EclectEcon

Noise-cancelling Headphones:Spend the money and buy good ones

Over the past few years, I have gone through four or five different sets of noise-cancelling headphones or earbuds. 

• Initially a bought a pair of Sennheisers, precursors to these, I think. They are okay, but they have a bit too much hiss, and because they are on the ear, not over the ear, they don't block out non-noise-cancelled sounds very well. I have continued to use them off and on, and they are much better than nothing, but they quite clearly have left something to be desired.
• To reduce the bulk, I also tried a pair of Panasonic noise-cancelling earbuds, likely these or something close to them. I liked them quite a bit because of the convenience in carrying them -- small and easy to pack or shove into a pocket. But they weren't quite so reliable and stopped working after a year or so. I think a wire broke near the jack.
• I also tried a few others along the way, but none was particularly satisfying.
• A few days ago I got a pair of Bose 15 headphones. WOW!! These are fantastic! They do a terrific job of canceling noise, and the over-the-ear design cuts out lots of the noise that isn't cancelled electronically. I haven't used them a lot yet, but they are comfortable and have phenomenal sound in addition to eliminating much more noise than any of the others I have tried. 

So far, I'm delighted with the Bose 15s. I'll be wearing them on a 9-hour long bus trip to the Grey Cup at the end of November, and I'll be using them as well on a two-day train trip (each way) from Saskatoon to London, Ontario, and back in a couple of months. Here's hoping I'm still as delighted with them in January. 

. .

Freedom of Speech and Scarce Resources

In his classic textbook on the Economic Analysis of Law, Judge Richard Posner points out that

1. Freedom of speech is not absolute. When the costs of competition in the marketplace for ideas outweigh the benefits (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre), that type of speech is not allowed.
2. Freedom of speech does not mean that others must provide scarce resources for you to exercise this right. We have no obligation to provide you with a radio station, a newspaper, or any other venue to present your views. What we do have is an obligation to let you use your own scarce resources to promote your views (so long as doing so does not violate the first point, above).

I'm writing about this because recently I was accused of violating someone's freedom of speech.

The situation was this: there has been a huge debate on the campus of The University of Regina about whether the students should remain members of the Canadian Students' Federation. As is usual in situations like this, students often approach professors, asking if they can have a few minutes at the beginning of class to address the students in that class. 

I have never allowed presentations like this (or about job opportunities, etc.) in my classes. And so when I was approached outside one class by someone from one faction I replied, "Absolutely not!" And later that day, when I was approached by someone else from the opposite faction outside a different class, I again replied, "Absolutely not!"

I then informed the students in both classes not to ask to address their classmates on matters not directly related to the coursework, explaining that in my 64 years of teaching, I have never permitted my classroom to become a forum for political debate or entrepreneurial activities.

I was quite surprised that evening to receive the following e-mail message:

John,

I am sure you have received an email from URFA [University of Regina Faculty Association] announcing that should be allowing students to engage in the freedom of speech. They support the allowance of students speaking about the referendum. Today you disallowed me from speaking in your class, but we will most likely be sending someone again as we think it is vital for students to be aware of the referendum and becoming engaged university citizens. Please re-consider your decision.

Thank you,

I responded that I had not received any such e-mail and that I had checked with colleagues who informed me there is no university obligation to let students address the classes on such topics. I also pointed out the difference between freedom of speech and freedom to use other people's scarce resources to promote an idea. And I noted that both sides of the campaign use pamphlets, posters, tables in the corridors, etc. to promote their views to their fellow students; there is clearly no abrogation of "freedom of speech" taking place here.

And now, several days later, I am still bothered by the incident. It turns out the Faculty Association at The University of Regina has been debating whether faculty members should say anything or allow the students to say anything about the CFS. They have not issued any e-mail obligating us to do anything.

Also, as one my colleagues discovered, allowing students from one side of an issue to make such a presentation leads to demands for equal time from students supporting the other side; classrooms become debate forums, taking time away from what should be going on there. If students want the university to provide debating forums, I'm sure the university would oblige (and probably has). But there is no plausible argument to cut into class time to provide those forums. 

Update: no student approached me prior to any of my ensuing classes, asking to address the class.

Correlated Risks: How Credit Scores Affect Auto Insurance Rates

Insurance companies spend gobs of money trying to identify driver characteristics that will predict how likely someone is to have an accident. For example, young males tend to be involved in more accidents and are generally charged higher auto insurance premia.

But until it was pointed out to me, I hadn't considered the possibility that a person's credit score could provide an indication of how likely they are to have an accident (see this, but the link might be expired by now):

Credit-related scores used by insurance companies are variations of those used by banks and other lenders. Many insurers have proprietary versions that use selected elements from credit histories.

The studies have indicated that credit-based insurance scores are predictive of the number of claims consumers file and the cost of those claims. Among other explanations, insurance executives and regulators say consumers with better scores tend to be able to absorb some minor claims out of their own pockets.

It seems to me there must be more to it than just that. People who pay their bills on time indicate they are reasonably careful people, whereas those who miss a few payments or who don't pay their bills are likely to be less careful. 

