---------------
I think Tim Johnson's take is one of the best I've seen.
It argues to the heart of the matter of land use planning, illustrates bad things that have happened because of poor past policy, and does all of this succinctly and clearly..
Of course there are always some who will disagree, so I will merely reprint this Gristle with the author's permission, so that others may read it for themselves.
-------------------
Wednesday, Feb 18, 20009
The Gristle: Exurbia
EXURBIA: The syllogism underlying the hot debate on population growth euphemized as Whatcom 2031 goes something like this:
The public is compelled to pay some portion—by way of infrastructure (roads, etc.) and costly, ongoing support services (police, etc.)—for growth that is lawfully authorized. The public in general doesn’t care to fund any expansion of these costly services (and, moreover, vehemently dislikes the impacts of growth). Therefore, the smallest amount of growth that is lawful should be authorized.
The Gristle won’t debate the wisdom or appeal of this logic, except to note that, at some level, it misses the point. The point of forecasting population growth is (or should be) to best prepare the community for what is likely to occur.
Set the growth forecast large, and you do compel the unwilling public to pay large; set the forecast small, and you may fail to best plan the places where, and the densities at which, larger numbers might reasonably go. Here we enter the sunlight of informed land use policy.
Alas, actual population growth is not entirely ours alone to know—people elsewhere are mobile and able to move here to the extent of their interests and means. Our distant forecasts neither encourage nor discourage their interests; and we must expect that whatever forces drew us to Cascadia by turns in the numbers in which we arrived will continue to operate similarly on others.
Population forecasts therefore inform but are no substitute for effective land use policy.
Dick Morrill, emeritus professor of geography at the University of Washington and an expert in urban demography, observed recently that the population of the Pacific Northwest has quadrupled since 1950, a bursting expansion unseen elsewhere in the United States in the same period.
“The pattern of growth 2000-2009 is the same as from 1990-2000, overwhelmingly suburban,” Morrill writes.
“These 50 years of expansion are viewed by critics as classic ‘urban sprawl,’ but this is not mainly true,” Morrill cautions. “Rather it has mostly been urban growth necessary to accommodate a population four times as large, another 2.3 million people. Perhaps surprising to some, the average density, which did decline from 1950 to 1970, in the postwar suburban boom, has risen over the last 30 years.”
Ever the laggard, Bellingham continues to off-gas some of the lowest urban densities in Western Washington, fueled less—the Gristle’ll argue—by what we’ve planned than by forces we’ve ignored. Whatcom growth bounds past the suburbs to favor disconnected, widely separated development clusters requiring endless and costly support services.
Perhaps the most distressing piece of information from the Whatcom 2031 process is that while growth has lagged projection targets in the county’s urban centers and designated urban growth areas, it has exploded in the county’s incorporated rural areas, mushrooming more than 20 percent over the past two decades, four times the rate anticipated—the very definition of unplanned, unsupported, unconnected leap-frog development. We’ve lost an average of 1,200 ag land acres per year over the same period, the most egregious loss of agricultural capacity in Western Washington. What the community wished to preserve, we’re quickly losing.
This is exurbia at its most absurd; and the Gristle will argue it occurred not because we did not understand all-too-well that it might, but because the land use policy intended to address it was either ineffective or in some cases outright sabotaged. Now Bellingham neighborhoods begin to gird themselves for a protracted rebellion against COB’s toolkit to create urban densities, released last week—a struggle that may only exacerbate exurbia.
The situation is positively perverse.
Planners understand, all-too-well, the tools for land use reform.
For the county, the biggest reform arrives from downzones (actually a restoration—a reset, if you will—of rural zoning as it existed before a County Council of knife-fighting, bomb-throwing property rightistas decided to repurpose our ag lands in the early ’90s). This would restore thousands of acres to original rural character.
Next, impact fees that not only help pay for required infrastructure and essential services, but help equalize the costs of development so that it is no longer cheaper to build in the county than in the cities. Perverse incentives in land use might then recede.
From a developer’s perspective, why suffer the restrictions of the cities when the county offers none? With these reforms in place, you’ll begin to see the infill and density strategies proposed for Whatcom’s urban centers begin to pencil as they should.
To this we’ll add Whatcom needs to effectively challenge—perhaps as a class-action with other Western Washington counties—the state’s absurd vesting privilege so that vesting laws begin to look more like those in other states. This could purge hundreds of asinine, unfortunate and inappropriate land-use proposals, some decades old, from the books. The Gristle can think of no better place to begin this legal challenge than against properties around Lake Whatcom, an impaired waterway by federal listing.
Unfortunately, as we do a head-check of the current County Council, the Gristle finds neither the will or inclination or capacity to move quickly on controversial reforms. What’s worse, we don’t see candidates stepping forward to effectively create what could be a council majority in an election year.
To their credit, the council’s planning and development committee finally, after years of wrangling, proposed during their Jan. 13 meeting to bring a discussion of transportation impact fees in front of the full council… but their measure addresses only one (and not the most costly) of development impacts. It does little to help equalize development costs in order to jumpstart city infill strategies.
But will even this reform arrive as quickly as growth appears to be arriving? And will it make a difference if it does?
----------------------
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Stimulus: Show Us The Money
All the rhetoric whether there ought to be a stimulus package or not continues, despite the fact there now is a stimulus bill that provides billions in Federal Funds.
It seems incredible that some folks seem to have missed this news.
And, if the news wasn't missed, their denial continues.
So it is with a few Republican governors, who are threatening to turn down any Federal funds that might come their way.
Can't blame them for wanting to actually' walk their talk', can you?
We'll see just how far this will go, especially since the respective state legislatures also have a say in the matter.
Maybe that will just provide those highly vocal ideological individuals with the best of both worlds; claiming they would have preferred to turn down the funds, but couldn't because that pesky legislature took the money anyway.
A few days ago Paul Begala wrote a CNN column that challenged these Republican ideologues to actually 'walk their talk' by turning down the money.
Now, at least a few of them are at least talking about it.
And, with no fewer than 43 states in desperate fiscal crisis, if a few do turn down the money there would be more for other states to gratefully accept it.
Lord knows the money is needed and no other source is available.
Just in the case of Washington State, deficits are being projected in the range of $7 to $8 billions.
I've seen some estimates that say WA may become eligible for maybe $2.5 billion, a big help.
But, for those states that do accept the funds, please -please- make sure they are well-spent!
It seems incredible that some folks seem to have missed this news.
And, if the news wasn't missed, their denial continues.
So it is with a few Republican governors, who are threatening to turn down any Federal funds that might come their way.
Can't blame them for wanting to actually' walk their talk', can you?
We'll see just how far this will go, especially since the respective state legislatures also have a say in the matter.
Maybe that will just provide those highly vocal ideological individuals with the best of both worlds; claiming they would have preferred to turn down the funds, but couldn't because that pesky legislature took the money anyway.
A few days ago Paul Begala wrote a CNN column that challenged these Republican ideologues to actually 'walk their talk' by turning down the money.
Now, at least a few of them are at least talking about it.
And, with no fewer than 43 states in desperate fiscal crisis, if a few do turn down the money there would be more for other states to gratefully accept it.
Lord knows the money is needed and no other source is available.
Just in the case of Washington State, deficits are being projected in the range of $7 to $8 billions.
I've seen some estimates that say WA may become eligible for maybe $2.5 billion, a big help.
But, for those states that do accept the funds, please -please- make sure they are well-spent!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Obama's Home Foreclosure Plan
-----------------------
Did any one get the remarkable irony inherent in the President's announcement of a $75 billion plan to benefit up 9 million borrowers for their primary homes from foreclosure?
First, the news aanouncement was made in Phoenix, Arizona -John McCain's home ground- and the state with the 3rd worst such problem.
Second, the President clearly stated the plan's guidelines, just at the time that Republicans were again questioning the whole idea.
Obama's clear response to critics:
The plan will not support irresponsible homeowners.
It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans.
It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell.
It will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."
That sounds pretty clear to me.
But I expect this plan is way more complex than these statements can adequately cover.
----------------
There is much right with asking tough questions and that should certainly be done, as it probably has been and will continue to be.
But, there also comes a time when just asking questions doesn't accomplish very much that actually helps anyone.
These 6 questions are found in a letter from Republican Representatives Cantor and Boehner to Obama:
You decide whether these are designed to basically help -or hinder- the plan.
------------------
We'll see how this plays out and whether Congress will approve it in some version.
The point is, as much as the foreclosure problem has been described as the 'heart of our financial problem', nothing until now has actually been proposed to remedy it.
Will it work?
Probably, for those that qualify under the guidelines, but it will certainly leave many people without the help they hope for.
But, if it helps a significant number that will be worth the effort.
In the meantime, Obama again gets credit for trying something that many people seem to need and want, which is something no one else has bothered to touch.
I respect him for that, and the public should too..
----------------------
Did any one get the remarkable irony inherent in the President's announcement of a $75 billion plan to benefit up 9 million borrowers for their primary homes from foreclosure?
First, the news aanouncement was made in Phoenix, Arizona -John McCain's home ground- and the state with the 3rd worst such problem.
Second, the President clearly stated the plan's guidelines, just at the time that Republicans were again questioning the whole idea.
Obama's clear response to critics:
The plan will not support irresponsible homeowners.
It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans.
It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell.
It will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."
That sounds pretty clear to me.
But I expect this plan is way more complex than these statements can adequately cover.
----------------
There is much right with asking tough questions and that should certainly be done, as it probably has been and will continue to be.
But, there also comes a time when just asking questions doesn't accomplish very much that actually helps anyone.
These 6 questions are found in a letter from Republican Representatives Cantor and Boehner to Obama:
You decide whether these are designed to basically help -or hinder- the plan.
• What will your plan do for the over 90 percent of homeowners who are playing and paying by the rules?
• Does your plan compensate banks for bad mortgages they should have never made in the first place?
• Will individuals who misrepresented their income or assets on their original mortgage application be eligible to get the taxpayer funded assistance under your plan?
• Will you require mortgage servicers to verify income and other eligibility standards before modifying mortgages? Watch more on the home foreclosure crisis »
• What will you do to prevent the same mortgages that receive assistance and are modified from going into default three, six or eight months later?
• How do you intend to move forward in the drafting of the legislation and who will author it?
------------------
We'll see how this plays out and whether Congress will approve it in some version.
The point is, as much as the foreclosure problem has been described as the 'heart of our financial problem', nothing until now has actually been proposed to remedy it.
Will it work?
Probably, for those that qualify under the guidelines, but it will certainly leave many people without the help they hope for.
But, if it helps a significant number that will be worth the effort.
In the meantime, Obama again gets credit for trying something that many people seem to need and want, which is something no one else has bothered to touch.
I respect him for that, and the public should too..
----------------------
Monday, February 16, 2009
Presidents Day Observations
---------
I thought these 2 cartoons from the NYTimes expressed events of the last few days pretty well:
---------------
A few somewhat dated headlines already relegated to the trash heap of faded propaganda posing as 'news'.
"... the presidential spotlight was not enough to win over [US House Representative] Schock.
“Ultimately, I listened to my constituents and I looked at what I knew about the bill and determined it was not in the best interests of my constituents,” the freshman Republican said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
“It was not really a stimulus bill with the majority of the money going towards stimulating the economy.”
Note: the 27-year old Schock was given a courtesy plane ride to western Illinois by President Obama, who also tried to convince Schock to support the 'stimulus' package. He was obviously unsuccessful, since the bill passed with absolutely NO Republican support in the House.
One wonders just how Schock's 'constituents' really differ from Obama's; aren't both elected to serve the entire US?
------------------
GOP senators say Obama off to bad start
• STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham say stimulus bill wasn't bipartisan
• Spokesman: President made "unprecedented effort to reach out to Republicans"
• Congress passes $787 billion stimulus bill with support of three Republicans
• President Obama expected to sign bill on Tuesday
With the memory of McCain's suggestion that he 'suspend' his political campaign for President until AFTER a bail-out plan could be determined, it doesn't take much sense to figure out that he was as clueless then as he is now about the kind of trouble it is a President's job to avoid -or try his damnedest to resolve!
Thank God McCain wasn't elected!
He, and his whiny SC sidekick haven't moved an inch from their neanderthal ideological positions, even when America is so desperately crying out for solutions that might be found.
What was it Nero did when Rome was burning?
Oh, one other thing.
Sufficient bipartisanship can be assumed when enough members of the 'opposition' are attracted to support a measure that may have otherwise failed!
----------------------
But, the best of the bunch I found was this from the NYTimes:
They Sure Showed That Obama
By FRANK RICH
Published: February 14, 2009
----------
AM I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”
-----------
Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.
But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.
On Wednesday, as a stimulus deal became a certainty on Capitol Hill, I asked David Axelrod for his take on this Groundhog Day relationship between Obama and the political culture.
“It’s why our campaign was not based in Washington but in Chicago,” he said. “We were somewhat insulated from the echo chamber. In the summer of ’07, the conventional wisdom was that Obama was a shooting star; his campaign was irretrievably lost; it was a ludicrous strategy to focus on Iowa; and we were falling further and further behind in the national polls.” But even after the Iowa victory, this same syndrome kept repeating itself. When Obama came out against the gas-tax holiday supported by both McCain and Clinton last spring, Axelrod recalled, “everyone in D.C. thought we were committing suicide.”
The stimulus battle was more of the same. “This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,” he says.
Once the frenzy got going, it didn’t matter that most polls showed support for Obama and his economic package: “If you watched cable TV, you’d see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was almost like living in a parallel universe.”
For Axelrod, the moral is “not just that Washington is too insular but that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington think.”
Here’s a third moral: Overdosing on this culture can be fatal. Because Republicans are isolated in that parallel universe and believe all the noise in its echo chamber, they are now as out of touch with reality as the “inevitable” Clinton campaign was before it got clobbered in Iowa. The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill.
A useful template for the current political dynamic can be found in one of the McCain campaign’s more memorable pratfalls. Last fall, it was the Beltway mantra that Obama was doomed with all those working-class Rust Belt Democrats who’d flocked to Hillary in the primaries. The beefy, beer-drinking, deer-hunting white guys — incessantly interviewed in bars and diners — would never buy the skinny black intellectual.
Nor would the “dead-ender” Hillary women. The McCain camp not only bought into this received wisdom, but bet the bank on it, pouring resources into states like Michigan and Wisconsin before abandoning them and doubling down on Pennsylvania in the stretch. The sucker-punched McCain lost all three states by percentages in the double digits.
The stimulus opponents, egged on by all the media murmurings about Obama “losing control,” also thought they had a sure thing. Their TV advantage added to their complacency. As the liberal blog ThinkProgress reported, G.O.P. members of Congress wildly outnumbered Democrats as guests on all cable news networks, not just Fox News, in the three days of intense debate about the House stimulus bill. They started pounding in their slogans relentlessly. The bill was not a stimulus package but an orgy of pork spending. The ensuing deficit would amount to “generational theft.” F.D.R.’s New Deal had been an abject failure.
This barrage did shave a few points off the stimulus’s popularity in polls, but its approval rating still remained above 50 percent in all (Gallup, CNN, Pew, CBS) but one of them (Rasmussen, the sole poll the G.O.P. cites). Perhaps the stimulus held its own because the public, in defiance of Washington’s condescending assumption, was smart enough to figure out that the government can’t create jobs without spending and that Bush-era Republicans have no moral authority to lecture about deficits. Some Americans may even have ancestors saved from penury by the New Deal.
In any event, the final score was unambiguous. The stimulus package arrived with the price tag and on roughly the schedule Obama had set for it. The president’s job approval percentage now ranges from the mid 60s (Gallup, Pew) to mid 70s (CNN) — not bad for a guy who won the presidency with 52.9 percent of the vote. While 48 percent of Americans told CBS, Gallup and Pew that they approve of Congressional Democrats, only 31 (Gallup), 32 (CBS) and 34 (Pew) percent could say the same of their G.O.P. counterparts.
At least some media hands are chagrined. After the stimulus prevailed, Scarborough speculated on MSNBC that “perhaps we’ve overanalyzed it, we don’t know what we’re talking about.” But the Republicans are busy high-fiving themselves and celebrating “victory.” Even in defeat, they are still echoing the 24/7 cable mantra about the stimulus’s unpopularity. This self-congratulatory mood is summed up by a Wall Street Journal columnist who wrote that “the House Republicans’ zero votes for the Obama presidency’s stimulus ‘package’ is looking like the luckiest thing to happen to the G.O.P.’s political fortunes since Ronald Reagan switched parties.” There hasn’t been this much delusional giddiness in these ranks since Monica Lewinsky promised a surefire Republican sweep in the 1998 midterms.
