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
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
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!
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!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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...
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...
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
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
--------------
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
--------------
Monday, October 6, 2008
Bailing Out: Preferable to Sinking?
This may be dated a few days due to being away from the Internet, but here goes anyway:
The second Congressional iteration of the Administration's clumsy & arrogant attempt at rescuing the credit markets did pass and was thankfully signed by the President. which may also serve to somewhat rescue him as well.
But, will it work?
Who knows, but it ought to stand a better chance than doing nothing.
That would simply continue the gross irresponsibility that has already greatly aided and abetted our present sorry state of affairs.
I hope it works, and you readers out there ought to as well.
Already, major damage has been done to thousands, maybe millions, of innocent people in the US alone.
That discounts the ripple effect throughout the world.
If when the US sneezes, the World catches a cold, was this a sneeze or something worse?
Under the circumstances, approving this measure -flawed as it may be- was probably the best choice available.
But, seriously, how could this situation have been prevented?
Or at least have been responded to better.
Think something like an emergency contingency plan might have helped?
After all, most communities consider these plans both common and essential.
Just look at 9/11 and its aftermath which spawned the Dept of Homeland Security.
Or Bellingham's own disaster, the preventable Olympic Pipe Line explosion which killed 3 young men and narrowly missed doing more harm than we want to even think about.
How is it that the Federal Government gets away without providing similar contingency plans?
Who's job is it to be prepared for things like these?
• 9/11 & terrorism
• horrific weather events like Hurricane Katrina
• failing infrastructure
• ruinous unemployment
• serious economic downturns
• housing shortages
• healthcare gaps & epidemics
• food shortages
• water shortages
• hazardous wastes & practices
• crime
• electrical failures
• Internet failures
• fuel shortages
• fires
• global warming
• international unrest
Maybe the US Govt has contingency plans they haven't had to use yet, or maybe even elements of the bail-out plan had already been anticipated to some extent.
I don't know, but it didn't seem like it to me.
To the extent there were no contingency plans to rely upon in this financial situation, this ought to be rectified asap!
I can't imagine any responsible leader, military or otherwise, who would not have such plans ready for emergencies.
Certainly, the legendary Chinese General Sun Tzu, would have planned for such 'unanticipated' and adverse events.
After all, his philosophy went so far as to prefer 'victory without war'.
That sounds like the ultimate in contingency plans to me; to be so prepared and aware of events, that war is actually avoided!
Then there's the famous General von Clausewitz, whose writings are still taught in military academies.
Paraphrasing part of his thinking was the following;
There are 4 types of people; smart & energetic, smart & lazy, dumb & lazy and dumb & energetic.
You want the smart & energetic types to be your military planners because they think of everything that might happen and come up with a contingency plan to respond to it.
The smart & lazy types to be your generals because they know what to do but won't do it themselves.
The dumb & lazy types make good soldiers because they only do what they are told.
That leaves the dumb & energetic types, who you better hope are the enemy because they are no good at anything!
What type of people have we got in charge?
Think about it.
Now, let's change it.
The second Congressional iteration of the Administration's clumsy & arrogant attempt at rescuing the credit markets did pass and was thankfully signed by the President. which may also serve to somewhat rescue him as well.
But, will it work?
Who knows, but it ought to stand a better chance than doing nothing.
That would simply continue the gross irresponsibility that has already greatly aided and abetted our present sorry state of affairs.
I hope it works, and you readers out there ought to as well.
Already, major damage has been done to thousands, maybe millions, of innocent people in the US alone.
That discounts the ripple effect throughout the world.
If when the US sneezes, the World catches a cold, was this a sneeze or something worse?
Under the circumstances, approving this measure -flawed as it may be- was probably the best choice available.
But, seriously, how could this situation have been prevented?
Or at least have been responded to better.
Think something like an emergency contingency plan might have helped?
After all, most communities consider these plans both common and essential.
Just look at 9/11 and its aftermath which spawned the Dept of Homeland Security.
Or Bellingham's own disaster, the preventable Olympic Pipe Line explosion which killed 3 young men and narrowly missed doing more harm than we want to even think about.
How is it that the Federal Government gets away without providing similar contingency plans?
Who's job is it to be prepared for things like these?
• 9/11 & terrorism
• horrific weather events like Hurricane Katrina
• failing infrastructure
• ruinous unemployment
• serious economic downturns
• housing shortages
• healthcare gaps & epidemics
• food shortages
• water shortages
• hazardous wastes & practices
• crime
• electrical failures
• Internet failures
• fuel shortages
• fires
• global warming
• international unrest
Maybe the US Govt has contingency plans they haven't had to use yet, or maybe even elements of the bail-out plan had already been anticipated to some extent.
I don't know, but it didn't seem like it to me.
To the extent there were no contingency plans to rely upon in this financial situation, this ought to be rectified asap!
I can't imagine any responsible leader, military or otherwise, who would not have such plans ready for emergencies.
Certainly, the legendary Chinese General Sun Tzu, would have planned for such 'unanticipated' and adverse events.
After all, his philosophy went so far as to prefer 'victory without war'.
That sounds like the ultimate in contingency plans to me; to be so prepared and aware of events, that war is actually avoided!
Then there's the famous General von Clausewitz, whose writings are still taught in military academies.
Paraphrasing part of his thinking was the following;
There are 4 types of people; smart & energetic, smart & lazy, dumb & lazy and dumb & energetic.
You want the smart & energetic types to be your military planners because they think of everything that might happen and come up with a contingency plan to respond to it.
The smart & lazy types to be your generals because they know what to do but won't do it themselves.
The dumb & lazy types make good soldiers because they only do what they are told.
That leaves the dumb & energetic types, who you better hope are the enemy because they are no good at anything!
What type of people have we got in charge?
Think about it.
Now, let's change it.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Who's Leading & Who's Following?
Isn't freedom great?
Most of the time anyway.
The price of freedom has been described as eternal vigilance.
But, where is that vigilance when you need it?
Where is the vigilance in constantly and carefully overseeing the operation of critical financial institutions?
Where is it in anticipating serious problems before they arise, or at least shortly afterward?
And, where is it in providing accountability for protecting the public -all of the public- not just the privileged few?
I'm disappointed in Congress, again.
They just don't seem to get it that the reason they are in DC is to pay attention on behalf of this country's greater interest.
That adherence to party politics or personal agendas or belief systems aren't their primary function?
These are folks that have been used to finger pointing instead of the hard work of finding common ground.
They seem to think that someone else will take care of business, or maybe that business doesn't need taking care of in a 'free' market.
How did these people get elected?
Don't tell me, I know.
They got elected just like Council members do, and Mayors and such.
Only at levels that include more people and require more funding.
Kinda reminds you of a political Ponzi scheme, doesn't it?
There is certainly a place for populism, because at its essence it does reflect the wishes of the public.
But, are the public's expectations to be considered instantaneously, or as long-term needs?
Our founding Fathers set up our democracy as a representative one, not a direct one where everyone got a vote.
That's been changed over time, most notably to allow women, slaves and non-landowners to vote.
Those have been improvements that were needed, but which also have introduced some other dynamics.
As our country has grown and the issues have become more complex, our legislative process hasn't seemed able to keep pace.
Too often, we continue to revert back to simplistic formulas and ways of thinking that were more effective in simpler times.
Rather than trying to understand complex issues enough to allow serious contemplation of alternatives, our elected legislators are just as guilty of taking their direction from political allies, shock radio hosts and personal whims as we all are at times.
But, shouldn't we expect more of those we elect to represent us?
I'd like to think so.
I'd like these folks to start paying more attention to the serious programs, policies and problems they are to supposed to be responsible for, and less time in politicking to stay in office, or taking junkets paid for by lobbyists, or habitually working short weeks for whatever reason.
The recent 'bail-out' fiasco we've been treated to watch unfold is just the latest example of what concerns me.
Maybe our congress isn't yet convinced that the financial crisis is really a crisis?
If not, what would convince them?
Or, maybe congress would prefer more certainty that any given solution would actually work?
Maybe some members are so used to whining with impunity that they don't realize this situation is the real deal where no one gets to sit on the sideline and play the blame game.
And, maybe some are just seeking a way to become a hero so that can be parlayed into a higher office or some other advantage?
It's time to grow up children!
Get your butts back to DC and make some measurable progress that has a chance of helping solve this latest problem.
Cut out the whining and finger pointing long enough to pay attention to what is happening here and world-wide in our intertwined financial system.
You've provided enough entertainment to last us a while, now get back to work and don't come out until the job is done.
The public deserves nothing less!
Most of the time anyway.
The price of freedom has been described as eternal vigilance.
But, where is that vigilance when you need it?
Where is the vigilance in constantly and carefully overseeing the operation of critical financial institutions?
Where is it in anticipating serious problems before they arise, or at least shortly afterward?
And, where is it in providing accountability for protecting the public -all of the public- not just the privileged few?
I'm disappointed in Congress, again.
They just don't seem to get it that the reason they are in DC is to pay attention on behalf of this country's greater interest.
That adherence to party politics or personal agendas or belief systems aren't their primary function?
These are folks that have been used to finger pointing instead of the hard work of finding common ground.
They seem to think that someone else will take care of business, or maybe that business doesn't need taking care of in a 'free' market.
How did these people get elected?
Don't tell me, I know.
They got elected just like Council members do, and Mayors and such.
Only at levels that include more people and require more funding.
Kinda reminds you of a political Ponzi scheme, doesn't it?
There is certainly a place for populism, because at its essence it does reflect the wishes of the public.
But, are the public's expectations to be considered instantaneously, or as long-term needs?
Our founding Fathers set up our democracy as a representative one, not a direct one where everyone got a vote.
That's been changed over time, most notably to allow women, slaves and non-landowners to vote.
Those have been improvements that were needed, but which also have introduced some other dynamics.
As our country has grown and the issues have become more complex, our legislative process hasn't seemed able to keep pace.
Too often, we continue to revert back to simplistic formulas and ways of thinking that were more effective in simpler times.