The wsjonline story in the above link, though, raises some serious concerns. People who have low credit scores are complaining, arguing that credit scores have nothing to do with the proclivity to be in an accident. What's worse, there are calls for the gubmnt to ban or seriously over-regulate the practice. 

Tell you what: if credit scores are not good predictors of accident rates (and claims), then some companies will stop using them. Competition in the auto insurance industry constantly induces firms to tweak their models some more. 

Envy: The Economics of Interdependent Utility Functions or why we care about relative poverty

In a recent posting, colleague Jason Childs points out how well off even (comparatively) poor people are in Canada and asks, "Why is there so much concern about relative poverty?"

The general objection to relative poverty is that it is somehow unfair that some people have a lot more than others. Why is it unfair? Why do we care that somebody else has more, or less, than we do? Is it reasonable to care?

He offers three possible answers:

1. "An incredibly cynical view is that there are a remarkably large number of people who benefit from 'helping' the poor. There are social workers paid quite healthy incomes to help those receiving social assistance live on 20% of what a social worker earns. ...The cynicism arises when we consider that if we stopped believing that the person receiving $12,000 a year needed extra help, that person would be out of a job that pays much better than average." 
   
   I don't see that this view is so incredibly cynical. The more I watch individuals in the "helping" professions trying to convert reasonable people into victims, the more I think he has a valid point. It is as if "helpers" are playing the game, "You're not okay; I'm okay."
2.  "Most religions prohibit envy, yet some in Canada seem to be making a positive fetish of it. If I’m earning enough to live comfortably and enjoy some reasonable luxuries how does it harm me if you can have more luxuries?"
   
   Most of us have interdependent utility functions. If you are made better off, then I'm happy and my utility is increased. But if I don't know you or if for some reason I don't like you, then there is a chance that when you are made better off, it actually makes me feel worse off. Maybe we shouldn't be this way, but we have to accept that humans seem hard-wired to have these utility functions. 
   
   A variation on interdependent utility functions is the envy that Professor Childs writes about: "You have it; I want it; therefore I'm worse off, and it is somebody else's obligation to make me feel better." 
   
   Given that people seem to have these feelings, my concern is not the normative one, telling people they shouldn't feel envy. Rather, my concern is that because of envy we implement far too many policies that make us all worse off in the long run.
3. "The other reason why people might be concerned with relative poverty is a mistaken belief that we are playing a zero sum game. People think that someone else being rich automatically means that someone must be poor. That is simply false." To which I can only add, "Hear! Hear!"

 Let me just emphasize the second point a bit more. Envy is pernicious. It eats away at us, making us feel worse off when, were it not for envy, we would feel at least as well off when someone else does well financially or materially. 

But even worse are the policies that emanate from the economics and politics of envy. Too often we hear things like, "It isn't fair that they (e.g. professional athletes) earn so much and I (or some downtrodden group) have so little." This envy leads directly to redistributionist policies which destroy incentives among both the well-to-do and the less-well-to-do. 

If envy is something that must be resisted on moral, philosophical, or religious grounds, it is even more important that it be resisted on political grounds.

Salty Food Revisited:burgers, double-downs, and scones?

I have noted in several posts that I am turned off by fast (and other) food that has too much salt in it. [See here for burgers, here for the Double-Down, and here for scones.] Several people have sent me recent articles about the salt in these and other foods, noting that high salt content in fast foods is not uncommon. 

Jack sent this column from the National Post, pointing out that there are many fast foods out there that have more salt than KFC's Double Down:

Yes, it’s unhealthy: 540 calories, 30 grams of fat, 150 milligrams of cholesterol and — most famously — 1,740 milligrams of salt. That’s more sodium than Health Canada wants you to consume in a day, contained in just a quarter of the recommended average adult’s daily caloric intake. But as many news items have pointed out, aside from the heroic salt count, the Double Down is hardly a game-changer in the fast food industry. The Big Mac has the same basic stats (though considerably less cholesterol). A Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 40% more calories and 50% more fat. Wendy’s triple Baconator, with which we all seem to have come to terms, has two and a half times the calories (1,370), triple the fat (92 grams!), double the cholesterol (295 milligrams) and 35% more salt (2,380 milligrams).

The Double Down isn’t even the most unhealthy thing on a KFC menu. That honour goes to something called the “Boxmaster,” which is deep fried chicken, a hash brown, cheese and sauce, wrapped in a tortilla and shoved into a box for some reason. (Did they come up with the name first?) It’s got more than half again as many calories and fat, and astonishingly enough, 10% more salt.

In a somewhat more systematic piece [h/t MA], we learn that among the saltiest foods out there are the fruit scones from Caffe Nero in England.

You might not be surprised by the fat and sugar content of your coffee-shop treat. But there is a third and less likely sting for those partial to a scone or a muffin. It might see you consuming as much salt as you would find in a Big Mac.

The revelation comes from a survey of 159 foods and 28 hot drinks served by six of the biggest coffee shop and fast-food chains.

... 

The worst offender was a luxury fruit scone from Caffe Nero, which contained 2.1g of salt, the same as a McDonald’s Big Mac and just over a third of an adult’s recommended maximum for a day [EE: apparently the UK recommendations for salt intake differ considerably from those of Health Canada].

