. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
March 27, 2010, 9:00 a.m. [Top Four, recent and most hits: This blog entry (with its link to source of 30-plus related blog entries), plus "Unemployment Answer is Jobs Not Bailouts," February 6, 2010 (with links to 30-plus related blog entries); "Broadband: Save Us From the Broadbandits," March 24, 2010 (includes Johnson's Des Moines Register column that day, "Much at Stake for Iowa in FCC Broadband Plan," and related blog entries); "Obama's Health Care Three Years Later," March 23 and 26, 2010 (includes 2007 entry, "Sen. Obama Unveils Health Plan," May 29, 2007, and links to photos from both events).]
What the City Council is proposing to do -- and the University is encouraging -- is the legislative equivalent of a law prohibiting rape between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. (in fact all too similar to such a law), or prohibiting the armed robbery of banks from 3:00 p.m. to closing time, when they need to complete the day's paperwork.
Two and a half years ago Iowa City was confronting a referendum on a "21-only" ordinance. University and City officials provided something between a hands-off deafening silence and outspoken ridicule and opposition for the proposal (with the exception of the campus and City police chiefs who were the only officials who actually have to deal with the consequences of students' binge drinking).
Now the City Council is stepping up to the plate with a "21-only" ordinance of its own, and University administrators are seemingly supporting the effort.
Look, I understand the economic and political power of landlords (who can charge higher rent for bars than virtually any other use of downtown property) and bar owners. I think President Obama is entitled to a lot of credit for getting any health care reform at all out of today's Washington legislators and lobbyists (even if we're still denied the industrialized world's universal single-payer systems and won't even have a public option). Similarly, I think the City and University are entitled to credit for going this far.
But the fact is that the referendum in October 2007 was not "21-only" and the ordinance currently under consideration isn't "21-only" either.
"It's not?" I hear you exclaim. "That's right," I respond. "It's not."
What, then, is it?
It's a four-hour restriction, a requirement that four hours out of every 24 bar owners will be required to comply with Iowa law -- the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. closing time.
Like the collection of health care reforms in the law President Obama just signed, enforcing Iowa's drinking-age law for four hours a day is clearly better than never enforcing it.
But think about it. What the City Council is proposing to do -- and the University is encouraging -- is the legislative equivalent of a law prohibiting rape between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. (in fact all too similar to such a law), or prohibiting the armed robbery of banks from 3:00 p.m. to closing time, when they need to complete the day's paperwork.
For the City Council, University, mass media, supporters and opponents to call this "21-only" is not only a misrepresentation of what's involved, it makes it sound much more appealing to those who think it is true "21-only" when it is far from it, and gives the opponents a decided public relations advantage in their efforts to characterize it as a compulsive and draconian commitment to law enforcement.
Not only is it a misrepresentation, the proposal makes no logical sense. If it's ridiculous to permit those who cannot legally drink to enter or be in establishments after 10:00 p.m., when the bar's sole purpose is to profit from the sale of alcohol, why is it all right for them to be in an alcohol-dispensing business before 10:00? In terms of effectiveness, to the extent the ostensible purpose of the ordinance is a reduction in the awful consequences of binge drinking, doesn't it become merely a bit of slight-of-hand time-shifting, producing roughly equivalent drunkenness earlier in the evening? And in terms of enforcement, won't it be an administrative nightmare for bar owners, young customers, and police alike to clear out the bars at 10:00, and assure there are no violations of the four-hour restriction -- compared with the relatively much simpler administrative task of insuring that no one under the age of 21 ever enter a bar in the first place?
(Indeed, based on the ordinance as drafted, see below, unless there is a prohibition elsewhere -- as there may very well be -- it would seem to permit entry by kids of any age (19, 16, 13) during all the hours bars are open, except for the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.)
Don't get me wrong. If I were in Congress I would have done what Dennis Kucinich did: oppose the health care bill, insisting on at least a public option, until it was futile to do so, following which I would have also voted for the law that passed. Similarly, were I on the City Council I would have voted with the majority and supported this ordinance. In the world of special interest politics the reality often becomes one in which a little progress is all that is possible.
But "universal health insurance" isn't "universal, single-payer health care." And a four-hour enforcement of Iowa's law is not "21-only."
Because I laid all of this out in a blog entry in 2007, and the issues are unchanged, this is one of those rare occasions in which I'm going to merely embed that earlier blog entry here, rather than say all the same things with updated citations to the more current, and equivalent, news reports of a "21-only" proposal. (See, e.g., the following headline and lead, Josh O'Leary, "City council moves on 21-only ordinance; Measure passes 6-1 on first vote,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 24, 2010, p. A1, "Six of the seven members of the Iowa City Council, saying they were fed up with allowing downtown bars to serve as a destination for underage and binge drinking, made the first move toward raising the bar entry age to 21 on Tuesday.")
[The day following the publication of this blog entry, March 28, a Press-Citizen editorial took at least a half-step toward clarifying the confusion. The lead continued the misrepresentation: "We were cautiously optimistic during Tuesday's first reading of a proposed ordinance to raise the bar entry level to the legal drinking age." "The bar entry level." No, no, no; it's not "the bar entry level"! By the second sentence, however, the editorial got it right: "A majority of the councilors already had expressed their support for 21-only after 10 p.m., . . .." So we can be grateful, and thank the paper, for that correction. Editorial, "Our Quick Take on Last Week's News Stories,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 28, 2010.]
Below that prior blog entry I have also reproduced the actual text of the ordinance before the City Council, and provided some links to other blog entries about Iowa City's alcohol problems.
_______________
"Why '21-Only' Isn't"
October 19, 2007, 12:45 p.m.; October 20, 2007, 8:30 a.m.
"21-Only"? Nonsense!
