York TImes. I buy it myself occasionally when we're on vacation and don't have our local newspapers to read. It'd be a nice addition to my weekly reading.

The cost for Sunday only delivery is $3.75 a week. That's $15 for four weeks. Which is exactly the cost of unlimited access to NYTImes.com the NYT smartphone app. (Somehow I don't think this is an accident.)

So for $15 it's possible to get the Sunday New York Times delivered to your doorstep, and get unlimited access to NYTimes.com from any device (computer, iPhone, iPad).

[UPDATE NOTE: Somehow I misread the footnote to the $3.75/week Sunday Only subscription price. This is only for the first 12 weeks if you pay by credit card. After that, it jumps to $7.50/week. Bummer. Thanks to commenter Veeper for noticing what I missed.

This changes things. But maybe not by a lot. If I was willing to pay $15 for home delivery and online access, does it make a lot of difference to not get the Sunday edition in paper form? I'd still be able to get unlimited online access via my laptop and smart phone.

And here's a perspective on the issue that I came across today. I agree with this guy that we need to support genuine newspapers, because otherwise we'll end up only with bloggers like me making up stuff without a factual foundation. Am I still willing to pay $15 every four weeks to support a great newspaper, without which the world would be significantly lessened? Yes, I think so. END OF UPDATE]

Seemingly this will boost Sunday Only subscriptions, since why would someone pay $35 every four weeks for the All Digital Access option when they can get this option for "free" by forking out $15 every month for home delivery of the Sunday paper?

I'm leaning toward doing this, but want to see what the special March 28 introductory offer is.

My timings off with iPad 2 and potassium iodide

Well, I guess sometimes the early bird really does get the worm. And us late birds get the worm several weeks later.

I happened to be awake at 1:00 am last Friday morning, when the iPad 2 went on sale via Apple's web site. Since we'd planned to get one for my wife, I hauled my MacBook up to the bathroom and checked out the Apple store while I brushed my teeth.

I configured an iPad 2 and was about ready to click "buy." Then I realized that I didn't know what color cover my wife would like, and I wasn't absolutely sure about some other options.

So I figured that the "2-3 days" shipping time shown on the Apple web site wouldn't change much by the next day. Wrong. By the time I made my order late Friday morning the wait time to get an iPad 2 was up to 2-3 weeks.

Patience, grasshopper, patience.

With the potassium iodide, me and millions of other people must have come to the same conclusion today: it's time to think about protecting our thyroids if a radiation cloud comes floating across the Pacific from Japan into the United States.

Searching via Google Shopping and other means, I found a lot of "sold out" notices. Best I could do was order some potassium iodide on Amazon that came from the Vitamin Shoppe.

Delivery estimate is March 28 - April 5. Probably I won't be dead by then. Anyway, I've read that thyroid cancer takes ten to twenty years to show up, which will put me into even more advanced geezerhood.

I can always chug a salt shaker, I guess, if I get desperate. And we've got a bottle of kelp capsules hanging around the house, which supposedly do something or other to help ameliorate radiation poisoning.

A bottle of wine (or two) might be a better option.

We can mirror sacrifice of Japan's nuclear reactor workers

Driving home today, I listened to a interview with an expert who said, "The company that operates the damaged nuclear reactors in Japan probably is asking for volunteers among retired workers -- for obvious reasons."

I took that to mean that if you're old, you don't expect to have nearly as many years left to live as younger workers do, so dying prematurely from radiation exposure, though distressing, would take on a different cast than if you were in your thirties with young children.

A news story confirms that a search for volunteers, both old and young, likely is occurring:

As the radiation levels are rising in damaged nuclear reactors in Japan, a concern has been raised as to how long workers can keep struggling to control it as the radiation exposure continues to rise.

...Arnold Gunderson, a consultant that worked in US plants identical to damaged Japanese plants stated that most probably [the] company was asking retired and workers from other plants to volunteer and sacrifice as they may receive additional radiation exposure.

...Gamma rays, as well as other kind of radiation exposure, can be the cause of cancers and illnesses that can be extremely detrimental to the health in long or short term or could lead to death.

Being 62 myself, I thought about the bravery of those who come out of a comfortable retirement, or employment at a safe nuclear power plant, to risk death in order to save many others from radiation poisoning.

I wondered if I'd be able to do this, if I was given the opportunity.

Emotionally I was moved by the thought of ending my life in a dramatic supernova of self-sacrifice. Yet I also wasn't thrilled with the prospect of suffering through a painful lingering bout of radiation illness.

After these initial reactions to the idea of volunteering to keep a damaged nuclear power plant from melting down, it dawned on me that each of us is faced with less dramatic -- yet equally real -- opportunities to make sacrifices that will save lives.

