As quick post about running, the Detroit Marathon, and the New York Marathon.

I have been a distance runner since high school, competing in everything from the Firecracker Mile to the Boston Marathon, and am one of those strange people who actually finds it enjoyable.  I don’t run for some greater purpose other than I enjoy running long distances and it allows me to enjoy the outdoors relatively unencumbered by others.  Sure, it helps to keep the weight off and led to me meeting my wife at the University of Michigan’s Running Club, but I honestly look forward to running because it feels natural and, not to sound like a dork, gives me an opportunity to listen to podcasts from ESPN, Adam Carolla, and NPR.  Plus, it allows me to explore places and cities that would either be difficult or not nearly enjoyable by some other means (for example, traveling along the Hudson River in Manhattan to Central Park would be a rather boring and painful drive).

Though I had previously sworn off marathons since law school (it was hard to put in the necessary training, I’m getting a little older, other commitments, etc.), I decided to give the Detroit Marathon a try.  I figured it would be nice to compete in the local race, and my wife raved about running it back in college.  It also gave me an opportunity to explore Detroit a bit, to see some of its sights and landmarks that I never gave much thought to before.

Well, I am happy to say that it was a great choice of a race, save for the weather.  Starting temperature was a clip below 30 degrees, and only barely warmed up by the end.  Of course, that is to be expected given the fact the race started at 7 a.m., but it was still a shock given how mild temperatures had been for most of the month leading up to the race.  That said, it was a nice run, one that featured racers crossing over the Ambassador Bridge to Canada and then back underwater for a mile via the Windsor Tunnel.  I was able to run through pockets of renewal in the city such as Greektown, Corktown, and Indian Village, as well as run around Belle Isle Park, an island park designed by Frederick Olmsted, who also designed Central Park in New York City.  It was also nice to finish along the Riverwalk, a new addition to the city and one that portends more revitalization along the river.

Unfortunately, the race was marred by the deaths of three runners competing in the half-marathon.  The men ranged in age from 26 to 65, and all died within 16 minutes of each other toward the end of the race.  While deaths at marathons are not completely uncommon (remember, the original marathon runner Pheidippides supposedly collapsed and died at the end of his run) they also are rarely predictable and are usually tied to poor training, latent physical issues such as heart problems (as was the case with Ryan Shay), or environmental variables such as extreme heat or dehydration/hyponatremia.  But temperatures throughout the race were pretty mild; if anything, it was a little colder than I expected given the time of year.  It also sounds like all the men were in good physical shape and certainly prepared for the rigors of the half-marathon, so poor health/training seems unlikely.  That only leads latent physical maladies, which may ultimately prove to be the root cause though it will still take weeks for autopsy results to confirm this.  Irrespective of the cause, though, my heart goes out to the families of these runners, and you hope they are given closure soon.

As for how this will affect marathons (and more importantly, participation) going forward, I doubt there will be even a slight reduction simply because of the rarity of such deaths occurring.  The chances of a death at a marathon varies between 1-in-50,000 to 1-in-75,000, and with more volunteers and medical staff available, my guess is that this ratio will continue to improve.  Furthermore, marathons remain a great incentive for those in an increasingly-sedentary society to push themselves to remain healthy and fit, or at least accomplish a task that remains so daunting and insurmountable.

My one concern, though, is that people are starting to view the marathon more as a life accomplishment or an outlet for charity and less for what it really is – a grueling, physically demanding race that requires months of proper physical and emotional training.  I’ve noticed this trend in some of the high-profile races I have competed in, such as the Chicago Marathon and the New York Half-Marathon.  There seems to be a significant number of runners who are competing in these races because they feel out of shape, or want to support some worth charity, and figure they can train around their busy lives and show and at least finish, even if it takes 5+ hours.  While I am not one to question anyone’s motives to compete in a race, I do question the logic behind tackling such an event when there are 5Ks and 10Ks with similar charitable connections and less daunting distances.

The New York Times recently had an article highlighting this phenomenon of the “plodders”, noting that over 20% of participants in the New York Marathon finish over 5 hours.  The crux of the article is that whereas marathons used to be viewed as events only for elite or near-elite runners, it has become a more appealing event for runners of all ages and abilities, resulting in more entrants but slower overall times.  This has angered a subset of the marathon culture, who charge that is a “joke to run a marathon by walking every other mile or by finishing in six, seven, eight hours,” and wonder if the aura of completing the race has been tarnished by racers finishing 2-3 hours behind even moderately-paced runners.  These slower runners counter that their level of running does not affect the results of others, and that finishing the race is just as important to the individual irrespective of his or her time.  They also argue that most marathons rely on the entrance fees of the slower runners to keep pace with rising costs associated with running such an event, and that as paying entrants they should be able to finish the race given a reasonable amount of time.