There's lots of action -- or at least discussion -- about the so-called "21-Only" proposal. Why "so-called"? Because it's not about "21-only" at all -- notwithstanding that characterization by supporters and opponents alike.
The Daily Iowan editorializes this morning, with a headline reference to "21-Only," "As most people are well-aware, this election will decide the fate of a proposed ordinance banning anyone under the age of 21 from the Iowa City bars" -- a brazenly inaccurate characterization. Editorial, "21-Only Voting Might Spur Increased Student Engagement,"The Daily Iowan, October 19, 2007, p. A6.
Under this proposal the Iowa law would continue to be openly violated in Iowa City's bars up until 10:00 p.m. You may think that's a good idea, you may think it's a bad idea, but it is clearly not "banning anyone under the age of 21 from the Iowa City bars."
A columnist in this morning's Press-Citizen spreads this mischaracterization further by calling it "a proposal that would prevent anyone younger than 21 from entering a bar." Jesse Tangkhpanya, "When Political Opposites Join Forces," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 19, 2007, p. A11.
Most newspaper stories about the proposal ultimately get around to a factually accurate description, but not before headlines and leads speak of "a 21-only ordinance," Rob Daniel, "Sides Clash on 21-Only Proposal; Few Students Attend Forum," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 19, 2007, p. A1; "the 21-and-older bar issue," Gregg Hennigan, "Supporters, Opponents Air Views on Bar Law at Forum," The Gazette, October 19, 2007, p. A1; or "21-ordinance," Abby Harvey, "Group Targets 21-Only; The UI Student Health Initiative Task Force Rallies Students, Encourages Voters in Hopes of Defeating the 21-Ordinance, Which is on the Nov. 6 Ballot," The Daily Iowan, October 12, 2007, p. A1.
Bob Patton's editorial cartoon of October 13, 2007, depicts a deteriorating "downtown Iowa City" going down a sewer designated "21-only." Patton's Pad, Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 13, 2007, p. A15.
Even supporters of the proposal have it wrong, as evidenced by one author's assertion that "the 21-ordinance . . . raises the bar-admission age to 21." Christine Allen, "Don't Get Scared by Anti-21-Only Rhetoric," The Daily Iowan, October 16, 2007, p. A6.
So, what are the facts?
Under the present "restrictions" of the City Council, from the time bars open -- 6:30 a.m. on football game days for "breakfast" -- until 10:00 p.m. there are essentially no restrictions on who can enter.
And if the so-called "21-only" proposal passes? That will still be the law!
Think about that for a moment. Calling this a "21-only" proposal is a gross distortion of what it's about, designed to frighten with this characterization those voters who wish to perpetuate the bar owners' profits from operating businesses at which the law is routinely violated.
All the proposition involves is what happens between 10:00 p.m. and closing time. Under the present "restrictions" the illegal provision of alcohol to those who are under the age of 19 can only continue up until 10:00 p.m.
If the so-called "21-only" proposal passes, the illegal provision of alcohol can still continue up until 10:00 p.m., but from 10:00 p.m. until closing time the Iowa law will be enforced.
Iowa law prohibits the sale of alcohol products to anyone under the age of 21.
I'm perfectly willing to consider any independent, reliable data regarding the advantages and disadvantages of lowering the drinking age to 18. (Among other things, setting the age at 18 would eliminate what may be for some students the appealing notion of getting away with something illegal.)
But I don't think arguments that "those old enough to fight for their country ought to be able to buy a beer" have any relevance whatsoever as to why it should be OK to violate the present law -- which very clearly is "21-only." In order to avoid disrespect for law generally, I believe whatever the law may be should be enforced -- until, if desirable, it is changed.
Given that what bars do is sell alcohol, it would not be unreasonable for Iowa City, like a great many sensible cities around the country, to provide that no one under the age of 21 could enter establishments the sole purpose of which is to prosper from the consumption of alcohol by those who enter. Actually, that's kind of a no-brainer if you think about it.
Iowa City's City Council, however, proud of this university community's reputation as one of the underage binge drinking capitals of the nation, with a wink and a nod has been able to expand students' access to alcohol from a mere 7 bars not long ago to 51 today. Think of the profits. Think of the "economic development." Think of the "vibrancy" of the downtown. Wow!
Now those are City Council members worth voting for, aren't they? (The only reason we need the referendum is because the Council members thought it too much of a burden on wealthy bar owners to have to comply with the law after 10:00 p.m.)
It is apparently relatively easy for underage students to obtain alcohol in bars, what with fake IDs, reimbursing legal-aged friends who buy them drinks, and undoubtedly other methods of which I am unaware. Once they have entered the bars it is virtually impossible, with or without the assistance of the police, to comply with the Iowa law.
In fact, if illegal sales were not being made, if bar owners' underage patrons were not consuming alcohol illegally, why would bar owners care if the additional (19- and 20-year-old) underage students had to leave at 10:00 p.m.? Why would the 10:00 p.m. expulsion of those who shouldn't really be there at any time of day have an adverse impact on the economy or "vibrancy" of the downtown? The only reason it might have an economic impact is because bar owners have been flagrantly violating the law all along and would like to be able to continue to do so 24/7.
If this were truly a "21-only" proposal I could understand the bar owners' objections to the loss of such a substantial portion of their total, ill-gotten gain. I wouldn't agree with them, but I would understand.
But the ordinance is not a "21-only" law.
It is rather, it seems to me, an excessively modest compromise.
We have a very serious problem of binge drinking by young students that leads to sexual assaults and other violence, adverse impacts on health including the possibility of more alcoholism than might otherwise exist in their lives, and a devastating impact on their educations -- up to and including more dropouts than would otherwise occur -- not to mention the adverse impact on the community generally and its residents. Critics of Iowa City's lax approach to the law note two student deaths -- one from a student inhaling his own vomit, another from a drunken student falling off a balcony -- plus "drunken driving deaths, countless drunken assaults and attacks and a 2005 Harvard School of Public Health study that states UI has a binge drinking rate of nearly 70 percent." Lee Hermiston, "Iowa's Drinking Called Epidemic; Experts Say Bingi9ng Affects Health Later," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 13, 2007, p. A1.
