Those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear...

Bellingham Bay and British Columbia Railroad was a railroad that was built in northwest Washington State, between the town of Bellingham, Washington, to the town of Sumas, Washington to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway for a continental connection.

The company was incorporated in California on June 21, 1883. After the Northern Pacific Railroad chose Tacoma over Fairhaven, Washington on Bellingham Bay, local railroad boosters along with Nelson Bennett at their head started the B.B. and B.C. Railroad in 1891.

A line around the north side of Lake Whatcom to the Blue Canyon coal mines was completed as many short lines to numerous logging camps. Signs of these old roads can be found through out the county.

The B.B. and B.C. was taken over by the Bellingham and Northern Railway in 1912, which in turn was taken over by Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway in 1918.


----------------------
NW Citizen's article posted recently poses some potentially very plausible scenarios regarding the proposed coal exporting terminal at Cherry Point, plus some other useful links.

But the ideas discussed aren't really new; they are recycled from various parts of our history, beginning about 1883 or so, then repeated at intervals from the beginning of the 20th Century, when JJ Donovan proposed a direct rail route to Spokane through Glacier and Cascade Pass, to the 1980's, to the present - with other whistle stops in between.

For those who remember the 'Lone Ranger' radio broadcasts, this latest coal hype sounds a lot like a "Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear."
As much as we may have liked the Lone Ranger and his good exploits, he was a fictional character.
So is the concept of 'Clean Coal', which tries to substitute Mr Clean for the real Coal Miner with his blackened lungs.
Of course, 'yesteryear' was also a time when natural resource extraction was paramount in these parts, and dreams of making Bellingham a major west coast rail terminal were actively promoted.

Why, any enterprising entrepreneur could become almost as rich as a railroad robber baron, with a little luck and access to the bountiful timber, coal, gold/minerals, fish and other local natural resources!
Alas! The railroads instead followed more logical routes, relegating Bellingham largely to a secondary, spur status.
But hope springs eternal, and demand for raw materials - as well as value-added goods - follows dynamic market forces.

Now, China -which already supplies many of our value-added products- wants cheap raw materials/fuel to expand its ability to create more jobs to expand its burgeoning economy.
And, who in the name of free markets can blame them?
After all, who really believes in 'triple bottom line accounting?
[For those unfamiliar with the term, it means paying more than winking attention to actually balancing critical social and environmental aspects as integral parts to an economic evaluation]

It is distressing that even after over a century of so-called growth and progress, we [some of us anyway] are still dreaming about making huge corporate profits by strip mining a fossil fuel, hauling it 1500 miles by train, then several thousand miles by ship, and delivering it at $14 per ton to our major competitor.
And that's not counting the impacts of laying new track over rich farmland, building a huge marshaling yard and terminal to handle continuous train loads of coal, and further distressing our scenic and sensitive coastal and inland waters with a monstrous ship loading facility, and its attendant noise, airborne dust and, stormwater pollution and run-off directly into a rich aquatic breeding ground for species that feed our valuable salmon. [and us]

All of this effort is to expand the continued burning of coal, at a time when we already know its polluting costs!
Any economic benefits from local [short term] construction, jobs and operations will be enjoyed by very few, and likely be dwarfed by the air pollution and jobs created in China, not to speak of local public infrastructure subsidies likely required and negative impacts to our living environment.

And, let's don't forget the mitigation and/or adaption costs to Bellingham and Whatcom County, and quality of life that has promoted us to multiple 'Best Places' lists.
What do you expect happens when continuous, noisy trains are unleashed to dump their poisonous loads onto awaiting mega ships to ply our local waters on their way to polluting foreign air -which will eventually return to us bearing particulate matter and ever more green house gases?

You'd think that a country/region so technologically advanced as ours would think more than twice about returning to those short-sighted practices of the past century.
After all the visioning, planning and effort/expense that has into sustaining a viable economy, environment and quality of life, it would a shame to nullify our collective investment as a community.
But hey, the incentive for indiscriminate corporate profits still seems to reign supreme, doesn't it?
Small wonder since our highest court has ruled corporations are equivalent to people!
---------

Some of us recall the idea of a bulk terminal at Cherry Point to haul trainloads of grain across northern Whatcom County from Canada.
That scheme was being promoted by Port of Bellingham Commissioner Scott Walker, among others, about 10 years ago, which reflected a long term fixation on building big industrial facilities in that area.

Unfortunately, that particular fixation refuses to die, despite the expensive economic development report -commissioned by the Port- which recommended dramatically different strategies, like allowing infill from regional businesses to occur more naturally in the corridor between the Vancouver, BC and Seattle.
In fact, the Port was so surprised by the [$250k] Deloitte & Touche Report that they actually asked the consultant to reconsider/alter its recommendations! [They refused]

Subsequently, the Port & City have collaborated in trying to redevelop our waterfront, with the existing shoreline BNSF Railroad a significant impediment. [It's hard to imagine the Railroad permitting -or building- a second track along this route, anyway, due to multiple factors, not the least of which are safety and ecologically related]

In the meantime, Whatcom County has not been supportive of either the Waterfront Redevelopment or the Port's role as lead agency for economic development. You have to ask, 'what does each jurisdiction have to gain or lose' from the proposed Coal Terminal?
I suspect the Port will be involved in some capacity, since products would be entering and leaving Whatcom County across borders and shorelines, but I don't know.
Whatcom County's position is likely more political. First, they will welcome ANY additional jobs or revenue, almost without regard to details like negative impacts. Second, since northern County cities like Sumas, Lynden and Ferndale see themselves as potential beneficiaries, the County administration will likely be happy to claim any credit for the Terminal going forward, especially during economic hard times - which do provide some political cover.
----------------

Without access to any more facts that we have now, I don't believe the Coal Terminal proposal is a good thing for us, either now or in the future. Like Cinderella's slipper, it just does not fit her ugly step-sister!
While economic health is something that does benefit our community, it should not be necessary to accept EVERY idea that comes down the pike without critical examination. Sometimes, it is necessary to just say NO.
-------------------
OF INTEREST:
In light of the recent earthquake-caused tsunami that created the most recent radioactivity problem in Japan, this link provides information that puts our global situation in truer focus:

From one perspective, nuclear power has been remarkably safe. The 1986 Chernobyl accident will ultimately kill about 10,000 people, mostly from cancer.
Coal plants are much deadlier: the fine-particulate air pollution they produce kills about 10,000 people each year in the United States alone.

Whatcom County is a county located in the U.S. state of Washington. Its name ultimately derives from a Nooksack word meaning "noisy water."
Think we ought to make some noise about this issue?
We can do better - much better!
--------------------

Ill Fares The Land

-------------------------
It's been a while since I've posted, but that's not due to a lack of worthy subject matter.
Rather, I've been absorbed lately in reading, thinking, and trying to reprogram myself a bit- physically, mentally & emotionally.

A most welcome visit by my son, Tom, was accompanied by the passing of my dear little sister, Mary.
So, my joy was counter-balanced by some sadness, as is often the case.

But, life does go on and we must accept it as we can.
-------------------------
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey; Where wealth accumulates, and men decay." - Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Village (1770)
-------------------------
One thing that should NOT be acceptable to us is continuing to neglect our situation of growing political and economic dysfunction.
While a certain amount of conflict and controversy is built in to our system, we have exceeded healthy levels.
Even more troubling is the threat of escalating contentiousness, at the very time we need to come together with a sense of urgency.

With so many serious problems, like unemployment, health-care needs, international wars & turmoil, environmental threats, severe fiscal realities, regulatory failures, educational challenges, immigration worries, corporate & union misuse of power, banal & biased media misinformation, rampant lobbying, manufactured brinkmanship and political shenanigans of every stripe, we desperately need to get our elected officials' attention!

And, then focus them on coming up with practical solutions that respect prior programs, and provide for future needs as best we can, starting with the problems in bold, above, then moving to others.

What has evolved over time is not likely to be set right quickly, but we can develop a plan and mandate the discipline to follow it.
All this self-serving petty posturing, hypocritical rhetoric, clever wordsmithing, dodging candid answers, partisan bickering, fear mongering, blame games, lying and selective truth-telling, parliamentary trickery, legalistic nonsense, saber-rattling, and demagoguery needs to stop, at least long enough to achieve some real progress on what truly qualifies as a multi-dimensional national emergency!

