Sunday, September 21, 2008

Crying Wolf


Remember the story of Pinnochio the puppet?
Every time he told a fib, his nose grew a little longer.
Until it got so long that people noticed.
Think that may have happened in this country?
It's a wonder that 30% of people in this country don't get it, isn't it?


Carrying the long nose theme a little further, here's an animal with nose so long that it's called a trunk.
Ironic that the noble elephant became a symbol of the political party that has made lying an art form!


'Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed' is the moral of the fable of the boy who cried 'wolf'..
----------------

A Cabinet of Cronies?
Iraq? $700 Million our kids will pay for!
How to pay for Iraq?
Patriot Act excesses?
Katrina & FEMA's failure?
Why haven't we found Bin Laden?
Big Oil?
No Energy Policy even with $100/Barrel Oil?
No Environmental Policy?
Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG?
Another $700 Million our kids will pay for!
Who pays for this lack of financial oversight? We do!
No Healthcare reform?
Fiscal Deficits at all-time highs?
US Dollar at an all-time low?
Housing crisis?
Escalating trade deficits?
Growing scarcity of living wage jobs ?
Unresolved immigration problems?
Recession already a certainty for most of us?
Low International esteem?
Politics above Principles?

Since when do real Americans settle for such ideological incompetence?
Since when have we become consumers instead of citizens?
Since when do we settle for propaganda, myths, and lies instead of truth?
Since when would we rather gamble on wishes instead of working to make good things happen?
Since when would we rather watch a football game than a serious political debate?
Or, tolerate a bunch of meaningless sound bytes than value carefully considered arguments?

This election should not be close!
That polls show it to be close should be a matter of concern for every citizen.
Why would any of the 70% who disprove of the current White House occupant, actually vote for another R?
Especially one with an anger management problem, who can't remember how many houses or cars he owns?
How can such a person even understand the problems of real people, much less act in the greater public interest?
But, the R's are 'crying wolf' again that they aren't responsible for the mess we're in.
Anyone give credence to those sorry howls?
Please, let us not fall for that antic again!

Immeasurable harm to our country has already been done.
It's time for some healing, mending and trying to make tomorrow a better time for all of us, not just the favored few.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Fall Hiking at Mt Baker: Chain Lakes Loop


Joan & I did this hike yesterday. What a treat!
Here's a few photos:


Looking back at Mt Shuksan


Mt Baker from Herman Saddle


Iceberg Lake and Table Mountain


Mt Shuksan from Ptarmigan Ridge


Ptarmigan Ridge Trail


Mt Shuksan from Artists Point


Bagley Lakes from Wild Goose Trail

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Maverick is His Name: Gambling is His Game

Sing along now (from that old James Garner show):

"Natchez to New Orleans,
living on jacks and queens,
Maverick is the legend of the West.''

And, remember, Maverick was his name, gambling was his game,
and: "Luck is the lady that he loves the best.''
-----------------

Have we become a nation of gamblers?
Sometimes, I wonder if the sheer gravity and complexity of the issues and problems we deal with haven't become too much for people to contemplate.
Maybe, worrying about all that stuff isn't what we want to do anymore?
Does just letting things happen, or voting with reckless abandon, make any difference?
If one believes in predestination, or that Divine Providence will always rescue us, then maybe paying attention really doesn't matter that much.
But, after all these years of practicing free will and trying to discern right from wrong, I have to strongly discredit that recklessness as a way to achieve anything but chaos, suffering and a return to barbarism!
That's why John McCain's judgement is looking pretty cynical to me right now.
He seems to have forgotten that knowledge, hard work and continuing the noble path to freedom envisioned by our founding fathers require more than laziness and wishful thinking!
Instead of a book entitled 'The Audacity of Hope', he seems to favor one titled 'The Hope of Audacity'.
One could call that 'maverick' thinking, but I call it stupidity of the worst kind!
I doubt it is something he learned at the Naval Academy, or from his father, the Admiral, or his Grandfather, the Admiral either.
One doesn't earn the rank of Admiral by acting stupidly!
Is it that he wants to equal or surpass his father so badly that he will do anything to achieve that?
After all, that's kinda like what our current sorry excuse for a President did, and in so doing probably prevented his much more competent brother Jeb from having a chance at that job.
I wonder if McCain had a brother named McAble?
-----------------------

Largely quoting from an Internet source, found by Googling this blog's title, the following is offered:

Apparently, history has not been kind to old Gus Maverick, who was probably the original maverick, who died in September of 1870.
Conservative author William Safire wrote a book called “The New Language of American Politics”.
In it, Old man Maverick, Texas cattleman of the 1840s, refused to brand his cattle, because it was cruelty to animals.
His neighbors said he was a hypocrite, liar and thief because Maverick’s policy allowed him to claim all unbranded cattle on the range.
Lawsuits were followed by bloody battles and brought a new word to our language.”

Had he been an ordinary citizen, other ranchers would have taken his unbranded cattle grazing on the open range and marked them with their own brands.
But because Maverick was so influential, and owned 385,000 acres, he claimed any unbranded calf as his own, and got away with it.
Soon the name “maverick” was derisively applied by cowboys to all unbranded cattle.

John McCain and Sarah Palin may claim to be modern-day mavericks with the hope it lands them in the White House, but the label fits the legend in other respects.
In their personal and public lives, they do what they want to do regardless of how it may impact others, just because they can get away with it.
That’s nothing different than what we’ve had in the White House for the past eight years.

------------

Maverick Is Who's Name?

Past Democratic Party leaders tell the story that John McCain negotiated for two months with them to abandon the Republican Party at around the same time that Jim Jeffords crossed the aisle.
Apparently, one of McCain's top aides came to them in 2001 to initiate these discussions, which were later strenuously denied.

At times, McCain has done his best to look like a Democrat, or at least espouse their views.
Recall too, the flirtation from John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004 about McCain serving as his running mate?

Instead, McCain scotched the rumors, ran himself, then when that failed, campaigned for George Bush and other Republican candidates in the 2004 election, despite being treated very poorly by Bush, especially in South Carolina.

Had any defection to the D's occurred it would have effectively ended any McCain presidential bid, which is the prize he covets, because he already had trust issues with Republicans, particularly the extreme right wing and the rabid evangelicals.

Even now, in his friendship with Joe Lieberman, McCain is trying to have it both ways - all the while knowing that he absolutely has to please his fellow R's

So, with his political history in mind, was his choice of a VP running mate really the move of a 'maverick'?
I think not.

McCain's new ad proclaims: "We're worse off than we were four years ago.''
How about 8 years ago?
That would also include the Iraq debacle that he has so consistently supported.
--------------

But McCain likes the "maverick'' label, since the Washington Post first called him that in the early 1990s, as he sponsored a reform-minded agenda in the Senate.
When McCain defeated Bush in his party's presidential primary in New Hampshire in 2000, he declared on his way South: "We have sent a powerful message to Washington that change is coming.''
Didn't happen, at least change that was necessary or justified.

Now with Democrat Barack Obama running on a promise of "change,'' and connecting McCain with Bush, as being "in the pocket'' of Big Oil, McCain is coming back with more promises that he'll "reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil'' and "make America prosper again.''
Fat chance.
The difference between being a Senator and President is like a Picador compared to a Matador.
They both face the bull, but one is on a horse, prodding it with a long spear, while the other stands before the bull with only a cape and sword.
Now, he's recruited a partner who sits on that horse side-saddle and does his prodding for him, verbally!
Can't beat that for a spectacle, can you?
But, would you buy a ticket to see it?