On the surface, it seems that the “plodders” have it right – unless they are impeding the progress of the faster runners, it should be irrelevant how long it takes them to finish the race.  Runner A taking 4 hours to finish does not “cheapen” Runner B’s 2:55 finish, just like a 3:10 time does not lessen the thrill of accomplishment and victory that comes from winning a race in 2:10.  Personally, I have less of an issue with slow runners who train properly as slow runners who are not prepared to the demands of the race.  If you train properly for the race and that equates to a 5-hour marathon, then so be it and I wish you the best.  It doesn’t affect my run, and anything that drives people to push their boundaries safely and strive for such an accomplishment should be promoted.

I do take issue, though, with those who compete in marathons without adequate training beforehand.  These people are placing their health at risk, and both in the short term as well as the long term.  After completing Detroit this year, I could barely get up and down the stairs at my parents’ house, and for the rest of the week felt a burning sensation in my ankles and thighs when I did even innocuous movements such as rise from the couch or walk down a hill.  It was painful, and I had been training for months, had proper running equipment, and have competed in races like this before.  My guess is that less-prepared individuals experienced at least as much pain as I did following their marathons, and probably competed in less-than-optimal equipment.  Furthermore, I have established a workable running form that has (so far) protected me from any major injuries, and it is a form that took years to forge over thousands of miles.  Even if you run on a treadmill for 4-5 miles every few days, you likely have not developed a form that can withstand the pounding your body will take while competing in a marathon, and that improper form can lead to back, leg, and tendon injuries that can be debilitating.  And while the counter-argument is that these runners will be running at a slower, more manageable pace, it doesn’t take into account the fact that they will still be on their feet and moving for the bulk of 5-6 hours while exposed to the elements.  The distance remains the same for everyone, and 26.2 miles is tough irrespective of whether it takes you 3 hours or 6 hours to finish it.  Finally, every marathon runner has a (slightly) heightened risk of heart damage/injury while competing, and novices run an even higher risk of potential injury if they already suffer from decreased fitness or medical condition.

Ultimately, though, I would encourage anyone interested in running a marathon to consider the physical and emotional tolls it entails and, if they feel up to the challenge, to compete in one at least once in his or her life.  There may be no greater feeling of accomplishment than crossing the finish line and realizing what you have accomplished and how that sense of accomplishment will always be yours.  I only caution that if you do not believe you can put in the time and effort necessary to properly prepare, perhaps focus on some other event and slowly build your way up to a marathon.  As the saying goes, “life is not a sprint; it’s a marathon.”

No Comments »

As I wrote about earlier, Time magazine has made an investment in covering the rise, fall, and potential rebirth of Detroit, purchasing a house in Indian Village and stationing a number of writers there for the foreseeable future.  The goal is to study and document the city from within, to delve into what once made Detroit the Arsenal of Democracy but now has it resembling a graveyard of opportunity and American industry.  Time has just published its first article about the city, and I definitely think it is worth the read for those wondering what happened to Detroit and, more generally, what has happened to an icon of American industry.  Unfortunately for those who have lived in the area and understand the dynamics, the story’s arc is both depressing repetitive but also painfully truthful.

The article rather fairly articulates the myriad of issues that have plagued Detroit since the mid-50′s – both overt and passive racism, segregation and subsequent power drain between the city and suburbs, corrupt and/or indifferent politicians in the region, and the auto industry’s inability to evolve and address the growing competition from overseas competitors (though to this point, until recently Americans did not seem to mind SUVs and other large cars Detroit was producing.  It could be said that Detroit was simply providing for a market that shifted their priorities far quicker than a company could have responded to).  These factors should surprise absolutely no one who has lived in the Detroit area for any substantial period of time.

Case in point – the author notes the rather jarring divisions and boundaries that exist between the suburbs and the city proper.  Driving along the Detroit River on Jefferson Ave. away from the city center, you pass a collection of check-cashing shops, highly-fortified strip malls, and apartments in various levels of disrepair – and to be fair, that stretch of Detroit has improved dramatically since I was a child only 15-20 years ago.  Yet, once you pass Conner St., you are met by lush, tree-lined streets and beautiful homes in Grosse Pointe, one of the most exclusive and expensive areas in the entire state (and perhaps the entire Midwest).  In a span of a 1/2 mile, the entire neighborhood undergoes a metamorphosis to such a degree that it is difficult for people not used to the region to understand.