If the scone was enjoyed with a Caffe Nero Hot Chocolate, which contains 0.33g salt, this would add up to 2.43g – nearly the equivalent of five packs of crisps [i.e. potato chips].

The article includes this chart, which is quite revealing.

When I saw this article (and reflected on some things MA had written), I had two reactions:

1. Wow! a blueberry muffin from McDonald's has THAT much salt???
2. Do people really like that much salt in their food? As you might readily imagine, it is beyond my comprehension that people would actually like that much salt. But I guess my tastes in this area deviate substantially from the tastes of at least a sizable segment of the population.

 

Predatory Pricing on an International Level

I always tell my students who think that dumping and international predatory pricing are bad, from a consumer perspective "Hurt me some more!" Bring on the lower prices.

Tim Worstall makes a similar point in his piece about rare earth production in China:

[T]he truth is that though most of the rare earths, both metals and oxides, do come from China, this isn't the same at all as having a monopoly that is sustainable -- as Beijing is about to find out in a fairly painful manner. Now that the specter of a monopoly being exercised for political ends has been raised, there will be sufficient political will to break that monopoly.

Two important facts about rare earths help explain why: They're not earths, and they're not rare. China has reached its dominant supplier position through good old-fashioned industrial aggression, not innate geographical superiority. Cheap labor, little environmental scrutiny, and a willingness to sell at low cost [sic] have made other producers give up. For competitors, like the owners of Mountain Pass, a California mine that shut down in 2002 partly due to the China factor, that has been a daunting combination. For the rest of us, it has been fantastic: Affordable rare earths have helped power the information-technology revolution, driving down the cost of everything from hybrid cars to smart bombs.

But the non-rarity of the rare earths themselves means that China's position isn't sustainable. That California mine, for instance, could potentially supply 20 percent of world demand, currently around 130,000 tons a year. Another facility, Lynas Corp.'s Mount Weld in Australia, has the capacity to produce a similar amount. In fact, there are enough rare earths in the millions of tons of sands we already process for titanium dioxide (used to make white paint) to fill the gap, while we throw away 30,000 tons a year or so in the wastes of the aluminum industry. There's that much or more in what we don't bother to collect from the mining of phosphates for fertilizers, and no one has even bothered to measure how much there is in the waste from burning coal.

If rare earths are so precious, why isn't the United States working harder to collect them? The main reason is that, for these last 25 years, China has been supplying all we could eat at prices we were more than happy to pay. If Beijing wants to raise its prices and start using supplies as geopolitical bargaining chips, so what? The rest of the world will simply roll up its sleeves and ramp up production, and the monopoly will be broken.

Worstall continues, pointing out that gearing up production outside China will not be quick or easy, but his point is a very good one. Let me add that if users of rare earth minerals are concerned about continued supplies from China, they (and speculators!) will have a very strong incentive to stockpile supplies.

And that is where Worstall possibly goes a bit astray from his usual common sense approach. He concludes his article with,

In the end, the question of whether China has been using its rare earths access to threaten Japan doesn't matter as much as the possibility that it might -- and the certainty we'd better do something about it.

Just who is this "we" he is saying had better do something? Is he talking about speculators who might stockpile supplies now in anticipation of making profits should China decide to use its current dominant position in rare-earth production for political purposes? Or is he saying that private entrepreneurs should be re-opening mines and refining processes outside China so they can profit from the possible reduction in supplies from China? If he means either of these two possibilities for "we" then I heartily agree.

I hope by "we", Tim doesn't mean gubmnt policy makers. There is no good reason for taxpayers outside China to support, or to trust their politicians to support, rare earth operations so long as China is willing to donate the products to the rest of the world.

And the risk?  If it is too costly for private entrepreneurs to bear the risk of gearing up production now, it is difficult to understand why or how politicians would be in a better position to assess and assume (on behalf of the taxpayers) the risk. 

In fact, the major risk of gubmnt involvement at this point is the uncertainty on the part of entrepreneurs about what gubmnts might do. If there is a risk that politicians might try to influence developments in the industry, there will be a strong incentive for entrepreneurs to wait on the sidelines and NOT undertake what would otherwise be profitable, speculative investments.

Explaining Trends in Inequality

A very simple, straight-forward piece at Carpe Diem, along with a table of data, helps make things much clearer [h/t Cafe Hayek]. Here is the conclusion:

The highest-income quintile has four times more people working per household than the lowest quintile (2.08 earners vs. 0.48), and individuals in those households are far more likely to be well-educated, married and working full-time in their prime earning years.  In contrast, those individuals with low incomes are far more likely to be less-educated and working part-time, and either very young or very old living in single-parent households.  Given these significant differences in household characteristics, it's not too surprising that there are huge differences in incomes among American households.  It's also very likely that those individuals in the highest quintile were once in the lower quintiles before they acquired job experience and education, and they'll likely be in a lower quintile again when they retire.  

Understanding the factors explaining income inequality would also help explain why income inequality changes over time.  For example, compared to previous years, in 2009 there were both: a) more single-parent households, and b) more married, dual-earner households, following trends going back to the 1960s, and both of those trends would explain rising income inequality over time. 