John McCain should know that "Washington's broken,'' because he's been a part of it, maverick label or not.
---------------------

I think the maverick McCain is gone, if he ever really existed.
He seems to have been either rustled and branded like other cattle, or stampeded into the wilderness where he probably belongs!
How can a man who supports Bush 90 percent of the time, from the economy to energy to the Iraq War, be a maverick?
Compounding that, he has picked a woman who aims to out-Bush Bush on that remaining ten percent.
Do real mavericks run nasty, dishonest campaigns like W ran against him in 2000?
What happened to the 'Straight Talk Express'?
Who will tell McCain that his maverick image is wearing no clothes?
Instead, he comes dressed as a political conformist who bows to the slightest whim of his handlers!
And, hides behind a petticoat!
---------------

It seems to me that 'Re-Branding'' was something that appealed to the Republican Party not long ago.
But, how does that square with 'mavericks'? Aren't they 'unbranded' cattle?

A few definitions rom Wikipedia:
Livestock branding, the marking of animals to indicate ownership

Human branding, as body modification or punishment

Brand, a name, logo, slogan, and/or design scheme associated with a product or service

Brand management, the application of marketing techniques to a specific product, product line, or brand

Nation branding, the application of marketing techniques for the advancement of a country

Personal branding, people and their careers marketed as brands

Co-Branding, associates a single product or service with more than one brand name

Branding agency, a type of marketing agency which specialises in creating brands

------------

The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines a brand as a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.

Therefore it makes sense to understand that branding is not about getting your target market to choose you over the competition, but it is about getting your prospects to see you as the only one that provides a solution to their problem.

The objectives that a good brand will achieve include:

Delivers the message clearly
Confirms your credibility
Connects your target prospects emotionally
Motivates the buyer
Concretes User Loyalty
To succeed in branding you must understand the needs and wants of your customers and prospects. You do this by integrating your brand strategies through your company at every point of public contact.

Your brand resides within the hearts and minds of customers, clients, and prospects. It is the sum total of their experiences and perceptions, some of which you can influence, and some that you cannot.

A strong brand is invaluable as the battle for customers intensifies day by day. It's important to spend time investing in researching, defining, and building your brand. After all your brand is the source of a promise to your consumer. It's a foundational piece in your marketing communication and one you do not want to be without.


Have the R's achieved these goals?
Does the image of a thin-skinned, lying, fat elephant with glasses and a hair-do adequately describe what the R's stand for these days?
These folks can sure dish it out, but they can't take it!
We can do so much better!
--------------------

"Liberals by nature look for information and conservatives look for ammunition"

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Lipstick: Asset or Distraction?

'You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig' is a quote credited to Dick Cheney, as I found out somewhat to my chagrin after using it during a City Council meeting last year.
At the time, I thought it fit perfectly the thought I was trying to convey; that just talking about a few 'feel-good' cosmetics to justify a position on an issue doesn't come close to seriously addressing its real import and potential ramifications.
Last I checked, real 'issues' are mostly gender neutral.
So, what's this made-up fuss about?
Issues were being discussed and debated long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin [some are calling her the 'Caribou Barbie' or a female George Bush], or John McCain for that matter.
The talk about 'lipstick' issues is nothing but a pure distraction from talking about things that are -or should be- of real concern to people.
You know, little things like like war & peace, prosperity or poverty, healthcare versus no healthcare, education or ignorance, lawfulness vs outlaw behavior, honesty & dishonesty, reality versus perceptions.
Just little things like that.

In earlier times, the use of lipstick-like coloring materials was what men used, and sometimes it came to be called warpaint or fearsome tattoos.
Ruling class folks of past centuries thought it was quite fashionable.
More recently, the cosmetics industry has burgeoned, largely due to demand from women who prefer less natural looks.
I suspect the combination of increased affluence and the long overdue freedoms of expression and choice that have accrued to women in most progressive countries have given rise to the widespread use of cosmetics, including lipstick.
But, actors, clowns, soldiers, burglars, rabid sports fans and vain men also are consumers and users of cosmetics of all kinds.
Others, including the poor, shy, allergic, natural-look preferring or religiously restricted, don't use them.
But, again, people do have the choice of using cosmetics or not.
[Isn't it ironic to be talking about something so simple as the right of choice when a woman's right to choose whether a childbirth might be harmful is again being challenged?]

Personally, I think some people do look better in a little lipstick than without it, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make.
Lipstick is an artificial substance which masks a more natural appearance, just as McCain's current rhetoric on the subject is an attempt to avoid addressing real issues.
It seems obvious to me that McCain is using his VP 'choice' for her lipstick appeal, as well as her pit bull aggressiveness.
Also, it doesn't hurt to have her petticoat to hide behind either!
-----------------

An interesting thought came to me today while visiting the Legion of Honor in San Francisco to view an exhibit on Women Impressionists. The work of four artists was displayed accompanied by fascinating written & audio descriptions; Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzales & Marie Bracquemond.

Although the term 'impressionist' has multiple and diverse meanings, it definitely does not equate to the so-called 'Conservative' School of thought which prevailed in France during the 19th Century.
The Conservative School sought to dictate what was to be considered art by rigid formulas, not by the inspiration of the individual artist.
So, the Impressionists as a group were at a severe disadvantage when their works were evaluated during that time.
At even more of a disadvantage were the women artists who painted what were considered 'Impressionist' works.
In those days, well-bred women of important families were not even allowed out in public without a chaperone!
[Does that remind you of anyone? Like maybe Sarah Palin, whom the R's won't let appear in any forum without tutors!]
Imagine how that restriction must have impacted their ability to learn techniques under recognized Masters, choose subjects for their works, or even physically visit places that were considered off-limits to them.

One of these four women artists was actually commissioned to paint a mural for display at a World's Fair during the early 20th Century.
Although this mural has been lost or destroyed, the recollection that it was not well-received remains.
At the very time I viewed that display, a women behind me exclaimed that the main figure 'looked more like a man'!
It seems that woman artist is still experiencing some kind of disadvantage.
-----------------

Women' suffrage and liberation has been a long time coming, but thank goodness it is here to the extent it is in this country!
Although vestiges of former ancient fears, customs, divisions of responsibility, prejudices and jealousies remain to be overcome, women's equality has made great strides forward.
As the the old Virginia Slims ad proclaimed, 'You've come a long way, baby'. But, there is so much more to be done before true equality between the sexes is achieved!
That is why it won't do to have women exploited so crassly as the Republicans are trying to do with Sarah Palin, who either willingly or unwittingly has allowed that behavior.
There are many people -women and men- who are much better qualified for VP -and potentially the President- of the US!
Hillary Clinton is certainly at the top of that list, but there are many other women -and men- on it.
You know, women do out-number men in this country, so if they got together they could really make a difference!
Who would most women that you know vote for?
I doubt it would be Sarah Palin.
But, as they say in politics, 'it's not the cream of the crop, it's the pick of the lot'.
I hope this election doesn't become about who can posture about phony 'lipstick' or 'petticoat' issues, but who is better qualified to lead this country forward in a respectful, enlightened and consistent manner.
It will be a big job to even dig us out of the tremendous debt that has been created by the current administration, much less repair our economy and our world standing.
That is a huge deficit and challenge that I don't believe John McCain is equipped to handle, either philosophically or otherwise.
If the 'lipstick card' is to be played, let it be for the good of our country and not some silly, temporary campaign advantage.
The way things are going, lipstick will be more of a distraction than an asset to those of us who hope for the very best from these elections!