As UI Public Safety Director Chuck Green said, "alcohol consumption does exacerbate the problem of assaults and sexual assaults in the community. 'We know there's a whole host of other issues that accompany intoxication. Sexual assaults go up, criminal mischief goes up, assaults go up. Anything we can do to reduce those crimes would be beneficial." And Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine reports, "'After 10 o'clock at night [Iowa City's downtown] has a different personality. And most of it is due to alcohol. Alcohol affects everything we do after 10 p.m.' . . . Hargadine said the downtown area becomes more violent, disruptive and unsafe. There's fighting, littering, uprooting trees and all kinds of mischief-related activities that have alcohol as the common denominator." (The foregoing is from the October 20 piece in Lee Hermiston's four-part series about the proposed ordinance. Lee Hermiston, "21-Only to Affect Police; Pass or Fail, Proposal Will Change Law Enforcement; Most Reported Offense in Downtown is Underage Possession of alcohol," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 20, 2007, p. A1.)
Here are the two most relevant administrators of law enforcement in the community supporting this ordinance, and providing graphic data and reasons why, and some of the same folks who are willing to support whatever the police want -- from arming campus police to providing more city police officers -- are unwilling to listen to them when it comes to the criminal and otherwise costly consequences of underage drinkers in bars after 10:00 p.m.
(And see also the October 20 letters to the editor: Sarah Hansen, "21-Only Will Make Iowa City Better," and Christine Allen, "Iowa City Has a Drinking Problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 20, 2007, p. A16.)
Iowa City's drinking establishments have, among other things, deliberately set fire to a bar where customers were sitting, staged fights inside the bar, and more recently staged an event described as a "party" at the Union Bar with a "mandate of matching lingerie for cocktail waitresses [that] endangered the young women's welfare [creating] a haven for the objectification of women, an environment in which lewdness is an encouraged standard." Patrick Bigsby, "'Sex Sells' Excuse Sold Out," The Daily Iowan, October 10, 2007, p. A6
A true "21-only" would produce a significant reduction in binge drinking, notwithstanding opponents' canard about it "just going elsewhere" (something that is going on now anyway).
This ordinance will not have such a substantial impact. But it should result in an improvement -- without a significant adverse impact on the legitimate, legal profits of any bar owner. A requirement that bar owners obey the law a couple of hours a day cannot seriously be argued to be a very onerous imposition.
Let's give the proposal a chance. As Iowa City Police Chief Hargadine says, "There's only one way to know for sure [how much it will help] and that's to do it." (From Lee Hermiston's October 20 story.)
But to do that, the media, and the voters they inform, need to know precisely what it is this ordinance does, and does not, provide. And the fact is that no one is going to be voting on "21-only." Not in this town.
Prepared by Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO. _______
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES", CHAPTER 5 ENTITLED "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS", SECTION 8 ENTITLED "PERSONS UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS" OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER LEGAL AGE (CURRENTLY TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS OF AGE FROM ENTERING OR REMAINING IN ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LIQUOR CONTROL LICENSES OR WINE OR BEER PERMITS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND CLOSING
WHEREAS, the "legal age" to drink alcoholic beverages in the State of Iowa is twenty-one (21) years of age and said definition, as now or hereafter amended is incorporated by reference in the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently provides that, unless otherwise exempted by law or ordinance, a person shall have attained nineteen (19) years of age or more to lawfully be on the premises between the hours of 10:00 P.M. to closing of any Iowa City establishment holding a liquor control license, a wine or beer permit, that authorizes on premises consumption; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa City to change the bar entry age to the legal age which is currently twenty-one (21) years of age,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA
Section I AMENDMENT. Title 4 Chapter 5 Section 8 -- entitled Persons Under 19 Years of Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments -- shall be amended by replacing "nineteen (19) years of age" wherever and however it appears within such Section 8 with "the legal age".
Section II REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III SEVERABILITY. If any section provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section provision or part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect June 1, 2010.
Passed and approved this ____day of __________. 20__.
_______________ MAYOR
ATTEST: _______________ CITY CLERK
Approved by:
_______________ City Attorney's Office annen\ord\under21(2010).doc
Sec. 17.16. MINORS PROHIBITED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.
(1) It shall be unlawful for the holder of a license or permit issued pursuant to the 'Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Control Act' for premises where more than fifty percent (50%) of the business conducted is the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, and for any person employed with respect to such premises to knowingly permit or fail to take reasonable measures to prevent the entry onto such premises of any and all persons who have not yet attained the age of twenty-one. It shall be the duty of the licensee and of the person or persons managing such premises to cause to be posted and maintained at all times an easily readable notice in the English language stating that persons less than 21 years of age are prohibited from entering the premises. . . .
_______________
Links to 30-Plus Additional Blog Entries on Alcohol Issues
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Nicholas Johnson Des Moines Register March 24, 2010, p. 15A
Why does the FCC think America needs its newly-announced "National Broadband Plan" (NBP)? Why are Iowa cities scrambling to be Google's choice for installation of superfast broadband?
"Broadband" is how we do, or soon will, connect to the Internet. For most Iowans that means Mediacom or Qwest. Federal and Iowa officials think we're suffering by lagging the world in broadband speed. They want to increase it by as much as 100-fold.
I neither have, nor represent anyone who has, a financial interest in these issues; just an interest in what the NBP means for Iowans in general and you in particular.
Obviously, what it took the FCC 376 pages to say - with the help of eight small-print pages of glossary and "common abbreviations" - can't be fully explained in a 600-word column. (If you'd like my fuller take, see "Broadband Challenge," at www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/BroadbandChallenge.doc.)
