Time for Big Changes at the Port of Bellingham!

"Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right thing."
- Warren Bennis

It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. - Winston Churchill

'To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.' -- Abraham Lincoln

"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place." -Albert Einstein
----------

Readers need to understand this blog is targeted directly at the Port of Bellingham, and specifically at what I consider to be an error and miscalculation of major proportions that the Port appears ready to make -if they have not already done so.
All citizens need to take note of what is happening and speak up!
Below, I've listed some steps that may be necessary to change the culture and public conduct of the Port of Bellingham, an important entity in helping to create new jobs and economic prosperity in our region.
I sincerely hope this writing will be taken in the spirit it is being written; that failure to proceed prudently on the Waterfront Redevelopment Project should NOT be an option!

On October 28, 2008, Port of Bellingham Commissioner Scott Walker posted this statement on the Port's glitzy & glitchy website:
--------------------------
Commission Asks City to Recommit to Waterfront Partnership by Dec. 16

Port Commissioner Scott Walker's Speech to City Waterfront Workshop October 28, 2008

Thank you City of Bellingham for inviting us to take part in this series of waterfront planning discussions. It is great to see this room filled with members of city boards and commissions who volunteer their time to help our community. We really appreciate all that you do in your community service.

We're here tonight to discuss the street grid and other issues related to the waterfront redevelopment.

There are differences between the street plans, but they are things that can be worked out.

Both are walkable;

Both have bike paths and trails
Both create more than 30 acres of new parks
Both set the stage for new jobs and opportunities for our community.
An exchange of ideas can be positive.

The technical questions about the grid pattern will be answered by staff during the question & answer period.
-------------------------------------------------

I'm here to talk about where I believe the Port Commission stands on this redevelopment.

It's instructive to remember how we got to this point.

The Waterfront Futures Group developed a clear vision for this property to be redeveloped as a mixed use project.

In 2004 the Port and City Council unanimously approved the first of a series of interlocal agreements for a lasting and comprehensive redevelopment partnership.

This was after a year of due diligence, and before the Port committed to buy this property.

And I'll tell you, without the commitment by the city, I would not likely have agreed to purchase the property.

Over the years, key partners have stepped up to help bring us where we are today:

• Senator Patty Murray, $14 million
• Ecology committed $45 million to the cost of cleanup.
• Rep. Kelli Linville, the LIFT bill, $20 million of state money, tax increment financing
• DNR, piling removal and harbor line adjustments
• WWU $2 million planning
• Burlington Northern - commitment to relocate the tracks

Over this time the Port and its redevelopment partners have already spent or committed to spend nearly $100 million. The Port's share alone is $32 million.

And we don't want to forget that our most important partner are the taxpayers. This entire project was started to benefit our stakeholders, the tax payers of Whatcom County.
----------------------------------------
Tonight the conversation is about the angle of a road grid and whether the development begins on one block or on another that is just two blocks away.

But the over-riding issue is whether the city is committed to move forward with the other partners and honor the agreements that are in place.

Further, does the city have the economic resources to live up to the commitments it has made?

We need to know where we are going with this before the new Legislature and the new federal Congress meets.

Our partners are growing concerned.

Delay is expensive to the taxpayers, and our partners have other obligations that command their attention.

In our dealings with the DOE, we are often asked if we still have a partnership.

We are uniquely positioned to be at the head of the lists of each our partners for the assistance we need to move forward.

But we are going to lose that position if we can't provide a unified front in a positive plan moving forward. Some other community is going to get these resources.

For example, we are weeks away from developing our final proposal to NOAA and other communities are competing with us for NOAA.

There will be a federal economic stimulus bill in just a few months and it requires a unified plan that is supported by all of the project partners.

We need to tell our federal delegation what economic stimulus project is most essential for our community.

How long can Western wait?

Will our state and federal delegations move on to other projects?

Will these delays jeopardize NOAA's interest in Bellingham?

The Port is going to deliver a master plan to the City Council by early December as well as a proposed schedule of infrastructure investments.

The longer this project is delayed, the more it costs the taxpayer and if this descends into an argument between the project partnership and the city, then the taxpayer pays twice.

We cannot go back and revisit every decision.

Are we going to move forward and are we going to move forward together?

Only the city of Bellingham and the Port of Bellingham are uniquely focused on this project. Our other partners have competing projects in other communities.

The Port of Bellingham is willing to be quite flexible with final details. But we need to know whether we can move forward without further delays.
_______________________________

We are asking that -- no later than December 16th -- the City Council and the Mayor formally reconfirm their commitment to the original agreement of 2004.

At the same time, we are asking that the city provide us and our other partners specific assurances that the city will be able to meet the financial and other commitments it has made.

This timing is essential so that our community can present a united front and a shared vision to the Legislature and Congress when they convene in January.

I encourage you to have a good dialogue tonight, and we look forward to hearing the results of this process.

But the street angles will not matter if we delay this project to the point that we cannot meet our commitments to our partners.

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

Well, December 16 is still a month away, yet the Port, in its wisdom, has decided to issue an ultimatum to the world that it is suspending its commitment to the entire Waterfront Redevelopment Project, as envisioned by years of painstaking and carefully considered public process!
And, demanding that the City of Bellingham reconfirm its 2004 commitment to this joint undertaking, despite the fact the City has never wavered in its commitment to exactly that goal!
It sounds as if the Port has already decided what it will do, and the December 16 'deadline' is just another red herring, doesn't it?

What the heck is going on?

Is anyone else as tired of the Port's constant posturing, bullying and lack of public accountability as I am?

If the answer is yes, or maybe, I invite you to help make some changes that are long overdue!

What, you may ask, has suddenly awakened me from my state of subdued complicity in tolerating what has become increasingly unacceptable in the Port's mode of operation?
That would have to be the stupid, arbitrary and unilateral decision by the 'Port' to declare the Waterfront Redevelopment project as a waste of time.
Huh?
Are you kidding me?

Something of that magnitude, upon which the future viability of our City and region might depend, ought not to be the sole decision of four people -only 3 of which are elected- to so arrogantly write off an endeavor which has already consumed millions of public dollars, thousands of hours of time from public employees and citizens, major financial support from State & Federal agencies, and the worthwhile vision of our entire community?

Say again, Port, what your justification entails?
A fit of pique in not getting all the myriad concessions you wanted so badly from the City of Bellingham and its taxpayers?
An imperial fiat that you failed to have the citizens who elected/appointed you even hear, understand, and express their support for before the edict was proclaimed?
A temporary loss of sanity?
A group-think decision made using hard feelings instead of cool reason supported by facts.
A lack of imagination in how to achieve something much more ambitious than the Port is actually capable of dealing with?
A personal vendetta against a Mayor who dares question the Port's questionable assertions?
A political death wish?
All of the above?

This time, our illustrious Port has gone too far with its imperial, provincial, unimaginative and obstinate style, so well-developed over decades of relative obscurity from normal public oversight and scrutiny.
----------------

Here are a few things we as citizens can decide to do:

• Start by informing the Port that a true partnership can exist only when the parties treat each other with mutual trust and respect; and that we expect the Port to abide by rules of conduct that are prudent and acceptable in such important matters as the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds for the future betterment of our waterfront, including the creation of thousands of jobs, businesses and opportunities for the public to fully access and enjoy its connection to Bellingham Bay.

• Again, request the Port and City immediately sit down together, with or with facilitation, to discuss and mutually agree to a reasonable course of action to return to progressing the intended steps to realize the broad objectives that have been so painstakingly developed by citizens of this community over the last several years. Some concerned citizens have already joined in such an effort, but this can greatly benefit from larger numbers getting involved - and soon!

• Recruit and support viable candidates to run for the two Port Commission seats that are up for election next year [2009];
From District 1: Scott Walker

Scott was raised in Montana and served as a Marine in Vietnam. He moved to Whatcom County in 1985 and has three children. Scott has served on the Port Commission since 1991. An ARCO employee for 28 years, Scott retired in 2002. He serves on other local boards, and chose the Port Commission as a way to take responsibility in the community where he lives.

From District 2; Doug Smith

Doug was born and raised in Whatcom County. After "retiring" from Anvil Corporation in 1990, Doug began Com-Steel, L.L.C., a design-construct steel building firm he and his partners currently own and operate. He joined the Port Commission because he felt it was a good way to work directly with the community to promote economic viability and increase access to the Port's publicly owned facilities. Doug has been a Port Commissioner since 1994.

