----------------------
'First, get all the facts. Then, you can always distort them later.'
- attributed to Mark Twain
----------------------
Hard times do call for some hard measures, but the difference between hard-headed austerity and just plain hard-headedness ought to be clear!
So it is with the latest round of rhetoric around the idea of a larger and more modern Bellingham Public Library.
Over two years ago, the City Council passed a unanimous Resolution -with the, then, Mayor's enthusiastic support- to accept recommendations from its Library Board -which had deliberated 7 years or more- on building a new Central Library adjacent to the current aging and woefully inadequate library, a building that would require significant public expense to even extend its useful life significantly.
Of course, this property is already owned by the City and has been in used as a favorite destination for many years and is an established public meeting place, including the grassy depression that serves as a park.
Additionally, it is right across the street from both City Hall and the County Court House, plus within a block or two of the Mt Baker Theater and Whatcom Museum-including the soon to be opened Children's Museum.
This so-called 'cultural district' was conceived years ago to be a vital link between the Civic Center and the downtown business community, a concept that continues to have much appeal as a people-friendly plan.
All of this also means the area is often congested, but you know, that isn't always a bad thing because 'eyes on the street' are comforting.
Also, there are bus lines that access the area and public hiking & biking trails along Whatcom Creek that can lead in several directions, including the waterfront and toward Lake Whatcom.
Sometimes -maybe most times- folks prefer for things like Libraries to be familiar and popular with other people; maybe that's why such places are called 'public places' and are well used.
Of course, there were/are some challenges to be overcome if any new Library idea were to come to fruition.
You know, little things like paying for it; deciding what 'it' would be; providing adequate parking; addressing how library services can be extended to other locations; how many patrons can be accommodated; what architecture and furnishings would be employed; what the level of service would be, and with what staff.
Just little things like that.
But, don't we always need to think about such things before we jump into some important venture?
The point is, a new Library has been considered a 'top priority' for Bellingham for several years, at least since the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee convened in 1999 thru 2001.
But, this particular 'priority' has been repeatedly elbowed aside by other projects, like the Public Facilities District idea, Civic Field Improvements, and now the ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment effort.
When the new Library's turn finally arrived, the necessary resources had already been spoken for, and hard times were well on the way.
So, of course, another delay is prudent, as long as it is not used as a time to forget about all the good work that has gone into Library planning!
Unfortunately, some of that 'forgetfulness' has already begun to happen.
More troubling is the somewhat arrogant attempt to supplant all the good planning that has occurred with an entirely new concept that has not been exposed to the gauntlet of public process so essential to generate widespread support.
Here, I am referring to two statements that have appeared recently in print, one from our Mayor, the other from a new Council member.
-----------
First, the Mayor is touting the idea of locating the new Library on or adjacent to the Waterfront, largely as a justification for building new parking structures!
That seems more like the flea trying to wag the hair on the tail of a dog to me.
I can understand the need for jump-starting the WF infrastructure, and the scarcity of public funds available for such projects, but what happened to the years of thoughtful good work by the Library Board and other interested citizens?
It's not OK with me to just chunk that work product into the garbage in favor of another bright idea designed to achieve multiple ends!
Of course, the Mayor's idea has the potential to be the best potential solution available, but it needs some serious vetting in my view.
But, we're not there yet - not even close!
For starters, it just simply ignores the several criteria that were thought essential to good Library planning.
Second, it seems overly dismissive of the Library Board's hard work, not to mention the many caring citizens who turned out for work sessions, presentations and creative idea sharing about desirable features.
Why, I'd be tempted to just resign from the LIbrary Board myself, but the good folks who serve in that capacity are so naturally temperate and civic-minded, that idea would likely never cross their minds.
Then, the Council person's conviction that not a stone or brick from the old Library building ought to be removed, as frugal and green as that sounds, ignores the fact that major, costly renovations will be required to transform this edifice into a modern and reasonably useful structure.
And, that also excludes the need for a serious, costly expansion of existing space, plus a place in which to operate while these disruptions are going on, things the Library Board have grappled with for years -but what did they know?.
Even the argument for historic preservation has no legs with this nondescript, 1950's building.
It is basically an outdated building that has pretty well served its purpose, except for lasting until its replacement can be constructed.
More troubling than either of these expressed opinions, is the abject wishy-washy-ness of the entire Council, which simply acceded to them without bothering to check the history of its own action!
You know, I can understand and accept the reality of today's difficult financial situation, but is totally rescinding the idea of a new Library necessary?
How about just deferring it for continued study and public process?
Isn't that the way Council often acts?
Thank goodness young Sam Taylor had the gumption to look up those pesky minutes from January 2007, and remind the Council of its own action!
Of course the Council can always reverse itself, but shouldn't that at least take another Resolution voted upon at a public meeting?
Surely, the Council wouldn't allow itself to be so easily jawboned into a position they haven't duly deliberated - or would they?
--------
Our Library Board is a 5-person advisory body on which responsible citizens can volunteer their service.
And, uniquely, the Library Board is also responsible for hiring and overseeing the duties of the Library Director.
Bet that may surprise a few people, possibly including our current Mayor and maybe even a newer Council member or two.
Point is, we need to treat these folks better, and while we're at it, the good folks of Bellingham, who have loved their Library for many years.
It's not right to act so authoritarian and knee-jerk about such important issues, and most people probably know that.
If a new Library is planned with children in mind, it will certainly work for the rest of us, too.
There is no reason why the excellent work already done can't be pared down into a new facility that is more affordable and will be enthusiastically supported at the ballot, one day to come.
If that is not sufficient, the project could also be phased and/or partly paid for in other ways.
But, to hitch the new Library to Waterfront Redevelopment just guarantees nothing will be accomplished for the next 10 years or more!
That seems irresponsible, despite the current hard times.
But, then there might be some advantages to that sort of delay; few, if any, of the current elected officials will likely still be around!
Of course, by that time even more dire circumstances could prevail.
Who knows?
-----------------------
The Bellingham Public Library shares the power of information, encourages the discovery of ideas, and promotes the joy of reading with all members of the Bellingham Community.
-----------------------
Excerpt from the minutes of the Jan. 22, 2007 City Council meeting:
PRESENTATION(S)
AB17281B 1. LIBRARY PLANNING UPDATE AND NEW CENTRAL LIBRARY SITE RECOMMENDATION
Dave Edelstein, representing the Bellingham Public Library Board of Trustees recognized current and former board members and the Friends of the Library, who have been tireless in their efforts in planning for this project.
Pam Kiesner, Library Director delivered a PowerPoint presentation of Library Board activity leading up to a recommendation for building a new Central Library on the current library block. Ms. Kiesner reviewed current Library service delivery and how it is present in the community. She described the Condition Assessment of the 102-year old Fairhaven Branch Library; how computers have changed the way we access information; and how self-services are accessed at the Library.
She continued with considerations of the City budget; population growth and areas of the City that are not covered; a brief review of the Citywide Library Services Study - a copy of which was provided to Council at the Joint City Council/Library Board Meeting held at the Library on January 17, 2007. Ms. Kiesner then reviewed the community's access to the City's libraries and for the immediate future, said they are actively working on partnership opportunities to provide more convenience to residents of neighborhoods that are currently underserved.
Ms. Kiesner responded to the common questions of “Why do we need a Central Library ?” and “Why do we need a NEW Central Library?” The Central Library services the growing downtown population as well as the entire city and it serves as a central location to the Bellingham community; provides a central hub: housing for materials ordering; processing and distribution; provides full service, primary materials and a resource center from which the community draws and it serves as the support services facility for all of the outreach services. The current Central Library serves as a strong central collection and an efficient centralized hub for materials handling citywide. The City has outgrown the Library's size, structure and function.
Ms. Kiesner reviewed the completed key steps and noted key findings: another floor cannot be added to the existing library, the building does not meet seismic codes, working with a building built in 1951 would be programmatically and structurally difficult with all the electronic resources used today. She also noted that underground parking on this site is possible.
Visions for a Central Library include:
· housing a materials collection;
· meeting citywide library needs at least 50 years into the future;
· a library that is beautiful, functional and cost-effective;
· invites the community in;
· reflects the unique character of the community;
· designed with public input;
· using at least silver LEED standards;
· an educational institution;
· easy to find;
· parking;
· accessible to all ages and abilities;
· spaces that are busy every hour of every day;
· flexible to meet the needs of a growing community and
· that the library remains and becomes stronger as a cornerstone of the community.
Faye Hill, Library Board Member reviewed the site selection process that began in 2001. To date, working with the Site Evaluation Committee, the Library Board has reviewed 20 properties and in 2006 the Board issued a Request for Proposal for available property in the downtown core with no responses received. In July 2006 the sites were narrowed down to the former ReStore site, Maritime Heritage Park site, Bellingham Municipal Court site and current Library block. A primary reason for focusing on these four sites is that they are city-owned, thus saving the taxpayers the expense of purchasing a site. In August 2006 a walkabout of the four sites was done, where valuable feedback was received. With it's adjacencies to civic arts and cultural endeavors in the downtown area including the new Children's and Art Museum, which is across the street, the current Library block has been a natural site to consider. The Board believes it has spent the necessary time to become well informed about each one of the sites and unanimously agree that the current Library block, minus the existing building, provides the best option for the new Central Library.
Ms. Kiesner outlined the next steps and said a timeline is in draft format. The Board wants to make sure that the community is as informed as possible and the Board would like to invite their input in a variety of ways. In the first half of 2007 the Board will be seeking a Bond Campaign Chair and committee and determine which is more likely to succeed – a General, Off-year or Special election. It is too early to know potential costs and they want to be as accurate as possible. This year, the Board will be looking at preliminary designs in order to more accurately estimate potential costs for the entire project and operating costs into the future. They will also be exploring funding mechanisms – most likely, a voter approved bond and they will be offering to the community, groups and individuals, opportunities for donating to the project.
BARBARA RYAN / KNUTSON moved to approve that a replacement Central Library be constructed on the current “library block” and further, that the existing library building be taken down prior to construction of the new facility in order to provide the best design and site development possible.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
--------------------
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Waterfront Redevelopment: A Grecian Flat Earth Day Theory?
---------------------
Most often, I find more points of agreement with the Cascadia Weekly's 'Gristle', than otherwise.
Plus, I truly enjoy the editor's talent for putting words together and creating memorable mental images that resonate with experience - or at least his opinion.
But, not today!
And certainly not because today really IS Earth Day.
No, my objection to this piece is that the editor has again succumbed to his predilection against the Port & City's agreeing to cooperate in cleaning up and redeveloping our ailing and inaccessible waterfront.
At least, he is consistent -if not convincing -in opposing such a visionary and cooperative action.
But, what qualifies as a better idea?
Surely not leaving the waterfront as it - is for years and years and more years, for future generations to face!
Or, maybe, instead, selling it to a private developer; say someone like Trillium, which so desperately coveted its ownership?
That way, the theory goes, public expense is somehow minimized, and positive progress is somehow made more certain -arguments that contain more holes and aroma than old swiss cheese!
Or, just continuing to use the waterfront as a political football for various naysayers and ne'er do wells to kick around in pick-up games whenever they feel the urge?
I don't think so!
And neither do most people, despite the hard times we're experiencing right now.
Most folks want to see this site and associated waterway decontaminated responsibly, and not just only because of G-P's mercury wastes.
Did you know that the City of Bellingham will also be cleaning up some of its own sins of the past?
Like 3 or 4 former landfills located at or near the water's edge.
Does anyone doubt this work does not need to be done?
-----------
Actually, I suspect the combined City Council and Port Commission votes cast on Monday's agreement probably accurately reflect the ratio of public sentiment on this issue, which has been discussed and debated for what -7 years, now?
The Council's vote was 4 to 2, with 1 absent, who would have voted with the majority.
That's what, 5 out of 7?
That means less than 30% opposed, which is about the average vote count for a poor candidate for elected office.
The Port's vote was unanimous, and why would it not be?
After all, they are on the hook for paying the costs of clean-up, then the lengthy redevelopment of the site into something useful, safe and enjoyable.
That is a big job that is definitely worth doing!
So, rather than boasting about the incremental progress achieved -or beating a dead horse, like the Gristle seems to be doing- its probably better that we just accept this latest decision for what it's worth and move ahead to the next step.
After all, it is no more binding than prior agreements or 'memorials' have been, but with the difference that some necessary basic parameters have now been addressed and more or less decided.
Don't you think it's prudent to periodically document progress and reaffirm commitments?
[Of course, if one against such progress, they won't ever agree]
Anyway, what's done is done and legal, and so its about time we moved on without wasting more time and resources on matters that have been pretty thoroughly considered.
That is not to say everyone will agree, but that is the nature of such things.
------------
All of us have our 'druthers' and predispositions on such matters, and we are certainly entitled to them!
But, at some point decisions that are the product of lengthy and detailed public scrutiny need to be duly made, and honored.
That is clearly where we are now, despite some folks preference to endlessly 'study' things and continue to create expensive shelf art -until, they hope, their fancy is well and truly suited.
Did you find it curious that the Gristle referred to this latest agreement as a 'Pyrrhic' victory, and that this Greek battle was thought to have been fought on flat ground.
And, exactly where does the empty victory fit in?
Methinks its more like an empty defeat.
A better example might have been the stand at Thermopylae, where 300 Spartans held off thousands of Persians, on not so flat ground.
[If the editor had just fast-forwarded a few centuries, he would have found the 'flat earth' theory challenged -even under threat of death- and eventually disproved]
But, you know, that particular result was inevitable, and it still stands; because the Spartans were eventually defeated by attrition down to zero -meaning they all were killed.
That their story lives on speaks of their bravery and determination, but the reality is these Spartans are now relegated to history and exaggerated myth of the sort that attracts Hollywood film-makers.
Maybe a similar result is what the Gristle has in mind?
Brave victims forever?
Aren't there much better things to be remembered for?
On the other hand, if people still believed the Earth is flat, then maybe Columbus wouldn't have set sail......
-------------------
For those interested, I have reprinted the subject Gristle below:
Flat Earth
April 21 2009
FLAT EARTH: In 280 B.C., the legendary ruler of a kingdom along the Ionian Coast met the legions of Rome and overcame them; yet, in victory this king suffered such destruction to his armies that, in the words of Plutarch, victory had utterly unmade him. His name, Pyrrhus, came to describe a victory with bitter cost to the victor. And while “victory that is no victory” might describe the decision this week by Bellingham City Council and Port of Bellingham commissioners to move swiftly ahead on waterfront planning in the midst of a global repositioning of assumptions about economies, resources and even the future roles of government and public-private partnerships, no, the Gristle’s thinking more of the naming of a thing that brings no honor to the person named.
It is ironic indeed that a diagonal road planned to connect Central Avenue through Bellingham’s redeveloped mill site to the traditional entrance of the mill at Laurel Street is being named for one of the original financiers of that mill. Ironic, because the path of that road, as approved by a divided council and unanimous port commissioners, carves through the footprint of, thereby requiring the removal of, most of the historic mill structures on the site Bloedel’s pioneering career made authentic.
For the second week, and with the efficiency of an employee on the port’s payroll, Mayor Dan Pike chased down fading council opposition to a planning framework for the Waterfront District—a framework that will, in the words of the mayor, “memorialize” (read: set in heavy clay) certain planning assumptions for Bellingham’s central waterfront. Notably, these include an alignment of streets that would require the demolition of nearly all of the historic structures of the former mill site, made in a decision so hasty council could not even convene one public hearing or seek the advice of even one of several citizen advisory committees.
The Waterfront Advisory Group received a draft of the plan late Friday; the plan was adopted in final on Monday. The Historic Preservation Commission, which has had much to report on the value of those structures, met in an emergency session late Friday to request “additional analysis [to] determine the level of re-use potential for each structure based on historical and cultural significance, structural integrity” and other factors. The HPC request—which passed unanimously—was ignored by city officials.
The public has cause for alarm when 100-year plans are “memorialized” in such haste.
Pike ominously warned council members the eyes of Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen were on their agreement this week. The Gristle could find no one who might verify any looming requirement or financial threat from our Congressional delegation; more to the point, none of them would even know anything was amiss in waterfront planning if the port commissioners hadn’t written their dumbass letter in November, withdrawing from cooperative planning, and cc’d it to the world. If concern exists, the port created it. And because of their hasty, fear-based action, Bellingham must continue hasty, fear-based action?
Let’s review:
In October, Bellingham Planning Director Tim Stewart complained to the lead environmental (SEPA) official that “the port’s segmented and piecemealed environmental review fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed demolition of these buildings.” Four neighboring structures—that formerly housed the mill’s steam plant, pulp storage, screen room and bleach plant—are all “buildings of primary significance, according to Georgia-Pacific’s due diligence assessment of the buildings in 2004,” Stewart explained.
In November, Pike told the same official, “The demolition of buildings, in order to accommodate waterfront redevelopment, would tear at the fabric of the downtown, Old Town and our neighborhoods and is not acceptable.” The proposed street alignment “would require the demolition of virtually all of the onsite industrial buildings,” Pike emphasized. “These… assertions raise serious doubts about the integrity of this entire environmental review process.”