Having spent seven years as an FCC commissioner writing what were mostly critical, dissenting opinions, I want to complement the FCC this time. The NBP is one of the agency's largest, boldest efforts ever. There is much in it that mirrors my own recommendations, such as promotion of broadband for poor families and underserved rural areas, a super-fast access point in each community, and better informed consumers.
On the other hand, until voters insist on public financing of campaigns, big money will continue to dictate big policy. Congress turns the health-care problem over to those who created it, with a health-insurance-company subsidy program. Instead of meaningful consumer protection, it selects Treasury Department secretaries from Goldman Sachs and tells Wall Street to regulate itself.
As a result, the NBP offers broadband consumers no hope of protection from price-gouging by limited-competition phone and cable companies earning upwards of 80 percent profit margins. The industries' campaign contributions had already eliminated local, state and federal regulation.
The FCC's not even requiring them to provide open access to their competitors - the one requirement that explains how Korea and other countries sprint ahead of the United States with their near-universal access, dramatically faster speeds and cheaper rates.
Broadband is a classic multiple-variable challenge. The speed and varieties of computer chips, computers, and phones; the demands of the millions of new applications; alternative distribution technologies (phone, cable, wireless; optic fiber and coaxial) - and broadband speeds - must ratchet upward together.
There may be questions about who needs how much broadband speed, where, and by when. But it seems clear Internet access will have an increasing influence in Iowans' lives. The FCC focuses on seven areas: economic opportunity, education, health care, energy and environment, government performance, civic engagement, and public safety. There's more: 3 billion downloads of the 134,000 iPhone apps for that device alone.
Iowa's governor and legislators are aware of the challenge and opportunity expanded and extended broadband offers our citizens. There will soon be more to say about their planning process (in which I participated). Today's Internet is no less significant to our era than railroads were to the 19th century, AT&T to the early 20th, and the interstate highways to the late 20th. Each of us can benefit from learning more about it.
How much speed do you need for your uses? What are you actually getting compared to what you were promised? (What does "up to" mean?) Is there a cheaper alternative? Does your library offer free access? What additional uses might improve your family life, increase your business' profits, deliver your health care more efficiently, let you earn a degree (or run a business) from home, or make your neighborhood safer?
The column has produced some commentary, both by way of emails and as posted to the Register's online site.
A Mr. Jerry Viers emailed me this afternoon:
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for the insightful article I just read in the DM Register. It really hit home with me. Ten years ago I moved to the country and for my sin, learned that high speed internet was not available here. I need high speed for my business and had to travel to my daughter's house to use her connections. The use of dial up connections was like not having internet at all.
I have [my company] as a phone provider and their efforts for providing rural customers with high speed have been laughable. In their advertisements, they proclaim that virtually all their customers have high speed access. When I ask them to explain this, they provide me with the phone number to a satellite provider. That act makes me accessible to high speed, according to them. High speed (DSL) is offered by them in populated areas. They have been promising me that high speed will be in my area in a few months. They have been saying this for about eight years now.
Some other tidbits about [my company];
• Their CEO is the third highest paid person in the State of Iowa. • Their phone "service" is equivalent to a Dixie cup on a string. • They do not wish to speak with you about these issues, save for a poor uninformed customer service rep. • Their rates have doubled in the last 10 years.
And lastly, they have recently been sold to a national company that I hope is more tech savvy and customer friendly.
Also, I have conducted some research on the above mentioned satellite providers; they are slow and dependent on weather conditions, expensive and are not recommended by the Consumers Union.
With the help of [another company] I now am able to connect via cell phone signals with a device that attaches to my computer. I get fair speed from it. Ten time faster than dial up, but still not DSL.
In answer to your question; I believe that providing internet to rural areas is tantamount to the rural electrification of the 1930's. The answer is to run fiber optic lines to all areas.
I thought this real life description of Iowans' broadband frustrations worth sharing with others, as support for what I hope will be our State's equivalent to the FCC's National Broadband Plan.
Here are some of the comments posted to the Register's Web page for the column:
2002retired wrote: As a result, the NBP offers broadband consumers no hope of protection from price-gouging by limited-competition phone and cable companies earning upwards of 80 percent profit margins. The industries' campaign contributions had already eliminated local, state and federal regulation.
Must be talking about all that regulation that was stopping competition and not letting capitalism work for us. Good thing we got rid of that government socialist program and let Americans enjoy the fruits of unregulated capitalism. 3/24/2010 9:55:06 AM
adelguy wrote: Let me get this straight. The Federal Government decides everyone in America has a "right" to broadband internet, no matter what the cost is. So if you live in a city that has at least two options (phone and cable companies) you will now get to pay for those who live in rural areas that don't have cable or DSL. Apparently it never crossed the minds of the big thinkers in D.C. that broadband is available via satellite and cellular companies plus a few other over-the-air broadband carriers like Prairie i-Net. Are rural areas blocked by trees so they can't get a clear view of the sky for satellite, or live too far away from any cell tower to get that reception either? Yes, those two options cost more than cable or DSL, but I would bet there's enough money left from rural residents not having to pay city property taxes to more than offset that difference. 3/24/2010 10:59:18 AM
ImSpeakingMyMindInIowa wrote: Replying to adelguy:
Replying to adelguy:
.....Apparently it never crossed the minds of the big thinkers in D.C. that broadband is available via satellite and cellular companies plus a few other over-the-air broadband carriers like Prairie i-Net. Are rural areas blocked by trees so they can't get a clear view of the sky for satellite, or live too far away from any cell tower to get that reception either? Yes, those two options cost more than cable or DSL, but I would bet there's enough money left from rural residents not having to pay city property taxes to more than offset that difference.