Citizens should know that the Port of Bellingham is governed by three nonpartisan commissioners who come from the 3 different districts in Whatcom County and are elected in countywide elections. They supposedly oversee policy decisions at the Port, but the Port's Executive Director, Jim Darling -the real puppeteer behind the curtain- oversees all day-to-day operations of the entire Port. Very competent Division directors and managers who oversee individual Port operations, all report to Mr Darling and are expected to carry out his bidding. In total, about 85 people are employed at the Port of Bellingham, one of 75 such Port Authorities in this State that are primarily charged with economic development responsibilities to create benefits for the people of Washington using the taxing authority with which it is entrusted.

Voters don't decide issues, they decide who will decide issues. - George Will

• Support a public initiative to increase the number of Port Commissioners from three to five, with the additional seats being elected as At-Large representatives, with no more than two Commissioners coming from any one District. This ought to provide better representation of, as well as accountability to citizens, plus involve some badly needed new blood.

• Make clear to the Port of Bellingham that citizens of Whatcom County expect greatly improved cooperation and collaboration with other municipalities than currently exists; that the idea of separate entities dedicated to enhance certain desirable objectives -like economic development- was the intent of Washington's founders, not another layer of feudal bureaucracy that pursues its own selfish interests at the expense of the greater public good. No more Lilliputian responses to Gulliver problems!

• Register a public outcry at the autocratic, self-serving management style of the Port's current Executive Director, the consistent lack of credible feedback to public questions, and the entrenched culture of command and control and non-transparency in its operations. It boggles the mind that better leadership can't be provided at the Port than what Mr Darling has demonstrated, despite his excellent technical and management credentials. It is in the role of true leadership in dealing with ambitious and visionary projects that we need the most improvement.
-------------------

A few concluding comments:

• Port Mission Statement

The Port of Bellingham’s mission is to fulfill the essential transportation and economic development needs of the region while providing leadership in maintaining Greater Whatcom’s overall economic vitality through the development of comprehensive facilities, programs, and services.

In so doing, the Port pledges to work cooperatively with other entities — within the framework of community standards — and to be a responsible trustee of our publicly owned assets.

Sounds good. Is this being done?

• Redevelopment Partners
The successful redevelopment of Bellingham's waterfront can only be done with authentic and lasting partnerships. To date those partnerships have been strong and reflect the commitment of the many stakeholders with an interest in a successful outcome.

These partnerships include:
Strong and ongoing financial support from the State of Washington for significant portions of cleanup costs, demolition costs and early development actions.
Federal support for early development actions and transportation improvements.
Regulatory agencies such as the State Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, and the federal Corps of Engineers, and many others;
Local industry and labor such as the ILWU, real estate community and business leaders;
Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe;
Development partnerships with Western Washington University and the Bellingham-Whatcom Housing Authority;
And involvement by all of the area's educational institutions.

Why no mention of the City of Bellingham?
Doesn't the Port consider the City a partner?
Is this intentional or just another Freudian slip?

• The third Port Commissioner, Jim Jorgenson, is the relative newcomer and seems to have a more balanced perspective toward the Port's responsibilities than the other two, who have served since 1991 and 1992 respectively - too long a time in my view.

Jim Jorgensen has lived in Whatcom County for more than 40 years. In 1994, he retired after 30 years of teaching science at Blaine High School. Jim has owned and operated Jim's Salmon Charter in Blaine for nearly 40 years. He is married with two adult children. Jim began serving on the Port Commission in 2004. He chose this community role because he wanted to be involved with the diverse operations of the Port and in communicating the Port's role with the community. 

• ROLE OF U.S. PUBLIC PORTS

U.S. public ports provide the vital link for getting goods to the nation's consumers and in transporting U.S.-made products overseas for export.
In the U.S., 126 public seaport agencies have jurisdiction over 185 public ports (some agencies control multiple ports). These ports are located along the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf and Great Lakes coasts, as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Established by enactments of state government, public port authorities develop, manage and promote the flow of waterborne commerce and act as catalysts for economic growth. These agencies include port authorities, special-purpose navigation districts, multi-state authorities and departments of state, county and municipal governments.
Public ports develop and maintain terminal facilities for intermodal transfer of cargo between ships, barges, trucks and railroads, and for ferry and cruise ship passenger loading and unloading.
In addition to maritime functions, port authority activities may also include airports, bridges, tunnels, commuter rail systems, inland river or shallow-draft barge terminals, industrial parks, Foreign Trade Zones, world trade centers, terminal or short-line railroads, shipyards, dredging, marinas, and various public recreational facilities.
Public ports also play a critical role in our national security, peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts around the world. In particular, ports support the mobilization, deployment and resupply of U.S. military forces.
Ports on the coasts and inland waterways provide a total of about 3,200 berths for deep-draft ships.

WORLD TRADE
Deep-draft ports, which accommodate oceangoing vessels, move 99 percent of U.S. overseas trade by volume and 61 percent by value, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The U.S. Department of Transportation projects that, compared to 2001, total freight moved through U.S. ports will increase by more than 50 percent by 2020 and the volume of international container traffic will more than double.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
Public ports generate significant local and regional economic growth, including creation of jobs. Total direct and indirect annual impact of the U.S. port industry includes:

4.9 million jobs, accounting for $44 billion in personal income (Martin Associates, Lancaster PA, 2002);
Nearly $2.9 trillion in international trade for an all-encompassing range of goods and services, with 1.4 billion tons, valued at $1.3 trillion, in waterborne imports and exports alone (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006);
More than 1 billion tons of domestic goods valued at over $312 billion moved via water in the U.S. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001);
Nearly $21.4 billion in U.S. Customs duty revenues in fiscal 2006, representing 70 percent of all Customs duties collected (U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 2006).

MAJOR ISSUES
Seaport security
Navigation maintenance and new construction
Freight congestion/intermodal road/rail access
Marine facility expansion and modernization
Coastal environmental protection
Ability to secure funding and financing
Competitiveness and diversified revenue sources
Land acquisition and site development

PORT INFRASTRUCTURE
In the last 60 years, U.S. ports have invested more than $33 billion in capital projects to enhance their facilities. In the foreseeable future, ports are projected to spend an estimated $2.1 billion more annually. In addition to the economic impacts already mentioned, public ports serve as coastal environ-mental stewards and are incubators for industrial, manufacturing, commercial and retail businesses.

CRUISE INDUSTRY
The fast-growing cruise industry is dependent upon public ports. The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) estimates that cruise passenger embarkations at U.S. ports totaled 8.6 million in 2005, an increase of 21 percent over 2003. U.S. ports continue to lead the world in cruise embarkations, handling approximately 75 percent of all global cruise passengers.

The total economic impact of the cruise lines, passengers, and their U.S. suppliers in 2005 reached $32.4 billion, according to a study commissioned by CLIA and conducted by Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA).

The U.S. cruise industry's impact now extends well beyond its traditional South Florida base, with cruises departing or calling on 43 ports in North America. There is also a positive economic impact in all 50 states since over 75 percent of cruise industry expenditures are made with U.S. businesses, including airlines, travel agents, food and beverage suppliers, and ship maintenance and refurbishers.

PORT SECURITY
The U.S. Coast Guard in 2003 projected that port facilities would need $5.4 billion to pay for security requirements over the next 10 years. Since 9/11/01, America's seaports have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money into facility security enhancements while the federal government has provided ports approximately $876 million for security funding. For FY'07, Congress appropriated an additional $210 million for the Department of Homeland Security's Port Security Grant fund, although $9 million is for administrating the program.

NAVIGATION CHANNELS
Since 1789, the federal government has authorized navigation channel improvement projects. The General Survey Act of 1824 established the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' role as the agency responsible for the navigation system. Since then, ports have worked in partnership with the Corps of Engineers to maintain waterside access to port facilities.
Regular maintenance dredging is required by more than 90 percent of the nation's 50 busiest ports.
More than 300 million cubic yards of dredged material are removed from navigation channels each year. Another 100 million cubic yards are dredged from berths and private terminals. The total, 400 million cubic yards of dredged material, would form a four-lane highway, 20 feet deep, stretching from New York to Los Angeles.