Similarly, a drive along Woodward Ave. (the main artery north of the city) is just as shocking an experience.  In the article, the author notes that Eight Mile Road acts as a de facto boundary between the city and the suburbs, but I think most people’s knowledge of Eight Mile Road is limited to Eminem’s movie.  South of Eight Mile, you witness burned out and dilapidated factories, storefronts boarded up and vandalized, and every stereotype you have ever heard about the city.  Yet, go 2-3 miles north of 8 mile, and you are in Royal Oak, one of the few hip, trendy towns in Detroit and a city with a thriving young professional base.

The social and economic gradients between the city and the suburbs are so steep, so abrupt that it is hard to grasp for outsiders; I could read it on the faces of my wife’s family when they visited the city while planning our wedding.  Most suburban areas have a symbiotic relationship with the key city in the region; sure there are disagreements and petty infighting, but cooler heads prevail and integration is maintained because it benefits everyone involved.

Not Detroit.  The region has missed out on a laundry list of potential projects and innovations that would have made the area infinitely more successful and harmonious – a light rail system, cooperation on Cobo Hall‘s expansion, school integration and improvements, etc.  This inability to compromise, to see how cooperation would benefit everyone, will likely be a defining theme in Time’s works, and in a way that people will see eerie similarities with national politics.

What Detroit Says About America

The other key theme that I hope emerges, and one that I feel has often been overlooked, is how the decline in Detroit mirrors the broader decline in manufacturing and exporting that was once the bedrock of America.  For a variety of reasons, America no longer seems willing (and perhaps not able) to produce goods within its borders for consumption both locally and beyond its borders.  Of course, major factors of this erosion in domestic industry include inexpensive foreign labor, rising cost of US healthcare, insufficient tariffs and ill-defined foreign trade policy, and a shifting global economy.  But I also think a major factor, one that has not been discussed nearly as much, is a shift in America’s view on manufacturing and the “working class.”

Not to sound reactionary or disingenuous, but I think this shift occurred with my parent’s generation, as the Baby Boomer’s flocked to college in droves and an emphasis was placed on education versus working for the first time in America’s history.  Suddenly, people were graduating from high school and entering college (and/or grad school) at never-before-seen rates.  At the same time, their parents had exited World War II into an era of historic growth and prosperity.  The world was safe, people had nice homes and stable jobs, and kids could be kids for a bit longer; there was no push to enter the workforce because opportunity was always available.  So millions of American children were given the opportunity to graduate from high school and college without pressure to join the working force immediately or be shipped off to fight in the war.  That freedom of choice, to define your career on your own terms and timetable, was something new to most of America, and it clearly struck a chord.

What was once the bastion of a select few wealthy American children college became affordable to far more families.  Instead of working on a farm or in a factory, kids were encouraged to study various subjects at college, and while that led to some amazing innovations in a variety of fields, it also created a gulf between the “educated” and the  rest of America that has been growing since.  Income disparity is the most emblematic, but culturally it became an issue that “smart” people went to college and ran the world, and those who worked in city services or in manufacturing were “doomed” to some second-rate life.  With respect to income disparity, it began to take shape between those who attended college and those who did not, to the point that today’s college graduate makes nearly twice as much money per year as a high school graduate.  And to make matters worse, a stigma became attached to manufacturing that didn’t exist even 20-30 years ago, that it was for “dumb” people who lacked the intelligence and character to “do something better” with their lives.

(Full disclosure – the author is a computer engineer graduate with a law degree.  I’m a prime example of the “stay in school, you’re better because of it” mindset.  So if I come across as completely wrong on this topic, please comment and forgive my ignorance.)

Working in a factory is difficult – my Dad did it for a couple of years during and after college, and it certainly did not sound appealing.  It is hot, dirty, and dangerous; the stories you hear about individuals being injured rather spectacularly while working on an assembly line, while perhaps embellished, are still quite real.  But more than the difficulty, it has the look and feel of a monotonous and “brainless” job that people do not identify with office work (even though I would certainly debate this point).  And perhaps most damning for manufacturing, it seemed like the “fallback” for kids who didn’t do well in school, where all you needed was a high school diploma and working hands to nab a decent job with good benefits.  It didn’t seem like a “good” job, but one that was a last resort for those who couldn’t do anything else.

