Nevada Water Contamination

I have written about water issues before on this site.  This article from the L.A. Times grabbed my attention.  This contamination could not have happened in a worse place at a worse time. 

L.A. Times: Nuclear scars: Tainted water runs beneath Nevada desert.

For People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

U.S. News and World Report: 15 Cities for People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

I like this report because it balances two often opposed concerns: (1) wanting to drive less and (2) maintaining a reasonable commute time.  As the article notes, some cities with heavy public transit ridership did not make the list because of the time it takes to commute on public transit.  That statement may be a little misleading.  There are certainly other factors to consider in those long-transit-commute cities - auto traffic, parking availability and cost, convenience - that make public transit the preferred option for folks despite the time commitment.  Cities in this category should not be surprising: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, among others.

The cities that did make this list have a common element - compactness.  That characteristic makes non-motorized commuting a viable option.  There should also be little surprise that several college towns make the list - Chapel Hill, Boulder, Eugene, Madison, and others.

The desirability of commuting options - including walking, cycling, and the like - has led some cities to try and incorporate elements of the named towns into neighborhood design.  Denver's Living Streets Initiative is one example.  Some of the aims of the initiative are multi-model transportation access (including non-motorized transportation) and increased mobility for the population in general; efficiency (increasing convenient stops per outing); sustainability; community; and encouraging a healthy lifestyle.  The initiative is integrated with the zoning code revision that I have written about several times recently, particularly the new code's Main Street districts.  In some neighborhood commercial areas, for example, the initiative would narrow lanes to slow car speeds and allow for wider sidewalks.  I live near the University of Denver in Denver.  The restaurants and shops along both Evans Avenue and University Boulevard are perfect for such a design.  For one thing, parking is not sufficient.  It is incredibly frustrating to try to drive to and park at many of the restaurants, especially during peak times.  Secondly, because of the rate at which traffic moves along both Evans and University, I sometimes do not absolutely safe walking, particularly at night or when I have either my dogs or infant son with me.  In short, the skeleton of great, compact, walkable neighborhood are there, so why not implement the necessary policies and physical changes to encourage that profile?

Such planning is not without its critics.  A recent opinion column in the Denver Post criticized and ridiculed the Living Streets Initiative.  But I think the author is ignoring an important aspect of the initiative - it will not work for every street in Denver.  Two of the roads he mentions, Colorado Boulevard and Hampden Avenue are major arterial streets (three lanes in most places) and serve very busy commercial districts.  While it might be nice to make those commercial areas more accessible, the reality is that it would require significant alteration of the infrastructure already in place.  Any of you who live in Denver and know the areas to which I am referring know there is a vast difference between Evans near DU and Colorado Boulevard.  I could also counter the author's arguments about traffic and induced congestion, but I will not belabor that point.  I will say, generally speaking, that advocating the status quo,  as the author does, certainly will not alleviate and is more likely to perpetuate the complaints he describes.  At least a fresh perspective represents a chance at progress, even if it ultimately fails. 

For those of us who feel tied to our cars, the cities in the U.S. News and World Report article are encouraging and inspiring, even if a bit aspirational.  Personally, I appreciate the efforts of my city to provide myself and fellow Denverites with options.  

"An unexpected teachable moment about the complex issue of fair use in the Internet age"

In the interest of full disclosure, this blog post involves a celebrity sex tape.

Now that I have your rapt attention, let's undress this mess and get to the naked issue here - fair use of material protected by the Copyright Act.  Why is that important in a sex-tape scandal?  First of all, it is important because these are the cases people go to law school to read.  No one ever minds an occasional juicy fact pattern to break up the monotony.  Secondly, the "filmmakers" are seeking retribution from Gawker based on violation of copyright.  (Typically, such suits are based on invasion of privacy or defamation.)

A brief summary of the facts.  Grey's Anatomy star Eric Dane made a "home move" of himself, his wife Rebecca Gayheart, and Kari Ann Peniche.  The tape fell into media hands, and soon thereafter an edited snippet of the film appeared on the website gawker.com.  That brings us to Dane's claim of copyright violation and Gawker's fair use defense.

Trying to gauge how this claim will fair, the author of this PBS article analyzed the four typical factors relevant to a fair use defense against a claim of copyright violation in relation to the facts of the case at hand.  A brief summary of his points:

Note: In some cases, it will be necessary to put practical considerations aside to make these points plausible.  

