-----------------------
Years ago, I remember hearing Willie Nelson sing a funny song, called 'I'm my own Granpa'.
As an amateur genealogist, I was intrigued by how that could occur, without gross incest happening multiple times.
But, it turns the lyrics to this song were actually diagrammed to demonstrate how this might happen, which it turns has - in England!
So, I asked Mr Google and found this blurb from Wikipedia:
Also, a Youtube animated song and familytree diagram version from Ray Stevens:
-------------
Finally, here's the printed lyrics:
I'm My Own Grandpa
(Sung by Lonzo & Oscar in 1947)
It sounds funny, I know,
But it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know,
But it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three,
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.
My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.
This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life,
My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife.
To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy,
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.
My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad,
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad.
For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother
Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.
Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run,
And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son.
My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue,
Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.
Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild,
And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild,
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa!
I'm my own grandpa.
I'm my own grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so,
Oh, I'm my own grandpa.
--------------------
Ever think this sort of thing might also happen in politics?
--------------------
Friday, August 21, 2009
Healthcare: More Perspectives
-------------------------
'If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.' - MARK TWAIN
-------------------------
As frustrating as it has been at times listening to our national healthcare debate, the more discussion occurs, the more facts and perspectives do emerge.
This is good -even essential- despite the overcharged emotional climate that has predictably evolved.
Of course, those people exist who will not be persuaded of anything other than their own biases and opinions, but isn't it always that way?
One can only hope these do not represent a majority, or sufficient numbers to seriously test the courage of those entrusted with representing the best interests of our country as a whole on this important issue.
Rather than expound from my personal perspective any more than necessary, I will trust these three links to express their own views:
First, from the NY Times this article by Timothy Egan on cooperatives:
Next, from today's Crosscut, this article by Ted Luce, an experienced user and administrator of the British health care system, entitled The Socialized Medicine' Red Herring.
Last, from the Boston.com website, this statement from Mitt Romney:
Brief. Why should Obama NOT be listening to 'liberals', and since when is a delay in healthcare reform a concern of Romney's?
---------
The first two citations help explain and clarify some misconceptions that have been in evidence recently.
Charitably, these might be called 'urban legends', but uncharitably are accurately termed lies, half-truths and deliberate mis-conceptions.
As Richard Abanes wrote about an entirely different subject, the novel The DaVinci Code:
"The most flagrant aspect … is not that Dan Brown disagrees with Christianity but that he utterly warps it in order to disagree with it … to the point of completely rewriting a vast number of historical events. And making the matter worse has been Brown's willingness to pass off his distortions as ‘facts' with which innumerable scholars and historians agree.
And this apparently describes the origin of the term 'urban legend':
The term “urban legend,” as used by folklorists, has appeared in print since at least 1968. Jan Harold Brunvand, professor of English at the University of Utah, introduced the term to the general public in a series of popular books published beginning in 1981. Brunvand used his collection of legends, The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends & Their Meanings (1981) to make two points: first, that legends and folklore do not occur exclusively in so-called primitive or traditional societies, and second, that one could learn much about urban and modern culture by studying such tales.
Brunvand has since published a series of similar books, and is credited as the first to use the term vector (inspired by the concept of biological vectors) to describe a person or entity passing on an urban legend.
Do you know anyone around here who can be credited with being a VECTOR, creating, or promulgating, an 'urban legend'?
----------------------------
"I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world." -
MARGARET MEAD
"All schools, all colleges, have two great functions: to confer, and to conceal, valuable knowledge. The theological knowledge which they conceal cannot justly be regarded as less valuable than that which they reveal. That is, when a man is buying a basket of strawberries it can profit him to know that the bottom half of it is rotten." - MARK TWAIN [1908, notebook]
----------------------------
'If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.' - MARK TWAIN
-------------------------
As frustrating as it has been at times listening to our national healthcare debate, the more discussion occurs, the more facts and perspectives do emerge.
This is good -even essential- despite the overcharged emotional climate that has predictably evolved.
Of course, those people exist who will not be persuaded of anything other than their own biases and opinions, but isn't it always that way?
One can only hope these do not represent a majority, or sufficient numbers to seriously test the courage of those entrusted with representing the best interests of our country as a whole on this important issue.
Rather than expound from my personal perspective any more than necessary, I will trust these three links to express their own views:
First, from the NY Times this article by Timothy Egan on cooperatives:
Next, from today's Crosscut, this article by Ted Luce, an experienced user and administrator of the British health care system, entitled The Socialized Medicine' Red Herring.
Last, from the Boston.com website, this statement from Mitt Romney:
Brief. Why should Obama NOT be listening to 'liberals', and since when is a delay in healthcare reform a concern of Romney's?
---------
The first two citations help explain and clarify some misconceptions that have been in evidence recently.
Charitably, these might be called 'urban legends', but uncharitably are accurately termed lies, half-truths and deliberate mis-conceptions.
As Richard Abanes wrote about an entirely different subject, the novel The DaVinci Code:
"The most flagrant aspect … is not that Dan Brown disagrees with Christianity but that he utterly warps it in order to disagree with it … to the point of completely rewriting a vast number of historical events. And making the matter worse has been Brown's willingness to pass off his distortions as ‘facts' with which innumerable scholars and historians agree.
And this apparently describes the origin of the term 'urban legend':
The term “urban legend,” as used by folklorists, has appeared in print since at least 1968. Jan Harold Brunvand, professor of English at the University of Utah, introduced the term to the general public in a series of popular books published beginning in 1981. Brunvand used his collection of legends, The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends & Their Meanings (1981) to make two points: first, that legends and folklore do not occur exclusively in so-called primitive or traditional societies, and second, that one could learn much about urban and modern culture by studying such tales.
Brunvand has since published a series of similar books, and is credited as the first to use the term vector (inspired by the concept of biological vectors) to describe a person or entity passing on an urban legend.
Do you know anyone around here who can be credited with being a VECTOR, creating, or promulgating, an 'urban legend'?
----------------------------
"I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world." -
MARGARET MEAD
"All schools, all colleges, have two great functions: to confer, and to conceal, valuable knowledge. The theological knowledge which they conceal cannot justly be regarded as less valuable than that which they reveal. That is, when a man is buying a basket of strawberries it can profit him to know that the bottom half of it is rotten." - MARK TWAIN [1908, notebook]
----------------------------
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A Potpourri Of News: Port Primary & County Growth Management
---------------------
Things are happening all the time, but significant results and their reporting tend to bunch up at intervals.
That's what has happened this week.
Since I was out of pocket yesterday, here are comments on two issues of local interest:
---------------------
'In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.' - Winston Churchill
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
--------
Local Primary Elections
An updated Auditor's Report will be issued today, but preliminary results were posted Tuesday evening, and can be found at this URL.
KGMI and The Herald also posted summary articles at their respective links, with some commentary.
I am particularly delighted with the Port of Bellingham results, which show challengers John Blethen and Mike McAuley as leading vote-getters.
But caution must be offered since the General Election is coming, which is time the big money comes into play to attract what should be a larger turnout.
That is the race that really counts, so let's not be lulled into thinking this election is over!
BTW, I appreciate today's NWCitizen blog labeling me as 'conservative'. I take that in the best sense of the word, just as I do the word 'liberal' which has also been applied to me with some frequency.
Too often these terms are tossed off as lazy and over-simplified pejoratives, which is a disservice to everyone, especially readers.
So, I guess being called both terms may qualify me as somewhat 'balanced' in my views? Hope so.
The quotes cited above come from a Conservative and a Liberal.
------------------------
Growth Management
Both The Herald and KGMI reported on our County Executive's recommendations on Whatcom County land use, information that has been very slow in coming, at least until the County Council requested it while recognizing a real deadline is coming on December 1.
The County is over 2 years tardy in correcting and completing its Comprehensive Plan, and these recommendations -along with any Council modifications and eventual approval- are needed necessary to avoid actual State penalties, in the form of lost opportunities for grants, and possibly even fines.
Directionally, the County now seems to be on a better trajectory, at least in updating its Comp Plan under last-minute pressure. But, will this make any difference? Only time will tell.
The idea of reducing the size of Urban Growth Areas [UGAs in Govt jargon] isn't all bad, either for zoning purposes or for their eventual annexation to cities.
Often, disparate areas were lumped together without much thought it seems. One example is the Dewey Valley area which applied for annexation to Bellingham, but was rejected due to its overall size, location, disparate uses and potential fiscal impacts on the city. That particular result might have been avoided had the Dewey Valley area been more compact and easier and cheaper to serve.
I am assuming that the County's recommendations will also extend to the so-called '5-year Review Areas', which the County also designates from time to time. This designation is preliminary to an area even becoming an UGA.
It remains to be seen whether existing UGAs [county's jurisdiction] can be easily downsized without administrative, legislative or legal challenge.
Also, presumably, the respective cities would have to agree.
-----------
In the case of the Geneva and Hillsdale UGAs, I believe the City of Bellingham might agree to a change in designation, but only after an in-depth discussion about whether equal or better protections to Lake Whatcom could result.
Years ago, when the decision was made to include Geneva and Hillsdale as UGAs, there were clear pluses AND minuses involved, but in the end they were designated UGAs.
Now, with more stringent land use regulations -especially STORMWATER requirements- and the fact that significant buildout, facilitated by the independently operated Water District, and restrictive land preservation acquisitions and easements, have occurred may change these weighting factors.
Also, there is the little matter of compliance with mitigating and remedial requirements of the TMDL Study issued by the Dept of Ecology.
Of particular concern are those areas with Geneva and Hillsdale that are unusually susceptible to runoff from upslope development, either in the UGA or in unincorporated areas -like Squalicum Mountain, Toad Lake and Galbraith/Lookout Mountain.
The net effect of downsizing county controlled UGAs may include the following;
• general reduction in areas zoned for high density use of any type- could be positive, unless buildable land supply reduction unduly increases prices.
• gradual slowing of growth and development, either real or perceived -could be positive, unless concurrency of housing and transportation infrastructure is thrown more out of balance.
• more unincorporated land retained, whether for agricultural, forest, open space -could be positive, unless more sporadic county rezoning and low density development occurs [already a known problem].
• appearance of compliance with GMA guidelines - a definite positive.
• a likely net reduction in county annual revenues from development, but also longer retention time of lands in county jurisdiction.
-------
Regarding the proportion of countywide growth to be accommodated by the City of Bellingham, the debate between 38% and 42% probably brackets the best number available.
And since actual growth rates and land absorption are only known from history, why quibble?
A 1.4% long term growth rate is likely OK; but 2.something is excessive.
This seems to be largely about asserting more control over another jurisdiction than is necessary or justified.
The County is charged with the responsibility of countywide planning, with the cities part of that plan.
The individual cities certainly know their history of growth, limitations and expectations better than the County ever could.
So, just make these elements fit!
From the report it appears that some cities prefer more projected growth than does Bellingham.
And, the estimated numbers are not so big as to be impossible to change around a little and still total the amount approved.
Why not do this?
[Alternatively, the County might want to reconsider supporting the Waterfront Redevelopment, which itself might accommodate the difference between County & City preferences. Here, I know the County's EDI [Economic Development Incentive] funds are not supposed to go for 'residential development', but is a dense mixed use redevelopment of a blighted area and expected to create hundreds of new jobs, intended to be included in this definition?]
----------------------------------
'All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.' - Adlai E. Stevenson
'Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
-----------------------------------
Things are happening all the time, but significant results and their reporting tend to bunch up at intervals.
That's what has happened this week.
Since I was out of pocket yesterday, here are comments on two issues of local interest:
---------------------
'In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.' - Winston Churchill
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
--------
Local Primary Elections
An updated Auditor's Report will be issued today, but preliminary results were posted Tuesday evening, and can be found at this URL.
KGMI and The Herald also posted summary articles at their respective links, with some commentary.
I am particularly delighted with the Port of Bellingham results, which show challengers John Blethen and Mike McAuley as leading vote-getters.
But caution must be offered since the General Election is coming, which is time the big money comes into play to attract what should be a larger turnout.
That is the race that really counts, so let's not be lulled into thinking this election is over!
BTW, I appreciate today's NWCitizen blog labeling me as 'conservative'. I take that in the best sense of the word, just as I do the word 'liberal' which has also been applied to me with some frequency.
Too often these terms are tossed off as lazy and over-simplified pejoratives, which is a disservice to everyone, especially readers.
So, I guess being called both terms may qualify me as somewhat 'balanced' in my views? Hope so.
The quotes cited above come from a Conservative and a Liberal.
------------------------
Growth Management
Both The Herald and KGMI reported on our County Executive's recommendations on Whatcom County land use, information that has been very slow in coming, at least until the County Council requested it while recognizing a real deadline is coming on December 1.
The County is over 2 years tardy in correcting and completing its Comprehensive Plan, and these recommendations -along with any Council modifications and eventual approval- are needed necessary to avoid actual State penalties, in the form of lost opportunities for grants, and possibly even fines.
Directionally, the County now seems to be on a better trajectory, at least in updating its Comp Plan under last-minute pressure. But, will this make any difference? Only time will tell.
The idea of reducing the size of Urban Growth Areas [UGAs in Govt jargon] isn't all bad, either for zoning purposes or for their eventual annexation to cities.
Often, disparate areas were lumped together without much thought it seems. One example is the Dewey Valley area which applied for annexation to Bellingham, but was rejected due to its overall size, location, disparate uses and potential fiscal impacts on the city. That particular result might have been avoided had the Dewey Valley area been more compact and easier and cheaper to serve.
I am assuming that the County's recommendations will also extend to the so-called '5-year Review Areas', which the County also designates from time to time. This designation is preliminary to an area even becoming an UGA.
It remains to be seen whether existing UGAs [county's jurisdiction] can be easily downsized without administrative, legislative or legal challenge.
Also, presumably, the respective cities would have to agree.
-----------
In the case of the Geneva and Hillsdale UGAs, I believe the City of Bellingham might agree to a change in designation, but only after an in-depth discussion about whether equal or better protections to Lake Whatcom could result.
Years ago, when the decision was made to include Geneva and Hillsdale as UGAs, there were clear pluses AND minuses involved, but in the end they were designated UGAs.
Now, with more stringent land use regulations -especially STORMWATER requirements- and the fact that significant buildout, facilitated by the independently operated Water District, and restrictive land preservation acquisitions and easements, have occurred may change these weighting factors.
Also, there is the little matter of compliance with mitigating and remedial requirements of the TMDL Study issued by the Dept of Ecology.
Of particular concern are those areas with Geneva and Hillsdale that are unusually susceptible to runoff from upslope development, either in the UGA or in unincorporated areas -like Squalicum Mountain, Toad Lake and Galbraith/Lookout Mountain.
The net effect of downsizing county controlled UGAs may include the following;
• general reduction in areas zoned for high density use of any type- could be positive, unless buildable land supply reduction unduly increases prices.
• gradual slowing of growth and development, either real or perceived -could be positive, unless concurrency of housing and transportation infrastructure is thrown more out of balance.
• more unincorporated land retained, whether for agricultural, forest, open space -could be positive, unless more sporadic county rezoning and low density development occurs [already a known problem].
• appearance of compliance with GMA guidelines - a definite positive.
• a likely net reduction in county annual revenues from development, but also longer retention time of lands in county jurisdiction.
-------
Regarding the proportion of countywide growth to be accommodated by the City of Bellingham, the debate between 38% and 42% probably brackets the best number available.
And since actual growth rates and land absorption are only known from history, why quibble?
A 1.4% long term growth rate is likely OK; but 2.something is excessive.
This seems to be largely about asserting more control over another jurisdiction than is necessary or justified.
The County is charged with the responsibility of countywide planning, with the cities part of that plan.
The individual cities certainly know their history of growth, limitations and expectations better than the County ever could.
So, just make these elements fit!
From the report it appears that some cities prefer more projected growth than does Bellingham.
And, the estimated numbers are not so big as to be impossible to change around a little and still total the amount approved.
Why not do this?
[Alternatively, the County might want to reconsider supporting the Waterfront Redevelopment, which itself might accommodate the difference between County & City preferences. Here, I know the County's EDI [Economic Development Incentive] funds are not supposed to go for 'residential development', but is a dense mixed use redevelopment of a blighted area and expected to create hundreds of new jobs, intended to be included in this definition?]
----------------------------------
'All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.' - Adlai E. Stevenson
'Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
-----------------------------------
Monday, August 17, 2009
Healthcare: More Heat Than Light?
--------------------
Our national healthcare debate, such as it is, ought to be seriously continued every year until we develop a system that serves us much better than the current mess.
If this sounds like I doubt that a single, comprehensive program can be adopted at any one time, your interpretation is correct.
The reason is that politics is simply the art of the possible, and Congress lacks the unity, courage and visionary insights to do this job right.
Of course, President Obama and his administration don't get off the hook either, but since when has an operating manual come with our highest office?
Obama's biggest problem is that he is trying to be too inclusive and flexible under the circumstances.
That is being perceived as either weakness or waffling by both sides, for different and varying reasons.
That is a no-man's land that is unlikely to yield any productive result, save maybe one; agreement that certain aspects of healthcare do need to be changed.
Once that consensus is reached, the job becomes a little simpler, but also longer term in nature.
Simpler, because sufficient votes can likely be garnered for incremental changes that both parties can support.
Things like providing and extending at least catastrophic medical coverage for all citizens.
Or maybe even some tort reform.
Yesterday's Crosscut article by Ted Van Dyk provides a useful perspective on this general strategy.
The longer term nature of debating the healthcare issue, means that Congress and the Administration must find a way to commit to continuing good faith discussions well into the foreseeable future.
Why not bring this up every year as part of a national debate that also ties into whatever economic conditions exist, and our annual budgetary approval process?
That way, it would be harder to dismiss making controversial decisions based upon 'the time not being right'.
When is the time ever right? Especially for those who perpetually resist change?
What I'm talking about is a form of 'phased implementation', where the cumulative impact of incremental changes can fit into and become part of an evolving national healthcare strategy that leads toward a sensible system that doesn't create too many short term dislocations -either real or imaginary.
I have learned that taking heat one time is preferable to taking it multiple times, but that mainly applies to a single issue -think Lake Whatcom for example.
But, the basic weakness with trying to solve a big problem at one stroke is that it simply doesn't work very often -even if sufficient 'votes' can be garnered!
There are always new twists and turns, things that weren't anticipated, new elected officials and fiscal realities.
Think it's easy? Think again.
Maybe the best example of what I'm trying to illustrate is our own Constitution.
As good a document as that is, with its high-minded principles and visionary wisdom, it was adopted by a very slim margin and based upon the best compromise available at the time.
Since then, even our sacrosanct Constitution has been changed or modified several times by amendment, the Bill of Rights, and possibly by judicial interpretation.
As wise and courageous as our Founders were, they also understood that a democracy needs to adjust to circumstances and changing realities over time.
Just look at some of the issues they failed to adequately address over 200 years ago, like slavery and universal suffrage.
Don't you think the Founders meant for our Constitution to be a 'living document' that allows some very careful adjustment from time to time?
I know I do, and history easily demonstrates it.
Now, back to healthcare.
I believe that ready access to some practical level of healthcare is a basic human right for citizens and residents of this country.
Determining what that level is and implementing a plan to provide it is what is being debated right now.
But, a simple, one-time debate won't likely do the job needed.
That's why addressing this issue every year is necessary, and Congress needs to do the one thing it is least likely to do; discipline itself!
Only after having its collective nose rubbed in healthcare every year will Congress & the Administration - or some future iteration of both - be forced to deal with it meaningfully.
OK, I know that hasn't happened regularly on Medicare or Social Security, but it needs to in the future - without unduly burdening the present 'debate'.
The current 'debate' exemplifies what has become a national embarrassment; the substitution of uninformed and emotionally charged opinion that is exceptionally well-financed, for a fact-based and rational discussion among responsible adults.
And, this debate does need to be conducted respectfully by mature adults -on behalf of children, others and themselves at some point in the future.
Failing that, we'll have to do what we're doing; flailing and flogging individual pieces of the healthcare puzzle, without knowing what the big picture is or needs to become.
That is where broad principles can be helpful in delineating what is truly important and of deservedly lasting value.
You know, kinda like our Founders did when they conceived, debated and adopted our Constitution.
Enough of the verbalizing of things that haven't even been written down or agreed to.
That is a phantom tactic that is built on the quicksand of lies.
We can do better than that.
Much better!
Let's get that message to our elected officials, despite their distractions toward being reelected.
Why did we elect them in the first place?
--------------------
Our national healthcare debate, such as it is, ought to be seriously continued every year until we develop a system that serves us much better than the current mess.
If this sounds like I doubt that a single, comprehensive program can be adopted at any one time, your interpretation is correct.
The reason is that politics is simply the art of the possible, and Congress lacks the unity, courage and visionary insights to do this job right.
Of course, President Obama and his administration don't get off the hook either, but since when has an operating manual come with our highest office?
Obama's biggest problem is that he is trying to be too inclusive and flexible under the circumstances.
That is being perceived as either weakness or waffling by both sides, for different and varying reasons.
That is a no-man's land that is unlikely to yield any productive result, save maybe one; agreement that certain aspects of healthcare do need to be changed.
Once that consensus is reached, the job becomes a little simpler, but also longer term in nature.
Simpler, because sufficient votes can likely be garnered for incremental changes that both parties can support.
Things like providing and extending at least catastrophic medical coverage for all citizens.
Or maybe even some tort reform.
Yesterday's Crosscut article by Ted Van Dyk provides a useful perspective on this general strategy.
The longer term nature of debating the healthcare issue, means that Congress and the Administration must find a way to commit to continuing good faith discussions well into the foreseeable future.
Why not bring this up every year as part of a national debate that also ties into whatever economic conditions exist, and our annual budgetary approval process?
That way, it would be harder to dismiss making controversial decisions based upon 'the time not being right'.
When is the time ever right? Especially for those who perpetually resist change?
What I'm talking about is a form of 'phased implementation', where the cumulative impact of incremental changes can fit into and become part of an evolving national healthcare strategy that leads toward a sensible system that doesn't create too many short term dislocations -either real or imaginary.
I have learned that taking heat one time is preferable to taking it multiple times, but that mainly applies to a single issue -think Lake Whatcom for example.
But, the basic weakness with trying to solve a big problem at one stroke is that it simply doesn't work very often -even if sufficient 'votes' can be garnered!
There are always new twists and turns, things that weren't anticipated, new elected officials and fiscal realities.
Think it's easy? Think again.
Maybe the best example of what I'm trying to illustrate is our own Constitution.
As good a document as that is, with its high-minded principles and visionary wisdom, it was adopted by a very slim margin and based upon the best compromise available at the time.
Since then, even our sacrosanct Constitution has been changed or modified several times by amendment, the Bill of Rights, and possibly by judicial interpretation.
As wise and courageous as our Founders were, they also understood that a democracy needs to adjust to circumstances and changing realities over time.
Just look at some of the issues they failed to adequately address over 200 years ago, like slavery and universal suffrage.
Don't you think the Founders meant for our Constitution to be a 'living document' that allows some very careful adjustment from time to time?
I know I do, and history easily demonstrates it.
Now, back to healthcare.
I believe that ready access to some practical level of healthcare is a basic human right for citizens and residents of this country.
Determining what that level is and implementing a plan to provide it is what is being debated right now.
But, a simple, one-time debate won't likely do the job needed.
That's why addressing this issue every year is necessary, and Congress needs to do the one thing it is least likely to do; discipline itself!
Only after having its collective nose rubbed in healthcare every year will Congress & the Administration - or some future iteration of both - be forced to deal with it meaningfully.
OK, I know that hasn't happened regularly on Medicare or Social Security, but it needs to in the future - without unduly burdening the present 'debate'.
The current 'debate' exemplifies what has become a national embarrassment; the substitution of uninformed and emotionally charged opinion that is exceptionally well-financed, for a fact-based and rational discussion among responsible adults.
And, this debate does need to be conducted respectfully by mature adults -on behalf of children, others and themselves at some point in the future.
Failing that, we'll have to do what we're doing; flailing and flogging individual pieces of the healthcare puzzle, without knowing what the big picture is or needs to become.
That is where broad principles can be helpful in delineating what is truly important and of deservedly lasting value.
You know, kinda like our Founders did when they conceived, debated and adopted our Constitution.
Enough of the verbalizing of things that haven't even been written down or agreed to.
That is a phantom tactic that is built on the quicksand of lies.
We can do better than that.
Much better!
Let's get that message to our elected officials, despite their distractions toward being reelected.
Why did we elect them in the first place?
--------------------
Friday, August 14, 2009
Entertainment: Pulp Fiction & Port Sport
-----------------------
I greatly enjoy a good suspense novel or movie.
Really good tales inspire both widespread attention and revenues.
Three that come to mind are Tom Clancy's The Search For Red October; John Grisham's The Pelican Brief; and Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.
None of these are true stories, but pretend to be so well that folks buy into the fabric of myths that is so cleverly woven together.
There is just enough that is true, or at least plausible or tantalizingly so, to engender belief in the story told.
That relative rarity of a successful storytelling inspires copy-catting on a massive scale.
Of course, trying to reduce a unique success into a formula that can be replicated is tricky business.
While repetition of statements and concepts is critical to driving home a point, there comes a time when this effect is lost.
Also, credibility can peak and then fall off dramatically once people cease settling for merely being entertained and seek other perspectives.
When that happens, most of the audience moves on to its next entertainment event.
So-called 'infotainment' seems to be what sells easiest these days.
That's because it can be dispensed by quick sound bytes that demand little time, attention and critical thinking from the audience - us, the 'buyers'.
It seems so much easier to tear down than to build something, particularly something big, complex and controversial.
And, it doesn't take expensive tools and explosives to accomplish such destruction.
It just takes a series of lies, entertaining myths and half-truths, often repeated.
Just look at the current healthcare reform 'debate' for example.
Or, maybe even our own ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment?
--------
The current issue of the Cascadia Weekly offered this Gristle, which was quickly supported by a blog on NWCitizen.
Both of these publications have been vocal critics of the Waterfront Redevelopment for years, which is certainly their prerogative.
For that matter, I have been critical of certain WR twists and turns myself, although I continue to support the basic idea as necessary to our long-term prosperity.
But, there is always room for improvement in any undertaking, especially those that rely on public support and funding.
And that brings us to what the Weekly, NWCitizen -and I- all share; we need this year's election to produce meaningful change in the leadership at the Port of Bellingham.
The best result we can expect is to replace the two long-time incumbents, Scott Walker and Doug Smith.
While that result would be desirable in itself, it would mainly serve to reconnect the Port of Bellingham to the broader goals and objectives that citizens of both City and County want and expect.
Gone are the days when any special district or agency can simply go its separate way without due consideration of the big picture, that includes the overall welfare of our area and region.
Social, fiscal and ecological realities are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed simultaneously as best we can.
While my view is that the social and ecological aspects to the proposed Waterfront Redevelopment are basically OK, the fiscal part -the financing and management- still leave much to be desired.
At least two important concepts have been totally rejected by the Port; permanent public ownership of its waterfront, and the establishment of an independent Public Development Authority to provide oversight the project.
Why the Port has so strenuously rejected these concepts is a mystery, but may be due to its desire to maintain sole control over its admittedly large commitment.
Maintaining public ownership would mean the Port could not recoup its investment as quickly as waiting for leases to be secured and paid over time.
But, it is ironic that public ownership MUST be retained long enough for the clean-up to be completed!
That's because no sensible private entity wants that liability, nor can it likely even get access to the State & Federal funds necessary to pay for it.
And, don't forget, the Waterfront Redevelopment is not just about the Port either.
The City of Bellingham has former landfills, at or near the water's edge, which also must be remediated concurrent with the former G-P site and other industrial sites.
That this clean-up is both necessary and desirable should not be a matter of debate!
And, the clean-up Plan that has been approved is adequate for the purpose.
It is as senseless to advocate for returning the waterfront to an unrealistic pristine state, as it is to claim that the type and variety of remediation methods proposed are not effective.
You know, at some point there is a limit to what can be done with the resources available.
I would rather do what is feasible than simply delay further progress 'to starve out the Port'.
That is an unacceptably poor result, which carries its own dire consequences.
When you get down to it, this 'debate' is really about who gets to own this potentially very valuable waterfront property.
Of course, the thing that would make it even more valuable is the clean-up, which must be done with public funds.
Once that gets done, I'm sure the Port would enjoy a nice bidding competition among private developers, both to pay off its clean-up and redevelopment promotion efforts, and maximize it's future returns.
But, don't forget, it's not the Port's money! It's ours.
Whoever we elect as Port Commissioners will have the responsibility of managing the Port's funds in the best interests of the public it serves.
Please keep that in mind, regardless of what redevelopment scenario you may favor.
-----------
Some folks have had a great time criticizing the Port and the City, advocating outlandish ideas and concocting all manner of misinformation about what is being proposed and attempted on our waterfront.
Fair enough, have your fun.
Pretty cheap entertainment that fits our current economy.
At some point, the fun ends and the real work begins, as it already has - since 2004 and before.
And, maybe some folks will eventually tire of the same litany of beefs, phony or otherwise, and move on to their next entertainment.
All through this, the real hard work of preparation will continue - as it must, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.
Boring, I know, but necessary.
But, when it nears completion, watch out!
New fun will begin as the competition for ownership, use and public subsidies heats up.
Until that new fun begins, we still have a big, important job to do, and it must be done competently, and in sunlight.
Let's elect new Port Commissioners and get on with it!
---------------------------
I greatly enjoy a good suspense novel or movie.
Really good tales inspire both widespread attention and revenues.
Three that come to mind are Tom Clancy's The Search For Red October; John Grisham's The Pelican Brief; and Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.
None of these are true stories, but pretend to be so well that folks buy into the fabric of myths that is so cleverly woven together.
There is just enough that is true, or at least plausible or tantalizingly so, to engender belief in the story told.
That relative rarity of a successful storytelling inspires copy-catting on a massive scale.
Of course, trying to reduce a unique success into a formula that can be replicated is tricky business.
While repetition of statements and concepts is critical to driving home a point, there comes a time when this effect is lost.
Also, credibility can peak and then fall off dramatically once people cease settling for merely being entertained and seek other perspectives.
When that happens, most of the audience moves on to its next entertainment event.
So-called 'infotainment' seems to be what sells easiest these days.
That's because it can be dispensed by quick sound bytes that demand little time, attention and critical thinking from the audience - us, the 'buyers'.
It seems so much easier to tear down than to build something, particularly something big, complex and controversial.
And, it doesn't take expensive tools and explosives to accomplish such destruction.
It just takes a series of lies, entertaining myths and half-truths, often repeated.
Just look at the current healthcare reform 'debate' for example.
Or, maybe even our own ambitious Waterfront Redevelopment?
--------
The current issue of the Cascadia Weekly offered this Gristle, which was quickly supported by a blog on NWCitizen.
Both of these publications have been vocal critics of the Waterfront Redevelopment for years, which is certainly their prerogative.
For that matter, I have been critical of certain WR twists and turns myself, although I continue to support the basic idea as necessary to our long-term prosperity.
But, there is always room for improvement in any undertaking, especially those that rely on public support and funding.
And that brings us to what the Weekly, NWCitizen -and I- all share; we need this year's election to produce meaningful change in the leadership at the Port of Bellingham.
The best result we can expect is to replace the two long-time incumbents, Scott Walker and Doug Smith.
While that result would be desirable in itself, it would mainly serve to reconnect the Port of Bellingham to the broader goals and objectives that citizens of both City and County want and expect.
Gone are the days when any special district or agency can simply go its separate way without due consideration of the big picture, that includes the overall welfare of our area and region.
Social, fiscal and ecological realities are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed simultaneously as best we can.
While my view is that the social and ecological aspects to the proposed Waterfront Redevelopment are basically OK, the fiscal part -the financing and management- still leave much to be desired.
At least two important concepts have been totally rejected by the Port; permanent public ownership of its waterfront, and the establishment of an independent Public Development Authority to provide oversight the project.
Why the Port has so strenuously rejected these concepts is a mystery, but may be due to its desire to maintain sole control over its admittedly large commitment.
Maintaining public ownership would mean the Port could not recoup its investment as quickly as waiting for leases to be secured and paid over time.
But, it is ironic that public ownership MUST be retained long enough for the clean-up to be completed!
That's because no sensible private entity wants that liability, nor can it likely even get access to the State & Federal funds necessary to pay for it.
And, don't forget, the Waterfront Redevelopment is not just about the Port either.
The City of Bellingham has former landfills, at or near the water's edge, which also must be remediated concurrent with the former G-P site and other industrial sites.
That this clean-up is both necessary and desirable should not be a matter of debate!
And, the clean-up Plan that has been approved is adequate for the purpose.
It is as senseless to advocate for returning the waterfront to an unrealistic pristine state, as it is to claim that the type and variety of remediation methods proposed are not effective.
You know, at some point there is a limit to what can be done with the resources available.
I would rather do what is feasible than simply delay further progress 'to starve out the Port'.
That is an unacceptably poor result, which carries its own dire consequences.
When you get down to it, this 'debate' is really about who gets to own this potentially very valuable waterfront property.
Of course, the thing that would make it even more valuable is the clean-up, which must be done with public funds.
Once that gets done, I'm sure the Port would enjoy a nice bidding competition among private developers, both to pay off its clean-up and redevelopment promotion efforts, and maximize it's future returns.
But, don't forget, it's not the Port's money! It's ours.
Whoever we elect as Port Commissioners will have the responsibility of managing the Port's funds in the best interests of the public it serves.
Please keep that in mind, regardless of what redevelopment scenario you may favor.
-----------
Some folks have had a great time criticizing the Port and the City, advocating outlandish ideas and concocting all manner of misinformation about what is being proposed and attempted on our waterfront.
Fair enough, have your fun.
Pretty cheap entertainment that fits our current economy.
At some point, the fun ends and the real work begins, as it already has - since 2004 and before.
And, maybe some folks will eventually tire of the same litany of beefs, phony or otherwise, and move on to their next entertainment.
All through this, the real hard work of preparation will continue - as it must, albeit at a somewhat slower rate.
Boring, I know, but necessary.
But, when it nears completion, watch out!
New fun will begin as the competition for ownership, use and public subsidies heats up.
Until that new fun begins, we still have a big, important job to do, and it must be done competently, and in sunlight.
Let's elect new Port Commissioners and get on with it!
---------------------------
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Healthcare: The Status Quo Has Got To Go!
------------------------
'To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.' - Winston Churchill
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.'
- John F. Kennedy
'Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.'
- Winston Churchill
------------------------
A few years ago, a local right-wing politico couldn't resist shouting out 'John Watts has got to go!'
That outburst actually embarrassed some of this politico's cohorts to the extent they came up to me after the meeting and apologized.
But, you know that politico was right.
I did need to go, just like everyone does at some time.
The thing is, I get to pick the time and place, which in due course, I did.
In retrospect, I might have stayed too long, but past mistakes and decisions can't always be easily corrected.
There is one rather large mistake that has persisted over a half century which can be corrected, but only if Congress has the courage to do it.
Of course, there is again, a large chorus of politicos who are using every means at their disposal to frustrate any kind of meaningful change in our healthcare system.
And this is despite the crying need for breaking the grip of our 'status quo'.
As predicted in an earlier blog, the cacophony of noise and misinformation is reaching a crescendo of meanness, to our great shame as a democratic society.
But, there are ways to deal with this kind of strategy and associated tactics.
It won't be easy, but worthwhile things never are.
The antidote is to keep listening, talking and thinking about more elegant and efficient ways to skin the healthcare cat.
Much of this has already been done, but more is probably needed before measures can be agreed to by both the House & Senate.
Just keep explaining, answering criticisms and pushing forward, without setting any artificial deadlines.
Practical deadlines are likely necessary, but a phased implementation over time makes sense.
If the opposition proves intractable -as it is acting- then something must be accomplished anyway, with or without their support.
And, regardless of attitudes, no entity EXCEPT the Federal Government can realistically take on this task.
It is interesting to see the contest between reasonable discourse and emotional distraction.
And, anger, fear, distrust and doubt can be effective weapons, but in the end their duplicity undermines their objective.
Advertisers understand that if a message is repeated often enough it will sell.
Repeat a slogan frequently and it is believed.
Repeated messages are inherent in advertising, religion, and politics.
But this reality cuts both ways, and I have confidence that principled progress will triumph over those who so ardently oppose it.
If you don't believe that, you may be part of the problem.
This country of ours has managed to slowly but surely change itself over its relatively brief history.
Just look at the egregious civil rights issues that have been improved, including slavery, universal suffrage and the like.
Not that changing our Constitution, laws or policies automatically solves a problem, but it can change our direction in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Something similar must happen in healthcare, and one hopes sooner rather later.
You can argue about the details, but not the need for change!
That is, if one truly values their own integrity, intelligence and compassion.
I hope our elected legislators get an earful before returning to their next Congressional session.
Then, I trust they will act to meaningfully improve our healthcare system.
If that doesn't happen, I will personally make this an issue that will not go away.
This is a promise, not a threat; it will be time for some elected officials to go!
-----------------------------------
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
'Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. '- Winston Churchill
'To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.' - Winston Churchill
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.'
- John F. Kennedy
'Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.'
- Winston Churchill
------------------------
A few years ago, a local right-wing politico couldn't resist shouting out 'John Watts has got to go!'
That outburst actually embarrassed some of this politico's cohorts to the extent they came up to me after the meeting and apologized.
But, you know that politico was right.
I did need to go, just like everyone does at some time.
The thing is, I get to pick the time and place, which in due course, I did.
In retrospect, I might have stayed too long, but past mistakes and decisions can't always be easily corrected.
There is one rather large mistake that has persisted over a half century which can be corrected, but only if Congress has the courage to do it.
Of course, there is again, a large chorus of politicos who are using every means at their disposal to frustrate any kind of meaningful change in our healthcare system.
And this is despite the crying need for breaking the grip of our 'status quo'.
As predicted in an earlier blog, the cacophony of noise and misinformation is reaching a crescendo of meanness, to our great shame as a democratic society.
But, there are ways to deal with this kind of strategy and associated tactics.
It won't be easy, but worthwhile things never are.
The antidote is to keep listening, talking and thinking about more elegant and efficient ways to skin the healthcare cat.
Much of this has already been done, but more is probably needed before measures can be agreed to by both the House & Senate.
Just keep explaining, answering criticisms and pushing forward, without setting any artificial deadlines.
Practical deadlines are likely necessary, but a phased implementation over time makes sense.
If the opposition proves intractable -as it is acting- then something must be accomplished anyway, with or without their support.
And, regardless of attitudes, no entity EXCEPT the Federal Government can realistically take on this task.
It is interesting to see the contest between reasonable discourse and emotional distraction.
And, anger, fear, distrust and doubt can be effective weapons, but in the end their duplicity undermines their objective.
Advertisers understand that if a message is repeated often enough it will sell.
Repeat a slogan frequently and it is believed.
Repeated messages are inherent in advertising, religion, and politics.
But this reality cuts both ways, and I have confidence that principled progress will triumph over those who so ardently oppose it.
If you don't believe that, you may be part of the problem.
This country of ours has managed to slowly but surely change itself over its relatively brief history.
Just look at the egregious civil rights issues that have been improved, including slavery, universal suffrage and the like.
Not that changing our Constitution, laws or policies automatically solves a problem, but it can change our direction in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Something similar must happen in healthcare, and one hopes sooner rather later.
You can argue about the details, but not the need for change!
That is, if one truly values their own integrity, intelligence and compassion.
I hope our elected legislators get an earful before returning to their next Congressional session.
Then, I trust they will act to meaningfully improve our healthcare system.
If that doesn't happen, I will personally make this an issue that will not go away.
This is a promise, not a threat; it will be time for some elected officials to go!
-----------------------------------
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
'Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. '- Winston Churchill
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
N.O.A.A: Crying In Our Beer?
---------------------
I'm sure there will be some disagreement with these views, but what's new about that?
While it is a disappointment for NOAA to decide against relocating to Bellingham, it never was a certainty.
And, to set our expectations unrealistically high only invites more disappointment at a time when what is needed is resiliency and rededication to the formidable task of seriously rejuvenating our waterfront.
So, if Plan A doesn't pan out, what is our Plan B?
If no Plan B exists, THAT is a problem!
If things hold to form, many folks will feel honest pain, but some may use this as an excuse to say things like 'I told you so', and cheer for degrees of failure out of jealousy, spite or just, old-fashioned, plain ill-will.
Remember those folks who have nay-sayed waterfront redevelopment all along?
Or, those who make a hobby out of second-guessing everyone, including the Port?
It may be a temporary field day for some of these folks, but it will be temporary.
Bellingham is capable of achieving good results in whatever it sets its mind to do.
If you don't believe that, check out what happened with the Olympic Pipe Line explosion.
Of course, for the waterfront, it may take a little longer, require a different mix of politicians, more mature ideas, and an improved economy with a little unexpected good luck throw in.
But, we will get there.
Believe it!
--------------
Yesterday and again today, articles on the NOAA decision appeared in Crosscut, authored by Floyd Mackay and Bob Simmons.
Both have interesting takes, which readers can access through the links provided.
One other Crosscut article by Jean Godden.
Today's Herald article combines some of this info with local reactions.
It is fascinating how the NOAA development coincides so closely with the upcoming elections, especially since the Port incumbents can't deny some of the inherent weakness of their suppositions.
Of course, they can also blame the failure to land NOAA on 'vocal locals', their loud and outspoken opposition.
But, will that help?
I don't think so.
One way or the other, it won't affect my voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley as new Port Commissioners.
Nothing personal, but it is definitely time for new blood and new thinking at the Port of Bellingham!
And, that is true -in my opinion- of ALL elected offices, local and otherwise.
----------------
One other point, which does not exclusively relate to the Port, concerns the continued beefs expressed about the legitimate use of executive sessions and/or lawyer/client privilege.
Neither of these are, of themselves, inherently illegal, no matter what may be claimed, suspected or spoken by those who enjoy using 'guvmint' for target practice sport.
In fact, as citizens, business owners or government entities, executive sessions and lawyer/client privilege are essential elements in our system of laws and representative government.
To be without them entirely would constitute real stupidity that would not be in anyone's best interest.
It would essentially paralyze many government decisions we generally take for granted, and that would not be a good thing!
If excesses or improprieties are suspected, then by all means we need to take the appropriate legal steps, especially if a government entity and/or monies are involved.
Of course, as citizens in this country, we are always entitled to freedom of expression, including speech and written statements.
But as RESPONSIBLE citizens, it is preferable that we are careful not to MISUSE this freedom either.
If more open public meetings and discussions are desired, let's require that our local governments record them for airing in public, whether people will choose to watch these or not.
That way, we actually get to see and hear what is said.
BTW, even though most City meetings are being televised, its hard to see many more people paying anymore attention to what's going on.
It seems it may be more fun for some to continue to speculate, listen to somebody else's biased opinion, or remain blissfully ignorant.
But, that's just my opinion.
-----------------
Regarding the adverse NOAA decision, there is no use to cry over spilt milk, especially when it didn't belong to us anyway.
But, its probably OK to cry in our beer, at least for a few days.
Then, it will be time to buckle down, suck it up and get on with the real work of figuring out where we go from here.
That's a job better undertaken with with fresh Port Commissioners and executive Director.
It may also be instructive to examine the reasons why Newport, OR was selected, and how that may have differed from what Bellingham had to offer.
Things like a more central location on the Pacific coast, direct access to the ocean- without excessive water traffic, proximity to major league, existing technical expertise, a less congested and growing area, and just possibly a more coordinated approach by local, regional, state and federal authorities, more certainty about what incentives are offered, etc.
Just a few things like that.
--------------------
I'm sure there will be some disagreement with these views, but what's new about that?
While it is a disappointment for NOAA to decide against relocating to Bellingham, it never was a certainty.
And, to set our expectations unrealistically high only invites more disappointment at a time when what is needed is resiliency and rededication to the formidable task of seriously rejuvenating our waterfront.
So, if Plan A doesn't pan out, what is our Plan B?
If no Plan B exists, THAT is a problem!
If things hold to form, many folks will feel honest pain, but some may use this as an excuse to say things like 'I told you so', and cheer for degrees of failure out of jealousy, spite or just, old-fashioned, plain ill-will.
Remember those folks who have nay-sayed waterfront redevelopment all along?
Or, those who make a hobby out of second-guessing everyone, including the Port?
It may be a temporary field day for some of these folks, but it will be temporary.
Bellingham is capable of achieving good results in whatever it sets its mind to do.
If you don't believe that, check out what happened with the Olympic Pipe Line explosion.
Of course, for the waterfront, it may take a little longer, require a different mix of politicians, more mature ideas, and an improved economy with a little unexpected good luck throw in.
But, we will get there.
Believe it!
--------------
Yesterday and again today, articles on the NOAA decision appeared in Crosscut, authored by Floyd Mackay and Bob Simmons.
Both have interesting takes, which readers can access through the links provided.
One other Crosscut article by Jean Godden.
Today's Herald article combines some of this info with local reactions.
It is fascinating how the NOAA development coincides so closely with the upcoming elections, especially since the Port incumbents can't deny some of the inherent weakness of their suppositions.
Of course, they can also blame the failure to land NOAA on 'vocal locals', their loud and outspoken opposition.
But, will that help?
I don't think so.
One way or the other, it won't affect my voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley as new Port Commissioners.
Nothing personal, but it is definitely time for new blood and new thinking at the Port of Bellingham!
And, that is true -in my opinion- of ALL elected offices, local and otherwise.
----------------
One other point, which does not exclusively relate to the Port, concerns the continued beefs expressed about the legitimate use of executive sessions and/or lawyer/client privilege.
Neither of these are, of themselves, inherently illegal, no matter what may be claimed, suspected or spoken by those who enjoy using 'guvmint' for target practice sport.
In fact, as citizens, business owners or government entities, executive sessions and lawyer/client privilege are essential elements in our system of laws and representative government.
To be without them entirely would constitute real stupidity that would not be in anyone's best interest.
It would essentially paralyze many government decisions we generally take for granted, and that would not be a good thing!
If excesses or improprieties are suspected, then by all means we need to take the appropriate legal steps, especially if a government entity and/or monies are involved.
Of course, as citizens in this country, we are always entitled to freedom of expression, including speech and written statements.
But as RESPONSIBLE citizens, it is preferable that we are careful not to MISUSE this freedom either.
If more open public meetings and discussions are desired, let's require that our local governments record them for airing in public, whether people will choose to watch these or not.
That way, we actually get to see and hear what is said.
BTW, even though most City meetings are being televised, its hard to see many more people paying anymore attention to what's going on.
It seems it may be more fun for some to continue to speculate, listen to somebody else's biased opinion, or remain blissfully ignorant.
But, that's just my opinion.
-----------------
Regarding the adverse NOAA decision, there is no use to cry over spilt milk, especially when it didn't belong to us anyway.
But, its probably OK to cry in our beer, at least for a few days.
Then, it will be time to buckle down, suck it up and get on with the real work of figuring out where we go from here.
That's a job better undertaken with with fresh Port Commissioners and executive Director.
It may also be instructive to examine the reasons why Newport, OR was selected, and how that may have differed from what Bellingham had to offer.
Things like a more central location on the Pacific coast, direct access to the ocean- without excessive water traffic, proximity to major league, existing technical expertise, a less congested and growing area, and just possibly a more coordinated approach by local, regional, state and federal authorities, more certainty about what incentives are offered, etc.
Just a few things like that.
--------------------
Saturday, August 1, 2009
August: Getting Started on the Right Foot
-----------------------
With respect to water, Canadians and Americans suffer from the same disease:
We say that it is priceless, but act as if it were absurdly cheap.
Most North Americans pay far less for their water than even just the cost of supplying it, cleaning it up and returning it to the environment.
Yet subsidizing water use is economically and ecologically disastrous.
In fact, heavy subsidization of water in the US is the cause of any water "shortages" that may exist there.
-Editorial, The Toronto Globe and Mail, 23 May 1998
-----------------------
Today is an exciting day for me since I expect my son, Tom, will arrive later this evening.
He is driving from North Carolina and enjoying seeing parts of the Country for the first time, including the State of Washington.
Right now, he's somewhere in Montana with a few miles yet to travel.
It will be fun showing Tom around this area, but that activity may slow down my blog production for a while, but who knows?
Maybe just the opposite will happen, with more short blurbs and photos.
-----------------------
I had another thought about yesterday's topic, which was preserving Lake Whatcom and our growing water treatment problem.
The idea of linking value to cost, or worth to price, ought to come into play more than it does.
Water rates, for example, only reflect the costs of treatment and distribution, by law.
Of course these costs also include the diversion system, monitoring water quality, acquiring & preserving critical watershed properties, public education, enforcement and the like, all of which are important aspects of reservoir preservation that we need to recognize aswe pay for them.
The raw reservoir [Lake] water itself is assigned no intrinsic value; thus, it's cost is ZERO!
That is because the waters of this state belongs to its citizens, not private corporations, which is as it should be.
But, that also means we, the citizens, are free to use these waters pretty much any way we choose, and that isn't always a good thing when it comes to saving good quality water for the future.
Part of the problem is that Washington State -unlike Oregon- long ago allowed mostly private ownership of its shorelines.
How does that fit with citizens being able to access and preserve their water?
I think it is a problem, and a big one that will be difficult to fix.
-------
That is why the Shoreline Management Program now being reviewed for approval by the City Council needs to be as strict as possible, including for Lake Whatcom.
Because the City's portion of the Lake is mostly already developed, or platted and vested, the shoreline buffers are almost entirely less wide than is necessary.
But, that isn't a reason the lots, property and homes that encroach upon good sense should not be deemed 'non-conforming'.
If we aren't able to communicate clearly to ALL STAKEHOLDERS that there are good reasons for having effective shoreline buffers, doesn't that represent a major lost opportunity for education?
I know some people will complain and say such an act is unwise and unenforceable -now or later- but there are others who will willingly accept the idea and learn from it.
So, I hope the Council decides to increase the buffer width for Lake Whatcom, Silver Creek and other tributaries to at least 100 feet.
I don't know what Whatcom County has settled upon, but at least match their effort.
The Shoreline Management Program has not been updated substantially for close to 20 years, and now is considered as an essential adjunct to our Growth Management Act; some say it acts as a 14th GMA goal.
So, I hope the City Council decision reflects very thoughtful care for what the SMP can do for us over time, and not simple expediency, even though that may seem simpler.
-----------
I have always been a big advocate of tap water—not because I think it harmless but because the idea of purchasing water extracted from some remote watershed and then hauled halfway round the world bothers me. Drinking bottled water relieves people of their concern about ecological threats to the river they live by or to the basins of groundwater they live over. It's the same kind of thinking that leads some to the complacent conclusion that if things on earth get bad enough, well, we'll just blast off to a space station somewhere else. - Sandra Steingraber, Having Faith, 2001
-------
I strongly agree with the above quote, because the idea of associating the water I drink with its source, care, custody and control, appeals to me.
For example, if you are out in the wilderness, what do you do for water?
Find a source of clean water and a relatively safe location to access it.
Fill a container and treat the water, either by filtering, dissolving chlorine/iodine or boiling.
Drink only this carefully treated water, except in extreme emergencies.
Why not think about using similar steps with our tap water?
A quick true story:
Years ago, a friend made his first business trip to Mexico City, being aware that 'Montezuma's Revenge' could be a problem if he weren't careful.
He checked into a modern hotel, but decided to not use the tap water for drinking or even brushing his teeth.
Instead, he purchased expensive bottled water to drink; little did he know how expensive!
He got a very bad case of 'M-R' and had to be treated medically.
Later, he found out the source was the bottled water he'd purchased; where it had come from nobody knew!
The tap water he'd avoided in the hotel was not only OK but of very good quality.
Think there may be a lesson here?
Lake Whatcom is our RESERVOIR, first and foremost!
----------------------
With respect to water, Canadians and Americans suffer from the same disease:
We say that it is priceless, but act as if it were absurdly cheap.
Most North Americans pay far less for their water than even just the cost of supplying it, cleaning it up and returning it to the environment.
Yet subsidizing water use is economically and ecologically disastrous.
In fact, heavy subsidization of water in the US is the cause of any water "shortages" that may exist there.
-Editorial, The Toronto Globe and Mail, 23 May 1998
-----------------------
Today is an exciting day for me since I expect my son, Tom, will arrive later this evening.
He is driving from North Carolina and enjoying seeing parts of the Country for the first time, including the State of Washington.
Right now, he's somewhere in Montana with a few miles yet to travel.
It will be fun showing Tom around this area, but that activity may slow down my blog production for a while, but who knows?
Maybe just the opposite will happen, with more short blurbs and photos.
-----------------------
I had another thought about yesterday's topic, which was preserving Lake Whatcom and our growing water treatment problem.
The idea of linking value to cost, or worth to price, ought to come into play more than it does.
Water rates, for example, only reflect the costs of treatment and distribution, by law.
Of course these costs also include the diversion system, monitoring water quality, acquiring & preserving critical watershed properties, public education, enforcement and the like, all of which are important aspects of reservoir preservation that we need to recognize aswe pay for them.
The raw reservoir [Lake] water itself is assigned no intrinsic value; thus, it's cost is ZERO!
That is because the waters of this state belongs to its citizens, not private corporations, which is as it should be.
But, that also means we, the citizens, are free to use these waters pretty much any way we choose, and that isn't always a good thing when it comes to saving good quality water for the future.
Part of the problem is that Washington State -unlike Oregon- long ago allowed mostly private ownership of its shorelines.
How does that fit with citizens being able to access and preserve their water?
I think it is a problem, and a big one that will be difficult to fix.
-------
That is why the Shoreline Management Program now being reviewed for approval by the City Council needs to be as strict as possible, including for Lake Whatcom.
Because the City's portion of the Lake is mostly already developed, or platted and vested, the shoreline buffers are almost entirely less wide than is necessary.
But, that isn't a reason the lots, property and homes that encroach upon good sense should not be deemed 'non-conforming'.
If we aren't able to communicate clearly to ALL STAKEHOLDERS that there are good reasons for having effective shoreline buffers, doesn't that represent a major lost opportunity for education?
I know some people will complain and say such an act is unwise and unenforceable -now or later- but there are others who will willingly accept the idea and learn from it.
So, I hope the Council decides to increase the buffer width for Lake Whatcom, Silver Creek and other tributaries to at least 100 feet.
I don't know what Whatcom County has settled upon, but at least match their effort.
The Shoreline Management Program has not been updated substantially for close to 20 years, and now is considered as an essential adjunct to our Growth Management Act; some say it acts as a 14th GMA goal.
So, I hope the City Council decision reflects very thoughtful care for what the SMP can do for us over time, and not simple expediency, even though that may seem simpler.
-----------
I have always been a big advocate of tap water—not because I think it harmless but because the idea of purchasing water extracted from some remote watershed and then hauled halfway round the world bothers me. Drinking bottled water relieves people of their concern about ecological threats to the river they live by or to the basins of groundwater they live over. It's the same kind of thinking that leads some to the complacent conclusion that if things on earth get bad enough, well, we'll just blast off to a space station somewhere else. - Sandra Steingraber, Having Faith, 2001
-------
I strongly agree with the above quote, because the idea of associating the water I drink with its source, care, custody and control, appeals to me.
For example, if you are out in the wilderness, what do you do for water?
Find a source of clean water and a relatively safe location to access it.
Fill a container and treat the water, either by filtering, dissolving chlorine/iodine or boiling.
Drink only this carefully treated water, except in extreme emergencies.
Why not think about using similar steps with our tap water?
A quick true story:
Years ago, a friend made his first business trip to Mexico City, being aware that 'Montezuma's Revenge' could be a problem if he weren't careful.