Not all Republicans are so clueless, whether in Congress or beyond. Charlie Crist, the moderate Florida governor who appeared with the president in his Fort Myers, Fla., town-hall meeting last week, has Obama-like approval ratings in the 70s. Naturally, the party’s hard-liners in Washington loathe him.
Their idea of a good public face for the G.O.P. is a sound-bite dispenser like the new chairman, Michael Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor. Steele’s argument against the stimulus package is that “in the history of mankind” no “federal, state or local” government has ever “created one job.” As it happens, among the millions of jobs created by the government are the federal investigators now pursuing Steele for alleged financial improprieties in his failed 2006 Senate campaign.
This G.O.P., a largely white Southern male party with talking points instead of ideas and talking heads instead of leaders, is not unlike those “zombie banks” that we’re being asked to bail out. It is in too much denial to acknowledge its own insolvency and toxic assets. Given the mess the country is in, it would be helpful to have an adult opposition that could pull its weight, but that’s not the hand America has been dealt.
As Judd Gregg flakes out and Lindsey Graham throws made-for-YouTube hissy fits on the Senate floor, Obama should stay focused on the big picture in governing as he did in campaigning. That’s the steady course he upheld when much of the political establishment was either second-guessing or ridiculing it, and there’s no reason to change it now. The stimulus victory showed that even as president Obama can ambush Washington’s conventional wisdom as if he were still an insurgent.
But, as he said in Fort Myers last week, he will ultimately be judged by his results. If the economy isn’t turned around, he told the crowd, then “you’ll have a new president.” The stimulus bill is only a first step on that arduous path. The biggest mistake he can make now is to be too timid. This country wants a New Deal, including on energy and health care, not a New Deal lite. Far from depleting Obama’s clout, the stimulus battle instead reaffirmed that he has the political capital to pursue the agenda of change he campaigned on.
Republicans will also be judged by the voters. If they want to obstruct and filibuster while the economy is in free fall, the president should call their bluff and let them go at it. In the first four years after F.D.R. took over from Hoover, the already decimated ranks of Republicans in Congress fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House.
The G.O.P. is so insistent that the New Deal was a mirage it may well have convinced itself that its own sorry record back then didn’t happen either.
-------------------------
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts;
if wishes were horses, beggars might ride.;
ifs and ands were pots and pans, then we would need no tinkers.;
if wishes were fishes, there'd be no room in the river for water.
I thought these 2 cartoons from the NYTimes expressed events of the last few days pretty well:
---------------
A few somewhat dated headlines already relegated to the trash heap of faded propaganda posing as 'news'.
"... the presidential spotlight was not enough to win over [US House Representative] Schock.
“Ultimately, I listened to my constituents and I looked at what I knew about the bill and determined it was not in the best interests of my constituents,” the freshman Republican said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
“It was not really a stimulus bill with the majority of the money going towards stimulating the economy.”
Note: the 27-year old Schock was given a courtesy plane ride to western Illinois by President Obama, who also tried to convince Schock to support the 'stimulus' package. He was obviously unsuccessful, since the bill passed with absolutely NO Republican support in the House.
One wonders just how Schock's 'constituents' really differ from Obama's; aren't both elected to serve the entire US?
------------------
GOP senators say Obama off to bad start
• STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham say stimulus bill wasn't bipartisan
• Spokesman: President made "unprecedented effort to reach out to Republicans"
• Congress passes $787 billion stimulus bill with support of three Republicans
• President Obama expected to sign bill on Tuesday
With the memory of McCain's suggestion that he 'suspend' his political campaign for President until AFTER a bail-out plan could be determined, it doesn't take much sense to figure out that he was as clueless then as he is now about the kind of trouble it is a President's job to avoid -or try his damnedest to resolve!
Thank God McCain wasn't elected!
He, and his whiny SC sidekick haven't moved an inch from their neanderthal ideological positions, even when America is so desperately crying out for solutions that might be found.
What was it Nero did when Rome was burning?
Oh, one other thing.
Sufficient bipartisanship can be assumed when enough members of the 'opposition' are attracted to support a measure that may have otherwise failed!
----------------------
But, the best of the bunch I found was this from the NYTimes:
They Sure Showed That Obama
By FRANK RICH
Published: February 14, 2009
----------
AM I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”
-----------
Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.
But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.
On Wednesday, as a stimulus deal became a certainty on Capitol Hill, I asked David Axelrod for his take on this Groundhog Day relationship between Obama and the political culture.
“It’s why our campaign was not based in Washington but in Chicago,” he said. “We were somewhat insulated from the echo chamber. In the summer of ’07, the conventional wisdom was that Obama was a shooting star; his campaign was irretrievably lost; it was a ludicrous strategy to focus on Iowa; and we were falling further and further behind in the national polls.” But even after the Iowa victory, this same syndrome kept repeating itself. When Obama came out against the gas-tax holiday supported by both McCain and Clinton last spring, Axelrod recalled, “everyone in D.C. thought we were committing suicide.”
The stimulus battle was more of the same. “This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,” he says.
Once the frenzy got going, it didn’t matter that most polls showed support for Obama and his economic package: “If you watched cable TV, you’d see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was almost like living in a parallel universe.”
For Axelrod, the moral is “not just that Washington is too insular but that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington think.”
Here’s a third moral: Overdosing on this culture can be fatal. Because Republicans are isolated in that parallel universe and believe all the noise in its echo chamber, they are now as out of touch with reality as the “inevitable” Clinton campaign was before it got clobbered in Iowa. The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill.
A useful template for the current political dynamic can be found in one of the McCain campaign’s more memorable pratfalls. Last fall, it was the Beltway mantra that Obama was doomed with all those working-class Rust Belt Democrats who’d flocked to Hillary in the primaries. The beefy, beer-drinking, deer-hunting white guys — incessantly interviewed in bars and diners — would never buy the skinny black intellectual.
Nor would the “dead-ender” Hillary women. The McCain camp not only bought into this received wisdom, but bet the bank on it, pouring resources into states like Michigan and Wisconsin before abandoning them and doubling down on Pennsylvania in the stretch. The sucker-punched McCain lost all three states by percentages in the double digits.
The stimulus opponents, egged on by all the media murmurings about Obama “losing control,” also thought they had a sure thing. Their TV advantage added to their complacency. As the liberal blog ThinkProgress reported, G.O.P. members of Congress wildly outnumbered Democrats as guests on all cable news networks, not just Fox News, in the three days of intense debate about the House stimulus bill. They started pounding in their slogans relentlessly. The bill was not a stimulus package but an orgy of pork spending. The ensuing deficit would amount to “generational theft.” F.D.R.’s New Deal had been an abject failure.
This barrage did shave a few points off the stimulus’s popularity in polls, but its approval rating still remained above 50 percent in all (Gallup, CNN, Pew, CBS) but one of them (Rasmussen, the sole poll the G.O.P. cites). Perhaps the stimulus held its own because the public, in defiance of Washington’s condescending assumption, was smart enough to figure out that the government can’t create jobs without spending and that Bush-era Republicans have no moral authority to lecture about deficits. Some Americans may even have ancestors saved from penury by the New Deal.
In any event, the final score was unambiguous. The stimulus package arrived with the price tag and on roughly the schedule Obama had set for it. The president’s job approval percentage now ranges from the mid 60s (Gallup, Pew) to mid 70s (CNN) — not bad for a guy who won the presidency with 52.9 percent of the vote. While 48 percent of Americans told CBS, Gallup and Pew that they approve of Congressional Democrats, only 31 (Gallup), 32 (CBS) and 34 (Pew) percent could say the same of their G.O.P. counterparts.
At least some media hands are chagrined. After the stimulus prevailed, Scarborough speculated on MSNBC that “perhaps we’ve overanalyzed it, we don’t know what we’re talking about.” But the Republicans are busy high-fiving themselves and celebrating “victory.” Even in defeat, they are still echoing the 24/7 cable mantra about the stimulus’s unpopularity. This self-congratulatory mood is summed up by a Wall Street Journal columnist who wrote that “the House Republicans’ zero votes for the Obama presidency’s stimulus ‘package’ is looking like the luckiest thing to happen to the G.O.P.’s political fortunes since Ronald Reagan switched parties.” There hasn’t been this much delusional giddiness in these ranks since Monica Lewinsky promised a surefire Republican sweep in the 1998 midterms.
Not all Republicans are so clueless, whether in Congress or beyond. Charlie Crist, the moderate Florida governor who appeared with the president in his Fort Myers, Fla., town-hall meeting last week, has Obama-like approval ratings in the 70s. Naturally, the party’s hard-liners in Washington loathe him.
Their idea of a good public face for the G.O.P. is a sound-bite dispenser like the new chairman, Michael Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor. Steele’s argument against the stimulus package is that “in the history of mankind” no “federal, state or local” government has ever “created one job.” As it happens, among the millions of jobs created by the government are the federal investigators now pursuing Steele for alleged financial improprieties in his failed 2006 Senate campaign.
This G.O.P., a largely white Southern male party with talking points instead of ideas and talking heads instead of leaders, is not unlike those “zombie banks” that we’re being asked to bail out. It is in too much denial to acknowledge its own insolvency and toxic assets. Given the mess the country is in, it would be helpful to have an adult opposition that could pull its weight, but that’s not the hand America has been dealt.
As Judd Gregg flakes out and Lindsey Graham throws made-for-YouTube hissy fits on the Senate floor, Obama should stay focused on the big picture in governing as he did in campaigning. That’s the steady course he upheld when much of the political establishment was either second-guessing or ridiculing it, and there’s no reason to change it now. The stimulus victory showed that even as president Obama can ambush Washington’s conventional wisdom as if he were still an insurgent.
But, as he said in Fort Myers last week, he will ultimately be judged by his results. If the economy isn’t turned around, he told the crowd, then “you’ll have a new president.” The stimulus bill is only a first step on that arduous path. The biggest mistake he can make now is to be too timid. This country wants a New Deal, including on energy and health care, not a New Deal lite. Far from depleting Obama’s clout, the stimulus battle instead reaffirmed that he has the political capital to pursue the agenda of change he campaigned on.
Republicans will also be judged by the voters. If they want to obstruct and filibuster while the economy is in free fall, the president should call their bluff and let them go at it. In the first four years after F.D.R. took over from Hoover, the already decimated ranks of Republicans in Congress fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House.
The G.O.P. is so insistent that the New Deal was a mirage it may well have convinced itself that its own sorry record back then didn’t happen either.
-------------------------
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts;
if wishes were horses, beggars might ride.;
ifs and ands were pots and pans, then we would need no tinkers.;
if wishes were fishes, there'd be no room in the river for water.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Jim Webb's Great New Book
-----------------
"There is a time to pray and a time to fight. This is the time to fight." - Pastor John Peter Gabriel Muhlenburg:Sermon at Woodstock, Virginia, 1775.
-----------------
I received a most thoughtful gift for my last birthday, a book entitled "A Time to Fight', published in 2008 by Doubleday.
Readers may recognize the author, an independent minded Democrat who is now a US Senator from Virginia.
Webb comes from a military family, has degrees from the US Naval Academy and Georgetown Law School, and has served in Vietnam as a Marine Corps infantry officer, where he earned a Navy Cross, the second highest decoration in the Navy and Marine Corps for heroism in Vietnam.
Webb also earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts.
He is an established journalist with a straightforward and distinctively direct [blunt] writing style.
In addition to 8 previous books, Webb has authored a number of articles in various journals and newspapers, including the Marine Corps Gazette, Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
Webb also wrote the story and was the executive producer for the 2000 movie Rules of Engagement, which starred Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson.
Older folks and students of modern US government may recall that James H. Webb also served as the Secretary of Navy under Casper Weinberger in the Reagan administration.
That post, plus lingering memories from the Vietnam era caused Webb to distance himself from the Democratic Party for 30 years, returning only after witnessing the egregious harm being caused by our last President, his administration and its ruinous policies.
Suffice to say, he was motivated to run for the US Senate in 2006 as a result, and narrowly defeated the incumbent Republican, George Allen, son of the famous Washington Redskins football coach.
Readers may also recognize Webb from his Democratic Rebuttal of President' George W. Bush's State of the Union address in 2007.
Webb has much to say that will resonate with most readers, and his unique perspectives make this book not only informative but timely and interesting.
-------------------
Sunday, February 1, 2009
America: A Fair to Middling Place
First, let me thank those folks who have been so kind in their condolences in response to my need for treatment, and also to Sam Taylor, who reported my last blog in the local paper. Sam didn't have to do that, but I appreciate him helping to get out the 'word'.
---------------------------------
Back in the days I was growing up in North Carolina, I can recall the excitement that always seemed to surround the many tobacco auction warehouses.
Tobacco, for all its bad attributes, was -and may still be- the main money crop for NC farmers.
Auction time was the pay-off for a year of hard work, and the time of reckoning for finding out whether any profits produced would be sufficient to feed and clothe families, pay off loans on seed, fertilizer and farm equipment and continue rural family businesses.
The auctioneers were invariably colorful fellows, each with his own style of rapid-fire auction talk and technique, designed to keep the transactions flowing and attract the best possible prices for the various lots of cured tobacco that were being offered for sale.
Because tobacco production was very strictly controlled, not only the yield produced, but the quality of it, were critical to its profitability.
The best tobacco always commanded the best prices, and the best prices were highly prized by the producers.
In all such auctions a range of quality was displayed for purchase, and these ranged from superior down to barely passing.
Most offerings ranged somewhere in the middle, with the phrase 'fair to middling' often used to describe it.
In other words, it was good enough to sell and use, but not the very best available, and as such it did not command the highest prices.
I got to thinking about how the 'fair to middling' phrase might be applied to our own situation here in America.
This country was actually created for everyone, even though the founders were mostly landed and wealthy white men.
And, nowadays, much talk and concern is about the so-called 'middle class' and its viability during the current recession and its projected awful consequences.
------------------
The 'stimulus' package now being debated in Congress is a good example of trying to help the middle class.
There are big differences of opinion about what measures should be included in it, and which may actually work in the way intended.
That debate is healthy, because no one really knows what might work best, or the amount needed, although there does seem to be agreement that whatever is done needs to be done without undue delay.
The 'undue delay' part amounts to an early deadline which one might consider the time a trigger is pulled; as in 'Ready, Aim, Fire'.
But, before that trigger is pulled, the Ready and the Aim parts need to be carefully hashed out and agreed upon.
That big hurry is causing lots of headaches, disagreements and consternation.
And, it doesn't help that all this vital thinking and machinations are being conducted in a fishbowl swimming with all sorts of political animals.
But, that is our system, and we need to use it to best advantage.
As much as I support President Obama and his ultra-competent administration, it won't do to just ask Congress to 'trust us' on this big initiative.
We did that the first time around with the Wall Street crowd and it hasn't worked in any way that most of us can recognize.
If the current administration is as smart and savvy as I think it is, they will actively work to create the kind of trust needed to pass such legislation, as well as insure it has the best combination of features possible.
That type of approach is the one most likely to not only gain bipartisan support, but actually work as it is intended.
If a high profile, early action like this can pass these tests, it will bode well for future ideas and initiatives as well.
-----------
Now, back to the concept of 'fair to middling' for a minute:
Any stimulus package ought to be directed, fairly at the 'middle class', not everyone who sticks their hand out.
Just like our Founders definitely decided against any more tyrannical rulers, the Govt ought to decide against gifts to the wealthy.
After all, they were the ones so caught up in short term greed -which they actively marketed on the masses- that they largely created the problem we're having.
Our current tax laws and incentives are loaded so heavily in favor of the very wealthy that it would be unconscionable to further favor that relatively small class of people.
Besides, the Bush policies have failed so miserably that to continue the same approach would border on insanity!
As far as helping the very poor with Govt assistance, that should always be a priority for improvement, regardless of any recession.
So, any 'stimulus' oriented in that direction ought to be of the long-term, sustainable type.
Here in America the 'middle class' actually represents, by far, most of our population, a fairly broad spectrum of people ranging from below the very wealthy to above those most in need.