Such as by being willing to pay higher taxes. And donating additional money to worthy charities.

But since governments are a more potent life-saving force than non-profits, given the resources at their disposal, the money we Americans fork over at tax time is a financial self-sacrifice which enables us to rescue others from premature death, disease, and disability at no bodily risk to ourselves.

I'm not exaggerating. This isn't a progressive's excuse to grow government. It's a fact.

Funding biomedical research saves lives. So does foreign aid aimed at preventing the spread of HIV in Africa. Ditto with expanding access to Medicaid and other low-income health programs. And so on, and so on.

Government programs save many more lives than individual heroism does. Yet we tend to focus on the drama of a fireman pulling a child from a burning building, rather than on the quiet effectiveness of pre-natal services in reducing infant mortality rates.

Back in the 1980's I was the executive director of Oregon Health Decisions, a group that encouraged citizen discussion of bioethical issues. At that time John Kitzhaber (now Oregon's governor) was president of the state Senate.

An emergency room physician, he boldly drew the state's attention to the paradox of how people would willingly make donations to fund a very expensive liver transplant that had a chance of extending one person's life for an uncertain number of years, but they'd balk at funding health prevention and early detection programs which would save many more lives at a lower cost.

This same dynamic is at play in the Japan nuclear reactor story. Appropriately, we admire the selflessness of those willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of a greater good.

Yet too often we fail to recognize the life-saving opportunities open to us right here at home -- by supporting legislation, and tax policies, which spend our money where it will provide the most benefit for our fellow human beings.

We have to recognize that taxes are good.

And that people who are happy to sacrifice more of their disposable income for the sake of others are heroes. Obviously not in the same way as someone who volunteers for dangerous duty at a damaged nuclear power plant, but heroes nonetheless.

Japan's Sendai earthquake shows value of government

Here's a lesson for rabid conservatives and Tea Party types:

What good has the free market been in responding to Japan's catastrophic earthquake? Are people relying on the government or on the private sector in dealing with the horrific consequences of the quake and resulting tsunami?

The answer is obvious.

When there's a huge seismic shift -- in the earth, in the economy, in the environment, in geopolitics, in national security -- governments are the glue which keep the social fabric from ripping apart.

Yes, communities help. Non-profit organizations help. Volunteer groups help. But these entities are "governments" on a smaller scale: people banding together to aid other people.

We demonize government at our peril. We slash taxes at our peril. When a serious disaster strikes, it isn't going to be a capitalist entrepreneur who rushes to your side. Almost certainly it's going to be people from the government.

Individuality, competition, self-reliance. These are admirable qualities in certain circumstances. However, equally or more important are social cohesion, cooperation, mutual support.

That's one of the lessons we Americans should take away from the Japan earthquake. Government is Us. Something to be embraced, not disdained.

No bars at home? How I got an AT&T 3G Microcell for free

iPhone users like me are fond of trashing AT&T. For good reasons. For several years my wife and I have paid a hefty monthly fee for the "privilege" of getting crappy (basically, unusable) cellular reception in our home.

So we've got cell phones which will barely make telephone calls when we're not out and about.

Not a huge deal, since we have a landline, but irritating. Sometimes I want to make a call when my wife is on the phone. Other times, someone who has AT&T and wants to use their phone has to walk up our driveway and search for a decent signal. Not a lot of fun in the cold or rain.

But AT&T brought a smile to my face last week when I opened the mail. A letter from the company started off with:

Thank you for being an AT&T wireless customer. We are very grateful that you have chosen us for your communication needs, and it is our privilege to have you as a valued customer. As a way of showing our appreciation, we would like to offer you an AT&T 3G Microcell at no charge.

The 3G Microcell acts like a mini-cell tower, boosting your bars and enhancing your wireless coverage at home. If you are not getting the signal you expect in your house, this may be the perfect solution for you; however, it is not intended for use in areas with strong wireless signal strength.

After reading this, my first thought was "Complaining pays off." Along with, "Thank you, Verizon."

Soon after we got our iPhones, I went into our local AT&T office and complained about our one-bar reception at home. An employee dutifully typed my name and address into his computer, thereby officially registering our dissatisfaction. I've also used AT&Ts Mark the Spot iPhone app to report our bad cellular coverage.

But somehow I suspect that competition from Verizon ("America's most reliable network") for iPhone customers led AT&T to finally get off its corporate butt and fix our coverage problem. So complaining probably is what got us noticed by AT&T, while Verizon's entry into the iPhone market stimulated the free 3G Microcell offer.

The gadget is working great. We now have five bars in most of our house, with four in the area farthest from the Microcell. Phone calls have excellent sound quality, much better than before.