-------------------------
I recently read -and recommend-Ill Fares The Land by Tony Judt, which projects lessons learned forward, challenging readers to debate "what comes next?" and makes the case for renewed social democracy. Here are a few excerpts of book reviews:

Judt's death in 2010, occurred at exactly the moment when the use of fear and anger by the right is reaching dangerous proportions.
He deserves praise for carrying out what he himself described as the historian's task "to tell what is almost always an uncomfortable story and explain why the discomfort is part of the truth we need to live well and live properly. A well-organized society is one in which we know the truth about ourselves collectively, not one in which we tell pleasant lies about ourselves".

Written under the debilitating effects of ALS, Ill Fares The Land, has been described as Judt's "most overtly political book" and a "dramatic intervention" in the decline of the progressive ideals of the 20th century. Judt laments the breakdown of the post-war Keynesian policy consensus, the rise of Austrian Neo-liberal economics in the West and its political manifestations under Thatcher, Reagan et al.

He notes the limited triangulation achieved by the Third Way and the paradoxical resurgence of the Right after the Global Financial Crisis.

He asks: where to now for social democracy?, and concludes that nothing less than a radical restatement of the values of equality and community can stem the challenge of the hegemonic Right.

He explored how the social contract that defined post-war Europe and the US and the guarantee of security, stability, and fairness was no longer considered a legitimate social goal and how a social democratic vision could win back the disaffected by creating a "civic language" that could support a renewed social contract between governments and their citizens.

Editorial Review

Something is profoundly wrong with the way we think about how we should live today.

In Ill Fares The Land, Tony Judt, one of our leading historians and thinkers, reveals how we have arrived at our present dangerously confused moment.
Judt masterfully crystallizes what we’ve all been feeling into a way to think our way into, and thus out of, our great collective dis-ease about the current state of things.

As the economic collapse of 2008 made clear, the social contract that defined postwar life in Europe and America – the guarantee of a basal level of security, stability and fairness -- is no longer guaranteed; in fact, it’s no longer part of the common discourse.
Judt offers the language we need to address our common needs, rejecting the nihilistic individualism of the far right and the debunked socialism of the past.
To find a way forward, we must look to our not so distant past and to social democracy in action: to re-enshrining fairness over mere efficiency.

Distinctly absent from our national dialogue, social democrats believe that the state can play an enhanced role in our lives without threatening our liberties.
Instead of placing blind faith in the market—as we have to our detriment for the past thirty years—social democrats entrust their fellow citizens and the state itself.

Ill Fares the Land challenges us to confront our societal ills and to shoulder responsibility for the world we live in.
For hope remains. In reintroducing alternatives to the status quo,
Judt reinvigorates our political conversation, providing the tools necessary to imagine a new form of governance, a new way of life.
---------------
About the Author
Tony Judt was born in London in 1948 and died in NYC in 2010.
He was educated at King's College, Cambridge and the École Normale Supérieure, Paris, and has taught at Cambridge, Oxford, Berkeley and New York University, where he is currently the Erich Maria Remarque Professor of European Studies and Director of the Remarque Institute, which is dedicated to the study of Europe and which he founded in 1995.

The author or editor of twelve books, he has been a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, The New Republic, The New York Times and many other journals in Europe and the US.
Professor Judt was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a Permanent Fellow of the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen (Vienna).
He is the author of Reappraisals: Reflections On The Forgotten Twentieth Century and Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945, which was one of the New York Times Book Review’s Ten Best Books of 2005, the winner of the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award, and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

-------------------------
"Our greatest glory consists not in never failing, but in rising every time we fall."~ Oliver Goldsmith
-------------------------

New Year's Jabberwocky

------------------------------
"Deficits don't matter" -Dick Cheney

"I'm not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." - Ronald Reagan

"I know that you think you know what I said. But I'm not sure whether you understood that what you heard is what I meant." - Alan Greenspan

"Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." - Gold and Economic Freedom - Alan Greenspan, 1966.

"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I said." - Alan Greenspan
------------------------------

Who is right? Does anyone know what impacts are actually caused by deficits?

Can they explain, simply and in layman's terms, what these impacts are?

If so, the explanations are overdue, and necessary to have an honest, objective public discussion on this subject!

[That is, if real objectivity and/or honesty are now possible]

At some level, I knew that that waiting [and surviving] long enough would enable me to somewhat describe what the year 2011 may mean.
========================

 
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.



“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!

”

He took his vorpal sword in hand:

Long time the manxome foe he sought—

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought.



And as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!



One, two! One, two! and through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.



“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
”
He chortled in his joy.



’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Lewis Carroll -Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1872).

When Alice has finished reading the poem she gives her impressions:
'It seems very pretty,' she said when she had finished it,
'but it's rather hard to understand!'
(You see she didn't like to confess, even to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.)
'Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas— only I don't exactly know what they are!
However, somebody killed something: that's clear, at any rate'
--------------------

Actually, I could not have described our current situation better than that!

What does that say about our current status?

Does it mean, as H. L. Mencken said; "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
" ?

Or, does it mean "Politics is the most concentrated expression of economics."
 - V. I. Lenin

Or, possibly, "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."? - Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906

Or, “So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful for impotence.” - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965

Or, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Or, maybe "You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."- Yogi Berra

Or, "Sometimes it is not enough to do our best; we must do what is required." - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
---------------------------

Who really knows what 2001 will bring?

My hope is that it brings more good than some [maybe most] people expect!

Happy New Year!
---------------------------
"Write drunk; edit sober." - Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)
---------------------------

Politics, Popularity & Priorities

-----------------------
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility.  Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." - Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------

There are {2} easy and {2} difficult things about politics as we know it;

Easy: cutting taxes & offering services, amenities & programs desired by citizens

Difficult: raising taxes & cutting services, amenities & programs desired by citizens

Can you identify any inherent conflicts with this situation?

[My blog of Saturday, November 22, 2008 also touches on this dilemma]

As Walter Cronkhite used to say; 'and that's the way it is'
-----------------------

Think what you will about politics, government and our ability to effectively deal with public problems in general, the system we have is what we -individually and collectively- make it to be.

Having a victim's mentality about politics helps nothing but perpetrating a perceived bad situation and discouraging good people from performing public service.
So, while complaints are OK, excessive complaints only exacerbate the problem.

Despite the obstacles, we do have a good number of dedicated public servants with the competence and courage to conceive, advocate and make the difficult decisions most likely to sustainably endure and benefit citizens.

Unfortunately, things often have to get bad enough that politicians have no choice but to really deal with the situation that has evolved.
Such seems to be happening now, and simultaneously at multiple levels of government.

A recent example is this opinion piece by Washington Governor, Christine Gregoire, in Crosscut.

You can read it and decide for yourself, but I think the Governor has very few options, given both legal restraints and inescapable realities.

Of course, this is also true of the situations which our local and federal governments are facing.
The main difference is the feds have much broader and more diverse responsibilities, plus no mandate to balance the budget.
Plus, the Fed can also legally print money.

Some may remember the well-intended, but tepid exercise the City of Bellingham underwent a few years ago.
It was called 'Priorities of Government' [POG]. and while most elected officials gave it lip service as 'an interesting concept', not many really wanted to seriously touch it to implement its clear implications.
Believe me, I know - I was there!

Anyway, it's too bad that an absolute crisis seems absolutely needed for governments to seriously confront such intractable questions as defining what is necessary, fair and sustainable as public policy.
Unfortunately -or otherwise- that is the situation we find ourself now.

-----------------------
"A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can be best attained." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 62 - 1788
-----------------------

The Trouble With Liberty?

--------------------------
"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" - Patrick Henry 1775 **[see note below]

"Certainty is the most vivid condition of ignorance and the most necessary condition for knowledge." - Kedar Joshi
--------------------------

Before this year is history, this link is worth a read.
For those mainly interested in the gist, a few excerpts are quoted below:

• Libertarians, of both left and right, haven’t been this close to power since 1776. But do we want to live in their world?