Rather than trying to understand complex issues enough to allow serious contemplation of alternatives, our elected legislators are just as guilty of taking their direction from political allies, shock radio hosts and personal whims as we all are at times.
But, shouldn't we expect more of those we elect to represent us?
I'd like to think so.
I'd like these folks to start paying more attention to the serious programs, policies and problems they are to supposed to be responsible for, and less time in politicking to stay in office, or taking junkets paid for by lobbyists, or habitually working short weeks for whatever reason.
The recent 'bail-out' fiasco we've been treated to watch unfold is just the latest example of what concerns me.
Maybe our congress isn't yet convinced that the financial crisis is really a crisis?
If not, what would convince them?
Or, maybe congress would prefer more certainty that any given solution would actually work?
Maybe some members are so used to whining with impunity that they don't realize this situation is the real deal where no one gets to sit on the sideline and play the blame game.
And, maybe some are just seeking a way to become a hero so that can be parlayed into a higher office or some other advantage?
It's time to grow up children!
Get your butts back to DC and make some measurable progress that has a chance of helping solve this latest problem.
Cut out the whining and finger pointing long enough to pay attention to what is happening here and world-wide in our intertwined financial system.
You've provided enough entertainment to last us a while, now get back to work and don't come out until the job is done.
The public deserves nothing less!
Monday, September 22, 2008
Not so fast Mr Bush!
Eight years of looking the other way as greedy cronies got rich by gaming our system has now led to what had to be a predictable predicament.
To fix this mess, our fearless leader now wants unprecedented approval of authority to use Federal funds whenever he -or his Treasury Secretary- decides it to be necessary!
Amazing!
But not particularly surprising, given he did a similar thing with the 'Patriot Act' rush job and the Congressional authorization to print money to finance a made-up war in Iraq!
Those hurry up proposals haven't turned out so well, have they?
And, its remarkable how similar the price tags are -only $700 Billion in each case!
Mr Bush seems to feel the US Govt can just keep on printing money for whatever purpose he chooses.
And, he wants it now, within any diddling around by Congress, because it is another emergency!
Now, as members of Congress are asking questions, the administration appears to be trying to raise the stakes even higher.
They want to extend Federal buy-out authority to ANY troubled business that they -in their sole discretion- deem necessary!
Does that sound like a dangerous proposal or not?
If Bush wanted to create fear in the public mind without using the threat of terrorism, he couldn't have picked a better method than claiming the entire economy is about to fail if he doesn't get his way!
To pressure Congress to do his bidding, he says 'the World is watching'.
No kidding!
Just like the World has been watching his incompetent foolishness during the past 8 years!
There is no question that a serious problem now exists in our financial sector.
I only need to watch the daily hits my retirement funds are taking to figure that out.
The question is what is the best course of action to take, which will insure no further harm while actually addressing the difficult situation that has been let to happen.
Now, does that assignment sound like the sort of thing that can be reasoned out and implemented in a few days?
Under pressure?
In the midst of a Presidential campaign?
Before Congress adjourns?
I think that is too big an order to reasonably expect to be accomplished under these extreme conditions, particularly with the administration's very questionable credibility.
At a minimum, and since this probably is an emergency, something along these lines might work:
• Determine carefully what conditions might work, without gifting public funds or unduly restricting their use.
• Spell out clearly what Govt ownership is expected, including management of turnaround, ongoing operations and eventual sale to recoup federal funds used.
• Will only domestic companies be included? What about foreign subsidiaries or components?
• Will companies in which members of the administration, Congress have substantial interests be included? How would conflicts of interest be determined and handled?
• Clearly define what types of financial assistance will be offered if approval is granted.
• Let Congress determine which specific companies qualify for federal bail-out, by separately considering proposals from the administration.
• Make these initial terms & conditions provisional and subject to future modification by future administrations, with Congressional approval.
• Set up an oversight body to monitor results versus expectations and periodically report these findings to the administration, Congress and the general public.
No one likely has all the answers to this Gordian Knot of a problem, least of all those who watched it happen on their watch!
It took time for the true dimensions of the problem to develop and reveal themselves, as it will take time to come up with a satisfactory resolution.
It serves no good citizen's interest to adopt yet another Ready, Fire Aim approach!
Think about this when voting!
To fix this mess, our fearless leader now wants unprecedented approval of authority to use Federal funds whenever he -or his Treasury Secretary- decides it to be necessary!
Amazing!
But not particularly surprising, given he did a similar thing with the 'Patriot Act' rush job and the Congressional authorization to print money to finance a made-up war in Iraq!
Those hurry up proposals haven't turned out so well, have they?
And, its remarkable how similar the price tags are -only $700 Billion in each case!
Mr Bush seems to feel the US Govt can just keep on printing money for whatever purpose he chooses.
And, he wants it now, within any diddling around by Congress, because it is another emergency!
Now, as members of Congress are asking questions, the administration appears to be trying to raise the stakes even higher.
They want to extend Federal buy-out authority to ANY troubled business that they -in their sole discretion- deem necessary!
Does that sound like a dangerous proposal or not?
If Bush wanted to create fear in the public mind without using the threat of terrorism, he couldn't have picked a better method than claiming the entire economy is about to fail if he doesn't get his way!
To pressure Congress to do his bidding, he says 'the World is watching'.
No kidding!
Just like the World has been watching his incompetent foolishness during the past 8 years!
There is no question that a serious problem now exists in our financial sector.
I only need to watch the daily hits my retirement funds are taking to figure that out.
The question is what is the best course of action to take, which will insure no further harm while actually addressing the difficult situation that has been let to happen.
Now, does that assignment sound like the sort of thing that can be reasoned out and implemented in a few days?
Under pressure?
In the midst of a Presidential campaign?
Before Congress adjourns?
I think that is too big an order to reasonably expect to be accomplished under these extreme conditions, particularly with the administration's very questionable credibility.
At a minimum, and since this probably is an emergency, something along these lines might work:
• Determine carefully what conditions might work, without gifting public funds or unduly restricting their use.
• Spell out clearly what Govt ownership is expected, including management of turnaround, ongoing operations and eventual sale to recoup federal funds used.
• Will only domestic companies be included? What about foreign subsidiaries or components?
• Will companies in which members of the administration, Congress have substantial interests be included? How would conflicts of interest be determined and handled?
• Clearly define what types of financial assistance will be offered if approval is granted.
• Let Congress determine which specific companies qualify for federal bail-out, by separately considering proposals from the administration.
• Make these initial terms & conditions provisional and subject to future modification by future administrations, with Congressional approval.
• Set up an oversight body to monitor results versus expectations and periodically report these findings to the administration, Congress and the general public.
No one likely has all the answers to this Gordian Knot of a problem, least of all those who watched it happen on their watch!
It took time for the true dimensions of the problem to develop and reveal themselves, as it will take time to come up with a satisfactory resolution.
It serves no good citizen's interest to adopt yet another Ready, Fire Aim approach!
Think about this when voting!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Crying Wolf
Remember the story of Pinnochio the puppet?
Every time he told a fib, his nose grew a little longer.
Until it got so long that people noticed.
Think that may have happened in this country?
It's a wonder that 30% of people in this country don't get it, isn't it?
Carrying the long nose theme a little further, here's an animal with nose so long that it's called a trunk.
Ironic that the noble elephant became a symbol of the political party that has made lying an art form!
'Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed' is the moral of the fable of the boy who cried 'wolf'..
----------------
A Cabinet of Cronies?
Iraq? $700 Million our kids will pay for!
How to pay for Iraq?
Patriot Act excesses?
Katrina & FEMA's failure?
Why haven't we found Bin Laden?
Big Oil?
No Energy Policy even with $100/Barrel Oil?
No Environmental Policy?
Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG?
Another $700 Million our kids will pay for!
Who pays for this lack of financial oversight? We do!
No Healthcare reform?
Fiscal Deficits at all-time highs?
US Dollar at an all-time low?
Housing crisis?
Escalating trade deficits?
Growing scarcity of living wage jobs ?
Unresolved immigration problems?
Recession already a certainty for most of us?
Low International esteem?
Politics above Principles?
Since when do real Americans settle for such ideological incompetence?
Since when have we become consumers instead of citizens?
Since when do we settle for propaganda, myths, and lies instead of truth?
Since when would we rather gamble on wishes instead of working to make good things happen?
Since when would we rather watch a football game than a serious political debate?
Or, tolerate a bunch of meaningless sound bytes than value carefully considered arguments?
This election should not be close!
That polls show it to be close should be a matter of concern for every citizen.
Why would any of the 70% who disprove of the current White House occupant, actually vote for another R?
Especially one with an anger management problem, who can't remember how many houses or cars he owns?
How can such a person even understand the problems of real people, much less act in the greater public interest?
But, the R's are 'crying wolf' again that they aren't responsible for the mess we're in.
Anyone give credence to those sorry howls?
Please, let us not fall for that antic again!
Immeasurable harm to our country has already been done.
It's time for some healing, mending and trying to make tomorrow a better time for all of us, not just the favored few.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Fall Hiking at Mt Baker: Chain Lakes Loop
Joan & I did this hike yesterday. What a treat!
Here's a few photos:
Looking back at Mt Shuksan
Mt Baker from Herman Saddle
Iceberg Lake and Table Mountain
Mt Shuksan from Ptarmigan Ridge
Ptarmigan Ridge Trail
Mt Shuksan from Artists Point
Bagley Lakes from Wild Goose Trail
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Maverick is His Name: Gambling is His Game
Sing along now (from that old James Garner show):
"Natchez to New Orleans,
living on jacks and queens,
Maverick is the legend of the West.''
And, remember, Maverick was his name, gambling was his game,
and: "Luck is the lady that he loves the best.''
-----------------
Have we become a nation of gamblers?
Sometimes, I wonder if the sheer gravity and complexity of the issues and problems we deal with haven't become too much for people to contemplate.
Maybe, worrying about all that stuff isn't what we want to do anymore?
Does just letting things happen, or voting with reckless abandon, make any difference?