It was simple to pick one up at our local AT&T store. I just have to give it back if we terminate our AT&T wireless service within 12 months. Since the 3G Microcell (made by Cisco) retails for $150, I felt good about that painless requirement.

The Microcell uses a broadband connection to tie into the AT&T network. Don't ask me how. (Here's some FAQs.) All I know is that the thing works as advertised. All I had to do was plug a cable into a router port and follow instructions for powering up the modem, router, and Microcell in the right order.

My main concern was whether the Microcell was close enough to a window to get decent GPS reception. This is necessary for 911 calls, which require your location.

No problem, though. After I activated the service online and connected the Microcell, within half an hour or so five bars had showed up on my iPhone, followed by "AT&T Microcell." Wi-fi reception on the iPhone was unaffected. So I'm a happier AT&T customer now.

I'll still be tempted to head over to Verizon when our AT&T contract is up. But that's less likely with our excellent in-home cellular coverage.

Moral for AT&T: Giving customers free useful stuff will help your retention rate. Next, how about free tethering for the iPhone?

(Reviews of the 3G Microcell can be read here, here, and here.)

Health insurance companies discourage colon cancer screening

Colon cancer is the fourth most common form of cancer in the United States. You'd think that insurance companies would want to do their utmost to prevent it. But I've learned that almost all of them don't -- including my insurer, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon.

On February 18 I had a colonoscopy.

I didn't have any symptoms of colon cancer, but my Gastroenterologist recommended that I get another one, because (1) two years ago my first regular colonoscopy revealed a benign polyp (which was removed), and (2) an imperfect colonoscopy prep obscured part of my colon, so the doctor couldn't see whether any polyps were in that area.

The procedure went fine. It was even enjoyable, in a drugged-up sense. A flat polyp was found and removed in the first colonoscopy's "bad prep" area. Once again, it turned out to be benign.

This is the good news. The bad news arrived in the mail a few days ago: an "Explanation of Benefits" form from Regence of Oregon regarding my colonoscopy. Total Regence Paid was shown in bold at the top.

The amount: $0.00

Total Member Responsibility to Provider(s) was right next to it. The amount: $805.69

I thought, "What the hell?" I was pretty sure that two years ago Regence had paid for most of my first colonoscopy, since this is a preventive screening procedure. I also knew that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare") required insurance companies to fully cover preventive care.

Indeed, a summary of Regence of Oregon's new Evolve Plus policy, which I was switched to in July 2010, states:

Preventive care: Preventive services and immunizations are covered according to guidelines set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

Some Googling led me to the USPSTF guidelines for colorectal screening, which were referenced by the CDC and seemed to also be the main basis for HRSA policies. Yes, indeed, colonoscopies are a good thing. I read:

Screening for colorectal cancer reduces mortality through detection and treatment of early-stage cancer and detection and removal of adenomatous polyps. The degree to which each of these mechanisms contributes to a reduction in mortality is unknown, although it is likely that the largest reduction in colorectal cancer mortality during the 10 years after initial screening comes from the detection and removal of early-stage cancer. Colonoscopy is a necessary step in any screening program that reduces mortality from colorectal cancer.

So polyp removal is an integral and important part of screening for colon cancer via a colonoscopy. After the doctor spots a polyp during the exam, he or she can remove it through the colonoscope. Screening and prevention go hand in hand, since today's benign polyp can turn into tomorrow's early stage colon cancer.

Why, then, wasn't Regence paying for my colonoscopy, since this is a preventive service under the Affordable Care Act? The government web site that lists covered services says:

If you have a new health insurance plan or insurance policy beginning on or after September 23, 2010, the following preventive services must be covered without your having to pay a copayment or co-insurance or meet your deductible.

Well, my new Evolve Plus policy kicked in on July 1, 2010, so this could explain why the Affordable Care Act doesn't yet control what Regence has to pay for a colonoscopy. But  Regence of Oregon itself says that colonoscopies are fully paid for, as this Regence Evolve Plus flyer says.
Download Regence- Evolve Plus 2011

Preventive care – covered at 100% (no annual benefit maximum) Includes the following when billed as preventive: Routine physical exam, well child care, adult and child immunizations, routine laboratory, radiology and diagnostic procedures including mammography, pap smear, PSA and colonoscopy. (See contract for complete list of preventive care benefits)

Perplexed, I phoned Gastroenterology Specialists of Oregon and talked with their insurance company billing person. She told me that because a polyp was removed, Regence considered the entire colonoscopy a "medical procedure," not a preventive screening.

"That doesn't make any sense," I told her.

