Costa Rica Trip: Arrival, Waterfall Hike & Canopy Zipline

December 26, 2015
Day 1 Arrive in Costa Rica:

I arrived at the San Jose Airport at 7:30pm.  It only took 30 minutes to get thru customs and was then greeted by my Dad, who arrived the day before, at the airport exit.  We booked all of our hotels, rides and activities through a company called Pacific Trade Winds.  Our first part they arranged was a mini-bus to take us from the airport to La Fortuna, about 3-4 hours drive northwest of San Jose.  The drive was on a windy, two-lane road and we didn't see much because it was dark.  We arrived at our hotel, Hotel La Fortuna in the heart of the town, around 11pm.  The town is big for the area, with probably more than a hundred buildings and over 5,000 people.

On the drive, we passed many "sodas" which is what Costa Ricans, or Ticos, call small local restaurants that serve low-cost meals.  They are in all of the towns here.  There are bull rings and soccer fields in every town.  According to our guides, there is a bar next to every soccer field (and as of the 4th day he hasn't been wrong).

December 27, 2015
Day 2, Hike to Waterfall and Canopy Zipline:

We got up around 8am.  We ate the hotel breakfast which consisted of scrambled eggs, beans, toast, cereal and really good plantains.  If you've, never had cooked plantains, they are like sweetened bananas, but really soft.  The meal of meat, rice and beans which is a typical Costa Rican meal called "casado" (which literally translates to 'marriage').

We had planned activities for most of the trip but had left this morning open.  So we consulted with the front desk clerk who was very helpful.  We decided to take a taxi to a waterfall called Catarata La Fortuna (catarata means waterfall) which is about a 15 minute drive away.  The taxi was only $8 and we shared the cab with a couple from New York going to the same place.

We arrived and there was a line of about 25 people to pay the $11/person entrance fee.  In our first encounter with the wondrous rainforest, we made about a 15 minute hike down concrete/mud/cinder block stairs and arrived at the base of a very powerful waterfall.  The pool beneath the 100ft or so drop was really small and the rapids it was creating were very large.  It was impossible for anyone to get in the water and not get carried away. There was a less powerful waterfall adjacent to it, which was actually prettier because you can see it cascading down the vertical rock face.

We stayed about 30 minutes, and then hiked back up to the base where we ate lunch at a restaurant inside the park.  I ate a local version of a hamburger and my Dad had a vegan salad.  We then decided to walk back to our hotel, which our hotel man said would take about an hour, and we had an hour and half until we were to be picked up for our organized tour at 230.

On the way, we stopped at a really cool local artisan shop that had wooden carvings of local animals, human sculptures and even small jewelry boxes.  I bought a pair of toucans for myself and a cooking-related gift for my girlfriend as a present.  We then looked at the clock and saw it was 1:20 which meant we needed to pick up the pace to get back.  Around every bend in the road we thought we were going to see our next turn, but it didn't come until about 2pm, which meant we had to really hustle to get to the hotel in time.  Luckily I had taken a picture of Google maps so we could take a shortcut through a neighborhood behind our hotel.  We arrived at 2:24, go up to our rooms, and switched out the gear we need and hurried back downstairs.  Our bus arrives 1 minute after we get downstairs - whew!

We are now on our way to do a zipline tour with a company called Ecoglide in the rainforest canopy.  We get to the tour office and we find there are couple dozen people already there.  We then get geared up with a harness, helmet and gloves.  After we we sit down, more and more people keep getting off buses --  I estimate around 50 people in total.  I was hoping they break us up into smaller groups as I didn't want to be waiting too long on small platforms with a bunch of people, but they put us all in one big group.  Strangely, we and a couple others are the only ones who decide to wear our rain jackets. And it takes a long time to get everyone their gear, so we don't take the truck up to the top until about 3:20 -- keep in mind that the sun sets at 5:20-5:40 here.

In all, there are 14 separate ziplines plus a "Tarzan swing" in the middle that is optional.  This is not your average zipline-park style -- 50 ft long ziplines.  The first one and last one are a short 50-100ft but beyond that, most of them are over 400ft, with the second to last one being a massive 1380 ft.  You can pick up some serious speed, over 30 mph on many of them,  and the only way we can stop is with a leather glove on our dominant hand.  The guides end up doing 70% of the stopping for you with a safety system they have on each cable.  After about the 4th cable, it starts to rain on us and we are glad we brought the jackets, but less excited about having to try stop yourself on wet cables.  We quickly find out that it is near impossible to stop yourself with the glove so we then rely on the safety system to do 95% of the stopping for us.