If one believes in predestination, or that Divine Providence will always rescue us, then maybe paying attention really doesn't matter that much.
But, after all these years of practicing free will and trying to discern right from wrong, I have to strongly discredit that recklessness as a way to achieve anything but chaos, suffering and a return to barbarism!
That's why John McCain's judgement is looking pretty cynical to me right now.
He seems to have forgotten that knowledge, hard work and continuing the noble path to freedom envisioned by our founding fathers require more than laziness and wishful thinking!
Instead of a book entitled 'The Audacity of Hope', he seems to favor one titled 'The Hope of Audacity'.
One could call that 'maverick' thinking, but I call it stupidity of the worst kind!
I doubt it is something he learned at the Naval Academy, or from his father, the Admiral, or his Grandfather, the Admiral either.
One doesn't earn the rank of Admiral by acting stupidly!
Is it that he wants to equal or surpass his father so badly that he will do anything to achieve that?
After all, that's kinda like what our current sorry excuse for a President did, and in so doing probably prevented his much more competent brother Jeb from having a chance at that job.
I wonder if McCain had a brother named McAble?
-----------------------
Largely quoting from an Internet source, found by Googling this blog's title, the following is offered:
Apparently, history has not been kind to old Gus Maverick, who was probably the original maverick, who died in September of 1870.
Conservative author William Safire wrote a book called “The New Language of American Politics”.
In it, Old man Maverick, Texas cattleman of the 1840s, refused to brand his cattle, because it was cruelty to animals.
His neighbors said he was a hypocrite, liar and thief because Maverick’s policy allowed him to claim all unbranded cattle on the range.
Lawsuits were followed by bloody battles and brought a new word to our language.”
Had he been an ordinary citizen, other ranchers would have taken his unbranded cattle grazing on the open range and marked them with their own brands.
But because Maverick was so influential, and owned 385,000 acres, he claimed any unbranded calf as his own, and got away with it.
Soon the name “maverick” was derisively applied by cowboys to all unbranded cattle.
John McCain and Sarah Palin may claim to be modern-day mavericks with the hope it lands them in the White House, but the label fits the legend in other respects.
In their personal and public lives, they do what they want to do regardless of how it may impact others, just because they can get away with it.
That’s nothing different than what we’ve had in the White House for the past eight years.
------------
Maverick Is Who's Name?
Past Democratic Party leaders tell the story that John McCain negotiated for two months with them to abandon the Republican Party at around the same time that Jim Jeffords crossed the aisle.
Apparently, one of McCain's top aides came to them in 2001 to initiate these discussions, which were later strenuously denied.
At times, McCain has done his best to look like a Democrat, or at least espouse their views.
Recall too, the flirtation from John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004 about McCain serving as his running mate?
Instead, McCain scotched the rumors, ran himself, then when that failed, campaigned for George Bush and other Republican candidates in the 2004 election, despite being treated very poorly by Bush, especially in South Carolina.
Had any defection to the D's occurred it would have effectively ended any McCain presidential bid, which is the prize he covets, because he already had trust issues with Republicans, particularly the extreme right wing and the rabid evangelicals.
Even now, in his friendship with Joe Lieberman, McCain is trying to have it both ways - all the while knowing that he absolutely has to please his fellow R's
So, with his political history in mind, was his choice of a VP running mate really the move of a 'maverick'?
I think not.
McCain's new ad proclaims: "We're worse off than we were four years ago.''
How about 8 years ago?
That would also include the Iraq debacle that he has so consistently supported.
--------------
But McCain likes the "maverick'' label, since the Washington Post first called him that in the early 1990s, as he sponsored a reform-minded agenda in the Senate.
When McCain defeated Bush in his party's presidential primary in New Hampshire in 2000, he declared on his way South: "We have sent a powerful message to Washington that change is coming.''
Didn't happen, at least change that was necessary or justified.
Now with Democrat Barack Obama running on a promise of "change,'' and connecting McCain with Bush, as being "in the pocket'' of Big Oil, McCain is coming back with more promises that he'll "reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil'' and "make America prosper again.''
Fat chance.
The difference between being a Senator and President is like a Picador compared to a Matador.
They both face the bull, but one is on a horse, prodding it with a long spear, while the other stands before the bull with only a cape and sword.
Now, he's recruited a partner who sits on that horse side-saddle and does his prodding for him, verbally!
Can't beat that for a spectacle, can you?
But, would you buy a ticket to see it?
John McCain should know that "Washington's broken,'' because he's been a part of it, maverick label or not.
---------------------
I think the maverick McCain is gone, if he ever really existed.
He seems to have been either rustled and branded like other cattle, or stampeded into the wilderness where he probably belongs!
How can a man who supports Bush 90 percent of the time, from the economy to energy to the Iraq War, be a maverick?
Compounding that, he has picked a woman who aims to out-Bush Bush on that remaining ten percent.
Do real mavericks run nasty, dishonest campaigns like W ran against him in 2000?
What happened to the 'Straight Talk Express'?
Who will tell McCain that his maverick image is wearing no clothes?
Instead, he comes dressed as a political conformist who bows to the slightest whim of his handlers!
And, hides behind a petticoat!
---------------
It seems to me that 'Re-Branding'' was something that appealed to the Republican Party not long ago.
But, how does that square with 'mavericks'? Aren't they 'unbranded' cattle?
A few definitions rom Wikipedia:
Livestock branding, the marking of animals to indicate ownership
Human branding, as body modification or punishment
Brand, a name, logo, slogan, and/or design scheme associated with a product or service
Brand management, the application of marketing techniques to a specific product, product line, or brand
Nation branding, the application of marketing techniques for the advancement of a country
Personal branding, people and their careers marketed as brands
Co-Branding, associates a single product or service with more than one brand name
Branding agency, a type of marketing agency which specialises in creating brands
------------
The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines a brand as a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.
Therefore it makes sense to understand that branding is not about getting your target market to choose you over the competition, but it is about getting your prospects to see you as the only one that provides a solution to their problem.
The objectives that a good brand will achieve include:
Delivers the message clearly
Confirms your credibility
Connects your target prospects emotionally
Motivates the buyer
Concretes User Loyalty
To succeed in branding you must understand the needs and wants of your customers and prospects. You do this by integrating your brand strategies through your company at every point of public contact.
Your brand resides within the hearts and minds of customers, clients, and prospects. It is the sum total of their experiences and perceptions, some of which you can influence, and some that you cannot.
A strong brand is invaluable as the battle for customers intensifies day by day. It's important to spend time investing in researching, defining, and building your brand. After all your brand is the source of a promise to your consumer. It's a foundational piece in your marketing communication and one you do not want to be without.
Have the R's achieved these goals?
Does the image of a thin-skinned, lying, fat elephant with glasses and a hair-do adequately describe what the R's stand for these days?
These folks can sure dish it out, but they can't take it!
We can do so much better!
--------------------
"Liberals by nature look for information and conservatives look for ammunition"
"Natchez to New Orleans,
living on jacks and queens,
Maverick is the legend of the West.''
And, remember, Maverick was his name, gambling was his game,
and: "Luck is the lady that he loves the best.''
-----------------
Have we become a nation of gamblers?
Sometimes, I wonder if the sheer gravity and complexity of the issues and problems we deal with haven't become too much for people to contemplate.
Maybe, worrying about all that stuff isn't what we want to do anymore?
Does just letting things happen, or voting with reckless abandon, make any difference?
If one believes in predestination, or that Divine Providence will always rescue us, then maybe paying attention really doesn't matter that much.
But, after all these years of practicing free will and trying to discern right from wrong, I have to strongly discredit that recklessness as a way to achieve anything but chaos, suffering and a return to barbarism!
That's why John McCain's judgement is looking pretty cynical to me right now.
He seems to have forgotten that knowledge, hard work and continuing the noble path to freedom envisioned by our founding fathers require more than laziness and wishful thinking!
Instead of a book entitled 'The Audacity of Hope', he seems to favor one titled 'The Hope of Audacity'.
One could call that 'maverick' thinking, but I call it stupidity of the worst kind!
I doubt it is something he learned at the Naval Academy, or from his father, the Admiral, or his Grandfather, the Admiral either.
One doesn't earn the rank of Admiral by acting stupidly!
Is it that he wants to equal or surpass his father so badly that he will do anything to achieve that?
After all, that's kinda like what our current sorry excuse for a President did, and in so doing probably prevented his much more competent brother Jeb from having a chance at that job.
I wonder if McCain had a brother named McAble?
-----------------------
Largely quoting from an Internet source, found by Googling this blog's title, the following is offered:
Apparently, history has not been kind to old Gus Maverick, who was probably the original maverick, who died in September of 1870.
Conservative author William Safire wrote a book called “The New Language of American Politics”.
In it, Old man Maverick, Texas cattleman of the 1840s, refused to brand his cattle, because it was cruelty to animals.
His neighbors said he was a hypocrite, liar and thief because Maverick’s policy allowed him to claim all unbranded cattle on the range.
Lawsuits were followed by bloody battles and brought a new word to our language.”
Had he been an ordinary citizen, other ranchers would have taken his unbranded cattle grazing on the open range and marked them with their own brands.
But because Maverick was so influential, and owned 385,000 acres, he claimed any unbranded calf as his own, and got away with it.
Soon the name “maverick” was derisively applied by cowboys to all unbranded cattle.
John McCain and Sarah Palin may claim to be modern-day mavericks with the hope it lands them in the White House, but the label fits the legend in other respects.
In their personal and public lives, they do what they want to do regardless of how it may impact others, just because they can get away with it.
That’s nothing different than what we’ve had in the White House for the past eight years.
------------
Maverick Is Who's Name?
Past Democratic Party leaders tell the story that John McCain negotiated for two months with them to abandon the Republican Party at around the same time that Jim Jeffords crossed the aisle.
Apparently, one of McCain's top aides came to them in 2001 to initiate these discussions, which were later strenuously denied.
At times, McCain has done his best to look like a Democrat, or at least espouse their views.
Recall too, the flirtation from John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004 about McCain serving as his running mate?
Instead, McCain scotched the rumors, ran himself, then when that failed, campaigned for George Bush and other Republican candidates in the 2004 election, despite being treated very poorly by Bush, especially in South Carolina.
Had any defection to the D's occurred it would have effectively ended any McCain presidential bid, which is the prize he covets, because he already had trust issues with Republicans, particularly the extreme right wing and the rabid evangelicals.
Even now, in his friendship with Joe Lieberman, McCain is trying to have it both ways - all the while knowing that he absolutely has to please his fellow R's
So, with his political history in mind, was his choice of a VP running mate really the move of a 'maverick'?
I think not.
McCain's new ad proclaims: "We're worse off than we were four years ago.''
How about 8 years ago?
That would also include the Iraq debacle that he has so consistently supported.
--------------
But McCain likes the "maverick'' label, since the Washington Post first called him that in the early 1990s, as he sponsored a reform-minded agenda in the Senate.
When McCain defeated Bush in his party's presidential primary in New Hampshire in 2000, he declared on his way South: "We have sent a powerful message to Washington that change is coming.''
Didn't happen, at least change that was necessary or justified.
Now with Democrat Barack Obama running on a promise of "change,'' and connecting McCain with Bush, as being "in the pocket'' of Big Oil, McCain is coming back with more promises that he'll "reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil'' and "make America prosper again.''
Fat chance.
The difference between being a Senator and President is like a Picador compared to a Matador.
They both face the bull, but one is on a horse, prodding it with a long spear, while the other stands before the bull with only a cape and sword.
Now, he's recruited a partner who sits on that horse side-saddle and does his prodding for him, verbally!
Can't beat that for a spectacle, can you?
But, would you buy a ticket to see it?
John McCain should know that "Washington's broken,'' because he's been a part of it, maverick label or not.
---------------------
I think the maverick McCain is gone, if he ever really existed.
He seems to have been either rustled and branded like other cattle, or stampeded into the wilderness where he probably belongs!
How can a man who supports Bush 90 percent of the time, from the economy to energy to the Iraq War, be a maverick?
Compounding that, he has picked a woman who aims to out-Bush Bush on that remaining ten percent.
Do real mavericks run nasty, dishonest campaigns like W ran against him in 2000?
What happened to the 'Straight Talk Express'?
Who will tell McCain that his maverick image is wearing no clothes?
Instead, he comes dressed as a political conformist who bows to the slightest whim of his handlers!
And, hides behind a petticoat!
---------------
It seems to me that 'Re-Branding'' was something that appealed to the Republican Party not long ago.
But, how does that square with 'mavericks'? Aren't they 'unbranded' cattle?
A few definitions rom Wikipedia:
Livestock branding, the marking of animals to indicate ownership
Human branding, as body modification or punishment
Brand, a name, logo, slogan, and/or design scheme associated with a product or service
Brand management, the application of marketing techniques to a specific product, product line, or brand
Nation branding, the application of marketing techniques for the advancement of a country
Personal branding, people and their careers marketed as brands
Co-Branding, associates a single product or service with more than one brand name
Branding agency, a type of marketing agency which specialises in creating brands
------------
The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines a brand as a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.
Therefore it makes sense to understand that branding is not about getting your target market to choose you over the competition, but it is about getting your prospects to see you as the only one that provides a solution to their problem.
The objectives that a good brand will achieve include:
Delivers the message clearly
Confirms your credibility
Connects your target prospects emotionally
Motivates the buyer
Concretes User Loyalty
To succeed in branding you must understand the needs and wants of your customers and prospects. You do this by integrating your brand strategies through your company at every point of public contact.
Your brand resides within the hearts and minds of customers, clients, and prospects. It is the sum total of their experiences and perceptions, some of which you can influence, and some that you cannot.
A strong brand is invaluable as the battle for customers intensifies day by day. It's important to spend time investing in researching, defining, and building your brand. After all your brand is the source of a promise to your consumer. It's a foundational piece in your marketing communication and one you do not want to be without.
Have the R's achieved these goals?
Does the image of a thin-skinned, lying, fat elephant with glasses and a hair-do adequately describe what the R's stand for these days?
These folks can sure dish it out, but they can't take it!
We can do so much better!
--------------------
"Liberals by nature look for information and conservatives look for ammunition"
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Lipstick: Asset or Distraction?
'You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig' is a quote credited to Dick Cheney, as I found out somewhat to my chagrin after using it during a City Council meeting last year.
At the time, I thought it fit perfectly the thought I was trying to convey; that just talking about a few 'feel-good' cosmetics to justify a position on an issue doesn't come close to seriously addressing its real import and potential ramifications.
Last I checked, real 'issues' are mostly gender neutral.
So, what's this made-up fuss about?
Issues were being discussed and debated long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin [some are calling her the 'Caribou Barbie' or a female George Bush], or John McCain for that matter.
The talk about 'lipstick' issues is nothing but a pure distraction from talking about things that are -or should be- of real concern to people.
You know, little things like like war & peace, prosperity or poverty, healthcare versus no healthcare, education or ignorance, lawfulness vs outlaw behavior, honesty & dishonesty, reality versus perceptions.
Just little things like that.
In earlier times, the use of lipstick-like coloring materials was what men used, and sometimes it came to be called warpaint or fearsome tattoos.
Ruling class folks of past centuries thought it was quite fashionable.
More recently, the cosmetics industry has burgeoned, largely due to demand from women who prefer less natural looks.
I suspect the combination of increased affluence and the long overdue freedoms of expression and choice that have accrued to women in most progressive countries have given rise to the widespread use of cosmetics, including lipstick.
But, actors, clowns, soldiers, burglars, rabid sports fans and vain men also are consumers and users of cosmetics of all kinds.
Others, including the poor, shy, allergic, natural-look preferring or religiously restricted, don't use them.
But, again, people do have the choice of using cosmetics or not.
[Isn't it ironic to be talking about something so simple as the right of choice when a woman's right to choose whether a childbirth might be harmful is again being challenged?]
Personally, I think some people do look better in a little lipstick than without it, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make.
Lipstick is an artificial substance which masks a more natural appearance, just as McCain's current rhetoric on the subject is an attempt to avoid addressing real issues.
It seems obvious to me that McCain is using his VP 'choice' for her lipstick appeal, as well as her pit bull aggressiveness.
Also, it doesn't hurt to have her petticoat to hide behind either!
-----------------
An interesting thought came to me today while visiting the Legion of Honor in San Francisco to view an exhibit on Women Impressionists. The work of four artists was displayed accompanied by fascinating written & audio descriptions; Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzales & Marie Bracquemond.
Although the term 'impressionist' has multiple and diverse meanings, it definitely does not equate to the so-called 'Conservative' School of thought which prevailed in France during the 19th Century.
The Conservative School sought to dictate what was to be considered art by rigid formulas, not by the inspiration of the individual artist.
So, the Impressionists as a group were at a severe disadvantage when their works were evaluated during that time.
At even more of a disadvantage were the women artists who painted what were considered 'Impressionist' works.
In those days, well-bred women of important families were not even allowed out in public without a chaperone!
[Does that remind you of anyone? Like maybe Sarah Palin, whom the R's won't let appear in any forum without tutors!]
Imagine how that restriction must have impacted their ability to learn techniques under recognized Masters, choose subjects for their works, or even physically visit places that were considered off-limits to them.
One of these four women artists was actually commissioned to paint a mural for display at a World's Fair during the early 20th Century.
Although this mural has been lost or destroyed, the recollection that it was not well-received remains.
At the very time I viewed that display, a women behind me exclaimed that the main figure 'looked more like a man'!
It seems that woman artist is still experiencing some kind of disadvantage.
-----------------
Women' suffrage and liberation has been a long time coming, but thank goodness it is here to the extent it is in this country!
Although vestiges of former ancient fears, customs, divisions of responsibility, prejudices and jealousies remain to be overcome, women's equality has made great strides forward.
As the the old Virginia Slims ad proclaimed, 'You've come a long way, baby'. But, there is so much more to be done before true equality between the sexes is achieved!
That is why it won't do to have women exploited so crassly as the Republicans are trying to do with Sarah Palin, who either willingly or unwittingly has allowed that behavior.
There are many people -women and men- who are much better qualified for VP -and potentially the President- of the US!
Hillary Clinton is certainly at the top of that list, but there are many other women -and men- on it.
You know, women do out-number men in this country, so if they got together they could really make a difference!
Who would most women that you know vote for?
I doubt it would be Sarah Palin.
But, as they say in politics, 'it's not the cream of the crop, it's the pick of the lot'.
I hope this election doesn't become about who can posture about phony 'lipstick' or 'petticoat' issues, but who is better qualified to lead this country forward in a respectful, enlightened and consistent manner.
It will be a big job to even dig us out of the tremendous debt that has been created by the current administration, much less repair our economy and our world standing.
That is a huge deficit and challenge that I don't believe John McCain is equipped to handle, either philosophically or otherwise.
If the 'lipstick card' is to be played, let it be for the good of our country and not some silly, temporary campaign advantage.
The way things are going, lipstick will be more of a distraction than an asset to those of us who hope for the very best from these elections!
So, what will it be?
The Conservative School with all its narrow, rigid restrictions and formulas?
Or, the Impressionists, who represent a fresh, more open -unchaperoned- approach to things that are really important?
Time will tell, but I'm voting for the latter.
Barack Obama is the President we need to have elected now.
Our future is at stake!
------------
At the time, I thought it fit perfectly the thought I was trying to convey; that just talking about a few 'feel-good' cosmetics to justify a position on an issue doesn't come close to seriously addressing its real import and potential ramifications.
Last I checked, real 'issues' are mostly gender neutral.
So, what's this made-up fuss about?
Issues were being discussed and debated long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Palin [some are calling her the 'Caribou Barbie' or a female George Bush], or John McCain for that matter.
The talk about 'lipstick' issues is nothing but a pure distraction from talking about things that are -or should be- of real concern to people.
You know, little things like like war & peace, prosperity or poverty, healthcare versus no healthcare, education or ignorance, lawfulness vs outlaw behavior, honesty & dishonesty, reality versus perceptions.
Just little things like that.
In earlier times, the use of lipstick-like coloring materials was what men used, and sometimes it came to be called warpaint or fearsome tattoos.
Ruling class folks of past centuries thought it was quite fashionable.
More recently, the cosmetics industry has burgeoned, largely due to demand from women who prefer less natural looks.
I suspect the combination of increased affluence and the long overdue freedoms of expression and choice that have accrued to women in most progressive countries have given rise to the widespread use of cosmetics, including lipstick.
But, actors, clowns, soldiers, burglars, rabid sports fans and vain men also are consumers and users of cosmetics of all kinds.
Others, including the poor, shy, allergic, natural-look preferring or religiously restricted, don't use them.
But, again, people do have the choice of using cosmetics or not.
[Isn't it ironic to be talking about something so simple as the right of choice when a woman's right to choose whether a childbirth might be harmful is again being challenged?]
Personally, I think some people do look better in a little lipstick than without it, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make.
Lipstick is an artificial substance which masks a more natural appearance, just as McCain's current rhetoric on the subject is an attempt to avoid addressing real issues.
It seems obvious to me that McCain is using his VP 'choice' for her lipstick appeal, as well as her pit bull aggressiveness.
Also, it doesn't hurt to have her petticoat to hide behind either!
-----------------
An interesting thought came to me today while visiting the Legion of Honor in San Francisco to view an exhibit on Women Impressionists. The work of four artists was displayed accompanied by fascinating written & audio descriptions; Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzales & Marie Bracquemond.
Although the term 'impressionist' has multiple and diverse meanings, it definitely does not equate to the so-called 'Conservative' School of thought which prevailed in France during the 19th Century.
The Conservative School sought to dictate what was to be considered art by rigid formulas, not by the inspiration of the individual artist.
So, the Impressionists as a group were at a severe disadvantage when their works were evaluated during that time.
At even more of a disadvantage were the women artists who painted what were considered 'Impressionist' works.
In those days, well-bred women of important families were not even allowed out in public without a chaperone!
[Does that remind you of anyone? Like maybe Sarah Palin, whom the R's won't let appear in any forum without tutors!]
Imagine how that restriction must have impacted their ability to learn techniques under recognized Masters, choose subjects for their works, or even physically visit places that were considered off-limits to them.
One of these four women artists was actually commissioned to paint a mural for display at a World's Fair during the early 20th Century.
Although this mural has been lost or destroyed, the recollection that it was not well-received remains.
At the very time I viewed that display, a women behind me exclaimed that the main figure 'looked more like a man'!
It seems that woman artist is still experiencing some kind of disadvantage.
-----------------
Women' suffrage and liberation has been a long time coming, but thank goodness it is here to the extent it is in this country!
Although vestiges of former ancient fears, customs, divisions of responsibility, prejudices and jealousies remain to be overcome, women's equality has made great strides forward.
As the the old Virginia Slims ad proclaimed, 'You've come a long way, baby'. But, there is so much more to be done before true equality between the sexes is achieved!
That is why it won't do to have women exploited so crassly as the Republicans are trying to do with Sarah Palin, who either willingly or unwittingly has allowed that behavior.
There are many people -women and men- who are much better qualified for VP -and potentially the President- of the US!
Hillary Clinton is certainly at the top of that list, but there are many other women -and men- on it.
You know, women do out-number men in this country, so if they got together they could really make a difference!
Who would most women that you know vote for?
I doubt it would be Sarah Palin.
But, as they say in politics, 'it's not the cream of the crop, it's the pick of the lot'.
I hope this election doesn't become about who can posture about phony 'lipstick' or 'petticoat' issues, but who is better qualified to lead this country forward in a respectful, enlightened and consistent manner.
It will be a big job to even dig us out of the tremendous debt that has been created by the current administration, much less repair our economy and our world standing.
That is a huge deficit and challenge that I don't believe John McCain is equipped to handle, either philosophically or otherwise.
If the 'lipstick card' is to be played, let it be for the good of our country and not some silly, temporary campaign advantage.
The way things are going, lipstick will be more of a distraction than an asset to those of us who hope for the very best from these elections!
So, what will it be?
The Conservative School with all its narrow, rigid restrictions and formulas?
Or, the Impressionists, who represent a fresh, more open -unchaperoned- approach to things that are really important?
Time will tell, but I'm voting for the latter.
Barack Obama is the President we need to have elected now.
Our future is at stake!
------------
Monday, September 8, 2008
She Whose Name Should Not Be Spoken Would Ban These Books
A friend of mine who is a retired Librarian sent me the following information.
Since it may be instructive to potential voters, I'm passing it on without comment, except for a few obvious questions;
How many of these books do you imagine she has actually read?
If she has read them all, why prevent others from the same opportunity?
If she hasn't read them all, who gave her the rest of the list?
How many have you read, or seen in a movie or play?
How about your kids?
Which would you ban?
Do you really think this person would be a good potential US President & Leader of the Free World - one heartbeat removed?
--------------------------
The following is the list of books that Sarah Palin tried to have removed from the Wasilla Library when she was mayor of Wasilla. This information is taken from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board. When the librarian refused Palin tried to get her fired, an attempt that failed due to the residents who rallied in defense of their library.
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine
Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel
Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of
Pleasure) by J ohn Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophane s
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster
Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween
Symbols by Edna Barth
Since it may be instructive to potential voters, I'm passing it on without comment, except for a few obvious questions;
How many of these books do you imagine she has actually read?
If she has read them all, why prevent others from the same opportunity?
If she hasn't read them all, who gave her the rest of the list?
How many have you read, or seen in a movie or play?
How about your kids?
Which would you ban?
Do you really think this person would be a good potential US President & Leader of the Free World - one heartbeat removed?
--------------------------
The following is the list of books that Sarah Palin tried to have removed from the Wasilla Library when she was mayor of Wasilla. This information is taken from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board. When the librarian refused Palin tried to get her fired, an attempt that failed due to the residents who rallied in defense of their library.
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine
Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel
Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of
Pleasure) by J ohn Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophane s
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster
Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween
Symbols by Edna Barth
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Politics & Entropy: What's in a Name?
“ Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension. ”
--Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids (1873)
----------------------------------
The current elections spectacle has evolved into a mishmash of strange contradictions, misapplied rhetoric and pure BS, which may be all that certain elements of our political system could have reasonably expected.
Where did issues and honesty get replaced by ideology and spin?
Did that begin with the Supreme decision that campaigns don't necessarily have to be truthful?
Or, maybe with the 1987 decision against the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for networks using the public airways?
Or, when 'journalism' got redefined as undisguised advocacy?
Or, when powerful people got caught doing wrong, then got rich and famous about writing about it?
Or, when so-called 'patriotism' and 'morality' slogans began being the band-aid that covered up the painful blister?
Or, when serious, obvious problems are consistently ignored in favor of palliatives and placebos?
And, how did a a national election become a discussion about a relative unknown VP candidate, and not about the person who impetuously picked that person?
This whole thing seems to be a deception of monumental proportions that is only aided and abetted by the media -either the so-called 'mainstream' or the blatantly partisan!
Under the current flood of misinformation, how long can our democracy really expect to survive and thrive?
As a free country the US has only about 234 years of history, far less than the Roman Empire and several Chinese Dynasties, none of which was considered a democracy capable of providing stability, prosperity, peace, freedom and good prospects for the pursuit of happiness for every citizen.
All those things seem to be taken for granted these days, without the thought that any effort is needed to actually sustain them.
OK, so much for this mini-rant.
On to stuff that tries to address change, the need for it and the rate at which a society can readily absorb it.
----------------------------------
Over 40 years ago, I was required to write a college term paper on a topic germane to one or more of several books of required reading.
The topic that came to me one evening was so compelling that I spent most of that same night drafting the essay.
The title I selected was 'The Second Law of Secularization', which attempted to compare the rate of acceptable social change to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a rather arcane scientific and engineering concept that introduces the subject of ENTROPY.
I turned that paper in 6 weeks before it was due, a feat I never approached before or after.
Entropy is a concept that can't be directly be encountered. Instead, it is a way of understanding what happens when work, requiring the use of energy, is undertaken. All work, useful or otherwise, requires some energy to be expended. Efficient work work requires less energy use than inefficient work. That's about it, which should be adequate for the purposes of this blog.
Point is, we don't want to use too much energy at one time -like an explosion, or a chaos causing event. And, we want to be careful to use energy wisely by doing work that is essential or necessary as our first priority. Inefficient or wasteful use of energy too often carries penalties that are uncomfortable, either to us or our offspring. But work itself is useful, desirable and necessary. The trick is to find that balance which satisfies our current needs without sacrificing our future needs. Finding that balance takes a measure of wisdom, born of experience.
So, now visualize applying this concept to our society and its evolving needs. Do we want to ignore the fact that social needs exist and must be addressed? Or, do we want to recognize that new needs are being created that need addressing? Think about it. Nothing ever stays the same, does it?
Our method of bringing about the changes that are needed to address current problems and concerns is through our political system. That is what we have to work with, right, wrong or indifferent. Who gets to decide when changes are needed? Who gets to decide how much change is enough, or can be afforded? Who gets to decide who pays for changes our society adopts?
The answer to all these questions is the same; we do. How we do it depends upon whom we elect and what measures we support. That's what elections are about. That's also why it is important to find a way to talk about issues honestly, then take action decisively. There will always be debate about what is necessary, when it is necessary and who pays. But, there should be no debate about whether periodic changes are necessary, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Our leaders are the ones we select to lead us through any change process determined to be necessary.
We need to care of who we assign to these duties.
No one party has all the answers, and no one branch of government has supreme power over the others -although the Executive seems to be enjoying an increasing major advantage these days, which is a concern.
----------------------
There has been a growing divide between factions calling themselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
That is largely an artificial distinction which does a disservice to both our major political parties and to our language itself!
Look at these brief definitions of these terms:
Conservative:
-resistant to change
-having social or political views favoring conservatism
-cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
-button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
-a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
-bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
-a member of a Conservative Party
Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". ...
-----------
Liberal:
-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.
-----------
It seems to me that both definitions contain concepts we all support and value.
As with the concept of ENTROPY, the trick is to find the balance which allows some necessary change at a rate that can address a problem, be tolerated and afforded.
I'm tired of listening to people throw these words around as if they were mutually exclusive!
But, I do understand there are some who do see the world in such black and white terms that it prevents meaningful dialogue from finding ANY balance.
That's called stalemate, and it does no good for anyone, except those intent upon never reaching a compromise and thereby perpetuates impasses.
Clever slogans like 'Pro Life' & 'Pro Choice' seem to fall into this category, don't they?
Is there anyone who doesn't believe in both? Think about it.
Everyone wants some change! Some want it all in their direction, others don't want to pay for it, and some don't seem to recognize it is happening anyway and must be accommodated!
The one change I wish for is more honesty, period.
We may not like to always practice it, but it is a standard upon which we can build a truly lasting democracy!
That ought to be one thing we can all agree on and decide to leave our children, and their children....
----------------------
“ My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it ‘information’, but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it ‘uncertainty’. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, ‘You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage. ”
--Conversation between Claude Shannon and John von Neumann regarding what name to give to the “measure of uncertainty” or attenuation in phone-line signals (1949)
--Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids (1873)
----------------------------------
The current elections spectacle has evolved into a mishmash of strange contradictions, misapplied rhetoric and pure BS, which may be all that certain elements of our political system could have reasonably expected.
Where did issues and honesty get replaced by ideology and spin?
Did that begin with the Supreme decision that campaigns don't necessarily have to be truthful?
Or, maybe with the 1987 decision against the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for networks using the public airways?
Or, when 'journalism' got redefined as undisguised advocacy?
Or, when powerful people got caught doing wrong, then got rich and famous about writing about it?
Or, when so-called 'patriotism' and 'morality' slogans began being the band-aid that covered up the painful blister?
Or, when serious, obvious problems are consistently ignored in favor of palliatives and placebos?
And, how did a a national election become a discussion about a relative unknown VP candidate, and not about the person who impetuously picked that person?
This whole thing seems to be a deception of monumental proportions that is only aided and abetted by the media -either the so-called 'mainstream' or the blatantly partisan!
Under the current flood of misinformation, how long can our democracy really expect to survive and thrive?
As a free country the US has only about 234 years of history, far less than the Roman Empire and several Chinese Dynasties, none of which was considered a democracy capable of providing stability, prosperity, peace, freedom and good prospects for the pursuit of happiness for every citizen.
All those things seem to be taken for granted these days, without the thought that any effort is needed to actually sustain them.
OK, so much for this mini-rant.
On to stuff that tries to address change, the need for it and the rate at which a society can readily absorb it.
----------------------------------
Over 40 years ago, I was required to write a college term paper on a topic germane to one or more of several books of required reading.
The topic that came to me one evening was so compelling that I spent most of that same night drafting the essay.
The title I selected was 'The Second Law of Secularization', which attempted to compare the rate of acceptable social change to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a rather arcane scientific and engineering concept that introduces the subject of ENTROPY.
I turned that paper in 6 weeks before it was due, a feat I never approached before or after.
Entropy is a concept that can't be directly be encountered. Instead, it is a way of understanding what happens when work, requiring the use of energy, is undertaken. All work, useful or otherwise, requires some energy to be expended. Efficient work work requires less energy use than inefficient work. That's about it, which should be adequate for the purposes of this blog.
Point is, we don't want to use too much energy at one time -like an explosion, or a chaos causing event. And, we want to be careful to use energy wisely by doing work that is essential or necessary as our first priority. Inefficient or wasteful use of energy too often carries penalties that are uncomfortable, either to us or our offspring. But work itself is useful, desirable and necessary. The trick is to find that balance which satisfies our current needs without sacrificing our future needs. Finding that balance takes a measure of wisdom, born of experience.
So, now visualize applying this concept to our society and its evolving needs. Do we want to ignore the fact that social needs exist and must be addressed? Or, do we want to recognize that new needs are being created that need addressing? Think about it. Nothing ever stays the same, does it?
Our method of bringing about the changes that are needed to address current problems and concerns is through our political system. That is what we have to work with, right, wrong or indifferent. Who gets to decide when changes are needed? Who gets to decide how much change is enough, or can be afforded? Who gets to decide who pays for changes our society adopts?
The answer to all these questions is the same; we do. How we do it depends upon whom we elect and what measures we support. That's what elections are about. That's also why it is important to find a way to talk about issues honestly, then take action decisively. There will always be debate about what is necessary, when it is necessary and who pays. But, there should be no debate about whether periodic changes are necessary, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Our leaders are the ones we select to lead us through any change process determined to be necessary.
We need to care of who we assign to these duties.
No one party has all the answers, and no one branch of government has supreme power over the others -although the Executive seems to be enjoying an increasing major advantage these days, which is a concern.
----------------------
There has been a growing divide between factions calling themselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
That is largely an artificial distinction which does a disservice to both our major political parties and to our language itself!
Look at these brief definitions of these terms:
Conservative:
-resistant to change
-having social or political views favoring conservatism
-cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
-button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
-a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
-bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
-a member of a Conservative Party
Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". ...
-----------
Liberal:
-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment.
-----------
It seems to me that both definitions contain concepts we all support and value.
As with the concept of ENTROPY, the trick is to find the balance which allows some necessary change at a rate that can address a problem, be tolerated and afforded.
I'm tired of listening to people throw these words around as if they were mutually exclusive!
But, I do understand there are some who do see the world in such black and white terms that it prevents meaningful dialogue from finding ANY balance.
That's called stalemate, and it does no good for anyone, except those intent upon never reaching a compromise and thereby perpetuates impasses.
Clever slogans like 'Pro Life' & 'Pro Choice' seem to fall into this category, don't they?
Is there anyone who doesn't believe in both? Think about it.
Everyone wants some change! Some want it all in their direction, others don't want to pay for it, and some don't seem to recognize it is happening anyway and must be accommodated!
The one change I wish for is more honesty, period.
We may not like to always practice it, but it is a standard upon which we can build a truly lasting democracy!
That ought to be one thing we can all agree on and decide to leave our children, and their children....
----------------------
“ My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it ‘information’, but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it ‘uncertainty’. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, ‘You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage. ”
--Conversation between Claude Shannon and John von Neumann regarding what name to give to the “measure of uncertainty” or attenuation in phone-line signals (1949)
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Thoughts & Impressions: Sarah Palin as VP?
A friend sent me this link to an Alaskan Blog:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/
---------------------------------------
It's come to this.
Again, the R's are now treating this election as they might treat a video game, designed to appeal to indolent kids attracted to random violence!
That probably ought not be a surprise to those who have watched our latest fearless leader bumble his way through the last 7-plus years.
Someone characterized this VP pick as a 'hail mary' pass, and that might be pretty close to the truth. But, it will attract attention away from the more serious discussion of issues that many people have trouble getting their heads around. We know how emotion regularly seems to trump rational argument. I think it's too bad when elections get dumbed down like that, to where they don't really mean anything except who wins. But, maybe that's just me.
Ms Palin deserves our respect, which may be more than her own party is affording her. She is to be the sacrificial lamb, recruited to enliven the moribund McCain campaign, attract donors & attention, and light the fuses of those dividing debates that have been the mainstay of R campaigns for decades. One other thing this gamble is likely to cause is multiple opportunities for D mistakes, gaffes and distractions. Watch out!
That McCain has bought into this scheme brings his desperation into plain sight and his judgement into question. At some level he must know he is likely to lose this election without such a gamble, and only the twisted mind of Karl Rove could have conceived such a plan and convinced McCain to swallow it. And, McCain had only met her once before he made his selection! Remind you of anyone? Like maybe when Bush 2 met Putin, looked into his eyes and understood his soul? Give me a break!
How would you feel if you were Pawlenty or Romney, both respected VP candidates with much greater real credentials who were passed over?
But strange things do happen in elections, and this one won't be over until its over - as Yogi Berra may have said. The D's must not be complacent, nor must they be overly drawn into phony fights that only run out the clock on debating the great issues that face this country. Like a desperate animal, the R's will hold onto their power by any and all means possible, meaning things are likely to get much uglier and less certain from here on.
I have to wonder if there aren't some subtle, secondary motives at work in this scheme, especially if the D's do win the election as expected. Both McCain & Palin are considered 'mavericks' within their own party, notwithstanding they do consistently follow a conservative path. That has to have produced powerful enemies who are more than willing to exact cruel political revenge on these two should they fail in their difficult mission of being elected.
Even with a voting record that is 95% in agreement with Bush2, McCain isn't well liked by some strong, far-right factions. Likewise, Palin, in her relatively short and provincial political life, has angered the entrenched powers that be -or were- in Alaska.
On the issue of opening ANWR to drilling, the two candidates appear to have differed, with Palin a strong supporter and McCain luke-warmly against.
Is Palin supposed to help convince McCain to support ANWR?
Is Palin seen as more of a pain to powerful R's in Alaska than a help?
If that were true, becoming a VP candidate, likely to lose, could turn into a skillful way of removing her from being Governor of Alaska.
Or, is she seen as a future candidate or effective spokesperson on the national stage?
With Ted Stevens, among others, under investigation and likely to be replaced soon, is Palin a possible heir apparent, who also happens to need some schooling in the art of procuring 'pork'? After all, that is something she has strongly opposed in Alaska.
It's too bad that someone with the energy and ethics of Palin has allowed herself to be used in this way, especially since she has expressed little interest in such a job as VP, which she calls undefined and unproductive. But, contestants in beauty pageants are often known to be a little vain, open to flattery and enamored of exposure to an admiring public.
Time will tell how this unscripted melee will actually play out, but D's ought to keep calm and play it hard and straight. If that's not good enough, then there are things more wrong with this country than its elections and orchestrated campaign marketeering.
One always has the choice of carelessly tripping over such monkey wrenches or carefully using them for their intended purpose - including the repair of leaky plumbing. I hope its the latter.
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/
---------------------------------------
It's come to this.
Again, the R's are now treating this election as they might treat a video game, designed to appeal to indolent kids attracted to random violence!
That probably ought not be a surprise to those who have watched our latest fearless leader bumble his way through the last 7-plus years.
Someone characterized this VP pick as a 'hail mary' pass, and that might be pretty close to the truth. But, it will attract attention away from the more serious discussion of issues that many people have trouble getting their heads around. We know how emotion regularly seems to trump rational argument. I think it's too bad when elections get dumbed down like that, to where they don't really mean anything except who wins. But, maybe that's just me.
Ms Palin deserves our respect, which may be more than her own party is affording her. She is to be the sacrificial lamb, recruited to enliven the moribund McCain campaign, attract donors & attention, and light the fuses of those dividing debates that have been the mainstay of R campaigns for decades. One other thing this gamble is likely to cause is multiple opportunities for D mistakes, gaffes and distractions. Watch out!
That McCain has bought into this scheme brings his desperation into plain sight and his judgement into question. At some level he must know he is likely to lose this election without such a gamble, and only the twisted mind of Karl Rove could have conceived such a plan and convinced McCain to swallow it. And, McCain had only met her once before he made his selection! Remind you of anyone? Like maybe when Bush 2 met Putin, looked into his eyes and understood his soul? Give me a break!
How would you feel if you were Pawlenty or Romney, both respected VP candidates with much greater real credentials who were passed over?
But strange things do happen in elections, and this one won't be over until its over - as Yogi Berra may have said. The D's must not be complacent, nor must they be overly drawn into phony fights that only run out the clock on debating the great issues that face this country. Like a desperate animal, the R's will hold onto their power by any and all means possible, meaning things are likely to get much uglier and less certain from here on.
I have to wonder if there aren't some subtle, secondary motives at work in this scheme, especially if the D's do win the election as expected. Both McCain & Palin are considered 'mavericks' within their own party, notwithstanding they do consistently follow a conservative path. That has to have produced powerful enemies who are more than willing to exact cruel political revenge on these two should they fail in their difficult mission of being elected.
Even with a voting record that is 95% in agreement with Bush2, McCain isn't well liked by some strong, far-right factions. Likewise, Palin, in her relatively short and provincial political life, has angered the entrenched powers that be -or were- in Alaska.
On the issue of opening ANWR to drilling, the two candidates appear to have differed, with Palin a strong supporter and McCain luke-warmly against.
Is Palin supposed to help convince McCain to support ANWR?
Is Palin seen as more of a pain to powerful R's in Alaska than a help?
If that were true, becoming a VP candidate, likely to lose, could turn into a skillful way of removing her from being Governor of Alaska.
Or, is she seen as a future candidate or effective spokesperson on the national stage?
With Ted Stevens, among others, under investigation and likely to be replaced soon, is Palin a possible heir apparent, who also happens to need some schooling in the art of procuring 'pork'? After all, that is something she has strongly opposed in Alaska.
It's too bad that someone with the energy and ethics of Palin has allowed herself to be used in this way, especially since she has expressed little interest in such a job as VP, which she calls undefined and unproductive. But, contestants in beauty pageants are often known to be a little vain, open to flattery and enamored of exposure to an admiring public.
Time will tell how this unscripted melee will actually play out, but D's ought to keep calm and play it hard and straight. If that's not good enough, then there are things more wrong with this country than its elections and orchestrated campaign marketeering.
One always has the choice of carelessly tripping over such monkey wrenches or carefully using them for their intended purpose - including the repair of leaky plumbing. I hope its the latter.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Lake Whatcom: Possible City Club Questions
Someone called me recently to inquire as what questions might be appropriate to ask each of the three panelists, who have been invited to the next City Club meeting, Wednesday, August 27 at Northwood Hall.
That started me thinking, and here's what I've come up with so far:
For Steve Hood, the Washington State Department of Ecology's co-author of the recently issued DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Load [TMDL] Study:
1. This sounds like our Reservoir has a serious problem that has gotten worse over the 9-plus years it has taken to write this report. Has it? If so, please share your opinion about what must be done immediately by the jurisdictions with responsibility for preserving this valuable public resource.
2. Are there measurements that can be periodically made which will give us a good indication of the pollutant loads -including Phosphorus- that are coming into the Reservoir from tributaries and other stormwater out-falls, including shoreline parcels? What are the main measurements -including suggested limits- that are needed, and what must be done to facilitate this data gathering? Will additional funding likely be required?
3. What effective steps can citizens and watershed residents take themselves -without waiting for government action- to minimize pollutant generation and run-off into the Reservoir? How can we get these citizens engaged?
For Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive and key member of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed Management Program:
1. About three years ago, at a Joint City/County/Water District review meeting, you made the statement that Whatcom County would take the lead in reducing the Phosphorus load going into the Reservoir. What has been done to accomplish that goal? Is there any data to support that this is an active and effective program?
2. According to your recent statements, Whatcom County is experiencing a shortfall in its revenues that may necessitate staff reductions and program curtailments. On top of this, the County Council is considering increasing the 'level of service' related to a number of water programs that are currently insufficiently funded. What will you do to insure the level of staffing -including the proposed Joint Watershed Manager position- and funding for the Reservoir is available, adequate and stable so that Phosphorus reduction becomes more than an empty promise?
3. You have been a vocal advocate for the reconveyance of about 8400 acres of Department of Natural Resources [DNR] forest lands in the Reservoir Watershed to Whatcom County for the purpose of becoming a Regional Park. How much funding will be lost and how will these lost revenues be replaced, given the financial plight the County finds itself facing? What assurances can you provide that any such reconveyance will actually benefit Reservoir protection efforts, given how popular Parks can be? What proportion of any reconveyed forest lands will protected -in perpetuity- by conservation easements or equivalent methods to insure only passive use?
For Dan Pike, Mayor of Bellingham and key member of the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed Management Program:
1. In anticipation of the TMDL Report, the City of Bellingham imposed a 'moratorium' on all non-vested building in the City's portion of this watershed. What proven and effective actions are expected to be proposed and put in place prior to this moratorium being lifted?
2. The City has undertaken discussions with the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District with the objective of consolidating operations in the watershed to minimize the likelihood of future spills, realize potential savings to customers and provide better availability of resources. Where does this initiative stand now? Have any insoluble problems been identified? When do you expect a resolution?
3. The City has acquired to date, over 1200 acres of watershed property to help preserve water quality and help protect against unmitigated development. Future acquisitions are also planned. How does the City plan to manage these lands in the future? Has a response to the Watershed Acquisition Board questions on this issue been prepared? Is there a possibility that a joint City/County plan might be employed on some of this property?
To all three PANELISTS: How can we best get a serious Phosphorus Reduction Program up and running without further delay, equivocating and finger pointing?
-----------------
I'm sure there are many other questions that can be asked, but we probably ought to leave some time for the answers, don't you think?
Waterfront Redevelopment: A Rant About Election Games
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - – Grace Murray Hopper
Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, the American computer pioneer, was the first woman to become a Distinguished Fellow of the British Computer Society. She was born in 1906 in New York.
By age seven, she was taking alarm clocks apart to see how they worked.
She worked for the U.S. Navy developing the first compiler, which allowed people to write computer programs in real language rather than machine code.
When she found a moth inside a computer, she coined the term "debugging." She died in 1992.
---------------
This piece is a little dated, since it was first drafted back in September of '07, during the heat of elections.
Had I published it back then, I might have called it something like 'Waterfront Redevelopment: Mother Goose & the Doctors of Spin Revisited -PART 2'
This one is also a little long, because it was already mostly written, and it does take me much longer to distill and write a short piece that people can read with only one cup of coffee!
But, maybe some folks will find much of it is still relevant.
---------------
From my Navy days, I learned first hand about the terms "skinny" and "scuttlebutt".
Skinny had the connotation of correct information, or poop, as in 'straight skinny'.
Scuttlebutt was a phrase used to describe gossip around the water cooler, and every ship had at least one 'biomass' artist whose mission in life it was to create rumors and misinformation.
Many things change over time, but the meanings of 'skinny' & 'scuttlebutt' seem to remain the same.
-----------
With this in mind, it's interesting to focus on some of the criticisms –legitimate, misguided or malignant- now circulating about the ambitious plan to first cleanup, and then redevelop our blighted Waterfront; and by what process and financial underpinnings that long-term project should follow.
No one seems to doubt the potential benefits of converting this particular ‘sow’s ear into a silk purse’, but questions of who subsidizes whose ‘pork’ with how many chests of public treasure, need answering before anything more than virtual sorties to hypothetical destinations are attempted.
Carrying the nautical theme a little further, this ship needs to sail with the tide, and not against it, as is customary outside dire emergencies.
And it needs to sail under a qualified Master, preferably a senior Captain, handpicked by the Admiral - us!
The right number crew needs to be seasoned, loyal, healthy and durable, and with the right mix of Junior officers, Petty officers and Rankings.
Of course adequate provisions for a long voyage need to be secured and safely stored.
The right equipment for propelling, steering and navigating are musts for any successful voyage.
But once the ship sails, the Captain is in charge, and mutiny is severely frowned upon!
At times, changes in command are needed, and new crewmembers recruited, because a good ship’s mission outlasts any one compliment of sailors.
Complicating all of this is the fact that the ship is still in the shipyard being designed, tested and its technical challenges and costs estimated.
Only after that can the vessel be built to careful specifications and launched for sea trials.
Hopefully the finished craft will, upon being commissioned, be fully seaworthy, operate as expected, fulfill its purpose and last a long time.
No Titanics!
I’d much prefer names like Enterprise or Constitution over something like Pequod, Turtle or U-anything, but that comes later.