Explaining, I said: "At the time I was given a sedative and became unconscious, I had no colon cancer symptoms and was getting a colonoscopy as a screening tool. When I woke up, I still had no symptoms but a benign polyp had been removed. How is it that the colonoscopy changed from being a 100% covered preventive service to a 0% covered medical procedure just because a polyp was removed in the name of prevention?"

(Like many people, I have a high deductible -- $2,500 -- because otherwise my premium would be unaffordable. Since I hadn't met the deductible, Regence didn't pay anything for my colonoscopy. Preventive care isn't subject to the deductible, though.)

"Insurance companies are just trying to save money," she told me. Bastards, I thought.

Colonoscopies aren't a lot of fun. Most people dread getting them. But they're the best way to screen for colon cancer before it spreads, and to excise potentially pre-cancerous polyps.

Yet the billing person told me that every private insurance company she deals with considers that removing a polyp stops a colonoscopy from being a covered preventive service, even though the patient (like me) has no symptoms of colon cancer and the polyp removal is purely preventive, not curative.

Like I said, bastards.

When someone is urged by his or her doctor to get a colonoscopy, the insurance companies don't tell policy-holders that if a polyp is found, you're going to end up getting zero benefits for a preventive service that is described as being covered 100%. That sure sounds like "bait and switch" advertising to me.

Plus, its despicable for insurance companies to act in a way that discourages people from getting colonoscopies. This is a screening tool that is demonstrably effective in preventing colon cancer.

Yet insurers are, in effect, saying to policy holders: "If the doctor doing the colonoscopy removes a pre-cancerous polyp in the course of the procedure, we won't pay for it."

So if somebody is strapped for money, as so many people are these days, he or she could well put off getting a colonoscopy, since there's no way of knowing ahead of time if the insurance company is going to pay 100% or 0% for the expensive procedure.

This is the point made by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the Colorectal Cancer Coalition.

“Colorectal cancer is a largely preventable disease. Screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy identifies polyps and allows them to be removed before they turn into cancer, and that is the basis for colonoscopy as both a screening and colorectal cancer prevention tool,” said M. Brian Fennerty, MD, FASGE, president, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“We call upon health plans and insurers to fully eliminate the cost burden of colonoscopy colorectal cancer screening by waiving cost- sharing for the screening portion of colonoscopies in the event that they turn therapeutic and a polyp is removed.”

The greatest benefit of colonoscopy is removing polyps that are discovered during screening and by so doing, significantly decreasing the risk for later cancer development.

Converting a screening procedure that is fully covered by insurance with no cost-sharing, to one that does require cost-sharing by the patient after a polyp is found, is both a barrier to screening and inconsistent with the goal of the preventive services provision. The patient who has a polyp removed is the one who benefits the most from the exam and imposing a financial “penalty” could deter the patient from getting screened.

Right on.

But Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon is even worse than this. I told the clinic's billing person that I wouldn't mind paying whatever extra a "polyp-removal colonoscopy" costs versus a "non-polyp-removal colonoscopy." It couldn't be much, since snipping off a polyp is a small addition to the whole colonoscopy experience.

So if Regence said I'd have to do some cost-sharing -- 10% or whatever -- because a polyp was removed during the screening procedure, that'd be fine with me. To refuse to pay anything for a preventive colonoscopy, that's unacceptable.

I'll be complaining to Regence, elected officials, Governor Kitzhaber (a physician), the state Insurance Commission, and anyone else I can think of who could help change this stupid insurance company policy. I don't begrudge insurers an honest return, but gouging policy-holders and risking lives in the name of Almighty Profit is outrageous.

Art Robinson, crazy conservative, insanely attacks Oregon State

I'm sorry that Keith Olbermann isn't on MSNBC any longer, because Art Robinson's newest display of deceptive craziness would make him a great candidate for a "Worst Person in the World!" dishonor.

Robinson, who lost to Peter DeFazio in last year's 4th Congressional District race, is claiming that Oregon State University is retaliating against his three children because of "political payback."

This struck me as ludicrous when I learned about Robinson's attack on OSU's Nuclear Engineering department via a chain email that was forwarded to me. Why would professors risk their careers by unethically (and probably illegally) targeting Robinson's children for expulsion without cause?

So I found a statement from Oregon State that, not surprisingly, calls Robinson's paranoid delusions a bunch of crap -- though, sadly, the University Relations press release wasn't that blunt in its wording. The meaning was the same, though.

Robinson’s material singles out several individual faculty members for criticism. The university has found no factual basis for the accusations made against those faculty members. OSU is proud of its education and research programs and faculty in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics and of department alumni, many of whom hold leadership positions in government and private sector organizations.