So, what will it be?
The Conservative School with all its narrow, rigid restrictions and formulas?
Or, the Impressionists, who represent a fresh, more open -unchaperoned- approach to things that are really important?
Time will tell, but I'm voting for the latter.
Barack Obama is the President we need to have elected now.
Our future is at stake!
------------

Monday, September 8, 2008

She Whose Name Should Not Be Spoken Would Ban These Books

A friend of mine who is a retired Librarian sent me the following information.
Since it may be instructive to potential voters, I'm passing it on without comment, except for a few obvious questions;
How many of these books do you imagine she has actually read?
If she has read them all, why prevent others from the same opportunity?
If she hasn't read them all, who gave her the rest of the list?
How many have you read, or seen in a movie or play?
How about your kids?
Which would you ban?
Do you really think this person would be a good potential US President & Leader of the Free World - one heartbeat removed?
--------------------------

The following is the list of books that Sarah Palin tried to have removed from the Wasilla Library when she was mayor of Wasilla. This information is taken from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board. When the librarian refused Palin tried to get her fired, an attempt that failed due to the residents who rallied in defense of their library.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine
Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel
Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of
Pleasure) by J ohn Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophane s
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster
Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween
Symbols by Edna Barth

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Politics & Entropy: What's in a Name?

“ Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension. ”
--Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids (1873)
----------------------------------

The current elections spectacle has evolved into a mishmash of strange contradictions, misapplied rhetoric and pure BS, which may be all that certain elements of our political system could have reasonably expected.

Where did issues and honesty get replaced by ideology and spin?
Did that begin with the Supreme decision that campaigns don't necessarily have to be truthful?
Or, maybe with the 1987 decision against the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for networks using the public airways?
Or, when 'journalism' got redefined as undisguised advocacy?
Or, when powerful people got caught doing wrong, then got rich and famous about writing about it?
Or, when so-called 'patriotism' and 'morality' slogans began being the band-aid that covered up the painful blister?
Or, when serious, obvious problems are consistently ignored in favor of palliatives and placebos?

And, how did a a national election become a discussion about a relative unknown VP candidate, and not about the person who impetuously picked that person?
This whole thing seems to be a deception of monumental proportions that is only aided and abetted by the media -either the so-called 'mainstream' or the blatantly partisan!

Under the current flood of misinformation, how long can our democracy really expect to survive and thrive?
As a free country the US has only about 234 years of history, far less than the Roman Empire and several Chinese Dynasties, none of which was considered a democracy capable of providing stability, prosperity, peace, freedom and good prospects for the pursuit of happiness for every citizen.
All those things seem to be taken for granted these days, without the thought that any effort is needed to actually sustain them.
OK, so much for this mini-rant.
On to stuff that tries to address change, the need for it and the rate at which a society can readily absorb it.
----------------------------------

Over 40 years ago, I was required to write a college term paper on a topic germane to one or more of several books of required reading.
The topic that came to me one evening was so compelling that I spent most of that same night drafting the essay.
The title I selected was 'The Second Law of Secularization', which attempted to compare the rate of acceptable social change to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a rather arcane scientific and engineering concept that introduces the subject of ENTROPY.
I turned that paper in 6 weeks before it was due, a feat I never approached before or after.

Entropy is a concept that can't be directly be encountered. Instead, it is a way of understanding what happens when work, requiring the use of energy, is undertaken. All work, useful or otherwise, requires some energy to be expended. Efficient work work requires less energy use than inefficient work. That's about it, which should be adequate for the purposes of this blog.

Point is, we don't want to use too much energy at one time -like an explosion, or a chaos causing event. And, we want to be careful to use energy wisely by doing work that is essential or necessary as our first priority. Inefficient or wasteful use of energy too often carries penalties that are uncomfortable, either to us or our offspring. But work itself is useful, desirable and necessary. The trick is to find that balance which satisfies our current needs without sacrificing our future needs. Finding that balance takes a measure of wisdom, born of experience.

So, now visualize applying this concept to our society and its evolving needs. Do we want to ignore the fact that social needs exist and must be addressed? Or, do we want to recognize that new needs are being created that need addressing? Think about it. Nothing ever stays the same, does it?

Our method of bringing about the changes that are needed to address current problems and concerns is through our political system. That is what we have to work with, right, wrong or indifferent. Who gets to decide when changes are needed? Who gets to decide how much change is enough, or can be afforded? Who gets to decide who pays for changes our society adopts?
The answer to all these questions is the same; we do. How we do it depends upon whom we elect and what measures we support. That's what elections are about. That's also why it is important to find a way to talk about issues honestly, then take action decisively. There will always be debate about what is necessary, when it is necessary and who pays. But, there should be no debate about whether periodic changes are necessary, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Our leaders are the ones we select to lead us through any change process determined to be necessary.
We need to care of who we assign to these duties.
No one party has all the answers, and no one branch of government has supreme power over the others -although the Executive seems to be enjoying an increasing major advantage these days, which is a concern.
----------------------

There has been a growing divide between factions calling themselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
That is largely an artificial distinction which does a disservice to both our major political parties and to our language itself!

Look at these brief definitions of these terms:

Conservative:

-resistant to change
-having social or political views favoring conservatism
-cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
-button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
-a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
-bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
-a member of a Conservative Party

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". ...
-----------

Liberal:

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.
-----------

It seems to me that both definitions contain concepts we all support and value.
As with the concept of ENTROPY, the trick is to find the balance which allows some necessary change at a rate that can address a problem, be tolerated and afforded.

I'm tired of listening to people throw these words around as if they were mutually exclusive!
But, I do understand there are some who do see the world in such black and white terms that it prevents meaningful dialogue from finding ANY balance.
That's called stalemate, and it does no good for anyone, except those intent upon never reaching a compromise and thereby perpetuates impasses.

Clever slogans like 'Pro Life' & 'Pro Choice' seem to fall into this category, don't they?
Is there anyone who doesn't believe in both? Think about it.

Everyone wants some change! Some want it all in their direction, others don't want to pay for it, and some don't seem to recognize it is happening anyway and must be accommodated!

The one change I wish for is more honesty, period.
We may not like to always practice it, but it is a standard upon which we can build a truly lasting democracy!
That ought to be one thing we can all agree on and decide to leave our children, and their children....
----------------------

“ My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it ‘information’, but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it ‘uncertainty’. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, ‘You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage. ”
--Conversation between Claude Shannon and John von Neumann regarding what name to give to the “measure of uncertainty” or attenuation in phone-line signals (1949)

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Thoughts & Impressions: Sarah Palin as VP?

A friend sent me this link to an Alaskan Blog:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/
---------------------------------------

It's come to this.
Again, the R's are now treating this election as they might treat a video game, designed to appeal to indolent kids attracted to random violence!
That probably ought not be a surprise to those who have watched our latest fearless leader bumble his way through the last 7-plus years.

Someone characterized this VP pick as a 'hail mary' pass, and that might be pretty close to the truth. But, it will attract attention away from the more serious discussion of issues that many people have trouble getting their heads around. We know how emotion regularly seems to trump rational argument. I think it's too bad when elections get dumbed down like that, to where they don't really mean anything except who wins. But, maybe that's just me.

Ms Palin deserves our respect, which may be more than her own party is affording her. She is to be the sacrificial lamb, recruited to enliven the moribund McCain campaign, attract donors & attention, and light the fuses of those dividing debates that have been the mainstay of R campaigns for decades. One other thing this gamble is likely to cause is multiple opportunities for D mistakes, gaffes and distractions. Watch out!