-------------------------
Back to Landlubber talk for a bit.
This project is something Bellingham really needs to make happen.
It is literally the chance in a lifetime that we have within our grasp right now so let’s try our hardest to make he most of it!
Other coastal cities would give their eye-teeth for a chance like this one, because it carries the promise of redefining Bellingham’s potential for long into our future.
I’d go so far as to say that it would be patently irresponsible for us as a community to let this opportunity elude becoming reality.
Of course it's expensive, controversial and uncertain and therefore divisive to those with different agendas, fears or wishes.
If those concerns weren’t being expressed, that would be remarkable!
In fact, the project may not be worth considering at all if it failed to raise concerns.
But it is, and it does.
That’s what folks thought about the Space Program, too before Sputnik woke us up.
So, getting these concerns out there early, is actually good.
But, how concerns are expressed may not be so good and that has become more of a problem than it needs to be.
Already there is enough misinformation about to sink a lesser, un-seaworthy vessel.
But there are also serious concerns that both the City and Port are trying hard to address as soon as is realistically possible.
Let’s put it this way, until and unless we have good information as to what cleanup and redevelopment scenario will satisfy our ecological, social and economic needs adequately, no decision to go forward will be made.
Restating that another way: if we can’t be reasonably sure the project –whatever its configuration and timetable- is financially affordable, it will not be approved, and some other course of action will need to be pursued without the very substantial City participation that is currently envisaged.
That’s called adaptive management, or more simply, common sense!
It would be folly to do otherwise, and how senseless and insulting it is to be baselessly accused of such a thing!
But that is being done, isn’t it?
I think such behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible, but that’s just my opinion.
Now, who would get to decide if and when we arrive at that point?
We do.
For the City to commit any funds other than those already appropriated for planning, the City administration would need to make a public recommendation for these additional funds, and the City Council would have to approve them, but only after due process.
That is the way representative democracy works; your elected officials get to decide such things as part of their official duties.
If you trust them to do the right thing, let them do it.
If you don’t, speak up –or replace them!
That’s what elections are for!
Bingo!
Maybe that’s why all this rhetoric and fear mongering is happening!
Elections!
Why do elections get exempted from truth telling and civility?
Maybe, because people have the right to act as they please, up to some limit allowed by our Constitutional freedoms?
Hey, this is Amurica, we can screw things up anyway we want to – and get away with it too.
It’s the law of the jungle and the way the cookie crumbles.
If you don’t like dat, do somepin’ about it suckah!
Some version of that street talk seems to be operating here in the -former- City Of Subdued Excitement, doesn’t it?
Yeah, old COSE is a’changing, but growth isn’t the only thing messing it up!
--------------------
Perhaps adding yet another minnow of perspective to the swirling fishbowl of created -and very creative- public perceptions is in order.
While this particular minnow is not expected to survive for long amongst the various piranha, sharks, jellyfish, barracuda, blowfish and slippery eels that flourish in such environs, perhaps its DNA message can eventually bio-accumulate in the genes of these respective species.
But do we have that kind of time?
And would the genetics actually change in the direction hoped for?
Methinks chances are slim to none on both counts, human nature being what it is.
But some sort of evolutionary process is needed to allow a more balanced assessment of the merits of both the Waterfront Redevelopment [WR] actions taken to date -and those that are planned.
After all, the main purpose of WR is to stimulate and stabilize economic redevelopment on the very front door of our downtown - an area already recognized as a priority for revitalization and infill.
Economic redevelopment leads to jobs and prosperity, folks, and very close to our existing downtown, too.
That is what will eventually pay for the costs of the infrastructure needed to access and serve the Waterfront.
That, and the considerable funding expected from Federal & State sources, which actually seem happier than some folks here about the prospect of this project happening!
These governments see both the potential and our need to make WR succeed.
And, they also see the very positive local effort being made, which really acts to stimulate their support, which likely will come in the form of matching grants.
You see, even with government-sponsored projects like WR, it does take [investment] money to make [local prosperity] money.
Governments won’t just give money away just for the asking; it has to be for a good purpose and compete with other good proposals, so that some judgment of best value is obtained.
Yes, Virginia there can be a Santa, but he needs to know you’ve been a good girl and deserve his gifts!
-------------------
Not to be minimized in importance, are the clean-up efforts on what could otherwise remain a contaminated industrial site for a very long time.
Because without effective action by our local governments, neither the clean-up envisioned by the Whatcom Waterway and Bellingham Bay Demonstration Project, nor the remediation of the former G-P and other industrial sites and landfills to a higher standard cannot effectively proceed.
That first mentioned cleanup program has already been in planning for over 10 years -with all stakeholders involved- and is considered -nationally- to be the prototype model preferred over the endless litigation that is normally the case in such situations.
That kind of old, ineffective and stalemated non-action, causes the productive use of contaminated land & water bodies to be effectively limited –even sterilized- for many years to the detriment of anything positive.
That scenario helps no one, especially those citizens who have expressed so clearly their vision for what our Waterfront could become if we really tried to make it happen.
'A rising tide floats all boats' is an expression most often heard in connection with general economic conditions, but, it is equally applicable to the environment and to the well being and quality of life for people. By people, I mean real people, like you and me, and all the kids who would delight in enjoying our Waterfront, but can’t safely do that until we’ve done the hard work of cleaning it up properly.
I’m sorry, folks, but there is nothing productive or positive about insisting on something so hard to accomplish, that it prolongs and prevents other good outcomes from happening!
Setting up artificial, binary choices between this versus that, is a loser in this game!
I, for one, am not about to sit idly by and watch, while some people badmouth the entire scheme to oblivion, just because they can! Tearing down is always easier than building something, but why tear down something that hasn't been built?
Why not redirect all that negativity and back-biting energy into something we were all brought up to believe in!
There is always room for debate, compromise and hearing alternate ideas, but please let’s be civil about it, and try to be honest!
Let's act with a care for goodness sake, if no other reason.
And, goodness ought to be enough reason, because it’s the best reason.
If folks aren’t into goodness, for its own sake, we are in such a world of hurt that all the redevelopment in the world won’t help us!
This issue is real, positive action is critical and time is getting short, so it is time for us to come together in the same boat and pull on the oars in the same direction, strength and timing.
Winning crews do that, and Bellingham has all the ingredients to be a winning crew except one, the commitment to do it!
If we don’t train hard, those racing shells are pretty tippy, and I don’t know anyone who wants to be known as the crewmember who was responsible for losing the race on the WR ship we’re trying to build and launch for the betterment of our entire community.
Any mutineers out there should be thankful they weren’t sailor’s in the Queen’s Navy, where their punishment might range from 40 lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails, a proper keel-hauling or walking the plank into shark infested waters!
Just kidding, but barely.
--------------------------
As with many situations, the roots of the current WR controversy spring from seeds sown carelessly in the past, and these sometimes grow more like weeds, than the gardens that people actually enjoy.
Given the challenging circumstances our local governments face, one would think the prospect of such a beneficial enhancement to Waterfront would be an event to celebrate!
So, I am surprised at the cacophony of certain interests, who upon discovering yet another big complex issue with lots of moving parts, see it as cheap entertainment.
Is this behavior what engaging in the right of 'public process' is really about?
An alliance of the following seem to be actively trying to scuttle the WR ship before it is even built!
• Habitual nay-sayers who are again taking full advantage of an election year to frenetically spread their anti-government, anti-spending misinformation.
• Hard-core ‘special interest’ groups which have surfaced with competing ideas.
• Those who simply enjoy the controversy that others create, then respond randomly with instant, armchair quarterback solutions.
• Those who are cynically watching and waiting for the WR to sink or actually be completed and gain without making an investment.
• Worst are those political aspirants who believe tearing down something actually elevates them!
These people would make the situation immeasurably worse if they got elected.
Because, theirs would be the legacy that all the spin they could muster would not be good enough to mask the egregious harm they have eternally foisted on the City of Bellingham!
But, it is fair enough, that all these voices should heard, as well as the more positive and engaged others.
And, from that from the resulting discourse will come some truly excellent and enduring concepts that can be used to improve whatever WR project proceeds.
It is such a pity that so much of what the public hears about is based upon data-free analysis, speculation, disguised ideology and conspiracy theories - in other words, scuttlebutt!
In today's world, that seems to be expected.
To be hoped for are commentators who are willing report the straight skinny, not scuttlebutt, and to keep an open mind until the real facts can be triangulated and the overall situation and its costs can be put into truer perspective.
In the meantime, the work on the WR must proceed.
The WR project is important enough to require continued work on defining its various options, trade-offs and costs before making additional commitments of time, resources and funding. Undertaking a satisfactory resolution of these matters is our job to perform without further undue delay.
It is clearly the City Council’s duty and responsibility to obtain sufficient information developed to determine the next progressive steps toward advancing this project further by the most reasonable timetable that can be achieved.
The City Council has determined that the approach the WR is following now is a sensible one, arrived at only after obtaining expert advice and significant public input on various options.
Both Port and Council have listened to many ideas and different views on how to proceed from diverse interests before selecting the course of action now being pursued.
While it is clearly impossible to please everyone, the City does care about the public's ultimate satisfaction in what these revitalization efforts will produce.
Over time, the wisdom of the decisions made regarding the WR project will manifest, and citizens will enjoy the tangible benefits of a mutually beneficial public/private partnership, which will in turn stimulate additional investment and enjoyment of our downtown and Waterfront areas.
Sometimes, it's hard to see the forest for the trees in such situations.
But, in the end, actions that result from broader views are usually the ones that build communities that thrive.
It is to be hoped the WR Project and the experience gained in making it happen will become a model for future successes in downtown Bellingham and the entire community, and will fully justify our substantial investment in time, energy and resources.
Time will tell, but will citizens remember the Skinny or the Scuttlebutt?
Ever think April 1 should be election day?
--------------------------
Sun Tzu -The art of war: aim is invincibility, victory without battle; unassailable strength through understanding the physics, politics and psychology of conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