Mayor Pike called this out again in the city’s waterfront connections proposal: “Studies have shown that preserved historic districts tend to appreciate more quickly than unprotected areas; historic tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors throughout the United States; and most importantly, people hunger for authentic and unique areas that tell a story about who we are.”
As cooperative planning literally slid off the rails in December, a group of architects studied the site plan and urged caution in deciding the fate of these buildings. One of these architects, Dave Christiansen, also serves on HPC, which urged similar support of the architects’ evaluation in their motion last week the city ignored.
What changed between then and now?
Only that the city has caved on the point. What other points have they also caved to in this agreement? What else objectionable now binds the city—in terms of public space, waterfront access, environmental integrity?
Cruelly, only two council members present expressed the curiosity even to ask.
In every distinguishable way, the framework proposal is indistinguishable from the original “flat earth” plan the port has trotted out again and again; and that the public has rejected again and again. Hallelujah, we have joint agreement on “the Bellevue plan.”
Pyrrhic victory? Oh, yes.
----------------------
Most often, I find more points of agreement with the Cascadia Weekly's 'Gristle', than otherwise.
Plus, I truly enjoy the editor's talent for putting words together and creating memorable mental images that resonate with experience - or at least his opinion.
But, not today!
And certainly not because today really IS Earth Day.
No, my objection to this piece is that the editor has again succumbed to his predilection against the Port & City's agreeing to cooperate in cleaning up and redeveloping our ailing and inaccessible waterfront.
At least, he is consistent -if not convincing -in opposing such a visionary and cooperative action.
But, what qualifies as a better idea?
Surely not leaving the waterfront as it - is for years and years and more years, for future generations to face!
Or, maybe, instead, selling it to a private developer; say someone like Trillium, which so desperately coveted its ownership?
That way, the theory goes, public expense is somehow minimized, and positive progress is somehow made more certain -arguments that contain more holes and aroma than old swiss cheese!
Or, just continuing to use the waterfront as a political football for various naysayers and ne'er do wells to kick around in pick-up games whenever they feel the urge?
I don't think so!
And neither do most people, despite the hard times we're experiencing right now.
Most folks want to see this site and associated waterway decontaminated responsibly, and not just only because of G-P's mercury wastes.
Did you know that the City of Bellingham will also be cleaning up some of its own sins of the past?
Like 3 or 4 former landfills located at or near the water's edge.
Does anyone doubt this work does not need to be done?
-----------
Actually, I suspect the combined City Council and Port Commission votes cast on Monday's agreement probably accurately reflect the ratio of public sentiment on this issue, which has been discussed and debated for what -7 years, now?
The Council's vote was 4 to 2, with 1 absent, who would have voted with the majority.
That's what, 5 out of 7?
That means less than 30% opposed, which is about the average vote count for a poor candidate for elected office.
The Port's vote was unanimous, and why would it not be?
After all, they are on the hook for paying the costs of clean-up, then the lengthy redevelopment of the site into something useful, safe and enjoyable.
That is a big job that is definitely worth doing!
So, rather than boasting about the incremental progress achieved -or beating a dead horse, like the Gristle seems to be doing- its probably better that we just accept this latest decision for what it's worth and move ahead to the next step.
After all, it is no more binding than prior agreements or 'memorials' have been, but with the difference that some necessary basic parameters have now been addressed and more or less decided.
Don't you think it's prudent to periodically document progress and reaffirm commitments?
[Of course, if one against such progress, they won't ever agree]
Anyway, what's done is done and legal, and so its about time we moved on without wasting more time and resources on matters that have been pretty thoroughly considered.
That is not to say everyone will agree, but that is the nature of such things.
------------
All of us have our 'druthers' and predispositions on such matters, and we are certainly entitled to them!
But, at some point decisions that are the product of lengthy and detailed public scrutiny need to be duly made, and honored.
That is clearly where we are now, despite some folks preference to endlessly 'study' things and continue to create expensive shelf art -until, they hope, their fancy is well and truly suited.
Did you find it curious that the Gristle referred to this latest agreement as a 'Pyrrhic' victory, and that this Greek battle was thought to have been fought on flat ground.
And, exactly where does the empty victory fit in?
Methinks its more like an empty defeat.
A better example might have been the stand at Thermopylae, where 300 Spartans held off thousands of Persians, on not so flat ground.
[If the editor had just fast-forwarded a few centuries, he would have found the 'flat earth' theory challenged -even under threat of death- and eventually disproved]
But, you know, that particular result was inevitable, and it still stands; because the Spartans were eventually defeated by attrition down to zero -meaning they all were killed.
That their story lives on speaks of their bravery and determination, but the reality is these Spartans are now relegated to history and exaggerated myth of the sort that attracts Hollywood film-makers.
Maybe a similar result is what the Gristle has in mind?
Brave victims forever?
Aren't there much better things to be remembered for?
On the other hand, if people still believed the Earth is flat, then maybe Columbus wouldn't have set sail......
-------------------
For those interested, I have reprinted the subject Gristle below:
Flat Earth
April 21 2009
FLAT EARTH: In 280 B.C., the legendary ruler of a kingdom along the Ionian Coast met the legions of Rome and overcame them; yet, in victory this king suffered such destruction to his armies that, in the words of Plutarch, victory had utterly unmade him. His name, Pyrrhus, came to describe a victory with bitter cost to the victor. And while “victory that is no victory” might describe the decision this week by Bellingham City Council and Port of Bellingham commissioners to move swiftly ahead on waterfront planning in the midst of a global repositioning of assumptions about economies, resources and even the future roles of government and public-private partnerships, no, the Gristle’s thinking more of the naming of a thing that brings no honor to the person named.
It is ironic indeed that a diagonal road planned to connect Central Avenue through Bellingham’s redeveloped mill site to the traditional entrance of the mill at Laurel Street is being named for one of the original financiers of that mill. Ironic, because the path of that road, as approved by a divided council and unanimous port commissioners, carves through the footprint of, thereby requiring the removal of, most of the historic mill structures on the site Bloedel’s pioneering career made authentic.
For the second week, and with the efficiency of an employee on the port’s payroll, Mayor Dan Pike chased down fading council opposition to a planning framework for the Waterfront District—a framework that will, in the words of the mayor, “memorialize” (read: set in heavy clay) certain planning assumptions for Bellingham’s central waterfront. Notably, these include an alignment of streets that would require the demolition of nearly all of the historic structures of the former mill site, made in a decision so hasty council could not even convene one public hearing or seek the advice of even one of several citizen advisory committees.
The Waterfront Advisory Group received a draft of the plan late Friday; the plan was adopted in final on Monday. The Historic Preservation Commission, which has had much to report on the value of those structures, met in an emergency session late Friday to request “additional analysis [to] determine the level of re-use potential for each structure based on historical and cultural significance, structural integrity” and other factors. The HPC request—which passed unanimously—was ignored by city officials.
The public has cause for alarm when 100-year plans are “memorialized” in such haste.
Pike ominously warned council members the eyes of Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen were on their agreement this week. The Gristle could find no one who might verify any looming requirement or financial threat from our Congressional delegation; more to the point, none of them would even know anything was amiss in waterfront planning if the port commissioners hadn’t written their dumbass letter in November, withdrawing from cooperative planning, and cc’d it to the world. If concern exists, the port created it. And because of their hasty, fear-based action, Bellingham must continue hasty, fear-based action?
Let’s review:
In October, Bellingham Planning Director Tim Stewart complained to the lead environmental (SEPA) official that “the port’s segmented and piecemealed environmental review fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed demolition of these buildings.” Four neighboring structures—that formerly housed the mill’s steam plant, pulp storage, screen room and bleach plant—are all “buildings of primary significance, according to Georgia-Pacific’s due diligence assessment of the buildings in 2004,” Stewart explained.
In November, Pike told the same official, “The demolition of buildings, in order to accommodate waterfront redevelopment, would tear at the fabric of the downtown, Old Town and our neighborhoods and is not acceptable.” The proposed street alignment “would require the demolition of virtually all of the onsite industrial buildings,” Pike emphasized. “These… assertions raise serious doubts about the integrity of this entire environmental review process.”
Mayor Pike called this out again in the city’s waterfront connections proposal: “Studies have shown that preserved historic districts tend to appreciate more quickly than unprotected areas; historic tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors throughout the United States; and most importantly, people hunger for authentic and unique areas that tell a story about who we are.”
As cooperative planning literally slid off the rails in December, a group of architects studied the site plan and urged caution in deciding the fate of these buildings. One of these architects, Dave Christiansen, also serves on HPC, which urged similar support of the architects’ evaluation in their motion last week the city ignored.
What changed between then and now?
Only that the city has caved on the point. What other points have they also caved to in this agreement? What else objectionable now binds the city—in terms of public space, waterfront access, environmental integrity?
Cruelly, only two council members present expressed the curiosity even to ask.
In every distinguishable way, the framework proposal is indistinguishable from the original “flat earth” plan the port has trotted out again and again; and that the public has rejected again and again. Hallelujah, we have joint agreement on “the Bellevue plan.”
Pyrrhic victory? Oh, yes.
----------------------
Executive Sessions: Necessary Secrets Or Inconvenient Law?
----------------------
Sometimes, to hear people talk, you'd think executive sessions weren't legal.
But, of course, they are.
And, they are essential to protect people, public funds and legal rights.
That is why they are allowed under law.
Why do you imagine these more secretive sessions are called 'executive sessions'?
Think that has anything to do with the executive branch of government?
Is this system subject to abuse?
You bet it is, just like a lot of things.
But how does one begin to show this suspicion, especially if they don't have access to all the facts?
The answer is they don't have many options, except to watch closely, ask questions and -well- just be suspicious.
As far as questions go, there is no such thing as an 'inappropriate' question.
But, there certainly can be 'inappropriate' answers!
That is why the executive session provision is considered so necessary and legal.
Other, more knowledgeable folks can probably give a better litany of reasons why the executive session provision exists here in the State of Washington, where it was first adopted in 1972.
Since that time the list of 10 legal reasons for justifying executive sessions has morphed into some 300.
One wonders if all of those are really different reasons or just more specific definitions and examples - but politically this expanded list seems to make for great political fodder for some folks.
You know, folks like State AG and politician Rob McKenna, the usual anti-guvmint folks and maybe even a few direct democracy types and anarchists, plus don't forget those desperately trying to fill up space on slow news days without working at it too hard.
But, you know what? All of this is fair game!
After all, we are supposed to be a 'representative' democracy.
That means those fortunate - or unfortunate - enough to be elected to serve get to live in public fishbowls, where their every act is carefully scrutinized, questioned and second-guessed, sometimes seemingly without even a modicum of trust, respect or an attempt at understanding.
You know, knee-jerk stuff that's accepted just because it includes a few 'magic' words that can galvanize people, or simply be instantly interpreted as legitimate, like 'transparency', 'openness', 'public's right to know', etc.
Don't get me wrong, all this inquisitiveness does come with the territory; but that's not to say that some of it isn't spurious, deliberately deceptive, and even wasteful of public resources at times.
And, it is human nature to want to know about what's going on, especially when one is excluded from possibly juicy details!
Why there might be a tasty headline, scoop or just the start of a misguided dialogue hidden among topics covered by executive sessions.
Can't afford to let that happen, can we?
Yet, excessive emphasis on suspicions, speculation and political banter for its own sake have to be partly to blame for the public's loss of interest in traditional media, like newspapers.
Just look at which journalists and publications were recently honored with Pulitzer prizes.
They weren't the tabloids, media with obvious biases or agendas, or reporters and editorialists who do not thoroughly research their work.
That should be instructive, at every level of reporting!
And, this is a simple observation, not a criticism; there is a difference.
-----------------
Back to local executive sessions for a moment.
Here are just a few examples that relate to typical topics:
It may be useful to keep in mind that the City of Bellingham is a municipal corporation, with elected officials that act as CEO [Mayor] and Board of Directors [Council].
• litigation and potential litigation- the City's Legal budget typically provides annually for millions of dollars in legal liability
• protection of attorney - client privilege; including executive department operations -which do not require separate Council approval
• there are literally millions of dollars in potential liabilities at stake and under active litigation, including those that are simply spurious and without merit and likely to be dismissed with minimal expense to the City -AND its taxpayers.
• there are labor contracts that have resulted from months of collective bargaining negotiations which require Council approval [always made in public] before going into effect.
• there are personnel matters which are sensitive and inappropriate to broadcast widely
• there are purchasing and acquisition opportunities which depend upon a certain amount of confidentiality prior to finalization to insure lowest public cost
* there is an entire list of potential reasons for inclusion of an item into an executive session, and these are readily available for review on public websites, including ACCESS WASHINGTON, MRSC and others.
As with most things, it is likely impossible to reduce each one of them to a pre-defined and certain formula.
Instead, a certain of informed judgement may be required, and this is supplied by the City's legal staff, who represent not only the executive branch, but also the legislative - whose approval is ultimately required in deciding any executive session matter.
Now, I know that just saying 'trust me' isn't something that holds water for many people, but it is essential at times -executive sessions being one such example.
The temptation to know what is going on is not only essential, but very healthy, but it can also overly tempting at times.
But, hey, if a juicy piece can be mined by nosing around executive sessions, why not do it?
After all, any proof to the contrary of an idle suspicion can amount to partial disclosure of the actual facts!
How convenient.
It is always good to question things, especially those things that impact our government and the public interest.
But, have you ever wondered why some folks would rather nose around for juicy, 'secret' gossip than actually cover other events that aren't executive sessions?
Human nature is only part of the answer I suspect.
And it can sell newspapers, plus create instant controversy and a fleeting 'Andy Warhol 15-minutes of fame'.
The really hard -but useful- work would be to research why executive sessions were deemed so important that they are now specifically provided for under our State law, which can always be modified if proven necessary.
If some people think executive sessions are unnecessary or unduly secretive, then it is their real job is to convince the State legislature to make changes to this law.
Of course, just stirring up discontent among the populace might also be deemed helpful to such an effort, as well, as some populist politicians seem always willing to do.
But, failing the finding that executive sessions are inherently fatally flawed, the next best bet is to exert a little more confidence in the system we have, imperfect as it may be.
That also includes making sure that those elected to office are trustworthy and competent, which is no one's responsibility more than citizens themselves!
And, it would be nice to have the same standard of trustworthiness applied to everyone who seriously follows the workings of our local government.
Doesn't it seem fair to have this same standard apply to everyone, whether legally mandated or voluntarily embraced?
If we are to have a system of government that is consistently fact-based, respectful of the law, and responsive to the public, we deserve nothing less.
Executive sessions do have their place and serve a practical purpose.
But, like everything else, improvement is always possible.
Perhaps, the idea of mandatory instruction for elected officials is a good idea that ought be pursued.
If that does come to pass, I hope these training sessions would be held in very public forums and televised for future reference, so that all citizens can exposed to this basic information, and therefore more aware of the useful functions executive sessions do play in government decisions.
In the meantime, there are plenty of subjects to be researched, reported and debated in public, that are NOT executive sessions!
You know, little things like protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, Growth Management, Waterfront Redevelopment, Budget gaps, a new Library, background information on elected officials and candidates for office, etc, etc, might also seem to have some very juicy 'secrets' hiding in plain sight.
They might as well be secrets, if people don't know about them.
And, they aren't being kept 'secret' by any excuse like executive sessions; they some of the many are 'open' secrets that folks just aren't being informed about; maybe because that would be considered too much work, or maybe just boring?
Just a few things like these could stand more research and reporting, what do you think?
Even beginning a discussion about a topic like executive sessions, can be daunting but necessary, and it is good this is being done again, as it has in the past.
When any subject is subject to misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation, that -alone- is a good time to examine it more thoroughly.
The question Then becomes, how best to do this.
Ideally, the method used will engage citizens with factual information, then pose suggestions for actually improving the process, not just questioning in its entirety.
And, surely, some respect must be shown for the decades of thought already put into such matters by the citizens, media and elected officials of the State of Washington!
Those folks may not have been perfect, but who says we are either?
Let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, shall we?
----------------------
Sometimes, to hear people talk, you'd think executive sessions weren't legal.
But, of course, they are.
And, they are essential to protect people, public funds and legal rights.
That is why they are allowed under law.
Why do you imagine these more secretive sessions are called 'executive sessions'?
Think that has anything to do with the executive branch of government?
Is this system subject to abuse?
You bet it is, just like a lot of things.
But how does one begin to show this suspicion, especially if they don't have access to all the facts?
The answer is they don't have many options, except to watch closely, ask questions and -well- just be suspicious.
As far as questions go, there is no such thing as an 'inappropriate' question.
But, there certainly can be 'inappropriate' answers!
That is why the executive session provision is considered so necessary and legal.
Other, more knowledgeable folks can probably give a better litany of reasons why the executive session provision exists here in the State of Washington, where it was first adopted in 1972.
Since that time the list of 10 legal reasons for justifying executive sessions has morphed into some 300.
One wonders if all of those are really different reasons or just more specific definitions and examples - but politically this expanded list seems to make for great political fodder for some folks.