And, that is as it should be in our type of society, which unlike countries like India have tried, hasn't fallen into a rigid 'class system' that assigns limits to what people can do with their lives.
Using a so-called 'Bell Curve' distribution, our goals ought to be having a broad curve of moderate height and steep sides, which would leave room for exceptional success and some abject failure, but mostly well-being for the vast majority of citizens.
And, there is no reason America can't achieve that kind of model somewhere in its future.
So, we ought to be clear what our ultimate objectives are before we try to fix things real quick, don't you think?
I know this idea will attract some strong disagreement, and that's OK, too.
But, consider the report not long ago that attempted to rate various countries by their relative 'happiness' based upon interviews with their people.
The result, which surprised many, was that tiny Denmark, with its exceptionally high taxes to support its social systems, rated at or near the top!
Upon inspection, most Danes felt their taxes were being well-spent by their government, as evidenced by a feeling of general satisfaction with their lives.
And this despite their less than ideal climate, high prices and modest sphere of influence in the world's affairs.
Think about it.
The Danish system has many marks of what political philosophers like to disparagingly call 'socialism', yet if the people of a country allow that to occur and actually are HAPPY with it, what is wrong with that?
It will be a long time before America ever gets close to where Denmark is on a capitalism-socialism scale, but we will likely get there anyway because that's a fairer system to most people, yet it certainly doesn't disallow capitalism and phenomenal financial success.
What better way to get the broadest possible middle class?
Plus, if people LIKE IT, what's wrong with that?
Globalization makes it harder to recognize these possibilities, because of the fierceness and urgency of competition, but in the end the very concept of sustainability will come into inevitable play and force a more realistic and rational approach to how the world -not just America- lives.
It's time to bring this semi-rant to a close, but before that I want to add that proper attention to our vital 'middle class' -of which most of us are members- is so critically important that it ought to always be uppermost in mind.
That is because the toil, production, service and caring of our middle class is the fuel that keeps America moving!
That, in turn, supports the less fortunate as much as it enables the top achievers in this country.
In the end -as it was in the beginning- we are all joined together in this experiment called 'democracy'.
Messy as hell, contentious and fraught with frustration, it is till the best system around, and all those attributes just come with the territory.
Let's don't forget that, or give up our ability to influence the outcomes we want!
---------------------------
---------------------------------
Back in the days I was growing up in North Carolina, I can recall the excitement that always seemed to surround the many tobacco auction warehouses.
Tobacco, for all its bad attributes, was -and may still be- the main money crop for NC farmers.
Auction time was the pay-off for a year of hard work, and the time of reckoning for finding out whether any profits produced would be sufficient to feed and clothe families, pay off loans on seed, fertilizer and farm equipment and continue rural family businesses.
The auctioneers were invariably colorful fellows, each with his own style of rapid-fire auction talk and technique, designed to keep the transactions flowing and attract the best possible prices for the various lots of cured tobacco that were being offered for sale.
Because tobacco production was very strictly controlled, not only the yield produced, but the quality of it, were critical to its profitability.
The best tobacco always commanded the best prices, and the best prices were highly prized by the producers.
In all such auctions a range of quality was displayed for purchase, and these ranged from superior down to barely passing.
Most offerings ranged somewhere in the middle, with the phrase 'fair to middling' often used to describe it.
In other words, it was good enough to sell and use, but not the very best available, and as such it did not command the highest prices.
I got to thinking about how the 'fair to middling' phrase might be applied to our own situation here in America.
This country was actually created for everyone, even though the founders were mostly landed and wealthy white men.
And, nowadays, much talk and concern is about the so-called 'middle class' and its viability during the current recession and its projected awful consequences.
------------------
The 'stimulus' package now being debated in Congress is a good example of trying to help the middle class.
There are big differences of opinion about what measures should be included in it, and which may actually work in the way intended.
That debate is healthy, because no one really knows what might work best, or the amount needed, although there does seem to be agreement that whatever is done needs to be done without undue delay.
The 'undue delay' part amounts to an early deadline which one might consider the time a trigger is pulled; as in 'Ready, Aim, Fire'.
But, before that trigger is pulled, the Ready and the Aim parts need to be carefully hashed out and agreed upon.
That big hurry is causing lots of headaches, disagreements and consternation.
And, it doesn't help that all this vital thinking and machinations are being conducted in a fishbowl swimming with all sorts of political animals.
But, that is our system, and we need to use it to best advantage.
As much as I support President Obama and his ultra-competent administration, it won't do to just ask Congress to 'trust us' on this big initiative.
We did that the first time around with the Wall Street crowd and it hasn't worked in any way that most of us can recognize.
If the current administration is as smart and savvy as I think it is, they will actively work to create the kind of trust needed to pass such legislation, as well as insure it has the best combination of features possible.
That type of approach is the one most likely to not only gain bipartisan support, but actually work as it is intended.
If a high profile, early action like this can pass these tests, it will bode well for future ideas and initiatives as well.
-----------
Now, back to the concept of 'fair to middling' for a minute:
Any stimulus package ought to be directed, fairly at the 'middle class', not everyone who sticks their hand out.
Just like our Founders definitely decided against any more tyrannical rulers, the Govt ought to decide against gifts to the wealthy.
After all, they were the ones so caught up in short term greed -which they actively marketed on the masses- that they largely created the problem we're having.
Our current tax laws and incentives are loaded so heavily in favor of the very wealthy that it would be unconscionable to further favor that relatively small class of people.
Besides, the Bush policies have failed so miserably that to continue the same approach would border on insanity!
As far as helping the very poor with Govt assistance, that should always be a priority for improvement, regardless of any recession.
So, any 'stimulus' oriented in that direction ought to be of the long-term, sustainable type.
Here in America the 'middle class' actually represents, by far, most of our population, a fairly broad spectrum of people ranging from below the very wealthy to above those most in need.
And, that is as it should be in our type of society, which unlike countries like India have tried, hasn't fallen into a rigid 'class system' that assigns limits to what people can do with their lives.
Using a so-called 'Bell Curve' distribution, our goals ought to be having a broad curve of moderate height and steep sides, which would leave room for exceptional success and some abject failure, but mostly well-being for the vast majority of citizens.
And, there is no reason America can't achieve that kind of model somewhere in its future.
So, we ought to be clear what our ultimate objectives are before we try to fix things real quick, don't you think?
I know this idea will attract some strong disagreement, and that's OK, too.
But, consider the report not long ago that attempted to rate various countries by their relative 'happiness' based upon interviews with their people.
The result, which surprised many, was that tiny Denmark, with its exceptionally high taxes to support its social systems, rated at or near the top!
Upon inspection, most Danes felt their taxes were being well-spent by their government, as evidenced by a feeling of general satisfaction with their lives.
And this despite their less than ideal climate, high prices and modest sphere of influence in the world's affairs.
Think about it.
The Danish system has many marks of what political philosophers like to disparagingly call 'socialism', yet if the people of a country allow that to occur and actually are HAPPY with it, what is wrong with that?
It will be a long time before America ever gets close to where Denmark is on a capitalism-socialism scale, but we will likely get there anyway because that's a fairer system to most people, yet it certainly doesn't disallow capitalism and phenomenal financial success.
What better way to get the broadest possible middle class?
Plus, if people LIKE IT, what's wrong with that?
Globalization makes it harder to recognize these possibilities, because of the fierceness and urgency of competition, but in the end the very concept of sustainability will come into inevitable play and force a more realistic and rational approach to how the world -not just America- lives.
It's time to bring this semi-rant to a close, but before that I want to add that proper attention to our vital 'middle class' -of which most of us are members- is so critically important that it ought to always be uppermost in mind.
That is because the toil, production, service and caring of our middle class is the fuel that keeps America moving!
That, in turn, supports the less fortunate as much as it enables the top achievers in this country.
In the end -as it was in the beginning- we are all joined together in this experiment called 'democracy'.
Messy as hell, contentious and fraught with frustration, it is till the best system around, and all those attributes just come with the territory.
Let's don't forget that, or give up our ability to influence the outcomes we want!
---------------------------
Friday, January 30, 2009
Serious Business in Seattle
-----------------
Oddly enough, after living in Bellingham for 20 years, I've never spent much time in Seattle.
Aside from an occasional overnight at a friend's house, there have been no extended stays here.
For example, I've never been up the Space Needle, or visited many of the museums, except for the Burke at U-Dub.
I have attended a few lectures and presentations at the former Mountaineers building, and once at Benaroya Hall.
Then, I did go to a Mariners game, plus attend the special event for the Dalai Lama's visit.
We also have enjoyed several local restaurants and done a little shopping at REI and Patagonia.
So, cumulatively, I have spent some time here, but not until recently -and now- more than two days at a time.
Mostly, that's because we've seldom had the need or the urge to spend time in Seattle.
After all, one can get most everything needed or wanted in Bellingham, barring few exceptions that require short trips elsewhere.
That assumes a pretty simple lifestyle, that is also varied by mainly fun-based travel to experience the great outdoors, friends and favorite retreats.
All this has changed during the last few months, as I have had the need to seek expert medical attention.
Now, there is a compelling need for me to visit Seattle for an extended stay that is not simply 'fun'-related.
Unless, of course, the concept of 'fun' also includes the idea of living a longer life!
I think it does, and that's why I'm here.
In October, I was diagnosed with an obstruction to my bile duct from my liver.
That may not sound like much, but if left untreated would result in, uh, death; there, I've said it.
Thanks to good and quick medical care in Bellingham that situation was sufficiently mitigated to allow the time to seek more specialized care in -you guessed it- Seattle.
Who knew that the Virginia Mason Medical Center is one of the truly world-class places for treating Pancreatic Cancer?
'PanCan' is what I turned out to have, and that required radical surgery -called a Whipple- to remove the growth, plus some innards, then some internal re-plumbing, all performed by the leading surgeon in his field.
That event and the preceding tests that lead up to it were the reasons I began visiting Seattle more frequently and for longer periods of time.
It is also the rationale for entering the next phase of my recovery, which entails an aggressive protocol of chemotherapy and radiation treatment to prevent any remaining malignant cells from growing or moving to other parts of my body.
That's the phase of my Seattle visitation program that I am in right now, almost 6 weeks of that dread -but vital- treatment regimen, again under the direction and care of another, world-class Doctor, an Oncologist specializing in PanCan.
So far, so good, after just 2 of 28 planned treatment sessions.
But there are more to come, and the cumulative effects over time may -and probably will- make my stay less pleasant before its over.
This aggressive Chemo/Radiation routine is set to end on March 6, at which time I get a month off to recuperate before more tests are conducted.
Boy, am I looking forward to that!
In the meantime, we are here in Seattle, ensconced in a very comfortable condo that was generously offered to us by good friends.
What a wonderful gift that has been!
We are so grateful and fortunate to be visiting Seattle this way, especially in these circumstances.
That kindness affords us a tangible relief to the serious business we are here for, and we appreciate it very much!
--------------------
Oddly enough, after living in Bellingham for 20 years, I've never spent much time in Seattle.
Aside from an occasional overnight at a friend's house, there have been no extended stays here.
For example, I've never been up the Space Needle, or visited many of the museums, except for the Burke at U-Dub.
I have attended a few lectures and presentations at the former Mountaineers building, and once at Benaroya Hall.
Then, I did go to a Mariners game, plus attend the special event for the Dalai Lama's visit.
We also have enjoyed several local restaurants and done a little shopping at REI and Patagonia.
So, cumulatively, I have spent some time here, but not until recently -and now- more than two days at a time.
Mostly, that's because we've seldom had the need or the urge to spend time in Seattle.
After all, one can get most everything needed or wanted in Bellingham, barring few exceptions that require short trips elsewhere.
That assumes a pretty simple lifestyle, that is also varied by mainly fun-based travel to experience the great outdoors, friends and favorite retreats.
All this has changed during the last few months, as I have had the need to seek expert medical attention.
Now, there is a compelling need for me to visit Seattle for an extended stay that is not simply 'fun'-related.
Unless, of course, the concept of 'fun' also includes the idea of living a longer life!
I think it does, and that's why I'm here.
In October, I was diagnosed with an obstruction to my bile duct from my liver.
That may not sound like much, but if left untreated would result in, uh, death; there, I've said it.
Thanks to good and quick medical care in Bellingham that situation was sufficiently mitigated to allow the time to seek more specialized care in -you guessed it- Seattle.
Who knew that the Virginia Mason Medical Center is one of the truly world-class places for treating Pancreatic Cancer?
'PanCan' is what I turned out to have, and that required radical surgery -called a Whipple- to remove the growth, plus some innards, then some internal re-plumbing, all performed by the leading surgeon in his field.
That event and the preceding tests that lead up to it were the reasons I began visiting Seattle more frequently and for longer periods of time.
It is also the rationale for entering the next phase of my recovery, which entails an aggressive protocol of chemotherapy and radiation treatment to prevent any remaining malignant cells from growing or moving to other parts of my body.
That's the phase of my Seattle visitation program that I am in right now, almost 6 weeks of that dread -but vital- treatment regimen, again under the direction and care of another, world-class Doctor, an Oncologist specializing in PanCan.
So far, so good, after just 2 of 28 planned treatment sessions.
But there are more to come, and the cumulative effects over time may -and probably will- make my stay less pleasant before its over.
This aggressive Chemo/Radiation routine is set to end on March 6, at which time I get a month off to recuperate before more tests are conducted.
Boy, am I looking forward to that!
In the meantime, we are here in Seattle, ensconced in a very comfortable condo that was generously offered to us by good friends.
What a wonderful gift that has been!
We are so grateful and fortunate to be visiting Seattle this way, especially in these circumstances.
That kindness affords us a tangible relief to the serious business we are here for, and we appreciate it very much!
--------------------
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Greenways: Wishing Does Not 'Make It So'
-----------------------
Starship Enterprise Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek had a signature phrase from the captain's chair; "Make it so".
How nice it would be to have the power of 'making something so' by just wishing or asking for it!
The Captain Picard character is depicted as a deeply moral, highly logical and cerebral man, who through Solomon-like wisdom resolves seemingly intractable complex issues between multiple parties. Though such resolutions are usually peaceful, Picard is also shown utilizing his remarkable tactical cunning in situations requiring it.
How nice it would be to have such a person in charge of resolving the so-called Chuckanut Ridge 'issue', in which some wild-eyed advocates on the south side seem bent upon a scorched earth policy to get their way - or else!
But even Picard might have difficulty in dealing with that issue, especially if he tried to use those same morals, logic, and facts combined as wisdom on it.
But, hey it's worth a try, isn't it?
Jack Weiss thinks so, and has put together some facts -summarized below-in yet another attempt to persuade those who seem resistant to such persuasion.
And, if those who choose to remain resistant to reason and reality again reject this information, there are many others who may benefit from it.
Notwithstanding that an ounce of emotion can sometimes trump an entire ton of rational thought, the truth of this new information is not likely to just go away!
----------------------------------
From Weiss:
For public use as you so desire.
This is the second of an indeterminate series to assist the community in understanding other information regarding the Chuckanut Ridge issue.
The Southside Effect on the Greenways III Levy Vote
By Jack Weiss, January 24, 2009
Ever since the May 16, 2006 Greenways III election, from time-to-time some people proclaim in this paraphrase “if it wasn’t for the southside vote, the levy would not have passed.” Saying this does not make it so. Let’s look at the facts.
I took the official precinct election results from the following abstract (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/auditor/election_division/voting_history/abstracts/index.jsp) and calculated the following summary:
The levy passed community-wide by 58.8% with an overall voter turnout of 46.5%.
If the three precincts directly adjacent to Chuckanut Ridge are pulled out, the levy passes by 58.4%. This includes Prec #244 (Edgemoor), 245 (South with bits of Fairhaven and Edgemoor), and 246 (east side of South). Note that 244 and 246 passed by a lower margin than community-wide (57.4% and 57.3% respectively versus the community-wide margin of 58.8%.
If all of Ward 6 was removed, the levy passes by a “yes” vote of 57.0%.
If all of Wards 5 and 6 were removed, the levy still passes 54.6%. That is over 9 percentage points victory by the rest of town.
Lastly, even if the every one of the 1156 “yes” votes in precincts 244, 245, and 246 switched their votes in protest, the levy still would pass 52.2%. In fact, a total of 1535 “yes” voters would have to switch their votes assuming they actually cast a ballot and simply did not sit out the election. It is very speculative that that would have ever occurred.
