Stros lose again

The punchless Stros continued their quest to become an afterthought in the race for a playoff spot as they lost their second straight game to the Padres at Petco Park on Tuesday night, 5-3. The hapless Stros are now 42-41 on the season and nine games behind the Cards in the NL Central.
This game was fairly typical for this Stros team as they cranked out their usual 8 total bases, 4 of which came on Ausmus‘ solo yak in the fifth. With that crank, Ausmus finally achieved double figures in extra base hits this season — it took him “only” 67 games to do so. Alas, he still has hit into more double plays than extra base hits. Bags — the highest paid singles hitters in baseball — had a 2 run single, which completed the Stros’ offensive outburst. Starting pitcher Pete Munro was equally mediocre, giving up four runs and seven hits in four innings.
Roy O at least gives the Stros a chance on Wednesday night against the Pads’ Jake Peavy, who has one of the best ERA’s in the league. Just what the Stros’ hitters need at this point. After this game, the Stros travel to L.A. to face the Dodgers over the weekend in a four game set.

UT School of Public Health announces new dean

Guy S. Parcel, Ph.D has been appointed to a three-year term as dean of The University of Texas School of Public Health at Houston in the Texas Medical Center.
Dr. Parcel, who is currently executive dean, will take over the deanship when Dr. R. Palmer Beasley retires in December. Beasley has served as UT School of Public Health dean for more than 17 years and is now completing a two-year term as chairman of the Association of Schools of Public Health. The appointment makes Parcel only the third dean in the 35-year history of what is the oldest school of public health in Texas. Dr. Parcel, a John P. McGovern Professor in Health Promotion at UT School of Public Health, was appointed executive dean in February 2003 and had previously served as acting dean of the school on several occasions.
The UT School of Public Health is ranked as the fifth-largest in student enrollment and seventh in research funding. About 50 percent of the school’s more than 3,000 graduates work in Texas.

The economic absurdity of light rail systems

Molly D. Castelazo is a research associate and Thomas A. Garrett is a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. They authored this article that analyzes the bad economics of the St. Louis light rail system and includes a devastating chart reflecting how it would have been much more economically prudent to buy a new Toyota Prius for all the light rail riders than to build and maintain the light rail system. The entire article is well worth reading, particularly for Houstonians who have funded a similar boondoggle, and the authors make the following concluding observation:

If light rail is not cost-efficient, nor an effective way to reduce pollution and traffic congestion, nor the least costly means of providing transportation to the poor, why do voters continue to approve new taxes for the construction and expansion of light-rail systems?

One economic reason is that the benefits of light rail are highly concentrated, while the costs are widely dispersed. The direct benefits of a light-rail project can be quite large for a relatively small group of people, such as elected officials, environmental groups, labor organizations, engineering and architectural firms, developers and regional businesses, which often campaign vigorously for the passage of light-rail funding. These groups would benefit from light rail, not from the subsidization of cars and money to all potential riders of light rail.
The costs of light rail, while large in aggregate, are often small when spread over the tax-paying population. (The cost of light rail in St. Louis totals about $6 per taxpayer annually). A large group of taxpayers facing relatively minimal costs can be persuaded to vote for light rail based on benefits shaped by the interested minority, such as helping the poor, reducing congestion and pollution, and fostering development. Even if these benefits are exaggerated and the taxpayer realizes the cost-ineffectiveness of light rail, it is probably not worth the $6 for that person to spend significant time lobbying against light rail.
Proponents of light rail argue that it will create jobs, foster economic development and boost property values. While there is some academic evidence of these benefits, it is important to realize that they are not free to society?light rail is kept afloat by taxpayer-funded subsidies that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs are one economic reason for the existence of inefficient public projects. The many who stand to lose will lose only a little, whereas the few who stand to gain will gain a lot. Of course, if other public projects exist where overall costs outweigh benefits, then $6 a year per project could add up to quite a hefty boondoggler?s bill.

Dr. Barton Smith, University of Houston professor of economics and director of the UH Institute for Regional Forecasting, is the leading expert on the regional economics of the Houston metropolitan area and has prepared a similar analysis regarding the Houston Metro light rail system.
Alas, I do not expect the Houston Chronicle to address this issue anytime soon. Hat tip to Professor Gordon for the link to this study.

An oil play in Cuba

This NY Times article reports on Repsol, YPF‘s (Spain’s largest oil comany) hiring of a Norwegian drilling platform at a cost around $200,000 a day to search for oil in a narrow sector of the Gulf of Mexico off the northwestern coast of Cuba. The venture, which was established with the Cuban government-owned oil company CubapetrÛleo, is being watched closely in Houston’s oil and gas community.
If Repsol is successful in making a major find, that would be a boon for Cuba, which imports most of its fuel from Venezuela and struggles economically. It would also shake up the dynamics of oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, which has been dominated for decades by United States companies.
If there is a big oil find in Cuban waters, then that will also be an interesting test of the Bush Administration’s Cuba policy, which has been to maintain and even strengthen sanctions in hopes of isolating and weakening the Communist country’s economy. However, such sanctions might be rethought if Mr. Bush’s supporters in the oil and gas industry are faced with the prospect of sitting on the sidelines while foreign companies develop good oil and gas prospects in Cuban waters.
Stay tuned on this one.