We get to the Tarzan swing, where you essentially fall forward, standing, off of a ledge and swing out beyond a platform which is about 40 ft below.  Then you swing back and forth a few times like a swing and these two guys below you try to slap your legs to slow your swinging so they can lower you to the ground.  Sometimes they grab the person to stop them, which they did to me, but I kept swinging and almost took the guy off the platform with me.  Luckily the other guy grabbed us and all was well.  My Dad then followed me in doing it and he did not like as much as I did because of the spinning while swinging.

Towards the end, we ended up waiting on two platforms for about 30 minutes each, compared to 5ish minutes on other platforms as we had to wait for guides to come through and man each platform in front of us.  The company did not seem prepared for the logistics of managing 50 people.  It was partially difficult for them because there were 4-5 kids who needed to be escorted the entire way by a guide.  By the time we got to the 13th platform it the sun had set by 5:30, so we did the last two in the dark.  As you can imagine, doing this in the dark is no fun at all.  They gave everyone free drinks and beer at the office to try to make us feel better.  Overall it was a thrilling experience.

Then we walked to a restaurant, Cafe Mediterraneo, about 10 minutes from our hotel. We thought it was pretty good.  My Dad had wood fired pizza and I had gorgonzola gnocchi.

Buenas Noches!

Why are there no Free Agents in international soccer?

Soccer is an international sport with unusual economics because Free Agency has almost no power and is seldom used by soccer players to change teams.  The following is a perspective from an American's point of view, where free agency is incredibly prevalent in other American sports.

A very small minority of soccer players change teams when they are not under contract.  Most players are actually 'bought' by another team while under contract for what is called a 'transfer fee'. A transfer fee is essentially when one team/club pays another team/club for the transfer ownership of a player's contract.

The transfer fee concept, known in whole as the 'transfer market', is akin to the American colloquial for a 'trade'.  However, in these transfer deals, the overwhelming behavior of clubs is to simply purchase a player's contract as opposed to American football, baseball or basketball, where a trade only involves players or draft picks (Baseball trades seldom include cash-for-player).  Soccer's transfer market also differs from other systems because it is an international system which spans 50+ different leagues in 50+ different countries, all governed by an international body, FIFA.  But why would free agency in soccer have less power than any other sport?

As far as the business process, there must first be a structure of fees agreed upon between the buying club and selling club.  The buying club must then also agree on the personal terms of the salary with the player.  This is where the player benefits or at least has some leverage.  When the teams agree on a transfer fee, the transfer will not go through without a new contract/salary for the player at the new club.  It is highly common for a player to request (and receive) a raise in a transfer negotiation, otherwise they typically reject the transfer to stay at their current club.

I don't understand why a player doesn't wait for their contract to expire, and then seek the highest salary offered by another team.  This use of leverage is supposed to exist in a free-market-principled system.  This leverage is what so many American players use to gain bigger contracts with their current clubs, or to test the free agency market by negotiating out of contract.  Yet you rarely see a soccer player take this course of action.

Some of the elite players are being transferred for tens of millions of dollars.  But when their contract runs out, they are suddenly worth $0 in the transfer market.  The player doesn't even benefit from the transfer fees -- only the club does.  Imagine if more players used free agency -- we would likely see the median price paid in transfer fees plummet.  

Some high profile players have sought free agency but this is typically only done by players who are in the twilight of their career (31+ for soccer).  Notable examples include Andrea Pirlo, Steven Gerrard and David Beckham.  Players at their age are rarely valued at any substantial amount of money (largely because it is assumed they will retire soon and suddenly be worth $0) in the market, so it is not worthwhile for teams to try to get transfer fees.

There are of course a few rare exceptions for players in their prime like Robert Lewandowski, who was once worth over $40 million in transfer fees, who signed a free agency contract with Bayern Munich, because his employing club, Borussia Dortmund refused to make the transfer deal.

I hoped to have an answer for my title question, but in all of my research, I have no answer to why free agency is seldom used by players in international soccer.  I am truly asking the following questions and happy to receive comments or answers:

When will free agency finally garner the same power it has in America?  Why hasn't it happened yet?  And when will it become common for players to negotiate new contracts with new teams on their own terms?

Halloween Is Not A Celebration of Evil

Today, I read an article by Albert Mohler, “Christianity and the Dark Side – What About Halloween?” The thought is provocative that millions of people across the country will be embracing the dark side tonight in contradiction to their Christian faith.  So I took the bait, read it and have outlined below a counterargument.