• For all the talk about casting off government shackles, libertarianism is still considered the crazy uncle of American politics: loud and cocky and occasionally profound but always a bit unhinged.

• Ayn Rand is the gateway drug to Libertarianism, though many toke into adulthood.

• Libertarianism is a long, clunky word for a simple, elegant idea: that government should do as little as possible.

• Libertarian minarchy is an elegant idea in the abstract. But the moment you get specific, the foundation starts to crumble.

• There’s always tension between freedom and fairness. We want less government regulation, but not when it means firms can hire cheap child labor. We want a free market, but not so bankers can deceive investors. Libertarianism, in promoting freedom above all else, pretends the tension doesn’t exist.

• “There’s something about libertarians where working as a team is inconsistent with the whole concept of being a libertarian,”

• Lindsey compares libertarians who preach purity to the “Underpants Gnomes” in South Park, a popular analogy in wonk circles: “Step one, articulate Utopia. Step three is Utopia. Step two is a big question mark.”

• Consider the social side of Libertopia. It’s no coincidence that most libertarians discover the philosophy as teenagers. At best, libertarianism means pursuing your own self-interest, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else. At worst, as in Ayn Rand’s teachings, it’s an explicit celebration of narcissism. “Man’s first duty is to himself,” says the young architect Howard Roark in his climactic speech in The Fountainhead. “His moral obligation is to do what he wishes.” Roark utters these words after dynamiting his own project, since his vision for the structure had been altered without his permission. The message: Never compromise. If you don’t get your way, blow things up. And there’s the problem. If everyone refused to compromise his vision, there would be no cooperation. There would be no collective responsibility. The result wouldn’t be a city on a hill. It would be a port town in Somalia. In a world of scarce resources, everyone pursuing their own self-interest would yield not Atlas Shrugged but Lord of the Flies. And even if you did somehow achieve Libertopia, you’d be surrounded by assholes.

• Libertarianism and power are like matter and anti-matter. They cancel each other out.

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

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd". - Voltaire

"To learn which questions are unanswerable, and not to answer them: this skill is most needful in times of stress and darkness." - Ursula K. Le Guin

••[Ear-witnesses to Henry's hypnotic orations remarked that while they always seemed to be convincing in the moment, they had a difficult time remembering exactly what he had said immediately afterwards: according to Thomas Jefferson, "Although it was difficult, when [Henry] had spoken, to tell what he had said, yet, while speaking, it always seemed directly to the point. When he had spoken in opposition to my opinion, had produced a great effect, and I myself had been highly delighted and moved, I have asked myself, when he ceased, 'What the devil has he said?' and could never answer the inquiry."
[ from wikipedia at this URL.
-----------------------

For Whom Will The Polls Toll?

------------------------------
'Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right?' -- Robert Orben

'Journalists should denounce government by public opinion polls.'
- Dan Rather

'A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.'
- Dan Quayle
------------------------------

One of the better polls has made its last prediction before tomorrow's elections:

HOUSE: +55 R
SENATE: +8 R
GOVERNOR: +8-9 R

The accuracy of this forecast will be known soon enough, as will the plethora of other forgettable speculations.

While I applaud the remarkable advances in technology and techniques for creating, conducting and interpreting polls, the idea has now been thoroughly co-opted for crass propaganda purposes.

Imagine that!
------------------------------

'There is no well-defined boundary between honesty and dishonesty.  The frontiers of one blend with the outside limits of the other, and he who attempts to tread this dangerous ground may be sometimes in one domain and sometimes in the other.'  -- O. Henry, Rolling Stones, 1912

'The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.'  ~Thomas Jefferson

'


If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed.  If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.'  ~Author unknown, commonly attributed to Mark Twain or Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------

Elite Or Effete?

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

A democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property, and vulgar employments. - Aristotle (384 - 322 BC)

The single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because it's so rare. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

A little disrespect is not a bad thing. Skepticism is essential to chasten what Walt Whitman called "the never-ending audacity of elected persons." But, carried too far, ridicule of the people we choose to govern us may undermine self government itself.
- Arthur Schlesinger (1917 -)

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

Conservative pundit Peggy Noonan recently published an article entitled Why so many of us resent the 'elites'.
It is worth a read regardless of your political persuasion.
============

Per Mr Google, the word 'elite' is taken originally from the Latin, eligere, "to elect".
In sociology as in general usage, the elite is a hypothetical group of relatively small size, that is dominant within a large society, having a privileged status perceived as being envied by others of a lower line of order.

The elite at the top of the social strata almost invariably puts it in a position of leadership, whether it be expected or volunteered, and often subjects the holders of elite status to pressure to maintain that leadership position as part of status.

In elite theory as developed by political scientists like Michael Parenti, all sufficiently large social groups will have some kind of elite group within them that actively participates in the group's political dynamics.

Meritocracy is a facet of society that tries to promote merit as a route to the elite.
-------------------

Does it seem to you that folks who so casually dismiss 'elites' in government service are being just a tad disingenuous?
For example, which of the following would you prefer to NOT be elite?:

military personnel
police/fire/EMS
lawyers/judges
professors/teachers/ministers
doctors/nurses
diplomats/ambassadors/envoys
scientists/engineers/technicians
journalists/reporters/bloggers
public servants/elected officials/regulators
financial advisers
sports figures/entertainers
builders/repairers/workers
employers/employees
farmers/manufacturers
mechanics
---------------------

Maybe you would prefer people better defined as 'effete'?

Here, Mr Google suggests this particular word means 'having lost character, vitality, or strength', or
'marked by weakness or decadence', or 'soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence'

Examples: 'effete members of the aristocracy', or 'the soft, effete society that marked the final years of the Roman empire'

Origin of EFFETE is from the Latin 'effetus', from ex- + fetus fruitful
First Known Use: 1660

Synonyms: decadent, decayed, degenerate, overripe, washed-up
------------------------

Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, dated October 28, 1813 contained this phrase:

There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?

Sounds like old TJ much preferred an aristocracy of the 'natural' kind, doesn't it?
=========================

Christine O'Donnell - who claims she's NOT a witch -has recently bragged about NOT going to Yale.
What is that about?

This article attempts to explain the strange 'Start Poor. Work Hard. Do Well. Be Hated Anyway' dynamic that we are hearing as campaign rhetoric these days:
Why do Americans resent upward mobility?
=========================

If there's one epithet the right-wing seems to never tire of, it's "elitism."
If you'd like hearing what the likes of Sarah Palin and John McCain have to say about this, check out this URL:
Elitist Nonsense

Elitism, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.
===========================

"It is impossible to tell for certain the difference between genuine stupidity and a parody of stupidity."
- The General Case of Poe's Law

===========================

Caveat Lector & Voter!

---------------------------
(Let the reader/voter beware!)

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!" - FDR

"The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." - Aristotle
---------------------------

Stephen Colbert's tongue-in-cheek rally to 'keep fear alive' is scary, but not because it will happen at Halloween time.

Its because we are being 'treated with too many tricks' and getting literally worn down by it.

This article explains it better than I can.
A few excerpts:

• Stephen Colbert, relax: Mother Nature is on your side, already working hard to keep fear alive.

• Your brain is continually looking for bad news. As soon as it finds some, it fixates on it with tunnel vision, fast-tracks it into memory storage, and then reactivates it at the least hint of anything even vaguely similar. But good news gets a kind of neural shrug: "uh, whatever."

• In effect, the brain is like Velcro for negative experiences but Teflon for positive ones.

• All this makes human beings super-sensitive to apparent threats. Basically, in evolution, there are two kinds of mistakes: (1) You think there is a tiger in the bushes but there isn't one, and (2) You think the coast is clear, no tiger in the bushes, but there really is one about to pounce.

• These mistakes have very different consequences. The first one will make you anxious, but the second one will kill you. That's why Mother Nature wants you to make the first mistake a thousand times over in order to avoid making the second mistake even once.

• This hard-wired tendency toward fear affects individuals, groups (from couples to multinational corporations), and nations. It makes them overestimate threats, underestimate opportunities, and underestimate resources.