Sure, the southside provided support for the passage of the levy. But to think that the rest of the community was asleep to this election is not borne out by the facts. If the Greenways Legacy group and Responsible Development wanted to kill the passage of the levy in 2006, they may or may not have succeeded and their attempt would reflect highly on their motives with the rest of Bellingham.
The question is: if they did succeed as they frequently threatened in 2005 and 2006, what would have been accomplished? 1. We would either have no levy for anything, including some money for Chuckanut Ridge; or 2. A new levy with higher amounts for CR would have been put on the ballot attracting opponents from the rest of town and likely flaming to defeat as well.
What is also clear is that some people have claimed how much they worked for the passage of the levy. Of all of the people who have spoken up in the past few months claiming some sort of $8 million quid pro quo, only Jody Bergsma, Brad Rose, and Joe Yaver gave any money to the campaign. $410 out of $12,383. That’s it. (From the Council, Barbara and Michael Ryan and Joan Beardsley kicked in another $300.)
Of all of those same people, only 6 of 796 signed endorsements for the levy to be included in the only flyer during the campaign (Jody Bergsma, Michael Chiavario, Brad Rose, Gail Smedley, Bobbi Vollendorf and Joe Yaver). All 7 councilmembers at that time endorsed.
Jody and Bobbi volunteered substantially into the organization into the campaign. Gail and Cathy McKenzie helped out a little. Where were all of the others?
It is disingenuous, at best, to insinuate the vast assistance of southsiders into the passage of this levy. A whisper campaign does not count. And saying now how much you helped then does not make it so. If you are not one of these named above, then you either did not contribute, endorse, or volunteer for the passage of this levy. But thank you if you put up a yard sign.
In conclusion, statements of how much the southside vote swayed the outcome or how significant the southsiders were in campaigning ring hollow to me.
Side note:
For those number geeks who want more, I have included the following attached spreadsheet so you can see for yourself the source numbers. If the table does not come out, click on the attachment instead. It will probably be much easier to read.
------------------
Note: I have not included the tables of data that Jack used to reach his conclusions as stated above.
That is because I am not enough of a geek to know how to do that, plus the conclusions are the important part which most folks would be willing to read.
If folks want to see these tables of data, I'm sure they can be made available from other sources.
------------------
See y'all later now, y'hear?
Starship Enterprise Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek had a signature phrase from the captain's chair; "Make it so".
How nice it would be to have the power of 'making something so' by just wishing or asking for it!
The Captain Picard character is depicted as a deeply moral, highly logical and cerebral man, who through Solomon-like wisdom resolves seemingly intractable complex issues between multiple parties. Though such resolutions are usually peaceful, Picard is also shown utilizing his remarkable tactical cunning in situations requiring it.
How nice it would be to have such a person in charge of resolving the so-called Chuckanut Ridge 'issue', in which some wild-eyed advocates on the south side seem bent upon a scorched earth policy to get their way - or else!
But even Picard might have difficulty in dealing with that issue, especially if he tried to use those same morals, logic, and facts combined as wisdom on it.
But, hey it's worth a try, isn't it?
Jack Weiss thinks so, and has put together some facts -summarized below-in yet another attempt to persuade those who seem resistant to such persuasion.
And, if those who choose to remain resistant to reason and reality again reject this information, there are many others who may benefit from it.
Notwithstanding that an ounce of emotion can sometimes trump an entire ton of rational thought, the truth of this new information is not likely to just go away!
----------------------------------
From Weiss:
For public use as you so desire.
This is the second of an indeterminate series to assist the community in understanding other information regarding the Chuckanut Ridge issue.
The Southside Effect on the Greenways III Levy Vote
By Jack Weiss, January 24, 2009
Ever since the May 16, 2006 Greenways III election, from time-to-time some people proclaim in this paraphrase “if it wasn’t for the southside vote, the levy would not have passed.” Saying this does not make it so. Let’s look at the facts.
I took the official precinct election results from the following abstract (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/auditor/election_division/voting_history/abstracts/index.jsp) and calculated the following summary:
The levy passed community-wide by 58.8% with an overall voter turnout of 46.5%.
If the three precincts directly adjacent to Chuckanut Ridge are pulled out, the levy passes by 58.4%. This includes Prec #244 (Edgemoor), 245 (South with bits of Fairhaven and Edgemoor), and 246 (east side of South). Note that 244 and 246 passed by a lower margin than community-wide (57.4% and 57.3% respectively versus the community-wide margin of 58.8%.
If all of Ward 6 was removed, the levy passes by a “yes” vote of 57.0%.
If all of Wards 5 and 6 were removed, the levy still passes 54.6%. That is over 9 percentage points victory by the rest of town.
Lastly, even if the every one of the 1156 “yes” votes in precincts 244, 245, and 246 switched their votes in protest, the levy still would pass 52.2%. In fact, a total of 1535 “yes” voters would have to switch their votes assuming they actually cast a ballot and simply did not sit out the election. It is very speculative that that would have ever occurred.
Sure, the southside provided support for the passage of the levy. But to think that the rest of the community was asleep to this election is not borne out by the facts. If the Greenways Legacy group and Responsible Development wanted to kill the passage of the levy in 2006, they may or may not have succeeded and their attempt would reflect highly on their motives with the rest of Bellingham.
The question is: if they did succeed as they frequently threatened in 2005 and 2006, what would have been accomplished? 1. We would either have no levy for anything, including some money for Chuckanut Ridge; or 2. A new levy with higher amounts for CR would have been put on the ballot attracting opponents from the rest of town and likely flaming to defeat as well.
What is also clear is that some people have claimed how much they worked for the passage of the levy. Of all of the people who have spoken up in the past few months claiming some sort of $8 million quid pro quo, only Jody Bergsma, Brad Rose, and Joe Yaver gave any money to the campaign. $410 out of $12,383. That’s it. (From the Council, Barbara and Michael Ryan and Joan Beardsley kicked in another $300.)
Of all of those same people, only 6 of 796 signed endorsements for the levy to be included in the only flyer during the campaign (Jody Bergsma, Michael Chiavario, Brad Rose, Gail Smedley, Bobbi Vollendorf and Joe Yaver). All 7 councilmembers at that time endorsed.
Jody and Bobbi volunteered substantially into the organization into the campaign. Gail and Cathy McKenzie helped out a little. Where were all of the others?
It is disingenuous, at best, to insinuate the vast assistance of southsiders into the passage of this levy. A whisper campaign does not count. And saying now how much you helped then does not make it so. If you are not one of these named above, then you either did not contribute, endorse, or volunteer for the passage of this levy. But thank you if you put up a yard sign.
In conclusion, statements of how much the southside vote swayed the outcome or how significant the southsiders were in campaigning ring hollow to me.
Side note:
For those number geeks who want more, I have included the following attached spreadsheet so you can see for yourself the source numbers. If the table does not come out, click on the attachment instead. It will probably be much easier to read.
------------------
Note: I have not included the tables of data that Jack used to reach his conclusions as stated above.
That is because I am not enough of a geek to know how to do that, plus the conclusions are the important part which most folks would be willing to read.
If folks want to see these tables of data, I'm sure they can be made available from other sources.
------------------
See y'all later now, y'hear?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Greenways: Are We A Unified Community Or A League of Single Interests?
"I was born for a storm and a calm does not suit me' - Andrew Jackson
--------------------------------------
During Andrew Jackson's time as our 7th President, one of the major issues he faced was the so-called 'nullification crisis', in which South Carolina and other southern states became so unhappy with existing US tariffs that they openly plotted not to pay them, even if it came to seceding from the Union.
Imagine that; one of the original 13 states deciding that it gets to pick which national laws it obeys!
Think that 'states rights' stance might have been a little extreme?
Jackson certainly did, and he acted strongly to make sure SC did not get away with that divisive ploy, although part of the peaceful resolution reached did involve compromise and a progressive reduction in the tariff.
Of course, the kind of selfish thinking that the SC hotheads exhibited did not entirely disappear, and later was to use slavery to fuel forming a Southern Confederacy, which did secede from the Union, resulting in the Civil War.
It seems a certain similarity exists between these events in Jackson's time and the present, here in our little community.
Should a fractious 'South-side League' be allowed 'Nullification Powers' over how the voluntarily voted Greenways funds will be allocated and spent?
I don't think so!
And neither should the City Council allow frustrating the clear intent of the Greenways 3 levy and its related descriptive documents, passed 2+ years ago.
Yet, three of the four Council members who colluded -outside of public meetings- to rig how these monies would be spent are at it again!
This time, these would-be 'nullifiers' are trying to thwart the careful work of the Parks & Recreation Board and the Greenways Advisory Committee to reflect the very guidelines and principles which the Council had duly adopted.
The form this latest gambit has taken is to delay approval of the Strategic Plan that has been finally submitted after over years of very public process.
The reason?
Simple, they want all $6 million in funds designated for south-side property acquisitions, plus the $2 million in undesignated funds to go toward purchase of the so-called Chuckanut Ridge property [now being called 'Fairhaven Highlands']
You know what? That won't wash! And, if it does somehow slip by, there will be hell to pay!
------------------------
The twin threads of this particular section are ethics and partisan politics, neither a particularly happy subject.
I'll try to be both succinct and accurate in these remarks, although each aim may somewhat counter the other.
Regarding ethics, the three remaining renegade Council members, the would-be 'nullifiers', ought to know better than to willingly and knowingly collude on such a scheme, not divulge their true intent at any one of the several public meetings held at which this matter was discussed, and then compound their 'secret lie' by lying about it again!
And, to say they now feel committed to a secret 'covenant' they thought they had made to certain advocates to spend $8 million in funds that were not yet available or voted upon, is ludicrous at best!
What about the 'covenant' all elected officials make -to all citizens- to uphold the law and fairly represent all interests to the best of their abilities?
That is generally covered in the oath of office that each Council member takes as a matter of public record.
I took my oath seriously, as do most others.
Should there be better guidelines for what constitutes acceptable behavior in a public capacity?
Maybe so, as was discussed 2 years ago, but the Council has not yet acted upon this matter.
Why is so hard to get people to reasonably regulate their own behavior?
Even if a recall or impeachment effort were attempted to punish these 'nullifiers', that is problematic too, especially with people who have repeatedly demonstrated 'creative', 'revisionist' and/or 'convenient' memories!
Lie to me once, that's on me; lie to me twice, that's on you!
Regarding partisan politics, that is an inherent part of our system.
But, there is a time and place for it, just as there is a time and place for the majority to actually govern.
As Andrew Jackson thought, 'we must resist attempts of single interests to seize power from the whole.'
Just as the United States is a Union and not a Confederacy or a League, the laws and policies that are duly adopted must be obeyed and adhered to by all.
There will always be a tension between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, and that is as it should be in a democracy.
But, the majority must rule!
The Greenways levy that was passed by the voters, went on the ballot by a unanimous vote from the Council.
Of course, that happened only after significant compromises were debated and agreed to.
Nothing in the Greenways ballot measure can be construed to mean that $8 million was to be dedicated solely for the purchase of Chuckanut Ridge property.
If it had, the ballot would certainly have not attracted the unanimous endorsement of the Council, and most likely would have never been passed at all.
This last fact just underscores the falsity of the claims to the contrary being heard from the three remaining Council 'nullifiers'.
They are lying now just as they were lying by public silence 2 years ago- and do not deserve to represent this community on this Greenways issue any longer!
Each of the three should voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in Greenways decisions.
That was also the remedy I suggested to a former Council member, who has now passed away.
------------
By acceding to these 'nullifiers' demands and delaying final adoption of the Greenways Strategic Plan, the Council may be unwittingly causing harm to Greenways, in any or all of the following ways:
• unnecessarily continuing a debate that has already been fairly settled.
• undermining public confidence in Greenways, as well as the competence of the Council.
• impairing the ability of the City to purchase any south side properties, OTHER THAN CHUCKANUT RIDGE, in a timely manner and at a fair value from a willing seller. [there ARE other PRIORITY properties to be acquired]
• wasting staff time.
• extending false hope to die-hard, single interest supporters who want CR purchased at the expense of all other options.
It is well past time for this destructive and disingenuous Greenways gamesmanship to end.
There will be no heroes created by its continuance, and no face-saving or bragging rights possible for anyone who has proven they can't be trusted to do right by this community.
There is no substitute for openness and fairness, so we should accept none.
Why not learn something from two of our new President's early actions?
Those include a no-nonsense Code of Ethics for Lobbyists, and a clear policy of openness and transparency which anticipates every issue be reasonably subject to the Freedom of Information Act!
That would be good for starters.
Out.
-------------------------------
--------------------------------------
During Andrew Jackson's time as our 7th President, one of the major issues he faced was the so-called 'nullification crisis', in which South Carolina and other southern states became so unhappy with existing US tariffs that they openly plotted not to pay them, even if it came to seceding from the Union.
Imagine that; one of the original 13 states deciding that it gets to pick which national laws it obeys!
Think that 'states rights' stance might have been a little extreme?
Jackson certainly did, and he acted strongly to make sure SC did not get away with that divisive ploy, although part of the peaceful resolution reached did involve compromise and a progressive reduction in the tariff.
Of course, the kind of selfish thinking that the SC hotheads exhibited did not entirely disappear, and later was to use slavery to fuel forming a Southern Confederacy, which did secede from the Union, resulting in the Civil War.
It seems a certain similarity exists between these events in Jackson's time and the present, here in our little community.
Should a fractious 'South-side League' be allowed 'Nullification Powers' over how the voluntarily voted Greenways funds will be allocated and spent?
I don't think so!
And neither should the City Council allow frustrating the clear intent of the Greenways 3 levy and its related descriptive documents, passed 2+ years ago.
Yet, three of the four Council members who colluded -outside of public meetings- to rig how these monies would be spent are at it again!
This time, these would-be 'nullifiers' are trying to thwart the careful work of the Parks & Recreation Board and the Greenways Advisory Committee to reflect the very guidelines and principles which the Council had duly adopted.
The form this latest gambit has taken is to delay approval of the Strategic Plan that has been finally submitted after over years of very public process.
The reason?
Simple, they want all $6 million in funds designated for south-side property acquisitions, plus the $2 million in undesignated funds to go toward purchase of the so-called Chuckanut Ridge property [now being called 'Fairhaven Highlands']
You know what? That won't wash! And, if it does somehow slip by, there will be hell to pay!
------------------------
The twin threads of this particular section are ethics and partisan politics, neither a particularly happy subject.
I'll try to be both succinct and accurate in these remarks, although each aim may somewhat counter the other.
Regarding ethics, the three remaining renegade Council members, the would-be 'nullifiers', ought to know better than to willingly and knowingly collude on such a scheme, not divulge their true intent at any one of the several public meetings held at which this matter was discussed, and then compound their 'secret lie' by lying about it again!
And, to say they now feel committed to a secret 'covenant' they thought they had made to certain advocates to spend $8 million in funds that were not yet available or voted upon, is ludicrous at best!
What about the 'covenant' all elected officials make -to all citizens- to uphold the law and fairly represent all interests to the best of their abilities?
That is generally covered in the oath of office that each Council member takes as a matter of public record.
I took my oath seriously, as do most others.
Should there be better guidelines for what constitutes acceptable behavior in a public capacity?
Maybe so, as was discussed 2 years ago, but the Council has not yet acted upon this matter.
Why is so hard to get people to reasonably regulate their own behavior?
Even if a recall or impeachment effort were attempted to punish these 'nullifiers', that is problematic too, especially with people who have repeatedly demonstrated 'creative', 'revisionist' and/or 'convenient' memories!
Lie to me once, that's on me; lie to me twice, that's on you!
Regarding partisan politics, that is an inherent part of our system.
But, there is a time and place for it, just as there is a time and place for the majority to actually govern.
As Andrew Jackson thought, 'we must resist attempts of single interests to seize power from the whole.'
Just as the United States is a Union and not a Confederacy or a League, the laws and policies that are duly adopted must be obeyed and adhered to by all.
There will always be a tension between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, and that is as it should be in a democracy.
But, the majority must rule!
The Greenways levy that was passed by the voters, went on the ballot by a unanimous vote from the Council.
Of course, that happened only after significant compromises were debated and agreed to.
Nothing in the Greenways ballot measure can be construed to mean that $8 million was to be dedicated solely for the purchase of Chuckanut Ridge property.