That McCain has bought into this scheme brings his desperation into plain sight and his judgement into question. At some level he must know he is likely to lose this election without such a gamble, and only the twisted mind of Karl Rove could have conceived such a plan and convinced McCain to swallow it. And, McCain had only met her once before he made his selection! Remind you of anyone? Like maybe when Bush 2 met Putin, looked into his eyes and understood his soul? Give me a break!
How would you feel if you were Pawlenty or Romney, both respected VP candidates with much greater real credentials who were passed over?

But strange things do happen in elections, and this one won't be over until its over - as Yogi Berra may have said. The D's must not be complacent, nor must they be overly drawn into phony fights that only run out the clock on debating the great issues that face this country. Like a desperate animal, the R's will hold onto their power by any and all means possible, meaning things are likely to get much uglier and less certain from here on.

I have to wonder if there aren't some subtle, secondary motives at work in this scheme, especially if the D's do win the election as expected. Both McCain & Palin are considered 'mavericks' within their own party, notwithstanding they do consistently follow a conservative path. That has to have produced powerful enemies who are more than willing to exact cruel political revenge on these two should they fail in their difficult mission of being elected.

Even with a voting record that is 95% in agreement with Bush2, McCain isn't well liked by some strong, far-right factions. Likewise, Palin, in her relatively short and provincial political life, has angered the entrenched powers that be -or were- in Alaska.

On the issue of opening ANWR to drilling, the two candidates appear to have differed, with Palin a strong supporter and McCain luke-warmly against.
Is Palin supposed to help convince McCain to support ANWR?
Is Palin seen as more of a pain to powerful R's in Alaska than a help?
If that were true, becoming a VP candidate, likely to lose, could turn into a skillful way of removing her from being Governor of Alaska.
Or, is she seen as a future candidate or effective spokesperson on the national stage?
With Ted Stevens, among others, under investigation and likely to be replaced soon, is Palin a possible heir apparent, who also happens to need some schooling in the art of procuring 'pork'? After all, that is something she has strongly opposed in Alaska.
It's too bad that someone with the energy and ethics of Palin has allowed herself to be used in this way, especially since she has expressed little interest in such a job as VP, which she calls undefined and unproductive. But, contestants in beauty pageants are often known to be a little vain, open to flattery and enamored of exposure to an admiring public.

Time will tell how this unscripted melee will actually play out, but D's ought to keep calm and play it hard and straight. If that's not good enough, then there are things more wrong with this country than its elections and orchestrated campaign marketeering.
One always has the choice of carelessly tripping over such monkey wrenches or carefully using them for their intended purpose - including the repair of leaky plumbing. I hope its the latter.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Lake Whatcom: Possible City Club Questions


Someone called me recently to inquire as what questions might be appropriate to ask each of the three panelists, who have been invited to the next City Club meeting, Wednesday, August 27 at Northwood Hall.

That started me thinking, and here's what I've come up with so far:

For Steve Hood, the Washington State Department of Ecology's co-author of the recently issued DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Load [TMDL] Study:

1. This sounds like our Reservoir has a serious problem that has gotten worse over the 9-plus years it has taken to write this report. Has it? If so, please share your opinion about what must be done immediately by the jurisdictions with responsibility for preserving this valuable public resource.

2. Are there measurements that can be periodically made which will give us a good indication of the pollutant loads -including Phosphorus- that are coming into the Reservoir from tributaries and other stormwater out-falls, including shoreline parcels? What are the main measurements -including suggested limits- that are needed, and what must be done to facilitate this data gathering? Will additional funding likely be required?

3. What effective steps can citizens and watershed residents take themselves -without waiting for government action- to minimize pollutant generation and run-off into the Reservoir? How can we get these citizens engaged?

For Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive and key member of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed Management Program:

1. About three years ago, at a Joint City/County/Water District review meeting, you made the statement that Whatcom County would take the lead in reducing the Phosphorus load going into the Reservoir. What has been done to accomplish that goal? Is there any data to support that this is an active and effective program?

2. According to your recent statements, Whatcom County is experiencing a shortfall in its revenues that may necessitate staff reductions and program curtailments. On top of this, the County Council is considering increasing the 'level of service' related to a number of water programs that are currently insufficiently funded. What will you do to insure the level of staffing -including the proposed Joint Watershed Manager position- and funding for the Reservoir is available, adequate and stable so that Phosphorus reduction becomes more than an empty promise?

3. You have been a vocal advocate for the reconveyance of about 8400 acres of Department of Natural Resources [DNR] forest lands in the Reservoir Watershed to Whatcom County for the purpose of becoming a Regional Park. How much funding will be lost and how will these lost revenues be replaced, given the financial plight the County finds itself facing? What assurances can you provide that any such reconveyance will actually benefit Reservoir protection efforts, given how popular Parks can be? What proportion of any reconveyed forest lands will protected -in perpetuity- by conservation easements or equivalent methods to insure only passive use?

For Dan Pike, Mayor of Bellingham and key member of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed Management Program:

1. In anticipation of the TMDL Report, the City of Bellingham imposed a 'moratorium' on all non-vested building in the City's portion of this watershed. What proven and effective actions are expected to be proposed and put in place prior to this moratorium being lifted?

2. The City has undertaken discussions with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District with the objective of consolidating operations in the watershed to minimize the likelihood of future spills, realize potential savings to customers and provide better availability of resources. Where does this initiative stand now? Have any insoluble problems been identified? When do you expect a resolution?

3. The City has acquired to date, over 1200 acres of watershed property to help preserve water quality and help protect against unmitigated development. Future acquisitions are also planned. How does the City plan to manage these lands in the future? Has a response to the Watershed Acquisition Board questions on this issue been prepared? Is there a possibility that a joint City/County plan might be employed on some of this property?

To all three PANELISTS: How can we best get a serious Phosphorus Reduction Program up and running without further delay, equivocating and finger pointing?
-----------------

I'm sure there are many other questions that can be asked, but we probably ought to leave some time for the answers, don't you think?

Waterfront Redevelopment: A Rant About Election Games





"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - – Grace Murray Hopper




Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, the American computer pioneer, was the first woman to become a Distinguished Fellow of the British Computer Society. She was born in 1906 in New York.
By age seven, she was taking alarm clocks apart to see how they worked.
She worked for the U.S. Navy developing the first compiler, which allowed people to write computer programs in real language rather than machine code.
When she found a moth inside a computer, she coined the term "debugging." She died in 1992.

---------------

This piece is a little dated, since it was first drafted back in September of '07, during the heat of elections.
Had I published it back then, I might have called it something like 'Waterfront Redevelopment: Mother Goose & the Doctors of Spin Revisited -PART 2'

This one is also a little long, because it was already mostly written, and it does take me much longer to distill and write a short piece that people can read with only one cup of coffee!
But, maybe some folks will find much of it is still relevant.
---------------

From my Navy days, I learned first hand about the terms "skinny" and "scuttlebutt".

Skinny had the connotation of correct information, or poop, as in 'straight skinny'.

Scuttlebutt was a phrase used to describe gossip around the water cooler, and every ship had at least one 'biomass' artist whose mission in life it was to create rumors and misinformation.

Many things change over time, but the meanings of 'skinny' & 'scuttlebutt' seem to remain the same.
-----------

With this in mind, it's interesting to focus on some of the criticisms –legitimate, misguided or malignant- now circulating about the ambitious plan to first cleanup, and then redevelop our blighted Waterfront; and by what process and financial underpinnings that long-term project should follow.