Prairie i-Net, LOL, I couldn't get rid of them fast enough, what joke. As far as all current over the air ISPs, none of them meet the qualifications of being broadband. They just like to call themselves that for sales because they are faster than dial-up, oh boy! They only get away with it because there is no legal definition of broadband which the FED proposal changes. 3/24/2010 5:01:33 PM
ImSpeakingMyMindInIowa Replying to adelguy:
......So if you live in a city that has at least two options (phone and cable companies) you will now get to pay for those who live in rural areas that don't have cable or DSL. .........
You mean like the rural areas have subsided your city electricity for what now, 80 years? Its easy to anticipate a program setup up like the REC did for electricity, where the government subsidizes the private companies on capital expenses at a super low interest rate to get it to all rural users. Who then turn out to be the major market over the city folk in its use. Just like with electricity, interesting to say the least.
3/24/2010 5:10:28 PM
ElsaA wrote:
Living in my rural area means muddy gravel roads, slower fire and ambulance response times, and slow crappy Internet access. If I decide I don't like those things, I have the option of moving into a city. So be it.
I did get annoyed when I read that a sizeable amount of previous federal money allocated for broadband access ended up going to suburban millionaire McMansions in Texas to upgrade their already-reasonably-fast Internet speeds. Either spend the money better than that or don't allocate it, period. 3/25/2010 10:09:11 AM
cubreporter wrote:
Electric Coops already supply burglar alarm and similar services in many states. Let them step forward with computer connections. 3/25/2010 10:42:48 AM
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Whether I will also attend his follow-up presentation Thursday, March 25, in the UI Field House is in the lap of the White House Web page gods -- the source of tickets for those the computer selects. [As it turned out I was able to attend thanks to "the kindness of strangers" -- actually not strangers, but very good and thougtful friends.]
The picture immediately above is from the White House Web page. For the White House version of the text of the President's remarks on March 25, and an excellent quality video of him and crowd shots, if you'd like to re-live that event, here's the link.
MoveOn.org, an activist organization that worked for health care reform, sent me an email with a useful summary -- with supporting footnotes -- of what's in this bill (signed into law by President Obama today):
10 THINGS EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM
1. Once reform is fully implemented, over 95% of Americans will have health insurance coverage, including 32 million who are currently uninsured.2
2. Health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny people coverage because of preexisting conditions—or to drop coverage when people become sick.3
3. Just like members of Congress, individuals and small businesses who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own will be able to pool together and choose from a variety of competing plans with lower premiums.4
4. Reform will cut the federal budget deficit by $138 billion over the next ten years, and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the following ten years.5
5. Health care will be more affordable for families and small businesses thanks to new tax credits, subsidies, and other assistance—paid for largely by taxing insurance companies, drug companies, and the very wealthiest Americans.6
6. Seniors on Medicare will pay less for their prescription drugs because the legislation closes the "donut hole" gap in existing coverage.7
7. By reducing health care costs for employers, reform will create or save more than 2.5 million jobs over the next decade.8
8. Medicaid will be expanded to offer health insurance coverage to an additional 16 million low-income people.9
9. Instead of losing coverage after they leave home or graduate from college, young adults will be able to remain on their families' insurance plans until age 26.10
10. Community health centers would receive an additional $11 billion, doubling the number of patients who can be treated regardless of their insurance or ability to pay.11
Sources:
1. Final vote results on motion to concur in Senate amendments to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, March 21, 2010 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11. "Affordable Health Care for America: Summary," House Energy and Commerce Committee, March 18, 2010 http://wwwd.house.gov/akamaidocs/energycommerce/SUMMARY.pdf
4. "Insurance Companies Prosper, Families Suffer: Our Broken Health Insurance System," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Accessed March 22, 2010 http://healthreform.gov/reports/insuranceprospers/index.html
5. "Affordable Health Care for America: Health Insurance Reform at a Glance: Revenue Provisions," House Energy and Commerce Committee, March 18, 2010 http://wwwd.house.gov/akamaidocs/energycommerce/REVENUE.pdf
8. "New Jobs Through Better Health Care," Center for American Progress, January 8, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87402&id=19504-2992449-f08zBkx&t=2
9, 10. "Proposed Changes in the Final Health Care Bill," The New York Times, March 22, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87403&id=19504-2992449-f08zBkx&t=3
11. "Affordable Health Care for America: Health Insurance Reform at a Glance: Addressing Health and Health Care Disparities," House Energy and Commerce Committee, March 20, 2010 http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/DISPARITIES.pdf
_______________
Meanwhile, here's an excerpt for comparison, from my blog entry, linked above, of May 30, 2007:
If you're hoping for "universal, single-payer" health care (as I lean toward . . . ) -- as is provided to the citizens of virtually every other industrialized nation -- this ain't it. But until we get meaningful public financing of campaigns, I'm not sure that's in the cards from this "best Congress that money can buy." So maybe this is a much better plan in its details than the "universal, single-payer" critics give it credit for. Maybe it's the most that a pragmatic, politically savvy health care policy wonk can honestly and realistically put forward.
Those who oppose any changes in the health care system will oppose this plan, just as they would oppose any other. But those who have a major economic stake in the present system, have disproportionate political power in shaping future changes, and are aware that some changes are simply going to have to come, may well get on board, figuring that this is the least-worst of the possible scenarios.
(1) The super rich don't need (and many don't even want) President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. That's a realistic source of funding for Senator Obama to look to for the modest public investment in healthcare he envisions -- but repealing those cuts will certainly not be a "slam dunk" for any president. (And, even if successful, we're still left with the roughly $40 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations scheduled to become due and payable within the next 20 years or so.)
(2) His program will continue to be administered by the plethora of insurance companies we have now, which means doctors and hospitals will still be dealing with a variety of forms and reimbursement procedures, and we'll continue to pay these companies' executives health care administrative costs many times those of other countries. That should take at least much of the sting out of what would otherwise have been the overpowering objections of this politically influential group.