1. Though Gawker, a for-profit business, clearly could reap some commercial benefit from its use of the tape, a court could readily find that the Gawker published the video for its newsworthiness, one justification for a fair use of copyrighted material.  And, no, newsworthiness is not limited to "real" news or important issues; it certainly can include celebrity tabloid fodder.

2. The fact that Gawker "scooped" the tape's copyright holders - Dane, Gayheart, and Peniche - by publishing the tape first makes a fair use defense less likely.  Generally the law believes that a copyright holder has the "right to control the first public appearance" of copyrighted material.

3. Amount and substantiality: Basically this factor looks at how much of the copyrighted material the alleged violator used.  In this case, Gawker published four minutes of the twelve-minute video - one-third of the tape.  Could they have gotten the same effect from a few screen shots or few seconds of film?  Probably.  This one leans against fair use.

4. Finally, did Gawker's publication "supplant the need for an individual to purchase a legitimate copy?"  The substance of Gawker's clip is relevant here.  I have not seen the clip for myself, but according to Arcamona, Gawker left the juicy bits of the film on the editing floor.  Thus, if a person really wants to see the goods, they will have to seek a full copy of the film.  Evidence of fair use.

If you are keeping score, this case seems to be a toss up.  Two factors weigh in favor of each argument.  If only there were a fifth factor!  Though I have only a cursory knowledge of intellectual property law in general and copyright cases specifically, I think this might be a new scenario for the Copyright Act.  For one reason or another, I know lots of folks will be peeping in on this case from time to time.

NY Times Op-Ed: In This Together

Roger Cohen published a very thoughtful and timely op-ed in the NY Times on Monday entitled "In This Together."  His piece touched on several themes that I have written about on this site, including the moral considerations that are inseparable from the debate over health care reform. 

He also broaches the subject of disconnectedness within our culture.  This is a topic that I have personally been mulling lately through the writing of Wendell Berry.  Cohen says:

But the more I thought about it — and thought of the repeated Earth-to-Mars experience of trying to get through to my kids when they’re on their laptops, and thought of how often people thumb-typing on their Blackberries bump blindly into me on New York sidewalks, and thought about how technology now trumps community in the United States (even when that community is 39,000 feet up) — the more I felt those Northwest pilots were symbolic enough.

"Technology trumps community."  That is a telling statement, and a convicting one for a person who spends as much if not more time busily pecking away on a keyboard than I do actually interacting with other people.  I believe that is why the words of Wendell Berry have spoken to me lately.  In his writings, Berry emphasizes the importance and necessity of community.  Through community, individuals can find (and offer) healing, wisdom, learning, support, and commonality that fosters a fulfilling way of living.  From Berry's essay "Health is Membership," published in The Art of the Common-Place: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry:

I am not ‘against technology’ so much as I am for community. When the choice is between the health of a community and technological innovation, I choose the health of the community. I would unhesitatingly destroy a machine before I would allow the machine to destroy my community.
 

I believe that the community – in the fullest sense: a place and all its creatures – is the smallest unit of health and that to speak of the health of an isolated individual is a contradiction in terms. 

Without going too far afield, Cohen's message, at least the message that I draw, is that the disconnectedness that has seeped into almost every aspect of our culture is obliterating the community of this nation.  Rather than seeing common ground and common good, we are instantly drawn to the philosophical divergences and the distinctions evident among one another.  So Cohen reminds us today that we are indeed "in this together."  The solutions we seek to the array of problems facing this nation  will not and cannot be universally pleasing.  But they still can be universally beneficial if given the chance. 

   

Health Care Debate Terminology

A nice summary from Time.

http://www.time.com/time/healthcaredebate

More Denver Zoning Code

If anyone is interested, the 3rd draft of the new Denver Zoning Code is available for review and comment.  You can find Draft # 3 here.  As I mentioned in my previous post about the revision, you can look up the current code at this link for comparison's sake.  The Zoning Code is Chapter 59.

Let's be honest . . .

Yesterday, Denver voters defeated Initiative 300.  The measure would have given Denver police broader authority to impound vehicles on the spot if the driver did not have a driver's license or certain other identification on them at the time they were stopped by the officer.  Aside from questions about the highest and best use of police time and resources, this measure and its predecessor embodied a principle that is very troubling to me. 

For those readers that do not live in Colorado or Denver, let me give a bit a background to bring you up to speed.  Both the State of Colorado and the City and County of Denver allow citizens to take the legislative process into their own hands.  In short, anyone can submit a piece of proposed legislation; yes, there is some red tape to cut and proponents must obtain signatures of a certain percentage of voters.  Overall, though, it is fairly easy for anyone who wants to put in the time and effort to get a proposed constitutional or statutory amendment on the state ballot or a proposed initiative to force city council action on a local ballot.  Then the respective voters get to decide issues directly rather than through their elected officials.