No one seems to doubt the potential benefits of converting this particular ‘sow’s ear into a silk purse’, but questions of who subsidizes whose ‘pork’ with how many chests of public treasure, need answering before anything more than virtual sorties to hypothetical destinations are attempted.

Carrying the nautical theme a little further, this ship needs to sail with the tide, and not against it, as is customary outside dire emergencies.

And it needs to sail under a qualified Master, preferably a senior Captain, handpicked by the Admiral - us!

The right number crew needs to be seasoned, loyal, healthy and durable, and with the right mix of Junior officers, Petty officers and Rankings.

Of course adequate provisions for a long voyage need to be secured and safely stored.
The right equipment for propelling, steering and navigating are musts for any successful voyage.

But once the ship sails, the Captain is in charge, and mutiny is severely frowned upon!
At times, changes in command are needed, and new crewmembers recruited, because a good ship’s mission outlasts any one compliment of sailors.

Complicating all of this is the fact that the ship is still in the shipyard being designed, tested and its technical challenges and costs estimated.
Only after that can the vessel be built to careful specifications and launched for sea trials.

Hopefully the finished craft will, upon being commissioned, be fully seaworthy, operate as expected, fulfill its purpose and last a long time.

No Titanics!
I’d much prefer names like Enterprise or Constitution over something like Pequod, Turtle or U-anything, but that comes later.

-------------------------
Back to Landlubber talk for a bit.
This project is something Bellingham really needs to make happen.
It is literally the chance in a lifetime that we have within our grasp right now so let’s try our hardest to make he most of it!

Other coastal cities would give their eye-teeth for a chance like this one, because it carries the promise of redefining Bellingham’s potential for long into our future.
I’d go so far as to say that it would be patently irresponsible for us as a community to let this opportunity elude becoming reality.

Of course it's expensive, controversial and uncertain and therefore divisive to those with different agendas, fears or wishes.
If those concerns weren’t being expressed, that would be remarkable!
In fact, the project may not be worth considering at all if it failed to raise concerns.
But it is, and it does.

That’s what folks thought about the Space Program, too before Sputnik woke us up.

So, getting these concerns out there early, is actually good.

But, how concerns are expressed may not be so good and that has become more of a problem than it needs to be.
Already there is enough misinformation about to sink a lesser, un-seaworthy vessel.
But there are also serious concerns that both the City and Port are trying hard to address as soon as is realistically possible.

Let’s put it this way, until and unless we have good information as to what cleanup and redevelopment scenario will satisfy our ecological, social and economic needs adequately, no decision to go forward will be made.

Restating that another way: if we can’t be reasonably sure the project –whatever its configuration and timetable- is financially affordable, it will not be approved, and some other course of action will need to be pursued without the very substantial City participation that is currently envisaged.

That’s called adaptive management, or more simply, common sense!
It would be folly to do otherwise, and how senseless and insulting it is to be baselessly accused of such a thing!
But that is being done, isn’t it?
I think such behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible, but that’s just my opinion.

Now, who would get to decide if and when we arrive at that point?
We do.

For the City to commit any funds other than those already appropriated for planning, the City administration would need to make a public recommendation for these additional funds, and the City Council would have to approve them, but only after due process.
That is the way representative democracy works; your elected officials get to decide such things as part of their official duties.
If you trust them to do the right thing, let them do it.
If you don’t, speak up –or replace them!

That’s what elections are for!

Bingo!
Maybe that’s why all this rhetoric and fear mongering is happening!
Elections!

Why do elections get exempted from truth telling and civility?
Maybe, because people have the right to act as they please, up to some limit allowed by our Constitutional freedoms?

Hey, this is Amurica, we can screw things up anyway we want to – and get away with it too.
It’s the law of the jungle and the way the cookie crumbles.
If you don’t like dat, do somepin’ about it suckah!

Some version of that street talk seems to be operating here in the -former- City Of Subdued Excitement, doesn’t it?
Yeah, old COSE is a’changing, but growth isn’t the only thing messing it up!
--------------------

Perhaps adding yet another minnow of perspective to the swirling fishbowl of created -and very creative- public perceptions is in order.
While this particular minnow is not expected to survive for long amongst the various piranha, sharks, jellyfish, barracuda, blowfish and slippery eels that flourish in such environs, perhaps its DNA message can eventually bio-accumulate in the genes of these respective species.


But do we have that kind of time?
And would the genetics actually change in the direction hoped for?
Methinks chances are slim to none on both counts, human nature being what it is.

But some sort of evolutionary process is needed to allow a more balanced assessment of the merits of both the Waterfront Redevelopment [WR] actions taken to date -and those that are planned.
After all, the main purpose of WR is to stimulate and stabilize economic redevelopment on the very front door of our downtown - an area already recognized as a priority for revitalization and infill.

Economic redevelopment leads to jobs and prosperity, folks, and very close to our existing downtown, too.
That is what will eventually pay for the costs of the infrastructure needed to access and serve the Waterfront.
That, and the considerable funding expected from Federal & State sources, which actually seem happier than some folks here about the prospect of this project happening!
These governments see both the potential and our need to make WR succeed.
And, they also see the very positive local effort being made, which really acts to stimulate their support, which likely will come in the form of matching grants.

You see, even with government-sponsored projects like WR, it does take [investment] money to make [local prosperity] money.
Governments won’t just give money away just for the asking; it has to be for a good purpose and compete with other good proposals, so that some judgment of best value is obtained.
Yes, Virginia there can be a Santa, but he needs to know you’ve been a good girl and deserve his gifts!

-------------------
Not to be minimized in importance, are the clean-up efforts on what could otherwise remain a contaminated industrial site for a very long time.
Because without effective action by our local governments, neither the clean-up envisioned by the Whatcom Waterway and Bellingham Bay Demonstration Project, nor the remediation of the former G-P and other industrial sites and landfills to a higher standard cannot effectively proceed.
That first mentioned cleanup program has already been in planning for over 10 years -with all stakeholders involved- and is considered -nationally- to be the prototype model preferred over the endless litigation that is normally the case in such situations.

That kind of old, ineffective and stalemated non-action, causes the productive use of contaminated land & water bodies to be effectively limited –even sterilized- for many years to the detriment of anything positive.
That scenario helps no one, especially those citizens who have expressed so clearly their vision for what our Waterfront could become if we really tried to make it happen.

'A rising tide floats all boats' is an expression most often heard in connection with general economic conditions, but, it is equally applicable to the environment and to the well being and quality of life for people. By people, I mean real people, like you and me, and all the kids who would delight in enjoying our Waterfront, but can’t safely do that until we’ve done the hard work of cleaning it up properly.

I’m sorry, folks, but there is nothing productive or positive about insisting on something so hard to accomplish, that it prolongs and prevents other good outcomes from happening!

Setting up artificial, binary choices between this versus that, is a loser in this game!
I, for one, am not about to sit idly by and watch, while some people badmouth the entire scheme to oblivion, just because they can! Tearing down is always easier than building something, but why tear down something that hasn't been built?

Why not redirect all that negativity and back-biting energy into something we were all brought up to believe in!
There is always room for debate, compromise and hearing alternate ideas, but please let’s be civil about it, and try to be honest!
Let's act with a care for goodness sake, if no other reason.
And, goodness ought to be enough reason, because it’s the best reason.
If folks aren’t into goodness, for its own sake, we are in such a world of hurt that all the redevelopment in the world won’t help us!