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

As if this natural trait of fear weren't enough to strongly influence us, here's another article about a particular pervasive, insidious practice that further distorts our ability to process information correctly - the avoidance of basic truth.
Again, a few excerpts to illustrate the point:

• These three different but overlapping concepts — accuracy, honesty and intellectual honesty — are honored by our political culture in reverse order of their actual importance.

• Intellectual dishonesty, meanwhile, is so built into the Washington [DC] culture that you have to force yourself to notice it.
It even has a more familiar and less pejorative name: “spin.”
Spin is not just another word for lies.
A better definition might be “indifference to the truth.”
The really great spin artists, like Karl Rove and James Carville, are celebrated as masters of their craft.
Journalists crowd around them, longing to get spun.

• Far from being a “low bar,” absolute intellectual honesty is something I’ve never actually seen in anyone inside Washington or out, politician or journalist or diplomat. I aspire to it, as do many.

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

A third article brings the first two into the digital age, specifically involving the Internet.
Excerpts follow:

• The Web has given partisans license to find only the “facts” that fit their prejudices.

• Nowhere, perhaps, is the gap between the romance and the reality of the Internet more evident than in our politics. In the idealized narrative of digital democracy, greater connectivity has bequeathed more governmental transparency, more grass-roots participation and even a more efficient rendering of political justice.

• The explosion of accessible media and information on the Web, with its potential to give civic discourse a factual baseline and hold politicians accountable, has also given partisans license to find only the “facts” that fit their prejudices.

• ....“the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will” was supposed to be upended, so it would be “easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns.” Instead, he concluded, we ended up with the reverse: social media increase the efficiency of the existing order rather than empowering dissidents.

• .....cyberspace is a “wild social ether where nobody knows who anybody is.”

• ....look at the political environment in our election year of 2010. The Internet in general and social networking in particular have done little, if anything, to hobble those pursuing power with such traditional means as big lies and big money.
Perhaps what’s most remarkable this year is the number of candidates who have tried to create fictitious avatars like the Facebook impostors in “Catfish.”
These candidates and others often fashion their campaigns to avoid real reporters (and sometimes real voters).
Some benefit from YouTube commercials paid for by impossible-to-trace anonymous donors.
In this wild political ether where nobody knows who anybody is, the Internet provides cover, not transparency.

• What you might call our “Catfish” Congressional candidates are a perfect match for the phantom donors. The power of the Google search hardly deters those politicians intent on fictionalizing their identities.

• ....In each of these cases it was old-fashioned analog reporters, most of them working for newspapers, who finally penetrated the falsehoods.

• When Christine O’Donnell ran an ad last week with the improbable opening line “I’m not a witch,” we once again had to marvel at the Delaware primary triumph of a mystery candidate with a falsified résumé, no job, and apparently no campaign operation beyond out-of-state donors and out-of-state fans like Palin “writing” Twitter endorsements.
O’Donnell’s Facebook page is by far the most palpable presence of an aspiring senator who shuns public events and the press in Delaware. In a brave new political world where candidates need only exist in virtual reality, it’s no wonder that Donald Trump believes he’s qualified for public office because of his relative gravitas as a heavy on a television “reality” show.

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

Does any of the above sound or seem familiar? Any local candidates avoiding public forums? Any support groups using 'spin'?

With our elections coming soon, I hope voters will be very careful about what they read, what they decide to believe, and the sometimes hidden connection with what -or whom- they are voting for.

Voting is our Constitutionally guaranteed right and a valuable direct link to our democracy, so let's not waste it.

Otherwise, we should consider changing Halloween to Election Day, because it's more scary!
----------------

"We tell lies when we are afraid... afraid of what we don't know, afraid of what others will think, afraid of what will be found out about us.  But every time we tell a lie, the thing that we fear grows stronger."  - Tad Williams

"Losing my anonymity in this world I think is something that I find terrifying." - Alex O'Loughlin

"Liars when they speak the truth are not believed."
 - Aristotle

"The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!"
 - Mark Twain, in Eruption

"The freedom to connect to the world anywhere at anytime brings with it the threat of unscrupulous predators and criminals who mask their activities with the anonymity the Internet provides to its users." - Mike Fitzpatrick
====================

Individual Rights & 'Right Things To Do' Aren't The Same.

--------------------
As a nation, we are historically big on individual 'rights' because our Constitution specifies their importance.
In fact, the first ten Amendments are actually called the 'Bill of Rights'.
Of course, each subsequent, duly adopted Amendment either impacts and/or modifies our 'rights' as well.

Our Founders excelled at identifying and broadly describing those basic principles that we value most.
But, sometimes the devil is in the details, which means specific, fair and consistent interpretations must be made -and vetted- from time to time by appropriate Federal officials, whether Judicial, Legislative or Executive.

Sometimes, these 'rights' may seem to conflict with each other, which requires other legal judgements be made.
Too, there are bound to be differences of opinion, some of which never seem to be completely settled to everyone's satisfaction.
That is the nature of what we term unalienable 'rights', even though much good faith effort has gone into their adoption over time.

What we do when disputes and disagreements arise is usually handled through our system of laws, which may also be susceptible to change and interpretation.
However, the one principle that is essential is to have the rule of law, as determined by a representative democratic process.
Without that, we are toast as the nation we profess and aspire to be.

So far, we can count on at least two levels of interpretation that are inherently built into our basic government system.
If these are conscientiously adhered to, or enforced as necessary, our system can work pretty well, despite the complications of timely decisions and increasing complexity.
The key is voluntary understanding, trust and compliance by citizens, which is difficult to obtain and easy to lose.

Then, there is a third level of interpretation for which every citizen has the responsibility; the choice and inclination to 'do the right thing'.
Now, that's a pretty nebulous concept, isn't it? And, essentially unenforcible, too.
Not a big surprise for the standard of freedom our Constitution sets, either.

Moral values and codes of conduct are matters of individual choice and judgement, as long as they comply with our laws.
That can be both a blessing and a curse, as we can readily observe every day in countless ways.
Motives for actions that are mean-spirited, dishonest or self-serving may not be strictly illegal, but they certainly do not support the lofty principles our Constitution promises.

Too often, we seem to allow this variable third level of interpretation to color our appreciation for the first two essential levels.
The 'media', as we now experience it, is certainly complicit in spreading -at light speed- opinions that are often questionable at best.
And, we know the media is in a constant, frenzied competition for 'market share' or ratings.

It's pretty well known that passions are more easily aroused and influenced than the intellect, which likely is attributable to our earliest survival instincts.
That is why a large part of the 'media' frequently uses emotional issues and techniques to attract its audience.
Have you noticed?

I'm really glad every citizen -including me- has the right to determine what issues are important and what to do about them.
But, sometimes, our knee-jerk reactions are definitely not the product of fair-minded, rational thought.
Here are a few examples for readers to consider from their own perspectives:
----------

The proposed development near the WTC in New York

Does an owner -any owner- have the right to finance and develop private property?

Does the impacted neighborhood, city, state or nation have the right to object to an owner developing its property, to the extent this is not the right thing to do?
----------

Glenn Beck's Rally in Washington, DC

Did Beck have the rightto do this?

Was this the right thing to do?
----------

Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska

Did she have the right to do it?

Was this the right thing to do?
---------

The myriad politically motivated organizations, campaigns, clever slogans, books, articles, statements and blogs that are meant to disseminate misinformation, half-truths, smears and outright lies

Do people have the right to create, finance and perpetuate such things?

Are these the right things to do?
----------

Each of the three levels of interpretation identified here can add a layer of mature certainty, but if we are not careful they can also add confusion and unhelpful division.
I sincerely hope our Constitutional principles endure and serve to enhance America, and that we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
But that outcome is not certain, particularly if we do not honestly and consistently demand the best choices and decisions for ourselves and our nation as a whole.

Freedom and individual rights are not free and never have been.
If we truly treasure these concepts we must practice them ourselves.
An environment that nurtures civil rights requires constant renewal if it is to be sustained.
------------

History: A Zero Sum Game?

------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
-William Faulkner -Requiem for a Nun
------------

What do we really learn from history?
How is knowledge preserved and transferred to later generations?
I'm confident we can and do learn something from the past, but is it sufficient to focus us away from repeating mistakes?

Examining remains from past civilizations -think Incas, Egyptians, Romans, Mesopotamians, China, etc- reveals evidence of truly remarkable knowledge, some of which we are only beginning to comprehend ourselves - centuries later.

What happened in the intervals between that necessitates us having to re-learn what was already known?
Was it as simple as the dearth of records, extinction of languages, warfare, famine, disease or decay over time?

Or was it something else?
Like maybe the apparent need for every generation or age to independently discover basic truths -and myths- for themselves?

Then, there is the continuing struggle between diverse beliefs and what is generally known as rational science and reasoning.
But, hey, it's a free country!

Sometimes it seems our Founding Fathers were much smarter than we are today.
Heck, those folks had to fight an extended war against long odds to gain the freedom to draft a Constitution that is based on the concept of freedom!

Nowadays, we have trouble even reading the plain words of what the Founders agreed to, much less understand some of the sound principles they strongly recommended.

Of course, our Founders weren't perfect, but they were motivated to not only learn from history but to endeavor for our country not to repeat some -not all- of its mistakes.
You know, like the Bill of Rights [Amendments 1-10], avoiding foreign wars, civilian control of the military, the rule of law, open government, the ability to reasonably modify our constitution as time & circumstances may require, periodic elections by the majority of voting citizens, etc.

Just a few little things like that.
-------------

So, how did we get involved with deadly and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Actually, the latter may be easier to explain because that where Osama bin Laden was physically based at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
Of course that was 9 years ago, in 2001, at which we had good chances to actually capture OBL.
But, somehow, we got distracted.

Instead, we attacked oil-rich Iraq based on faulty 'information'.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as despicable as Saddam Hussein may have been.
Now, its great we're withdrawing our 'combat troops', after suffering thousands of casualties at enormous cost - which was not even accounted for!

I sincerely hope Iraq will be worth its cost, but only time will tell.

Do you think we followed our Founders' advice in either case?
Did we take any advantage of their wisdom, or did we substitute our own seat-of-the-pants expediency?
-------------

While reflecting on comparisons between our avowed principles and the practice thereof, what about the fuss about an Islamic group's proposal to build near the former World Trade Center destroyed on 9/11 with the tragic loss of many lives?

Do we get to blame an entire religion for the actions of a small group of misguided extremists?
And, if we do, aren't we the victims of similar flawed, blame-game thinking?

That the legal 'right' to build anything at -or near- that site does exist for almost any qualified entity which meets the land use and financial requirements, should not be a matter of debate, notwithstanding the understandable emotional sensitivities involved.

Citizens do have the right to their own opinion, particularly in the case of nationally symbolic places, even if they don't happen to live nearby.
And, there certainly aren't that many instances in which everyone is supportive of an idea, so it is always prudent to weigh such decisions carefully.

Despite the fact that after due process, official New York City planning agencies believe the actual building proposal in question is a potentially good idea, there has been a chorus of loud and emotional appeals against it.
Nothing new or unusual about that is there?

We often experience such debates, and thank goodness we do.
Many times that debate does result in a better result.
But there times in which emotional arguments are deliberately used to drown out rational ideas.
Just look at several local NIMBY issues as examples.

The point is, if we are going to be true to our Constitution and its clear principles, we need to put that first and not allow ourselves to be unduly swayed by anger and fear tactics, like we have at times in the past.
Just think about what has happened with the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII for example.
Or, our continuing over reaction to issues involving discrimination based on race, politics, creed, gender, sexual orientation, age and the like.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could take a time-out for reflection on what principles our Founders intended for us, and hoped we would follow as a unified nation, instead of buying into the static offered by our so-called media?
We know we are capable of thinking for ourselves, don't we?
I hope so. If not, may God help us.

One last thought:
What one act can you think of that might do more to prevent future terrorist attacks on New York City?

Could it be allowing the proposed building to be constructed and used as a symbol of national unity and a testament to our resolve to reaffirm our Founders' principles?

Think about it.

Please, let's don't waste the lessons from our own history!
-----------------------------------------------

A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future. ~Author Unknown
-----------

What A Difference 238 Years Make

=========================
Back before we became the the unique and miraculous US of A, many folks came here willingly, glad to have the freedom and opportunity to better themselves. But there were also those who came here against their will and were less fortunate in their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose that has always been the way it is with us humans.

Thing is, most folks start out mainly caring about the basics; clean water, food, shelter, clothing.
It's after that greed, lawlessness and conflict start to tempt folks, and distract them away from more helpful aspirations that benefit everyone. Absent inspirational leadership, a fair and just legal system, it gets easier to create individual fiefdoms, engage in crime and get lazy, complacent and fractious.

That sort of thing has happened before and is happening again. As favored descendants of our Founders, it falls to us to vigilantly take note of what is happening to drive our nation apart, and take those steps necessary to correct it. That is the one essential element of continuous quality improvement, and its our job to do it. And no one else's.

In doing so we have to be relentless and truthful. There is always room for disagreement and new ideas, despite what some ideologues may want you to think. Why, just yesterday, a senior member of Congress made the pronouncement that our Constitution was not a 'living document! If it's not living, is it dead? I don't think so, and neither did our Founders! That's why it wasn't carved in stone and has substantially changed and been amended over these years.

Such outrageous statements are being encouraged by unscrupulous people, limitless funding and a mass media that is for sale, None of those are good things in a democracy that was established 'for the people, of the people and by the people'!
If readers are getting as fed up as I am, let's let our leaders hear about it. And also, the 'media' and maybe a few other folks who are trying to hoodwink citizens into that fake blame game so-called the "T Party'. It seeks a cheap way to tap into peoples frustrations angers and fears, while rallying money for extreme political interests who seek to substitute their own sorry brand of representation on our already beleaguered government. That is no bargain and should be rejected out of hand.

No, this latest T-Party bears little real resemblance to the one that occurred on the night of December 16th, 1773 in Boston Harbor. That one merely destroyed a luxury English cargo of the leaves, leaf buds and internodes of the plant Camillia sinensis upon which it was intended to collect tax from colonists.
Two points to note: Action was against a foreign government of which America was still a colony.
The Declaration of Independence had not yet occurred, although it was 'a-brewing"!

Here we are 238 years later, choosing to revisit such events as a thin pretense to rally against our own government?
Back then, wasn't that called treason!
=======================

A piece of news heard yesterday triggered this post; it seems the T-Party folks were considering another 'convention' this August in Las Vegas. But someone figured out its pretty hot then and there. Yeeah!
So maybe now they're considering an 'Iced T Party? Maybe cooler heads will prevail...
-----------------

BP's Deja Vu Squared

----------------------
Ever tried to relax by watching a movie, only to find it was a terrible copy of one that you'd seen before?

Ever had to handle a problem caused by someone else?

Ever had to subsidize costs incurred by a corporation's greed and negligence?

Ever been annoyed at the reticence of our elected government to properly regulate and monitor potentially dangerous industries?

Ever been seriously aggrieved at the unnecessary harming of defence-less wildlife, plants and ecosystems?

Ever been mad as hell about the ruinous loss of lives, jobs, commerce and livelihoods?

Ever been stuck with an unwanted, pernicious legacy that keeps on giving?

Ever been fed up with people who mindlessly repeat the mantra 'drill baby, drill'?

Ever wished we were further along in our collective 12-step course to wean ourselves from our fossil fuel addiction?

Ever worried that one day we -or- our children won't be able to enjoy a visit to the beach?

I suspect many people may have experienced one or more of these feelings before now.

And, if not, they are more likely to now, after BP's latest catastrophe.
------

As shocked and aggravated as we may be, there is no simple solution to either fixing the current egregious problem, nor preventing a reoccurrence sometime in the future.

Instead, we ought to use the public concern and anger and redirect it in intelligent ways.

That way -as with the Olympic Pipe Line explosion- we can at least use the energy as positive momentum to improve.

Watching the news for the past 36 days or so, has helped document both the initial horror and the growing criticism of the lack of effective action by either BP or the US government.

Many are even comparing the BP blow-out and subsequent enormous crude oil spill to Hurricane Katrina.
Although the aftermath of both events were terribly destructive, the fact remains that one was naturally occurring and the other caused by compounded human error.