You know, folks like State AG and politician Rob McKenna, the usual anti-guvmint folks and maybe even a few direct democracy types and anarchists, plus don't forget those desperately trying to fill up space on slow news days without working at it too hard.
But, you know what? All of this is fair game!
After all, we are supposed to be a 'representative' democracy.
That means those fortunate - or unfortunate - enough to be elected to serve get to live in public fishbowls, where their every act is carefully scrutinized, questioned and second-guessed, sometimes seemingly without even a modicum of trust, respect or an attempt at understanding.
You know, knee-jerk stuff that's accepted just because it includes a few 'magic' words that can galvanize people, or simply be instantly interpreted as legitimate, like 'transparency', 'openness', 'public's right to know', etc.
Don't get me wrong, all this inquisitiveness does come with the territory; but that's not to say that some of it isn't spurious, deliberately deceptive, and even wasteful of public resources at times.
And, it is human nature to want to know about what's going on, especially when one is excluded from possibly juicy details!
Why there might be a tasty headline, scoop or just the start of a misguided dialogue hidden among topics covered by executive sessions.
Can't afford to let that happen, can we?
Yet, excessive emphasis on suspicions, speculation and political banter for its own sake have to be partly to blame for the public's loss of interest in traditional media, like newspapers.
Just look at which journalists and publications were recently honored with Pulitzer prizes.
They weren't the tabloids, media with obvious biases or agendas, or reporters and editorialists who do not thoroughly research their work.
That should be instructive, at every level of reporting!
And, this is a simple observation, not a criticism; there is a difference.
-----------------
Back to local executive sessions for a moment.
Here are just a few examples that relate to typical topics:
It may be useful to keep in mind that the City of Bellingham is a municipal corporation, with elected officials that act as CEO [Mayor] and Board of Directors [Council].
• litigation and potential litigation- the City's Legal budget typically provides annually for millions of dollars in legal liability
• protection of attorney - client privilege; including executive department operations -which do not require separate Council approval
• there are literally millions of dollars in potential liabilities at stake and under active litigation, including those that are simply spurious and without merit and likely to be dismissed with minimal expense to the City -AND its taxpayers.
• there are labor contracts that have resulted from months of collective bargaining negotiations which require Council approval [always made in public] before going into effect.
• there are personnel matters which are sensitive and inappropriate to broadcast widely
• there are purchasing and acquisition opportunities which depend upon a certain amount of confidentiality prior to finalization to insure lowest public cost
* there is an entire list of potential reasons for inclusion of an item into an executive session, and these are readily available for review on public websites, including ACCESS WASHINGTON, MRSC and others.
As with most things, it is likely impossible to reduce each one of them to a pre-defined and certain formula.
Instead, a certain of informed judgement may be required, and this is supplied by the City's legal staff, who represent not only the executive branch, but also the legislative - whose approval is ultimately required in deciding any executive session matter.
Now, I know that just saying 'trust me' isn't something that holds water for many people, but it is essential at times -executive sessions being one such example.
The temptation to know what is going on is not only essential, but very healthy, but it can also overly tempting at times.
But, hey, if a juicy piece can be mined by nosing around executive sessions, why not do it?
After all, any proof to the contrary of an idle suspicion can amount to partial disclosure of the actual facts!
How convenient.
It is always good to question things, especially those things that impact our government and the public interest.
But, have you ever wondered why some folks would rather nose around for juicy, 'secret' gossip than actually cover other events that aren't executive sessions?
Human nature is only part of the answer I suspect.
And it can sell newspapers, plus create instant controversy and a fleeting 'Andy Warhol 15-minutes of fame'.
The really hard -but useful- work would be to research why executive sessions were deemed so important that they are now specifically provided for under our State law, which can always be modified if proven necessary.
If some people think executive sessions are unnecessary or unduly secretive, then it is their real job is to convince the State legislature to make changes to this law.
Of course, just stirring up discontent among the populace might also be deemed helpful to such an effort, as well, as some populist politicians seem always willing to do.
But, failing the finding that executive sessions are inherently fatally flawed, the next best bet is to exert a little more confidence in the system we have, imperfect as it may be.
That also includes making sure that those elected to office are trustworthy and competent, which is no one's responsibility more than citizens themselves!
And, it would be nice to have the same standard of trustworthiness applied to everyone who seriously follows the workings of our local government.
Doesn't it seem fair to have this same standard apply to everyone, whether legally mandated or voluntarily embraced?
If we are to have a system of government that is consistently fact-based, respectful of the law, and responsive to the public, we deserve nothing less.
Executive sessions do have their place and serve a practical purpose.
But, like everything else, improvement is always possible.
Perhaps, the idea of mandatory instruction for elected officials is a good idea that ought be pursued.
If that does come to pass, I hope these training sessions would be held in very public forums and televised for future reference, so that all citizens can exposed to this basic information, and therefore more aware of the useful functions executive sessions do play in government decisions.
In the meantime, there are plenty of subjects to be researched, reported and debated in public, that are NOT executive sessions!
You know, little things like protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, Growth Management, Waterfront Redevelopment, Budget gaps, a new Library, background information on elected officials and candidates for office, etc, etc, might also seem to have some very juicy 'secrets' hiding in plain sight.
They might as well be secrets, if people don't know about them.
And, they aren't being kept 'secret' by any excuse like executive sessions; they some of the many are 'open' secrets that folks just aren't being informed about; maybe because that would be considered too much work, or maybe just boring?
Just a few things like these could stand more research and reporting, what do you think?
Even beginning a discussion about a topic like executive sessions, can be daunting but necessary, and it is good this is being done again, as it has in the past.
When any subject is subject to misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation, that -alone- is a good time to examine it more thoroughly.
The question Then becomes, how best to do this.
Ideally, the method used will engage citizens with factual information, then pose suggestions for actually improving the process, not just questioning in its entirety.
And, surely, some respect must be shown for the decades of thought already put into such matters by the citizens, media and elected officials of the State of Washington!
Those folks may not have been perfect, but who says we are either?
Let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, shall we?
----------------------
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Making Government More Effective & Less Costly
----------------
Here's a piece that is almost guaranteed to resonate with what many people are thinking, but also fall far short of motivating them to action.
But that's just my opinion.
----------------
I'll start by reproducing this from a recent NYTimes:
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Small-Town Big Spending
By TOM BROKAW
Published: April 19, 2009
DURING these uncertain times we’ve yet to hear a phrase with the resonance of Franklin Roosevelt’s “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” but there are a couple of minor-chord expressions that should have staying power.
One is the observation of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Another comes from my boss, Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric, who has warned, “This is not a cycle; it’s a reset.”
Taken together, these remarks challenge us to go beyond trying to quickly fix the immediate problems of toxic mortgages, risky banks, a struggling American car industry and escalating health care costs.
If the American people are tuned into the need to change the irresponsible, inefficient practices and systems that created those problems, why not enlist them to take the next step and radically change the antiquated public structures that exist beyond the Beltway?
Here are a few examples.
It’s estimated that New York State has about 10,500 local government entities, from townships to counties to special districts. A year ago a bipartisan state commission said that New Yorkers could save more than a billion dollars a year by consolidating and sharing local government responsibilities like public security, health, roads and education.
One commission member, a county executive, said, “Our system of local government has barely evolved over the past one hundred years and we are still governed by these same archaic institutions formed before the invention of the light bulb, telephone, automobile and computer.”
In accepting the commission’s recommendations, Gov. David Paterson promised to work diligently to put the changes into effect.
When his budget was presented this spring it included several of the proposed changes, but it immediately met stiff resistance even from members of his own party who were determined to protect their parochial interests.
It appears that few of the original recommendations will survive.
----------
In my native Great Plains, North and South Dakota have a combined population of just under 1.5 million people, and in each state the rural areas are being depopulated at a rapid rate.
Yet between them the two Dakotas support 17 colleges and universities.
They are a carry-over from the early 20th century when travel was more difficult and farm families wanted their children close by during harvest season.
I know this is heresy, but couldn’t the two states get a bigger bang for their higher education buck if they consolidated their smaller institutions into, say, the Dakota Territory College System, with satellite campuses but a common administration and shared standards?
Iowa, next door, is having its own struggles with maintaining population, especially among the young.
As the Hawkeye State’s taxpayers grow older and less financially productive, the cost of government services becomes more expensive.
Yet Iowa proudly maintains its grid of 99 counties, each with its own distinctive courthouse, many on the National Register of Historic Places — and some as little as 40 miles away from one another.
Each one houses a full complement of clerks, auditors, sheriff’s deputies, jailers and commissioners.
Is there any reason beyond local pride to maintain such duplication given the economic and population pressures of our time?
This is not a problem unique to the states I have cited.
Every state and every region in the country is stuck with some form of anachronistic and expensive local government structure that dates to horse-drawn wagons, family farms and small-town convenience.
If this is a reset, it’s time to reorganize our state and local government structures for today’s realities rather than cling to the sensibilities of the 20th century.
If we demand this from General Motors, we should ask no less of ourselves.
[Tom Brokaw, a special correspondent for NBC News, is the author, most recently, of “Boom! Talking About the ’60s.”]
===================
Bringing this discussion closer to home, there are major opportunities for reforming our State Government right here in Washington.
An excellent book, 'A Majority of One: Legislative Life' published by Civitas Press and authored by former State Senator George W. Scott, who has also served as State Historian, illustrates the scope and magnitude of some of our problems - which were created at the time Washington first became a state.
Here are a few bipartisan excerpts taken from the Internet advertising of this very readable book:
Tells everything you wanted to know about legislating -- but would have to get elected to find out!
Here is the excitement, confusion and glory of democracy for political aficionados, candidates, lobbyists, public officials, students and those who need to know how laws are made.
A Majority of One shows how the turmoil of Watergate and Vietnam, abortion, the environment and judicial activism "transformed three part governance by legislatures, governors and courts into five part ones -- and made staff and lobbyists now as powerful as legislators."
Politicians are activists not authors. Only three serious books have been written by legislators about their craft in the last 40 years. Senator Scott (Ph.D., history, University of Washington), also brings his professional lives as a manager in the private and non-profit sectors, in higher and education as State Archivist to explain the legislative environment.
Readers Praise A Majority of One:
“Anyone who cares about representative government must read this book. George Scott captures the essence of legislative action with the knowledge only an insider can bring. He does it with perception, wit and humor.
Daniel J. Evans (R) Former State House Majority Leader, Governor, and U.S. Senator
“Senator George Scott has provided us with a warm, insightful appreciation of the legislative process that few outsiders can offer. This is a must read for students of state government.”
Phil Talmadge (D) Former Washington State Senator and State Supreme Court Justice
“By far the best description of a state legislature’s real operation in print -- from a legislator who knew what was happening -- and why.”
Slade Gorton (R) Former Majority Leader Washington State House of Representatives, Washington State Attorney General, and U.S. Senator
“A primer on how the legislature works. All who care about popular democracy should read this.”
James Dolliver Former Chief Justice, Washington State Supreme Court
“Here is a unique legislative atlas by an insider. High idealism, deep frustration, inspiration, humor, and hundreds of public, corporate and personal interests all boil under a legislative dome. Who can fail to be intrigued?”
Lois North (R) Former State Representative, Senator, and Chair of the King County Council
“Rarely, and I am tempted to say never, do we find an insider’s political savvy combined with the scholarly analysis that George Scott devotes to A Majority of One. Scott is unmatched in his command of the voluminous archival source materials involved here and his use of first-hand experience in weaving them into an absorbing account. This book is a practical guide for understanding the grassroots politics and placing these practices in the bigger picture of local, state, and national affairs. A Majority of One is a must read for both the concerned citizen and the political pro.”
David H. Stratton Professor Emeritus of History Washington State University
“Legislative leaders are activists. George Scott is also a trained historian. Majority is a unique, inclusive insider’s first-hand look at legislating, documented in depth. It is the place to start for students of the process, campaigners, legislators and those who care about politics.”
Jeannette Hayner (R) Former Member of the House. Minority, and Majority Leader, Washington State Senate
“Here we have Machiavelli, modernized and localized. Substitute Medici Florence with Olympia in the 1960, 70s, and 80s, a period of political renaissance of a sort in this state. In place of “The Prince,” Scott centers on principal players in state government during this expansive and turbulent time. George brings Niccolo’s same absorbed analysis to the interaction of these politicians and political institutions for an understanding of how things worked in recent history and still work now.”
Alan Thompson (D) Publisher, former Majority Leader State House of Representatives, State Senator, and Chief Clerk of the House
----------------
Changes to organization structures are daunting to say the very least, but sometimes necessary if the desire to make things work better are desired.
The way things are right now in the State of Washington are similar to what the Dakotas, Iowa and New York are experiencing.
Except, Washington may be worse!
As a brief example, let me cite a comment made decades ago by former House Leader, Jim Farley, which referred to the lower 48 as 47 states and the 'Republic of Washington'.
His reason for making this observation -way back in 1947- is the same as it would be today; Washington is over burdened with a ridiculous patchwork of publicly authorized agencies, special purpose districts, which fracture the functions of government unnecessarily.
Additionally, these various public entities require more elections, officials, public meetings and limited authority than is reasonably practical.
Instead of achieving their original goal of clearly defining roles and responsibilities and limiting over concentration of power, these profligate agencies have achieved the opposite, with disfunction, non-cooperation and public disinterest more in evidence.
It is not often that founders can anticipate with accuracy, the twists, turns, needs and complications of the future, which is why revisions are sometimes required.
It is past time for such reforms in the State of Washington!
But, where will this effort begin?
I suggest the best chance of starting such a movement might be by local initiative.
And what better time than when we are experiencing dire economic conditions?
Anyone see an opportunity here that they are willing to commit time and energy on?
---------------
Here's a piece that is almost guaranteed to resonate with what many people are thinking, but also fall far short of motivating them to action.
But that's just my opinion.
----------------
I'll start by reproducing this from a recent NYTimes:
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Small-Town Big Spending
By TOM BROKAW
Published: April 19, 2009
DURING these uncertain times we’ve yet to hear a phrase with the resonance of Franklin Roosevelt’s “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” but there are a couple of minor-chord expressions that should have staying power.
One is the observation of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Another comes from my boss, Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric, who has warned, “This is not a cycle; it’s a reset.”
Taken together, these remarks challenge us to go beyond trying to quickly fix the immediate problems of toxic mortgages, risky banks, a struggling American car industry and escalating health care costs.
If the American people are tuned into the need to change the irresponsible, inefficient practices and systems that created those problems, why not enlist them to take the next step and radically change the antiquated public structures that exist beyond the Beltway?
Here are a few examples.
It’s estimated that New York State has about 10,500 local government entities, from townships to counties to special districts. A year ago a bipartisan state commission said that New Yorkers could save more than a billion dollars a year by consolidating and sharing local government responsibilities like public security, health, roads and education.
One commission member, a county executive, said, “Our system of local government has barely evolved over the past one hundred years and we are still governed by these same archaic institutions formed before the invention of the light bulb, telephone, automobile and computer.”
In accepting the commission’s recommendations, Gov. David Paterson promised to work diligently to put the changes into effect.
When his budget was presented this spring it included several of the proposed changes, but it immediately met stiff resistance even from members of his own party who were determined to protect their parochial interests.
It appears that few of the original recommendations will survive.
----------
In my native Great Plains, North and South Dakota have a combined population of just under 1.5 million people, and in each state the rural areas are being depopulated at a rapid rate.
Yet between them the two Dakotas support 17 colleges and universities.
They are a carry-over from the early 20th century when travel was more difficult and farm families wanted their children close by during harvest season.
I know this is heresy, but couldn’t the two states get a bigger bang for their higher education buck if they consolidated their smaller institutions into, say, the Dakota Territory College System, with satellite campuses but a common administration and shared standards?
Iowa, next door, is having its own struggles with maintaining population, especially among the young.
As the Hawkeye State’s taxpayers grow older and less financially productive, the cost of government services becomes more expensive.
Yet Iowa proudly maintains its grid of 99 counties, each with its own distinctive courthouse, many on the National Register of Historic Places — and some as little as 40 miles away from one another.
Each one houses a full complement of clerks, auditors, sheriff’s deputies, jailers and commissioners.
Is there any reason beyond local pride to maintain such duplication given the economic and population pressures of our time?
This is not a problem unique to the states I have cited.
Every state and every region in the country is stuck with some form of anachronistic and expensive local government structure that dates to horse-drawn wagons, family farms and small-town convenience.
If this is a reset, it’s time to reorganize our state and local government structures for today’s realities rather than cling to the sensibilities of the 20th century.
If we demand this from General Motors, we should ask no less of ourselves.
[Tom Brokaw, a special correspondent for NBC News, is the author, most recently, of “Boom! Talking About the ’60s.”]
===================
Bringing this discussion closer to home, there are major opportunities for reforming our State Government right here in Washington.
An excellent book, 'A Majority of One: Legislative Life' published by Civitas Press and authored by former State Senator George W. Scott, who has also served as State Historian, illustrates the scope and magnitude of some of our problems - which were created at the time Washington first became a state.
Here are a few bipartisan excerpts taken from the Internet advertising of this very readable book:
Tells everything you wanted to know about legislating -- but would have to get elected to find out!