(3) The system will still be (in terms of numbers of persons covered) an employer-based health care system. So it's not disruptive in that regard. Why should employers support a proposal that continues to leave much of the burden on them? Because he lightens their burden. He points out that 80% of the cost of health care goes to benefit 20% of the people. And he proposes shifting much of that 80% to the federal government. He represents that this will result in lower premiums for the insured. Well, perhaps. But we've all seen lots of instances when that didn't occur -- as when the price of oil declines and the prices of gasoline goes up. (a) What provisions are there to insure that this element of his program won't simply further enrich insurance companies and employers, rather than reduce premiums for employees? (b) And, given the rate of inflation in health care costs, how many years will it be -- even under the best case scenario, with all the cost-shift benefits going to employees -- before the premiums are back up to what they are now?
(4) As for the currently uninsured, or under-insured, or only-sometimes-insured, Senator Obama proposes that the federal government "subsidize" the cost of premiums for those unable to pay market rates. But what will be the practical effect, and benefit, for, say, an unemployed, homeless, single, high school dropout, male in his mid-thirties? I mean that as a real question, not an assertion.
Look, I don't claim any more expertise on this subject (economics in general, and the economics of health care in particular . . . than I do for any of the other subjects I write about. Moreover -- as also with those other subjects -- I quite regularly change my position once someone bothers to explain to me the errors in my thinking. So this is not, to borrow from the TV show, "my final answer." But it's what I'm thinking this morning.
That was three years ago -- May 30, 2007.
This is March 23, 2010. And unfortunately, it's still the case that "If you're hoping for 'universal, single-payer' health care . . . -- as is provided to the citizens of virtually every other industrialized nation -- this ain't it."
Nonetheless, it's still a landmark achievement for our President and congressional Democrats given current conditions in Washington and (in the absence of campaign finance reform) the ever-increasing influence of big money in the legislative process. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Controlling the Broadband-Its (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The National Broadband Plan remains my focus this morning.
That's a dramatic declaration given local news. UNI just beat the nation's top-ranked Kansas basketball team. And I'm even more excited about the UI girls' basketball team -- some of the most accomplished athletes I've ever seen in any sport -- beating Rutgers. [Why? Here's insight: Patty Fisher, "Rooting for the women,"San Jose Mercury News, March 22, 2010.] Meanwhile, the local school board is trying to figure out what it's looking for in a new superintendent -- apparently it's some sort of combination of the best of the qualities of Thomas Jefferson, Jesus and The Music Man. (As is often the case with this board, it's going about it backwards. Its first question should be what kind of a board the board is looking for, and prepared to offer, its new superintendent -- in short, defining its governance model. Thus, the number one quality I'd be looking for is a superintendent who refuses to be considered for the position until the board takes care of this "Job One.")
Oh, and the House is going to be voting on the health care bill tonight.
So when the FCC's National Broadband Plan (NBP) wins out over that kind of competition for the subject of the Monday morning blog entry, it gives you some sense of how significant I think those broadband issues are -- for the planet, the nation, and specifically for our state of Iowa.
So while the U.S. may be starting off a few years behind, I think it's commendable that the Congress and FCC have now taken the leadership that they have.
What the NBP fails to address, however, is what has been the keystone to the success of other countries in providing a broadband service that is more extensive, much faster, and much cheaper, than what the U.S. now has or is likely to have in the future. The governments of countries that are now way out ahead of us have, among other things, insisted that those who own and control the major broadband backbones must provide non-discriminatory, reasonably priced access to any and all of their current and potential competitors. The resulting competition among consumers' providers is what has encouraged service to more homes and businesses, at faster speeds, and lower prices -- as well as providing a welcoming platform for those entrepreneurs with exciting and innovative smart phone Internet access to imaginative new apps.
This failure has been the cause of much concern by a number of public interest groups, among them FreePress.net, which has gone so far at to characterize the NBP as the "Internet Rip-Off."
FreePress sent me an email, suggesting I write the FCC Chair, Julius Genachowski, along with some suggested text.
I don't usually act on the basis of such emails, but on this occasion I decided to -- after deleting the suggested text.
Chairman Genachowski:
This is a plea for you to do whatever you feel you can to provide SOMETHING to control currently unrestrained broadband prices.
I understand the power the largest players have, as a result of their campaign contributions, over the members of Congress who, in turn, have some meaningful controls over you. It would be unfair to hold you singularly responsible for the consequences of Congress' failure to enact meaningful public financing of elections.
But the reality is that most Iowans have a choice of but two potential suppliers: Qwest and Mediacom. If they want more than 1.5 mbps, in most areas of the state that means their only choice is Mediacom.
Notwithstanding profit margins upwards of 80%, there is no provision for local, state, or federal cost-related price regulation.
As I understand it, you are not going to require open access for competitors -- the primary driving force in, for example, Korea's near-universal coverage, speeds well in excess of ours, and rates a fraction of ours.
Your staff has done such a great job with the NBP in so many other ways, I really hate to see you taking heat for this rather embarrassing elephantine-sized hole in the Plan.
Please do something to control what may well end up being the single greatest hurdle to accomplishing the goals you have set forth.
Respectfully,
Nicholas Johnson FCC, 1966-73
I'm not expecting a detailed and responsive reply anytime soon, but I do hope someone at my old agency will at least read, and count in some category, my concerns.
Unless someone in Congress is willing to take the leadership on this, and take on the opposition (and exceedingly generous campaign contributions) from the powers of telecom, the NBP may well end up becoming little more than a dusty dream on the shelves (and in the hard drives) of the FCC.
And that would be America's real loss in the global competition we will continue to confront over the decades to come.
Note: Over 59,000,000 hits return from a Google search on “broadband.” This list of references is obviously but an illustrative handful.
