Winter Streets: The Inauguration as Pedestrian Utopia

Last summer, New York City launched its "Summer Streets" program, closing seven miles of streets to all traffic except pedestrians and bicycles for a day. At first this may sound nonsensical. Why would people want to close off the primary arteries? wouldn't this cripple the economy? However, the response to the street closures was generally positive, people became aware of how much space roadways occupy in cities, and the economy seemed to continue unabated.

During the inauguration, a roughly 3 square mile area will be closed to emergency and law enforcement vehicles only, and I-395 will be closed to all vehicles except pedestrians. So far, the reaction here in Richmond has just been to grumble about how much traffic this will generate. But what if we take the approach that closing these streets will make he environment that much better for a day - especially for an inauguration day?

The I-395/third street tunnel will be closed for a 24 hour period beginning at midnight Jan 19/20, as will many of the bridges. Instead of griping about the traffic, try taking a stroll over the deserted streets - maybe wait a while after the swearing in has happened so they're not too packed. It just might change the way you think about streets.

Asking For Change: Intensive Repair

Asking For Change: an occasional series on what should change in the U.S. under a new president, why it should change, and how we all can make it happen.

Obamathon Man's relatives happen to have many contacts in the Denver metro area, and yesterday we all went to lunch with one of them. While I'm not at liberty to divulge much more about this individual as it may produce unintended consequences, he is employed by an organization involved with the health care system. I figured he might be able to help clue me in on the state of health care in the US. When I asked him about it, the first thing he told me was, "Everyone knows the system is messed up."

A quick search online reveals some scary stats about US health care. For instance, health care spending in the US is 4.3 times what the government spends on defense. Worse, the US has 46 million people without insurance. That's 13 million more than the population of Canada, which ironically is rated higher than the US in health care. As this individual explained to me, the problem is basically that there is a wide range of people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but don't have insurance or are underinsured.

I asked him if he had any news about what Obama and his pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, were planning to do. He assured me that he was no political insider, but said his best guess was that they would try to streamline costs in general. Obama's official website does include an outline of his health plan, the bulk of which is focused on "[making] health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies"; however there are other proposals like reducing costs for foreign medicine imports. Also, WebMD has done their own write-up on Obama's health plan - it's a bit more level-headed.

I asked him about his own take on what should be done to improve health care. While he had many sophisticated and nuanced ideas that I wasn't able to fully understand, he said one thing that really resonated with me: "The structure of for-profit insurance companies is contradictory to a system which would promote general health and well being. It could even be called morally questionable." I couldn't help but agree. Theoretically, insurance companies are motivated to collect as much money from their patrons while providing the least coverage in order to maximize profit. But shouldn't the motive be to provide as much coverage as possible? Should we be willing to accept deaths for dollars?

I had been crafting a comparison which I submitted to this individual. Afterward, he said, "That's an interesting analogy", which I took to mean he approved of it officially. Suppose someone breaks into your house and steals a number of your possessions. If you are wealthy, you can hire a private detective to find the thief. But no matter who you are, you are entitled to call the police and have them investigate the case. Municipal security is a service provided by the government and funded by taxpayers, and yet all but the furthest on the Right suggest that it be privatized. Justice is one of the fundamental principles of our society, and we view it as a right, not a privilege. Likewise, we need to make health care a right, not a privilege.

The rich will always have a larger number of health care options. As in the scenario above, wealthier citizens have a larger number of security options as well, the same applies to education, and even fire prevention. This is not a bad thing, and people rarely object to this. But expanded options for wealthier individuals should not come at the expense of the basic rights of everyone. Admittedly, I lack the experience or research time to make more specific recommendations about health care - although some of the websites I've linked to are excellent resources if you would like to do research yourself. But this much I know: America needs to stop looking at health care as a commodity or a privilege, and start looking at it as a right. Only then will our first aid cease to be second rate.

Asking For Change: Problem or Solution?

Instead of presenting some cheesy "New Year's Resolution" post, Obamathon Man unveils to the general populace a new series. Asking For Change: an occasional series on what should change in the U.S. under a new president, why it should change, and how we all can make it happen.

One of the defining moments in late 20th century American politics was the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was, of course, the first and most famous of a new breed of politician, the actor-slash-politician. Reagan had all the charm of a used car salesman, and during his presidency he sold the country on the idea that "the government is the problem", an idea which has persisted ever since.

But is the government the really the problem? Certainly there have been plenty of governments that were (and are) problematic, to their citizens and to the world. Would it then be best to get rid of governments? Somalia effectively has no government, and that has also presented problems for both citizens of Somalia and other countries as well.

The truth is, it is naive to bullheadedly operate on the mantra that "government is the problem", just as it is naive to think government is the solution; it can be a part of either. For the past several decades, we have thought that services were good because they were public or private, depending on our ideology. We need to move beyond that. Run schools, roads, utilities, and hospitals in such a way as to get the best results, whether that means publicly or privately. On the campaign trail, Obama said, "We don't need bigger government or smaller government, we need better government." America needs to realize that public and private works are not ends in themselves - human well being and freedom are. Real change will be freeing ourselves from our ideological barriers and working to make things better.

Time to Shine: Colorado and Renewable Energy

Yesterday, Obamathon Man took a day trip to Denver's equivalent of Santa Monica: Boulder. True, the median age of Boulder is about 10 years lower and the median temperature is about 50 degrees lower. The college vibe is felt all across town, unlike Santa Monica where it stops 3 blocks from SMC (though I dare say the radio station at SMC is a bit more influential, if less countercultural, than CU Boulder's). But just like Santa Monica, there's a pedestrian mall lined with chic sake bars and hobos, and every newsstand includes a free publication dedicated to "wellness".

But what struck me is not Boulder itself but the solar plant I spotted along the way. I was aware that Colorado was actively getting involved in renewable energy, but its nice to see it first hand.

Colorado has a long history with renewable energy. In 1974, the Solar Energy Research Institute was founded. The Institute flourished under the Carter administration, and it was during this time that my relative relocated to Denver to work there. During the Reagan years, it was determined that "government is the problem", which meant that all government-conducted solar research was part of the problem too. My relative eventually left for a university job and later ended up working for private research firms, with mixed results. The SERI ultimately survived the wrath of Reagan, though its budget was cut by 90%. In the 90s, it was rebranded as the National Renewable Energies Laboratory, or NREL, and continues to operate to this day.

In 2006, Colorado's Governor Bill Ritter announced that Colorado was to be an energy pioneer, becoming "bolder [Boulder?] than any other state when it comes to renewable energy". This is certainly great news and I commend the efforts of the great state of Colorado, though as a west coast loyalist I have to add that if they want to become the greenest state they've got some competition.

With Obama in office, the future is green for the whole country. But it's great to see that here in the purple state of Colorado, change isn't waiting for January 20.

Changing Fuel, Fueling Change

Yesterday afternoon, a family member showed us around his lab here in Denver (he's a physicist). It's a fairly sophisticated operation, and several employees were present, even this close to Christmas. A young woman with glasses and a bun worked the front desk, she was polite but clearly had her hands full with scheduling. We grabbed safety goggles as we entered the work area, but at this point they weren't necessary since nothing really dangerous was going on.

One of the lab techs came over to talk to us. His name was Dan, and he was happy to talk about what was going on here at the lab. There were several benches full of drills, hammers, welding torches, small stoves, and other relevant tools. At the center of everything was a roughly 8x8x16 foot rectangular assemblage of steel tubes. If this wasn't a laboratory, the structure could easily pass as playground equipment. However it became clear that it was intended as a container for some large scale apparatus.

Dan warmed up when he learned that I was about to graduate from the alma mater of a friend of his. Somehow, the topic of discussion abruptly turned to theoretical physics, which as it turns out is not very popular with practical physicists. Dan didn't like the fact that the theories of theoretical physics were not falsifiable and were difficult to test. I asked him if this had anything to do with the Large Hadron Collider, which I almost referred to accidentally as the "Large Hard-On Collider". Not being a theoretical physicist, he didn't know, or really care. But he did admit that theoretical physics was great for science fiction.

I asked him what was going to be housed within the massive tube system, and he said that it would house machinery to convert the thousands of trees afflicted by pine beetles into charcoal. While this charcoal could be used as fuel, in this case it would be used as a fertilizer which would also remove carbon from the atmosphere. Apparently, the charcoal can also be used to neutralize the damage done by mine tailings, which mine companies prefer to call "peripheral leavings" but scientists refer to in many cases as "toxins".

I then asked about if he thought Obama would be good for alternative fuel development companies like the one he was working for. He absolutely thought Obama would improve the state of alternative fuel in the US, pointing out that Obama dilligently went about creating a "brain trust" who would take an effective course of action many different issues. I agreed, a brain trust would certainly be better than the previous executive, who didn't trust brains. In particular, Dan was enthusiastic that Ken Salazar, formerly one of Colorado's senators, had been named as Secretary of the Interior. He was so enthusiastic that he accidentally referred to him as "Secretary of State".

At this point we had to leave, but I was happy to have had the chat. Even though gas prices have dropped, we still need to start working on building up other sources of energy. Government investment in private research is a good way to establish more effective energy sources, as has already happened in Brazil, and it's also good for our economy. Hopefully, Dan will be doing what he's doing for a long time.