This issue is real, positive action is critical and time is getting short, so it is time for us to come together in the same boat and pull on the oars in the same direction, strength and timing.

Winning crews do that, and Bellingham has all the ingredients to be a winning crew except one, the commitment to do it!
If we don’t train hard, those racing shells are pretty tippy, and I don’t know anyone who wants to be known as the crewmember who was responsible for losing the race on the WR ship we’re trying to build and launch for the betterment of our entire community.

Any mutineers out there should be thankful they weren’t sailor’s in the Queen’s Navy, where their punishment might range from 40 lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails, a proper keel-hauling or walking the plank into shark infested waters!
Just kidding, but barely.

--------------------------
As with many situations, the roots of the current WR controversy spring from seeds sown carelessly in the past, and these sometimes grow more like weeds, than the gardens that people actually enjoy.

Given the challenging circumstances our local governments face, one would think the prospect of such a beneficial enhancement to Waterfront would be an event to celebrate!

So, I am surprised at the cacophony of certain interests, who upon discovering yet another big complex issue with lots of moving parts, see it as cheap entertainment.
Is this behavior what engaging in the right of 'public process' is really about?

An alliance of the following seem to be actively trying to scuttle the WR ship before it is even built!

• Habitual nay-sayers who are again taking full advantage of an election year to frenetically spread their anti-government, anti-spending misinformation.

• Hard-core ‘special interest’ groups which have surfaced with competing ideas.

• Those who simply enjoy the controversy that others create, then respond randomly with instant, armchair quarterback solutions.

• Those who are cynically watching and waiting for the WR to sink or actually be completed and gain without making an investment.

• Worst are those political aspirants who believe tearing down something actually elevates them!
These people would make the situation immeasurably worse if they got elected.
Because, theirs would be the legacy that all the spin they could muster would not be good enough to mask the egregious harm they have eternally foisted on the City of Bellingham!

But, it is fair enough, that all these voices should heard, as well as the more positive and engaged others.
And, from that from the resulting discourse will come some truly excellent and enduring concepts that can be used to improve whatever WR project proceeds.

It is such a pity that so much of what the public hears about is based upon data-free analysis, speculation, disguised ideology and conspiracy theories - in other words, scuttlebutt!

In today's world, that seems to be expected.
To be hoped for are commentators who are willing report the straight skinny, not scuttlebutt, and to keep an open mind until the real facts can be triangulated and the overall situation and its costs can be put into truer perspective.
In the meantime, the work on the WR must proceed.

The WR project is important enough to require continued work on defining its various options, trade-offs and costs before making additional commitments of time, resources and funding. Undertaking a satisfactory resolution of these matters is our job to perform without further undue delay.

It is clearly the City Council’s duty and responsibility to obtain sufficient information developed to determine the next progressive steps toward advancing this project further by the most reasonable timetable that can be achieved.

The City Council has determined that the approach the WR is following now is a sensible one, arrived at only after obtaining expert advice and significant public input on various options.

Both Port and Council have listened to many ideas and different views on how to proceed from diverse interests before selecting the course of action now being pursued.

While it is clearly impossible to please everyone, the City does care about the public's ultimate satisfaction in what these revitalization efforts will produce.

Over time, the wisdom of the decisions made regarding the WR project will manifest, and citizens will enjoy the tangible benefits of a mutually beneficial public/private partnership, which will in turn stimulate additional investment and enjoyment of our downtown and Waterfront areas.

Sometimes, it's hard to see the forest for the trees in such situations.
But, in the end, actions that result from broader views are usually the ones that build communities that thrive.

It is to be hoped the WR Project and the experience gained in making it happen will become a model for future successes in downtown Bellingham and the entire community, and will fully justify our substantial investment in time, energy and resources.

Time will tell, but will citizens remember the Skinny or the Scuttlebutt?

Ever think April 1 should be election day?
--------------------------

Sun Tzu -The art of war: aim is invincibility, victory without battle; unassailable strength through understanding the physics, politics and psychology of conflict.

Monday, August 18, 2008

On Decision Making: Remembering a Colleague

Back in August of 2006, the so-called '10th Street Parking Issue' had become so disproportionately elevated in importance, that it that defied logic or good sense.
I thought is was a Lilliputian pretending to be Gulliver, but maybe that was just me.

But such things have been known to happen, and during that time frame it is likely that this particular 'issue' was influenced by other, more substantial debates on the subjects of the City's Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, the Greenways 3 debate, and the protracted discussion of the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Supply Methodology.
Of course, the '07 local elections were already being discussed, too!

Ah yes, those were interesting times!
I'm glad these issues are mostly behind us now, but are they ever really 'over'?
That is doubtful, especially the lasting memories and impressions.
My September 24, 2007 Blog captured most of those temporary impressions, but I like a particular lasting memory much better.

The memory that I especially treasure was knowing and working with former Council member Joan Beardsley, who was tragically taken from us in early 2007, after only a little over a year in office.
What a champion she was!
I think the 'St Joan' label that a local weekly paper bestowed on her, posthumously, was pretty accurate.
Joan herself, did admit one or two missteps, one being a statement she made at a Greenways Advisory Committee meeting which she came to regret deeply.
But, true to form, she promptly and bravely corrected that by making a public statement at the August 8 Council meeting.

I was so proud of her that I e-mailed her my thanks later that night.
Here's a short excerpt, plus a few words on the 10th Street 'issue':
Thank you for your courage in making your statement this afternoon and again tonight. I know it was not an easy thing to do to admit a mistake and try to correct it. But, you did exactly the right thing and I support you fully.

Regarding tonight's discussion on 10th Street, you again showed the sort of reasoned thinking and backbone that I most admire. I believe this one little episode served as a real learning experience on how genuine concerns can be elevated and expanded to outlandish, entrenched positions, and the power of pressure exerted in just the right ways to influence what should have been a rather routine decision. It would be an overstatement to call this a clear case of micro-management, because some legitimate issues were thoroughly discussed and a number of good ideas presented that would have otherwise gone unheard.

Before that night had passed, I received her reply, in part quoted below:
John, I have printed this message to save in my "when I need to check my path" folder. You are most kind to have helped me and to give me this encouragement.
I also appreciated how Joan helped me by not minimizing the implications of what I had said. She was a good friend in the real sense and you have been also.

I want you to know that I also printed out that list of "principles" you sent me that you use in making good judgments. I used them as I analyzed what I thought best for my decision last night on 10th St.

I hope you feel proud to be able to share some of the wisdom you have gained in this job. No matter what the issue or how we both end up voting, I know you are doing the thing you think best for the best reason. Now that I am doing this work with you, I can see that one can't really anticipate the demands that it entails. It is true public service. I have always wanted to do that since I read a biography of John Adams in which he and Louisa spoke of their conviction that our country's future would require each person who could to do a term of public service. They didn't make a lot of it - it was a natural thing to give if you had the where-with-all to give it. Since I was not military oriented and didn't have to serve that way, I have always felt I wanted to respond in John Adams fashion if I had the chance. It is not a political aspiration; it is a desire that flows from my gratitude for the life my country and community has helped provide me.
I suspect we are on the same wavelength on this sense of commitment. It prevents this experience from being an exercise in ego because it requires disciplining ego to truly find the path to doing right service. But thinking clearly and wisely is hard, despite commitment to it; otherwise, our country wouldn't be in the mess it is! I am so grateful to have you for a colleague as we both try to do this work for the city we love.
-------------
Here is the excerpt, to Council Member Beardsley refers, above:
I do appreciate your struggles in attempting to come to a right decision, because that demonstrates you are trying to examine all aspects of this discussion, which has now become an issue. How refreshing! That is also what elected officials are supposed to do and no one can ask for more.