OSU will not comment on other allegations made in the Robinson posts other than to say the claims made therein are baseless and without merit.

If you have a strong stomach for B.S., head over to World Net Daily and read Robinson's screed. It's filled with evidence-less conspiracy theories that have been de-bunked by Oregon State administrators.

Oh, but wait!

OSU higher-ups must be part of the conspiracy also. So every denial by the university that Robinson's children are being attacked by Democrat ideologues in the Nuclear Engineering department actually is additional proof that the accusations are true.

Thus almost certainly worketh the off-center psyche of Art Robinson, who seemingly has never come across a fact that his right-tilted mind can't manufacture into an illusion of his own making.

Such as Robinson's belief that global warming is a crock, putting him at odds with 98% of the world's climate scientists (Robinson is a chemist.) And that it'd be fine to spread radioactive waste in the oceans.

You have to say this for Art Robinson, the GOP candidate running against U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio in southwest Oregon:

He never denies that he said it.

Over the last 15 years or so, Robinson, who runs his own scientific research center and newsletter from a compound outside Cave Junction, has piled up a series of statements that range from jaw-dropping to "Were you running a fever that day?"

But now, he won't deny that he repeatedly seemed to call for abolishing public schools, or for spreading nuclear waste in the oceans, or for a Social Security policy based on a mathematical impossibility that should be clear to a research scientist. He just explains that he said those things a while ago, or that when he said them he didn't know that he'd ever be running for public office, or that he was talking to an excited crowd and got excited himself.

Which makes Art Robinson's latest OSU weirdness 99.9% unlikely to be remotely true. If you watch the first ten minutes or so of Robinson imploding on Rachel Maddow's show last October, I bet you'll want to make that probability 100%.

This guy's credibility is beyond the farthest reaches of believable. Have a look at the past, and probably future, Republican candidate for Congress in DeFazio's district.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

My fantasy endings for Wisconsin standoff

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to destroy public employee unions under the ruse of cost-cutting is great political theatre. Wow, in recent weeks we've seen...

Massive rallies of 70,000 people or more calling for compromise, rather than Koch-brother commanded Republican intransigence. Fourteen Democratic state senators fleeing to Illinois to deny a quorum and, hence, a vote on the union-busting bill. And today, Walker refusing to negotiate with the Dem senators.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Monday dismissed as "ridiculous" a letter from a Democratic state Senate leader who suggested a meeting "near the Wisconsin-Illinois border" to discuss the state's budget impasse.

I guess Walker also believes that 65% of Wisconsin adults are ridiculous, because that's how many favor him negotiating with Democrats and public employee unions to find a compromise, rather than sticking with Walker's Big Baby attitude of "my way or the highway."

Walker's approval rating is sinking rapidly -- 54% in Wisconsin don't like his job performance. This bodes well for recall efforts aimed at Republican legislators and Gov. Walker himself.

Regardless of how the standoff over the union-busting bill turns out, it'd be great if this saga ends with Walker getting kicked out of office after serving only one year as Governor. Yesterday I sent $20 off to the Wisconsin Democratic Party to support the recall efforts. Click here to make your own contribution.

So that's my #1 fantasy ending to the Wisconsin drama: Walker's legislation is scaled back to budget-balancing provisions unions already have agreed to; then Walker and key state legislators responsible for this travesty get recalled, sending a lesson to other right-wingers that the middle class won't stand for being sold out so corporations can get their tax breaks.

 

But like the Rolling Stones told us, you can't always get what you want. It might turn out that the courageous fourteen Democratic state senators will have to return to Wisconsin without a compromise agreement, permitting a vote on the union-busting bill to go forward.

If that happens, I hope their entry into Madison will be celebrated as a victory march, not a defeat. Because even if the horrible legislation passes, Walker and the Tea Party have lost -- having woken up a sleeping union giant and the clear majority of Americans who favor middle-class over corporate interests.

"Wait until 2012!" That should be the rallying cry as the Wisconsin Fourteen parade down the streets of Madison (riding in sedan chairs on the backs of flower-bedecked elephants would be a nice touch) on their way to the capitol.

Walker might win a vote on his budget bill, but he and his fellow Wisconsin Republicans are going to be losing a lot of other electoral contests in the next couple of years. Voters have turned against them; teachers and other public employees won't let citizens forget this come election time.

Wars aren't won or lost by a single battle.

Supporters of the middle class in Wisconsin should be proud of how they've waged their campaign against Scott Walker's budget bill. They've won the hearts and minds of countless voters both in their state and around the country. In 2012, this engergized electorate is going to punish Republicans and re-elect Barack Obama.

That isn't a fantasy. I'm confident it's going to become reality.