This process has been used cleverly in the past to achieve worthy aims ignored by or stymied in the state legislature.  Even members of the legislature have used this process in lieu of the General Assembly floor to make law.  I will ignore the obvious tangent that is building here and forge ahead. 

Needless to say, the direct democracy mechanisms have been used here in both good and bad ways.  Initiative 300 is, in my opinion, an example of an abuse of that process.  The initiative targeted illegal immigrants.  Some proponents will admit this; others will deny it.  But the probable consequences and most likely cases of enforcement would point to this initiative being an anti-immigrant measure, or, at best, a license to profile. 

My issue with Initiative 300 and others like it - notably, the attempts to define "personhood" in the Colorado Constitution - is this: they are underhanded, back-door attempts to make laws that the voting public would not approve if stated in plain language.  Rather than be honest with the voters about what they are asking, proponents of such measures instead seek to exploit voters who do not read the verbose initiative  language closely, take time to think through all the possible ramifications, or read others' reports and opinions about the measures.  In short, proponents of measures like Initiative 300 know that voters would overwhelmingly disapprove of their proposed laws if the purposes were stated clearly and succinctly.  Instead, they disguise true motives and try to fleece voters into approving their language.

My challenge to the authors of Initiative 300 and the others like them is to be honest with the public.  Be truthful about your motives and goals.  Stop abusing the democratic system you have at your disposal.  If your aims are truly worthwhile and beneficial to the state or the city, voters will recognize that.  If not, smoke and mirrors are not honorable ways to achieve those aims. 

The Today Show video highlights dangers of texting while driving

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/33617082#33617082

Sharing an Inspiring Podcast

I am regular listener of The Dirtbag Diaries podcast. Generally, the episodes are geared toward outdoor sports and various adventures found by those who participate in those sports. But the author, Fitz Cahall, also does a nice job of recognizing how these sports and athletes (of all levels) are intertwined with many of the conservation and environmental issues that make headlines. Maybe its directly in the areas where they recreate, or maybe its in lifestyle choices they make because of what they see, but there's no doubt that most outdoor enthusiasts exhibit a strong conservation ethic.

The most recent episode of the Diaries highlighted three stories about folks who took that attitude and ran with it, to varying degrees of success. I found the piece tremendously inspiring, so I thought I would share it.

You can listen to the podcast here. You can also find and subscribe to The Dirtbag Diaries at the iTunes store.

Thank You!

I just wanted to say a quick thank you to everyone who has been reading. Your patronage has really encouraged me in this venture, which has been a much-appreciated outlet and exercise for me. I hope you all have found it worthwhile as well, at least some of the time.

As always, if you have feelings or opinions about the topics I present, please leave a comment on the blog. I think we all benefit more from truly discussing issues, rather than just listening to a one-sided digression.

If you enjoy what you are reading or find it meaningful, please pass this site onto others who might feel the same way.

Thanks for reading!

Two Thoughts on the Progress of Health Care Reform

As action cranks up again in Washington, I have been thinking in the last few days about the progress of health care reform and all that I have read and heard about the issue. All aspects - from philosophy, to goals, mechanics, and international comparisons - has been hashed, rehashed, twisted, and distorted so many times that, if you are like me, it makes your head spin, stomach turn, and brain hurt. Pushing all that aside, there are two primary aspects of this debate that I try to keep in the forefront of my mind.

1. The most important goal of reform should be lower costs for those paying for health care coverage. Easier said that done, right? Right. There a whole host of avenues for potentially accomplishing cost reduction. I have discussed some of these in the past (here and here). The reemergence of a public option in the Senate proposals is encouraging. While health insurance providers are not by any means solely to blame for the recent and continued increase in the cost of health care, they are certainly one culprit. A public insurance option might be the best way to keep insurance companies honest. And let's clear the air - a public option is not, and should not be called, a government takeover of health care. This would be particularly true if Sen. Reid's proposal finds its way into law; his bill includes a opt-out clause for states who do not want to participate (or, ahem, do not want their citizens to be able to participate) in the public option. (As the linked article explores, that opt-out of a federal program could have much more far-reaching consequences for other areas where federal law applies universally.) Opponents of the public option cry that it might run private health insurers out of business. My answer to that is . . . PRECISELY! In its best form, the public option would be a low-cost player in the market that forces other players to examine business practices and make adjustments to remain competitive. Is that not what our economic system is built on?