If it had, the ballot would certainly have not attracted the unanimous endorsement of the Council, and most likely would have never been passed at all.
This last fact just underscores the falsity of the claims to the contrary being heard from the three remaining Council 'nullifiers'.
They are lying now just as they were lying by public silence 2 years ago- and do not deserve to represent this community on this Greenways issue any longer!
Each of the three should voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in Greenways decisions.
That was also the remedy I suggested to a former Council member, who has now passed away.
------------
By acceding to these 'nullifiers' demands and delaying final adoption of the Greenways Strategic Plan, the Council may be unwittingly causing harm to Greenways, in any or all of the following ways:
• unnecessarily continuing a debate that has already been fairly settled.
• undermining public confidence in Greenways, as well as the competence of the Council.
• impairing the ability of the City to purchase any south side properties, OTHER THAN CHUCKANUT RIDGE, in a timely manner and at a fair value from a willing seller. [there ARE other PRIORITY properties to be acquired]
• wasting staff time.
• extending false hope to die-hard, single interest supporters who want CR purchased at the expense of all other options.
It is well past time for this destructive and disingenuous Greenways gamesmanship to end.
There will be no heroes created by its continuance, and no face-saving or bragging rights possible for anyone who has proven they can't be trusted to do right by this community.
There is no substitute for openness and fairness, so we should accept none.
Why not learn something from two of our new President's early actions?
Those include a no-nonsense Code of Ethics for Lobbyists, and a clear policy of openness and transparency which anticipates every issue be reasonably subject to the Freedom of Information Act!
That would be good for starters.
Out.
-------------------------------
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Inauguration: A Few Thoughts
Notwithstanding the historic significance of today's event, the swearing in of Barack Obama as our 44th President, I had not intended any special attention to all the hoopla.
But, I did pay attention to these ceremonies anyway.
My wife and I watched TV coverage from the comfort of our home, and were again struck by the massive connection that our newest President has with the American people, and indeed with the citizens of the entire world!
Despite my reticence to participate in an event held 3000 miles away, I willingly did and was fascinated by it.
Spontaneous tears came to my eyes on more than one occasion, as I listened to Obama's words that resonate so well with what I hold most important, and that I have hoped for so ardently for so long!
Thank God this moment has at last come to pass, so that the hard work can begin in earnest to restore our collective confidence.
Our President expects the best from us in this endeavor, and I for one intend to fully support his enlightened style of leadership.
The pundits will argue forever what Obama's words were intended to mean, but I accept them at face value; a sincere statement of how severe and persistent problems will be faced, no matter what their cause or the obstacles encountered.
Together, our nation has no limits upon what it can achieve, provided we unite in doing it.
------------------
25 years ago I took a Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator Test as part of reassessing what career path might suit me best.
That exercise was not only helpful to me, but also to my wife, Joan.
It allowed me to delve not only into into my 'druthers', but also those activities that I would rather avoid.
In other words, the idea is to go with your strengths, not your weaknesses, once you know what these might be.
Of course, the M-B method doesn't explain everything about an individual, but it does help.
Years later, I found a website [http://www.keirsey.com/] that focuses on the M-B method and summarizes broad findings by the professionals who specialize in it.
At one time, that website had an analysis of which US Presidents likely fit each of the 4 basic M-B personality types; Artisans,
Rationals, Guardians and Idealists.
Of these 4 types, only one had never characterized an American President, the Idealist.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Barack Obama may be our first -ever- Idealist President!
And, if he isn't, he comes closer to that than any other has so far.
May God bless this great land of ours, and the purpose for which it stands!
------------------------
Finally, check out this YouTube - 'There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama' from the Corrigan Brothers at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplZ_taHXLM
Original lyrics:
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
You don’t believe me, I hear you say
But Barack’s as Irish as was JFK
His grandaddy’s daddy came from Moneygall
A small Irish village, well known to you all
Chorus 2: Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
He’s as Irish as bacon, and cabbage and stew
He’s Hawaiian, he’s Kenyan, American too
He’s in the White House, he took his chance
Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From Kerry and Cork to old Donegal
Let’s hear it for Barack from old Moneygall
From the lakes of Killarney to old Connemara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Two thousand and eight, the White House is free
They’re cheering in Mayo, and in Skibereen
The Irish in Kenya and in Yokahama
Are cheering for president Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The hockey mom’s gone, and so is McCain
They’re cheering in Texas and Borrisokane
In Moneygall town, the greatest of drama
For our famous president, Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The great Stephen Neill a great man of God
He proved that Barack was from the auld sod
They came by bus, they came by car
To celebrate Barack, in Ollie Hayes’ bar
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Repeat!
---------------------
But, I did pay attention to these ceremonies anyway.
My wife and I watched TV coverage from the comfort of our home, and were again struck by the massive connection that our newest President has with the American people, and indeed with the citizens of the entire world!
Despite my reticence to participate in an event held 3000 miles away, I willingly did and was fascinated by it.
Spontaneous tears came to my eyes on more than one occasion, as I listened to Obama's words that resonate so well with what I hold most important, and that I have hoped for so ardently for so long!
Thank God this moment has at last come to pass, so that the hard work can begin in earnest to restore our collective confidence.
Our President expects the best from us in this endeavor, and I for one intend to fully support his enlightened style of leadership.
The pundits will argue forever what Obama's words were intended to mean, but I accept them at face value; a sincere statement of how severe and persistent problems will be faced, no matter what their cause or the obstacles encountered.
Together, our nation has no limits upon what it can achieve, provided we unite in doing it.
------------------
25 years ago I took a Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator Test as part of reassessing what career path might suit me best.
That exercise was not only helpful to me, but also to my wife, Joan.
It allowed me to delve not only into into my 'druthers', but also those activities that I would rather avoid.
In other words, the idea is to go with your strengths, not your weaknesses, once you know what these might be.
Of course, the M-B method doesn't explain everything about an individual, but it does help.
Years later, I found a website [http://www.keirsey.com/] that focuses on the M-B method and summarizes broad findings by the professionals who specialize in it.
At one time, that website had an analysis of which US Presidents likely fit each of the 4 basic M-B personality types; Artisans,
Rationals, Guardians and Idealists.
Of these 4 types, only one had never characterized an American President, the Idealist.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that Barack Obama may be our first -ever- Idealist President!
And, if he isn't, he comes closer to that than any other has so far.
May God bless this great land of ours, and the purpose for which it stands!
------------------------
Finally, check out this YouTube - 'There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama' from the Corrigan Brothers at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplZ_taHXLM
Original lyrics:
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
You don’t believe me, I hear you say
But Barack’s as Irish as was JFK
His grandaddy’s daddy came from Moneygall
A small Irish village, well known to you all
Chorus 2: Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
He’s as Irish as bacon, and cabbage and stew
He’s Hawaiian, he’s Kenyan, American too
He’s in the White House, he took his chance
Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From Kerry and Cork to old Donegal
Let’s hear it for Barack from old Moneygall
From the lakes of Killarney to old Connemara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Two thousand and eight, the White House is free
They’re cheering in Mayo, and in Skibereen
The Irish in Kenya and in Yokahama
Are cheering for president Barack O’Bama
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The hockey mom’s gone, and so is McCain
They’re cheering in Texas and Borrisokane
In Moneygall town, the greatest of drama
For our famous president, Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
The great Stephen Neill a great man of God
He proved that Barack was from the auld sod
They came by bus, they came by car
To celebrate Barack, in Ollie Hayes’ bar
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
From the ould Blarney stone to the green hills of Tara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
Repeat!
---------------------
Monday, January 19, 2009
Lake Whatcom: Questions about Proposed Private Road
It seems hard to believe that in the face of the DOE's TMDL -and its required, difficult remedial actions- that someone can adequately "mitigate" the effects of two miles of new 'private' road in this Reservoir's watershed.
Yet, the Whatcom County SEPA official has apparently rubber stamped this application with another DNS [Determination of Non-Significance].
Is this 'SEPA official' person competent, or is he just doing what he is instructed to do?
Does the SEPA checklist used include or even address effects on stormwater runoff downslope from the proposed development?
Even if the County has minimal stormwater rules -and no viable means for funding such efforts- don't they consider the impact of clearing of over eleven acres of forest and natural ground cover significant?
Won't this be replaced by an impervious surface that will itself allow more clearing and impervious surfaces?
Somewhere, I recall that stripping natural growth from land increases runoff by a factor of 16.
Do we understand what that can cause?
I don't get either the myopia or the routine bureaucracy that continues to seriously hamper efforts to protect this Reservoir.
And, coming so soon after the record rainfall and runoff from this same general area that actually closed North Shore Drive, damaged homes and infrastructure, too!
What the heck is going on?
Business as usual?
I hope the City and/or others will soon vigorously challenge this short-sighted, and maybe even illegal development!
-----------------
Here are a few pieces of information about this proposal that have come my way, followed by a few questions that citizens and our elected representatives ought to be asking:
• LEGAL NOTICE: [How many people actually read these? Thank goodness some do!]
(L7015) WHATCOM COUNTY GIVES PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING SEPA THRESHOLD OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) HAS BEEN ISSUED TODAY SUBJECT TO THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CONCLUDING ON JANUARY 22, 2008. File: SEP2008-00063 Project Description: The construction of a road to serve future residential home construction on up to 26 existing 20-acre residential properties currently located in the Rural Forestry zone. The proposed private road will require clearing and grading for roughly 10,300 linear feet of roadway. The total project impact area (clearing) is approximately 11.05 acres in size. Proponent: CLN LLC, Christopher and Nancy Secrist, Gordon and Carol Iverson Location: The proposed project lies northerly and approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of Academy Road and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain. APN #: 380324 066302, 380324 066366, 380324 066432, 380324 200432, 380324 200495, 380313 094020, 380313 229052, 380313 137128, 380313 211152, 380313 333171, 380313 333231, 380313 355328, 380313 295341, 380313 368452, 380313 307476. Lead Agency: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Zoning: Rural Forestry (RF) Comp Plan: Rural Forestry ANY PERSON OR AGENCY MAY APPEAL THE COUNTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH WAC 197-11 BY FILING AN APPEAL WITH THE WHATCOM COUNTY LAND USE DIVISION LOCATED AT 5280 NORTHWEST DRIVE, BELLINGHAM, WA 98226. APPEALS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD.
• From the Department of Ecology's website:
County: Whatcom
Lead Agency: Whatcom County
Lead Agency Contact: Tyler Schroeder
Lead Agency Phone: (360) 676-6907
Lead Agency File #: 2008-00063
Ecology File #: 200900152
Document Type: DNS-M
Description: Squalicum Ridge Rd; construct a 10,300 ft road to service future residential homes on up to 26 existing 20 acre residential properties in the Rural Forestry zone
Location: Two miles east of the intersection of Academy Rd and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain
Applicant: CLN LLC, Christopher & Nancy Secrist, Gordon & Carol Iverson
Issue Date: 01/08/2009
Mail Date:
Comment Due: 01/22/2009
Enter Date: 01/12/2009
• The Bham Herald Legas-Ad announcement :
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:7ygVYc7l71MJ:buyit.bellinghamherald.com/findit/legal_and_financial/legal_public_notices/P58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f.htm%3FitemId%3DP58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f_01+SEP2008-00063+whatcom&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ;
• A cursory googling shows: Christopher Secrist is/was affiliated with Oeser (famous in-town polluters) and Gordon & Carol Iverson both are/were worked for Trillium.
• I can add from my own knowledge that Mr Iverson has monitored closely the City's interest in acquiring watershed property in this vicinity, and in at least one instance, bid slightly higher than the City's offer on a large wooded acreage near the power line right of way. Due to a technicality, the owner opted to sell to Mr Iverson rather than the City after it had completed a lengthy due diligence process. Nothing illegal here, but it does demonstrate an agenda that is significantly at odds with the City's goal of protecting the Reservoir.
------------------
One basic tenet of stormwater management is to use nature's own mitigation whenever possible.
Sometimes this means 'don't build there'; other times maintaining adequate buffers is OK.
Always, its better to mitigate stormwater higher up the slope, not lower!
And, building detention ponds, stormwater drains and treatment facilities is expensive and relatively ineffective.
Yet, knowing the above, here we are pretending this wisdom is unknown - again!
Amazing, but maybe not when one takes into account how this County is being administered.
But, that also brings up another question: Does the County Executive own property in this vicinity?
And, if he does, will this development benefit him financially?
Another observation:
If this property is currently zoned 'Rural Forestry', how is it possible to build 26 homes, each on 20 acres?
Is that land use appropriate, even as a 'cluster'?
Is it legal?
Would the County Council need to approve a rezone for this to happen?
On what grounds might such a rezone be granted?
Who will supply water to these sites?
Water District 7?
Whose water will they use?
Doesn't Water District 7 have an agreement with the City?
Does this agreement restrict such extensions?
Does Water District 10 [now masquerading as the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District] have any role to play in this scheme"
What about sewage?
Does the developer expect the County to allow more septic systems to service these 26 mega homes?
What about the clear policy adopted for NOT doing that?
What about downstream damage potential?
Not only will runoff from this area find its way downhill, it will likely reach the Reservoir.
On its way down hill, who is responsible for the expected stormwater damage, in the forms of erosion, flooding and added nutrient and pollutant loads -which are supposedly to be considered in the County & City's response to the DOE TMDL?
Will the County be allowed to wash its hands of these responsibilities and look the other way as the City tries to manage this mess after the fact?
You know what?
There is a lot that stinks about this proposal!
And, it is time to do something about it, in strongest terms!
It would be nice if those who profess concern about our Reservoir, started doing more to actually achieve their stated goals.
And, while I'm at it, how about those citizens who take their drinking water for granted, then use their energies to advocate something of far lesser importance?
It is past time for this community to come together and really make its will known to those who have been elected to lead us!
We simply need to demonstrate what is most important, and tell them we expect effective action, not empty words and more complacency!
There is not much time to waste in addressing this particular problem 'development', which is so symptomatic of the repeated damage that has already been inflicted on our Reservoir!
Literally, this Reservoir is being harmed to death by 'a thousand pin pricks'; each may be non-fatal, but in their cumulative effect certainly so.
When I hear 'private road', I also think of Sudden Valley, which feels entitled to County road funds to access and maintain them.
Already, there is the expectation of the County providing access to this proposed development on Squalicum Mountain.
Then, will come widening, turning lanes and other improvement, all at taxpayer expense.
I object to any part of my taxes being used for this private purpose!
The County can't even maintain the roads it has!
Eventually, those who choose to live in this proposed, private, 520 acre enclave, if it gets allowed and built, will also depend upon City services, too, which they will pay nothing to deserve.
Enough!
Just say no to this.
If we can't find a way to say 'no', we'll deserve what results.
And 520 acres of low density development; when did that start to fit with the slow growth policy that so many citizens want?
Why, that's more than the County wanted to allow the City to have -and that was for high density development!
Get serious County!
Yet, the Whatcom County SEPA official has apparently rubber stamped this application with another DNS [Determination of Non-Significance].
Is this 'SEPA official' person competent, or is he just doing what he is instructed to do?
Does the SEPA checklist used include or even address effects on stormwater runoff downslope from the proposed development?
Even if the County has minimal stormwater rules -and no viable means for funding such efforts- don't they consider the impact of clearing of over eleven acres of forest and natural ground cover significant?
Won't this be replaced by an impervious surface that will itself allow more clearing and impervious surfaces?
Somewhere, I recall that stripping natural growth from land increases runoff by a factor of 16.
Do we understand what that can cause?
I don't get either the myopia or the routine bureaucracy that continues to seriously hamper efforts to protect this Reservoir.
And, coming so soon after the record rainfall and runoff from this same general area that actually closed North Shore Drive, damaged homes and infrastructure, too!
What the heck is going on?
Business as usual?
I hope the City and/or others will soon vigorously challenge this short-sighted, and maybe even illegal development!
-----------------
Here are a few pieces of information about this proposal that have come my way, followed by a few questions that citizens and our elected representatives ought to be asking:
• LEGAL NOTICE: [How many people actually read these? Thank goodness some do!]