Mohler criticizes the Pagan background of Halloween: “How should Christians respond to this pagan background?... [some] argue that the Pagan roots of Halloween are no more significant than the Pagan origins of Christmas and other church festivals.”  I’m glad he skirted this argument without addressing it.  He should look more closely at the origins of Christian holidays just to see how close it is with other faiths, such as Christmas Trees and Santa Claus.  In fact, many modern practices and traditions were absorbed from Paganism.  I encourage you to research Paganism and you'll realize it's still present today in many surprising places.

Why is there an inherent darkness in the holiday’s history of celebrating the dead?  Should we forgo all funerals and memorials from now on?  “All Hallow’s Eve” is more likely to be a celebration of life than it is of death.  Little kids go from door to door to get free treats from complete strangers.  Adults attend parties and laugh and dance, celebrating life.  In the tagline phrase “trick or treat”, isn’t it comforting that the overwhelming choice is “treat” and not “trick”?  Halloween brings out more good than bad; more good deeds than sins. Ultimately, this is a social celebration of community and people.

Even if there is darkness in Halloween, an examination and transportation to the darkness can actually help society appreciate the light as well.  One day of darkness as a learning experience is better than only being exposed to good things.  This confrontation with darkness is also true in the New Testament with the introduction of Hell, the Devil and Sin.  So a fundamental pillar of the New Testament contradicts Mohler’s theory.

He quotes Skal, “One’s identity can be discarded with impunity. Men dress as women, and vice versa. Authority can be mocked and circumvented, and, most important, graves open and the departed return.”  Mohler should also accept that dressing up as a zombie is not a tacit endorsement of soulless, man-eating beings walking the face of Earth.  The weirdness that is on display for Halloween should be accepted for what it truly is: people putting their inner weirdness on display once a year.  That weirdness exists regardless whether or not we can see it while walking down the street on an average day.

Mohler: “Skal’s approach is more dispassionate and focused on entertainment, looking at the cultural impact of Halloween in the rise of horror movies and the nation’s fascination with violence.”  The nation’s fascination with violence exists 364 other days of the year as well; this can be seen in action movies, car wrecks, sports, video games, etc.  Let’s not forget that the bad guys usually lose in Hollywood--even in Horror movies. 

“For most parents, the greater fear is the encounter with occultic symbols and the society’s fascination with moral darkness.” I’m not a parent so I cannot fully address the validity of this one but this mentality seems like a rarity.  There doesn't seem to be any worshiping or religious practices involved in trick-or-treating or dressing up as a sexy nurse to go to a party. Let’s also not forget that 99% of this is just pretend fun.  It’s not even serious.  In fact, it is ten times more likely to be mocking evil than praising it.  In the end, the choice between dark and light seems to exist more in the choice of how you perceive it; my way or Mohler’s way.

If you remain unpersuaded, here are some additional questions you can pose to yourself to come up with alternative conclusions about Halloween: Why do people watch scary movies? Why do people dress up in costumes; and are they always scary?  What are typical Halloween activities?  Do they worship anything?  To spite its origins, what is the modern practice (and how much influence do the origins have)?  Do people actually choose evil on this day?  

Freedom of the Press vs. Presumption of Innocence

A core tenet of our civil right is the “presumption of innocence”, which basically means that we are innocent of accused crimes until proven guilty in a court of law. 


Now, a common occurrence in our modern society is for the press (or media) to report on the alleged criminal acts before any allegation is proven guilty in a court of law.  Traditionally in the US culture, the press is entitled to conduct such reports via the principle of the “freedom of the press”.  So although a person may be exonerated by a court of law, the person may be convicted by the general public.


So does the Press/Media respect the ‘Presumption of Innocence’ principle?


The police, while usually a competent and reliable enforcer of the law, is capable of making mistakes.  The initial suspect for a crime doesn’t always end up being the one prosecuted for the crime.  Regardless of whether the police gave the news station the wrong picture or any other flaw, the man is now assumed to be guilty.  In the town he lives in and according to his peers, he is presumed guilty and his life is forever altered and judged based on an act he may not have even committed. 


Yet this is not a harmless mistake because the legally innocent man has been socially convicted and there is no appeal mechanism for this type of conviction.  Once a person’s reputation is tainted even by the public allegation, then that person’s life is forever stained.  The social consequences are boundless.  A person may have to leave their community entirely because they cannot go out in public without their peers judging them as if they were carrying a cloud of guilt over their head.