KFC's Double Down: more than a little disappointing

Yesterday, just before the first baseball play-off game, Ms. Eclectic and I went to KFC to pick up two of their infamous Double Down "sandwiches". 

The KFC website describes the Double Down as two thick and juicy slices of white meat, two slices of bacon, two slices of cheese, “and the Colonel's sauce.” [EE: no bread, no bun]

I had been interested in trying the grilled version because it has less grease and fewer calories than the deep-fried, breaded version. But when I read this [h/t Ted Frank], I figured maybe a bit less salt wouldn't be a bad idea:

The “original recipe” version of the sandwich checks in at 540 calories, 32 grams of fat and 1,380 mg of sodium. The grilled version is a mere 460 calories, 23 grams of fat and 1,430 mg of sodium.

I asked if they had the Double Down available grilled rather than breaded and deep-fried. But the counterperson somewhat sullenly informed me that they don't have any grilled chicken at their outlet. That made my choice easy, I guess.

The Double Downs smelled great. We were eagre to get home, turn on the ALCS baseball game, and enjoy them.

I was disappointed. I quite enjoyed the chicken itself --  it wasn't processed chicken parts. I loved the pepper jack cheddar cheese. I tolerated the bacon (because I knew it was there when I ordered the Double Down), but I really don't like bacon flavour intruding on other flavours. 

The major cause of my disappointment, though, was the appallingly heavy saltiness. I have posted before about some fast foods being overly salty, so maybe it is just me. But I doubt it. 

If you have been thinking, "hmmm, I might like to try one of these heart-stoppers," it probably isn't worth it, calorie-wise, salt-wise, or opportunity-cost-wise. 

Two Double Downs: over $15 Canadian. 

Back out to the same area between games to pick up DQ Blizzards for dessert. 8-)

Note to health ministers considering banning Double Downs: don't waste your time or the taxpayers' money. They will not likely last long when they taste this salty.

Outrageous Silencing of Supporters of Israel

From Melanie Phillips in The Spectator:

The 2010 Belfast Festival, held under the auspices of Queen’s University Belfast, convened a panel discussion last night on the topic ‘Conflict in the Middle East’. Last September, the Festival’s director, Graeme Farrow, invited Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a British Jewish commentator and defender of Israel, to take part in this panel, an invitation he accepted. To Alderman’s astonishment, last Friday afternoon he received an email from Farrow informing him that ‘a mistake’ had been made in inviting him,  and that although he could join the audience the event was to go ahead without his panel participation.

The other members of this panel were Professors Avi Shlaim of St Anthony’s College, Oxford and Beverley Milton Edwards, of Queens University, Belfast. Shlaim, an Israeli by birth who hasn’t lived in Israel for years, has made a career out of demonising Israel. Milton Edwards is a founder of Conflicts Forum, which shills for Hamas under the pretext of ‘dialogue’. It would appear that one or both of them objected to Alderman’s presence.

... 

Thus the delegitimisation, bullying and ostracism of the Jewish state morphs seamlessly into the delegitimisation, bullying and ostracism of Jews anywhere who support it. The Jewish state alone is not to be allowed to defend its existence; its Jewish supporters alone are not to be allowed to speak in defence of its right to do so.

Monstrous.

 

Wiser: Ocular or Auricular Trauma?

Wiser Canadian whiskey is currently running an ad that is pretty funny about some wall-climbing guys. I like the ad.... until....

The smug, arrogant jerk in the chair starts clapping his hands slowly, implicitly saying, "if you blow off some guy who is being a bit of a geek/nerd/jerk, you'll be welcomed into the club of real men." I detest the theme and I have detested all Wiser ads because of the theme.

As usual, I'm disappointed that an ad agency thinks this approach works; I'm even more disappointed that it probably does work.

"When I became a man, I put away childish things."

My sister and I have had some recent e-mail exchanges about this cover from the Saturday Evening Post (Dec 12, 1953). We both recall that it was posted somewhere in our church Sunday school above verse 11 from I Corinthians 13 (which we were all supposed to memorize, as I recall).

When I was a child, I spoke as a child,
I understood as a child, I thought as a child:
but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Digression #1. Speaking personally, and given that one of my favourite sayings is "You're never to old to have a happy childhood", I really doubt that I have put away very many metaphoric childish things. 

Digression #2. I see the cover price of the Saturday Evening Post in 1953 was 15 cents, about three times the price of a standard candy bar or bottle of pop. The Post died long ago, but are there many or any weeklies with its quality and reputation that have a cover price of only $3 today (triple the very roughly standard $1 price for pop or candy bars)? And even if there are, does anyone care? (I have changed  my subscription to The Economist to receive just electronic, not dead-tree issues).

Is Regina, Saskatchewan, Really the 3rd Worst City in Canada for Crime?

Maclean's magazine says it is [h/t Jack and BenS]. We haven't noticed it, but maybe we should take a bit more care while we are here?

WORST CITIES PERCENTAGE ABOVE THE NATIONAL CRIME SCORE

1. Prince George, B.C. +90% 
2.  Victoria, B.C. 81 
3.  Regina, Sask. 73 
4.  Saskatoon, Sask. 69 
5.  Fort McMurray, Alta. 68 
6.  Kelowna, B.C. 65 
7.  Grande Prairie, Alta. 64 
8.  Surrey, B.C. 60 
9.  Chilliwack, B.C. 58 
10.  Winnipeg, Man. 57

As Jack says, "Go West, young man....and be mugged." What is it about the western and prairie cities that they have such high crime rates? 