There is no set protocol or rule book with rigid criteria to guide us, and if there were it would be impossible to enforce.

Some of the general principles I have decided to follow -regardless of issue- are these:
• whether decisions are legal
• whether they are fair and consistent with policy and past precedents
• whether they reasonably comport with the process that developed them
• whether the decision is really my [Council's] responsibility
• whether arguments to overturn or change are factual or political
• whether new precedents will be set that will be difficult to sustain
• whether our professional staff supports specific options, and why
• whether the greatest possible community wide benefit is assured
• whether I have done sufficient homework to understand the rationale and reasonable options
• whether my decision honors the recommendations of the volunteer boards and commissions responsible for reviews and recommendations
• whether any adverse unintended consequences may result
• whether decisions are made in sunshine, with reasonable public involvement
• whether public funds are wisely used and benefits outweigh the costs
• whether conflict of interest or appearance of fairness violations may result, or perceptions of same

Note that none of these allow me much room for subjective whim or opinion, autocratic authority, or populism. None of these are things are sustainable, because voters and taxpayers rightfully expect consistently better justifications.
--------------
Joan Beardsley is no longer physically with us, but her spirit lives!
May our memory of that wonderful spirit help guide us in consistently making right decisions, no matter how 'important' they may be!

Thursday, August 14, 2008

More on Land Use Efficiency: Chuckanut Ridge, Birch Street & Otherwise


From COSMOS website: "Piranhas have a fierce reputation - but it's a myth, say researchers who claim that the species shoals to evade predators not to engage in feeding frenzies.
"Previously it was thought piranhas shoaled as it enabled them to form a cooperative hunting group," said biologist Anne Magurran. "However we have found that it is primarily a defensive behaviour, and quite a complex one."

-------------------------------------

What is it about land use issues that evokes such strong feelings?
That a frisky group of cyber-piranhas should fuss over and decry my last Blog on another Blogsite, ought to be an honor!
And, based on the Orinoco Caribe-style frenzy exhibited, can there be any further doubt about what single issue has animated at least 2 of 'you guys' regarding the City's land supply deliberation?
It really DID start with Chuckanut Ridge for 'you guys', didn't it?
So, maybe a direct cyber-hit has been scored on your hidden CR 'battleship'!

But, I digress from more useful arguments.
--------------------------

A few points are listed below to further clarify the basis upon which I based my earlier Blog remarks on the same subject:

1. The city's Land Supply methodology that is being so vociferously decried, was certainly OK with the State agency in charge of Growth Management Act [GMA] oversight, the Department of Community Trade & Economic Development [CTED]! If folks still disagree, why not take it up with them?

2. Comparing the approximately 40 BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL ACRES at CR with ANY number of acres to be considered in new UGA, is like apples to oranges! Can you guess why? OK, here's a hint. UGA land is grossed-up acreage, from which must come multiple deductions -for other uses & purposes- before zoning can be applied to any specific parcel. The number comparison I presented is directionally correct, but likely quantitatively inaccurate, given the very nature of estimates. More like approximately correct than precisely wrong, as was stated before.

3. The existing CR zoning applies to all 100 original acres, not just the estimated 40 that seem likely to be determined as suitable to actually build upon. Just consider the first 15 acres were taken out of service early. Since the property has been already deed restricted to 50% of its former -exceptionally high- density of 14.78, this former acreage makes no material difference to this discussion. Anyway, the new effective underlying maximum density is now about 7.39 homes per acre, or almost twice the minimum average that is considered 'urban'.

4. There is a concept called 'cluster zoning' that is widely considered to be a valuable tool in helping protect sensitive areas, while also allowing a much smaller than conventional development footprint. Not everyone understands cluster zoning, and some who do, still don't like it. But, it is a tool that can be very effective. [More about this below]

5. The City has been criticized -even by 'you guys', of all people- for its inability to use the land it has -within the City Limits- more efficiently. In other words, this means to insure that maximum assigned density is achieved, or at least something much closer to it than recent history has shown. I have consistently agreed with this concern, sometimes at the risk of being called 'pro development'. But, you know, one can't always have it both ways. It's hard enough to 'walk your talk' on these matters, but when you argue on both sides of the issue, what happens then?

But, there are many reasons for this failure to achieve 'maximum density', and many excuses too.
Consider these, for example:
No minimum density requirement, owner's preference, neighbors objections [including extreme NIMBYism], costliness, regulatory restrictions, height limits, challenging topography, mandatory buffers & setbacks, open space requirements, surprises -like environmental hazards, updated wetland determinations or new stormwater requirements, market factors, speculation, rezoning to a different use, vegetation considerations, desirability of location, redevelopment uncertainties, etc, just to name a few.

So, while the concept of always maximizing zoned density is a good one, the probability of that happening every time is slim to none.
Kinda like the concept of Entropy in thermodynamics, which always -by its definition- must increase every time work is done, whether it is efficient and useful work, or otherwise.

6. Notice the above paragraph was applied to ONLY that land within the CITY LIMITS, because ONLY that land is under City jurisdiction until annexation occurs, when these same factors do begin to apply.
But, before annexation, it is often a whole different ball-game, because the COUNTY has Urban Growth Area [UGA] jurisdiction, but not the obligation to abide by City codes, practices or levels of service. Yet, the City does get to influence the County, and must plan for these UGAs per Growth Management Act [GMA] requirements. And, that is what the City has been trying to do in the last update of its COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Hey, I know its a thankless job, but somebody had to actually do it! And, the point guy always takes a greater risk.

7, So, now we come to this point: If the City -for whatever reason- determines that it is prematurely running out of buildable land supply -including residential- and/or is attracting new population faster than it had anticipated, only two things -besides increasing land use efficiency- can happen for the city to obtain more future space in which to grow:

A. The City can accept proposals for annexation from property owners in the existing UGA to expand the land supply under its control AND receive additional revenues from it over time.

[Note, that when this occurs the City also usually obligates itself financially as well because of the increased level of urban services it must provide. Residential-only annexations rarely come close to paying for themselves, but Commercial & Industrial usually do. This is why a steady stream of smaller, multi-purpose annexations is the more desirable course of action.
A number of these proposals are now being considered by the City, partly due to a change in its policy for NOT extending water & sewer services outside of City Limits, without a commitment to annex.]

B. The City can request that some, or all, of the previously determined, County-approved and administered 'FIVE YEAR REVIEW AREAS' become new Urban Growth Areas that will also remain under County jurisdiction. That is what has happened during the latest COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, which seems to have attracted so much attention.

Maybe there are other options too, but these two are the main ones.

8. So, all of this leads to this question:
What does it mean when a good-sized chunk of buildable land, zoned for high-density residential use, within the City Limits, is taken out of that use - either completely or partially?

If you answered it would have to be replaced 'somewhere else', you would be correct!
And, where would that 'someplace else' be?
Another neighborhood?
The UGA?
Waterfront Redevelopment?
Hi-Rise buildings?
ADU's?
Apartment ghettos?
Shelters for the less fortunate?
The County?
Another town, county, state or country?
Or, if one thinks that any 'lost' density never really existed in the first place, it could just disappear into a psuedo spreadsheet netherland, accompanied by disingenuous fast talk?
Don't all of these options equate to someone's definition of SPRAWL?
Why pretend otherwise!