CARGO
Ports handle a variety of cargoes, including bulk, or loose, cargo; breakbulk cargo in packages such as bundles, crates, barrels and pallets; liquid bulk cargo like petroleum; dry bulk such as grain; and general cargo in steel boxes called containers, which are measured in 20-foot equivalent units, or TEUs. Leading commodities shipped for domestic and foreign trade through U.S. ports include:
Crude petroleum and petroleum products, including oil and gasoline;
Chemicals and related products, such as fertilizer;
Bituminous, metallurgical and steam coal;
Food and farm products, including wheat and wheat flour, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton;
Forest products, such as lumber and wood chips;
Iron and steel;
Soil, sand, gravel, rock and stone;
Automobiles, auto parts and machinery; and,
Clothing, shoes, electronics and toys.
Learn more about ports from the American Association of Port Authorities.
------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions

How many ports are in Washington State?

There are 75 ports in the state, located in 33 of the 39 counties. Currently, 69 ports are members of the Washington Public Ports Association, along with 108 associate members. Visit our port map to see where the many ports are located.

Can you have a port without water?
In a word, yes! For instance, many airports are port districts. The primary purpose of a port district in Washington State is economic development - and you don't need a navigable waterway to do that. The Legislature has given ports broad authority to promote economic development - they can build and operate airports, marine terminals, marinas, railroads, and industrial parks, and in some cases, promote tourism.

Where do Washington's ports rank nationally?
Washington has the world's largest locally controlled port system. Though we only comprise two percent of the world's population, we handle seven percent of the country's exports and six percent of imports. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma comprise the nation's second largest "load center", behind the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

What are the state's leading exports and imports?
Washington's leading exports are a terrific example of the state's changing economy: forest products, airplanes and aircraft parts continue to comprise a large percentage of exports from the state. But now, they're joined by high-tech products, computers, computer parts, and software.

Imports also vary. Washington is a major importer of forest products, high-tech equipment, and aircraft engines; but cars and auto parts are now key imports as well.

How do ports use my taxes?
Ports use tax revenues to invest in infrastructure designed to grow the economy - ports serve as economic engines for their communities. Examples of port investments include marine terminals, airport facilities, improved rail infrastructure, industrial parks, and marinas. Ports then lease facilities or charge a fee for their use, using the new facilities to generate jobs and economic development.
---------------------------
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - Grace Murray Hopper

Freedom or Free Dumb?

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

-Thomas Jefferson, Author of the declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States.
----------------------------------------

As Americans we pride ourselves on the freedoms our Constitution guarantees us, and that is good.
But, are we using those 'freedoms' as best we can?

For example, did our founders intend to encourage the practice of 'freedoms' like these?

• Freedom to remain uneducated, untrained and unskilled

• Freedom to remain indolent, ignorant and uninvolved in civic affairs

• Freedom to exploit divisive ideological games in the pursuit of power

• Freedom not to vote, run for office or not expect the best from those who do

• Freedom to expect good things will somehow be provided to us because we deserve them without working for them

• Freedom to ignore changes in the world's political, climactic and economic conditions

• Freedom to even try to comprehend the consequences which will result from consistently practicing the above 'freedoms'

I'm sorry I have come to feel this way, and apologize to those who do not deserve to be so categorized.

But, to a large extent these observations contain a ring of truth which we are 'free' to ignore at our peril!

If you don't agree with this conclusion, then by all means try to disprove me.

There is no 'free' lunch and there never has been, but this has been largely masked in our land of relative plenty.
----------------

I have been so very fortunate to have been born and raised during the last 70 years, which history may prove were our halcyon days as a Country.
Too young to serve in WWII, privileged with a hard working family with good values, educated in a range of subjects at a time of demand for such learning, employed by several well-managed companies who provided excellent products and services, surrounded by a loving family and friends, sustained by a faith that encouraged an ecumenical, humane approach to life, and blessed with good physical and mental health, I fully recognize that mine has been a life of fantastic opportunity, enjoyment and achievement.
For these things I am truly most grateful.

But looking outside myself, I must conclude the promise of such a life seems now more difficult to obtain for a great many people.
Difficult, but certainly not impossible.
There are still great opportunities in this world, but these are no longer available to those who whose main effort is wishful thinking!

That is why I am concerned about which of our 'freedoms' we choose to emphasize.
I hope that amidst the myriad distractions, that more people -particularly the young- will begin to get back to those same basics that have brought this great land to its enviable status in our era.

That the shining hope which America represents is based upon exercising our freedom to emphasize those principles which lead to enlightenment, achievement that is beneficial to all, awareness of what true sustainability entails, and a dedication to long-term peaceful prosperity.

In the words of Winston Churchill [and more recently, Ben Affleck] , I have also come to the conclusion that we really have no choice but to drastically change from a defeatist attitude based upon fear, anger, greed and ignorance to some standard that is much better suited to us as a country and a people!

"It is the Fear and the Tyranny Up With Which We Dare No Longer Put"
------------------------

The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla

It isn't often that I am tempted to print someone else's writing without adding my own comments, but yesterday provided an exception, as reprinted from the blog below from the New York Times:

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/the-wild-wordsmith-of-wasilla/?ei=5070&emc=eta1

November 14, 2008, 10:00 PM
------------------------------------

The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla

Electronic devices dislike me. There is never a day when something isn’t ailing. Three out of these five implements — answering machine, fax machine, printer, phone and electric can-opener — all dropped dead on me in the past few days.

Now something has gone wrong with all three television sets. They will only get Sarah Palin.

I can play a kind of Alaskan roulette. Any random channel clicked on by the remote brings up that eager face, with its continuing assaults on the English Lang.

There she is with Larry and Matt and just about everyone else but Dr. Phil (so far). If she is not yet on “Judge Judy,” I suspect it can’t be for lack of trying.

What have we done to deserve this, this media blitz that the astute Andrea Mitchell has labeled “The Victory Tour”?

I suppose it will be recorded as among political history’s ironies that Palin was brought in to help John McCain. I can’t blame feminists who might draw amusement from the fact that a woman managed to both cripple the male she was supposed to help while gleaning an almost Elvis-sized following for herself. Mac loses, Sarah wins big-time was the gist of headlines.

I feel a little sorry for John. He aimed low and missed.

What will ambitious politicos learn from this? That frayed syntax, bungled grammar and run-on sentences that ramble on long after thought has given out completely are a candidate’s valuable traits?

And how much more of all that lies in our future if God points her to those open-a-crack doors she refers to? The ones she resolves to splinter and bulldoze her way through upon glimpsing the opportunities, revealed from on high.

What on earth are our underpaid teachers, laboring in the vineyards of education, supposed to tell students about the following sentence, committed by the serial syntax-killer from Wasilla High and gleaned by my colleague Maureen Dowd for preservation for those who ask, “How was it she talked?”

My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars.

And, she concluded, “never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don’t know about this issue.”

It’s admittedly a rare gift to produce a paragraph in which whole clumps of words could be removed without noticeably affecting the sense, if any.

(A cynic might wonder if Wasilla High School’s English and geography departments are draped in black.)

(How many contradictory and lying answers about The Empress’s New Clothes have you collected? I’ve got, so far, only four. Your additional ones welcome.)

Matt Lauer asked her about her daughter’s pregnancy and what went into the decision about how to handle it. Her “answer” did not contain the words “daughter,” “pregnancy,” “what to do about it” or, in fact, any two consecutive words related to Lauer’s query.

I saw this as a brief clip, so I don’t know whether Lauer recovered sufficiently to follow up, or could only sit there, covered in disbelief. If it happens again, Matt, I bequeath you what I heard myself say once to an elusive guest who stiffed me that way: “Were you able to hear any part of my question?”

At the risk of offending, well, you, for example, I worry about just what it is her hollering fans see in her that makes her the ideal choice to deal with the world’s problems: collapsed economies, global warming, hostile enemies and our current and far-flung twin battlefronts, either of which may prove to be the world’s second “30 Years’ War.”

Has there been a poll to see if the Sarah-ites are numbered among that baffling 26 percent of our population who, despite everything, still maintain that President George has done a heckuva job?

A woman in one of Palin’s crowds praised her for being “a mom like me … who thinks the way I do” and added, for ill measure, “That’s what I want in the White House.” Fine, but in what capacity?

Do this lady’s like-minded folk wonder how, say, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, et al (add your own favorites) managed so well without being soccer moms? Without being whizzes in the kitchen, whipping up moose soufflés? Without executing and wounding wolves from the air and without promoting that sad, threadbare hoax — sexual abstinence — as the answer to the sizzling loins of the young?

(In passing, has anyone observed that hunting animals with high-powered guns could only be defined as sport if both sides were equally armed?)

I’d love to hear what you think has caused such an alarming number of our fellow Americans to fall into the Sarah Swoon.

Could the willingness to crown one who seems to have no first language have anything to do with the oft-lamented fact that we seem to be alone among nations in having made the word “intellectual” an insult? (And yet…and yet…we did elect Obama. Surely not despite his brains.)

Sorry about all of the foregoing, as if you didn’t get enough of the lady every day in every medium but smoke signals.

I do not wish her ill. But I also don’t wish us ill. I hope she continues to find happiness in Alaska.

May I confess that upon first seeing her, I liked her looks? With the sound off, she presents a not uncomely frontal appearance.

But now, as the Brits say, “I’ll be glad to see the back of her.”

**********

PS: Lagniappe for English mavens: A friend of mine has made you laugh greatly over the years. David Lloyd is a comic genius (I can hear you wince, David) who wrote for “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Cheers,” “Taxi,” “Frasier,” Jack Paar, Johnny Carson and me, not necessarily in that order. As a language fan, he has preserved many gems for posterity in his prodigious memory bank. Here comes my favorite:

A Navy lecturer was talking about some directives on the blackboard that he said to do something about, “except for these here ones with the asteroids in back of.”

Even David couldn’t make that up.
----------------------------------

About Dick Cavett
The host of “The Dick Cavett Show” — which aired on ABC from 1968 to 1975 and on public television from 1977 to 1982 — Dick Cavett is also the coauthor of two books, “Cavett” (1974) and “Eye on Cavett” (1983). He has appeared on Broadway in “Otherwise Engaged” “Into the Woods” and as narrator in “The Rocky Horror Show,” and has made guest appearances in movies and on TV shows including “Forrest Gump” and “The Simpsons.” Mr. Cavett lives in New York City and Montauk, N.Y.

Lovely Letter from Alice Walker to Barack Obama

A friend forwarded this to me. Others may enjoy it too.
---------------------


"Be wise. Treat yourself, your mind, sympathetically,
with loving kindness. If you are gentle with yourself,
you will become gentle with others." -- Lama Yeshe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nov. 5, 2008

Letter from Alice Walker to Obama

Dear Brother Obama,

You have no idea, really, of how profound this moment is for us. Us
being the black people of the Southern United States. You think you
know, because you are thoughtful, and you have studied our history.
But seeing you deliver the torch so many others before you carried,
year after year, decade after decade, century after century, only
to be struck down before igniting the flame of justice and of law,
is almost more than the heart can bear. And yet, this observation
is not intended to burden you, for you are of a different time,
and, indeed, because of all the relay runners before you, North
America is a different place. It is really only to say: Well done.
We knew, through all the generations, that you were with us, in us,
the best of the spirit of Africa and of the Americas. Knowing this,
that you would actually appear, someday, was part of our strength.
Seeing you take your rightful place, based solely on your wisdom,
stamina and character, is a balm for the weary warriors of hope,
previously only sung about.

I would advise you to remember that you did not create the disaster
that the world is experiencing, and you alone are not responsible
for bringing the world back to balance. A primary responsibility
that you do have, however, is to cultivate happiness in your own
life. To make a schedule that permits sufficient time of rest and
play with your gorgeous wife and lovely daughters. And so on. One
gathers that your family is large. We are used to seeing men in the
White House soon become juiceless and as white-haired as the
building; we notice their wives and children looking strained and
stressed. They soon have smiles so lacking in joy that they remind
us of scissors. This is no way to lead. Nor does your family
deserve this fate. One way of thinking about all this is: It is so
bad now that there is no excuse not to relax. From your happy,
relaxed state, you can model real success, which is all that so
many people in the world really want. They may buy endless cars and
houses and furs and gobble up all the attention and space they can
manage, or barely manage, but this is because it is not yet clear
to them that success is truly an inside job. That it is within the
reach of almost everyone.

I would further advise you not to take on other people's enemies.
Most damage that others do to us is out of fear, humiliation and
pain. Those feelings occur in all of us, not just in those of us
who profess a certain religious or racial devotion. We must learn
actually not to have enemies, but only confused adversaries who are
ourselves in disguise. It is understood by all that you are
commander in chief of the United States and are sworn to protect
our beloved country; this we understand, completely. However, as my
mother used to say, quoting a Bible with which I often fought,
"hate the sin, but love the sinner." There must be no more crushing
of whole communities, no more torture, no more dehumanizing as a
means of ruling a people's spirit. This has already happened to
people of color, poor people, women, children. We see where this
leads, where it has led.

A good model of how to "work with the enemy" internally is
presented by the Dalai Lama, in his endless caretaking of his soul
as he confronts the Chinese government that invaded Tibet. Because,
finally, it is the soul that must be preserved, if one is to remain
a credible leader. All else might be lost; but when the soul dies,
the connection to earth, to peoples, to animals, to rivers, to
mountain ranges, purple and majestic, also dies. And your smile,
with which we watch you do gracious battle with unjust
characterizations, distortions and lies, is that expression of
healthy self-worth, spirit and soul, that, kept happy and free and
relaxed, can find an answering smile in all of us, lighting our
way, and brightening the world.

We are the ones we have been waiting for."

In Peace and Joy,
Alice Walker

---------------------------
From Wikipedia:

Alice Malsenior Walker (born February 9, 1944) is an American author, self-declared feminist and womanist - the latter a term she herself coined to make special distinction for the experiences of women of color. She has written at length on issues of race and gender, and is most famous for the critically acclaimed novel The Color Purple, for which she won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.

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

Do We Really Want 'Ready, Fire, Aim' Approaches To National Problems?

Much is being made of the Federal Government's [Henry Paulson] 'flip-flop' on the financial bail-out package, but is this justified?
I think not.

Isn't it usually preferable to constantly evaluate complex situations like this one, then use what we learn to craft modifications to early, general plans based upon more complete information and carefully considering alternatives likely to work better?
I think so!

After all, no one knows all the answers about what is likely to be both more effective, fairer and possible politically.
Congress did buy into a major bail-out plan, without knowing all the details.
Is that so unusual?

At least they knew something terrible was brewing that would likely require massive government action to correct before even more egregious financial damage is done.
They also knew that a certain amount of trust was necessary to give the Executive branch the authorization and tools to develop a clearer plan of action.

I believe it is far better to constantly reassess this complex situation if we are to discover those solutions that are simplest and most effective.
In science, these are called 'elegant solutions'.

Do you -or anyone- believe that Congress knows enough about the financial situation to do more than trust experts to do that?

On September 23, 2008, one Senator -Barack Obama- did say that any bailout or rescue plan should include 4 specific conditions;

• a payback plan for taxpayers if the bailout succeeds;
• a bipartisan board to oversee the bailout;
• limits on any federal money going to compensate Wall Street executives;
• aid to homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages.

If those four objectives are not met, Mr. Obama said he would recommend that federal and congressional negotiators “go back to the drawing board” to restructure the bailout plan.

Think maybe that some folks have now decided to listen to these ideas?
Nothing gets closer attention than carefully thought out ideas that stand a good chance of actually helping resolve a major problem, especially if those in control are clueless!

Personally, I am gratified that the Bush administration has finally determined it could use some help from outside its circle of ideological cronies.
It is about time!
Or well past it.

Perhaps, out of national necessity the type of intellectual dialogue needed to arrive at the best possible solutions will transpire.
The transition from Bush to Obama is happening with more cooperation than many might have expected.

That is probably as much a sign of sharing the blame for the possibility of failure as it is an admission of the need for help.
But under the circumstances any attempt at true cooperation should be warmly welcomed by all who wish our country well.

Its just too bad this type of collaboration wasn't forthcoming earlier; like when Congress approved $700 Billion for an undefined war against WMD and terrorism, without any real plan!

That one might have been worse than a dumb 'ready, fire, aim' approach!
Maybe more of a 'fire, ready, aim'?

And, think all that that federal government printed cash helped anything to do with our economy, except the military-industrial complex, including Halliburton, Blackwater and Big Oil?

More likely that stupid borrowing for a patently unworthy cause that deceived the populace, ruined our international reputation and embroiled us in another intractable quagmire, also contributed to our current financial plight.

Next time Dick Cheney says that 'deficits don't matter', don't believe him!
That ten Billion per month being burned in Iraq could come in pretty handy right now for other -better- purposes, don't you think?

But not to worry, the next administration will clean up the mess.
And, our children will have to pay for it.

We can do so much better!
And we must.
-----------------

Waterfront Redevelopment: Impasse or Opportunity?

The continuing posturing and attempts at characterizing opposing arguments as wishful, inaccurate or intractable is troubling and unnecessary in my view.
As someone who was around and involved in the earliest proceedings between the City and Port, as well as the considerable visioning and appeals to State and Federal governments for support, it bothers me that the remaining disagreements between the parties seem to be deepening instead of reaching reasonable compromises that reflect their legitimate concerns.
There was a good faith effort at beginning the process of eventually 'agreeing to agree'.
What happened?

It is my intention to see that those mutually agreeable positions again become the main focus of what has become essentially a trench warfare exercise that is not likely to be productive.
Tempted as I am to side with the City's view, I do appreciate the Port's position.
The Port is on the hook for major clean-up costs regardless of what development scenario might eventually come to pass.
But, the Port does have a plan to recover most of its costs by redeveloping the ASB Lagoon as a Marina.

By contrast, the City is potentially liable for providing essential infrastructure, upfront and without a clear timetable for recovering its very substantial costs -which dwarf the Port's.

Failure to come to a reasonable accommodation of these parties interests, the Port will have no option but to not proceed with waterfront cleanup to higher, so-called 'mixed use' standards. That would mean a lesser cleanup level to only allow industrial uses, and not the ambitious value added mix of public and private uses deemed so desirable by most observers.

In my view, that would be a shame for the community, but not a break the bank event for the Port.
It would mean that the glowing vision of a publicly accessible waterfront, complete with new businesses, homes, educational & governmental facilities, parks and a general 'green' theme might well be lost, along with the future revenues, jobs, economic vitality and promise that would have accompanied these more ambitious -and enlightened- plans.
But, if the Port insists upon getting its way, that outcome is certainly at stake.

The City would also be a big-time loser if some viable version of Waterfront Redevelopment is not adopted and pursued.
Such a lose- lose outcome ought to be avoided if at all possible!

To that end, here are a few suggestions:

Both the City and Port need to renew and re-establish their intent to achieve a mutually agreeable outcome that also honors the expectations of the many citizens who strongly support the larger, longer range vision that was adopted.
This means engendering a much more trusting atmosphere and more mature public statements.

The Port needs to respect the enormous fiscal challenges faced by the City, and understand the much more public process that governs important City policy and actions. There has been a culture clash between these entities from the beginning, that still begs resolution!

The Port needs to accept the fact that its role as the prime waterfront developer, is strongly dependent upon the City in its role as the prime waterfront regulator. Each party is inextricably linked and dependent upon the other, so that a true partnership is required. If this is not achieved, any meaningful progress will be severely hampered at a minimum, or doomed to failure! Understand this!

The City needs to state clearly what level of capital expenditure it can tolerate to put the necessary infrastructure into place in a timely fashion. If this is deemed insufficient by the Port, then the Port needs to provide whatever additional capital it feels is essential. Practically, the City ought to decide what street orientation applies to the waterfront. If the Port is unable or unwilling to go along with this, that will limit the scope and timing of what might be redeveloped.

The City needs to state clearly its concerns about height limits on new waterfront construction, orientation and spacing of buildings to preserve views and solar access, and a reasonably flexible process by which a reasonable standard height might be allowed and at times relaxed to accommodate special situations. Say, 100 feet is generally OK, but this might be expanded to 200 feet under special circumstances that are deemed to greatly benefit the overall redevelopment.

The concept of a Port Redevelopment Authority needs to be expanded to encompass implementation of whatever Agreement is reached. To date, the Port has consistently fought this idea for reasons best known to itself. It should be instructive to see that both the City and WWU actively advocate this concept as means for insuring consistency and continuity in their respective waterfront redevelopment plans.

If the Port decides to continue its present course of constant demands and inflexibility in accommodating alternate ideas, a mechanism needs to be introduced into the process to facilitate, mediate or arbitrate the completion of a comprehensive Waterfront Redevelopment Agreement and Master Plan as was the intent of the parties.
Ideally, the Port would initiate such a process itself, while seeking the City's support.
A competent outside facilitator should be sought as soon as possible so that a more productive dialogue might soon begin!
We have come too far to risk failure by personality clashes, arbitrary dictates and stubborn intractability!
I'm tired of this brand of dialogue, as are many others I know.
Its time to grow up, act like adults and realize what is at stake here!

Should none of these ideas be accepted, or be accepted and fail, time will tell.
In the mean time, maybe we ought to be thinking about changing the culture and composition of the Port Commissioners?
The Port's Executive Director has been calling all the shots it seems, some of them good and some of them not so good.
The question is, can a 3-person, part-time Commission effectively do its job with independence, competence AND a view toward meeting the future needs of our entire community?
If the answer to this is uncertain -or no- our course of action is clear: ELECT NEW PORT COMMISSIONERS!

Let's get on with this important business and stop messing around.
Out.

Property Taxes: Bellingham's Dilemma

Today's Herald trumpets the popular theme of no new taxes, and who can argue with that as a good goal?
It is a good goal and one to be sought, but not something that necessarily fits the times and the needs of citizens.

But, sometimes practicality, pragmatism and courage dictate that certain goals are not really as important as other goals, like continuing to provide those essential services to citizens that only local governments can provide.

I believe we are in such a situation now, with an up to $5 million budget gap looming for 2009, and no real expectations for relief other than what we can enact within reason.
This problem did not happen all at one time, masked as it was with the glittering proceeds from speculative growth.

No, it has been creeping up on us for several years, as is normal for such things in communities like ours which value good essential services, plus a measure of cultural services as well.
Bellingham has not achieved so many 'top 10' lists without consistently doing many things right, not just 2 or 3!
And, if we wish to sustain our good record into the foreseeable future, it behooves us to buckle down and continue doing the 'right things' whether they are easy or popular, or not.

So it is that we come back to the subject of property taxes, which are widely considered to be the most progressive form of taxation we have locally.
Here's my 2 cents worth; we need to pass the 1% property tax that is available to us this, and probably every year!
Why, you may ask?
Because it is one of the few tools available to us locally to incrementally and fairly raise revenues for essential services, that's why.

At a 1% level, the estimated $170,000 or so that would represent new income is not even sufficient to cover inflation, or COLA raises for employees - 85% of whom are members of bargaining units which have negotiated annual wage & benefit increases.
And, that $170k that would come to the City, represents only about 25% of the actual additional property taxes raised; over half of which goes to schools and higher education purposes, 14% to Whatcom County and a small % to the Port -all set by law.

The point is, not only the City would benefit, but also other jurisdictions which are also in need of additional funds.
The net impact of a 1% property tax increase is about $3 per year for the owner of a $300K home.
Folks, that peanuts!

More important, the normally anticipated additional property taxes due to new construction, growth and re-evaluations will more than likely be substantially reduced because of the general economic conditions which now prevail.
Under such circumstances, I think it would be irresponsible to not use one of the few revenue raising tools at our disposal.

I hope the City Council will seriously consider its limited options and vote to raise the property tax this year by the full 1% allowable.
Hopefully, the Council will also do this by at least a 5-2 votes, which would require the Mayor to comply without a chance of veto!

At least, that is my considered opinion, which I myself followed for 8 of the 9 years I served on the Council.
The one year I voted against a 1% property tax increase, I came to quickly regret, because these kinds of actions do have a cumulative, adverse effect that simply grows over time.

But, should the Council not be able to muster 5 votes for increasing the property tax, at least make sure that amount is 'banked' for possible future use!

I could make this argument and its context much broader, but I'll save that for another time.
This particular decision must be made soon, and I hope the Council finds the wisdom and courage to make the right one!

Property taxes are certainly not the panacea for what ails our City budget.
But, it is a piece of the puzzle, and it must be used as it can.
------------------------

America Awakes!

--------
Citizens and voters by the millions have decided to use their power to get our wonderful land back on its intended course in history!
And, it was time for this to happen.
The Bush administration itself deserves major credit for helping to galvanize public opinion against its own backward and convoluted policies.
But now, the people have spoken and it is time for more productive work to begin in earnest.

One statement make by David Brooks on PBS earlier tonight certainly echoes the strong and constant opinion of this blog that honesty is always the best policy.
I believe the way he put it was to characterize the clear statement of a top McCain advisor as based upon serious academic reasoning and not 'spinning' as he called it.
What a concept!
Let's don't lose sight of this essential principle ever again.
There is a place for partisan campaign rhetoric, but it is not in setting policy for a nation that has the history and the destiny to always follow the upper path to high ground.

As Thomas Jefferson said 'a little revolution is always a good thing'.
We have just experienced such a revolution and thankfully it was peaceful.
Now, let's make sure it really becomes a good thing!
-----------

More Sun Tzu: The Healing Arts

-------------------------
I really liked the little book quoted from the previous post, so here's a bit more with a little different twist;

From the Translator's Introduction, the following:

"According to an old story, a lord of ancient China once asked his physician, a member of a family of healers, which of them was the most skilled in the art.