Here is the excitement, confusion and glory of democracy for political aficionados, candidates, lobbyists, public officials, students and those who need to know how laws are made.
A Majority of One shows how the turmoil of Watergate and Vietnam, abortion, the environment and judicial activism "transformed three part governance by legislatures, governors and courts into five part ones -- and made staff and lobbyists now as powerful as legislators."
Politicians are activists not authors. Only three serious books have been written by legislators about their craft in the last 40 years. Senator Scott (Ph.D., history, University of Washington), also brings his professional lives as a manager in the private and non-profit sectors, in higher and education as State Archivist to explain the legislative environment.
Readers Praise A Majority of One:
“Anyone who cares about representative government must read this book. George Scott captures the essence of legislative action with the knowledge only an insider can bring. He does it with perception, wit and humor.
Daniel J. Evans (R) Former State House Majority Leader, Governor, and U.S. Senator
“Senator George Scott has provided us with a warm, insightful appreciation of the legislative process that few outsiders can offer. This is a must read for students of state government.”
Phil Talmadge (D) Former Washington State Senator and State Supreme Court Justice
“By far the best description of a state legislature’s real operation in print -- from a legislator who knew what was happening -- and why.”
Slade Gorton (R) Former Majority Leader Washington State House of Representatives, Washington State Attorney General, and U.S. Senator
“A primer on how the legislature works. All who care about popular democracy should read this.”
James Dolliver Former Chief Justice, Washington State Supreme Court
“Here is a unique legislative atlas by an insider. High idealism, deep frustration, inspiration, humor, and hundreds of public, corporate and personal interests all boil under a legislative dome. Who can fail to be intrigued?”
Lois North (R) Former State Representative, Senator, and Chair of the King County Council
“Rarely, and I am tempted to say never, do we find an insider’s political savvy combined with the scholarly analysis that George Scott devotes to A Majority of One. Scott is unmatched in his command of the voluminous archival source materials involved here and his use of first-hand experience in weaving them into an absorbing account. This book is a practical guide for understanding the grassroots politics and placing these practices in the bigger picture of local, state, and national affairs. A Majority of One is a must read for both the concerned citizen and the political pro.”
David H. Stratton Professor Emeritus of History Washington State University
“Legislative leaders are activists. George Scott is also a trained historian. Majority is a unique, inclusive insider’s first-hand look at legislating, documented in depth. It is the place to start for students of the process, campaigners, legislators and those who care about politics.”
Jeannette Hayner (R) Former Member of the House. Minority, and Majority Leader, Washington State Senate
“Here we have Machiavelli, modernized and localized. Substitute Medici Florence with Olympia in the 1960, 70s, and 80s, a period of political renaissance of a sort in this state. In place of “The Prince,” Scott centers on principal players in state government during this expansive and turbulent time. George brings Niccolo’s same absorbed analysis to the interaction of these politicians and political institutions for an understanding of how things worked in recent history and still work now.”
Alan Thompson (D) Publisher, former Majority Leader State House of Representatives, State Senator, and Chief Clerk of the House
----------------
Changes to organization structures are daunting to say the very least, but sometimes necessary if the desire to make things work better are desired.
The way things are right now in the State of Washington are similar to what the Dakotas, Iowa and New York are experiencing.
Except, Washington may be worse!
As a brief example, let me cite a comment made decades ago by former House Leader, Jim Farley, which referred to the lower 48 as 47 states and the 'Republic of Washington'.
His reason for making this observation -way back in 1947- is the same as it would be today; Washington is over burdened with a ridiculous patchwork of publicly authorized agencies, special purpose districts, which fracture the functions of government unnecessarily.
Additionally, these various public entities require more elections, officials, public meetings and limited authority than is reasonably practical.
Instead of achieving their original goal of clearly defining roles and responsibilities and limiting over concentration of power, these profligate agencies have achieved the opposite, with disfunction, non-cooperation and public disinterest more in evidence.
It is not often that founders can anticipate with accuracy, the twists, turns, needs and complications of the future, which is why revisions are sometimes required.
It is past time for such reforms in the State of Washington!
But, where will this effort begin?
I suggest the best chance of starting such a movement might be by local initiative.
And what better time than when we are experiencing dire economic conditions?
Anyone see an opportunity here that they are willing to commit time and energy on?
---------------
Monday, April 20, 2009
Pirate Economics & Social Contracts
----------------
Today's New York Times carried a fascinating article that I have reproduced below:
April 20, 2009
Pirate Economics 101: A Q&A With Invisible Hook Author Peter Leeson
By RYAN HAGEN
The crew of the Maersk Alabama, having survived an attack by pirates in Somalia last week, has returned home for a much-deserved rest. But with tensions ratcheting up between the U.S. and the rag-tag confederation of Somali pirates, it’s worth looking to the past for clues on how to tame the outlaw seas.
Peter Leeson, an economist at George Mason University (and an occasional Freakonomics guest blogger), offers a brisk and fascinating look at old-school piracy in his new book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates. Leeson agreed to sit down and answer some important piratical questions for us:
Q The Invisible Hook is more than just a clever title. How is it different from Adam Smith’s invisible hand?
A In Adam Smith, the idea is that each individual pursuing his own self-interest is led, as if by an invisible hand, to promote the interest of society. The idea of the invisible hook is that pirates, though they’re criminals, are still driven by their self-interest. So they were driven to build systems of government and social structures that allowed them to better pursue their criminal ends. They’re connected, but the big difference is that, for Adam Smith, self-interest results in cooperation that generates wealth and makes other people better off. For pirates, self-interest results in cooperation that destroys wealth by allowing pirates to plunder more effectively.
Q In the book, you write that pirates had set up their own early versions of constitutional democracy, complete with separation of powers, decades before the American Revolution. Was that only possible because they were outlaws, operating entirely outside the control of any government?
A That’s right. The pirates of the 18th century set up quite a thoroughgoing system of democracy. The reason that the criminality is driving these structures is because they can’t rely on the state to provide those structures for them. So pirates, more than anyone else, needed to figure out some system of law and order to make it possible for them to remain together long enough to be successful at stealing.
Q So did these participatory, democratic systems give merchant sailors an incentive to join pirate crews, because it meant they were freer among pirates than on their own ships?
A The sailors had more freedom and better pay as pirates than as merchantmen. But perhaps the most important thing was freedom from the arbitrariness of captains and the malicious abuses of power that merchant captains were known to inflict on their crews. In a pirate democracy, a crew could, and routinely did, depose their captain if he was abusing his power or was incompetent.
Q You write that pirates weren’t necessarily the bloodthirsty fiends we imagine them to have been. How does the invisible hook explain their behavior?
A The basic idea is, once we recognize pirates as economic actors, businessmen really, it becomes clear as to why they wouldn’t want to brutalize everyone they overtook. In order to encourage merchantmen to surrender, they needed to communicate the idea that, if you surrender to us, you’ll be treated well. That’s the incentive pirates give for sailors to surrender peacefully. If they wantonly abused their prisoners, as they’re often portrayed as having done, that would have actually undermined the incentive of merchant crews to surrender, which would have caused pirates to incur greater costs. They would have had to battle it out more often, because the merchants would have expected to be tortured indiscriminately if they were captured.
So instead, what we often see in the historical record is pirates displaying quite remarkable feats of generosity. The other side of that, of course, is that if you resisted, they had to unleash, you know, a hellish fury on you. That’s where most of the stories of pirate atrocities come from. That’s not to say that no pirate ever indulged his sadistic impulses. But I speculate that the pirate population had no higher proportion of sadists than legitimate society did. And those sadists among the pirates tended to reserve their sadistic actions for times when it would profit them.
Q So they never made anyone walk the plank?
A There was no walking the plank. There’s no historical foundation for that in 17th- or 18th-century piracy.
Q You write about piracy as a brand. It’s quite a successful one, having lasted for hundreds of years after the pirates themselves were exterminated. What was the key to that success?
A There was a very particular type of reputation that pirates wanted to cultivate. It was a very delicate line to walk. They didn’t want to have a reputation for wanton brutality or complete madness. They wanted to be perceived as hair-trigger men, men on the edge, who if you pushed, if you resisted, they would snap and do something horrible to you. That way, the captives they took had an incentive to be very careful to comply with all of the pirates’ demands. At the same time, they wanted a reputation as being very brutal, as meting out these brutal, horrible tortures to captives who didn’t comply with their demands. Stories about those horrible tortures were relayed not only by word of mouth, but by early 18th-century newspapers. When a former prisoner was released, he would oftentimes go to the media and provide an account of his capture. So when colonials read these accounts in the media, that helped institutionalize the idea of pirates as these men on the edge. That worked marvelously for pirates. It was a form of advertising performed by legitimate members of society that again helped pirates reduce their costs.
Q What kinds of lessons can we draw from The Invisible Hook in dealing with modern pirates?
A We have to recognize that pirates are rational economic actors and that piracy is an occupational choice. If we think of them as irrational, or as pursuing other ends, we’re liable to come up with solutions to the pirate problem that are ineffective. Since we know that pirates respond to costs and benefits, we should think of solutions that alter those costs and benefits to shape the incentives for pirates and to deter them from going into a life of piracy.
---------------
An earlier piece, also by Peter Leeson, was published on September 5, 2008, under the title of 'Three Great Social Contractarians: Hobbes, Locke, and … Blackbeard?'
He makes some points about social contracts and their role in effective governance, which I found very interesting, as well as largely impractical.
What do you think?
------------------
Peter Leeson, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University and author of the forthcoming book “The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates,” blogged here earlier this week about U.F.O.’s and dominoes.
We’ve all heard the idea of the social contract before.
This is the notion of government as the product of a grand, unanimous agreement between society’s members that brings political authority into existence.
In school, we read the great social contract theorists: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
And then we’re told that none of it’s really true.
No society literally created its government through a genuine social contract, conventional wisdom goes.
That would require every member of society to voluntarily agree to such a contract’s terms and to express consent explicitly through their signatures.
Even America’s founding, which involved a written “agreement” of sorts, fails this test.
Only a few members of American society actually signed the Constitution, and some disagreed with it but were stuck with its terms nonetheless.
The social contract might be an important analytical device for evaluating government’s legitimacy.
But, taken literally anyway, it’s a myth.
The social contract may be mythical when it comes to societies of honest individuals.
But recent research suggests it’s very real when it comes to some societies of rogues.
Eighteenth-century pirate society had a genuine social contract at its foundation, a unanimous social agreement that created the pirates’ constitutional democracy.
Pirates’ floating societies were forged without government to create government and used actual written contracts — “pirate codes” — to do so.
Pirates weren’t the only rogue societies to forge their “governments” via literal social contracts.
David Skarbek shows that a contemporary California-based prison gang, La Nuestra Familia, has similar social contract foundations, and a recent discovery suggests the Mafia may have a social contract at its base as well.
Could murderers and thieves be more familiar with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau than honest citizens?
Probably not.
But criminal societies emerge with very different purposes than regular ones; these differences may account for why Blackbeard’s “government” was a more faithful representation of a true social contract than the U.S. government is.
Rogue societies’ criminality puts social harmony at a premium.
Since any disgruntled member of a criminal society could turn on his comrades and inform authorities of their skullduggery, leading to their capture and punishment, it’s critical to make sure everyone is happy.
This means ensuring everyone is pleased to live under society’s rules and is satisfied with the people who administer those rules.
A social contract, which secures citizens’ unanimous agreement to political rules at the outset and enshrines this agreement in writing, helps to secure such harmony.
In contrast, societies formed without criminal intent don’t confront this problem.
In “regular” societies, a disgruntled citizen can’t bring down the rest of us by tattling to outside authorities.
Here, then, securing every citizen’s agreement to political authority through universal social agreement is less critical.
Of course, there are other important factors that influence criminal vs. “regular” societies’ reliance on genuine social contracts. But the difference between their criminality appears to be an important one.
And, as my forthcoming book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates discusses, criminality, perhaps unexpectedly, seems to favor governments based on true social agreement.
What can criminal consent teach us about American government?
A few things, actually.
First, society works best where the need for policemen is least.
Precisely because in self-regulating societies individuals regulate themselves, these societies can afford more freedom and the benefits that come with it.
But self regulation is only possible where most citizens agree with the rules that govern them.
The key, then, is to increase the extent of social agreement underlying the rules that govern society.
There are two ways to do this.
The first way is to try and build greater agreement over the existing range of issues we decide socially (i.e., in the public sphere).
That seems unlikely, though, if for no other reason than Americans are as diverse in their beliefs and preferences as they come.
The second way is to be more modest about the range of issues we seek social consensus on in the first place.
Most of us agree that murder, for instance, should be prohibited.
Making this decision through the political process is unlikely to undermine social agreement.
But there’s much greater variation in Americans’ thinking about, say, what schools should teach fifth graders about sex, whether trans-fats pose an unreasonable risk to one’s health, and whether Andres Serrano produces provocative art or sacrilegious smut.
By depoliticizing decisions — making more of them private choices instead of public ones — we can strengthen the consensual basis of American government, and hopefully enhance social agreement over the rules we have.
-----------------
Today's New York Times carried a fascinating article that I have reproduced below:
April 20, 2009
Pirate Economics 101: A Q&A With Invisible Hook Author Peter Leeson
By RYAN HAGEN
The crew of the Maersk Alabama, having survived an attack by pirates in Somalia last week, has returned home for a much-deserved rest. But with tensions ratcheting up between the U.S. and the rag-tag confederation of Somali pirates, it’s worth looking to the past for clues on how to tame the outlaw seas.
Peter Leeson, an economist at George Mason University (and an occasional Freakonomics guest blogger), offers a brisk and fascinating look at old-school piracy in his new book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates. Leeson agreed to sit down and answer some important piratical questions for us:
Q The Invisible Hook is more than just a clever title. How is it different from Adam Smith’s invisible hand?
A In Adam Smith, the idea is that each individual pursuing his own self-interest is led, as if by an invisible hand, to promote the interest of society. The idea of the invisible hook is that pirates, though they’re criminals, are still driven by their self-interest. So they were driven to build systems of government and social structures that allowed them to better pursue their criminal ends. They’re connected, but the big difference is that, for Adam Smith, self-interest results in cooperation that generates wealth and makes other people better off. For pirates, self-interest results in cooperation that destroys wealth by allowing pirates to plunder more effectively.
Q In the book, you write that pirates had set up their own early versions of constitutional democracy, complete with separation of powers, decades before the American Revolution. Was that only possible because they were outlaws, operating entirely outside the control of any government?
A That’s right. The pirates of the 18th century set up quite a thoroughgoing system of democracy. The reason that the criminality is driving these structures is because they can’t rely on the state to provide those structures for them. So pirates, more than anyone else, needed to figure out some system of law and order to make it possible for them to remain together long enough to be successful at stealing.
Q So did these participatory, democratic systems give merchant sailors an incentive to join pirate crews, because it meant they were freer among pirates than on their own ships?
A The sailors had more freedom and better pay as pirates than as merchantmen. But perhaps the most important thing was freedom from the arbitrariness of captains and the malicious abuses of power that merchant captains were known to inflict on their crews. In a pirate democracy, a crew could, and routinely did, depose their captain if he was abusing his power or was incompetent.
Q You write that pirates weren’t necessarily the bloodthirsty fiends we imagine them to have been. How does the invisible hook explain their behavior?
A The basic idea is, once we recognize pirates as economic actors, businessmen really, it becomes clear as to why they wouldn’t want to brutalize everyone they overtook. In order to encourage merchantmen to surrender, they needed to communicate the idea that, if you surrender to us, you’ll be treated well. That’s the incentive pirates give for sailors to surrender peacefully. If they wantonly abused their prisoners, as they’re often portrayed as having done, that would have actually undermined the incentive of merchant crews to surrender, which would have caused pirates to incur greater costs. They would have had to battle it out more often, because the merchants would have expected to be tortured indiscriminately if they were captured.
So instead, what we often see in the historical record is pirates displaying quite remarkable feats of generosity. The other side of that, of course, is that if you resisted, they had to unleash, you know, a hellish fury on you. That’s where most of the stories of pirate atrocities come from. That’s not to say that no pirate ever indulged his sadistic impulses. But I speculate that the pirate population had no higher proportion of sadists than legitimate society did. And those sadists among the pirates tended to reserve their sadistic actions for times when it would profit them.
Q So they never made anyone walk the plank?
A There was no walking the plank. There’s no historical foundation for that in 17th- or 18th-century piracy.
Q You write about piracy as a brand. It’s quite a successful one, having lasted for hundreds of years after the pirates themselves were exterminated. What was the key to that success?
A There was a very particular type of reputation that pirates wanted to cultivate. It was a very delicate line to walk. They didn’t want to have a reputation for wanton brutality or complete madness. They wanted to be perceived as hair-trigger men, men on the edge, who if you pushed, if you resisted, they would snap and do something horrible to you. That way, the captives they took had an incentive to be very careful to comply with all of the pirates’ demands. At the same time, they wanted a reputation as being very brutal, as meting out these brutal, horrible tortures to captives who didn’t comply with their demands. Stories about those horrible tortures were relayed not only by word of mouth, but by early 18th-century newspapers. When a former prisoner was released, he would oftentimes go to the media and provide an account of his capture. So when colonials read these accounts in the media, that helped institutionalize the idea of pirates as these men on the edge. That worked marvelously for pirates. It was a form of advertising performed by legitimate members of society that again helped pirates reduce their costs.
Q What kinds of lessons can we draw from The Invisible Hook in dealing with modern pirates?
A We have to recognize that pirates are rational economic actors and that piracy is an occupational choice. If we think of them as irrational, or as pursuing other ends, we’re liable to come up with solutions to the pirate problem that are ineffective. Since we know that pirates respond to costs and benefits, we should think of solutions that alter those costs and benefits to shape the incentives for pirates and to deter them from going into a life of piracy.
---------------
An earlier piece, also by Peter Leeson, was published on September 5, 2008, under the title of 'Three Great Social Contractarians: Hobbes, Locke, and … Blackbeard?'
He makes some points about social contracts and their role in effective governance, which I found very interesting, as well as largely impractical.
What do you think?
------------------
Peter Leeson, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University and author of the forthcoming book “The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates,” blogged here earlier this week about U.F.O.’s and dominoes.
We’ve all heard the idea of the social contract before.
This is the notion of government as the product of a grand, unanimous agreement between society’s members that brings political authority into existence.
In school, we read the great social contract theorists: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
And then we’re told that none of it’s really true.
No society literally created its government through a genuine social contract, conventional wisdom goes.
That would require every member of society to voluntarily agree to such a contract’s terms and to express consent explicitly through their signatures.
Even America’s founding, which involved a written “agreement” of sorts, fails this test.
Only a few members of American society actually signed the Constitution, and some disagreed with it but were stuck with its terms nonetheless.
The social contract might be an important analytical device for evaluating government’s legitimacy.
But, taken literally anyway, it’s a myth.
The social contract may be mythical when it comes to societies of honest individuals.
But recent research suggests it’s very real when it comes to some societies of rogues.
Eighteenth-century pirate society had a genuine social contract at its foundation, a unanimous social agreement that created the pirates’ constitutional democracy.
Pirates’ floating societies were forged without government to create government and used actual written contracts — “pirate codes” — to do so.
Pirates weren’t the only rogue societies to forge their “governments” via literal social contracts.
David Skarbek shows that a contemporary California-based prison gang, La Nuestra Familia, has similar social contract foundations, and a recent discovery suggests the Mafia may have a social contract at its base as well.
Could murderers and thieves be more familiar with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau than honest citizens?
Probably not.
But criminal societies emerge with very different purposes than regular ones; these differences may account for why Blackbeard’s “government” was a more faithful representation of a true social contract than the U.S. government is.
Rogue societies’ criminality puts social harmony at a premium.
Since any disgruntled member of a criminal society could turn on his comrades and inform authorities of their skullduggery, leading to their capture and punishment, it’s critical to make sure everyone is happy.
This means ensuring everyone is pleased to live under society’s rules and is satisfied with the people who administer those rules.
A social contract, which secures citizens’ unanimous agreement to political rules at the outset and enshrines this agreement in writing, helps to secure such harmony.
In contrast, societies formed without criminal intent don’t confront this problem.
In “regular” societies, a disgruntled citizen can’t bring down the rest of us by tattling to outside authorities.
Here, then, securing every citizen’s agreement to political authority through universal social agreement is less critical.
Of course, there are other important factors that influence criminal vs. “regular” societies’ reliance on genuine social contracts. But the difference between their criminality appears to be an important one.
And, as my forthcoming book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates discusses, criminality, perhaps unexpectedly, seems to favor governments based on true social agreement.
What can criminal consent teach us about American government?
A few things, actually.
First, society works best where the need for policemen is least.
Precisely because in self-regulating societies individuals regulate themselves, these societies can afford more freedom and the benefits that come with it.
But self regulation is only possible where most citizens agree with the rules that govern them.
The key, then, is to increase the extent of social agreement underlying the rules that govern society.
There are two ways to do this.
The first way is to try and build greater agreement over the existing range of issues we decide socially (i.e., in the public sphere).
That seems unlikely, though, if for no other reason than Americans are as diverse in their beliefs and preferences as they come.
The second way is to be more modest about the range of issues we seek social consensus on in the first place.
Most of us agree that murder, for instance, should be prohibited.
Making this decision through the political process is unlikely to undermine social agreement.
But there’s much greater variation in Americans’ thinking about, say, what schools should teach fifth graders about sex, whether trans-fats pose an unreasonable risk to one’s health, and whether Andres Serrano produces provocative art or sacrilegious smut.
By depoliticizing decisions — making more of them private choices instead of public ones — we can strengthen the consensual basis of American government, and hopefully enhance social agreement over the rules we have.
-----------------
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Polarization: What Does It Mean & Who Decides?
-----------------
WARNING: Not for those with limited attention spans.
-----------------
From Wikipedia:
In politics, polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.
Definitions of polarization
The term "polarization" comes from political science. There, it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;[1] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.[2] Political figures can receive a polarized response from the public through actions of their own,[3] through historical trends or accidents,[3] or due to external forces such as media bias.[4]
Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.[5] One is "plain" or generic polarization, often referred to as popular polarization,[1] which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.[1] Political scientists several kinds of metrics to measure popular polarization, such as the American National Election Studies' "feeling thermometer" polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure.[6][7]
The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines.[3]
Popular media definitions and uses of "polarization" tend to be looser.
------------------------------------
I found this piece an interesting explanation of what one interpreter found from a recent survey:
April 6, 2009
'POLARIZING'.... The Pew Research Center released a poll a few days ago showing -- surprise, surprise -- Democrats like President Obama a whole lot more than Republicans do.
In fact, according to the Pew report, Obama "has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades."
There's a 61-point partisan gap -- 88% of Democrats approve of the president's on-the-job performance, while 27% of Republicans say the same.
This has led more than a few conservatives to argue today that this gap is, of course, the president's fault.
Peter Wehner argued, for example, "It became apparent quite early that bipartisanship was a fictional commitment for Barack Obama; shutting Republicans out of negotiations and promoting what ranks among the most left-wing domestic agendas in our lifetime was all the evidence some of us needed.
Apparently most of the rest of the nation understands that as well."
First, I hardly think it's accurate to say that "most" see the president is overly partisan.
In reality, most of the nation approves of Obama's job performance, and remain unconcerned about partisanship.
The 61-point partisan gap in the Pew survey, while obviously large, is partly the result of Democratic satisfaction.
As Andrew Sullivan noted, "The percentage of Republicans approving of Obama at this point is almost identical to that approving of Clinton in 1993."
Obama is, therefore, more "polarizing" because he enjoys more support from Democrats now than Clinton did 16 years ago.
Indeed, Michael Dimock, Pew's associate director, told Greg Sargent that conservatives are misreading the results of the survey when they blame Obama for the broader dynamic, calling their conclusion "unfair."
Dimock says the divide is driven by long term trends and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party -- by what he calls "the way Democrats are reacting to Obama."
Interestingly, Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.
In contrast to the 27% of GOPers approving of Obama now, more than a third of Dems (36%) approved of George W. Bush at a comparable time in 2001.
Before that, only 26% of Republicans approved of Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, while 41% of Dems approved of both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at comparable times.
"Polarizing" is an overly used buzzword, anyway.
For most of his second term, George W. Bush wasn't polarizing; he was just spectacularly unpopular among almost every group and constituency.
Dems, Republicans, and independents couldn't wait for Bush to go.
But at least he wasn't polarizing!
Obama, in contrast, enjoys fairly broad support, including more than one in four Republicans.
Conservatives want to say that makes the president "polarizing"?
Whatever makes them feel better.
---------------------------------
For 'balance' as FOX News likes to claim, here's another view of the same poll results by a former Presidential speechwriter:
[I'll let you decide which political party the writer belongs to]
The Most Polarizing President
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Who has been the most polarizing new president of recent times?
Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush?
No, that honor belongs to Barack Obama.
According to the Pew Research Center, the gap between Republican and Democratic approval ratings for Bush a few months into his first term was about 51 percentage points.
For Obama, this partisan gap stands at 61 points.
Obama has been a unifier, of sorts.
He has united Democrats and united Republicans -- against each other.
The Pew report notes that this is the extension of a long-term trend.
Decades ago, a majority of Democrats approved of Richard Nixon's job performance early in his first term.
A majority of Republicans did the same for Jimmy Carter.
But that has not been true for any president since.
Ron Brownstein, the author of "The Second Civil War," cites a variety of structural reasons for intensified division.
There has been a "sorting out" of the political parties, making each more ideologically uniform.
Long, nasty presidential campaigns stoke our differences.
Media outlets have become more partisan.
Ideological interest groups have proliferated.
Congressional leaders have changed the rules, making it easier to impose party discipline.
But Obama was supposed to be the antidote to the poison of partisanship.
During the presidential campaign, chief strategist David Axelrod told Brownstein, "If there's an enhanced Democratic majority, I think that he's going . . . to urge a special sense of responsibility to try and forge coalitions around these answers, not because we won't be able to force our will in many cases, but because, ultimately, effective governance requires it in the long term."
That makes last week's votes on the budget resolutions a landmark of ineffective governance.
Not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported the bill, largely because the Democratic majo0rity forced its will. Republicans were flattened, not consulted.
Democratic leaders talk of enacting controversial elements of the budget through the "reconciliation" process -- which would require 51 Senate votes, not the normal 60, for passage.
Only in Washington would the word "reconciliation" refer to a form of partisan warfare.
Without Republican input or influence, the budget is a tax-and-spend caricature.
Obama has complained of inheriting a $1.3 trillion debt.
According to economist Michael Boskin, Obama's proposals would add $6.5 trillion in debt over the next decade -- about $163,000 for every American taxpaying family.
I am not generally a deficit hawk.
A government can run a responsible deficit in a growing economy -- and may have to run one to counteract an economic downturn.
But Obama's proposed level of debt is irresponsible.
It makes broad tax increases nearly inevitable.
It expands our dependence on China, America's loan officer.
And it creates pressure for the government to purchase or monetize debt, leading to inflation.
No Republican, even of the moderate variety, could accept a budget that spends America into unsustainable debt by completely avoiding the setting of realistic priorities.
And none in Congress did.
There is an argument in favor of political polarization.
Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, in their time, were polarizing presidents precisely because they were ambitious presidents. They believed that some national goals were worth the sacrifice of amity.
A decisive leader is sometimes a divisive leader.
But Obama's polarizing approach challenges and changes the core of his political identity.
His moderate manner and message appealed to a country weary of division and ambition -- a nation now asked to endure another round of both.
But Obama's domestic agenda is also resoundingly typical -- as though he were some conventionally liberal backbench senator suddenly thrust into immense influence.
Which, of course, he is.
It would have been relatively easy for President Obama to divide the Republican coalition, peeling off less-partisan Republicans with genuine outreach.
Many Republicans were prepared to accept short-term deficits to stimulate the economy in exchange for long-term fiscal responsibility.
Obama could have focused more narrowly on resolving the financial crisis -- the key to all economic recovery -- and delayed his ambitions on other issues to a more realistic time.
In the process, he might have gotten some Republicans to share his political risks instead of nursing grievances on the sidelines.
Polarization in American politics has its own disturbing momentum, aided by some strident Republican voices.
But that does not require a president to make it worse.
And it is a sad, unnecessary shame that Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has so quickly become another source of division.
-----------------
You tell me, who's sticking to the poll findings and who's making up stuff as they go?
If you haven't guessed similarly, Mr Gerson appears to be still employed by the R's to spin events to their political advantage.
And, boy, do they need that!
But, is this the way to convince thinking people?
And, if thinking people aren't seen as important to R's, who do they represent?
Any political party who falls from power so far and fast, must have done some egregious, self-inflicted damage to itself.
In light of the R's own behavior during the past 8 years, Gerson's appeal for more 'inclusiveness' from the D's seems exceptionally ridiculous.
Maybe the R's just seriously miscalculated Obama's 'toughness' and resolve, which they have repeatedly claimed.
Surprise!
Gerson is just the latest to do the extreme mental gymnastics required to make every R position seem reasonable.
Why, it's a wonder he doesn't spend every day with a chiropractor - or understudying a contortionist!
The Republicans are merely trying to cover their collective butts, while practicing those tried and true 3 'D's' used by extreme fringe groups the world over;
Deny, Decry, Delay.
That's what true losers do when they don't get their way.
Wouldn't it be more effective to just participate by actually making a few constructive suggestions as thoughtful individuals, rather than slavishly following the ritual of group think, dictated by party hacks?
And what about this party-oriented block voting thing?
Think about it.
It has been the R's own arrogance has brought them down, combined with the overwhelming need for reform and change that Obama so charismatically recognized and communicated.
R's & D's are not polar opposites, and it is silly to pretend so.
But, there are always more than one way to view an issue, which is healthy.
The trick is to be honest in the process, otherwise all bets are off.
And, it doesn't matter which party is in power.
Tell me again, what is Obama's approval rating after -what- almost 3 whole months in office?
Let's keep that little indisputable fact in perspective, shall we?
---------------
WARNING: Not for those with limited attention spans.
-----------------
From Wikipedia:
In politics, polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.
Definitions of polarization
The term "polarization" comes from political science. There, it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;[1] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.[2] Political figures can receive a polarized response from the public through actions of their own,[3] through historical trends or accidents,[3] or due to external forces such as media bias.[4]
Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.[5] One is "plain" or generic polarization, often referred to as popular polarization,[1] which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.[1] Political scientists several kinds of metrics to measure popular polarization, such as the American National Election Studies' "feeling thermometer" polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure.[6][7]
The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines.[3]
Popular media definitions and uses of "polarization" tend to be looser.
------------------------------------
I found this piece an interesting explanation of what one interpreter found from a recent survey:
April 6, 2009
'POLARIZING'.... The Pew Research Center released a poll a few days ago showing -- surprise, surprise -- Democrats like President Obama a whole lot more than Republicans do.
In fact, according to the Pew report, Obama "has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades."
There's a 61-point partisan gap -- 88% of Democrats approve of the president's on-the-job performance, while 27% of Republicans say the same.
This has led more than a few conservatives to argue today that this gap is, of course, the president's fault.
Peter Wehner argued, for example, "It became apparent quite early that bipartisanship was a fictional commitment for Barack Obama; shutting Republicans out of negotiations and promoting what ranks among the most left-wing domestic agendas in our lifetime was all the evidence some of us needed.
Apparently most of the rest of the nation understands that as well."
First, I hardly think it's accurate to say that "most" see the president is overly partisan.
In reality, most of the nation approves of Obama's job performance, and remain unconcerned about partisanship.
The 61-point partisan gap in the Pew survey, while obviously large, is partly the result of Democratic satisfaction.
As Andrew Sullivan noted, "The percentage of Republicans approving of Obama at this point is almost identical to that approving of Clinton in 1993."
Obama is, therefore, more "polarizing" because he enjoys more support from Democrats now than Clinton did 16 years ago.
Indeed, Michael Dimock, Pew's associate director, told Greg Sargent that conservatives are misreading the results of the survey when they blame Obama for the broader dynamic, calling their conclusion "unfair."
Dimock says the divide is driven by long term trends and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party -- by what he calls "the way Democrats are reacting to Obama."
Interestingly, Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.
In contrast to the 27% of GOPers approving of Obama now, more than a third of Dems (36%) approved of George W. Bush at a comparable time in 2001.
Before that, only 26% of Republicans approved of Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, while 41% of Dems approved of both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at comparable times.
"Polarizing" is an overly used buzzword, anyway.
For most of his second term, George W. Bush wasn't polarizing; he was just spectacularly unpopular among almost every group and constituency.
Dems, Republicans, and independents couldn't wait for Bush to go.
But at least he wasn't polarizing!
Obama, in contrast, enjoys fairly broad support, including more than one in four Republicans.
Conservatives want to say that makes the president "polarizing"?
Whatever makes them feel better.
---------------------------------
For 'balance' as FOX News likes to claim, here's another view of the same poll results by a former Presidential speechwriter:
[I'll let you decide which political party the writer belongs to]
The Most Polarizing President
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Who has been the most polarizing new president of recent times?
Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush?
No, that honor belongs to Barack Obama.
According to the Pew Research Center, the gap between Republican and Democratic approval ratings for Bush a few months into his first term was about 51 percentage points.
For Obama, this partisan gap stands at 61 points.
Obama has been a unifier, of sorts.
He has united Democrats and united Republicans -- against each other.
The Pew report notes that this is the extension of a long-term trend.
Decades ago, a majority of Democrats approved of Richard Nixon's job performance early in his first term.
A majority of Republicans did the same for Jimmy Carter.
But that has not been true for any president since.
Ron Brownstein, the author of "The Second Civil War," cites a variety of structural reasons for intensified division.
There has been a "sorting out" of the political parties, making each more ideologically uniform.
Long, nasty presidential campaigns stoke our differences.
Media outlets have become more partisan.
Ideological interest groups have proliferated.