What we're looking at in the case of CR, is a virulent version of NIMBYism, pure and simple.
If everyone felt the same way about a piece of property they liked -but didn't happen to own- would that be OK, too?
Think about it.
What is fair to one, ought to be fair to all!
At least that's the way the law sees it, and fortunately most others, including me.

As stated before, all this armchair quarterbacking is not likely to make much difference in the final analysis, anyway!
So why the temptation to continue arguing about it as if it were some sort of sacred cow?
Maybe its just fun? Or just typical piranha behavior?

But, you know, just like everyone else, I am entitled to my own considered opinions - and fun!
Unlike most others, I gained my perspectives on applied Growth Management over several years while serving in public office - and working very hard at learning about it.
Not fun.
Applied Growth Management is not an easy subject, especially when one compares it to simple theory and wishful thinking!

I have concerns that some folks still prefer to think that selfish agendas, backed by money & attitude, will talk louder than the law, common sense and good judgement.
That has happened on occasion, and it is not a pretty sight to behold.
The power of self-serving agendas backed by money is -as it always has been- a threat to good government.
But, that kind of agenda is also part of our grand mix of interests, even though it is a poor substitute for the consistent & rational fairness that ought to be the highest goal of our governmental system.
I guess that's why Aristotle called politics a 'practical' science, as opposed the 'exact' kind.

Never settling for less than the very best solutions available on every issue, is the path by which the City's highest goals & aspirations will most likely be achieved.
The problem is, finding that path depends strongly upon being habitually factual, truthful and consistently fair & objective.
When the secret to solving that problem is found, we'll be getting somewhere!
------------------

Its easy to see I've missed communicating this story as clearly as it could have been; but, maybe some folks don't really want to read about it anyway.
When I first decided to write this Blog, it was to be able to tell things from my perspective.
In turn, my perspective does -pretty consistently- use facts, experience and reason as its basis for conclusions - right, wrong or indifferent.
If that formula isn't what someone else prefers, they are certainly not obligated to read it.
But, if they do read it and don't agree, that's OK too!

Spreadsheet math can be an important tool, but not as important as the understanding of the underlying principles, policies and realities that go into it's production.
So, please don't accept substitutes for the genuine, official version of the Land Supply spreadsheet!
After all, we really can't be too careful about authenticity these days, can we?
-------------------

Want to talk about another contentious Development?

How about the Birch Street Project, located in the Whatcom Falls neighborhood, south of the current street ends of Birch St., Portal Ave., Bonanza Way and Scenic Avenue, all off of Lakeway Drive and near the City Limits.

The Bellingham City Council, in accordance with Resolution 1999-50, signed on November 15th, 1999 approved this project as a 172-lot subdivision on 79 acres. That one turned out to be one of the few developments that actually achieved its maximum zoned density.

Like some other places, this site had stood undeveloped with its mostly second or third growth trees standing ever since it had been zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 20,000 SF, which equates to about a density of 2. That's about half of what is barely considered a city's average density.
It had not been built upon because it was a difficult site to develop, at least until a developer from eastern Oregon saw what he thought was a good opportunity. In retrospect, he probably wished he hadn't! There was much concern, as well as the heated controversy that usually comes with it. In the end, the Oregon developer decided to sell to one of our local developers, but not until after the tract was pretty well conditioned and its allowed density determined.

Long story short, this property has steep slopes that extend further up Galbreath Mountain, and two small, seasonal streams that eventually empty into Whatcom Creek. These streams and slopes conspired to create conditions that meant about 42% of the site qualified as un-buildable, including public ROWs, improvements, easements and buffers. Added to the list of burdens were a trail easement that saved the tree line and prevented several 'view' lots from being sold at whatever premium they might have commanded, plus adequate street connectivity and significant traffic impacts on already busy Lakeway Blvd. Then, a water reservoir had to be built, the streams crossed, and a large stormwater detention system installed. The cost of all these expensive improvements was borne by the developer.

But, none of these activities were looked upon with favor by the neighbors, some whom were also required to cut vegetation to allow sidewalks, curbs and steeper driveways. And, these neighbors certainly did let us know they were unhappy, but they also served as very effective watchdogs to make sure the developer abided by the rules!

Any of this beginning to sound familiar? It should, because some version of this happens in almost every development that happens in this city, particularly those of any size, that cut many trees and interrupt the relative calm that people desire where they live. And, it makes no difference who owns the property under development, most folks just don't welcome it being changed! Think that might act as a deterrent to achieving in-fill? It takes guts to make consistently good and fair decisions on land use matters! Actually, ALL matters, but land use certainly stands out.

So, what happened to allow this development to achieve its maximum density?
Although unexpected, this was a pretty reasonable result, considering the underlying burdens the site imposed. After all, the developer was responsible for agreeing to pay for all the necessary improvements and mitigations, before any permit was issued. And, in the city, regulations do tend to be more numerous and stringent than in unincorporated areas - a fact some conveniently choose to ignore. To recover his costs, the developer had to build and sell a sufficient number of homes. Like it or not, that is the way capitalism works.

A part of the answer in this case was the idea of 'cluster development', which did seem to fit a number of needs pretty well. The concept is to take the entire site acreage as the base, then fit in buildable footprints only where appropriate, as home sites. Of course, these building sites are significantly smaller than the conventional 20,000 SF lot sizes, but they are adequate for the purpose intended, plus they obviate the need for unnecessary disturbance of natural turf and vegetation. Effectively, the preserved natural surroundings act as lawns that do not require mowing, fertilizing and tending. That just seems a good idea to try anywhere, and especially if that feature is already designed into a home - before people choose to buy it. So, multiple benefits can accrue from cluster development, notwithstanding the expected objections to anything but conventional sized lots being required - which often does seem outdated and wasteful.

The point is that Birch Street, for all its problems and disappointments, does represent another way of achieving multiple desirable goals - at least partially. Unfortunately, that kind of exercise in compromise never pleases everyone 100%, but over time, does help implement efficient land use by in-filling. If folks are really serious about limiting sprawl, this is one technique that can help us achieve it. But, it does have to be applied wisely and consistently, which means NIMBYs will need to make their fair share of concessions.
-----------

Epilogue: The Birch Street story also had a few other pluses happen, like the City requiring a trail easement along its western bluff, then purchasing 40 acres on its southern border as open space, and the County purchasing another 20 acres behind that.
Also, the nearby Denke & Chen properties in the Geneva UGA were purchased by the City as part of its Lake Whatcom Watershed Acquisition program, which removed about 333 potential building sites that were even more problematic than Birch Street.
All of these purchases had the combined effect of essentially blocking the access route of the proposed 'Lake Whatcom Connector' project, an expensive new arterial intended to promote even more suburban sprawl into the Lake Whatcom Watershed, then simply dump the additional traffic onto existing City streets and impacting their levels of service.
So, maybe things didn't turn out as badly as people might have thought?

But, granted, there is currently no means by which the city can fully guarantee that the maximum allowable zoned density is built, either within its City Limits, or especially in the County's UGA. And, in some cases like the Lake Whatcom Watershed, this density is not appropriate anyway and ought to be reduced or removed.
But, just like the persistent CR 'kerfuffle', isn't the land supply situation only made worse when zoned density is removed -for any reason- from the land supply equation?
Think about it.
---------------

Ghandi's 7 sins

Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle