You Don't Have to Go Home (But You Can't Stay Here)

Boulder City Manager Jane Brautigam has proposed a new rule closing all city parks and open space properties between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. It wouldn't apply to pedestrians or cyclists passing through without stopping, but any hint of delay would open the lollygaggers to citation.

Communications Manager Patrick von Keyserling says this rule is not a response to the Occupy protesters, but rather is meant to protect their safety and health (a rather Orwellian description).

It is also meant to address illegal nighttime activity in dimly lit, sparsely populated areas. It's easier to stop all parks and open space usage at night than to just enforce existing laws.

However, my biggest issue with the proposal isn't its questionable justification. It's the legitimacy of the process being followed.


[more]

Caution -- Slow Bikes

City staff has proposed several changes to transportation code, some of which affect how crosswalks are regulated. The changes were presented to council on Nov. 15 and the first reading was approved, which means that the changes will be discussed in more detail this Tuesday.

If the changes are approved as presented, drivers will have to stop at a crosswalk if another driver has already stopped to let a pedestrian cross. This is common sense and brings the city's regulations into line with state law.

The changes affecting pedestrians and cyclists are more impactful.

Pedestrians using a crosswalk with an alert system, like the flashing yellow lights found around town, are only allowed to do so after the lights have been activated. Some pedestrians avoid triggering the flashing lights if there is plenty of time to cross and they don't want to inconvenience drivers.

However, I believe this is a reasonable requirement. Making the use of the lights more consistent will help with drivers' expectations. And if there is an accident in which the pedestrian didn't activate the signal, it will help assign responsibility.

The remaining crosswalk changes restrict the speed of bikes in crosswalks.


[more]

What's the Difference between a Skeptic and a Denier?

To someone with a scientific background, the difference is obvious. A skeptic has an open mind; a denier has a closed mind.

The denier has made up his mind that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming isn't happening. He rejects any scientific evidence supporting AGW, and blindly accepts any evidence, pseudo-evidence, emotional appeal, or unsupported argument that opposes AGW. Scientifically disproving his argument won't sway him.

The skeptic doesn't believe something just because the establishment says it's so. He needs to personally examine the evidence, and won't believe it until he can prove it for himself.

The skeptic is pro-science, exactly the type of person who moves science forward. The denier is anti-science, but may hide behind the term "skeptic" the same way a creationist hides behind the term "intelligent design."

Dr. Richard Muller is a skeptic. The Berkeley physicist criticized errors he saw in Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" He criticized the scientists involved in the so-called "climategate scandal." He vocally criticized the "hockey stick" graph that climate scientists have used to show the sharp increase in temperature in the past few decades.


[more]

The case of the missing education funding

My ballot was sitting on my desk, only one blank remaining. I was confused.

Colorado Proposition 103 is supposed to restore cut state education funding by increasing our taxes for the next five years. But I distinctly remember that we passed a constitutional amendment about ten years ago that promised to increase school funding every year.

Either the Legislature has been violating the state constitution by cutting education spending, or someone isn't being quite honest (or possibly both).

Amendment 23 passed with 52.7 percent of the vote in 2000. It promised, among other things, to "(increase) per pupil funding for public schools and total state funding for special purpose education programs by at least the rate of inflation plus one percentage point for the next ten years and by at least the rate of inflation thereafter." And yet, for the past couple of years, education funding has been on the chopping block along with everything else.

I sympathize with the Legislature. Theirs is an impossible task. They are being micromanaged by us citizens with many conflicting goals.


[more]

Boulder Election 2011

Given recent local election coverage, you'd think the only things we're voting on were municipalization and corporate rights. However, Boulder has no fewer than eight ballot issues this year.

Issue 2A allows the city to sell $49,000,000 in bonds for critical infrastructure needs, including maintaining streets, bridges, buildings, and recreation facilities; upgrading software, the main library, and police and fire equipment; and improving transportation connections and streetscapes. It's hard to argue with those priorities. The bonds will be paid back using existing revenue streams. Plus, the work will generate local jobs, helping the local economy.