(L7015) WHATCOM COUNTY GIVES PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING SEPA THRESHOLD OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) HAS BEEN ISSUED TODAY SUBJECT TO THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CONCLUDING ON JANUARY 22, 2008. File: SEP2008-00063 Project Description: The construction of a road to serve future residential home construction on up to 26 existing 20-acre residential properties currently located in the Rural Forestry zone. The proposed private road will require clearing and grading for roughly 10,300 linear feet of roadway. The total project impact area (clearing) is approximately 11.05 acres in size. Proponent: CLN LLC, Christopher and Nancy Secrist, Gordon and Carol Iverson Location: The proposed project lies northerly and approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of Academy Road and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain. APN #: 380324 066302, 380324 066366, 380324 066432, 380324 200432, 380324 200495, 380313 094020, 380313 229052, 380313 137128, 380313 211152, 380313 333171, 380313 333231, 380313 355328, 380313 295341, 380313 368452, 380313 307476. Lead Agency: Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Zoning: Rural Forestry (RF) Comp Plan: Rural Forestry ANY PERSON OR AGENCY MAY APPEAL THE COUNTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH WAC 197-11 BY FILING AN APPEAL WITH THE WHATCOM COUNTY LAND USE DIVISION LOCATED AT 5280 NORTHWEST DRIVE, BELLINGHAM, WA 98226. APPEALS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD.
• From the Department of Ecology's website:
County: Whatcom
Lead Agency: Whatcom County
Lead Agency Contact: Tyler Schroeder
Lead Agency Phone: (360) 676-6907
Lead Agency File #: 2008-00063
Ecology File #: 200900152
Document Type: DNS-M
Description: Squalicum Ridge Rd; construct a 10,300 ft road to service future residential homes on up to 26 existing 20 acre residential properties in the Rural Forestry zone
Location: Two miles east of the intersection of Academy Rd and North Shore Drive on Squalicum Mountain
Applicant: CLN LLC, Christopher & Nancy Secrist, Gordon & Carol Iverson
Issue Date: 01/08/2009
Mail Date:
Comment Due: 01/22/2009
Enter Date: 01/12/2009
• The Bham Herald Legas-Ad announcement :
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:7ygVYc7l71MJ:buyit.bellinghamherald.com/findit/legal_and_financial/legal_public_notices/P58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f.htm%3FitemId%3DP58cabd42c15999b423864e4b2e5e2f7f_01+SEP2008-00063+whatcom&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ;
• A cursory googling shows: Christopher Secrist is/was affiliated with Oeser (famous in-town polluters) and Gordon & Carol Iverson both are/were worked for Trillium.
• I can add from my own knowledge that Mr Iverson has monitored closely the City's interest in acquiring watershed property in this vicinity, and in at least one instance, bid slightly higher than the City's offer on a large wooded acreage near the power line right of way. Due to a technicality, the owner opted to sell to Mr Iverson rather than the City after it had completed a lengthy due diligence process. Nothing illegal here, but it does demonstrate an agenda that is significantly at odds with the City's goal of protecting the Reservoir.
------------------
One basic tenet of stormwater management is to use nature's own mitigation whenever possible.
Sometimes this means 'don't build there'; other times maintaining adequate buffers is OK.
Always, its better to mitigate stormwater higher up the slope, not lower!
And, building detention ponds, stormwater drains and treatment facilities is expensive and relatively ineffective.
Yet, knowing the above, here we are pretending this wisdom is unknown - again!
Amazing, but maybe not when one takes into account how this County is being administered.
But, that also brings up another question: Does the County Executive own property in this vicinity?
And, if he does, will this development benefit him financially?
Another observation:
If this property is currently zoned 'Rural Forestry', how is it possible to build 26 homes, each on 20 acres?
Is that land use appropriate, even as a 'cluster'?
Is it legal?
Would the County Council need to approve a rezone for this to happen?
On what grounds might such a rezone be granted?
Who will supply water to these sites?
Water District 7?
Whose water will they use?
Doesn't Water District 7 have an agreement with the City?
Does this agreement restrict such extensions?
Does Water District 10 [now masquerading as the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District] have any role to play in this scheme"
What about sewage?
Does the developer expect the County to allow more septic systems to service these 26 mega homes?
What about the clear policy adopted for NOT doing that?
What about downstream damage potential?
Not only will runoff from this area find its way downhill, it will likely reach the Reservoir.
On its way down hill, who is responsible for the expected stormwater damage, in the forms of erosion, flooding and added nutrient and pollutant loads -which are supposedly to be considered in the County & City's response to the DOE TMDL?
Will the County be allowed to wash its hands of these responsibilities and look the other way as the City tries to manage this mess after the fact?
You know what?
There is a lot that stinks about this proposal!
And, it is time to do something about it, in strongest terms!
It would be nice if those who profess concern about our Reservoir, started doing more to actually achieve their stated goals.
And, while I'm at it, how about those citizens who take their drinking water for granted, then use their energies to advocate something of far lesser importance?
It is past time for this community to come together and really make its will known to those who have been elected to lead us!
We simply need to demonstrate what is most important, and tell them we expect effective action, not empty words and more complacency!
There is not much time to waste in addressing this particular problem 'development', which is so symptomatic of the repeated damage that has already been inflicted on our Reservoir!
Literally, this Reservoir is being harmed to death by 'a thousand pin pricks'; each may be non-fatal, but in their cumulative effect certainly so.
When I hear 'private road', I also think of Sudden Valley, which feels entitled to County road funds to access and maintain them.
Already, there is the expectation of the County providing access to this proposed development on Squalicum Mountain.
Then, will come widening, turning lanes and other improvement, all at taxpayer expense.
I object to any part of my taxes being used for this private purpose!
The County can't even maintain the roads it has!
Eventually, those who choose to live in this proposed, private, 520 acre enclave, if it gets allowed and built, will also depend upon City services, too, which they will pay nothing to deserve.
Enough!
Just say no to this.
If we can't find a way to say 'no', we'll deserve what results.
And 520 acres of low density development; when did that start to fit with the slow growth policy that so many citizens want?
Why, that's more than the County wanted to allow the City to have -and that was for high density development!
Get serious County!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Greenways: Keeping the Process Honest, Equitable & Public
Some folks are recently claiming 'foul' about a relatively routine matter that the City Council took up for action last Monday night.
There are times when crying 'foul' is appropriate and justified, but this was not one of those times.
Unless, of course, one has a big axe to grind about the results of a very public due process that began back in early 2007.
The 'Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan' was deemed necessary to establish clear overarching principles for using public funds to acquire, develop and maintain the City's Parks, Trails & Open Space properties, but without specifically identifying individual properties.
The Parks & Recreation Dept is charged with administering these funds and principles, as well as facilitating the activities of two volunteer advisory committees, the Greenways Advisory Committee and the Parks & Recreation Board. Council gets to confirm the Greenways Advisory Committee members before their appointments are made official.
Both committees are appointed by the Mayor and picked to insure both diversity and dedication to the overall community.
Except for appropriate executive sessions, both committees meet regularly in a public venue and record their proceedings in minutes.
Recommendations from these committees are publicly reported periodically to the Council for its consideration and approval, as was the case with the 'Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan', which was 2 years in the making.
With this background, it is hard to see a legitimate justification for claims by certain people that 'inadequate public process' was followed, or that any sort of 'sneaky, back-room deals' were employed.
Those suppositions were, as they sometimes are, used to gain attention and further delay approval of something that someone simply disagrees with.
And, its certainly OK to disagree, but not for a vocal minority to achieve through 11th hour emotion and loud misrepresentation what it could not through reason and hard facts!
For those who may be interested in a more dispassionate view of what has transpired this week, I offer a few comments, preceded by this chronology of events prepared by Council member Jack Weiss:
---------------------------------------
Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan'
Overview of Process
The first 1990 levy and the second Beyond Greenways 1997 levy had planning strategies adopted by the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) within months of the passage of the levies.
In keeping with this practical procedure, the GAC started strategic planning discussions soon after the passage of the May 2006 levy. Because of the size of the levy and the general categories in the budget guideline, the GAC first worked to create and pass two documents: Criteria for Property Acquisitions and Acquisition Guidelines. These were adopted in March/April 2007 with consultation with the City Council in public meetings.
GAC and the Parks and Rec Department hold public input meetings on January 31 and March 6, 2007 for suggestions on properties and criteria to consider for acquisition. Over 150 comments were received. Contrary to recent criticism, it is important to understand that these meetings, as announced at the beginning, were to “scope” the different and unique properties to analyze, not to vote on which ones were more popular. One vote for Chuckanut Ridge meant one vote, regardless of how many responded to a single property. When the Census is done next year, we will continue to count Mayor Pike as just one unique person regardless of how popular he is with votes.
The volunteer GAC holds an all day retreat on March 10, 2007 to sort and analyze comments and start the planning process.
GAC holds monthly meetings between March 2007 and October 2008 with updates occasionally reported in public session (Responsible Development President, Joe Yaver, or South neighbor citizen, Christopher Grannis, were present during many of these meetings). Because of the sensitive nature of some of the work related to the possible acquisition of specific properties, much of the strategic plan work was conducted in executive session. This allowed the free flow of information among committee members without jeopardizing or tipping off potential property transactions which would put the City in a compromised bargaining position.
For all of 2006/2007 and part of 2008, five of the 11 GAC members reside in Ward 6, the southern most ward of the City. For citizens concerned with the workings of the GAC or the effort of the committee in executive session, a call or note to Southside residents who served on the GAC for years in the past would be recommended. Consider Seth Fleetwood, Jody Bergsma, or Bobbi Vollendorf to start.
September 29, 2008: City Council holds an executive session concerning property acquisition. Later that evening, the Strategic Plan is announced that it is nearly complete. Some main elements of the Plan are verbally discussed.
October 6, 2008: Council receives a report from the GAC in a public afternoon session and a draft of the Strategic Plan is released for initial Council comment. Council is told that the Plan is ready for GAC and Parks Board approval. Council will receive the final report soon after. Proceedings of afternoon and evening sessions are available at the City website.
The Strategic Plan calls for Greenways III spending $12.96 million in six northside areas, $1 million near Whatcom Creek, and $9.5 million in five southside areas. All money is for acquisition of land only and individual projects and areas are evaluated based on the approved Acquisition Guidelines.
October 16, 2008: GAC approves the Strategic Plan on a 10-0 vote in public session. Four of the 10 committee members reside in Ward 6. The motion was seconded by a member who resides directly adjacent to the Chuckanut Ridge parcel. Barbara Ryan is in attendance as a guest and makes her initial appearance at any GAC meeting since her service as a Councilmember began in 1998.
November 8, 2008: Parks Board approves the Strategic Plan on a 11-0 vote in public session. Two of the 11 committee members reside in Ward 6. An additional member resides in Ward 5 nearby.
January 8, 2009: The agenda for the Council January 12 meeting is publicly available. The agenda contains an item labeled: Approval of Strategic Plan for Greenway 3 Levy Land Acquisition.
January 12, 2009: Council approves the North and Whatcom Creek sections of the Strategic Plan on a 7-0 vote. One councilmember resides in Ward 6. An additional member resides in Ward 5 nearby. The Council further approves a motion on a 6-1 vote to table the South section of the Strategic Plan until the Council meeting that is after 15 days after the release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Fairhaven Highlands/Chuckanut Ridge project. Stan Snapp voted against this motion. He resides near Lake Whatcom. Proceedings of afternoon and evening sessions are available at the City website.
--------------------------------------
The above said, there has been some dialogue on another local blog, NWCitizen, to which I and others have contributed this week.
Here is what I have posted there. You can see for yourself how this was interpreted and responded to:
John Watts // Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 8:45 pm
Former US Senator Moynihan once said that ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.’
Since the author of this piece admits to several years absence -ergo ignorance- in following the Greenways intrigues, let me suggest that he avail himself of a few facts that others are able to verify, including myself, as Council member and chair of the Parks & Recreation Committee in 2006 & 2007.
The Greenways 3 levy language that was agreed to unanimously by the Council contained no money solely designated to purchase any so-called Chuckanut Ridge property. If someone feels otherwise, let them demonstrate credible evidence to the contrary.
I do know that Council members Barbara Ryan and Terry Bornemann wished otherwise and either influenced or sought to influence members Joan Beardsley and Gene Knutson to ‘earmark’ very substantial GW3 funds -up to $10.5 million- for CR purchase, but none of this was ever approved by Council action.
Again, if someone feels otherwise, let them demonstrate credible evidence to the contrary.
The Greenways 3 measure that went to the ballot designated $6 million for ALL southside GW3 purchases, with CR being the largest of several possible.
An additional $2 million was made available for potential purchase of property anywhere, with ‘priority’ given to a credible proposal for acquiring additional right of way that might be required to provide for a trail connection through the CR property. Again, there was no guarantee, or ‘earmark’ in current vernacular.
The above is the plain language that was presented to the voters, which ought to be readily verifiable through the City Attorney’s office.
While there are those who are determined to question and or try to contravene the clear true intent of the Greenways 3 measure, that is already well defined.
But, the penchant for controversy and wishful thinking remains strong among the former so-called Legacy proponents, which explains this latest demonstration of discontent and amateurish political pressure.
Another person who has paid careful attention to the Greenways 3 issue and timely reported on it, is the editor of the Cascadia Weekly, whose Gristle column of January 13 not only got it right on this latest dust-up, but also got it right on three previous Gristle columns which can be easily accessed at the following URL:
http://www.cascadiaweekly.com/cw?/content/columns/category/gristle/
It is regrettable that the same people who threatened to ‘hijack’ the Greenways vote in 2007 are still up to mischief making using our valued Greenways program as their instrument of choice to fight a planned infill development.
Democracies are never perfect, but continuing to try to put more lipstick on the ‘100 acre woods’ piglet seems a loser’s game that carries more promise for undermining, rather than improving, the credibility of the CR acquisition advocates.
------------------------------
So, now I've managed to ruffle a few more feathers, including some of the same ones that have been ruffled before on this issue.
Let me say here that all my remarks pertain to the actions of the Council, its deliberations and decisions as duly recorded in the public record.
Those are the things that actually count in determining City policy.
It would be ludicrous to claim that I -or anyone- could know EVERYTHING that went on between other Councils members, citizens and advocates on all sides.
So, I do wonder why would anyone even use that argument to discredit my claim of being aware of what Council did or did not do. Desperation?
Of course, discussions, lobbying, arm-twisting, and all sorts of discourse happen to influence the decisions of elected officials!
The point is that elected officials are required by law to actually -and officially- make their decisions in public, not in secret.
Further, the concepts of due process, Washington's 'sunshine law', and the 'appearance of fairness' demand that openness be inherent in such decisions.
When a quorum of the Council is present, such meetings must be announced in advance as a public meeting.
When a quorum of Council members communicate with each other, whether in writing or not, those communications should be available to the public.
It makes no difference whether all four are in the same room together, or whether they participated in the same communication at the same time, or sequentially, the quorum rule applies.
That is why Freedom of Information Act Requests for public records can be effective in discovering, preventing or reconstructing illegal public meetings.
Of course, timeliness is of the essence, if illegal meetings, 'chain' meetings or other exchanges are to be disclosed before tainted decisions are made.
On this point, I certainly welcome the Washington Attorney General's request for mandatory Open Meetings Act education for all elected officials!
Maybe this should also be extended to members of the public?
So, the question remains, was a firm commitment made between 4 Council members to use $8 million in Greenways funds to acquire part of Chuckanut Ridge, or not?
It sounds like there was such a deal struck outside of official Council business, if for no other reason than because 2 of the 4 verbally admitted to it.
Now, I hear, a third member has also admitted to it.
But, the 4th member seems to continue their denial.
Of course, one of the two members involved is now deceased, so the maximum number of committed Council votes to such a scheme is now only three -one short of the majority needed to actually approve this spending.
Is it likely that another vote can be attracted to this tainted purpose?
I doubt it.
Louise certainly won't go there.
And the three new Council members are smart enough to smell trouble when they see it, even if they did favor acquiring CR.
Let's hope that 4th vote is lost forever!
But, on the plus side, the City will likely get a good chunk of CR -for nothing- as a result of wetlands determinations that will emerge as part of the Environmental Impact Statement [EIS].
If another minor segment of CR is necessary for trail ROW, that is also possible.
But, forget the City buying down this property for anything like $6 to $8 million!
It's not going to happen.
Take that to the bank.
But make sure it's solvent!
There are times when crying 'foul' is appropriate and justified, but this was not one of those times.
Unless, of course, one has a big axe to grind about the results of a very public due process that began back in early 2007.
The 'Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan' was deemed necessary to establish clear overarching principles for using public funds to acquire, develop and maintain the City's Parks, Trails & Open Space properties, but without specifically identifying individual properties.