He checked into a modern hotel, but decided to not use the tap water for drinking or even brushing his teeth.
Instead, he purchased expensive bottled water to drink; little did he know how expensive!
He got a very bad case of 'M-R' and had to be treated medically.
Later, he found out the source was the bottled water he'd purchased; where it had come from nobody knew!
The tap water he'd avoided in the hotel was not only OK but of very good quality.
Think there may be a lesson here?
Lake Whatcom is our RESERVOIR, first and foremost!
----------------------
Friday, July 31, 2009
Lake Whatcom: How Does Your Garden Grow?
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." - attributed to Mark Twain
“It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”
- Winston Churchill
-----------------------
Like most gardens, Mistress Mary's grew with the help of nutrients and sunshine.
But, weeds also grow with this kind of help.
And, the broadest definition of 'weed', is a plant that is unwanted or unwelcome in a place.
So it is with Lake Whatcom.
Algae are plant-like organisms with an affinity for water, especially water that has the main plant nutrients -Phosphorus, Nitrogen and Potassium- and sufficient sunlight to sustain photosynthesis.
More nutrients and sunlight usually means more rapid growth.
Bingo! Guess what's happening in our water supply reservoir?
Many residents and water rate-payers probably received an urgent automated phone message from our Mayor very recently, which advised of mandatory water use restrictions.
That's not the type of call we like, but it has become necessary, as it has several times in the past and will likely happen in the future.
One only hopes that it doesn't happen often, but don't bet against it.
Here's another report on this from today's Crosscut:
Not long ago some people noticed that the City's website had posted two announcements that seemed mutually incompatible.
One warned of increased algae levels and the possibility of future restrictions, like we now have.
The other reported that the City had received yet another award of excellence for its quality of drinking water.
In fact, Bellingham was one of only 16 cities in the US that had earned this particular honor for 10 years in a row!
That is truly commendable, whether algae is a potential threat or not!
That algae IS a serious threat -as our recent restriction proves- makes the City's achievement award even more commendable
Not to minimize the threat, mind you, but to emphasize the extra effort and expense necessary on an ongoing basis to even 'tread water' in our increasingly undersized and obsolescent water treatment plant.
The algae clogging the filters is a sure sign of nothing but increasing trouble that won't be easy or cheap to rectify.
Because inadequate treatment is unacceptable, the City must take steps to remedy this situation, and every water rate-payer will have be bear their fair share of the expense, both capital and operating.
But, that is not all.
We will eventually learn to accept drinking water with poorer taste, odor and residual impurities, too.
The City does have choices in the steps it can take.
One of the better choices is to maintain a pure raw water supply; in other words a fairly pristine Lake Whatcom.
The USEPA & WA State Dept of Ecology define this as the first line of defense, or barrier against pollution.
But, with ever increasing development growth and lake use, that option has steadily diminished, as it still is.
Other options are very likely to be much more expensive and less effective.
Like water treatment for example.
We humans know how to make pure water out of seawater, and even recycled human waste, as the Astronauts have proven!
Want to pay for that?
Hey, did you think there was a big water spigot up there in space?
Another option is simple conservation, which won't prevent the water quality and quantity problem from happening, but will delay it substantially.
A related option is to require water meters, as the City has recently gotten serious about. [see earlier blog on Water/Sewer]
Meters would encourage conservation, but mainly would assess water costs much more fairly, based on actual usage.
You don't see everyone paying the same amount for gasoline, do you?
That depends on how many gallons you use each month!
Why not water?
Maybe rather than complaining about the 'mixed message' that some have interpreted the City's website to make, we should see the conflict between short term expectations and long term adverse trends.
The City has managed to make the best out of what hand is has been dealt by past practices, many of which are outside its direct control.
Ten years ago, when I first got involved with local politics and trying to preserve Lake Whatcom, the City of Bellingham comprised about 2% of this 30,000-plus acre watershed, with the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County accounting for 96% and Skagit County the rest.
Get that picture?
Since then, various measures have been adopted, tried or financed by various jurisdictions, the sum total of which can only be termed as INEFFECTIVE.
This is the kind of game where one does not get credit for effort, actions or talk, but RESULTS.
And the kind of results that are necessary are not being seen.
Please understand that I am not defending or attacking the City or any other jurisdiction.
I am merely reporting the facts, warts and all.
Many of the actions taken or now being considered are commendable, including the City' pushing its water treatment plant to ever higher capacities and limits.
In a real sense, the water situation can be directly compared to a human health scenario, where fortunate people are healthy and free of conditions or diseases that put them at undue risk.
Others are not so fortunate, but you may never know it until too late.
Take folks with diabetes; think that puts them at higher risk by making them susceptible to all manner of threats?
You better, because it does -whether you suspect that or not!
In a similar way, the City has coped with its growing algae problem, until it is no longer treated as something that isn't discussed widely, like an embarrassing relative.
That time is obviously coming to an end.
As it ought to if we are to take the steps that have been wiser all along, but are just now becoming too big to ignore with impunity.
--------------------------------
Previous blogs have also touched on the gross lack of water planning in Whatcom County [WRIA], and the State of Washington in general -where the Doe continues to hand out well permits for water that does not exist!
What is wrong with this picture?
As has been said, 'denial is not just a river in Egypt'.
And, speaking of Egypt, the vast majority of its 83 million people either live in the Nile Valley or Delta, or very close to the Suez Canal -about 5% of its total land area.
-----------------------
Thursday, July 30, 2009
On 'Town & Gown' Issues
The recent flaps involving the New Haven Firemen and the Cambridge Police made me wonder if what happened in those two prestigious university towns wasn't somewhat predictable, due to attitudes developed over time.
Of course, Bellingham and Western Washington University also have some 'issues' that seem to be resilient enough to defy any easy or lasting resolution.
Without being exhaustive, these issues pertain to neighbors, landlords, transportation, taxes & fees for service, competition for jobs, different attitudes toward responsibilities and codes of conduct, enforcement problems, and the like.
Those interested may appreciate this Wikipedia website for a short history and summary of this unique type of relationship.
A quick read may surprise you, because of the number and type of problems that some Bellinghamsters may feel are unique to our town.
Here are a few excerpts as examples for those not wishing to review the entire link:
---------
The idea of a school of higher learning as a distinct and autonomous institution within an urban setting dates back to Academy founded by Plato c. 387 BC.---------
---------
The initial relationship between the medieval universities and the host town was adversarial for various reasons, and over time the universities’ growing autonomy and independence from local control led to increasing tensions with host towns. Also, the steady encroachment of universities upon neighboring areas created a point of contention between town and gown (continuing to the present).
---------
The medieval universities formed as guilds of masters (teachers) and/or students on the model established by the crafts guilds. Once the scholars were able to receive a charter, they would begin negotiations with municipal authorities to secure fair rents for lecture halls and other concessions. Because they had no investment in a physical campus, they could threaten to migrate to another town if their demands weren’t met.
---------
Many university students were foreigners with exotic manners and dress who spoke and wrote Latin, the lingua franca of medieval higher education. Students often couldn't speak the local dialect, and most uneducated townspeople spoke no Latin. The language barrier and the cultural differences did nothing to improve relations between scholars and townspeople. The tenor of town-gown relations became a matter of arrogance on the one hand and resentment on the other.
---------
Following the upheavals of the High Middle Ages, relations between the European universities and the host towns evolved toward a pattern of mutual support. Cities, on some occasions took over payment of salaries and provided loans, while regulating the book trade, lodgings, and the various other services students required. Eventually, cities began to take pride in their universities rather than look upon them as adversaries.
---------
Over the centuries, the relationship between town and gown has remained ambivalent. There have been points where a university in crisis has been rescued by the urban dynamics surrounding it, while at other times urban developments have threatened to undermine the stability of the university. Conversely, there have been occasions where the university provided a focus and coherence for the cultural life of the city; though at other times, it has withdrawn into itself and undermined urban culture.[2]
---------
If there is one constant in town-gown relations over the centuries, if can be summed up with the maxim, “Students will be students.” College students, past and present, have a good deal of free time notwithstanding their obligations to study. How they use this time is often perceived as troubling or disruptive by non-students
---------
Residential colleges became a fixture in European universities, while American colleges (often located in small towns) sequestered students in dormitories under close supervision.
---------
The doctrine of in loco parentis had developed both as a legal concept and as a custom in the United States. The Latin phrase meaning "in the place of the parents," held schools to a high standard of care for the welfare of students. However, this legal concept was eroded by the Bradshaw decision[4] and by subsequent court rulings. The pendulum would swing back toward the medieval model where students could enjoy significant autonomy in their choice of residence and habits.[5]
---------
The trend of American students living off campus had emerged during the post-World War II era. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act legislation, popularly known as the "G.I. Bill", provided large numbers of returning veterans with the financial aid to pursue college degrees. Many veterans were older than traditional-aged students, or had families to support; this further spurred the growth of off campus housing. It was estimated that by century’s end as many as 85% of American college students lived off campus (Carnegie Commission). This residential trend — and other factors — would mitigate the division between town and gown (but not necessarily the tensions).
---------
However, the recent integration of campus and community has not been without problems. For one thing, an urban university can generate major traffic and exacerbate parking problems in adjacent neighborhoods. The quality of neighborhoods near a university may deteriorate.
---------
Local residents and members of the university community may clash over other political, economic, and demographic issues
---------
Municipalities and universities continue to negotiate police jurisdiction on and near campuses.
---------
Raucous off-campus parties and the excessive noise and public drunkenness associated with them can also create town-gown animosity.
---------
To a large extent, “town versus gown” disputes have moved from the streets into the courts and city hall. In the US, a rash of disputes between public universities and host cities have developed in regard to the cost and benefits of the town-gown connection. Universities boast that their existence is the backbone of the town economy, while the towns counter with claims that the institution is “robbing” them of tax revenue. But as universities expand their campuses, more land property is removed from local tax rolls. Attempts are being pursued to redefine the basic financial terms and conditions upon which the relationship is based.
---------
Despite the rise in legal battles, universities and host towns have an incentive to cooperate, as the schools require city services and need city approval for long-range plans while the university towns need remuneration for public services provided. The “engaged university” is a recent term describing community partnerships and joint planning with city officials.
---------
Town-gown parameters may become increasingly difficult to define in the near future. Geography is less salient as a factor in urban higher education in the Information Age.
---------
The 12th century witnessed the birth of the first predecessors of the modern university; many educational futurists argue that the division between town and gown is rapidly fading, and that the 21st century is the cusp of another revolutionary educational paradigm. According to these forecasts, the 21st century college student may well be someone sitting at his or her personal computer miles from a college campus.
Raucous off-campus parties and the excessive noise and public drunkenness associated with them can also create town-gown animosity. -- The end result was the university's adoption of a new "Code of Conduct" to govern student behavior.-----------------------
I can remember my college days in Charlottesville, VA - also a relatively small town compared to the school size- had some of these issues too.
And, it's easy to see why, when different rules and lifestyles apply to different populations of people living in close proximity.
Then, there's the difference in commitment between temporary residents who come here for a few years for education purposes, and permanent residents who have a vested interest in seeing their town being a stable home.
Given the range and inherent complexity of 'town & gown' issues, plus the notable trend toward off-campus living and remote Internet learning, it seems reasonable to expect that student codes of conduct and inter-local agreements between towns and colleges are the best-fit remedies available.