Issue 2B allows the city to extend and increase the utility occupation tax levied on Xcel's customers to further investigate the feasibility of a municipal power utility. Question 2C authorizes the city council to create a power utility, if it proves it can do so in a cost-effective manner, with rates and reliability comparable to Xcel's and a plan for more renewable energy.

David Miller, in his guest commentary a week ago, rightly pointed out that there are many unanswered questions related to this proposal. We don't know how much it will cost, nor how much additional renewable energy will be feasible. However, we can't know these answers without approving both measures. So, the real question is whether we want to know, or whether we will continue to trust Xcel to work in Boulder's best interest.


[more]

Patent Reform is Bust for Brainy Boulderites

Last year Boulder was judged the brainiest city by Portfolio.com, but lumped in with 20th place Denver in Forbes' list of innovative cities.

Now we're seventh on the Insomnia Log Patent Friendly Cities list. Boulder area residents were issued 834 patents per 100,000 residents from 2006 through 2010, and only six other metro regions did better.

President Obama just signed a patent reform law, the first major overhaul of our patent system in 60 years, and there was hardly a peep from local inventors.

The most debated part of the new law converts the U.S. from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. Previously, you could get a patent if you could prove that you invented something first, even if someone else beat you to the Patent and Trademark Office. No more.

Supporters, including many of the biggest technology companies, say this will simplify things, eliminating contests over who actually owns an invention. A class of procedures is eliminated from the PTO. This should reduce legal costs, and help reduce the multi-year backlog of patent applications.

Many small inventors are not so thrilled. They fear big companies with teams of lawyers will file applications faster, and earn patents even when they weren't the first to come up with an idea.


[more]

Correction: In this essay, I said that, "Under the new law the PTO gets to keep all of its fees, rather than having them siphoned into the general fund." In fact, that provision was deleted during congressional negotiations.

We're going about this thing all wrong

I'm talking, of course, about the economy. It's annoyingly broken, and for some reason just refuses to fix itself.

The tea party gang would have you believe it's as simple as spending less money and reducing the deficit. However, they can't actually believe that will work. Every economist and his brother-in-law tells us that cutting government spending will just send the economy further into the toilet. Economies in the toilet, as we've seen recently, tend to result in larger deficits.

Of course, Obama and the Democrats don't have a much better plan. They're banking on stimulus that's so tepid that Republicans might even vote for it if they hold their noses. Tepid stimulus leads to, you guessed it, tepid recovery.

I have a modest proposal.

[more]

What, Me Vote?

It always amazes me when elected officials take the fact of their election as a message that people actually agree with them.

OK, it doesn't amaze me, but it still doesn't seem logical. Of course, once you are elected you really can't operate under any other assumption, but that doesn't mean you're not wrong.

In this country, about a third of those eligible to vote are actually politically active enough to vote regularly. There's your base: half of these regular voters. You can count on them as long as you don't do something stupid.

It's the fifth of all adults who vote once in a while that you really need. Convincing them of your position won't convince them to vote for you, nor will that strategy work for your opponent. They don't know much about the issues, nor do they care much about politics. What gets them to the polls is anger.


[more]

Take our Time with Energy Decision

Two weeks ago I wrote about Xcel's proposal to provide Boulder with lots of wind energy. I said that Xcel would be able to count that wind energy towards its legislated mandate to provide 30 percent of its Colorado electricity as renewable or recycled energy.

I received a couple of emails from folks who told me I was wrong. Xcel would sell the renewable energy credits associated with the new wind energy to Boulder, and Boulder would get the RECs.

However, the Colorado statute that mandates utilities to provide a minimum percentage via renewable and recycled energy doesn't mention RECs. It just says that the utility has to generate or cause to be generated the energy.

The Public Utility Commission rules that implemented that law say that a utility will use RECs to meet the mandate, but they don`t seem to say that RECs are the only way to meet the mandate.