Web sites
Broadband.gov (an FCC site, http://broadband.gov; see especially dropdown menu, About Broadband, http://broadband.gov/about_broadband.html, for basic broadband overview)
The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/communications-society
Berkman Center for Internet & Society, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/
Center for Digital Democracy, http://www.democraticmedia.org (click on “Current Projects,” http://www.democraticmedia.org/current_projects)
Consumer Federation of America, http://www.consumerfed.org/ (see especially dropdown menu, Communications/Internet http://www.consumerfed.org/communications/internet.asp, for testimony and other materials)
Freepress, http://www.freepress.net (see especially dropdown menu Policy Updates/Internet/“Internet Policy,” http://www.freepress.net/policy/internet, for links to numerous articles and filings from freepress and others)
Media Access Project, http://www.mediaaccess.org/ (click on Issues/Broadband/Open Access, http://www.mediaaccess.org/issues/open-access/)
Public Knowledge, http://www.publicknowledge.org (see especially dropdown “Issues,” http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues, scroll down to, and click on links to broadband-related topics)
Speed Matters (CWA), http://www.speedmatters.org
Stanford Center for Internet and Society, http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/
TeleTruth (“Alliance for Customers’ Telecommunications & Broadband Rights”), http://www.teletruth.org/
Reports and Articles
FCC, “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” March 16, 2010, http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf
Berkman, “Next Generation Connectivity: A Review of Broadband Internet Transitions and Policy from Around the World (Final Report),” The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, October 2009 (draft), February 16, 2010 (Final Report), http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/
John B. Horrigan, “Broadband Adoption and Use in America,” OBI Working Paper Series Number 1, FCC, February 2010, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf
“Broadband Adoption in Low-Income Communities,” Social Science Research Council (Dharma Dailey, Amelia Bryne, Alison Powell, Joe Karaganis, and Jaewon Chung), March 2010, http://mainstreetproject.org/tools/archives/32010---broadband-adoption-in-low-income.attachment/attachment/BroadbandAdoptionInLowIncomeCommunities.pdf
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, "The Internet Economy 25 Years After .Com: Transforming Commerce & Life," March 2010 (Robert D. Atkinson, Stephen J. Ezell, Scott M. Andes, Daniel D. Castro, and Richard Bennett), http://www.itif.org/files/2010-25-years.pdf
“Scenarios for a National Broadband Policy,” Report of the 24th Annual Aspen Institute Conference on Communications Policy, The Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Program (2010; David Bollier, Rapporteur), http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/scenarios-national-broadband-policy
Networking the Green Economy: How Broadband and Related Technologies Can Build a Green Economic Future, March 2010 (Progressive States Network; Communications Workers of America; Sierra Club; BlueGreen Alliance), http://cwa.3cdn.net/bd26ffc1c231b25060_xxm6b6v73.pdf
Karl Bode, “FCC Afraid to Tackle Open Access; Broadband Plan Architect Believes There’s ‘No Appetite’ For It. Wait, What?” Broadband/DSL Reports, March 2, 2010, http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Afraid-To-Tackle-Open-Access-107139
Laurence Cruz, “Cisco Puts an Internet Router in Space; In a Move that Could Revolutionize Satellite Communications, Cisco Extends the Internet Into Space for Testing by the U.S. Government and Businesses,” Cisco, January 19, 2010, http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/ts_011910.html
Doris J. Kelley, “A Study of the Economic and Community Benefits of Cedar Falls, Iowa’s, Municipal Telecommunications Network,” Black & Veatch, October 2, 2003, updated July 6, 2004, http://www.baller.com/pdfs/cedarfalls_white_paper.pdf
freepress, “Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age,” May 2009, 289 pp., http://www.freepress.net/files/changing_media.pdf (see especially Part I: The Internet, chapters 1-6)
Andy Opsahl, “Is the Federal Government’s Defined Speed for Broadband Too Slow?” Government Technology, January 8, 2010, http://www.govtech.com/gt/736478?topic=117699
“Broadband access gap remains large; Commerce Department report points to 40 percent of Americans who lack high-speed internet access,” eSchool News, February 17, 2010, http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/02/17/broadband-access-gap-remains-large/ _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
"How big is it?" I hear you shout back, like an audience member in Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" of old.
It is so big that I'll wager in December of this year it will still be thought of as the biggest telecommunications event of 2010.
So big that its coming has loomed over the related work in which I participated during the last three months in Des Moines (planning broadband for Iowa) and Washington, D.C. (reforming the FCC).
It is so big that the FCC has had to create an entire new Web site for it in addition to its old fcc.gov. It's called, of course, www.broadband.gov.
That site reminds us this morning that it's only "4 Days to the Plan" -- March 17, when it will be rolled out in all its glory.
I'll be writing more about these issues during the days preceding the March 17 unveiling, and beyond. Meanwhile, these links should be enough to get you started -- that is, if you're interested in the biggest story of the year. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Senator Grassley's Pork Keeps on Giving But Will It End His Senate Career? (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The idea of building a $300 million indoor rain forest in an Iowa cornfield was first launched in 1996. Ten years later, it had been unable to raise a dime from Iowans beyond the original pledge of the creator of the idea, Ted Townsend. It went through many names: the Iowa Child project, Coralville Rainforest, Iowa Environmental Project, and finally Earthpark. It was offered to, and turned down by, Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Des Moines, Dubuque, Grinnell, Iowa City, Riverside, and Tiffin -- ultimately ending up in a tulip bed in Pella, the flowers of which have yet to be disturbed with any construction. It's mission varied from time to time from tourist attraction, to public school, to national research facility, to overnight camp site. After a number of architects had been brought in, the construction budget declined from $300 million to $150 million and the design was also altered.
I was first troubled by, and wrote about, the Iowa Child in January of 2001. "'Iowa Child' Concerns," January 22, 2001. By 2007 my writing on the subject included at least 14 op ed newspaper columns and 15 additional articles.
In February 2004 it was obvious the project was going to be around for awhile, so I created a Web page which still gets an amazing number of hits, considering that the project has been seemingly dead since the end of 2006, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark" -- a Web site that would ultimately print out at well over 100 pages, with links to hundreds more of cartoons, newspaper stories and editorials, and ridicule from everyone from the Speaker of the House to "West Wing."
But despite it all, the project would never seem to die, as this political cartoon from Sharpnack captures:
So while I would have no right to be stunned, I was surprised when a friend pointed out to me that the Earthpark project's Web site now bore a copyright date of 2010. What was going on, I wondered?
I had not visited either the project's site, nor my own Earthpark Web site for so long it took me awhile to find both. And the very next thing I checked was the site that collects the stats on the number of hits that come to this blog and a number of the Web sites that I maintain.
Much to my surprise the numbers were well up above what they usually were on my Earthpark site. So I started digging deeper. Where were these hits coming from?
Texas.
As a University of Texas graduate, with my first law clerkship (U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit) in Houston, I'm familiar with many of the cities in Texas. But my Earthpark site was getting hits from Texas towns I'd never heard of in addition to those I had.
What was going on? What could possibly cause Texans from all over the state to want to learn more about the old Iowa rain forest project?
All I could figure out was that the never-say-die Earthpark promoters had finally found some Texas oil money and a place to build their rain forest dream -- in a climate, not incidentally, a little more consistent with a rain forest than anything an Iowa winter could ever offer.
But as creatively as I was constructing Google searches I could find no news stories about a Texas town that had agreed to build Earthpark.
Until I came upon news of the Republican primary for Texas governor between the incumbant, Governor Perry, and Texas' U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
For it seems that Governor Perry was running against pork, and the commercial he was running throughout the state . . . but rather than my describing it, why don't I just play it for you:
Here's the story:
Last year, the San Antonio Express-News ran a story with the headline "Texas senator is queen of earmarks." Picking up on that theme, the Perry campaign hits her for voting for bills containing earmarks for the World Toilet Summit, fruitfly research in France, a teapot museum in North Carolina, and an indoor rainforest in Iowa.
Hutchison isn't the only teapot enthusiast in the U.S. Senate. The appropriations bill with the earmark for the North Carolina museum passed with unanimous consent. The vote in favor of the bill containing the World Toilet Summit funding was 91-0. The fruitfly vote in question was 76 yeas to 16 nays, and the indoor rainforest vote — the closest of the four mentioned — was 65-28.
The fact that plenty of other senators voted the same way isn't likely to impress the Perry camp. They close the ad by hitting Hutchison for "voting with Washington since 1993.
Before Senator Hutchison voted for the $700 billion Wall Street Bailout TEXT ON SCREEN: Before Senator Hutchison voted for the $700 billion Wall Street Bailout
She voted for billions in taxpayer-funded earmarks TEXT ON SCREEN: She voted for billions in taxpayer-funded earmarks
That’s why a Texas newspaper dubbed her the “Queen of Earmarks” TEXT ON SCREEN: Texas senator is queen of earmarks San Antonio Express-News 10/6/2009
She spent billions on projects like TEXT ON SCREEN: She spent billions on projects like
the World Toilet Summit TEXT ON SCREEN: the World Toilet Summit
Fruitfly research in France TEXT ON SCREEN: Fruitfly research in France
A teapot museum in North Carolina TEXT ON SCREEN: Teapot museum in North Carolina
And $50 million on an indoor rain forest in Iowa TEXT ON SCREEN: $50 million indoor rain forest in Iowa
She kept spending and spending … billions of taxdollars TEXT ON SCREEN: She kept spending and spending … billions of taxdollars
Senator Hutchison voting with Washington since 1993 TEXT ON SCREEN: Senator Hutchison voting WITH Washington since 1993
But when it was all over, curious Texans had found out about the ill-fated Iowa rain forest from Governor Perry's commercials, and my Web site, and he walked away with the Republican nomination for Governor. Associated Press, "Hutchison Concedes to Perry in Texas G.O.P. Race,"New York Times, March 2, 2010.
There's a lesson here for Iowans.
That $50 million in pork was the product of none other than Iowa's own Senator Charles Grassley. In case you haven't yet noticed, he's running for re-election.
His rain forest has now contributed to the election of two governors, one each for Iowa and Texas.
What he may discover this year is that it is also capable of defeating a U.S. Senator from Iowa as well as the U.S. Senator from Texas who just lost her bid to run for Governor.
Earthpark does indeed have a life after death.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Will Courage and Common Sense Finally Win Out? (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Think about it.
Iowa law forbids those under 21 from consuming, buying or possessing alcohol.
Bars are in the business of profiting from the sale of alcohol.
Given that both are true, isn't the exclusion of under-21-year-olds from bars a kind of no-brainer?
One can argue that the law should be changed -- though I've never found those arguments slam-dunk persuasive, especially in light of the data. But whether or not you find the line, "it's not just a good idea, it's the law," appropriate in this context, it is the law.
About the time of that blog entry, Iowa City Mayor Ernie Lehman summed up the UI-Iowa City problem:
In the 12 years that I spent on the council, I tried several times to get the council to pass a 21 ordinance. University of Iowa presidents Mary Sue Coleman and David Skorton also encouraged the council to pass such an ordinance -- along with the UI College of Public Health, the public school system and numerous others within the community. In fact, every piece of credible evidence presented to the council called for a 21 ordinance -- all of which the council ignored, choosing instead to listen to the bar owners and patrons of the bars.
The pressure from bar owners and students hasn't let up, so the only question is whether the UI administrators' and councilors' courage has been strengthened in the interim.
Watch this space to see. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