575 pound "Heart Attack Grill" spokesman dies at 29

Karma. It's for real.

Oregon cattlemen out of touch with wolf reality

As I've said before, ranchers shouldn't be afraid of the Big Bad Wolf -- now that a small number have established residence in Oregon. Disease and severe weather kill vastly more livestock, so cattlemen's freak-out over wolves returning to our state is uninformed and irrational.

(Political correctness note: I would prefer to say cattlepeople, but ranchers have decided to call their umbrella group the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, so I bow to their preference. And it's good to see that two women have been past presidents of the OCA, one even daring to be photographed -- gasp! -- without a cowboy/cowgirl hat.)

Today the Salem Statesman Journal ran a guest opinion by Bill Hoyt, current president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. It was titled "Oregon cattle industry needs help to stay strong."

Well, Bill, your members already are getting lots of help from us taxpayers, who are subsidizing cattle grazing on public land in what has been correctly called welfare ranching. As noted in a previous post:

Many ranchers in Oregon graze their cattle on public lands. According to the “Welfare Ranching” book, federal permittees pay only $1.35 per month to graze a cow-calf pair while the average monthly cost of grazing a cow-calf pair on private lands is $11.10. So us taxpayers should have a lot to say about what happens on public ranchland, since we’re the ones subsidizing the ranchers.

Face the facts, ranchers. You're feeding at the public trough.

Government is keeping you in business if you graze cattle on federal land. So this is one reason why you need to go along with the public will regarding wolves. Which currently is saying, "Let them become part of the balance of nature again."

In this regard I agree with Bill Hoyt's call for taxpayer funded compensation for Oregon ranchers if it can be proven that wolves were responsible for livestock deaths. This part of his opinion piece makes good sense:

It is our firm belief that if the political and social will in Oregon is to foster the emerging wolf population, this will not take place in a vacuum. We also feel strongly that the cost of maintaining the wolf population should not be born entirely by one segment of society.

Absolutely. But in states with wolves only 1-2% of unplanned livestock deaths are caused by predators, and most of those killings are by coyotes. So wolves aren't a big impact on cattlemen's bottom line.

Why, then, are ranchers making such a big deal out of a few wolf breeding pairs settling in Oregon? I see several reasons.

One is a general fear of the wild.

Nature is, well, natural. Untamed. Unpredictable. Uncontrollable. (Though we humans do our best to pretend otherwise.) Wolves are a powerful symbol of wildness, causing unrealistic fears among people who expect reality to be all neatly fenced-in and manageable.

Last Friday the Portland Oregonian had a story about Carter Niemeyer: "Former wolf hit man an unlikely advocate." Niemeyer knows a tremendous amount about wolves, having killed and trapped many of them when he worked for the fed's Animal Damage Control (now wrongly named Wildlife Services).

The story quotes him:

"You have a tremendous amount of backlash so that now you have self-appointed wolf experts misinforming the public and instilling fear that wolves are going to kill your kids, wipe out elk herds and spread diseases."

And goes on to say:

None of that is true, he says. Still, he keeps calling for common ground, urging agencies to co-investigate suspected wolf kills, with transparency and oversight. He wants more conversations with ranchers and encourages more nonlethal controls. And he hopes people learn more than the "Little Red Riding Hood" storyline of the Big Bad Wolf.

Me too. I'm going to let Bill Hoyt know about this blog post. It'd be great if he'd inform members of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association about the Niemeyer story, so they could become better informed about what is really true about wolves.

I'll admit, reality is tough to handle. But it's the best place for us to find common ground. Here's another excerpt from the Oregonian piece:

By 1990, he [Niemeyer] was a full-time wolf specialist, investigating and mitigating the wolf problem in Montana. He felt more like a sociologist, mediating between furious landowners and environmentalists, trying to determine whether wolves were responsible for livestock kills. Most of the time, the field investigaton showed they were not.

"I felt people pushing me to simply rubber-stamp what they thought was happening and their entitlements," he says.

So another reason for wolf-fearing is ignorance of the facts, along with attachment to one's current state of illusion.

Ranchers wrongly believe that wolves are a much bigger threat to livestock than they really are, so they jump to an erroneous conclusion -- wolf kill! -- when they see a dead animal.

Again, ranchers need to remember that when they're using public land, they're getting a taxpayer funded benefit, just like welfare recipents do. They should feel grateful for that subsidy of their operations and not complain when reasonable restrictions are placed on their use of public property.

Localscope is my favorite "where is...?" iPhone app

I'm always looking for new and better GPS'ized apps for my iPhone 4. To me never (well, hardly ever) getting lost and nearly always being able to find restaurants, coffee houses (!!!), shopping centers and such is one of the top advantages of having a smart phone.