Victoria, BC, ranked second-worst? I thought only old-folk retirees lived there. Are they all pursuing crime as post-retirement careers?

Afternoon Tea at The Saskatchewan Hotel (Radisson), Regina

Recently Ms. Eclectic and I visited The Saskatchewan Hotel (managed by Radisson) in Regina, Saskatchewan, for afternoon tea. I had Googled "afternoon tea Regina" and was delighted to discover that the Radisson offers an afternoon tea on Fridays and Saturdays. I was even more delighted to see from their website that they know to refer to it as "afternoon tea" and that they use standard 3-tiered serving devices.

Ms. Eclectic isn't all that keen on the rituals and pomposity of afternoon tea, so I was delighted that she was willing to accompany me on this outing. But given our different views on the entire afternoon-tea experience, you can readily imagine we have somewhat different views. I'll try to include hers at times in this review.

Even though the website created a favourable first impression, my next impression came while on the telephone, making the reservation, when the manager of the Victorian Tearoom at the hotel kept referring to afternoon tea as "high tea", which is incorrect (for the distinction, see this). And then as we walked to the hotel from where we had parked, we saw a sign that says the hotel has valet parking, but there was no doorman, no valet, and nobody anywhere around who might have provided the valet parking service; we were relieved we hadn't counted on using the valet parking service. These are minor trivialities, but they created doubt.

The Saskatchewan Hotel is a fine classic. It has carpeting that is in good shape, an old-style barber shop (!), a shoe-shine palour, a hair salon, several shops, a lengthy lobby, and a bar that looks like an enjoyable place. I was relieved that there was no one in the lobby to ask where I was going, but it felt odd, too, especially since we weren't sure where the Victorian Tearoom was located in the hotel.

When we were shown into the tearoom, I nearly gasped. The 3-tiered food serving tower was already on the table, and the lower two tiers had plates with food covered in plastic wrap. Gag. That was so tacky. Surely, if the Radisson wants to have the food prepared in advance and protected by plastic wrap, they should keep it in the kitchen and bring it out some time after our tea has been served.

And then to make matters worse, when the plastic was removed for us, it was just balled up and placed on a side table. There is simply no reason for that kind of classlessness.

More disappointment followed. The Saskatchewan Hotel has an interesting tea list, but it is severely limited. And (by this time I really was not surprised) it did not include lapsang souchong tea, my favourite. The tea server (who was also our waitress) wheeled a cart to our table to fix our tea for us. This could have been a very nice part of the ceremony if the 3 tiers of food were not already sitting on the table. It would have been much nicer if our tea had been prepared for us (and served) and then the food brought out a reasonable time later. Instead, the way it was done, the tea seemed to be presented almost as a type of after-thought. 

I have never been presented with the option of having coffee for afternoon tea, but I can imagine the possibility has always been available. For me it defeats the purpose, but Ms. Eclectic was delighted to take up that option. I chose the "Monk's Blend" tea, which is billed as a black tea blend with vanilla and grenadine. It wasn't lapsang souchong, but I quite liked it. Unfortunately, not even the first cup was poured for me, and the server paid absolutely no attention to my tea throughout the entire afternoon (see below for more).

The sandwiches (on the bottom tier) were fabulous. The smoked salmon pinwheels were fresh, tasty, and delightful. I'm not terribly keen on egg salad sandwiches, but these were excellent; in fact Ms. Eclectic thought they were the best of the lot. They were served with something green and leafy (spinach?) on a marbled bread; as I said, they were excellent.

The other two sandwiches were tuna salad on a delectably chewy white bread and ham and cheese on whole wheat. Both were superb. The tuna salad was at least as good as any we have tasted, and the ham and cheese were chock-full of both ham and cheese. 

To top it all off, there were four quarters of each type of sandwich on the plate. That was plenty of food for the two of us.

The scones were a different story.

We were looking forward to enjoying the scones because they had been made with Saskatoon berries, but I hated them. Ms. Eclectic didn't mind them so much. They were small, dry, tasted as if they had been overcooked, seemed a day or two old, and were far too salty. The cream served with them was whipped, not clotted; and the butter provided for them was a bunch of cold little buttons of "strawberry butter". I recall having scones this small at The Dorchester a few years ago, and even though I disliked those, they were nowhere near as bad as these. Scones should be the heart of an afternoon tea, but these did not live up to our expectations. Thankfully we were not offered more after we finished what we wanted of the first batch.

The jam provided with the scones came after we had finished them, another minus, but it didn't matter because neither of us was interested in the jam: it was the standard stuff in little glass jars. Ms. Eclectic thoroughly enjoyed the lemon curd spread that was provided with the whipped cream. I liked it, but I sorely missed having decent scones with clotted cream.

An interesting plus for the afternoon tea at The Saskatchewan Hotel was that the 3-tiered server had a plateful of vegetable crudities with dip. I had never seen this at an afternoon tea before, and we both heartily approve of it. They may diverge from the typical, proper afternoon tea, but the practice is a wonderful divergence.