Although more comprehensive contingency planning may have partially prevented or mitigated the effects of both events, is it likely to expect that level of preparedness - particularly considering their enormity?

In the case of Katrina, there was plenty of blame to go around, notwithstanding we have little or no control over major weather events.
Of course, siting and building the City of New Orleans on ground that is well below sea level was never smart.
And, not having an adequate evacuation plan in place did not help, regardless of whether this oversight is the responsibility the City, the State of Louisiana, the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA or some combination of the above.

In the case of BP's catastrophe, the lack of adequate government readiness, at any level, is also evident.
But, the significant difference in this case is the role played by BP, the [ultimate] owner, operator and chief beneficiary of the oil production that has now become such a big problem.

Doesn't it seem reasonable for BP to accept full responsibility for this problem?
What exactly would that entail?
Can we even approximate these total costS?
Is it realistic to expect even a major corporation like BP to compensate for what must amount to billions per year for an unknown number of years?

What role should the government play?
How much should the government pay?
Would this amount to another government bailout?
Would Congress authorize another such expense?
Would a bipartisan approach be possible?
What would be the solution offered by those who would rather shrink 'guvmint' and allow a 'free enterprise' approach?
Just some food for thought.
-----

Here's a few ideas to consider:

• First priority is to stop the leak

• Next, recover as much oil from the Gulf as possible BEFORE it reaches coastlines

• Get the Administration more actively involved, especially if BP's plans repeatedly fail.
Here, it is important NOT to set a precedent of government intervention that others might expect in the future

• Get Congress working on regulations that are more stringent, including much higher liability limits, higher safety standards, better MMS oversight, requirements for relief wells and blow-out prevention devices to be installed and checked BEFORE oil production is allowed.

• Consider additional taxes on crude production to fund an emergency reserve to be used for similar offshore disasters

There are likely other approaches worthy of consideration.
Whatever is decided, this type of incident should be subject to certain, more severe punishment in the future.

Like the tragic Olympic Pipe Line catastrophe, we have the opportunity to greatly improve regulations, operation procedures and contingency planning for the future.
While crude oil will be essential for years to come, it is important to begin to more closely align its price with the true, total cost of its production and use.

Sometimes, it takes a disaster like this to get our attention, so that lasting lessons can be learned.
Just maybe, it will focus us more clearly on the growing need for energy conservation and wider development of alternate energy sources and strategies.

Let's hope so.
----------------------------------

Cycles & Recycles

--------------------
Here we are almost to another Earth Day on the way to Cinco de Mayo.
Left behind since the last post are April Fool's Day, IRS Day and the day Congress passed Healthcare Reform.
Before that, the Ides of March and St Patrick's Day and March Madness, amid 6 relaxing weeks in San Francisco and between here and there.

Life has been mostly good from my personal perspective, partly because I was able to largely tune out the steady din of petty -and not so petty - arguments involving politics, of which the local variety is but a relative blip on the screen.
But, our local blip has much in common with the other blips that combine to fill the screen.

The endless debate about priorities, for example.
And the continued attempts to substitute personal agendas for sound public policy.
Or, the rancor, ignorance, disingenuous rhetoric and appearance of back-room deals.
Not to mention the continuous recycling of issues and debates that never seem to be settled.

One reason I started this blog was to document some earlier discussions and perspectives on local issues.
Those 350 or so blogs are still around to read for those interested.
Just search by label, date or key words to get a crude sorting.
Or, simply allow these words to continue their repose in silent cyberspace.

Before long, I will again explore other geography and peaceful pursuits, but before I do, a few comments on the latest political cycle:

Whatcom County

* This year's Council edition is -not surprisingly- a disappointment. First, Ward Nelson's 11-month 'appointment' seemed a deliberate ploy to pack the Council with enough 'yes men' to allow new Chair 'Scheming Sam' Crawford his way in negating prior Council decisions he didn't like, plus throw a few rewards to his puppeteers.
Newbies Knutzen and Kershner are, well, acting like newbies with attitudes, and voting the way 'Scheming Sam' wants them to.
We'll need to elect Nelson's replacement later this year, and hope it is someone with a more progressive bent.
Then, keeping a close eye on 'Scheming Sam's' shenanigans, which have the appearance of being cooked up with cronies outside of Council meetings, will be a full-time job for watchers.

Bellingham

* This year's single gender Council faces unrelenting fiscal realities, which can have some useful opportunities to cut accreted frills and rethink how services can be provided more efficiently and sustainably. Not fun, but necessary every few years.
Some City issues are also being recycled, like the misguided 'Big Box' ban, adoption of the South-side Parks Plan [read 'Chuckanut Ridge'], the ongoing UGA & Annexation debate, TMDL Action Plan for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, generating real progress in Waterfront Redevelopment, Landlord 'accountability', etc. Just a few items of perpetually unfinished business...

Washington State

Despite desperate economic hard times and draconian budget cuts, the State appears to be better off than most other states, and positioned for a more sustainable recovery.
Re-emergence of the State Income Tax question, long known as the 3rd rail of politics, is a sign that the time for rational discourse is approaching, albeit in a phased fashion.
A few years ago, a Commission chaired by Bill Gates, Senior, concluded that a State Income Tax would provide a fairer, more stable source of revenue, particularly if coupled with limits and reductions on other taxes.
Those conclusions have not changed, although the motivations for such a debate occurring soon have.
This Governor and the current Legislature have proven themselves under intense fire and budget pressures, so perhaps that experience can be built upon for the future.

US Congress

Hope springs eternal for the so-called Republican Party, which has acted so outrageously obstructionist since Obama was convincingly elected President on a platform of 'Big Tent' unity.
Now, they are hoping to benefit in the coming elections by voters discontent with the economy, plus the contentiousness over Healthcare Reform, etc, which they -themselves- actively promoted!
Maybe they will gain seats, but will it be worth it to a country that deserves true leadership instead of continuous acrimony, misinformation campaigns and political games of 'gotcha'?
At least the Obama supporters demonstrated their resolve in achieving tangible progress on health reform that most will come to support once they understand what will be gained!
That could be enough to encourage the so-called 'R's' to change their despicable -and failed- strategy. But don't count on it! It might be easier to just change their name, to something like the Limbaughians, or something containing the letters F-O-X.

Planet Earth

So far, our international relations in the world have noticeably improved under President Obama.
But, time will tell whether balanced diplomacy can succeed under the conditions existing today.
Having help as the world's policeman is essential, and not an option.
But, extricating ourselves from our current wars and conflicts is not an option either.

Barring a series of set-backs, Iraq now seems on its way toward a more stable and reliable government.
But, US and UN assistance will likely be necessary for some years.

Afghanistan is different, and has less prospects for stability'
It might be simpler and more effective for the US to purchase all the opium or poppy production [90% of world supply] and thereby deprive the Taliban or al Qaeda of the major source of their revenues.
This course of action would likely require use of these funds for essential infrastructure and health/education services for the benefit of the populace at large.

Keeping peace and prosperity will always be a big job, but someone's got to do it.
I hope it involves us, both domestically and internationally.
-----------------------------

Healthcare & March Madness

--------------------------------
Some folks won't be celebrating the House's passage of the imperfect, yet necessary, healthcare reform legislation, but most will, including me.
Now, it's the Senate's turn to do the right thing and finally allow the President to sign it into law.

More important over time, is the commitment to periodically revisit this issue with the intent to improve healthcare coverage for all Americans, not just those with means to afford what we have now.
To now deny true progress on something as important as basic healthcare, after a century of debate, would be irresponsible despite ideological differences.

It's time -actually way past time- that the USA begins to get its healthcare act together.
I have confidence that these healthcare reforms will prove helpful to everyone over time, particularly with timely oversight and modification to fix glitches and improve coverage, costs and quality.

It's also time to be more caring, inclusive and realistic when it comes to the impacts of healthcare cost on every American.
That sure beats empty political rhetoric, anger and continued delaying tactics!
Wait and see, but remember this night, because it will quality as truly memorable for many years to come.
--------------------------------

The other March Madness now in progress is the NCAA Basketball Tournament to determine our national champion.
So far, it has been more exciting than usual with many close games and upsets to winnow the field down to the "Sweet Sixteen'.