But back to my first point. For me, the mechanism is less important than achievement of the overall goal of lowering costs. In another post, I highlighted a statistic from Newsweek claiming that in the next few years, twenty percent (20%) of the U.S. GDP will be spent on health care related services. Twenty. Percent. Health. Care. The administration's economic recovery strategy has targeted automobile purchases, home loans, and debt relief. While those are no doubt problematic aspects of many consumer's economic portfolios, the government would be remiss, if not negligent, if it blows this opportunity to impact what is doubtless a huge expense for many consumers.

2. At the core, health care is a moral issue. Despite attempts to relegate health care reform to the pens of political issues or economic matters, the provision of basic, affordable health care should be a addressed as a moral issue. Our nation is founded on the principle that every person should have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. I have never seen any qualifiers applied to that right. To clarify, I certainly do not believe that anyone has the right to have life, liberty, or happiness handed to them. But in the United States, we guarantee people that right to pursue them. To me, that means removing roadblocks, particularly those to obstruct only certain members or classes of our society.

Let me describe a scenario that I play over and over in my mind. While I will concede that it is an extreme, worst-case scenario, it is nonetheless one that is unnervingly close to reality for an increasing sector of the population:

Bill has a job. Its a good job, not great, but it pays the bills, and his employer provides group health coverage. Bill works hard and has managed to put away some money over the years, but he'd be far from comfortable if he lost his job. Due to the economic climate, Bill's employer is forced to make some hard decisions and has to lay off Bill and several other employees. Bill doesn't qualify for Medicaid and cannot find an private insurance plan that he can afford, so opts to play the odds and go without health coverage until he can find a new job.

Bill gets a job interview. It goes well, and he leaves the interview hopeful. The interview was downtown. Bill is cheerful as he walks from the office building toward his car, parked two blocks away. Bill stops at a crosswalk and proceeds after the traffic signals indicates he may do so. About halfway through the intersection, Bill hears car horns and looks up to see Fred's car speeding through a red light into the intersection. Fred plows into Bill, severely injuring him. Fred was wasted and hardly had any idea what was going on when the police pulled him out of his car. He vomited when he saw Bill, bleeding and motionless, lifted onto a gurney and hoisted into an ambulance.

Bill's injuries are terrible, but he recovers well enough after spending two weeks in the hospital, including a couple days in the ICU. A few weeks after discharge, he receives a bill from the hospital. Obviously, Bill can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars he now owes the hospital, ambulance service, and other care providers. He hires a lawyer on a contingent basis and files a civil suit against Fred. The case is a classic "open and shut." In frustration, the judge throws the book at Fred, literally, and the jury finds that Fred was reckless in his actions that day. They order him to pay all of Bill's medical fees and then some.

But Fred has the last laugh. He has no auto insurance. He also has nothing to his name. No assets. No bank account. No job from which to garnish wages. All he had was his beater car, which he totaled when he smashed into Bill. Bill has a judgment in his favor, but that's it. Bill's savings are far from sufficient to cover his debts, and he files for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy - over the medical bills he accrued through no fault of his own. Bill comes through bankruptcy with nothing except a black mark on his personal credit.

Extreme? Yes, I'll give you that. Silly? Maybe. Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? Hardly. Heck, the story doesn't even have to include an insured pedestrian. It could be about one whose insurance company denies the claim after getting the price tag - also not unheard of. It could be someone with a high deductible plan provided by his employer. A run of hard luck, and he doesn't have the funds to meet the deductible. The point is that we live in a country where you or I could find ourselves bankrupt because of another's poor judgment. The Newsweek articles I cited in another post explain that the U.S. is the only Western nation where that is allowed to happen. We're a wealthy nation. We're a nation that places itself on a moral high ground. I cannot find any reason for that possibility to exist.

OK, deep breath . . . and . . . I'm done. Almost. I tell that story simply to illustrate some of the principles our current health care system implicitly endorses. They certainly are not principles which seem to comport with the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I will say this once again: I do not believe that those "inalienable rights" require the government to give handouts, freebies, or whatever. But I do believe it requires the government at least alleviate obvious obstructions put in place by other parties that hinder some individuals from pursuing those dreams.

As I said in opening, the details and rhetoric of the health care reform debate can be overwhelming and nauseating. But keeping a few guiding principles in mind can hopefully keep us and our lawmakers focused on the ultimate prize.