The tea was served in a stainless steel pot with a built-in infusor. I was optimistic because the tea was loose and could have been good throughout the afternoon. Unfortunately,  there was no way that I knew of to remove the infusor, and after awhile the tea became both too strong and quite bitter. When I asked for more water, after finishing the first pot of tea, the server should have replaced the tea, too. Instead, I had more of the same, but more bitter.

I loved the ambiance of the Saskatchewan Hotel's Victorian Tearoom. The furniture was nice (we sat at high tables, which suits me fine) and the very ornate chandeliers were all lit with chandelier-shaped LED-filled bulbs. Seating was odd, though; as has happened to me elsewhere, the few customers were all seated near each other. Since there were plenty of empty tables, a little more privacy would have been nice.

When we had finished what we wanted of the food that had been on the 3-tiered server, we were not offered more. However, we really didn't expected any more, in part because we had been provided with so many sandwiches and in part because no place I have visited in Canada provides additional sandwiches or scones with their afternoon tea.

After a short break, the server returned with a plate containing two each of five different desserts. The carrot cake was okay (but I've been spoiled for carrot cake by Ms. Eclectic's which is unbelievably moist [made with some crushed pineapple]). The small cream tart with fresh fruit was barely acceptable; the custard was good, but the tart shell tasted like the blah shells from the freezer at the supermarket. There were pecan bars that looked great but were also a bit drier than we had expected; as I ate mine, I realized it tasted more like a butter tart on shortbread than anything else. There were also some chocolate-peanut-butter triangle desserts that were just plain horrible; the chocolate cake on the bottom was mouth-puckeringly dry, and there was far too much peanut butter to make them enjoyable. By far, the best of the desserts were the chocolate covered strawberries; they were huge, ripe, and sweet-but-not-too-sweet.

Ms. Eclectic's view was that the service was fine but aside from the sandwiches, the food wasn't so great. As you can tell from what I've written, I was quite disappointed with the service. The server was quite pleasant (though it would have been helpful had she explained the various items of food), and I suspect much of my objection to the service stemmed from what most likely was management ignorance of what a proper afternoon tea experience should be. 

As we discussed the overall experience, Ms. Eclectic pointed out that the price ($20 each, including the tip) was less than a third of what I paid per person for some of the better afternoon teas I have had in the Mayfair district of London, England. In fact the price for afternoon tea at the Saskatchewan Hotel was no more than we paid several years ago at The Boathouse in Guelph, and it was, all things considered, better than The Boathouse. As Ms. Eclectic said, "That's not a bad price for a very filling meal."

Keeping all these things in mind, I am rating afternoon tea at the Saskatchewan Hotel in the lower half of my middle category. My recommendation to them: charge a bit more, offer finer service, and provide better scones.

--------

My previous reviews, ranked in order of preference (yes, some rankings have been changed after some reflection):

      These three were superb. Highly recommended:

• The Four Seasons, London, England
• The St. Regis Hotel, Houston, Texas
• The Lanesborough, London, England
  

Those in this large middle group ranged from very good to just okay. I would consider returning to them, but those in the upper portion of the list were significantly better than those in the lower portion of this section:

• Claridge's, London, England
• The Dorchester, London, England
• The Ritz, London, England
• Brown's, London, England

           ----------

• Scolfe's Tea Room, Boreham Street, England (superb, but not really afternoon tea)
• The Pump Room, Bath, England (also superb, but not really afternoon tea)
•  The Windsor Arms, Toronto, Canada
• The Saskatchewan Hotel, Regina, Saskatchewan (this review)
• The Boathouse, Guelph, Canada
• The Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, England 
• Langdon Hall, Cambridge, Canada

These next two were unacceptable:

• The Royal Crescent Hotel, Bath, England
• The Queen's Hotel, Portsmouth, England

 

Tarek Fatah, a Reformist Muslim, Writes about Jewish-Muslim Relations

From Barbara Kay's column in the National Post,

In his new book, The Jew is Not My Enemy, to be released Oct. 19, Fatah summarizes the present situation between Jews and Muslims: Jews hate Islam, and Muslims hate Jews. “Even the most radical Islamist websites [attack Jews viciously but] do not have a single sentence attacking the Jewish faith,” Fatah notes, while even the most rabidly anti-Islamist Jews “rarely attack Muslims, yet have little reservation in deriding Islam and the Koran.”

Even if this observation is true only in general but not universally, it is a pithy insight. But the rest of the column expands the idea (i.e. read the whole thing). Some excerpts:

Tarek Fatah grew up in Pakistan. He does not remember any anti-Semitism in his youth. But on a 2006 visit home, he was revolted by the ubiquity and virulence of the anti-Semitism he met when socializing with even educated and wealthy Muslims. In a posh neighbourhood of Karachi he saw a banner over a grocery store announcing, “Bird flu is a Jewish conspiracy.” He was dumbstruck to hear the store owner’s theory that the “Yahoodis” wanted to destroy the poultry industry of Muslim Indonesia. The owner then pressed a free copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Fatah and told him it would explain everything, including how the 2004 tsunami was a joint venture by the Yahoodis and the United States.