Congressional leaders have changed the rules, making it easier to impose party discipline.
But Obama was supposed to be the antidote to the poison of partisanship.
During the presidential campaign, chief strategist David Axelrod told Brownstein, "If there's an enhanced Democratic majority, I think that he's going . . . to urge a special sense of responsibility to try and forge coalitions around these answers, not because we won't be able to force our will in many cases, but because, ultimately, effective governance requires it in the long term."
That makes last week's votes on the budget resolutions a landmark of ineffective governance.
Not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported the bill, largely because the Democratic majo0rity forced its will. Republicans were flattened, not consulted.
Democratic leaders talk of enacting controversial elements of the budget through the "reconciliation" process -- which would require 51 Senate votes, not the normal 60, for passage.
Only in Washington would the word "reconciliation" refer to a form of partisan warfare.
Without Republican input or influence, the budget is a tax-and-spend caricature.
Obama has complained of inheriting a $1.3 trillion debt.
According to economist Michael Boskin, Obama's proposals would add $6.5 trillion in debt over the next decade -- about $163,000 for every American taxpaying family.
I am not generally a deficit hawk.
A government can run a responsible deficit in a growing economy -- and may have to run one to counteract an economic downturn.
But Obama's proposed level of debt is irresponsible.
It makes broad tax increases nearly inevitable.
It expands our dependence on China, America's loan officer.
And it creates pressure for the government to purchase or monetize debt, leading to inflation.
No Republican, even of the moderate variety, could accept a budget that spends America into unsustainable debt by completely avoiding the setting of realistic priorities.
And none in Congress did.
There is an argument in favor of political polarization.
Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, in their time, were polarizing presidents precisely because they were ambitious presidents. They believed that some national goals were worth the sacrifice of amity.
A decisive leader is sometimes a divisive leader.
But Obama's polarizing approach challenges and changes the core of his political identity.
His moderate manner and message appealed to a country weary of division and ambition -- a nation now asked to endure another round of both.
But Obama's domestic agenda is also resoundingly typical -- as though he were some conventionally liberal backbench senator suddenly thrust into immense influence.
Which, of course, he is.
It would have been relatively easy for President Obama to divide the Republican coalition, peeling off less-partisan Republicans with genuine outreach.
Many Republicans were prepared to accept short-term deficits to stimulate the economy in exchange for long-term fiscal responsibility.
Obama could have focused more narrowly on resolving the financial crisis -- the key to all economic recovery -- and delayed his ambitions on other issues to a more realistic time.
In the process, he might have gotten some Republicans to share his political risks instead of nursing grievances on the sidelines.
Polarization in American politics has its own disturbing momentum, aided by some strident Republican voices.
But that does not require a president to make it worse.
And it is a sad, unnecessary shame that Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has so quickly become another source of division.
-----------------
You tell me, who's sticking to the poll findings and who's making up stuff as they go?
If you haven't guessed similarly, Mr Gerson appears to be still employed by the R's to spin events to their political advantage.
And, boy, do they need that!
But, is this the way to convince thinking people?
And, if thinking people aren't seen as important to R's, who do they represent?
Any political party who falls from power so far and fast, must have done some egregious, self-inflicted damage to itself.
In light of the R's own behavior during the past 8 years, Gerson's appeal for more 'inclusiveness' from the D's seems exceptionally ridiculous.
Maybe the R's just seriously miscalculated Obama's 'toughness' and resolve, which they have repeatedly claimed.
Surprise!
Gerson is just the latest to do the extreme mental gymnastics required to make every R position seem reasonable.
Why, it's a wonder he doesn't spend every day with a chiropractor - or understudying a contortionist!
The Republicans are merely trying to cover their collective butts, while practicing those tried and true 3 'D's' used by extreme fringe groups the world over;
Deny, Decry, Delay.
That's what true losers do when they don't get their way.
Wouldn't it be more effective to just participate by actually making a few constructive suggestions as thoughtful individuals, rather than slavishly following the ritual of group think, dictated by party hacks?
And what about this party-oriented block voting thing?
Think about it.
It has been the R's own arrogance has brought them down, combined with the overwhelming need for reform and change that Obama so charismatically recognized and communicated.
R's & D's are not polar opposites, and it is silly to pretend so.
But, there are always more than one way to view an issue, which is healthy.
The trick is to be honest in the process, otherwise all bets are off.
And, it doesn't matter which party is in power.
Tell me again, what is Obama's approval rating after -what- almost 3 whole months in office?
Let's keep that little indisputable fact in perspective, shall we?
---------------
Friday, April 17, 2009
Census 2010: Honest Count Or Partisan Issue?
---------------
Ten years ago I participated in Census 2000 as a member of Whatcom County's 'Complete Count' Committee.
That was a very enlightening experience, which got rewarded by substantially exceeding the estimated count of 66%, instead reaching about 71% of the people living here.
That may not sound like much, but translated into the allocation of Federal funds -and reapportionment of US House of Representatives seats - it does mean a lot, likely millions of dollars for just Whatcom County.
Of course, the likelihood of gaining another House seat is pretty remote, unless we happen to become one of the fastest growth areas in the US -something most folks would not prefer.
On the subject of House seat reapportionment, some might like a little history on how that came about.
For over a hundred years, the US Constitution required adding another House seat every time the Census showed a gain of a certain number of people -initially 10,000.
At some point that system would clearly become unworkable -imagine a population of 350 million requiring about 35,000 House members.
So, something had to change, and it did around 1920, when that year's Census first indicated that more people lived in urban areas than in rural areas.
This was cause for serious consternation among some, who thought it just wouldn't do to have city folk having the advantage in decisions affecting the country as a whole. [Isn't there still some of that thinking around?]
Anyway, the decision was made to freeze the number of House members at the then current level of 435, and readjust their apportionment periodically, based upon Census results.
And, that's how it stands today.
This process continues to allow adjustments based upon relative population counts, but at a much slower rate.
Of course, the Senate membership is not based upon population, but fixed at a constant 2 Senators per State; one of those pesky compromises that were required for the USA to even come into being!
Long story short, this will provide some background for our upcoming Census 2010 and its importance.
I don't know what plans are in the works to ensure the next Census is a really good one, but surely there will be such an effort.
-----------------
With the above in mind, I'm reprinting below, an Op-Ed by Timothy Egan that recently appeared in the NY Times:
April 15, 2009, 10:00 PM
Family Secrets
The new Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke of Seattle, is a former Eagle Scout, prosecutor, and popular two-term governor whose idea of a good time is to crawl under the kitchen sink with plumber’s tape and a gob of grease. Just one week into the new job, he flew home to mow his lawn.
After reading the background file that the F.B.I. put together on Locke, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison characterized the latest member of President Obama’s cabinet with one word — “boring.”
But Gary Locke does have a family secret that is anything but eye-glazing.
Yes, he is widely known as the nation’s first Chinese-American governor, with a stirring family saga, as President Obama said in introducing Locke.
“Sometimes the American story can be told in the span of a single mile,” Obama said, referring to the distance between the place where Gary’s immigrant grandfather worked as a house servant nearly a hundred years ago and the Capitol where Locke was sworn in as Washington state governor in 1997.
Yet there would be no Lockes in America, no great story of the kid raised in public housing who went on to Yale and high office, no presidential kudos, if that same grandfather had not lied to get into the country.
“Some members of my family are still very nervous about acknowledging what happened back then,” Locke told me nine years ago, when I spent time with him for a profile.
And when I asked him last week about that same family secret, he repeated the story, with some hesitation.
“I’m not really sure, but I think my grandfather claimed he was born here but the birth records were destroyed,” Locke said.
For more than half a century, in an act of overt institutional racism, the Chinese were barred from legally entering the United States, with only a few exceptions. The Chinese Exclusion Act lasted until 1943. Those who managed to get in were often called “paper sons,” using elaborate ruses about lost documentation to enter the country.
Locke’s grandfather — today — would likely be hiding in the shadows, fearing federal officials and the lash of those who don’t like the changing character of America.
All of which gives Locke an unusual perspective for his new job. As Commerce Secretary, he will oversee one of the oldest undertakings of the federal government: the decennial census, which takes place a year from now. As defined by the Constitution, the census is supposed to be a count of all residents of the United States — “actual enumeration,” not just citizens.
In attempting to translate that task for purposes of electoral representation, the first census counted black slaves as three-fifths of a human being. That 1790 head count put the population of the young republic at 3.9 million.
Locke was born in the United States, so you wing nuts can rest easy. His father served in the American Army, a staff sergeant who landed at Normandy Beach and fought the Nazis in Europe.
The Locke family narrative is the American story, even with that twist about how they first came to these shores. The fact that they felt some shame over this episode is not usual; they skirted the law, egregious as it was, to get in.
Some Americans don’t see the common heritage: the hushed story of entry paired with the later success borne of hard work. When Locke gave the Democratic response to the 2003 State of the Union address, he was besieged by hate e-mails and death threats, many telling him to go back to China. The reaction stunned him: Here was a deep hatred he had never been exposed to.
Few of us can trace our ancestry to the Mayflower. But it’s worth noting that, from a Native American perspective, those Massachusetts Bay pilgrims were illegals.
As Locke oversees the census, he says he will put extra effort in making sure everyone gets counted. Some Republicans fear he will use statistical sampling — an educated guess, based on partial numbers. But the Supreme Court has ruled against this, and Locke vows the census will steer clear of such projections.
“What we want is an accurate count of America,” he said. “A true portrait.”
At stake is more than $300 billion in state and federal funds, congressional seat allocations, and the balance of the Electoral College. Those slaves of 1790, though counted as less than human, gave southern states additional power in congress and the general election.
Today, the illegal immigrants — mostly Latino, but many Asians as well — will tip the balance another way. They include those who may one day have grandchildren in the president’s cabinet, a cycle as old as the republic.
-------------------------
Earlier, the following piece appeared on the Internet which adds more interesting information:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has chosen Robert Groves to lead the U.S. Census Bureau, naming a leading expert on survey methodology to direct the politically contentious 2010 U.S. headcount.
The White House announced the nomination of Groves, director of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, in a statement on Thursday. He would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Groves is a former Census Bureau associate director who has studied statistically adjusting survey results to compensate for nonresponse, a politically charged issue in census debates.
Obama angered Republicans in February with a decision to bring the U.S. Census Bureau, which is part of the Commerce Department, under closer White House jurisdiction.
Lawmakers accused Obama of making a partisan political decision ahead of the 2010 census, which will form the basis for redrawing electoral district boundaries.
The White House insisted the Census Bureau would remain a part of the Commerce Department but said there were historic precedents for the head of the census to work closely with the president and the White House, a model it intended to follow.
The decision to bring the census under closer White House supervision followed Democratic criticism of Obama's nomination of a Republican senator, Judd Gregg, as secretary of commerce.
Gregg withdrew from consideration during the controversy over the Census, citing that and other differences with the president as the reason. The withdrawal was viewed as a blow to Obama's promise of bipartisanship in his Cabinet.
The selection of Groves to lead the Census Bureau was praised by a consortium of professional groups that include the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Association and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.
"Dr. Groves is a highly respected leader in the social science and statistical community who has distinguished himself in academia and in public service," the Consortium of Social Science Associations said in a statement.
"Dr. Groves has demonstrated the scientific capacity and leadership to run the 2010 Census and the other programs at the Census Bureau."
The group said the issue of statistical adjustment was "spurious" because Commerce Secretary Gary Locke had assured Congress the 2010 count would not be adjusted and the Supreme Court had weighed in against it for reapportionment cases.
-----------------
Does it seem to you that the Census ought to be a bitter partisan issue?
It seems to me the Constitution was pretty clear in its intent, but maybe that's just me.
Don't be surprised at all manner of hyperbole, ridiculous claims and legal maneuvers to benefit some desperate right-wing folks who see their chances at rigging future elections being diminished -by all things, an honest Census count!
--------------
Ten years ago I participated in Census 2000 as a member of Whatcom County's 'Complete Count' Committee.
That was a very enlightening experience, which got rewarded by substantially exceeding the estimated count of 66%, instead reaching about 71% of the people living here.
That may not sound like much, but translated into the allocation of Federal funds -and reapportionment of US House of Representatives seats - it does mean a lot, likely millions of dollars for just Whatcom County.
Of course, the likelihood of gaining another House seat is pretty remote, unless we happen to become one of the fastest growth areas in the US -something most folks would not prefer.
On the subject of House seat reapportionment, some might like a little history on how that came about.
For over a hundred years, the US Constitution required adding another House seat every time the Census showed a gain of a certain number of people -initially 10,000.
At some point that system would clearly become unworkable -imagine a population of 350 million requiring about 35,000 House members.
So, something had to change, and it did around 1920, when that year's Census first indicated that more people lived in urban areas than in rural areas.
This was cause for serious consternation among some, who thought it just wouldn't do to have city folk having the advantage in decisions affecting the country as a whole. [Isn't there still some of that thinking around?]
Anyway, the decision was made to freeze the number of House members at the then current level of 435, and readjust their apportionment periodically, based upon Census results.
And, that's how it stands today.
This process continues to allow adjustments based upon relative population counts, but at a much slower rate.
Of course, the Senate membership is not based upon population, but fixed at a constant 2 Senators per State; one of those pesky compromises that were required for the USA to even come into being!
Long story short, this will provide some background for our upcoming Census 2010 and its importance.
I don't know what plans are in the works to ensure the next Census is a really good one, but surely there will be such an effort.
-----------------
With the above in mind, I'm reprinting below, an Op-Ed by Timothy Egan that recently appeared in the NY Times:
April 15, 2009, 10:00 PM
Family Secrets
The new Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke of Seattle, is a former Eagle Scout, prosecutor, and popular two-term governor whose idea of a good time is to crawl under the kitchen sink with plumber’s tape and a gob of grease. Just one week into the new job, he flew home to mow his lawn.
After reading the background file that the F.B.I. put together on Locke, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison characterized the latest member of President Obama’s cabinet with one word — “boring.”
But Gary Locke does have a family secret that is anything but eye-glazing.
Yes, he is widely known as the nation’s first Chinese-American governor, with a stirring family saga, as President Obama said in introducing Locke.
“Sometimes the American story can be told in the span of a single mile,” Obama said, referring to the distance between the place where Gary’s immigrant grandfather worked as a house servant nearly a hundred years ago and the Capitol where Locke was sworn in as Washington state governor in 1997.
Yet there would be no Lockes in America, no great story of the kid raised in public housing who went on to Yale and high office, no presidential kudos, if that same grandfather had not lied to get into the country.
“Some members of my family are still very nervous about acknowledging what happened back then,” Locke told me nine years ago, when I spent time with him for a profile.
And when I asked him last week about that same family secret, he repeated the story, with some hesitation.
“I’m not really sure, but I think my grandfather claimed he was born here but the birth records were destroyed,” Locke said.
For more than half a century, in an act of overt institutional racism, the Chinese were barred from legally entering the United States, with only a few exceptions. The Chinese Exclusion Act lasted until 1943. Those who managed to get in were often called “paper sons,” using elaborate ruses about lost documentation to enter the country.
Locke’s grandfather — today — would likely be hiding in the shadows, fearing federal officials and the lash of those who don’t like the changing character of America.
All of which gives Locke an unusual perspective for his new job. As Commerce Secretary, he will oversee one of the oldest undertakings of the federal government: the decennial census, which takes place a year from now. As defined by the Constitution, the census is supposed to be a count of all residents of the United States — “actual enumeration,” not just citizens.
In attempting to translate that task for purposes of electoral representation, the first census counted black slaves as three-fifths of a human being. That 1790 head count put the population of the young republic at 3.9 million.
Locke was born in the United States, so you wing nuts can rest easy. His father served in the American Army, a staff sergeant who landed at Normandy Beach and fought the Nazis in Europe.
The Locke family narrative is the American story, even with that twist about how they first came to these shores. The fact that they felt some shame over this episode is not usual; they skirted the law, egregious as it was, to get in.
Some Americans don’t see the common heritage: the hushed story of entry paired with the later success borne of hard work. When Locke gave the Democratic response to the 2003 State of the Union address, he was besieged by hate e-mails and death threats, many telling him to go back to China. The reaction stunned him: Here was a deep hatred he had never been exposed to.
Few of us can trace our ancestry to the Mayflower. But it’s worth noting that, from a Native American perspective, those Massachusetts Bay pilgrims were illegals.
As Locke oversees the census, he says he will put extra effort in making sure everyone gets counted. Some Republicans fear he will use statistical sampling — an educated guess, based on partial numbers. But the Supreme Court has ruled against this, and Locke vows the census will steer clear of such projections.
“What we want is an accurate count of America,” he said. “A true portrait.”
At stake is more than $300 billion in state and federal funds, congressional seat allocations, and the balance of the Electoral College. Those slaves of 1790, though counted as less than human, gave southern states additional power in congress and the general election.
Today, the illegal immigrants — mostly Latino, but many Asians as well — will tip the balance another way. They include those who may one day have grandchildren in the president’s cabinet, a cycle as old as the republic.