As with Healthcare Reform Legislation, the final results are unknown, even though some teams seem stronger than others.
Winning it all with require talent, strategy, hard and sustained effort, coolness in adversity, plus a bit of luck.

I've got my favorites, but whoever wins will likely deserve it.
--------------------------------

Lake Whatcom: Fiddling with Phosphorus

-------------------------------
As much as I support term limits -either voluntary or mandatory- there are a few drawbacks.
Like continuity of important policies and programs, for example.
Or, ensuring that education and lessons learned about basic public safety, health and welfare are passed along to new officials charged with making important, non-partisan decisions.

But, not all incumbents are bad, just as not all newbies are good - or prepared for the challenges of public office.
Learning curves can be steep, but that difficult trajectory is not necessarily always followed - at least voluntarily.
Making things worse, often experience and knowledge are actually disparaged as undesirable 'elitism'.
That's really too bad, since that is largely an assumption based on political cynicism, but mostly because it blindly substitutes ignorance and inexperience!

-------
Kathy Kershner, a newly elected County Council member, seems to be having her first fish-bowl experience with a controversial public issue - the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
This Herald article carried the story.

I sincerely hope this will prove to be a positive 'teachable moment' for Ms Kershner and not a reason to solidify the substitution of ideological beliefs for scientifically proven knowledge and established policy.
-------

Kershner is certainly not the only person who has experienced difficulty in understanding the growing problems with our Reservoir.
But, at least she seems to be trying, which is more than you can say for some of her peers, some whom have been in office for years.
The least we can do is to help her learn the best way we can.
In that spirit, the following points are offered, including reference to the 65 blogs labeled 'LAKE' that I have posted since July 2007.
-------

The Clean Water Act [CWA] was enacted in 1972 and amended several times since.
The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] was enacted in 1974 and also amended several times since.
Both Acts are intended to prevent pollution of our valuable water resources.
Both were enacted after serious, harmful pollution had already occurred, and both have been only partially successful in meeting their respective goals.

These are very important points to note, particularly because prevention of water pollution is much more desirable and cost effective than waiting for a problem to occur and then trying to clean it up.

The hope is that we learn from past mistakes and apply those lessons to preventing or at least minimizing future problems with public water supply systems.
That's simply called working smart!
-------

While the CWA and SDWA have different goals, they also are intended to compliment each other, not compete.
One way to understand their respective roles is to see how they are administered here in Washington State:

The Department of Ecology [DOE] administers the CWA.
Pertaining to Lake Whatcom, DOE is charged with keeping that water body 'fishable and swimmable'.
That is also an important factor in maintaining untreated raw water purity, since it represents the first line of defense in a highly recommended 'multiple barrier' system for public water supply sources.

The Department of Health [DOH] administers the SDWA.
Pertaining to Lake Whatcom, DOH is charged with making sure that treated water produced by Public Water Purveyors meets drinking water standards.

Since the 1996 SDWA Amendments, each Public Water Purveyor is required to develop and implement a SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN [SWPP], with updates due to the DOH every 6 years.
Among other things, the SWPP describes existing and projected uses in the surrounding watershed and requires corrective action if reasonable protections are inadequate or threatened.
'Multiple barriers' are therefore strongly recommended to protect the raw water supply.

Hopefully, this brief explanation will help clear up some of the confusion about roles and responsibilities, as well as the interrelated nature of the CWA and SDWA standards and requirements.

Ultimately, it is up to local citizens and elected officials to take timely, wise and effective action to protect our valuable public water supply for future generations.
After all, it is the only one available to us with sufficient quantity and purity to enable optimal and cost effective use of our existing treatment, storage and distribution system.
---------

For those interested in more information about Lake Whatcom, these postings may be of particular interest:

2007:
July 28
August 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30
September 5, 11, 30
October 2, 8, 9, 12, 19
November 2
December 4

2008:
May 11, 24
August 8
November 27

2009:
January 19
June 11, 14
July 31
----------------

Lake Whatcom: Little Ducky Duddle's Fault?

The Ducky Duddle Song

Little ducky duddle
went wading in a puddle,
wading in a puddle quite small.

Said he "it doesn't matter
how much I splash and splatter
'cause I'm just a little ducky after all."
--------------------------
The current Weekly's GRISTLE poses some interesting background and observations about our RESERVOIR.
I recommend reading it.

Those who have followed this issue for a while know what a conundrum it is.
Even after a string of after-the-fact beneficial actions by City & County governments as well as the WA Dept of Ecology and other agencies, the rate of steady degradation of our drinking water supply has slowed slightly, but not stopped, much less reversed as the DOE has directed.

Recounting the long litany of well-intended past actions would fill a few pages and more importantly lead some into believing we've already done a lot, which lessens the need to do more.
Nothing could be less true!

Suffice to say that some of the bigger steps, like down-zong, restrictions on clearing and grading, watershed acquisition & preservation, storm-water regulations and mitigation, lake-friendly gardening & landscaping are working to some extent, but not nearly enough to actually reverse the trend of lake water degradation.

Believe me, I know how tiring it can be working on this issue! And expensive. And controversial. And frustrating.
But that is the nature of this beast.
Think of a long-term marathon race, not a 40-yard sprint -as many seem to prefer.

With that concept in mind, the new year brings in some new elected officials, who may or may not be able to do much more than has been done to benefit our Reservoir.
Time will tell, as it has up to now.
And the results are not nearly good enough.

Waiting for the DOE TMDL Study to tell us what is needed to be done is easy, because we're really good at waiting!
Actually taking the actions required is the hard part.

And its not easy to conceive of many more 'quick fixes', like the ones already put into place.
Only steady, incremental steps can be visualized that will largely depend on the voluntary efforts of enlightened watershed residents, property owners, users and concerned citizens.
Of course, government regulations, funding and enforcement are necessary to effectively support these -and prior- efforts.

Ideas like infiltration of storm-water, creating a large park & open space from former DNR forest lands, and the like do have the potential for adding more protection from pollutants rapidly entering Lake Whatcom.
But, these approaches need to be tested and evaluated for their efficacy.

As tempting as it is to wish for a 'silver bullet' to solve our Reservoir degradation problem, that is not likely.
Only the 'block & tackle' work of constant vigilance, political courage and steady effort is likely to be effective over time.
The degradation of our drinking water Reservoir has been caused primarily by unfiltered stormwater run-off, resulting from multiple acts over time; literally 'death by a thousand pin-pricks'.

Or a thousand Ducky Duddles?
That's the point; we are all Ducky Duddles, and it DOES matter how much we splash and splatter!

Under these circumstances, a quick and painless solution is not likely to occur.
Daunting as that outlook may seem, it should encourage more focused action, not less.
I hope the new elected officials will rise to this task and accept their share of accountability for Lake Whatcom.
After all, it is the drinking water source for half of the people in Whatcom County.
---------------------

Back to the Gristle's conclusion: Seth [Fleetwood], with feet on both sides of county and city water policy, chose not to step into that puddle.
Maybe that's not such a bad thing for Seth to not do, unlike Ducky Duddle?
After all, he's been there, done that and knows -first hand- the kind of irrational reaction that can be triggered by stepping into such a puddle with both feet.

Remember 'Boats Off', and the County Council's [and Seth's] unhappy experience with that?
It's intent was simply to restrict the use of older motorized watercraft that spewed 25% of their fuel directly into the water.
Doesn't that sound like a desirable thing to do?
Especially since the City's Water Treatment Plant isn't designed to remove harmful hydrocarbons?

So, it really makes no difference whether Seth volunteered for the City's Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed Committee -for several reasons:

(1) Unlike the County Council, the City Council Committees are 'weak' committees meant primarily to spread the early discussion workload, although these sessions are also inclusive of all other members, and all final decisions are made by the Council-As-A-Whole.

(2) Given the make-up of City Council, there is comparatively less resistance to considering, passing and funding programs to benefit Lake Whatcom. Seth does not need to be on this committee to stay informed or contribute ideas.
{My last 2 years I elected to not serve on this committee, because I thought others needed to become more involved.]