Anti-Semitism spewed forth from every social and media spigot on this visit, from the Karachi Press Club to the upper crust’s charity balls. In Pakistan today, Fatah sadly notes, “expressing hatred of the Jew…is the easiest way to establish one’s intellectual credentials.”

and

Fatah’s basic arguments come down to this: The Koran itself — the sacred text — does not express a shred of anti-Semitism. The Hadith, though, were written by men centuries later, and certain Hadith verses “can best be described as hate literature.” They can and should be revised or dumped. True anti-Semitism — the blood libel and the exterminationism — are imports, Fatah says, from medieval Christian converts to Islam and Western fascism. The convergence of Arab and German enmities permitted Nazi-style anti-Semitism to penetrate and flourish amongst Arabs and then throughout the Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood is behind the successful transmogrification of the Jew into Islam’s existential enemy.

No Matter What Some People Say, I Take These Guys Pretty Seriously

From Daily Alert,

• Hizbullah Chief Echoes Iran's Call for Israel to Disappear - Mohamad Ali Harissi
  Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah echoed Iran's call on Wednesday for Israel to disappear, speaking during a mass rally in Beirut organized in honor of visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "President Ahmadinejad is right when he says Israel is illegitimate and should cease to exist," Nasrallah told an ecstatic crowd. Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a "tumor," has denied the Holocaust and repeatedly said the Jewish state is "doomed to be wiped off the map." Last month he said the people of the Middle East are "capable of removing the Zionist regime" from the world scene. (AFP)
      See also Ahmadinejad: Lebanon a School of Jihad - Attila Somfalvi (Yne! t News)
      See also Ahmadinejad Denounces U.S. "Colonial Goals" at Hizbullah Rally - Nicholas Blanford (Christian Science Monitor)
      See also U.S. Lawmakers: Lebanon's Embrace of Ahmadinejad May Affect Military Aid - Jack Khoury (Ha'aretz) 

 

Where's Muhammad?

This cartoon was pulled from a number of newspapers. [h/t Jabber]

It is a poke at the uproar caused by the Danish cartoonists who published cartoons depicting Muhammad. 

The Hypocrisy of US-China Economic Relations

Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek lampoons the critics of China's exchange rate policy by pointing out how US policy makers are saying different things at the same time:

First breath (spoken with hat in hand): “Please lend us plenty of money.  It’ll help us to ‘stimulate’ our economy so that it’ll grow.”

Second breath (spoken on the record at a ‘summit’ of ‘leaders’): “How dare you lend us so much money!  You are keeping our economy from growing!”

Third breath (spoken loudly and self-righteously on the campaign trail): “Elect me and I will protect us innocent Americans from the scheming, greedy, and devilish Chinese!”

 

The 2010 Nobel Prize in Economics

I have long thought that Richard Posner should win the Nobel Prize in economics (see here for the reasons I provided nearly 6 years ago); I keep a reminder of this at the top of this blog. For all the reasons cited there, I am still willing to make the case, but his flirting with neo-Keynesian macro in the past couple of years has dampened my enthusiasm somewhat.

One of my friends says that Oliver Hart and Richard Thayler are the leaders in the futures markets, where people try to predict (and bet real money on) who will be awarded the various Nobel Prizes. I can easily imagine that Thayler might be a popular choice, given his work on behavioural economics, which has gained much more favour during the past two or three years. But the Nobel committee does not always seem to like the popular, easy choice.

Aside from Posner (who would be a long-shot at best), other candidates surely must include Jagdish Baghwati for his work in international trade (I think I mentioned him last year, too); and another strong candidate should be Gordon Tullock for all of his inspirational work on the economics of public choice.

"I was very happy to get blown up to save the world."

That sentence was uttered, not by a terrorist suicide bomber, but by a child actor in the notorious video "No Pressure". [see this, h/t Jack]

The parallels are disturbing: Children and young people from different walks of life being brain-washed into being willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause.

For another parallel, see this, about some veiled threats against atheists from some Christians in Oklahoma [from Ted Frank, no link available].  

I understand and agree with the need to teach children and youngsters the importance of principles and morality. But killing and threatening to kill those who disagree with you is rarely, if ever, defensible (I was a pacifist for much of my life). I much prefer competition in marketplace for ideas. 

 

iPad: I Must Be Marching to the Beat of a Different Pianist

I admit that when iPads first came out, I couldn't understand the excitement. I have an iPhone, and I have a small, light laptop; so why would I want something else that does not really combine the two in any convenient fashion?

But then various friends and acquaintances began talking about them and buying them. They raved about how light iPads are and about how good the screens are, not to mention all the great applications (most of which are available for smartphones, too). 

So I stopped in at an Apple store last spring and spent some time playing with one. After awhile, I understood the "wow" factor in some ways, but I came away completely under-whelmed. 

Not that the iPad features aren't generally wonderful. It's just that I don't want yet another electronic device that does comparatively little that I cannot already do with my iPhone and laptop. And my laptop has a real keyboard; people with iPads do not like doing much typing on a touch screen.

• The iPad isn't that much lighter than the light laptops, which are much more functional, with USB ports, hardwire jacks, real keyboards, etc.
• The size of the iPad makes things much easier to read on it, but I find reading on my iPhone more convenient because I always have it with me.

