Sunday, May 12, 2013

Friday Ralston To 93 Run

With a little extra time on Friday, I decided to run on the Ralston Creek path out to Highway 93, and the loop around the reservoir. Outbound I took it easy, but inbound picked it up a little. Paths over near the golf course:

Storm clouds behind Tucker Lake:

North Table Mountain:

Distance was 13.50 miles, time 2:19 (moving 2:07), elevation gain/loss 558 feet, avg. pace 10:21 (moving 9:26), and best pace 7:30.

While driving home I filled up the tank, and it occurred to me that sometimes I might want to take more pictures of the mundane things, not necessarily to post (don't worry), but just to have a record. Such photos can be interesting many years later.

There's also a political component here, since unless America has a sudden attack of self-esteem and moral realization, fossil fuels will eventually be banned outright like incandescent bulbs were, and sights like this will become a quaint memory.


  1. I know, right? First they came after our leaded gasoline.
    Now our bulbs!

    Seriously, I won't offer too much of a passioned defense for incandescent bulbs...but am interested in how to capitalize my right to breathe clean air, in addition to serendipitous "ownership" of non-renewable resources.

    That is a clean, nice shot, though!

  2. Mike - The principle is always the same for my solutions: private ownership, and punishing specific parties for actual wrongdoing/damage, versus outlawing activities for everyone prior to any wrongdoing.

    Similar to our approach to criminal activity: we don't lock everyone in their homes because they might harm someone, we go after actual criminals after the fact.

    I would imagine some kind of creative privately-led class action suit, which is the way we handle most damages now. That way, the harmed party would be the one to decide "how much is enough" and take action. It would not be easy, but it could be done.

  3. Make no mistake, I am generally opposed to "thoughtcrime" as well! =)
    We don't lock up pre-criminals...but all contemporary societies treat and regulate associated, victimless actions (loitering, drug abuse, alcohol abuse) and environments (poverty, lack of education) in a way to mitigate further, violent or deadly crime: a drunk driver still isn't actually guaranteed to hurt anyone, either. (Not that we don't have problems in that implementation, e.g. the War on Drugs).

    Your first sentence is a major pillar of my criticism of Randianism: the very idea that significant harms to life and liberty can be capitalized in a retroactive sense.
    My asking price for not getting cancer from local air or water supplies is Very High.
    It's particularly problematic when the treatment lags the problem generationally, so that an entire generation of people are affected without recourse. Without proper regulation, markets function only with respect to the stakeholders of the moment, yet the negative externalities often effect those who had no voice in the original market. And that's not even touching on the practical reality (perfected by gas/mining/oil and the financial industry) of the cycle of corporate personhood followed by malfeasance followed by dissolution followed by another corporation picking up the assets, with none of the liability.

    Good stuff! Need to discuss those over beer or trails sometime.

  4. Mike - Given most people probably don't want to be poisoned, I'm not sure where the lag time would come in. I mean, we are a culture that doesn't even want neighbors' leaves on our lawn.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on your view of markets. IMO that's all a legacy of government intervention rather than markets properly implemented. Both freedom and responsibility must be part of that implementation. Actually, it's more accurate to say it must support both the businessperson's freedom, and the citizen's, equally.

    Apparently I'm going to have to work on my conversational running pace.