-------------------------
Earlier, the following piece appeared on the Internet which adds more interesting information:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has chosen Robert Groves to lead the U.S. Census Bureau, naming a leading expert on survey methodology to direct the politically contentious 2010 U.S. headcount.
The White House announced the nomination of Groves, director of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, in a statement on Thursday. He would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Groves is a former Census Bureau associate director who has studied statistically adjusting survey results to compensate for nonresponse, a politically charged issue in census debates.
Obama angered Republicans in February with a decision to bring the U.S. Census Bureau, which is part of the Commerce Department, under closer White House jurisdiction.
Lawmakers accused Obama of making a partisan political decision ahead of the 2010 census, which will form the basis for redrawing electoral district boundaries.
The White House insisted the Census Bureau would remain a part of the Commerce Department but said there were historic precedents for the head of the census to work closely with the president and the White House, a model it intended to follow.
The decision to bring the census under closer White House supervision followed Democratic criticism of Obama's nomination of a Republican senator, Judd Gregg, as secretary of commerce.
Gregg withdrew from consideration during the controversy over the Census, citing that and other differences with the president as the reason. The withdrawal was viewed as a blow to Obama's promise of bipartisanship in his Cabinet.
The selection of Groves to lead the Census Bureau was praised by a consortium of professional groups that include the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Association and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.
"Dr. Groves is a highly respected leader in the social science and statistical community who has distinguished himself in academia and in public service," the Consortium of Social Science Associations said in a statement.
"Dr. Groves has demonstrated the scientific capacity and leadership to run the 2010 Census and the other programs at the Census Bureau."
The group said the issue of statistical adjustment was "spurious" because Commerce Secretary Gary Locke had assured Congress the 2010 count would not be adjusted and the Supreme Court had weighed in against it for reapportionment cases.
-----------------
Does it seem to you that the Census ought to be a bitter partisan issue?
It seems to me the Constitution was pretty clear in its intent, but maybe that's just me.
Don't be surprised at all manner of hyperbole, ridiculous claims and legal maneuvers to benefit some desperate right-wing folks who see their chances at rigging future elections being diminished -by all things, an honest Census count!
--------------
Thursday, April 16, 2009
On Piracy
From the days of Marco Polo, and maybe before, history has been replete with records of piracy, which seems to ebb and flow with time, but almost always focus on vulnerable and relatively narrow or near-shore shipping lanes that lend themselves to sneak attack.
Piracy itself isn't necessarily considered terrorism, but you can see how terrorists might employ the concept to their own ends.
Actually, piracy is considered as a multiple crime, and more of a crime against humanity, by which interpretation a criminal trial could be held in any country that was victimized. But, first you have to catch the pirates and have some convincing evidence to verify the wrongs committed. That, is easier said than done!
It's odd that we sometimes glorify things like piracy, war and crime, and are so entertained by them. How many movies, TV shows or sensational magazines and books do you imagine are watched or read every year?
Ever watch an Errol Flynn movie, or Pirates of the Caribbean, or visited Disney World?
How many sports teams are called Pirates, Buccaneers and Raiders?
And, how many kids dress up as pirates at Halloween?
These subjects do make for exciting entertainment, but only because they usually aren't really happening to the viewer!
Include yourself in such activities and suddenly it ain't fun at all.
That is a place we are approaching now with the escalation of piracy that is impacting real life Americans and people like us, with names, families and healthy lives. Those situations aren't anywhere close to the video games we love to play, while pretending to be so brave. Most of us will never be anything like Indiana Jones or other imaginary heroes, even if we are thrust into situations that could use a real hero.
The frustrating thing about piracy, and some other things, too, is that they are really old news being recycled again, despite the fact that valuable lessons must have already been learned.
What are the root causes of this type of behavior?
Poverty? Lawlessness? Greed?
If one agrees with this list, then the antidotes seem pretty obvious, don't they?
But, they are not simple. They ultimately require that most people share the same values and are willing to insure others do the same.
I read an interesting report recently that analyzed the reasons that sway people to do the right thing -let's use protection of the environment for example:
Some are motivated by just wanting to do the 'right thing'; others are influenced by fear of reprisal and being punished for doing something that harms others; but, most seem to regulate their behaviors by observing what their neighbors and contemporaries do and emulating that!
Is that so surprising?
So, the secret is having family and neighbors who habitually 'do the right thing'.
Of course knowing the right thing does require a little effort, too.
Mainly, that effort seems to entail keen observation of what works -and doesn't- over time, and passing that learning on to others.
And, because intellectual honesty is pretty essential to any such endeavor, if one isn't into the truth they are more likely to fail.
------------
Back to piracy.
It ought to be severely frowned upon, internationally.
But, we've got work to do to achieve that, again.
A few ideas:
• civilized nations need to band together for their common defense. The US isn't -and can't be- the world's policeman!
• when pirates are confronted, they need to understand they can't bargain their way out of committing an international crime.
• centuries old wisdom of gathering ships into convoys for mutual protection needs to be re-instituted
• armed guards need to be readily available when necessary
• severe punishment of captured pirates needs to be a surety that is well advertised
• governments that sanction piracy need to be dealt with by the international community
• 'failed states', like Somalia where no effective government exists, cannot become safe havens for pirates
• shipping companies must be part of the long term solution, and not just pay ransoms that are passed along to their ultimate customers
• use of force may be justified at times, as long as the safety of innocent civilians is protected. of course, pirates are also civilians
Who will pull these ideas together, sell them to the international community and come up with an implementation plan?
Now, you may begin to have an idea of how big a deal this little problem may actually be.
In reality, piracy is just one small thread of the fabric of desirable international behavior, but it is an important thread that could unravel if we aren't careful.
One final thought:
Does it strike anyone as ironic that the Destroyer BAINBRIDGE was called upon to rescue the captain of the Maersk Alabama?
Maybe it ought to.
HINT: This Destroyer is the 5th to use that name, in honor of William Bainbridge, a hero of the War of 1812, who had been previously captured and held hostage by Barbary Pirates in 1800.
Check out this article I've reprinted:
------------------
Lessons From the Barbary Pirate Wars
Paul Farley/U.S. Navy — Reuters
The destroyer Bainbridge, now on rescue duty off Somalia.
Sound familiar?
Well, it’s not last week’s drama on the high seas we’re talking about, when Somali pirates attacked an American freighter in the Indian Ocean and took its captain hostage, then made off with him in a lifeboat.
We’re talking about the Barbary Wars, about 200 years ago, when pirates from the Barbary Coast (today’s Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya) hijacked European ships with impunity and ransomed back the crews.
“When I first read about the Somali pirates, I almost did a double take and turned to my wife at the breakfast table and said, ‘This is déjà vu,’ ” recalled Frank Lambert, a professor at Purdue who is an expert on the Barbary pirates.
Dr. Lambert explained how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive.
It wasn’t out of any enlightened sense of humanity. I
t was simply good business.
They only hanged captives from giant hooks or carved them into little pieces if they resisted.
The Barbary pirates used small wooden boats, often powered by slaves chained to the oars, to attack larger European ships.
They were crude but effective, like today’s Somali swashbucklers, who in November commandeered a 1,000-foot-long Saudi oil tanker from a dinghy in the Gulf of Aden, a vital shipping lane at the mouth of the Red Sea.
But the Barbary pirates’ bravado became their demise — something the Somalis might keep in mind.
The pirates’ way of doing business was described this way at the time: “When they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth, which usually struck such terror in the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
The quote is from Thomas Jefferson, then America’s ambassador to France, after he and John Adams, the envoy in London, got the description from Tripoli’s envoy to Britain in 1786.
And that underscores a key point. The Barbary pirates actually had an ambassador — who met with Jefferson and Adams, no less.
The pirates worked for a government.
The Barbary rulers commissioned them to rob and pillage and kidnap, and the rulers got a cut.
It was all official.
And open.
It was truly state-sponsored terrorism.
And the Western nations’ response was to pay “tribute,” a fancy word for blackmail.
If a country paid tribute, the 18th-century pirates would leave its ships alone.
Today, shipping companies fork over as much as $100 million in ransoms to the Somali pirates, a strategy that saves their cargoes but also attracts more underemployed Somali fishermen into the hijacking business.
The United States tried to play nice with the Barbary pirates and even inked a few treaties.
That language, too, has a striking ring.
The Barbary States were Muslim, as is Somalia.
And America stressed that this was not about God.
“The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” a 1796 treaty reads.
“It has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,” which is how Muslims was spelled back then.
Eventually, though, Americans felt humiliated paying off a bunch of knife-sucking thugs in blousy pants.
That’s what led to the Barbary Wars, first in 1801 when Jefferson became president, and again in 1815, when James Madison sent the United States Navy to shell the Barbary Coast.
The battles became the stuff of legend — “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn — and were critical in developing the nation’s young Navy.
They also figured early in the naval career of one William Bainbridge, an officer who was sent to pay tribute to the dey of Algiers in 1800, was later captured during the war along with his ship, and went on to become a hero of the War of 1812.
Last week, in an irony probably lost on the Somalis, it was a destroyer named after him that the United States Navy sent rushing to help the skipper in the lifeboat.
The Barbary pirates were finally brought to their knees by their encounters with the Americans, and by the French invasion of Algiers in 1830.
Will this happen in Somalia?
Last week — even before a French effort to rescue a family in a separate hijacking ended with the death of one hostage — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the world to “end the scourge of piracy.”
But Somali piracy is not an isolated problem.
It’s the latest symptom of what afflicts an utterly failed state — a free-for-all on land that has consumed the country since the central government imploded in 1991.
As any warlord there can tell you, the violence is almost always about cash.
“We just want the money” is their mantra.
If that sounds like the 1800s, it also invites talk of solving the problem the same way: pound the bravado out of the pirates by taking the battle to them where it hurts most — on shore.
But any effort to wipe out Somali pirate dens like Xarardheere or Eyl immediately conjures up the ghost of “Black Hawk Down,” the episode in 1993 when clan militiamen in flip-flops killed 18 American soldiers.
Until America can get over that, and until the world can put Somalia together as a nation, another solution suggests itself: just steer clear — way clear, like 500 miles plus — of Somalia’s seas.
Piracy itself isn't necessarily considered terrorism, but you can see how terrorists might employ the concept to their own ends.
Actually, piracy is considered as a multiple crime, and more of a crime against humanity, by which interpretation a criminal trial could be held in any country that was victimized. But, first you have to catch the pirates and have some convincing evidence to verify the wrongs committed. That, is easier said than done!
It's odd that we sometimes glorify things like piracy, war and crime, and are so entertained by them. How many movies, TV shows or sensational magazines and books do you imagine are watched or read every year?
Ever watch an Errol Flynn movie, or Pirates of the Caribbean, or visited Disney World?
How many sports teams are called Pirates, Buccaneers and Raiders?
And, how many kids dress up as pirates at Halloween?
These subjects do make for exciting entertainment, but only because they usually aren't really happening to the viewer!
Include yourself in such activities and suddenly it ain't fun at all.
That is a place we are approaching now with the escalation of piracy that is impacting real life Americans and people like us, with names, families and healthy lives. Those situations aren't anywhere close to the video games we love to play, while pretending to be so brave. Most of us will never be anything like Indiana Jones or other imaginary heroes, even if we are thrust into situations that could use a real hero.
The frustrating thing about piracy, and some other things, too, is that they are really old news being recycled again, despite the fact that valuable lessons must have already been learned.
What are the root causes of this type of behavior?
Poverty? Lawlessness? Greed?
If one agrees with this list, then the antidotes seem pretty obvious, don't they?
But, they are not simple. They ultimately require that most people share the same values and are willing to insure others do the same.
I read an interesting report recently that analyzed the reasons that sway people to do the right thing -let's use protection of the environment for example:
Some are motivated by just wanting to do the 'right thing'; others are influenced by fear of reprisal and being punished for doing something that harms others; but, most seem to regulate their behaviors by observing what their neighbors and contemporaries do and emulating that!
Is that so surprising?
So, the secret is having family and neighbors who habitually 'do the right thing'.
Of course knowing the right thing does require a little effort, too.
Mainly, that effort seems to entail keen observation of what works -and doesn't- over time, and passing that learning on to others.
And, because intellectual honesty is pretty essential to any such endeavor, if one isn't into the truth they are more likely to fail.
------------
Back to piracy.
It ought to be severely frowned upon, internationally.
But, we've got work to do to achieve that, again.
A few ideas:
• civilized nations need to band together for their common defense. The US isn't -and can't be- the world's policeman!
• when pirates are confronted, they need to understand they can't bargain their way out of committing an international crime.
• centuries old wisdom of gathering ships into convoys for mutual protection needs to be re-instituted
• armed guards need to be readily available when necessary
• severe punishment of captured pirates needs to be a surety that is well advertised
• governments that sanction piracy need to be dealt with by the international community
• 'failed states', like Somalia where no effective government exists, cannot become safe havens for pirates
• shipping companies must be part of the long term solution, and not just pay ransoms that are passed along to their ultimate customers
• use of force may be justified at times, as long as the safety of innocent civilians is protected. of course, pirates are also civilians
Who will pull these ideas together, sell them to the international community and come up with an implementation plan?
Now, you may begin to have an idea of how big a deal this little problem may actually be.
In reality, piracy is just one small thread of the fabric of desirable international behavior, but it is an important thread that could unravel if we aren't careful.
One final thought:
Does it strike anyone as ironic that the Destroyer BAINBRIDGE was called upon to rescue the captain of the Maersk Alabama?
Maybe it ought to.
HINT: This Destroyer is the 5th to use that name, in honor of William Bainbridge, a hero of the War of 1812, who had been previously captured and held hostage by Barbary Pirates in 1800.
Check out this article I've reprinted:
------------------
Lessons From the Barbary Pirate Wars
Paul Farley/U.S. Navy — Reuters
The destroyer Bainbridge, now on rescue duty off Somalia.
Sound familiar?
Well, it’s not last week’s drama on the high seas we’re talking about, when Somali pirates attacked an American freighter in the Indian Ocean and took its captain hostage, then made off with him in a lifeboat.
We’re talking about the Barbary Wars, about 200 years ago, when pirates from the Barbary Coast (today’s Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya) hijacked European ships with impunity and ransomed back the crews.
“When I first read about the Somali pirates, I almost did a double take and turned to my wife at the breakfast table and said, ‘This is déjà vu,’ ” recalled Frank Lambert, a professor at Purdue who is an expert on the Barbary pirates.
Dr. Lambert explained how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive.
It wasn’t out of any enlightened sense of humanity. I
t was simply good business.
They only hanged captives from giant hooks or carved them into little pieces if they resisted.
The Barbary pirates used small wooden boats, often powered by slaves chained to the oars, to attack larger European ships.
They were crude but effective, like today’s Somali swashbucklers, who in November commandeered a 1,000-foot-long Saudi oil tanker from a dinghy in the Gulf of Aden, a vital shipping lane at the mouth of the Red Sea.
But the Barbary pirates’ bravado became their demise — something the Somalis might keep in mind.
The pirates’ way of doing business was described this way at the time: “When they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth, which usually struck such terror in the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
The quote is from Thomas Jefferson, then America’s ambassador to France, after he and John Adams, the envoy in London, got the description from Tripoli’s envoy to Britain in 1786.
And that underscores a key point. The Barbary pirates actually had an ambassador — who met with Jefferson and Adams, no less.
The pirates worked for a government.
The Barbary rulers commissioned them to rob and pillage and kidnap, and the rulers got a cut.
It was all official.
And open.
It was truly state-sponsored terrorism.
And the Western nations’ response was to pay “tribute,” a fancy word for blackmail.
If a country paid tribute, the 18th-century pirates would leave its ships alone.
Today, shipping companies fork over as much as $100 million in ransoms to the Somali pirates, a strategy that saves their cargoes but also attracts more underemployed Somali fishermen into the hijacking business.
The United States tried to play nice with the Barbary pirates and even inked a few treaties.
That language, too, has a striking ring.
The Barbary States were Muslim, as is Somalia.
And America stressed that this was not about God.
“The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” a 1796 treaty reads.
“It has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,” which is how Muslims was spelled back then.
Eventually, though, Americans felt humiliated paying off a bunch of knife-sucking thugs in blousy pants.
That’s what led to the Barbary Wars, first in 1801 when Jefferson became president, and again in 1815, when James Madison sent the United States Navy to shell the Barbary Coast.
The battles became the stuff of legend — “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn — and were critical in developing the nation’s young Navy.
They also figured early in the naval career of one William Bainbridge, an officer who was sent to pay tribute to the dey of Algiers in 1800, was later captured during the war along with his ship, and went on to become a hero of the War of 1812.
Last week, in an irony probably lost on the Somalis, it was a destroyer named after him that the United States Navy sent rushing to help the skipper in the lifeboat.
The Barbary pirates were finally brought to their knees by their encounters with the Americans, and by the French invasion of Algiers in 1830.
Will this happen in Somalia?
Last week — even before a French effort to rescue a family in a separate hijacking ended with the death of one hostage — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the world to “end the scourge of piracy.”
But Somali piracy is not an isolated problem.
It’s the latest symptom of what afflicts an utterly failed state — a free-for-all on land that has consumed the country since the central government imploded in 1991.