It looks to me as if the only thing going for an iPad is the larger touch screen. If that is really so great, I cannot understand why PC makers haven't brought out a host of small, light tablet-type PCs (the kind with a swivel screen). With a laptop-tablet, I would have the benefits of both a PC and an iPad, and I wouldn't have to worry about having one more thing to carry around or synchronize files with. 

But most of the competing new products seem determined to compete with iPad directly, offering less computing convenience than a laptop but bulkier size than a smartphone. [h/t MA, who has concerns about the working conditions in iPad plants]

Meanwhile, despite the outstanding sales of iPads since their introduction, I am content to be using just an iPhone and a laptop. But maybe that's just because, to use a phrase from my son, I march to the beat of a different pianist.

I NEED a Prescription for Marijuana

I have quite a bit of joint pain at times, and sometimes I don't sleep so well. These symptoms are to be expected in my demographic cohort. But now there is hope for relief:

A team of Montreal researchers has lent scientific credibility to the view that smoking marijuana can ease chronic neuropathic pain and help patients sleep better....

The study, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found that pain intensity among patients decreased with higher-potency marijuana. It is one of a handful of scientific attempts to determine the medicinal benefits of the drug.

I keep telling my family physician that I need a prescription for marijuana because of my arthritis. I am told there are walk-in clinics in some areas of California where one can both obtain such a prescription and have it filled at the same time. I eagerly await their spread to Canada. 

But I'm a novice. I would really rather not smoke the drug. Is it possible to obtain the same therapeutic effects if I ingest the product with cookies or brownies instead of smoking it? 

 

Chuck Cecil Says, "Hello" from the NFL

I know he is just saying, "Hello" to me and to all my students. Here is why.

57% in Poll Want Canada to Eliminate the Penny

Canadian MP, Ed Holder, is hosting a poll on his website, asking people whether Canada should eliminate the penny [h/t JB]. As of this writing (Saturday evening) 57% say "yes". Quite frankly I'm surprised and disappointed that the number isn't as high as 80% or higher. Here in Regina, nearly every merchant rounds down for cash purchases to avoid having to use pennies. 

As many of you know, I have advocated the elimination of the one-cent coin in Canada for more than two decades. Both Australia and New Zealand have eliminated their one-cent and two-cent coins (and five-cent coins in New Zealand), leading to great savings in metal, distribution costs, and customer waiting times. Canadians will benefit greatly from following their lead.

For more, please see my earlier postings on the penny. Probably the best summary of my views appears here.

More on "No Pressure", the Eco-Fascist Video

I posted the video yesterday, with comments by Ross McKitrick, one of the calmest, most level-headed researchers about climate and the environment that I know of. As one might readily imagine, others  are less reserved with their comments, but some of the better ones are summarized here by Ed Driscoll. Many of the comments reproduced there are witty, others are insightful. And there are several additional examples of tasteless videos produced by various organizations.

Also, Chris Essex, a co-author (with McKitrick) of Taken by Storm, points out in an e-mail message that the very scheme of  the 10:10 video is nonsense:

Aside from the passive-aggressive blood letting, 10% [reduction of carbon use] per year over ten years would take you down to about a third. All of the suggestions that were warmly received in these skits have not the slightest hope of doing this. Turning out the lights and sitting in the dark won't even do it. This is completely empty even for people who are game for the numbers. So we must conclude that this it not about numbers. It's about whether you are with the mindset. Believe or else. 

Addendum: The rabid moralists impose a death fatwah on the non-believers.

  .

Do Not DARE to Question "Accepted Science" about Global Warming

because, "We know where you live."

The following is from the website of former colleague, Ross McKitrick, in the economics department at The University of Guelph [with his permission]. You might need an additional download to watch the "snuff" video in which young students, employees, and footballers are blown up for doubting whether they would like to go along with the majority.

Ross writes:

 I anticipated that the people who made this movie ["No Pressure", a 4-minute video] would soon try to withdraw it from circulation once people saw it and the reactions began to mount. This has begun, and the movie got yanked from the 1010 YouTube site. The above link should work, but if not I downloaded a copy last night and you can get it by clicking HERE. 

I find this film quite disturbing. The people who made this barbaric propaganda are not outlaws or extremist terrorists, they are government-funded, celebrity-endorsed professionals expressing a point of view they consider to be the respectable mainstream of social opinion. 

Leave aside the fact that they miss the whole concept of targeting measures on the variables of actual interest (in this case CO2 emissions) rather than piling on indirect measures, or that the idea of equating marginal abatement costs to marginal damages is, to say the least, nowhere to be found. The really appalling thing is the celebration of violence and intimidation to enforce total conformity with one particular view of the environment. Who knows how many people in the story put up their hands out of peer pressure, because they were afraid of asking questions. It turns out they had good reason to be afraid. The victims in this film were the ones who thought for themselves and spoke their minds. In this environmental group's fantasy, the punishment for that will be swift and brutal every time. 

If, by the end of your time here at Guelph, you have gained some determination to think for yourself and not to be intimidated, even when everyone around you is marching in lockstep behind the cause du jour, then your education will have served a good purpose.