Most parents want what is best for their children, and that certainly includes launching them toward a career that will both make them happy and provide economic stability.  When college and high school graduates made approximately the same amount of money, there was little impetus to push your child to college unless he or she displayed some particular acumen or propensity to a subject that would be best served in a college atmosphere.  But starting with the Baby Boomer generation, you had parents who had gone to college, who emerged with high-paying jobs that did not subject them to the factory floor and all of its real and perceived dangers.  In addition, parents who did not go to college but who witnessed the growing income disparity steered their children toward more schooling as a way to succeed in the new marketplace.  This further marginalized manufacturing and, more generally, the working class.  You didn’t want your kids working in a factory because it was “menial” labor, a job without much of a future beyond a steady paycheck.  While I think the recent economic downturn has reset people’s opinions on this consistent employment, for years this was seen as the easy way out, and you should aspire to something greater via attending college.

Now, it would be foolish to equate the fall in America’s manufacturing base to an emphasis on education.  A major factor was increased costs for manufacturing compared to foreign labor and resources.  Instead of producing steel, televisions,textiles, and automobiles in America, it was far cheaper to outsource them to other countries.  Maximum profits, global integration, and whatnot accelerated the income gap and the fall of manufacturing in America.  And I also admit that this is a vast simplification of the reasons behind the shift in America’s economy – even though more people are heading to college, the number of graduates remains around 25%. So clearly the vast majority of Americans are not becoming over-educated Ivory tower acolytes.

But along the way, America changed its opinion on manufacturing and related jobs; what was once an envious position for growth and middle-class prosperity became the dirty, abject tasks you shipped off to third-world countries or the fringes of the Rust Belt.  Today, we are a society that favors services over manufacturing, in which America imports more than it exports.  And I can think of no other industry that has been more affected by this shift than the auto industry, and no city moreso than Detroit.

Of course, one of the few exports that America continues to enjoy a solid advantage is in entertainment media, specifically movies.  Thus, perhaps it should come as no surprise that Michigan has recently adopted tax breaks and other incentives to entice movie studios to produce films in the state, with many settling in an around Detroit.  The goal is to make Michigan, and specifically Detroit, a “Midwest LA,” creating jobs in production companies, set designing, and other related services.  And in a way, this kind of makes sense – Detroit and the surrounding area has long been designed to provide services on a massive scale; movies are one of the few remaining industries that can make viable use of massive factories and a production-based economy.  So far, returns have been solid – see Gran Torino and Transformers, as well as the upcoming movie Whip It.

So a study of Detroit’s economic realignment and rebirth, if any, will likely mirror that of America.  While I have my doubts that Time or anyone else will be able to capture such a dramatic shift in real time, I am excited to see how Time plans on tackling this issue in its future essays.  For all its warts, Detroit still has a chance to recover and reclaim its place in America as a driver of the economy; I think these articles will be a great opportunity to put the average American in the passenger seat.

No Comments »

I hope to make this a semi-permanent feature of this site – a collection of links to stories that I find interesting, followed by some brief discussion.  We’ll see how it goes.

Media giant buys Detroit home for reporters to track city

Part of me is truly excited about the possibilities for Time Inc. and the City of Detroit.  I mean, a writer could not ask for more fertile ground from which to craft articles and features.  If Detroit (and by extension, the auto industry) continues to sputter and suffer, then the magazines will be able to follow the oft-repeated Detroit-is-dying narrative from the front row.  Conversely, if Detroit manages to right the ship a bit and build on some of its successes, then Time will be able to report on the rebirth of an iconic American city, as well as the social, political, racial, and economic forces that were at play.  Either way, it would be a fascinating read.

Unfortunately, life rarely lends itself to such clean narratives, and Detroit in particular is unlike any city I have ever known in its ability to confound, endear, and enrage.

Full disclosure – I grew up in Metro Detroit for 26 years, attended the two major state schools (University of Michigan and Michigan State University), and have deep ties to the auto industry (various family members, including my father, have/are working for the Big 3) and Detroit proper (my mother’s whole family grew up near the Boston-Edison area).  So in one sense, my bond to the region and the city in general is quite strong.  At the same time, though, Detroit and the surrounding suburbs are some of the most divided I have ever seen.  This division is due to a myriad of factors, from race riots, shifting employment demographics, to politics and  politicians who perpetuated an “us vs. them” mentality between the city and the surrounding suburbs. Though such divisions exist to some extent in all major cities, Detroit’s is a particularly acrimonious one.