Confused? According to Xcel, the interpretation of this requirement doesn't matter. They say that they`ve already gotten enough renewable energy lined up to meet the mandate without Boulder, and to meet it early. Whether or not they are allowed to count the Boulder wind toward the 30 percent, they are not planning on doing so.

They don't need us.


[more]

Zero net carbons

Xcel Energy has finally outlined a proposal to City Council for a new franchise agreement that looks like it meets the goals for Boulder's energy future. I'm not convinced.

It's actually quite slick, a virtual game of three-card Monte. Who uses the renewable energy? Who pays for it? Who gets credit for it?

Xcel already provides renewable energy. They have to by law. Under their Boulder proposal, they won't have to provide a single kilowatt-hour more. Xcel claims that this wind power generation capacity will be built specifically for Boulder, but that is disingenuous. It will still count against Xcel's statewide renewable energy mandate.

They think they've found a mark for their con game. Boulder citizens want more renewable energy, and Xcel management is betting we'll willingly spend more to get it. They've also used the classic con strategy of telling us the deal is off the table if we don`t agree by November.

With Xcel's offer we'd be getting the same renewable energy that Xcel already has to generate, but we'll be on the hook to pay for it while everyone else in Colorado will get a price break.


[more]

Cyclists Lose a Round

Last summer I wrote about Black Hawk's cycling ban. The news since then hasn't been good for cyclists.

In 2009, the Black Hawk Board of Aldermen passed a law giving them the right to ignore state traffic regulations and prohibit bicycles within their city. In 2010, they passed a law banning cycling on most Black Hawk streets.

Several cyclists were ticketed under the ordinance, including three cyclists on a loop from Golden through Idaho Springs, Central City, Black Hawk and back to Golden. They were ticketed for riding on Gregory Street, the only road connecting Central City to Black Hawk.

The cyclists challenged their tickets, arguing the ordinance is a violation of state law. Their arguments are many and convincing.


[more]

Does Why Matter?

A pair of recent local convictions brought up the issue of how laws against bias-motivated crime relate to free speech protections.

Joseph Coy was convicted of both second-degree assault and bias-motivated crime for his racially motivated attack on Nigerian CU student Oluyibi Ogundipe. Zachery Harris was convicted of bias-motivated harassment for using racial slurs against Ogundipe and his Saudi friend, Ahmad Abdulkareem.

The First Amendment was designed to protect expression that may not be popular, even expression that makes people angry. Yet, even the Supreme Court has ruled that it has limits. Some speech may be regulated within the confines of free speech.

Coy won the lottery with his two-for-the-price-of-one crime. Clearly, there was evidence to convict him of the assault. Was the bias-motivation a separate crime, worth doubling his punishment?


[more]

A Deficit of Honest Discussion

No matter which party is in power, the other party thinks that the budget deficit is a vital issue. The party in power, generally, considers it a lower priority.

But, at least for the time being, the GOP has convinced enough voters the issue is critical. So now both parties are talking about how to reduce our country's deficit spending.

Of course nobody is proposing anything that will seriously make a dent at any time in the foreseeable future. Each proposal simply reflects the ideological priorities of the proposer, and suggests cutting programs they don't like.

Anybody can play that game. See how easy it is to trim the deficit by $100 billion.


[more]

An Uncivil Union

There's no doubt in my mind that the opposition to the recently defeated civil unions bill was based in one group's need to impose its religious beliefs on the rest of us.

There is no other explanation for the fervor of the testimony against the bill given by the largely religious groups. There is no other explanation for the obsession with protecting their tradition and their definition of a single word. And there is no other explanation for what I believe is the clear violation of the oath each member of the legislature took to support the Constitution of the United States.

These opponents can't stand the idea that somebody else is getting married in a way different than what their religion supports, and civil unions are just too darn close for their comfort.


[more]

First Lucky Island

One thing seems evident when looking at the nuclear crisis at Fukushima Dai-Ichi (literally, Fortunate Island Number One, not to be confused with Three Mile Island).