A few weeks ago an email blurb from the Localscope P.R. manager popped up on my iPhone.

Glancing at it overly quickly, and failing to scroll all the way down the message, I learned about this recently released "where is...?" app, but failed to notice that I could get a promocode for a free review copy.

So I blew $1.99 in the Apple App Store on Localscope.

Thus this review is totally uninfluenced by me getting the app for free, though if Cynapse (the maker of Localscope) wants to send me other complimentary iPhone goodies, I won't refuse them -- especially if a roundtrip airline ticket to Hawaii is included for a tropical evaluation.

Currently Localscope is my preferred GPS app for finding businesses, places, and people. I've stopped using AroundMe and Where To?, though I still like them. Localscope has a cleaner user interface and some other features that appeal to me.

Searching choices. You can either type in the name of who/what you're looking for, or browse categories of nearby locations. By sliding the bottom arrow thingie, Google, Bing, FourSquare, Twitter, or Wikimapia databases each can be searched.

This is handy, as different results pop up for each search option, though I haven't figured out yet why Twitter is included. After a custom search is performed, it becomes one of the saved categories (it'd appear above "Cafe" in the screen shot above). I've got "vegetarian restaurant" as an additional category that fits our culinary preferences.

Navigation. Once a desired place has been found, tapping on the listing leads to an info page with the address, phone number, web page URL, mini Google map, direction/distance, and the key "Open Map" -- which offers Maps app and Navigon options (the TomTom navigator also is supported, I believe).

As I blogged about before, the Navigon app has replaced my standalone Garmin Nuvi. My iPhone is always with me on travels, and Navigon works more reliably. So it's great to be able to find a place/person via Localscope and then have the address automatically entered into Navigon, which then gives me turn by turn directions.

The Navigon app itself is quite limited at finding places of interest, one of its few drawbacks. But with Localscope and Where To? linking to Navigon, these apps make up for what Navigon lacks in custom search capabilities.

Exploring distant places. If GPS is turned "on" in Localscope, your current location is shown at the bottom of the screen and searches find places that are near you. But if you turn GPS off, then searches anywhere in the world can happen.

When I typed in "Paris France," Localscope brought up a map centered on what apparently is a central Paris location. Clicking on my saved "Vegetarian restaurant" search revealed that if I ever found myself at that place in Paris, I could eat my favorite food at restaurant vegetarien 1009.4 yards away.

Good to know.

I didn't find any veggie food in Kabul, Afghanistan, though. And distressingly, only one coffee house popped up. For that, and many other reasons, I'm not planning on a visit to Kabul anytime soon.

Bottom line: for $1.99, Localscope is a great addition to an iPhone app collection. A You Tube video shows the app in action.

 

I sell my mother's silver in a hotel room

So what do you do with a cardboard box full of silver stuff -- teapot, candle holders, serving dishes, trophies -- that's been sitting in the garage for over twenty years, tarnished beyond belief, when you have no idea what it's worth or who might want to buy it?

That was my problem when my wife, who's been doing most of our pre-spring garage cleaning, told me "You've got to do something with your mother's silver. It's been taking up space for too long."

Dutiful husband that I am, I picked up the box from the floor of the garage, walked into the carport, and laid it on a stack of firewood.

I figured that this would show my wife that I was in the process of dealing with the silver -- which for the past month or so consisted of me glancing at the box as I got into my car, thinking "I've got to do something about that stuff one of these days."

This time my procrastination, which usually lacks a cause other than sloth, actually had a reason behind it.

I was mystified by the silver. I vaguely understood that there was "sterling silver" and lesser varieties, but didn't know the caliber of the box contents. They were so tarnished, it was hard to make out any inscriptions on most of the items.

I toyed with the idea of donating the box to Goodwill. As I'm about to describe, that would have been great for Goodwill and bad for me, so sometimes procrastinating pays off.

A couple of days ago our local newspaper, the Salem (Oregon) Statesman Journal ran three full page ads in Section A with a "Buying -- 4 Days Only -- instant cash for all..." headline.

Part of the "all..." was sterling and silver.

My wife, who pays a lot more attention to ads than I do, tore out one of the pages advertising the Anderson Carter Tira & Associates Estates Buyers event at the Shiloh Inn. She handed it to me along with the name and address of a pawn shop in our area that also buys silver.

My mission today, and I had no choice but to accept it, was to find the best price for the silver. This was in line with the Anderson Carter advice in their ad:

"We are confident our buyers will beat most legitimate offers! How to test us: Take your valuable items to other dealers before bringing them to us. Have them give you legitimate written offers... We believe the buyers we have chosen will beat most legitimate written offers."