The physician, whose reputation was such that his name became synonymous with medical science in China, replied,
"My eldest brother sees the the spirit of sickness and removes it before it takes shape, so his name does not get out of the house.

My elder brother cures illness when it is still extremely minute, so his name does not get out of the neighborhood.

As for me, I puncture veins, prescribe potions, and massage skin, so from time to time my name gets out and is heard among the lords."

Among the tales of ancient China, none captures more beautifully than this the essence of the Art of War, the premier classic of the science of strategy in conflict.

The healing arts and the martial arts may be a world apart in ordinary usage, but they are parallel in several senses; in recognizing, as the story says, that the less needed the better; in the sense that both involve strategy in dealing with disharmony; and in the sense that in both knowledge of the problem is key to the solution.
----------------

In both healing arts and martial arts Sun Tzu's philosophy the peak efficiency of knowledge and strategy is to make conflict altogether unnecessary.
And like the story of the healers, there are are all grades of martial arts;:

The superior militarist foils enemies' plots;
next best is to ruin their alliances;
next after that is to attack their armed forces;
worst is to besiege cities.

The ideal strategy whereby one could win without fighting, accomplish the most by doing the least, bears the characteristic stamp of Taoism, the ancient tradition of knowledge that fostered both the healing arts and the martial arts in China.
The ancient Taoist masters showed how the man of aggressive violence appears to be ruthless but is really an emotionalist; then they slay the emotionalist with real ruthlessness before revealing the spontaneous nature of free humanity.

Real ruthlessness, the coldness of complete objectivity, always includes oneself in its cutting assessment of the real situation.

Real ruthlessness can be perceived as inhumane, but this is not used by the original philosophers as a justification for quasi-ruthless possessive aggression, but instead as a meditation on the ultimate meaninglessness of the greed and possessiveness that underlie aggression.

In India, Buddhist aspirants used to visit burning grounds and watch the corpses of those whose families couldn't afford a cremation rot away.
They did this to terrify the greed and possessiveness out of themselves.
After that they turned their minds toward thoughts of ideal individuals and ideal societies.

Similarly, Master Sun has his readers dwell on the ravages of war, from its incipient phases of treachery and alienation to its extreme forms of incendiary attack and siege, viewed as a sort of mass cannibalism of human and natural resources.
With this device he gives the reader an enhanced feeling for the significance of individual and social virtues espoused by humanitarian pacifists.

Paradox is often thought of as a standard device of Taoist psychology, used to cross imperceptible barriers of awareness.
Perhaps the paradox of the Art of War is in its opposition to war.
And, as The Art of War wars against war, it does so by its own principles;
it infiltrates the enemy's lines, uncovers the enemy's secrets, and changes the hearts of the enemy's troops.
----------------

Writings like this ancient one renew my hope that there is a better, more peaceful and more sustainable future for those living on this planet, despite the many formidable challenges.

In particular, the concept of individual actions that can be magnified and become part of our personal, local, regional, national and international dialogue.
Such changes as we need are within our ability to achieve, but not without the clear thinking, right actions and hard work that actually make steady and meaningful progress.

Perhaps, the time is upon us for for this transformation to grow in earnest, with all the financial, social and environmental problems that have become evident to all but the willfully blind.
We are literally witnessing our own version of burning grounds now, if we care to look at the world's situation that way!

I hope that being faced with such severe challenges will now spur us to correct their causes, and soon.
I will try to do what I can to make the individual changes that I can, and that are so clearly calling out to be made.
I hope you will consider this as a clear opportunity to do so too.

May God bless us all in this endeavor.
----------------------

On Warriors & War

From a translator's preface of Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War', published by Shambala in 1991, comes the following:

The Art of War, compiled well over 2000 years ago by a mysterious Chinese warrior-philosopher, is still perhaps the most prestiguous and influential book of strategy in the world today, as eagerly studied in Asia by modern politicians and executives as it has been by military leaders and strategists for the last two millenia and more.

In Japan, which was transformed directly from a feudal culture into a corporate culture virtually overnight, contemprary students of the Art of War have applied the strategy of this ancient classic to modern politics and business with similar alacrity. Indeed, some see in the successes of postwar Japan an illustration of Sun Tzu's dictum of the classic, "To win without fighting is best."

As a study of the anatomy of organizations in conflict, The Art of War applies to competition and conflict in general, on every level from the interpersonal to the international. Its aim is invincibility, victory without battle, and unassailable strength through understanding of the physics, politics, and psychology of conflict.

This translation of the Art of War presents the classic from the point of view of its background in the great spirual tradition of Taoism. What is most characteristically Taoist about the Art of War in such a way as to recommend itself to the modern day is the manner in which power is continually tempered by a profound undercurrent of humanism. The Art of War is thus a book not only of war but also of peace, above all a tool for understanding the very roots of conflict and resolution.

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

Why would one imagine the lessons of Sun Tzu apply only to an actual war?
It seems to me that he believed, as I do, that actually fighting war was an indication of the failure of every other option.
Of course, Sun Tzu was always prepared for that eventuality and ready to fight fiercely and bravely if it came to that.
But, to him the ultimate success was to achieve a 'victory' by avoiding the fighting!
One certainly has to have a better grasp as to what constitutes a 'victory' than our current leaders, including President Bush and Senator John McCain.

I have the highest respect for Senator McCain, but he is not acting like the legitimate hero he is.
Maybe that's because he is trying so hard to match or surpass the careers of his father, grandfather and earlier ancestors, all of which had very distinguished military service.
And with my own Scottish heritage and limited Navy service, I do have many common beliefs and values that I share with John McCain.
But, I feel he is going about playing the hero, fear and anger cards too strongly, and at the expense of seeing the broader scope of conflict that Sun Tzu saw.
One does not have to fight in a war to be an effective warrior.
In fact, there may be a real danger in having a President whose first instinct is to fight!
--------------

The English language expression 'silver spoon' is an expression for wealth; someone born into a wealthy family is said to have "been born with a silver spoon in his mouth".
I think John McCain was born a 'brass spoon' because of his family's Navy and long military heritage.
That can be a blessing and a curse, as McCain himself seems to imply in his book 'Faith of my Fathers'.

McCain's military heritage is even broader than his father's and grandfather's Naval careers.
He also claims ancestral links to royalty; the famous fighting Scot, Robert the Bruce; a General in Washington's Continental Army and another grandfather, William Alexander McCain (b. North Carolina, 1812 – d. 1863), who died in the Civil War while serving as a private in Company I, 5th Regiment, Mississippi Cavalry, Confederate States Army.
During his life, this grandfather owned a 2,000-acre plantation in Carroll County, Mississippi known as "Teoc", as well as 52 slaves.

With that kind of background, who could doubt John McCain's patriotism and bravery?
Warriors of his dedication and skill are important to the future security of our Country, as are the US troops now serving in our military.
But, Amercia was established for peaceful purposes, to be governed by citizens and civilians, not professional military leaders.
It is important that our military be kept strong and ready, but also in check to be used only as necessary, and then as a last resort.
That is what Sun Tzu learned and has passed along to us through his teachings.
I think it would behoove us to pay attention to those ancient words of wisdom, be guided by them and adopt them as our National policy.
----------------

Term Limits: Great Taste or Less Filling?

-------------------
Term Length -not Limits- and the City Council has now become a question that asks voters their opinion, which seems a healthy practice.
It's taken a while to even get the limited measure of equalizing terms of office available for the public to weigh in upon, so resistant has been the Council in protecting some pretty ossified elements of the City Charter.

Fortunately, that ice has already been broken and a few measures actually adopted that ought to help our local governance going into the future.
Now, people get to decide whether voting for 1 of 7 Council seats makes sense every 2 years,which is a very short time for any new Council member to become accustomed to their elected duties.

Notice, I mention any NEW member, because new members will be elected from time to time, whether an incumbent remains in office for a long period of time or not.
Naturally, a long-seated incumbent ought to have learned the job pretty well or they would not have been re-elected.

But, the question is not so much a member's re-election as it is their enthusiasm and effectiveness in the office they hold.
As someone who served for 9 years on the Council, I found my enthusiasm was directly proportional to my effectiveness, and both distinctly began to wane after 4 or 5 years.

