Historical Tidbits

Just getting started, but have found a few interesting tidbits.  According to the NY Times, of the thirty-three professors at Amherst in 1890, twenty-three supported Cleveland (Democrat), and seven supported Harrison (Republican).  Some things don't change.  On the other hand, Harrison had been the big spender and supported tarriffs.  Cleveland had been the master of the pocket veto, blocking many bills including special favors for interest groups, and he favored free trade.  Some things do change.  Young Coolidge blamed the surprise election of Cleveland in part on "the vague idea of the working and farming classes that somebody is getting all the money while they get all the work."  I guess class envy has been part of the political scene for some time.

The economics of higher education have certainly changed.  Professors were "giants on campus" and their "salaries were $2,500, more than twenty times tuition."  The average wage earner made $425 per year.  So extrapolating to today, if average income is about $45,000, then professors at Amhurst today would be making almost $250,000 -- and tuition would be $12,500.  Instead, the average full professor there is now making $140,000, and tuition is $37,600. Amherst's website says that the cost of educating each student exceeds the fee by 50%.  Makes you wonder where all the money is going!

The Conversation

  I enjoy reading the opinion pages in the local paper.  I write many letters to the editor in my head and a few actually get written and printed.  Generally, however, they're ignored.  Usually because some more exciting issue is being discussed.  (Once, it was the county's dealing with donkeys in Waikoloa.)

  The county passed a plastic bag ban last year.  They've been something of a litter problem.  Beginning this year, grocery stores and others can't give away plastic bags, although they may sell them for a nickle.  Next year they'll be completely banned.  So when I ran into a couple of articles about a study by a couple of law professors suggesting that a spike in food-borne illnesses and deaths in the San Francisco area might be attributed to their plastic bag ban, I thought it would be fun to write a piece.  I wrote the following:

Dear Editor:

I noted with interest a couple of recent articles referring to a recent study by a couple of law professors for the Wharton School Institute for Law and Economics. They found a huge (46 percent) increase in food-borne-illness deaths in San Francisco after its plastic bag ban went into effect (a San Francisco Chronicle article can be found here: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/S-F-s-plastic-bag-ban-may-be-unhealthy-4264075.php).

Once again, we see the unintended consequences of government regulation.

Perhaps the Legislature should think twice before passing a statewide ban. And maybe the County Council should consider lifting the ban on our island.

As many would-be regulators often say: “If even one life is saved, it will be worth it.”

Alternatively, maybe we need a new law requiring us to wash or otherwise sterilize our reusable bags after each use.

  I probably should have commented that some folks disagreed with the findings, but I just kept it short.  This time, my letter provoked a response:

 Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. 

 There is no causal link to the ban on plastic bags in San Francisco County, food-borne illnesses and deaths resulting from them in San Francisco County.
 
The gentleman cites a preliminary study that has no scientific basis, was not published nor submitted for peer review and was thoroughly discredited by the San Francisco Public Health Department, the Washington Post and numerous other sources.

A casual reading of this preliminary study shows that there is no scientific basis whatsoever for this claim.

You just can't take a political prejudice and combine it with unproven theories and toss it out in the public square as a valid argument for your position.

It is obvious the gentleman is opposed to the ban on plastic bags.  That's his right.  But, he has an obligation to check his facts more thoroughly.

He has no right to discredit our local politicians by the use of such ludicrous evidence.  The study he cited wouldn't get him a passing grade in seventh grade science.

Gary Hattenburg, Kailua-Kona

  I thought about doing a followup:  Something along the lines that the failure to prove a hypothesis does not prove that the hypothesis is wrong.  (The Chronicle article says the city health director found the hypothesis plausible, but thought the research sloppy.)  And since my letter, J. Lynn picked up a couple of reports from workers at the grocery stores about the awful, filthy bags that some customers have used since the bag ban went into effect.  Anyway, it was fun to see that someone read my letter.

  So if people start dropping like flies on the Big Island, check to see if there's a link to the ban on plastic bags!  (Ha-ha.)