Having been both a student in a distant town and resident of multiple communities with colleges, I have seen both sides of the issues and problems that are possible.
Because I had previously arrived at a similar conclusion some time ago, the new information cited above seems to re-confirm it.
That is not to diminish any real difficulties that residents may have, but to point a reasonable direction toward resolutions likely to work without further exacerbating 'town & gown' or other relationships, or imposing unnecessary additional public costs.
My two cents worth.
--------------------------------------
WWU recognizes the types of problems that off-campus living can create, as this link demonstrates:
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Famous Pig
------------------
“The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'.”
- Martina Navratilova
“Always remember, a cat looks down on man, a dog looks up to man, but a pig will look man right in the eye and see his equal.” - Winston Churchill
“Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an absolute aim. I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the ambitions of a pig.”
- Albert Einstein
“You should never try and teach a pig to read for two reasons. First, it's impossible; and secondly, it annoys the hell out of the pig!” - Will Rogers
Edible - good to eat and wholesome to digest, as a worm to a toad, a toad to a snake, a snake to a pig, a pig to a man, and a man to a worm.
- Ambrose Bierce
I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. - George Bernard Shaw
------------------
The Famous Pig
Some time ago a farmer in Iowa owned a pig that became famous for its unusual and repeated acts of heroism.
Time after time, this pig made headlines, which the farmer duly recorded in a scrapbook for future reference.
Acts with which the pig is credited include the following examples, which is by no means a complete list:
• waking the farmer and his family at night when the barn caught fire and threatened not only the livestock, but the farmhouse as well.
• scaring off burglars while the farmer was away with repeated loud squealing.
• herding back to the corral calves and lambs that escaped and were wandering off.
• finding a lost toddler in the corn field.
• winning the top 4-H award for best pig.
• alerting the authorities through the farmer , of a hot-air balloon that had crashed nearby.
• guiding the kids home from the school bus stop through the snow.
• rooting through the mud to find the farmer's wife's lost wedding ring.
• and on and on, sometimes even repeating some of these acts multiple times.
You get the idea, this was not only a famous pig, but a VERY special one indeed!
One day, a renowned reporter arrived to research the various reports of the pig's heroism and write a human interest feature article for a leading magazine.
The farmer and his family welcomed the reporter with their usual hospitality and regaled him with endless stories and first-hand accounts of their pig's good deeds, and gave him copies of those scrapbook entries that he felt were particularly newsworthy.
Finally, the reporter had had enough information and asked to see the famous pig.
The farmer took him to the pig pen, where a number of pigs, large and small, were rooting and resting in the mud and dirt.
At first glance, the reporter thought none of the pigs looked particularly heroic, or even pig-handsome for that matter, and he really couldn't tell which was the famous pig, until the farmer called 'Famous' to come over.
Immediately, a good-sized,- but otherwise nondescript- pig got up and obediently made its way toward the reporter.
But something seemed amiss, because the famous pig walked with a slight limp.
Then, the reporter noticed that this pig had only three legs; a hind leg was missing.
Now, since that seemed to be the angle the reporter was looking for, he commented to the farmer that it really was unusual for this pig, known for all its acts of heroism, to only have three legs!
To which the farmer the farmer replied that Famous used to have four legs, but a pig that good you don't want to eat all at one time.
-------------
Sorry you read this far?
Maybe the heat made me do it.
But, hey, give me a better one and I might use it.
-------------
These are bagpipes. I understand the inventor of the bagpipes was inspired when he saw a man carrying an indignant, asthmatic pig under his arm. Unfortunately, the man-made sound never equalled the purity of the sound achieved by the pig.
- Alfred Hitchcock
“'When you wake up in the morning, Pooh,' said Piglet at last, 'what's the first thing you say to yourself?' 'What's for breakfast?' said Pooh. 'What do you say, Piglet?' 'I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?' said Piglet. Pooh nodded thoughtfully. 'It's the same thing,' he said.” - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
---------------
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Gorilla
---------------------------------
For many years, I read Reader's Digest and was particularly enamored of it's feature called 'Laughter Is The Best Medicine'.
To this day, I still enjoy a good joke, although they may not be as fit for family reading as they used to be.
You can decide on this one.
---------------------------------
The Gorilla
A big zoo in Texas was proud of acquiring a prime specimen of Mountain Gorilla.
In addition to being physically impressive, this gorilla had a very pleasing personality and a real affinity for people, a characteristic that the zoo hoped to capitalize upon to help increase attendance and defray the investment and maintenance costs of its new star attraction.
So, it was a mixture of concern and disappointment that the zoo management felt when it learned the new gorilla had begun to act strangely with animated antics that seemed likely to endanger its own well-being.
The gorilla was making loud repetitive sounds, leaping around, climbing the cage walls and then flinging itself violently to the ground.
Also, its eating habits had fallen dramatically and it didn't seem to welcome zoo visitors.
The Head Zoo-Keeper called an emergency meeting to discuss what could be done, especially considering the Zoo's financial limitations.
No one seemed to have a good idea of exactly what to do, but the Assistant Zoo-Keeper did suggest asking his promising new part-time helper, Tex, for his advice.
Tex was a strapping young man who had an unusual understanding and affinity for animals.
Having been raised on a working ranch, Tex's actual experience with animals was pretty extensive.
So, it was natural for him to elect to study Animal Husbandry when he was offered a scholarship to Texas A&M University.
Now, after only one year at A&M, Tex was really excited about being offered an internship at the zoo.
It didn't take long for young Tex to assess the situation with the prize gorilla, whereupon he duly reported his findings and recommendations to the Zoo management.
He had concluded that the gorilla was a female, in heat, and that the best way to alleviate the bizarre behavior was to simply mate her.
The Head Zoo-Keeper was relieved to learn what the problem was, but distressed at the potential cost, and mentioned that finances might limit any remedy to no more than about $300.
With this new constraint, Tex asked for some more time to think on it.
Later, Tex knocked on the Head Zoo-Keeper's door, then entered, removing his 10-gallon hat.
Looking a little sheepish, Tex explained he had a proposal, but it was contingent on three conditions;
Number 1 - I ain't gonna kiss her!
Number 2 - The Zoo needs to fit the gorilla with padded gloves, 'cause I don't want my back all scratched up'.
Number 3 - I ain't gonna pay more than $100!
----------------------------------
I hope this hasn't offended anyone too much, but it is one of those jokes I remember so vividly -not so much because of the 'punch line', but the way the joke was told with such relish!
My friend Horace is a Texan, a jovial guy who attended the University of Texas in Austin, and who really loved to tell 'Aggie' jokes.
He told this one at lunch time, back in 1983 or 84, with 3 other people present, and it took him longer than I could imagine, because he himself enjoyed the telling so much!
Horace would actually stop every so often and just chuckle aloud at what was to come next.
And, being rather portly in build, when Horace laughed, you knew it.
Long before the joke ended, he had us all laughing along with him, a progressive kind of anticipation that just kept building on itself.
One might call this kind of laughter -especially with Horace- a 'belly laugh', but actually it was more than that.
It was a side-splitter, and you actually began to feel pain in your gut by not being able to control the involuntary mirth.
There were times when I wondered if the restaurant might throw us out, so many people were attracted to our jollity.
But, they didn't and we eventually left, weak kneed and red-eyed and lighter in the pocket, due to the larger than usual tip.
Joke experiences like this don't come along very often, which is unfortunate.
But, when they do, you tend to remember them vividly.
I was reminded of this experience last night a friend's birthday celebration, where the price of admission was to bring a joke.
I didn't tell this one then, but next time, I might.
-------------------
My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes. ~Douglas Adams [Author - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know.
Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know.
Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about.
Amen. ~Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
Lord, lord, lord. Protect me from the consequences of the above prayer. ~Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law
Murphy's law is an adage that broadly states: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong."
And on the eighth day God said, "Okay, Murphy, you're in charge!" ~Author Unknown
Murphy was an optimist. ~O'Toole's Commentary
-----------------------
For many years, I read Reader's Digest and was particularly enamored of it's feature called 'Laughter Is The Best Medicine'.
To this day, I still enjoy a good joke, although they may not be as fit for family reading as they used to be.
You can decide on this one.
---------------------------------
The Gorilla
A big zoo in Texas was proud of acquiring a prime specimen of Mountain Gorilla.
In addition to being physically impressive, this gorilla had a very pleasing personality and a real affinity for people, a characteristic that the zoo hoped to capitalize upon to help increase attendance and defray the investment and maintenance costs of its new star attraction.
So, it was a mixture of concern and disappointment that the zoo management felt when it learned the new gorilla had begun to act strangely with animated antics that seemed likely to endanger its own well-being.
The gorilla was making loud repetitive sounds, leaping around, climbing the cage walls and then flinging itself violently to the ground.
Also, its eating habits had fallen dramatically and it didn't seem to welcome zoo visitors.
The Head Zoo-Keeper called an emergency meeting to discuss what could be done, especially considering the Zoo's financial limitations.
No one seemed to have a good idea of exactly what to do, but the Assistant Zoo-Keeper did suggest asking his promising new part-time helper, Tex, for his advice.
Tex was a strapping young man who had an unusual understanding and affinity for animals.
Having been raised on a working ranch, Tex's actual experience with animals was pretty extensive.
So, it was natural for him to elect to study Animal Husbandry when he was offered a scholarship to Texas A&M University.
Now, after only one year at A&M, Tex was really excited about being offered an internship at the zoo.
It didn't take long for young Tex to assess the situation with the prize gorilla, whereupon he duly reported his findings and recommendations to the Zoo management.
He had concluded that the gorilla was a female, in heat, and that the best way to alleviate the bizarre behavior was to simply mate her.
The Head Zoo-Keeper was relieved to learn what the problem was, but distressed at the potential cost, and mentioned that finances might limit any remedy to no more than about $300.
With this new constraint, Tex asked for some more time to think on it.
Later, Tex knocked on the Head Zoo-Keeper's door, then entered, removing his 10-gallon hat.
Looking a little sheepish, Tex explained he had a proposal, but it was contingent on three conditions;
Number 1 - I ain't gonna kiss her!
Number 2 - The Zoo needs to fit the gorilla with padded gloves, 'cause I don't want my back all scratched up'.
Number 3 - I ain't gonna pay more than $100!
----------------------------------
I hope this hasn't offended anyone too much, but it is one of those jokes I remember so vividly -not so much because of the 'punch line', but the way the joke was told with such relish!
My friend Horace is a Texan, a jovial guy who attended the University of Texas in Austin, and who really loved to tell 'Aggie' jokes.
He told this one at lunch time, back in 1983 or 84, with 3 other people present, and it took him longer than I could imagine, because he himself enjoyed the telling so much!
Horace would actually stop every so often and just chuckle aloud at what was to come next.
And, being rather portly in build, when Horace laughed, you knew it.
Long before the joke ended, he had us all laughing along with him, a progressive kind of anticipation that just kept building on itself.
One might call this kind of laughter -especially with Horace- a 'belly laugh', but actually it was more than that.
It was a side-splitter, and you actually began to feel pain in your gut by not being able to control the involuntary mirth.
There were times when I wondered if the restaurant might throw us out, so many people were attracted to our jollity.
But, they didn't and we eventually left, weak kneed and red-eyed and lighter in the pocket, due to the larger than usual tip.
Joke experiences like this don't come along very often, which is unfortunate.