Others undoubtedly have greater tolerance for the frustration, boredom and demands that an elected legislative office brings than I did, notwithstanding the accomplishments and sense of understanding that comes with such service.
I stayed too long, and I knew it. Then I couldn't wait to get out.
That partly reflects the way I saw the job, as challenging, of broad scope and unrelenting.
I certainly did not view my term in office as any sort of ego trip, or a chance to gratify my 'base', or an arbitrary exercise in pandering to populism.
But, all of that is just me, and this piece isn't about that subject at all, except as one perspective.

Bottom line is I think it healthy to have some turnover, not only on the Council, but in each seat.
That way, more folks get a chance to really learn what it means to serve others, to understand the rules under which decisions must be made, and to more fully appreciate problems and issues from more than one perspective.
In a diverse population such as ours, it is important for as many responsible people as possible to have the chance to serve, not only in volunteer positions, but in elected ones.

As a corollary, it is sensible for equal offices to have equal terms.
That not only insures sufficient time to learn the job, but also removes a formidable political barrier that favors incumbents.
In Whatcom County, there are reported to be about 232 elected offices, and only 1 -that of the City Council At-Large Seat- has a term of 2 years.
That ought to be a signal that something could be easily corrected.
------------------------

Years ago, Miller Lite Beer had a commercial that used 3 Major League Baseball Players as actors in a trumped-up 'argument' about whether the beer should be drunk because it 'tasted better', or 'was less filling'.
Anyone besides me remember that?
Anyway, in the commercial, the argument got really heated, before a third famous player was introduced to be the arbitrator.
Of course, that 3rd player turned out to be none other than Billy Martin, a known hot-head during his career.
When asked to decide between the 2 'arguments', Billy simply said, he felt strongly both ways!
And so it is with Term Limits.
There is no set answer, but the positions involved do vary, and the circumstances have to be evaluated to fit.

Why would Term Limits be considered at all?
For any position?
Might it have something to do with Americans not wanting to set up their elected officials as their entrenched, de facto, rulers?
How about having a failsafe plan to weed out the ne'er-do-wells from time to time?
What about introducing fresh blood, ideas, energy and approaches?
I can think of other reasons, too, but these may be the main ones.

Why would mandatory Term Limits be a bad idea?
Why would you want to get rid of some elected official who is still doing a very good job?
What about the impact of excessive turnover in a time of real crisis?
Would that be wise?
------------------

Lately, this question has come up from several angles, all of which bear on the question of when, where and how Term Limits should be properly employed.
Here are some situations to consider:

US Supreme Court
Our Founding Fathers saw lifetime appointments for the Justices as a way to separate the powers between the 3 branches of government.
In particular, they wanted to avoid excessive power of the Executive that could come from either short term limits, or appointed Justices.
Did they succeed?
Partly, I think.
The Executive still gets to appoint Justices, but only after relatively long periods of time, which can produce imbalances anyway.
Then, there's the question of the demands of any responsible office that is for lifetime duration.
Do Justices stay in office longer than is best for either them or our Country?
And, if they do, what can be done to remove them?
---------

SEC Chairman:
Alan Greenspan served in this office for 20 years, from 1987 until 2006, under successive appointments by at least 3 different Presidents.
Was this tenure justified, based upon the severe financial crisis that has befallen us because of unchecked -and unregulated- greed?
Mr Greenspan himself admitted that his market theory was 'flawed', and that earlier detection of it may have prevented the current melt-down that has taken on global proportions.
What is wrong with this picture?
Can't we set up an oversight using multiple views and experts, so that at least we have an early warning system in place?
--------------

Mayor of New York:
Michael Bloomberg, the current Mayor, is up against a 2-Term Limit, but has requested the NY City Council's approval to run for a third term because of his expertise in dealing with the current severe financial crisis.
That sounds very reasonable to me, as it also has to 29 of the 51 members of the NY City Council.
So, it will probably happen, despite the carping of some political rivals.

From the NY Times:
"Many New Yorkers believe that if anyone changes the law, it should be the voters, not the Council. Many also see the proposal as a cynical effort by the mayor — who in the past has supported the law — and some Council members to change the rules in midcourse and perpetuate their own political careers.
We understand these objections, but there is a greater issue. This page has always strongly opposed term limits, and we continue to oppose them. We believe they infringe a basic American right: the voters’ right to choose who they want in office. If we had our way, the Council would be voting to abolish term limits altogether."

It seems Term Limits haven't always been the case in NYC, but sometimes the times require changes.
I don't remember ever seeing something cut in stone about Term Limits, except the voters -or their representatives- get to decide the issue from time to time.
And, if the voters' representatives get it wrong, they themselves can be punished at the ballot box.
--------------

In time, Bellingham may also want to consider Term Limits, but right now the issue is a much smaller one - that of Term Equality.
I strongly support Term Equality, and can think of no good reason why it should not be applied to every elected office of equal weight and responsibility.
-----------------

Footnote:
Not far removed in fairness is the issue of so-called 'District Voting', which is bad idea for many of the same reasons.
The system Whatcom County adopted a few years ago was misguided, and ought to be returned to the former system.
The former system is the same one now used in the City of Bellingham;
Each Council Member who represents a specific Ward, is required to live in that Ward -the exception being the At-Large Member.
Primary Elections -by Ward only, as necessary- determine the top 2 candidates from each Ward.
General Elections are for the entire City population of voters to decide.
That is certainly the fairest possible method to guarantee candidates are elected who see the job as representing the entire City.
Ward-only, or District-only voting only serves the interests of those who see it easier to attain and maintain control over a office with 'feudal' boundaries.
In England, this practice degenerated into so-called 'Rotten Boroughs'. You can Google it for details.
For most of the issues we face, that is a mistake that is avoidable, but only if voters recognize it as such.

Subscribing to the following idea might solve both of the afore-mentioned problems; think of all elected Council Offices as 'District Apportioned At-Large' positions.
That would require each candidate to not only reside in the District they represent, but to also obtain a majority of the County-wide vote.
Just seems fairer and simpler to me.
Last I checked those are pretty good goals to shoot for.
-------------------

Letter from a former Lt Governor of Alaska

Many people may be too young to remember either Lowell Thomas or his son.
Lowell the father was a renowned radio news broadcaster, world traveler and adventurer.
Lowell the son is a former Lt. Gov. of Alaska who has lived there for the past 48 years.
For Lowell the son and his wife to send the letter below (in their 80's) really says something about our time.

[double click to enlarge]

This & That

Just a few random thoughts, loosely connected:
----------

Now that strong action to enable the rescue of our economy has been taken there will likely be endless debate on the details.
That is healthy, and certainly better than continuing to do nothing and finger pointing.
But, the job is not nearly over! This is just the beginning of the beginning, as the stock market is showing once again.
And, let's not forget what got us into this mess either!
Incompetence and the ideology of so-called 'free markets' that turned out to be not so free.
-------

One pundit wrote recently that John McCain needs a simple and understandable plan for our economy to rescue his own campaign for President.
My friends -can I use that term?- if McCain had such a plan that stood a chance of working, wouldn't he have mentioned it by now?
Additionally, the same pundit opined that McCain ought to articulate his plan in 15 to 20 seconds!
Absurd as that sounds, this is October and politicians the world over have been known to try such desperate gambits.
---------

Did anyone else catch the humor inherent in the name of the Treasury official in charge of implementing the rescue plan for restoring the availability of credit in our economy?
His name is Neel Kashkari, a perfectly good name in itself.
But, phonetically it reminds me of 'cash & carry', which implies the old fashioned kind of credit; cash in exchange for goods.
Maybe, that's a good omen?
--------------

I can think of a few folks I'd rather see leave our planet than Tina Fey, don't you?
Think she might run for office one day?
We could do worse, as is being shown repeatedly.
--------------

Now comes the news that our national deficit will set a new record high this year, about $455 Billion.
That's not a good kind of record to be setting, is it?
The old record of only $413 Billion was set in 2004 by the same Bush league administration.
projects for 2009 are in the neighborhood of $700 Billion, a formidable problem for an incoming President that about equals the amount of the bail-out!
Tell me again, why does anyone want to be President?
But, maybe you'd rather listen to Dick Cheney who said 'deficits don't matter!
-----------

Some folks are complaining that the deals being offered to Banks are 'too sweet'.
Think that might be because the Government needs the banks more than vice versa?
Why not listen more to Warren Buffett?
He got a much sweeter deal than the Guvmint, because he demanded it and was willing to walk away!
Think people like Buffett ought to be consulted more frequently for their real business sense?
Personally. I'd trust him more than any current administration ideologue or hack.
But, that's just me...
--------

Out

Large Doses of Realism

"May you live in interesting times.' - An old Chinese proverb

Interesting doesn't always mean fun, does it?
But, changes are a'coming, whether they will prove to be positive ones or the other kind.
I do hope this Presidential Election has already experienced most of its 'October Surprise', compliments of our economy's excesses.
Just sorting out that mess will require some considerable effort, including prudent discipline, over time.
Then, it may be time to re-learn some of the same lessons again!