Let’s look at a present-day example: the allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK).  I won’t go into the details of the legal allegations because I want to focus on the role of the media.  DSK is/was a prominent public figure because he was the head of the International Monetary Fund.  DSK was living in the US for his job at the IMF but he is a French national.  As one of their political elite was in the headlights of the international media scandal, people in France paid close attention to the coverage in the US.  The US covered the story with pictures of DSK in police custody in handcuffs and surrounded by authorities.


A CNN article articulates the differences in US and French culture as the French have censorship laws which prohibit the media from prejudicing a legal case.  One French resident thought, “that for Americans it’s the normal procedure, so there’s nothing shocking about these pictures, but in France it’s true that these pictures are very shocking for us, because in France we don’t have the right to show images of a man who is charged but not yet convicted.”  The case against DSK has since been dropped.  So DSK has avoided criminal conviction, but his political career was not spared as he had been positioning himself to run for the French Presidency in the next election.  That aspiration is no longer plausible. 


So for alleged criminals like DSK, I do not believe the media appropriately respects the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to every citizen.


Censorship Harm


There is also an issue where the media assists authorities in making the public aware of a criminal so they can be caught. So a local news station may show a picture of a man who had just shot a convenient store clerk in their nightly news segment. A citizen who knows or has seen this man may might then call the police with information related to the man’s whereabouts. However, when the news station shows that man’s picture, everyone who sees it assumes that he is guilty.


Prohibiting prejudicial reports by the media may also harm the ability of the media to do investigative journalism.  We often see the media uncover corrupt and potentially criminal behavior which leads to a criminal investigation by the government.  Under new censorship, this investigative practice would undoubtedly be limited in some way because it would limit the degree to which the report can implicate a person in criminal activity.  ideally I’d like there to be a happy medium because I do fear truly investigative journalism would be jeopardized.  Appropriate and more specific limits definitely need to be debated further before any new law is formulated.


Yea it’s different, but let’s at least talk about it…


I think the freedom of the press should be limited to protect the presumption of innocence. At present in the US, there is no such presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion. When a media outlet runs a story on ‘alleged’ crimes, the audience forms a prejudice by assuming the media report to be truthful and unbiased.  It’s imperative that the media continually emphasize that the crimes are “alleged” and detail the arguments for both the prosecution and the defense.  It’s definitely time for at least a debate on the press/innocence conflict because the internet has the ability to make a mugshot a ‘kiss of death’ for a person’s social and political life.


If the person is convicted, then I think the press is entitled to report on it. But until guilt is proven in the court of law, the court of public opinion must respect every citizen’s presumption of innocence.  Granted the ‘how’ is complex the two principles can coexist.

Are We Thriving and Coming Together?

I needed some inspiration so I decided to re-watch the President's speech in Tucson, Arizona from several months ago (click on my nicely embedded video to the right if you would like to as well).  I first watched it the day after the speech was given, and I still remember tearing up at the end.   

I have copied (from here) the ending below, just as a tribute to how all of us can be better, and not just for ourselves....

Together We Thrive: Tucson and America

(all of the emboldened parts are where I get goosebumps!)

"...They believed - they believed, and I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved life here - they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us.

"And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

"That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed.

"Imagine - imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation's future. 

"She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

"I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us - we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations.

"As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on Sept. 11, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called 'Faces of Hope.' On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child's life. 'I hope you help those in need,' read one. 'I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart.'  'I hope you jump in rain puddles.'

"If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on this Earth - here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit..."  - President of the United States Barrack Obama January 12, 2011

I can't remember a moment where I've been prouder that he is my President.  And I wanted to ask: do you think America is thriving and coming together?  I feel like we have exited the time of depolarization and the country is once more characterized by its political divisions than its commonalities.  Even though it was short-lived, I hope we can get back to that time when we did not let our divisions define us.

Just some other things that motivate me...

Park Scene from Good Will Hunting

"Ocean" by John Butler Trio

Alicia Keys on CNN's Impact Your World - "I want to be known as an incredible, global citizen and a person who has made their mark in an inspiring, positive way....this is my generation--we're about to do something really big."

A 'Jeremy original':  "What happened in your past does not determine your future because expecting  future outcomes to be the same as past outcomes is naively assuming nothing has changed between then and now."  It comforts me to know this when I am struggling.  It tells me that any failure or unrealized opportunity from the past does prevent me from being able to realize my potential in future endeavors.