(3) Seth DID pick the Parks & Recreation Committee, whose activities he is familiar and comfortable with.
And, it's possible that Seth MAY use that position to help promote the County's proposed Reconveyance of 8400 acres of DNR forestlands to create a large park and open space in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

Some have already characterized this as a potential 'home run' for the Reservoir, and it could be, provided a careful, low impact plan is adopted -along with the long term funding to adequately manage it.
But, I remain a skeptic until I see those critical elements in place.
-----------------------

Seth has served us pretty well while a part of the County Council.
And, I suspect he will continue in that vein while on the City Council.
No one should doubt that Seth's new job will prove more comfortable to him, both in the scope of issues considered and better compatibility with his peers, not to mention a much more favorable atmosphere for being re-elected.

Of course, two years ago Seth did run for Mayor. Think he'll do that again?
Since his position is the only 2-year elected seat in the County, do you think he will support changing it to a 4-year seat?
His predecessor certainly fought that idea, but think of the possible ramifications for Seth.

By serving a 2-year term, Seth would have to pick which office he runs for in 2 years.
But, a 4-year term -on the same election cycle as Gene Knutson, Michael Lilliquist and Stan Snapp- would mean he could run for Mayor [or other office] without first relinquishing his Council seat.
Think about it.
--------------------------

Welcoming 2010

----------------------------
Tonight -December 31- traditionally marks the beginning of a New Year and the ending of the old, accompanied by joyous celebrations.
But, it will also be special for other reasons too, including a rare event involving the moon.

Even though local cloud cover may obscure it, tonight is the second full moon to occur this month -which makes it a so-called 'blue moon' .
And, because this is also happening on New Year's Eve, it is even more rare, with some cultures considering it a particularly auspicious event.

I am personally glad to see 2010 arrive because 2009 was mostly a time of discomfort, inactivity and stress for me.
Fortunately, I have now received a clean bill of health and am steadily regaining strength and a degree of normality in my life.

The year 2010 is considered another Chinese Year of the Tiger. [my 7th since I was born in 1938]
And, since I'm also a Sagittarius, the combination of these two zodiac signs may explain a few of my traits and preferences.
Horoscope aficionados might have fun analyzing that.

Also, this is the time of year for good football games, both college Bowls and professional play-offs.
[I wonder if you can get a mild concussion from just watching too much football?]

For the most part, the New Year means a time of renewal and reflection, a time to reset our priorities and outlooks.
Those things are clearly beneficial and do not constitute a real interruption to the continuity of life.

So, let's welcome this special time of year and use it to conceive of ways to improve our collective human condition in 2010.
Wishing all a Happy & Prosperous New Year!
---------------------------------

County Council: Appointment or Disappointment?

--------------------------------
As predicted by Dec 15th's Gristle column in the Weekly;

In any event, Pete—who has spent the last year cannily splitting the differences and then mending them on a variety of issues in front of County Council—will undoubtedly appoint someone who best benefits the aims of his administration.

Also, my own blog of December 12 supplied my logic and preferences to this process.

Herald articles from yesterday sum up what actually happened plus a few reactions

Turns out Pete picked Ward Nelson, an existing Council member who was to retire at the end of this month.
He did not pick Dan McShane, a previous Council member who ran for election this year for the other District 1 seat, but was narrowly defeated.
I believe - like others - that deferring this appointment to Pete allowed him to demonstrate his true political preference, and restructure the Council in a way that does not challenge his well-known 'do-nothing' agenda.

Not that Nelson is a poor choice, but his political leanings and history do NOT align very well with his predecessor, Bob Kelly, a progressive who resigned last month.

Also, Pete essentially ignored the fact that Nelson recused himself and therefore did not receive 3 votes of support from the current Council members. Instead, he simply substituted his own choice -as the Council in its dysfunction allowed him.

I am not surprised by Pete's action, since I have observed his management style and preferences fairy closely over the last 10 years.
He does not like to be challenged by either Council members or the Council itself, which has happened during the last year or so.
Just witness Pete's unusual step of endorsing Carl Weimer's opponent - and indeed the entire 'conservative' slate - during the last election.
Think that wasn't out of resentment for being out-maneuvered on the Flood Tax issue and a few other things?

But, Pete's recent veto of the budget changes recommended by the Council seemed to be the real tip-off as what he was up to.
[Only Nelson and Brenner opposed the Council's recommendations.]

With one conservative [Nelson] leaving the Council and two [Knutzen & Kershner] being elected, means a net gain of one.
And with three progressives [Kelly, Caskey-Schreiber, Fleetwood] leaving the Council and one [Mann] being elected, means a net loss of two - depending upon Pete's choice of appointment.

So, inside of one month, the political balance of the Council has shifted from a 4-3 majority favoring Progressives, to a 5-2 super majority favoring Conservatives -partly thanks to Pete's choice of Nelson.

Pete surely has to be more comfortable with the new political 'balance', don't you think?
He ought to be, because he now has tighter control over what that mischievous Council might do.

And, actually DOING something isn't anywhere near the top of Pete's agenda. At least that's been my observation.
After all, DOING something might further polarize this County!
-----------------------------
"it is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing." - Thomas Jefferson 1787
-----------------------------

Hallelujah, Halleluyah and Alleluia!

--------------------------
The Senate's early Christmas Eve vote on healthcare reform was another step in this slow, but necessary and overdue process.
Although some folks disagree, I welcome this as tangible progress addressing an long-standing issue of great importance to millions of Americans, and therefore clearly a reason to rejoice.

But, more hurdles must be overcome before any of the anticipated benefits are manifested.
The Senate and House bills must be reconciled and the all-important final approving votes cast, before the measure can be sent to the President for his signature.
Then, the real work begins of explaining and implementing the changes over time.

Will this measure address all the identified problems to every one's satisfaction?
Of course not, but it is the best that could be agreed upon for now.

As likely improvements are proposed and defects are discovered, these will provide valuable impetus for further refinements.
Often, initial progress on an issue is the hardest part, and the difficulty witnessed during this year's debate certainly fits that profile.
But, like it or not, adversarial debate is the primary method by which this country changes its policies and regulations.

And, despite all the vitriol, posturing rhetoric and costly lobbying, a majority -actually a super majority- of our elected Congressional representatives have supported the respective House and Senate bills now awaiting melding into a single bill that both bodies can approve.

The process has been anything but pretty to watch, fueled by unusually nasty partisan politics, ideological arguments and outrageous claims and speculation.
But, this issue is one that our President prioritized during the past election, so its debate should been no surprise.
What was a surprise -at least to me- was the partisan ferocity exhibited by those calling themselves 'conservatives', who seized upon this issue as a way to stir up public anger and frustration to help sway voters during next year's elections.

That kind of mindset and motivation has become all too prevalent lately.
While elected members of Congress do represent different constituencies, they also share the responsibility for representing all Americans and what is in the best interest of our Country as a whole.

To achieve that goal, some degree of true bipartisanship is necessary to forge workable compromises.
I find it very hard to accept that there were NO Republican Senators willing to demonstrate the caring and courage to vote their conscience instead of political party line!

The three main elements of any healthcare reform are ACCESS, COSTS and QUALITY, with their priorities in the same order.

Who really believes its not important to make some level of healthcare access to over 30 million citizens who don't have it?
Whose interests are served by continuing to ignore this situation and deny no reform is necessary?

And, who doubts that healthcare cost effectiveness can be dramatically improved by more competition, less paper shuffling and less reliance on for-profit healthcare providers?
You know, government run healthcare in this Country is pretty well administered; just think of MediCare and the Veterans Administration.

I have had MediCare as my primary health insurance for the last 2 years and find it remarkably good and easy to use, despite my earlier, uninformed doubts.

As far as healthcare quality is concerned, that is generally considered pretty good.
But, as healthcare expands to cover millions of new people, more doctors, nurses and technicians will certainly need to be trained and qualified.
Perhaps equally important is the emphasis on healthy diets and habits and wellness programs which can help prevent many illnesses and disabilities before they become major health problems.

While there will remain healthcare gaps, inequalities, financing difficulties and new methods of providing timely care, I believe the first step now being taken, is a step in the right direction.
And, it is something for which most Americans can rejoice during this Christmas season!
--------------------------------