One of the themes of these elections has been to look forward to the future, not backward to the past.
How can that be done responsibly?
Don't we need to reexamine the causes and effects we have already seen to avoid stumbling into the same pitfalls again?
Surely, we don't need to reinvent the wheel every time!

Recently, I've read two books which attempt to put our past into context, then suggest better ways to manage our national affairs going forward.
Since all politics are local, perhaps there are lessons imbedded which we can begin to implement better at home.
Anyway, here are the books:

"Hot, Flat and Crowded' by Thomas L. Friedman [412 pages]
subtitle: Why we need a Green Revolution - and how it can renew America

"The Limits of Power" by Andrew J Bacevich [182 pages]
subtitle: The End of American Exceptionalism

Both books are fascinating and quite readable, with Friedman [a liberal Democrat] focusing on the convergence of three undeniable trends; global warming, globalization and global population explosion.
He identifies some bad habits that will need to recognized and changed, as well as some good habits we will have to learn and put into practice -and soon.

Bacevich [a conservative Republican] writes in a unique style and from the perspective of a high-minded knowledge of history. He -like Friedman- concludes that our 'empire of consumption contains the seeds of its own destruction'.
This is further exacerbated by our foreign policy establishment in Washington, DC, which is totally incapable of coming to grips with reality -despite who becomes President.

Despite their clear-eyed analyses of endemic problems, both books contain glimpses of how we can do better.
Interestingly, both authors conclude that America's continued dependence on fossil fuels and foreign sources are at the root of our dilemma.
Friedman's conclusions seem ambitious, but achievable.
Bacevich is less so, quoting from Reinhold Niebuhr's axiom of willful self-destruction; for states and social orders that fail to accept that the same rules which apply to others also applies to them.
What a concept!

Looking Out The Window

Above ground, from back to fore, sky, cloud, ephemeral & changing wisps,

sylvan serrations, swaying limbs, steady trunks, grainy bark, shimmering leaves,

in differing hues & shadows - dark green to lighter, yellows, beginnings of browns,

all blended together as Nature's smoothie.

Changing light trending to dimmer & darker, with interspersed brightening moments,

A statement of Peace, hiding in plain sight.

Until the moment of awareness arrives - fleeting, yet memorable.

And, likely to happen again & again, with variations on the theme...

The Dismal Science & 15 Minutes of Fame

Many years ago, Andy Warhol gets credit for coining this title's concept.
Now, on the eve of another 'Presidential Debate', and finding himself trailing in the polls, John McCain will likely try to prove it still applies.
He will attack Obama and try to 'make him famous' for all manner of things, contrived and otherwise.
Yet, Obama hasn't even been on the national political scene 20% of the time McCain has.
So, somehow Obama's time must be stretched to well before now in order to seed doubts and fears intended to aid McCain's image at the expense of Obama's.
Think that is useful?
Will it likely differentiate the two candidates on serious issues that face us now and will need to be addressed by our next President?
I think the tactics of mean-spirited, angry accusations and attempted associations with nefarious individuals and events is gratuitous and demeans both this election process and the American public -regardless of political persuasion.
But, it is not illegal and it is not disallowed.
It's just a shame that we have to settle for this kind of win-at-all-costs behavior from people who aspire to be our leaders.

John McCain's latest fling with fame is to emulate Yosemite Sam & the Tazmanian Devil by keeping on the attack with anything and everything, including shadows.
By associating himself with unabashed ideologues like Sarah Palin, he is pathetically trying to appeal to pure populism by instilling fear and empty promises of tax relief without regulations.
Does anyone really believe him?
I think he's acting more like a 'girlie man' by avoiding real issues that are staring us in the face.

Economics has been termed the 'dismal science', and it is certainly living up to its name these days.
McCain's comprehension of economics is also pretty dismal, as has been every Republican President since Reagan -maybe before.

The NY Times published an article today which I have reproduced below, because it summarizes the tough questions about our economic situation that ought to be the real meat of tonight's debate.
Too bad we aren't likely to hear what the candidates think about these questions, because of ridiculous distractions like the attack mode that McCain has decided gives him the best chance of narrowing his own deficit with the voters!
==================================

By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, R. GLENN HUBBARD and MYRON S. SCHOLES
Published: October 6, 2008
John McCain and Barack Obama will meet tonight in Nashville for the second presidential debate. As Americans worry about a confusing federal rescue plan, a falling stock market and a financial crisis that is spreading across the globe, the editors of the Op-Ed page asked three economists to suggest the questions they would most like to hear the candidates answer.
---------------
1. When the current bailout of Wall Street fails to turn around the economy and reinvigorate credit markets, will you propose another one? How large should it be? Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke have said what is needed is a restoration of confidence in the economy. But won’t the failure of this bailout destroy confidence, with disastrous consequences — as happened in Indonesia and other East Asian countries when similar bailouts failed 10 years ago?

2. More than a million people have lost their homes in the past two years. A million more are expected to lose their homes in the next 12 months or so. Do you support a more direct program of relief for homeowners? The government pays more of the mortgage costs of rich homeowners, through larger tax deductions, than of poorer homeowners. What would you do to correct this injustice?

3. President Bush pushed tougher bankruptcy laws that were supposed to reduce bankruptcy and lower lending costs. But the new laws made it more difficult for ordinary Americans to discharge their debts, and encouraged reckless lending on the part of lenders, who thought they could more easily force poor borrowers to repay. Would you make any changes in the bankruptcy laws? Currently, it is more difficult to restructure a mortgage on a primary residence than other debts. Do you support bankruptcy reforms that would make it easier for people to stay in their homes?

— JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, a professor of economics at Columbia who shared the Nobel prize in economics in 2001 and who has advised the Obama campaign
---------------

1. Does the financial crisis indicate that we need more regulation? Or is the problem less one of too little regulation than of poorly focused regulation? The crisis had its origins in part in international capital flows that led to extraordinarily low interest rates. But high-risk mortgage lending drew some of its breath from regulatory interventions. Some heavily regulated financial institutions managed to get themselves in trouble. And it was government-sponsored enterprises, no strangers to regulation, that stimulated the demand for questionable mortgage products. Shouldn’t the next president be standing up to protect markets instead of sowing doubts about them?

2. The Federal Reserve has had to step into the political fray to an uncomfortable degree. Are we asking too much of the Fed? Should we create a strong financial regulator that would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Fed?

3. The existing capital standards for financial companies helped create the illusion that risky assets were “safe.” A reformed system could mandate more capital, to support incremental risk-taking, during a boom and lower such capital requirements in a bust. By changing capital cushions over credit cycles, banks would be less likely to be forced into asset fire sales. Would you support such a change?

4. Do you support the appointment of a presidential commission to report quickly on the causes of the current crisis and present options for regulatory reform?

— R. GLENN HUBBARD, the dean of Columbia Business School and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2001 to 2003
---------

1. Discuss the tradeoffs for our economy, if any, between growth (so-called trickle down) and redistribution (so-called sprinkle around) policies.

2. At this moment, there seems to be an overwhelming cry for retribution, in the form of new regulations aimed at our financial services industry (so-called Wall Street). To what extent do you believe that these measures are necessary? How will you judge the benefits and costs of the choices to be made? How will the new regulations take into account the evolution of the financial services sector in trading securities or goods and services, financing businesses and homes, saving for college or retirement, and reducing and transferring risk?

3. Individual innovation and creativity in our society are the cornerstones of our economy. They create wealth and improve the nation’s welfare. Through innovations, the 20th century became the American Century. Will the 21st century be so as well or will it become the Global Century? How, if at all, would your administration foster innovation in the following areas: the provision of health care for our citizens; an immigration policy that attracts and retains the best; educational policies that increase the value of our human capital, our most important resource; helping people accumulate enough retirement savings; international trade and manufacturing; the evolution of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology and neuroscience; the allocation of water, food and energy and the development of alternative energy sources; and, to some, the most important, the environment?

— MYRON S. SCHOLES, who shared the Nobel prize in economics in 1997
--------------