The Parks & Recreation Dept is charged with administering these funds and principles, as well as facilitating the activities of two volunteer advisory committees, the Greenways Advisory Committee and the Parks & Recreation Board. Council gets to confirm the Greenways Advisory Committee members before their appointments are made official.
Both committees are appointed by the Mayor and picked to insure both diversity and dedication to the overall community.
Except for appropriate executive sessions, both committees meet regularly in a public venue and record their proceedings in minutes.
Recommendations from these committees are publicly reported periodically to the Council for its consideration and approval, as was the case with the 'Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan', which was 2 years in the making.
With this background, it is hard to see a legitimate justification for claims by certain people that 'inadequate public process' was followed, or that any sort of 'sneaky, back-room deals' were employed.
Those suppositions were, as they sometimes are, used to gain attention and further delay approval of something that someone simply disagrees with.
And, its certainly OK to disagree, but not for a vocal minority to achieve through 11th hour emotion and loud misrepresentation what it could not through reason and hard facts!
For those who may be interested in a more dispassionate view of what has transpired this week, I offer a few comments, preceded by this chronology of events prepared by Council member Jack Weiss:
---------------------------------------
Greenway Program Land Acquisition Strategic Plan'
Overview of Process
The first 1990 levy and the second Beyond Greenways 1997 levy had planning strategies adopted by the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) within months of the passage of the levies.
In keeping with this practical procedure, the GAC started strategic planning discussions soon after the passage of the May 2006 levy. Because of the size of the levy and the general categories in the budget guideline, the GAC first worked to create and pass two documents: Criteria for Property Acquisitions and Acquisition Guidelines. These were adopted in March/April 2007 with consultation with the City Council in public meetings.
GAC and the Parks and Rec Department hold public input meetings on January 31 and March 6, 2007 for suggestions on properties and criteria to consider for acquisition. Over 150 comments were received. Contrary to recent criticism, it is important to understand that these meetings, as announced at the beginning, were to “scope” the different and unique properties to analyze, not to vote on which ones were more popular. One vote for Chuckanut Ridge meant one vote, regardless of how many responded to a single property. When the Census is done next year, we will continue to count Mayor Pike as just one unique person regardless of how popular he is with votes.
The volunteer GAC holds an all day retreat on March 10, 2007 to sort and analyze comments and start the planning process.
GAC holds monthly meetings between March 2007 and October 2008 with updates occasionally reported in public session (Responsible Development President, Joe Yaver, or South neighbor citizen, Christopher Grannis, were present during many of these meetings). Because of the sensitive nature of some of the work related to the possible acquisition of specific properties, much of the strategic plan work was conducted in executive session. This allowed the free flow of information among committee members without jeopardizing or tipping off potential property transactions which would put the City in a compromised bargaining position.
For all of 2006/2007 and part of 2008, five of the 11 GAC members reside in Ward 6, the southern most ward of the City. For citizens concerned with the workings of the GAC or the effort of the committee in executive session, a call or note to Southside residents who served on the GAC for years in the past would be recommended. Consider Seth Fleetwood, Jody Bergsma, or Bobbi Vollendorf to start.
September 29, 2008: City Council holds an executive session concerning property acquisition. Later that evening, the Strategic Plan is announced that it is nearly complete. Some main elements of the Plan are verbally discussed.
October 6, 2008: Council receives a report from the GAC in a public afternoon session and a draft of the Strategic Plan is released for initial Council comment. Council is told that the Plan is ready for GAC and Parks Board approval. Council will receive the final report soon after. Proceedings of afternoon and evening sessions are available at the City website.
The Strategic Plan calls for Greenways III spending $12.96 million in six northside areas, $1 million near Whatcom Creek, and $9.5 million in five southside areas. All money is for acquisition of land only and individual projects and areas are evaluated based on the approved Acquisition Guidelines.
October 16, 2008: GAC approves the Strategic Plan on a 10-0 vote in public session. Four of the 10 committee members reside in Ward 6. The motion was seconded by a member who resides directly adjacent to the Chuckanut Ridge parcel. Barbara Ryan is in attendance as a guest and makes her initial appearance at any GAC meeting since her service as a Councilmember began in 1998.
November 8, 2008: Parks Board approves the Strategic Plan on a 11-0 vote in public session. Two of the 11 committee members reside in Ward 6. An additional member resides in Ward 5 nearby.
January 8, 2009: The agenda for the Council January 12 meeting is publicly available. The agenda contains an item labeled: Approval of Strategic Plan for Greenway 3 Levy Land Acquisition.
January 12, 2009: Council approves the North and Whatcom Creek sections of the Strategic Plan on a 7-0 vote. One councilmember resides in Ward 6. An additional member resides in Ward 5 nearby. The Council further approves a motion on a 6-1 vote to table the South section of the Strategic Plan until the Council meeting that is after 15 days after the release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Fairhaven Highlands/Chuckanut Ridge project. Stan Snapp voted against this motion. He resides near Lake Whatcom. Proceedings of afternoon and evening sessions are available at the City website.
--------------------------------------
The above said, there has been some dialogue on another local blog, NWCitizen, to which I and others have contributed this week.
Here is what I have posted there. You can see for yourself how this was interpreted and responded to:
John Watts // Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 8:45 pm
Former US Senator Moynihan once said that ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.’
Since the author of this piece admits to several years absence -ergo ignorance- in following the Greenways intrigues, let me suggest that he avail himself of a few facts that others are able to verify, including myself, as Council member and chair of the Parks & Recreation Committee in 2006 & 2007.
The Greenways 3 levy language that was agreed to unanimously by the Council contained no money solely designated to purchase any so-called Chuckanut Ridge property. If someone feels otherwise, let them demonstrate credible evidence to the contrary.
I do know that Council members Barbara Ryan and Terry Bornemann wished otherwise and either influenced or sought to influence members Joan Beardsley and Gene Knutson to ‘earmark’ very substantial GW3 funds -up to $10.5 million- for CR purchase, but none of this was ever approved by Council action.
Again, if someone feels otherwise, let them demonstrate credible evidence to the contrary.
The Greenways 3 measure that went to the ballot designated $6 million for ALL southside GW3 purchases, with CR being the largest of several possible.
An additional $2 million was made available for potential purchase of property anywhere, with ‘priority’ given to a credible proposal for acquiring additional right of way that might be required to provide for a trail connection through the CR property. Again, there was no guarantee, or ‘earmark’ in current vernacular.
The above is the plain language that was presented to the voters, which ought to be readily verifiable through the City Attorney’s office.
While there are those who are determined to question and or try to contravene the clear true intent of the Greenways 3 measure, that is already well defined.
But, the penchant for controversy and wishful thinking remains strong among the former so-called Legacy proponents, which explains this latest demonstration of discontent and amateurish political pressure.
Another person who has paid careful attention to the Greenways 3 issue and timely reported on it, is the editor of the Cascadia Weekly, whose Gristle column of January 13 not only got it right on this latest dust-up, but also got it right on three previous Gristle columns which can be easily accessed at the following URL:
http://www.cascadiaweekly.com/cw?/content/columns/category/gristle/
It is regrettable that the same people who threatened to ‘hijack’ the Greenways vote in 2007 are still up to mischief making using our valued Greenways program as their instrument of choice to fight a planned infill development.
Democracies are never perfect, but continuing to try to put more lipstick on the ‘100 acre woods’ piglet seems a loser’s game that carries more promise for undermining, rather than improving, the credibility of the CR acquisition advocates.
------------------------------
So, now I've managed to ruffle a few more feathers, including some of the same ones that have been ruffled before on this issue.
Let me say here that all my remarks pertain to the actions of the Council, its deliberations and decisions as duly recorded in the public record.
Those are the things that actually count in determining City policy.
It would be ludicrous to claim that I -or anyone- could know EVERYTHING that went on between other Councils members, citizens and advocates on all sides.
So, I do wonder why would anyone even use that argument to discredit my claim of being aware of what Council did or did not do. Desperation?
Of course, discussions, lobbying, arm-twisting, and all sorts of discourse happen to influence the decisions of elected officials!
The point is that elected officials are required by law to actually -and officially- make their decisions in public, not in secret.
Further, the concepts of due process, Washington's 'sunshine law', and the 'appearance of fairness' demand that openness be inherent in such decisions.
When a quorum of the Council is present, such meetings must be announced in advance as a public meeting.
When a quorum of Council members communicate with each other, whether in writing or not, those communications should be available to the public.
It makes no difference whether all four are in the same room together, or whether they participated in the same communication at the same time, or sequentially, the quorum rule applies.
That is why Freedom of Information Act Requests for public records can be effective in discovering, preventing or reconstructing illegal public meetings.
Of course, timeliness is of the essence, if illegal meetings, 'chain' meetings or other exchanges are to be disclosed before tainted decisions are made.
On this point, I certainly welcome the Washington Attorney General's request for mandatory Open Meetings Act education for all elected officials!
Maybe this should also be extended to members of the public?
So, the question remains, was a firm commitment made between 4 Council members to use $8 million in Greenways funds to acquire part of Chuckanut Ridge, or not?
It sounds like there was such a deal struck outside of official Council business, if for no other reason than because 2 of the 4 verbally admitted to it.
Now, I hear, a third member has also admitted to it.
But, the 4th member seems to continue their denial.
Of course, one of the two members involved is now deceased, so the maximum number of committed Council votes to such a scheme is now only three -one short of the majority needed to actually approve this spending.
Is it likely that another vote can be attracted to this tainted purpose?
I doubt it.
Louise certainly won't go there.
And the three new Council members are smart enough to smell trouble when they see it, even if they did favor acquiring CR.
Let's hope that 4th vote is lost forever!
But, on the plus side, the City will likely get a good chunk of CR -for nothing- as a result of wetlands determinations that will emerge as part of the Environmental Impact Statement [EIS].
If another minor segment of CR is necessary for trail ROW, that is also possible.
But, forget the City buying down this property for anything like $6 to $8 million!
It's not going to happen.
Take that to the bank.
But make sure it's solvent!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Football Blues
After sorta giving up on college football the other day I turned attention to the NFL playoffs this weekend expecting to see 4 good games.
I was disappointed, although one game was pretty close.
Now, I've decided that even watching pro football is mostly a waste of time.
I say 'mostly' because there are some terrific plays that are fascinating to watch.
But predicting when these may happen is problematic at best.
So, maybe the best way to catch those plays is to watch the highlights after the fact.
After all there is no special reward for seeing these moments in real time.
More depressing is the reality that teams I root for mostly seem to lose.
While I do often pull for underdogs the disparity I've noted doesn't necessarily track that predisposition either.
What I have all but concluded is that when I decide to root for a team, that act itself may determine an adverse outcome!
In other words, my support amounts to a kiss of death to whatever team I happen to favor.
I have no statistics to back up this claim, but maybe I should start collecting them.
If a strong correlation between game outcomes and my own choices can be found, that may be worth some bucks to gamblers.
But, of course that might also alter outcomes, particularly if it were discovered that my main goal was to make money on such predictions.
So, maybe its better that I just give up on choosing outcomes and go with the flow?
This weekend's playoff games had these match-ups, with the first team enjoying the home field advantage:
Carolina Panthers VS Arizona Cardinals [@Carolina -favored]
Tennessee Titans VS Baltimore Ravens [@Tennessee -Ravens slightly favored]
New York Giants VS Philadelphia Eagles [@NY -favored]
Pittsburgh Steelers VS San Diego Chargers [@Pittsburgh -favored]
In each game one team's colors featured BLUE, and each BLUE team lost.
Now, we're left with three kinds of non-BLUE Birds and the Black clad Steelers, who ought to win the Super Bowl on general principles!
Their game with the Purple clad Ravens will be a doozy, the 3rd tough meeting between those teams this year.
The Green clad Eagles ought to handle the Red clad Cardinals to provide fodder for all-Pennsylvania Championship.
But, the above predictions are just my opinion, so I've probably also jinxed the Steelers and the Eagles as well.
Don't be too surprised if the Cardinals meet -and beat- the Ravens in the Super Bowl; just kidding, or am I?
Seriously, it's too bad the Steelers and Ravens can't meet again in the Super Bowl, instead of the AFL Championship.
That would be one tough game, fitting for teams that both feature and fit the colors Black and Purple!
Ouch!
I was disappointed, although one game was pretty close.
Now, I've decided that even watching pro football is mostly a waste of time.
I say 'mostly' because there are some terrific plays that are fascinating to watch.
But predicting when these may happen is problematic at best.
So, maybe the best way to catch those plays is to watch the highlights after the fact.
After all there is no special reward for seeing these moments in real time.
More depressing is the reality that teams I root for mostly seem to lose.
While I do often pull for underdogs the disparity I've noted doesn't necessarily track that predisposition either.
What I have all but concluded is that when I decide to root for a team, that act itself may determine an adverse outcome!
In other words, my support amounts to a kiss of death to whatever team I happen to favor.
I have no statistics to back up this claim, but maybe I should start collecting them.
If a strong correlation between game outcomes and my own choices can be found, that may be worth some bucks to gamblers.
But, of course that might also alter outcomes, particularly if it were discovered that my main goal was to make money on such predictions.
So, maybe its better that I just give up on choosing outcomes and go with the flow?
This weekend's playoff games had these match-ups, with the first team enjoying the home field advantage:
Carolina Panthers VS Arizona Cardinals [@Carolina -favored]
Tennessee Titans VS Baltimore Ravens [@Tennessee -Ravens slightly favored]
New York Giants VS Philadelphia Eagles [@NY -favored]
Pittsburgh Steelers VS San Diego Chargers [@Pittsburgh -favored]
In each game one team's colors featured BLUE, and each BLUE team lost.
Now, we're left with three kinds of non-BLUE Birds and the Black clad Steelers, who ought to win the Super Bowl on general principles!
Their game with the Purple clad Ravens will be a doozy, the 3rd tough meeting between those teams this year.
The Green clad Eagles ought to handle the Red clad Cardinals to provide fodder for all-Pennsylvania Championship.
But, the above predictions are just my opinion, so I've probably also jinxed the Steelers and the Eagles as well.
Don't be too surprised if the Cardinals meet -and beat- the Ravens in the Super Bowl; just kidding, or am I?
Seriously, it's too bad the Steelers and Ravens can't meet again in the Super Bowl, instead of the AFL Championship.
That would be one tough game, fitting for teams that both feature and fit the colors Black and Purple!
Ouch!
Friday, January 9, 2009
Are You Ready For Some Football?
---------------------------------
The title makes up the opening lines in a ditty that has become a tradition in announcing Monday Night Football, usually sung by popular country/folk singers.
It has also been my personal mantra for more years then I like to remember.
But, no more!
After this last endless round of Bowl games, self adulation of athletes and public posturing and petty arguments about 'who's number one', I've finally had it with college football.
And, that is ironic in the extreme!
One would think that in retirement there is just more time for enjoying such armchair sports.
The reality is that I've reached my limit in calling this increasingly commercial pastime 'fun'.
I guess this was bound to happen some day, but who would have thought it would be so sudden?
Actually, the feeling had been developing for some time now that I think about it.
And now it has culminated in my decision to no longer be a couch potato for every game on TV.
That is not to say I won't continue to watch football now and again, but maybe more selectively and intermittently.
It used to be that a college football game was a thing you actually had to attend to witness, the alternate being hearing a radio account by colorful announcers.
Then TV began to allow a wider audience, although for a pretty limited selection of games.
The bigger colleges with traditionally good teams were the ones that got preference in those early days of TV.
Of course, that remains true today too, but now there is a much wider coverage of schools, some of which are either new or so obscure that no one really cares where they are located, who they are playing and what the outcome might be.
Is that an indication of excess and overkill or is it just me?
While there have been some odd mismatches that resulted in major upsets, which elevated the underdog's status and destroyed the favorite's reputation, these are rare.
The more normal result has been the big schools just honing their skills and fattening their statistics on the small fry, in preparation for taking on opponents nearer their own size and competitive ratings.
That's ugly to me, like watching a sadist pull the wings off of a fly or something. Ugh!
The proliferation of 'Bowl' games is something else that may have reached its high water mark, complete with the commercialization that attracts deep pocket sponsors, who pay teams to play in the hopes of reaping rewards in the form of new business from the advertising exposure.
The ads themselves are occasionally interesting, but mostly annoying because they grossly interrupt the game itself.