But when I got to the pawn shop, the guy who evaluates silver wasn't there. I think this was my first time ever in a pawn shop, so I did appreciate a new experience.

Carrying in the plastic container that my wife (correctly) thought would be a classier container for the silver pieces than an old cardboard box with mouse droppings on the bottom of it, I empathized with the woman at the counter who apparently was retrieving some items that she'd pawned.

Times are tough. I was impressed with how polite the proprietors of the pawn shop were, and how neatly it was organized. I was tempted to do some shopping, then remembered that my mission was to make some money, not spend it.

I then headed to the Shiloh Inn on Market Street. It was an appropriate setting for the "Instant Cash for All" event, not too seedy, yet definitely not upscale. Getting off the elevator on the second floor, clutching my plastic box, I was met by a blue-jeaned twenty-something guy who asked what I was wanting to sell.

Demonstrating my sophistication, I said "Um, some silver, not utensils, you know, um, silver..." He rescued me with "flatware." "Yeah, flatware, that's it. I've got some silver flatware."

The guy ushered me down the hall. Each hotel room had a sign taped to the door designating the sort of stuff being assessed within: jewelry, gold, etc. I was told to sit behind a table in the silver room, put my things on it, and then wait for someone to look them over.

He walked in after a minute or two. After inspecting the bottoms of the pieces, for signs of "sterling silver" I figured, he said "Wait here. A buyer will be with you soon." Apparently I'd passed the first stage of silver purchasing, which made me feel hopeful.

The next buyer guy was more thorough. He went through the items carefully, putting most of them on a desk blotter and setting a few of them off to the side. When he was done, he told me that I could put the non-blottered items back in my box, because they weren't silver.

He then proceeded to weigh each of the approved items on a scale. While he did this, we chatted about this and that. I told him how my mother used to bring out her silver set for company, and then I'd have to help her clean it the next day, which now seemed like a lot of work, given that I have trouble even putting things in the dishwasher.

When he was done weighing, the buyer wrote down a number on a piece of paper and handed it to me. "This is what I can offer you," he said. Yeow. I was surprised. Not at all what I expected. But of course, I had no idea what to expect.

Not wanting to wait a couple of days to show my stuff to the pawn shop silver guy, I decided to accept this offer. My "OK" soon brought me to the room next door, where some crisp cash was counted out and put in front of me.

Getting home, I told my wife that I'd gotten rid of the silver.

I asked her, "How much do you think they paid me for it? Take a guess." "Twenty-five dollars," she said. (Later I learned that this was how much she got thirty years ago for some silver-plated items that belonged to her own mother.)

I opened my wallet and started to count out the money that had been given me. "FIve dollars," I said. "That's it?" "No, there's more." I pulled out a twenty. "Twenty-five." Then, with a smile, I took out a hundred dollar bill. "One hundred twenty-five."

"Wow," my wife said. "I didn't think it was worth that much." I took out another $100 bill. "Two hundred twenty-five." And another. "Three hundred twenty-five." She was roundly shocked by the time I got to "Seven hundred twenty-five." Obviously neither of us had kept up with the price of silver.

This was free enterprise at its best (or worst, depending on your view of capitalism). Almost certainly, I got screwed today. But I was happy to be taken advantage of. So a buyer and a seller both went away happy.

Meaning, I'm pretty sure I could have gotten even more for the silver pieces if I'd either bargained with the buyer, or taken the silver to some other reputable potential purchasers. However, I had no idea how much the silver was worth, and I also had no idea where else I could try to sell it locally, other than pawn shops.

And it could be that my wife's theory is more or less correct: that large-scale buyers of precious items like Anderson Carter Tira & Associates can pay a decent price for stuff because they have closer connections with the end purchaser, eliminating a middle man that a pawn shop would have to deal with.

Regardless, the deal is done. I did some Googling before writing this post. I couldn't find any serious complaints about Anderson Carter Tira & Associates.

There was some confusion in Virginia a few years back, when it was discovered that an obscure provision in state law prevented "breeze-into-town" buyers from doing their thing. Some people also challenged the accuracy of their scales, but later they were found to be accurate.

Commenters on a blog post about a Houston Anderson Carter event were mostly negative, but that's typical on the Internet: complainers are more likely to share their views than satisfied customers. (Here's another story from a Connecticut newspaper.)

My impression, based mostly on my personal experience, is that these folks are good at what they do and provide a useful service. If you've got something really valuable to sell, it'd make sense to get quite a few serious appraisals of it.

However, for people like me who have a mouse-poop ridden box of old silver sitting around in the garage that a spouse says "Must go!", a selling opportunity like the one I took advantage of today is terrific.