The ugly reality of consumer credit

This Wall Street Journal ($) article reports on how the consumer credit industry is generating huge profits by charging exorbitant interest rates and penalties on credit cards that the industry provides to the riskiest consumer borrowers:

For consumers who pay off their credit-card balances each month, shop aggressively for interest rates as low as 0%, and take advantage of generous credit-card rewards programs, consumer credit has never been cheaper. But for others . . ., the trend is in the other direction.
Card users, consumer advocates and some industry experts complain that banks are attempting to squeeze more and more revenue from consumers struggling to make ends meet. Instead of cutting these people off as bad credit risks, banks are letting them spend — and then hitting them with larger and larger penalties for running up their credit, going over their credit limits, paying late and getting cash advances from their credit cards. The fees are also piling up for bounced checks and overdrawn accounts.

Many folks are surprised to learn that bad check fees are a lucrative profit center for many banks. Similarly, banks make a nice return on late payment fees to their consumer credit card holders:

. . . credit-card fees, including those from retailers, rose to 33.4% of total credit-card revenue in 2003. That was up from 27.9% in 2000 and just 16.1% in 1996. The average monthly late fee hit $32.01 in May, up from $30.29 a year earlier and $13.30 in May 1996, the company said. In 2003, the credit-card industry reaped $11.7 billion from penalty fees, up 9% from $10.7 billion a year earlier, according to Robert Hammer, an industry consultant.

Banks say that penalties and fees are a necessary component of new models for pricing financial services. Gone are the days when banks collected hefty annual fees on all credit cards and charged fat interest rates to all customers. Now, the banks say, they must rely on risk-based pricing models under which customers with the shakiest finances pay higher rates and more fees.

Oddly, the approach of gouging the riskiest customers is the result of competing for the best ones:

Until the early 1990s, most banks offered one main credit-card product. It typically carried an annual interest rate of about 18% and an annual fee of $25. Cardholders who paid late or strayed over their credit limit were charged modest fees. Profits from good customers covered losses from those who defaulted.
Then card issuers, in an effort to grab market share, began scrapping annual fees and vying to offer the lowest annual interest rates. They junked simple pricing models in favor of complex ones they say were tailored to cardholders’ risk and behavior. Eager to sustain growth in a market approaching saturation, they began offering more cards to consumers with spotty credit.
By the late 1990s, banks were attracting consumers with low introductory rates, then subjecting some of them to a myriad of “risk-related fees,” such as late fees and over-limit fees. A 2001 survey by the Federal Reserve showed that 30% of general-purpose credit-card holders had paid a late fee in the prior year.
In a survey of 140 credit cards this year, the advocacy group Consumer Action said 85% of the banks make it a practice to raise interest rates for customers who pay late — often after a single late payment. Nearly half raise rates if they find out that a customer is in arrears with another creditor.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration’s response to the foregoing travesty is to support the ill-advised and consumer credit industry backed Bankruptcy “Reform” Act, which attempts to make it more difficult for consumers to discharge their personal liability for such consumer credit.
As with health care finance, income tax simplification, and overall government spending, this is another issue on which the Bush Administration has sadly dropped the ball.

Stros blow another one

The listless Stros’ hitters and Miceli blew another fine performance from the Rocket as the Pads scored the winning run in the bottom of the eighth to win Monday’s first game of the clubs’ three game series, 2-1.
Clemens was magnificent as usual, giving up only a run on three hits with four walks over seven innings. Miceli couldn’t match that brilliance in the eighth, as he gave up the game winning hit to Klesko (who is having an Ensberg-like bad year) and giving Astro-killer Trevor Hoffman the opportunity to close out the win in the ninth.
Meanwhile, the Stros’ hitters made Brian Lawrence look like the Rocket as they could manage only five hits, including Bidg‘s leadoff yak. Of course, Stros’ manager Jimy Williams inexplicably continues to bench Mike Lamb, Jason Lane, and Chris Burke while playing such futile hitters as Viz and Bags, whose slugging percentage has dropped to an embarrassing .442, fifth points below Biggio’s. Not an auspicious beginning for their first game in the Pads’ new Petco Field.
The Stros are now eight games behind the Cards in the NL Central as a division title has become a pipe dream. Absent an unforseen turnaround on the remainder of this West Coast swing, the Stros may not even be in contention for the wild card playoff spot by the All-Star break.
The Stros send Pete Munro to the hill on Tuesday night against the eminently hittable Ismael Valdez. At least the Stros can enjoy the wonderful weather while whiffing in the San Diego moonlight.