One Bowl game that I thought was particularly ill-advised was the GMAC Bowl, played in Mobile, AL on a miserable, rainy night, between two teams nobody could really care about -excepting the players, coaches and rabid alums.
Doesn't GM have better ways of spending their advertising dollars? No wonder they are in trouble!
Then, the idea of college teams becoming 'bowl eligible' if they win at least 6 games seems to do nothing but promote mediocrity.
For example, the Atlantic Coast Conference ACC, of which I am most familiar and fond, is now comprised of 12 schools, 10 of which were invited to Bowl games.
Although the ACC managed to win 4 of those 10 contests and collect millions to fill its athletic program coffers, little else seemed to have been accomplished of value.
Many teams now play as many as 12 or 13 games just during the regular season now, as opposed to about 10 only a few years ago.
And Bowl games just add to that total, and during the holiday season, too! What's with that?
Of course, all of this is also caught up in the ridiculous debate about who is 'Number One'.
There are so many ratings systems, polls and propaganda mills at work these days all trying to achieve 'No. 1' status for some team which will never even play other top teams!
Ridiculous, but even more so is the idea that we should have some sort of national play-off system to determine a champion!
What would that prove, except that we are so obsessed with the chase for 'No. 1' that we'll extend the college football season even further.
Then, there's the question of whether football should even be a college curricula, much less a dominant expense [and cash cow] for colleges and the conferences in which they participate.
Mixing athletes of all scholastic aptitudes together is a natural practice, but the temptation is strong to attract those likely to excel on the football field rather than in the classroom.
Look at the schools which have become 'football factories', and ask the question 'what is your graduation rate among athletes'.
You probably won't be surprised at the answer.
Another, better question would be what courses did you take and what did you learn?
Or, what do want to be when you grow up?
If the answer is an underwater basket weaver or physical fitness coach, that's a tip-off that a student athlete's real motivation for taking up a spot in a college was to get famous enough to be spotted by the National Football League, the NFL!
Bingo!
Consider that little secret now uncovered.
Of course there are always those enamored with the idea of becoming a BMOC -big man on campus- or just attractive to girls.
[Remember 'You gotta be a football hero'?]
Being in the NFL is a goal that most college athletes will never reach, but it is still a strong attraction.
The top recruits, often spotted while still in high school or below, are highly prized by college athletic programs.
I suspect that recruiting is a very expensive part of attaining and sustaining a football program of high national ranking.
Just look at what college football coaches are being paid; millions!
Who says the free market system isn't alive and well in America?
One just has to have a market that is very popular, like an opiate for the masses.
I do admire people who are able to parlay their skills and dedication to get ahead and achieve the top ranks in their professions, but are all professions equal?
Not even close!
When a college football coach earns more than a college President or internationally acclaimed Professor, that indicates to me that something is seriously amiss.
And when college athletes are routinely granted perks and advantages not available to other students, that doesn't seem right either.
Maybe its just me, but I don't think so.
As much as I've enjoyed what we Americans call football, I'm finally tired of its acquired excesses.
And, I'm tired of academic standards being perpetually sacrificed at the altar of crass commercialism and self-serving bragging rights of college football teams.
It is indicative of the point I'm making that the only two ACC schools -out of 12- that did not qualify for a Bowl game, were Duke University and the University of Virginia.
Those two schools both have good athletic programs, but are also traditionally the most diligent in maintaining academic standards; which often hinders their recruiting efforts for top athletes.
But, I'm good with that, because I believe the main purpose of higher education is learning those critical skills and things likely to help deal with the serious challenges in life.
When it comes down to deciding spending priorities in secondary education, academics trumps athletics, or ought to.
The above rant also explains why I also salute Western Washington University's recently announced decision to drop its football program instead of curtailing other classes and programs, and laying off teaching professionals.
Hey, I know it is a tough decision that will displease many, but it is the right decision -for the right reason.
There is nothing wrong with leaving big time football to those schools willing to act as meat markets for the NFL and rabid alumni.
Then, other schools can continue to pursue the objectives for which they will established without undue distraction and expense from football programs.
There can still be club football a la Ivy League, intramural leagues and get-up games with the oblate spheroid, just like the old days that many recall.
Back to basics, I say.
And, its about time.
The title makes up the opening lines in a ditty that has become a tradition in announcing Monday Night Football, usually sung by popular country/folk singers.
It has also been my personal mantra for more years then I like to remember.
But, no more!
After this last endless round of Bowl games, self adulation of athletes and public posturing and petty arguments about 'who's number one', I've finally had it with college football.
And, that is ironic in the extreme!
One would think that in retirement there is just more time for enjoying such armchair sports.
The reality is that I've reached my limit in calling this increasingly commercial pastime 'fun'.
I guess this was bound to happen some day, but who would have thought it would be so sudden?
Actually, the feeling had been developing for some time now that I think about it.
And now it has culminated in my decision to no longer be a couch potato for every game on TV.
That is not to say I won't continue to watch football now and again, but maybe more selectively and intermittently.
It used to be that a college football game was a thing you actually had to attend to witness, the alternate being hearing a radio account by colorful announcers.
Then TV began to allow a wider audience, although for a pretty limited selection of games.
The bigger colleges with traditionally good teams were the ones that got preference in those early days of TV.
Of course, that remains true today too, but now there is a much wider coverage of schools, some of which are either new or so obscure that no one really cares where they are located, who they are playing and what the outcome might be.
Is that an indication of excess and overkill or is it just me?
While there have been some odd mismatches that resulted in major upsets, which elevated the underdog's status and destroyed the favorite's reputation, these are rare.
The more normal result has been the big schools just honing their skills and fattening their statistics on the small fry, in preparation for taking on opponents nearer their own size and competitive ratings.
That's ugly to me, like watching a sadist pull the wings off of a fly or something. Ugh!
The proliferation of 'Bowl' games is something else that may have reached its high water mark, complete with the commercialization that attracts deep pocket sponsors, who pay teams to play in the hopes of reaping rewards in the form of new business from the advertising exposure.
The ads themselves are occasionally interesting, but mostly annoying because they grossly interrupt the game itself.
One Bowl game that I thought was particularly ill-advised was the GMAC Bowl, played in Mobile, AL on a miserable, rainy night, between two teams nobody could really care about -excepting the players, coaches and rabid alums.
Doesn't GM have better ways of spending their advertising dollars? No wonder they are in trouble!
Then, the idea of college teams becoming 'bowl eligible' if they win at least 6 games seems to do nothing but promote mediocrity.
For example, the Atlantic Coast Conference ACC, of which I am most familiar and fond, is now comprised of 12 schools, 10 of which were invited to Bowl games.
Although the ACC managed to win 4 of those 10 contests and collect millions to fill its athletic program coffers, little else seemed to have been accomplished of value.
Many teams now play as many as 12 or 13 games just during the regular season now, as opposed to about 10 only a few years ago.
And Bowl games just add to that total, and during the holiday season, too! What's with that?
Of course, all of this is also caught up in the ridiculous debate about who is 'Number One'.
There are so many ratings systems, polls and propaganda mills at work these days all trying to achieve 'No. 1' status for some team which will never even play other top teams!
Ridiculous, but even more so is the idea that we should have some sort of national play-off system to determine a champion!
What would that prove, except that we are so obsessed with the chase for 'No. 1' that we'll extend the college football season even further.
Then, there's the question of whether football should even be a college curricula, much less a dominant expense [and cash cow] for colleges and the conferences in which they participate.
Mixing athletes of all scholastic aptitudes together is a natural practice, but the temptation is strong to attract those likely to excel on the football field rather than in the classroom.
Look at the schools which have become 'football factories', and ask the question 'what is your graduation rate among athletes'.
You probably won't be surprised at the answer.
Another, better question would be what courses did you take and what did you learn?
Or, what do want to be when you grow up?
If the answer is an underwater basket weaver or physical fitness coach, that's a tip-off that a student athlete's real motivation for taking up a spot in a college was to get famous enough to be spotted by the National Football League, the NFL!
Bingo!
Consider that little secret now uncovered.
Of course there are always those enamored with the idea of becoming a BMOC -big man on campus- or just attractive to girls.
[Remember 'You gotta be a football hero'?]
Being in the NFL is a goal that most college athletes will never reach, but it is still a strong attraction.
The top recruits, often spotted while still in high school or below, are highly prized by college athletic programs.
I suspect that recruiting is a very expensive part of attaining and sustaining a football program of high national ranking.
Just look at what college football coaches are being paid; millions!
Who says the free market system isn't alive and well in America?
One just has to have a market that is very popular, like an opiate for the masses.
I do admire people who are able to parlay their skills and dedication to get ahead and achieve the top ranks in their professions, but are all professions equal?
Not even close!
When a college football coach earns more than a college President or internationally acclaimed Professor, that indicates to me that something is seriously amiss.
And when college athletes are routinely granted perks and advantages not available to other students, that doesn't seem right either.
Maybe its just me, but I don't think so.
As much as I've enjoyed what we Americans call football, I'm finally tired of its acquired excesses.
And, I'm tired of academic standards being perpetually sacrificed at the altar of crass commercialism and self-serving bragging rights of college football teams.
It is indicative of the point I'm making that the only two ACC schools -out of 12- that did not qualify for a Bowl game, were Duke University and the University of Virginia.
Those two schools both have good athletic programs, but are also traditionally the most diligent in maintaining academic standards; which often hinders their recruiting efforts for top athletes.
But, I'm good with that, because I believe the main purpose of higher education is learning those critical skills and things likely to help deal with the serious challenges in life.
When it comes down to deciding spending priorities in secondary education, academics trumps athletics, or ought to.
The above rant also explains why I also salute Western Washington University's recently announced decision to drop its football program instead of curtailing other classes and programs, and laying off teaching professionals.
Hey, I know it is a tough decision that will displease many, but it is the right decision -for the right reason.
There is nothing wrong with leaving big time football to those schools willing to act as meat markets for the NFL and rabid alumni.
Then, other schools can continue to pursue the objectives for which they will established without undue distraction and expense from football programs.
There can still be club football a la Ivy League, intramural leagues and get-up games with the oblate spheroid, just like the old days that many recall.
Back to basics, I say.
And, its about time.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Global Warming: Is This Really A 'Debate'?
The great preponderance of reputable scientists and scientific organizations have concluded -after decades of careful analysis- that the planet Earth is experiencing accelerated climactic warming, due at least substantially to human influence.
Yet, despite this very solid and sobering conclusion there are still some -including a distinct minority of reputable scientists- that say they disagree!
I certainly respect those scientists who need better proof to satisfy their legitimate doubts about the broad conclusions of the great majority of their peers, because such matters are open to a certain amount of uncertainty.
What is most troubling is that most of those in denial seem to be merely following a script that they wish to be true, whether it is based upon faith, wishful thinking, simple opinion, resistance to change or just contrarianism.
In our age of enlightenment and technological advancement, those attitudes seem very hard to justify; especially when these same people have readily accepted the wonders of our age as everyday parts of their lives!
How does one decide which technology or scientific conclusion to believe in and which to challenge as bogus?
And, this subject is certainly not the only one under similar debate.
Just look at the claims, counterclaims and revised opinions that are so frequently attached to so-called miracle drugs for example.
Or, things like space exploration, DNA research, artificial insemination & abortion issues, the healthiness of hybrid foods, and whether our Lake Whatcom Reservoir is prematurely degrading.
The point is, some things can never be completely proven to everyone's satisfaction.
But, to allow a small majority to hold sway in the face of sometimes overwhelming evidence doesn't make sense either.
When a very substantial consensus is reached on such matters, the prudent thing to do is to proceed cautiously accordingly.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say global warming isn't happening.
How would that affect what we ought to do?
Even if global warming can't be proved to everyone's satisfaction, wouldn't it be prudent and smart to not waste so much energy?
Wouldn't it benefit us to quit filling our atmosphere -the very air we breathe- with noxious pollutants?
Wouldn't a serious program of technology development create jobs, new products and more modern ways of living -just like the space program did?
Think about it.
Do we have to prove global warming in order to realize the good things that would accrue from a serious program of technology development toward improving our lives, the environment and reducing our dependence upon foreign oil and fossil fuels in general?
Of course there are also those who profess to believe petroleum supplies are endless, too!
So, here we go again on an unprovable question that is not likely to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
To that particular point, here are some counterpoints that beg our serious consideration:
• Is it smart for the US to continue to depend on oil from foreign sources?
• Is it likely that the cost of oil will remain stable and affordable to those who depend upon it?
• Is it likely that those countries, organizations and corporations which control the oil supply will support a policy that begins to wean our civilization from its oil addiction?
• Would ignoring the development of new energy sources and more efficient use of it be useful, particularly when demand for oil is rising dramatically from developing countries?
If anyone has doubts about the obvious answers to the above questions, does that negate the validity of these questions?
But, the bottom line is that there are some things that simple denial will not erase, and that specious arguments will not counter.
Primary among these things is the growing importance of sustainability in our lives and for our country.
Sustainability has always been important, but now it has become much more clear as to its urgency.
I hope we will begin to pursue policies that emphasize sustainability as a real priority.
The time has passed when we can simply defer this issue to future generations!
So, let's stop arguing about questions that can never be completely proven to everyone's satisfaction, and begin addressing the serious things we can do to make our lives healthier, less expensive and ultimately happier.
Surely, even the most cynical among us would agree to such a policy, or would they?
Yet, despite this very solid and sobering conclusion there are still some -including a distinct minority of reputable scientists- that say they disagree!
I certainly respect those scientists who need better proof to satisfy their legitimate doubts about the broad conclusions of the great majority of their peers, because such matters are open to a certain amount of uncertainty.
What is most troubling is that most of those in denial seem to be merely following a script that they wish to be true, whether it is based upon faith, wishful thinking, simple opinion, resistance to change or just contrarianism.
In our age of enlightenment and technological advancement, those attitudes seem very hard to justify; especially when these same people have readily accepted the wonders of our age as everyday parts of their lives!
How does one decide which technology or scientific conclusion to believe in and which to challenge as bogus?
And, this subject is certainly not the only one under similar debate.
Just look at the claims, counterclaims and revised opinions that are so frequently attached to so-called miracle drugs for example.
Or, things like space exploration, DNA research, artificial insemination & abortion issues, the healthiness of hybrid foods, and whether our Lake Whatcom Reservoir is prematurely degrading.
The point is, some things can never be completely proven to everyone's satisfaction.
But, to allow a small majority to hold sway in the face of sometimes overwhelming evidence doesn't make sense either.
When a very substantial consensus is reached on such matters, the prudent thing to do is to proceed cautiously accordingly.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say global warming isn't happening.
How would that affect what we ought to do?
Even if global warming can't be proved to everyone's satisfaction, wouldn't it be prudent and smart to not waste so much energy?
Wouldn't it benefit us to quit filling our atmosphere -the very air we breathe- with noxious pollutants?
Wouldn't a serious program of technology development create jobs, new products and more modern ways of living -just like the space program did?
Think about it.
Do we have to prove global warming in order to realize the good things that would accrue from a serious program of technology development toward improving our lives, the environment and reducing our dependence upon foreign oil and fossil fuels in general?
Of course there are also those who profess to believe petroleum supplies are endless, too!
So, here we go again on an unprovable question that is not likely to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
To that particular point, here are some counterpoints that beg our serious consideration:
• Is it smart for the US to continue to depend on oil from foreign sources?
• Is it likely that the cost of oil will remain stable and affordable to those who depend upon it?
• Is it likely that those countries, organizations and corporations which control the oil supply will support a policy that begins to wean our civilization from its oil addiction?
• Would ignoring the development of new energy sources and more efficient use of it be useful, particularly when demand for oil is rising dramatically from developing countries?
If anyone has doubts about the obvious answers to the above questions, does that negate the validity of these questions?
But, the bottom line is that there are some things that simple denial will not erase, and that specious arguments will not counter.
Primary among these things is the growing importance of sustainability in our lives and for our country.
Sustainability has always been important, but now it has become much more clear as to its urgency.
I hope we will begin to pursue policies that emphasize sustainability as a real priority.
The time has passed when we can simply defer this issue to future generations!
So, let's stop arguing about questions that can never be completely proven to everyone's satisfaction, and begin addressing the serious things we can do to make our lives healthier, less expensive and ultimately happier.
Surely, even the most cynical among us would agree to such a policy, or would they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