As any warlord there can tell you, the violence is almost always about cash.
“We just want the money” is their mantra.
If that sounds like the 1800s, it also invites talk of solving the problem the same way: pound the bravado out of the pirates by taking the battle to them where it hurts most — on shore.
But any effort to wipe out Somali pirate dens like Xarardheere or Eyl immediately conjures up the ghost of “Black Hawk Down,” the episode in 1993 when clan militiamen in flip-flops killed 18 American soldiers.
Until America can get over that, and until the world can put Somalia together as a nation, another solution suggests itself: just steer clear — way clear, like 500 miles plus — of Somalia’s seas.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Local Politics: One Tough Profession!
The Marine Corps used to have the motto 'A Few Good Men', that was pretty effective in both attracting recruits and inspiring 'esprit de corps'.
I wish there were more good men -and women- these days who would contribute more positively to our society and especially our civil debates.
It seems we have a gross surplus of those who are very diligent in examining with great detail [and sometimes imagination] what's wrong with our way of life, and then writing or otherwise verbalizing about it via Internet and other media or forums.
Don't you get tired of a steady diet of that?
I know I do.
What can be done to improve or change this habit, if anything?
Maybe this is what people prefer, but I don't think so.
All of us have lives that contain challenges, disappointments and failures, because that is just part of the human experience.
But, it's just PART of it, certainly not the whole thing!
How many would rather listen to or read something that is actually uplifting or encouraging.when they get home in the evening, rather than a steady diet of negativity?
I know I would, and suspect there are many, many others who feel the same way.
Lord knows, I've written my share of critical pieces over time, but that isn't my main or only reason for creating blogs.
There are so many issues, viewpoints and possibilities that an almost endless stream of writings is possible.
But, who would have the time or inclination to read them, much less write them?
The point is, we pick and choose our topics and the time and place of their publication based on whatever criteria seems important at the moment.
That's why I wonder if some folks haven't unconsciously developed a penchant for abject negativity, whether by nature or design.
I say that because lately I've noticed a preponderance of really negative, even mean spirited, writings [and comments] appearing on Internet websites.
This is not a shocking revelation, or even a surprising one, but it can get pretty deadening and discouraging I suppose if one were to take all the negative opinion too seriously for too long.
Most people probably won't let that happen to them; they just find something else to occupy their time and attention -at least for a while until tempted again to peek at local mudslinging, conjecture, advocacy for lost causes, or just political BS.
It's hard to put my finger on exactly which article(s) may have finally triggered me to write this piece, but likely its a feeling that's been building over time.
Some recent postings on NW Citizen, regarding Dan & Lisa McShane's political ambitions and prowess, did seem a bit over the edge to me.
Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not close friends with the McShanes, although I do happen to share many -probably most- of their core values, including preservation of the environment, our quality of life, and healthy and honest political campaigning in the greater public's interest, and the like.
All those things seem pretty important to me, and I suspect the McShanes and I agree on most of them, even though I did choose to strongly support other candidates in the last Mayoral race.
The two things that bug me the most about the NWC pieces were these:
• They seemed more like personal attacks -'hit' pieces - based past feelings and history than rational arguments rooted in current facts or issues that are in evidence.
• They followed a standard 'victim's' formula of just criticizing the 'status quo', rather than offering reasonable alternatives or volunteering anything that could be useful.
But, maybe that's just my opinion, but I don't think so.
Everyone has their favorite issues, personalities and peeves, but one observation I have made is that many of those with the most negatives to say about these things won't lift a finger to actually get involved themselves.
Anybody else notice that?
How convenient it must be to always be in the position to criticize others, without otherwise burdening themselves with the hard work of running for office -or actually serving- themselves!
Armchair quarterbacks?
They are a dime a dozen, maybe even cheaper around here!
Having aired this view, I do feel a little better, but realize expressing it may likely just extend these unproductive exchanges.
But, maybe not.
Who cares?
That is the way it is in this country, and thank goodness for that!
If this were Somalia, or some other lawless wasteland, we would not have the time, inclination or opportunity for such public expressions of opinion.
But, even America may have its limits for such negativity, as we are beginning to see reflected in the mass media and militant partisanship and factionalism on any number of fringe issues.
Some people just want their way without compromise of any sort.
Others just want 'others' to take care of the hard work of governing, without their support -with the exception of being able to complain anytime and for any reason.
Does that sound reasonable?
It ain't reasonable, but it is the American way!
I'm glad there are people like the McShanes who are willing to get involved in local politics in tangible ways.
Every community must have such people in order for our system to work as it was intended.
Show me a community without political activists, willing candidates for office, and supportive working groups, and I will show you a community that is truly missing out on the 'juice' of democracy.
True Democracy was never intended to be a spectator sport!
Let's get off our butts and elevate the discussion about how we can achieve a process of continuous improvement in our local politics.
That will take much more than carping, complaining and standing in the shadows.
If not the McShanes, who?
Think about it.
I wish there were more good men -and women- these days who would contribute more positively to our society and especially our civil debates.
It seems we have a gross surplus of those who are very diligent in examining with great detail [and sometimes imagination] what's wrong with our way of life, and then writing or otherwise verbalizing about it via Internet and other media or forums.
Don't you get tired of a steady diet of that?
I know I do.
What can be done to improve or change this habit, if anything?
Maybe this is what people prefer, but I don't think so.
All of us have lives that contain challenges, disappointments and failures, because that is just part of the human experience.
But, it's just PART of it, certainly not the whole thing!
How many would rather listen to or read something that is actually uplifting or encouraging.when they get home in the evening, rather than a steady diet of negativity?
I know I would, and suspect there are many, many others who feel the same way.
Lord knows, I've written my share of critical pieces over time, but that isn't my main or only reason for creating blogs.
There are so many issues, viewpoints and possibilities that an almost endless stream of writings is possible.
But, who would have the time or inclination to read them, much less write them?
The point is, we pick and choose our topics and the time and place of their publication based on whatever criteria seems important at the moment.
That's why I wonder if some folks haven't unconsciously developed a penchant for abject negativity, whether by nature or design.
I say that because lately I've noticed a preponderance of really negative, even mean spirited, writings [and comments] appearing on Internet websites.
This is not a shocking revelation, or even a surprising one, but it can get pretty deadening and discouraging I suppose if one were to take all the negative opinion too seriously for too long.
Most people probably won't let that happen to them; they just find something else to occupy their time and attention -at least for a while until tempted again to peek at local mudslinging, conjecture, advocacy for lost causes, or just political BS.
It's hard to put my finger on exactly which article(s) may have finally triggered me to write this piece, but likely its a feeling that's been building over time.
Some recent postings on NW Citizen, regarding Dan & Lisa McShane's political ambitions and prowess, did seem a bit over the edge to me.
Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not close friends with the McShanes, although I do happen to share many -probably most- of their core values, including preservation of the environment, our quality of life, and healthy and honest political campaigning in the greater public's interest, and the like.
All those things seem pretty important to me, and I suspect the McShanes and I agree on most of them, even though I did choose to strongly support other candidates in the last Mayoral race.
The two things that bug me the most about the NWC pieces were these:
• They seemed more like personal attacks -'hit' pieces - based past feelings and history than rational arguments rooted in current facts or issues that are in evidence.
• They followed a standard 'victim's' formula of just criticizing the 'status quo', rather than offering reasonable alternatives or volunteering anything that could be useful.
But, maybe that's just my opinion, but I don't think so.
Everyone has their favorite issues, personalities and peeves, but one observation I have made is that many of those with the most negatives to say about these things won't lift a finger to actually get involved themselves.
Anybody else notice that?
How convenient it must be to always be in the position to criticize others, without otherwise burdening themselves with the hard work of running for office -or actually serving- themselves!
Armchair quarterbacks?
They are a dime a dozen, maybe even cheaper around here!
Having aired this view, I do feel a little better, but realize expressing it may likely just extend these unproductive exchanges.
But, maybe not.
Who cares?
That is the way it is in this country, and thank goodness for that!
If this were Somalia, or some other lawless wasteland, we would not have the time, inclination or opportunity for such public expressions of opinion.
But, even America may have its limits for such negativity, as we are beginning to see reflected in the mass media and militant partisanship and factionalism on any number of fringe issues.
Some people just want their way without compromise of any sort.
Others just want 'others' to take care of the hard work of governing, without their support -with the exception of being able to complain anytime and for any reason.
Does that sound reasonable?
It ain't reasonable, but it is the American way!
I'm glad there are people like the McShanes who are willing to get involved in local politics in tangible ways.
Every community must have such people in order for our system to work as it was intended.
Show me a community without political activists, willing candidates for office, and supportive working groups, and I will show you a community that is truly missing out on the 'juice' of democracy.
True Democracy was never intended to be a spectator sport!
Let's get off our butts and elevate the discussion about how we can achieve a process of continuous improvement in our local politics.
That will take much more than carping, complaining and standing in the shadows.
If not the McShanes, who?
Think about it.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Whatcom County Planning: An Oxymoron
----------------
Today's headline announces: 'Bellingham moves ahead with King Mountain annexation despite county concerns.'
You know what?
The County needs to pay attention to its own business and stop trying to tell other jurisdictions what to do!
That is a very poor substitute for real planning, for which the County lacks both the talent AND the top-down commitment.
Yes, this is the same Whatcom County that has meddled for years in delaying the last Comp Plan update from being timely completed, yet STILL does not have its own information developed and adopted.
What is wrong with that picture?
The County's time has run out -on more than one occasion- for getting its own work done, yet it just applies for another extension instead of getting this work done.
The latest 5-month extension granted by the Growth Management Board has a 'firm' deadline of December 1, 2009.
Let's hope that deadline is firm, and that the GMB means what it says about withdrawing an array of state funds from counties that don't meet their legal commitments.
That seems to be the only language Whatcom County understands.
------------------
How many remember being treated to the spectacle of a County Planning Commission with an attitude, debating and delaying reaching any timely recommendation for the County Council, except their own opinion that the City of Bellingham already had enough land to accommodate its growth in the next 20 years?
Where is the data to back that up?
Historical records certainly do not show that, so where do these appointed -or anointed-amateurs get their information -from populist sentiment or just their own biases?
It's too bad the County Council was deprived of timely, well-considered and balanced information from the Planning Commission, because that is one thing that is needed to make an informed decision, and not just parrot demagoguery.
But, the County Council did eventually make a decision to grant the City some additional UGA land around King Mtn.
Guess which parcel?
The exact same one that is now being questioned!
What is going on with that?
Sorry, County, you don't get to backtrack on this matter.
Once an area is approved and accepted as being part of the UGA, the only way to undo those decisions is for BOTH parties to agree.
If the City does not agree to rescind this UGA, it is entitled to consider annexation proposals from property owners there.
That is what has happened, and what the City Council is inclined to accept -by a unanimous vote, yesterday.
---------------------
The one concept which the County seems to have the most trouble understanding is this: that the surest way the City has of ensuring the type of development and density that is built is by way of annexation, with urban village style developments being integral parts of annexation proposals.
Otherwise, all bets are off, and we may wait a long type to see wishful thinking -no matter how good- actually implemented.
That is what has been happening in the UGA up until now, with results that please neither jurisdiction.
Einstein defined insanity as continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results.
But, it shouldn't take an Einstein to figure this out!
No, it is really very simple.
As long as the UGA is NOT annexed it remains County land, and subject to County rules and revenue collections.
That is the very method by which the County has over-collected revenues in the UGAs for years, then sticking the City with dealing with sub-standard or discontinuous development to fix at its expense when annexation eventually occurs.
That simply won't work any more, particularly if urban densities are desired.
The reason is that the City's policy has changed regarding extending water & sewer services outside City Limits, without annexation.
Did the County miss that little change?
I don't think so!
They just don't like it.
You see, that little change isn't so little, really.
That change means the annexed UGA becomes City land, not the County's jurisdiction.
It means City rules & regulations apply and the City collects revenues in order to provide urban levels of service.
I'll say it again; the County doesn't like this change in City policy.
Why?
Two things; loss of revenue and loss of control.
Get used to it County, because that's the way things will be done from now on [and the way we should have been doing things before].
The sooner the County understands that their whim is not the City's command the better.
Citizens need to know that this 'dispute' isn't about legalities, but about the County finally Having to face up to the reality of what real growth management means, at least in part.
It also means the County will need to constantly relinquish lands to Bellingham ad the other cities of Whatcom County to accommodate their urban levels of growth.
Inherently, this also means a diminishing revenue base.
And, it may finally serve to get attention from the County administration that it needs to raise its own taxes periodically, instead of stealing revenues from UGAs -and unincorporated areas- from building without annexation.
All one has to do is examine the County's record of growth management, or more accurately, non-management, to understand where sprawl has occurred most frequently.
If you guessed the 'unincorporated areas', you'd be correct!
BTW, that means all those areas that are characterized by farms, forests and open space, NOT cities.
Whatcom County needs to mind its own business better, and stop calling other jurisdictions to blame for every ill it can imagine.
What was the saying about the pot calling the kettle black?
------------------
Today's headline announces: 'Bellingham moves ahead with King Mountain annexation despite county concerns.'
You know what?
The County needs to pay attention to its own business and stop trying to tell other jurisdictions what to do!
That is a very poor substitute for real planning, for which the County lacks both the talent AND the top-down commitment.
Yes, this is the same Whatcom County that has meddled for years in delaying the last Comp Plan update from being timely completed, yet STILL does not have its own information developed and adopted.
What is wrong with that picture?
The County's time has run out -on more than one occasion- for getting its own work done, yet it just applies for another extension instead of getting this work done.
The latest 5-month extension granted by the Growth Management Board has a 'firm' deadline of December 1, 2009.
Let's hope that deadline is firm, and that the GMB means what it says about withdrawing an array of state funds from counties that don't meet their legal commitments.
That seems to be the only language Whatcom County understands.
------------------
How many remember being treated to the spectacle of a County Planning Commission with an attitude, debating and delaying reaching any timely recommendation for the County Council, except their own opinion that the City of Bellingham already had enough land to accommodate its growth in the next 20 years?
Where is the data to back that up?
Historical records certainly do not show that, so where do these appointed -or anointed-amateurs get their information -from populist sentiment or just their own biases?
It's too bad the County Council was deprived of timely, well-considered and balanced information from the Planning Commission, because that is one thing that is needed to make an informed decision, and not just parrot demagoguery.
But, the County Council did eventually make a decision to grant the City some additional UGA land around King Mtn.
Guess which parcel?
The exact same one that is now being questioned!
What is going on with that?
Sorry, County, you don't get to backtrack on this matter.
Once an area is approved and accepted as being part of the UGA, the only way to undo those decisions is for BOTH parties to agree.
If the City does not agree to rescind this UGA, it is entitled to consider annexation proposals from property owners there.
That is what has happened, and what the City Council is inclined to accept -by a unanimous vote, yesterday.
---------------------
The one concept which the County seems to have the most trouble understanding is this: that the surest way the City has of ensuring the type of development and density that is built is by way of annexation, with urban village style developments being integral parts of annexation proposals.
Otherwise, all bets are off, and we may wait a long type to see wishful thinking -no matter how good- actually implemented.
That is what has been happening in the UGA up until now, with results that please neither jurisdiction.
Einstein defined insanity as continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results.
But, it shouldn't take an Einstein to figure this out!
No, it is really very simple.
As long as the UGA is NOT annexed it remains County land, and subject to County rules and revenue collections.
That is the very method by which the County has over-collected revenues in the UGAs for years, then sticking the City with dealing with sub-standard or discontinuous development to fix at its expense when annexation eventually occurs.
That simply won't work any more, particularly if urban densities are desired.
The reason is that the City's policy has changed regarding extending water & sewer services outside City Limits, without annexation.
Did the County miss that little change?
I don't think so!
They just don't like it.
You see, that little change isn't so little, really.
That change means the annexed UGA becomes City land, not the County's jurisdiction.
It means City rules & regulations apply and the City collects revenues in order to provide urban levels of service.
I'll say it again; the County doesn't like this change in City policy.
Why?
Two things; loss of revenue and loss of control.
Get used to it County, because that's the way things will be done from now on [and the way we should have been doing things before].
The sooner the County understands that their whim is not the City's command the better.
Citizens need to know that this 'dispute' isn't about legalities, but about the County finally Having to face up to the reality of what real growth management means, at least in part.
It also means the County will need to constantly relinquish lands to Bellingham ad the other cities of Whatcom County to accommodate their urban levels of growth.
Inherently, this also means a diminishing revenue base.
And, it may finally serve to get attention from the County administration that it needs to raise its own taxes periodically, instead of stealing revenues from UGAs -and unincorporated areas- from building without annexation.
All one has to do is examine the County's record of growth management, or more accurately, non-management, to understand where sprawl has occurred most frequently.
If you guessed the 'unincorporated areas', you'd be correct!
BTW, that means all those areas that are characterized by farms, forests and open space, NOT cities.
Whatcom County needs to mind its own business better, and stop calling other jurisdictions to blame for every ill it can imagine.
What was the saying about the pot calling the kettle black?
------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