While it is convenient at times to identify yourself as a Detroiter to those who do not know the region, most residents understand the fine line that exists between “real” Detroiters (those who actually reside in the city lines) and the “suburbanites.”  Though this probably is a gross generalization, people who live outside Detroit tend to identify with the city when something positive happens (sports championship, new development, etc.), and disavow any ties to the “D” when the national spotlight highlights one of its failings (such as a corrupt mayor, dilapidated buildings, or political rancor placing stumbling blocks on the city’s road to recovery).  I’ll admit to fitting that suburbanite mold at times, and I think the mindset is pervasive enough that it has really slowed many of the steps that are necessary to repair the city as well as the entire state of Michigan.

My guess is that this discord will become a, if not the, dominating theme in the articles and reports filed by Time.  It is just too easy of a storyline, and one that would catch people outside of Michigan unaware.  And while such a story would obfuscate many of the gains being made by the city in terms of urban development and a potential rebirth, it would also place this city’s past, present, and future in a context that is rarely conveyed in media coverage.  It will be interesting to see how this experiment plays out; like most Michigan residents, I will hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and ultimately be left with something in the middle.

For a song? Try $1.92M

Much has been made about the various measures adopted by the RIAA to halt the rampant sharing of music files across the Internet.  While some have argued that piracy has neither hurt music sales nor stunted creativity [PDF], the RIAA has continued to prosecute individuals suspected of pirating music, with mixed results.  Irrespective of how one feels about the file sharing of copyrighted material, it is certainly jarring to see some of the judgments being awarded to the RIAA against individuals.  It is not uncommon to see thousands of dollars in damages being awarded for a couple dozen mp3s, amounts that seem inconsistent with the current pricing plans of $.99 to $1.29 at places such as iTunes and Amazon.

But when I saw $80,000/song (on only 24 infringing files) being awarded by the jury, I was shocked*.  While I suspect (and there have been inklings) that the RIAA has no intent to collect, it is difficult to find logical justification for this number being handed down for relatively innocuous transgressions.  True, the most recent amendment to the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act allows for damages up to $150,000/violation under 17 U.S.C. §504, but this ceiling for statutory damages, I suspect, was designed to punish large corporations and similar entities who “willful[ly] and malicious[ly] injury to the property of another,” such as through mass-produced reselling or derivation from a copyrighted work.  Here, you have private citizens downloading a 20-50 mp3s for personal enjoyment, behavior that lacks the malice (if not the overt willfulness and scale) to injure the property of the copyright holders.  For comparison purposes, a Finnish man was found guilty of sharing over 1,800 music files recently, and was ordered to pay €3,000 in damages.

I do believe that trading copyrighted works without compensating the original holder is technically “stealing”, especially over the Internet via p2p file-sharing programs, torrents, or even just websites/FTP sites.  When someone downloads a song, movie, etc. file using one of these services without the copyright holder’s earlier permission, the holder’s fundamental right to control the distribution of his/her material is being violated, and I have a hard time accepting any justification to the contrary.  That does not mean, though, that draconian punishments are in order for downloading some music to listen to while you are playing around on your computer or working out.  Typically, American courts will allow a maximum ratio of 10:1 between punitive damages and actual, compensatory damages, and usually only when the behavior by the guilty party is particularly reprehensible.  Based on the aforementioned costs of mp3 files and similar digital downloads, it is difficult to imagine actual damages even remotely approaching the $8,000/song necessary for the jury award to meet the acceptable ratio. I suspect that this judgment will be appealed, and that the defendant will argue this award “shocks the conscience” and seek a more realistic damage award, if not a complete reversal of the charges.  But on a grander level, the RIAA, MPAA, and other organizations must reevaluate their methods for dealing with piracy, as it is a losing proposition to continue to throw money into legal cases against individuals who will likely never pay the awards that are ultimately handed down.  Virtually all mass-produced products have an accompanying black market, and usually they are robust enough to survive in spite of measures taken to halt them.   The diffused nature of the Internet, with its ever-changing nodes and inherent anonymity, coupled with technology’s ability to transform the physical media (CDs, DVDs, tapes, LPs) into limitless digital copies, makes policing piracy an even greater task.  If the RIAA et al. still plan on addressing the piracy issue in the courts, they would be best served focusing their efforts on stopping the sources of wide-scale piracy (particular sites/trackers) and not the end-users.  Because all they are accomplishing is further galvanizing their opponents while providing cringe-worthy headlines.

*[Not that the two crimes are even remotely related, but purely for comparison purposes, Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth only received a 30 day jail sentence for vehicular manslaughter, and wound up serving only 24 days.  While civil damages will likely follow, I doubt they will greatly exceed (if at all) the damages handed down in this case.]

No Comments »