The year the Chief Justice lost his Court

This NY Times article by Linda Greenhouse is a fine summary of the key decisions of the United States Supreme Court during its 2003-04 term in the following areas: Detainees, Politics, Criminal Law, Privacy, Discrimination, Federalism and Regulation, Speech and Religion, and Jurisdiction.

Ken Klee, Energy Healer?

Many Houston business litigation attorneys know Ken Klee as a Los Angeles-based corporate reorganization and bankruptcy law expert, as well as a UCLA Law School professor. However, this LA Times article reports that Ken is also up to something completely different from representing parties in reorganizations or teaching students the intricacies of bankruptcy law:

Brentwood real estate broker Joan Gardner was suffering such excruciating pain with a swollen knee, months after a fall, that she was homebound, depressed and unable to work. Her doctor and orthopedic physical therapist encouraged her to have surgery, but Gardner declined because, “I’m stubborn and vain.” Instead, she decided to try something different.
Digging up a number her grocery clerk had given her, Gardner dialed Ken Klee, a UCLA law professor and prominent corporate bankruptcy lawyer who practices energy healing on the side. A seven-year student of more than half a dozen healing methods including reiki’s radiance technique, pranic healing and Theta Healing, Klee practices eight hours a week out of his Brentwood home office, stacked high with stones and crystals, massage table at the center.
Without touching her body or charging her a fee, Klee waved his hands over Gardner for three hours last December, channeling divine healing energy and helping her clear out anger and other blocks. The next day the swelling in Gardner’s knee was gone.
“I was in shock. It sounds probably crazy, but it’s the truth,” she said. “I feel like a million dollars, and I have since that day.”
Stories like Gardner’s raise eyebrows among those in the medical establishment and Klee’s academic colleagues. Once the provenance of faith healers, shamans, ancient and New Age mystics, however, energy healing is increasingly going mainstream.

And what on earth is energy healing?

Methods vary, but principles generally stem from ancient concepts of a life force ? called chi or qi in traditional Chinese medicine (prana in Indian medicine) ? that moves through pathways called meridians. Acupuncture, qigong, tai chi, yoga and shiatsu massage are all based on the idea that free-flowing energy throughout the body leads to optimal health.
Energy healers contend that people have an etheric, or energy, body, often called an aura, surrounding and penetrating the physical body, and energy fuel centers inside the body called chakras.
Because bodies are made up of subatomic particles in constant motion, many physical ailments manifest first in this energy body, like a blueprint, healers say. Stress and painful emotions, for instance, can cause energy to get stuck or depleted, inhibiting the body’s natural healing processes.
Healers claim to be able to detect and repair these problems with or without touching the body, sometimes from great distances. “All we are at our essence is vibration, and all disease is dissonance in vibration,” Klee says. “If we alter the vibration through crystals, color, sound, prayer or bringing energy through the hands, it all has to do with vibration.”
By harnessing the power of the mind-body connection, many energy healers say they are simply promoting the innate ability to heal oneself, meaning receptivity can affect whether it works, as can the intent and state of mind of the healer.
The line between energy healing and faith healing can get blurry. Some practitioners invoke a higher power, while others align cosmic healing symbols or gather and project healing energy from nature. Some tout extraordinary gifts; others say they are simply conduits, and anyone can learn to heal themselves and others with a little practice.

Altough the article notes that some clinical research into energy hearling is underway, the medical community retains a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the benefits of energy healing:

Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist and founder of the health fraud guide Quackwatch, holds the “sheer quackery” point of view. He dismisses such research, saying, “There is nothing there.”
Barrett is coauthor of an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. in 1998 debunking the effectiveness of Therapeutic Touch, an energy healing method often used by nurses.
“They claim they can, by concentrating, feel a person’s energy field and go through certain maneuvers to modify it and create a healing force,” he said. “We feel that’s preposterous. It’s a figment of their imagination.”
Barrett’s JAMA article publicized the results of a science fair project of a 9-year-old girl named Emily who tested Therapeutic Touch practitioners’ ability to detect her energy field. The experiment was similar to Schwartz’s, but the practitioners correctly guessed which of their hands the girl’s hand was hovering over only 44% of the time, less than chance would suggest.
Barrett, one of the nation’s most outspoken critics of alternative medicine, says energy healers and those who bolster them through studies are delusional or dishonest.

But Mr. Klee remains a true believer:

“If I can do it, anybody can do it. I’m a conservative guy, a lawyer, a skeptic. I believe in verifying things. Seven years ago, I would have thought this was completely nuts. Now I’m convinced science is going to validate this. It’s going to happen in my lifetime.”

Hat tip to Professor Bainbridge for the link to this story.

Meanwhile, Hidalgo is just fine in NY

Since leaving the Stros, Richard Hidalgo is doing his best Carlos Beltran imitation in New York.