If you are a fan of nuclear energy, that one thing is that even after one of the biggest earthquakes ever followed by a huge tsunami, the worst case scenario didn't happen. Nuclear is even more good-to-go than before.

If you are a nuclear foe, then what happened in Japan proves how dangerous this technology is. It is only pure luck and seat-of-the-pants management that prevented a complete meltdown and huge nuclear disaster.

I look at things differently.


[more]

The Big Cheese Stands Alone

One thing clear in the Wisconsin budget kerfuffle is that it's not about the budget.

If it were about the budget, when the unions and Democrats offered to accept all of the proposed financial concessions the Republicans would have jumped on the opportunity.

If it were about the budget, those concessions would have included all public unions, not just the ones that supported the Democrats in the most recent election.

If it were about the budget, the Governor's plan wouldn't include the ability for the state to sell off its power, heating, and cooling plants to whomever they chose, for as much or as little as they choose, without so much as a competitive bid.

If it were about the budget, it would not have followed on the heels of major corporate tax cuts.

No, the proposal to disempower public unions is a political move, a way to leverage Wisconsin's budget problems to accomplish long-term Republican goals.


[more]

Dropped under the Bus

I took RTD to a meeting in south Denver on the same day as our recent snowstorm.

The plan: avoid the stress of driving on snowy roads, gain time for paperwork and reading, pay less than for gas, and take only a few minutes longer than driving.

It turns out that RTD sometimes cancels express buses when the weather is bad, leaving fewer, slower, more crowded buses. Plus, missing a connection by one minute means waiting 15 or 30 minutes for the next (or longer if it's running late).

No matter. I was 30 minutes late, but I could have been just as late if I'd driven. Public transit is often a viable option, with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

One of those disadvantages is the farebox.


[more]

No Longer Polar Opposites

As a child I liked to dig deep holes straight down, on the theory that I'd eventually make it to China.

It turns out that if I'd kept going and survived the 10,000 degrees at the earth's core, I would have popped up in the Indian Ocean off Australia. China is exactly opposite us in longitude, but at the same latitude.

It's probably for the best that I didn't make it. At the time, China was in the hands of Mao. Mao was never called Emperor, but he acted as one, perhaps one of the cruelest in China's history. Tens of millions died under his rule, and the souls of many more were crushed.

On his recent trip to the U.S., Chinese President Hu made waves saying that while his country has "made enormous progress," "a lot has to be done in China in terms of human rights."

He is right.


[more]

Talking the Talk

A few months ago, I wrote that Sarah Palin and other Tea Party darlings were fanning dangerous flames with their violent imagery, but that they were within their First Amendment rights to do so.

I also predicted the public would lose its sympathy for Tea Partiers after an event like Tucson's assassination attempt.

It's too soon to say whether my prediction will come true. However, it is clear there's been a backlash, in the form of calls for "civility." I'm opposed to those calls.

It's not that I'm opposed to civility. I'm not. Civility is greatly underrated.

But the principle of free speech is a foundation of this country. The way to protect against speech you don't like is not to tell people to shut up. It's to make a convincing argument why they are wrong.


[more]

Fixing Health Care isn`t the Answer

Politicians of all stripes have solutions to our heath care crisis, whether it's giving everyone access or letting the free market rule.

But you can't solve health care without solving health. Otherwise the current cycle just continues.

That cycle, discussed in my previous column, is based on health fads, each promising to fix our health with new supplements and enhanced foods, and each fad in turn proving to be insignificant or counterproductive. Look for example at the now discredited low-fat craze still driving many diets.

Will today's fads (super fruits, omega-3 fatty acids, and vitamin D) follow the same pattern?

It's taken us 10,000 years to adapt to dietary changes resulting from the invention of agriculture. Some of us still can't eat wheat and dairy. How can we thrive on foods invented in the past few decades or less?

Is an antioxidant really better than fruit? Refined flour better than whole grains? Factory-raised meat better than wild game? Pasteurized non-fat hormone-treated milk better than fresh whole milk? Vitamin water better than real water? "Natural flavor" better than any real food?


[more]