But, when they do, you tend to remember them vividly.
I was reminded of this experience last night a friend's birthday celebration, where the price of admission was to bring a joke.
I didn't tell this one then, but next time, I might.
-------------------
My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes. ~Douglas Adams [Author - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know.
Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know.
Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about.
Amen. ~Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
Lord, lord, lord. Protect me from the consequences of the above prayer. ~Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law
Murphy's law is an adage that broadly states: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong."
And on the eighth day God said, "Okay, Murphy, you're in charge!" ~Author Unknown
Murphy was an optimist. ~O'Toole's Commentary
-----------------------
Monday, July 27, 2009
HamsterTalk's 2nd Birthday
----------------------------
What may be done at any time will be done at no time. - Scottish Proverb
Dost thou love life? Then waste not time; for time is the stuff that life is made of. - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
----------------------------
Time flies.
Today's posting -number 315- marks the end of this blog's second year in existence.
Little did I know enough topics would create the interest I needed to persist this long.
But, it has been fun - most of the time, anyway.
So, I'll plan to continue it for a while longer.
Because most of my subject matter applies to City issues, I believe its important to maintain some level of commentary.
And, anything approaching in-depth coverage elsewhere has either declined, or has been lacking for a long time.
I am glad that BTV10 is now covering many more City meetings and events than it ever has before, including substantial live coverage that allows folks to watch the action either in real time, or with delays -including streaming video on the City's website- for convenience.
Without overestimating it, I think having that capability is important for this community, whether it is used extensively or not.
[There remains evidence that facts are still substantially ignored!]
It would be nice if more Whatcom County and Port of Bellingham meetings were also televised.
The expense of taping these events is pretty minimal, and BTV10 will publicly air them on a known schedule.
I know some folks still aren't comfortable with making public meetings more public, but that's an excuse, not a reason.
It was a little strange that this idea hasn't come up in the County and Port candidate forums and debates, but maybe its not really as popular an idea as I may think.
At some point it would be interesting to know about how many people regularly use these audio and video records of official meetings.
Of course, this probably varies widely by issue.
----------------------------
Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived. - CAPTAIN JEAN-LUC PICARD [Star Trek]
----------------------------
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Water Meters: It's About Time
----------------------------
Children of a culture born in a water-rich environment, we have never really learned how important water is to us. We understand it, but we do not respect it. - William Ashworth, Nor Any Drop to Drink, 1982
"We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one." - Jacques Cousteau -
----------------------------
Today's Herald carried this article, which signals the City has finally bought into the idea that it needs water meters.
This decision has been a long time coming, and it will take time to accomplish, but it is the right thing to do.
Inherently, meters allow users to regulate their own water use and not have to subsidize those who use more than necessary.
That is fairer than the system we have allowed to happen, plus it puts conservation opportunities in clearer monetary perspective.
Bellingham and Everett were the only cities in the State of Washington which remained in denial that water meters were needed.
Because of that stance, both cities are now well behind in providing meters to users, particularly those long-time users living in established neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, some of those more modest residences could have benefitted greatly from voluntary water conservation over the years.
New construction has been more fortunate because meter boxes have been required for some, meaning retrofitting meters is relatively simple.
And, new technology allows reading of meters to be be nearly automatic.
Yet, there remain some negative attitudes about meters.
Some perceive an advantage to not having meters, because others would subsidize their over use of water.
Others see meters as an unnecessary expense.
A few see the conversion as yet another 'guvmint' intrusion on private citizens.
While there is some truth in all of these positions, the overall best interests of Bellingham citizens are served by installing water meters.
One point needs to be emphasized; our water system is wholly financed by rates, system development charges [impact fees] and fees from water users.
That now also includes the costs of meters to be installed.
As a so-called 'Enterprise Fund' our Water System Utility is designed to be self-sustaining, just like the Sewer and Stormwater Funds.
Periodic adjustments to rates are needed depending upon the need for system-wide improvements, like storage tanks, mains and distribution piping, water treatment expansion, meters and the like.
With 20-20 hindsight, the City might have avoided the need for this expensive upgrade, but we are where we are and must deal with it the best we can.
Everyone will agree that the idea of fairness in cost and individual decisions regarding water use & conservation are desirable.
And, undue financial burdens on individuals are being avoided, with metering being phased in over time.
Thankfully, this is the direction Bellingham is now headed, toward fairness, conservation and sustainability.
--------------------------------------
When the well is dry, we know the worth of water. - Benjamin Franklin
In the Western United States, water flows uphill to money. - Glen Sanders
--------------------------------------
Children of a culture born in a water-rich environment, we have never really learned how important water is to us. We understand it, but we do not respect it. - William Ashworth, Nor Any Drop to Drink, 1982
"We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one." - Jacques Cousteau -
----------------------------
Today's Herald carried this article, which signals the City has finally bought into the idea that it needs water meters.
This decision has been a long time coming, and it will take time to accomplish, but it is the right thing to do.
Inherently, meters allow users to regulate their own water use and not have to subsidize those who use more than necessary.
That is fairer than the system we have allowed to happen, plus it puts conservation opportunities in clearer monetary perspective.
Bellingham and Everett were the only cities in the State of Washington which remained in denial that water meters were needed.
Because of that stance, both cities are now well behind in providing meters to users, particularly those long-time users living in established neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, some of those more modest residences could have benefitted greatly from voluntary water conservation over the years.
New construction has been more fortunate because meter boxes have been required for some, meaning retrofitting meters is relatively simple.
And, new technology allows reading of meters to be be nearly automatic.
Yet, there remain some negative attitudes about meters.
Some perceive an advantage to not having meters, because others would subsidize their over use of water.
Others see meters as an unnecessary expense.
A few see the conversion as yet another 'guvmint' intrusion on private citizens.
While there is some truth in all of these positions, the overall best interests of Bellingham citizens are served by installing water meters.
One point needs to be emphasized; our water system is wholly financed by rates, system development charges [impact fees] and fees from water users.
That now also includes the costs of meters to be installed.
As a so-called 'Enterprise Fund' our Water System Utility is designed to be self-sustaining, just like the Sewer and Stormwater Funds.
Periodic adjustments to rates are needed depending upon the need for system-wide improvements, like storage tanks, mains and distribution piping, water treatment expansion, meters and the like.
With 20-20 hindsight, the City might have avoided the need for this expensive upgrade, but we are where we are and must deal with it the best we can.
Everyone will agree that the idea of fairness in cost and individual decisions regarding water use & conservation are desirable.
And, undue financial burdens on individuals are being avoided, with metering being phased in over time.
Thankfully, this is the direction Bellingham is now headed, toward fairness, conservation and sustainability.
--------------------------------------
When the well is dry, we know the worth of water. - Benjamin Franklin
In the Western United States, water flows uphill to money. - Glen Sanders
--------------------------------------
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Lake Whatcom: Is TMDL a Waste of Time?
---------------------------
I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
---------------------------
Some years ago the City engaged Drs. Hans & Ann-Marie Bleiker to conduct training sessions on how to achieve 'Systematic Development of Informed Consent' on major projects important to our community.
The method was time-intensive, but often much more effective than the usual fumbling efforts.
But, predictably, use of the Bleiker method was largely ignored, with few exceptions.
Too bad, but that's often the way that thoughtful and well-intended ideas go.
Witness, for example, protecting our drinking water source, cleaning up and re-building our waterfront, completing the County-wide Water Resource Inventory work [WRIA-1], and agreeing on a plan to efficiently expand and modernize the Bellingham Public Library.
The method's purpose is NOT necessarily to build consensus, but to build consent to understanding and accepting good solutions.
And, there is a big difference between the concepts of citizen participation and stakeholder involvement.
The 'Bleiker LIfe-Preserver' summarizes the four essential steps in the method:
(1) There is a serious problem, or opportunity – one that has to be addressed.
(2) Yours is the right entity to be addressing this problem; in fact it would be irresponsible of you, given the mission you have, if you did not address it.
(3) The way you are approaching the problem, the way you are addressing it is reasonable, sensible and responsible.
(4) You do listen. You do care. If you are proposing something that’s going to cause pain, it is not because you don’t care.
------------------------------
On page 27 [Worksheet 4-1] of this website is a simple generic checklist for evaluating the complexity of any TMDL process [Total Maximum Daily Load]:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-iw3-50-4.pdf
It might be interesting to check this out just for comparison to what has happened to our previous Lake Whatcom protection efforts.
One question that must be answered truthfully and convincingly is whether this work really is a 'top priority'.
If it is, then a time frame, budget and staff must be assigned at levels that are reasonable to achieve the goals identified.
There are always many priorities, and often they cannot be all be accomplished at once.
Have you noticed?
If Lake Whatcom is to be one of our top priorities, it needs to be treated as one!
Talk is cheap.
---------------------------
It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. - Niccolo Machiavelli
---------------------------
I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
---------------------------
Some years ago the City engaged Drs. Hans & Ann-Marie Bleiker to conduct training sessions on how to achieve 'Systematic Development of Informed Consent' on major projects important to our community.
The method was time-intensive, but often much more effective than the usual fumbling efforts.
But, predictably, use of the Bleiker method was largely ignored, with few exceptions.
Too bad, but that's often the way that thoughtful and well-intended ideas go.
Witness, for example, protecting our drinking water source, cleaning up and re-building our waterfront, completing the County-wide Water Resource Inventory work [WRIA-1], and agreeing on a plan to efficiently expand and modernize the Bellingham Public Library.
The method's purpose is NOT necessarily to build consensus, but to build consent to understanding and accepting good solutions.
And, there is a big difference between the concepts of citizen participation and stakeholder involvement.
The 'Bleiker LIfe-Preserver' summarizes the four essential steps in the method:
(1) There is a serious problem, or opportunity – one that has to be addressed.
(2) Yours is the right entity to be addressing this problem; in fact it would be irresponsible of you, given the mission you have, if you did not address it.
(3) The way you are approaching the problem, the way you are addressing it is reasonable, sensible and responsible.
(4) You do listen. You do care. If you are proposing something that’s going to cause pain, it is not because you don’t care.
------------------------------
On page 27 [Worksheet 4-1] of this website is a simple generic checklist for evaluating the complexity of any TMDL process [Total Maximum Daily Load]:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-iw3-50-4.pdf
It might be interesting to check this out just for comparison to what has happened to our previous Lake Whatcom protection efforts.
One question that must be answered truthfully and convincingly is whether this work really is a 'top priority'.
If it is, then a time frame, budget and staff must be assigned at levels that are reasonable to achieve the goals identified.
There are always many priorities, and often they cannot be all be accomplished at once.
Have you noticed?
If Lake Whatcom is to be one of our top priorities, it needs to be treated as one!
Talk is cheap.
---------------------------
It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. - Niccolo Machiavelli
---------------------------
Friday, July 24, 2009
Port: Populist Instrument or Bete Noir?
-----------------------
'Bete Noir: (from the French, meaning "dark beast") is used to refer to an object or abstract idea that is particularly disliked or avoided'
-----------------------
A current Crosscut article on the Port of Everett inspired this blog, because of some local similarities and ironies.
This brief excerpt demonstrates the point:
Does it sound like Commissioner Niva might also have difficulty in understanding the concept of TBL? [Triple Bottom Line]
If so, she's certainly not by herself!
----------
When you think about it, its not easy to accommodate a significant broadening of scope in any undertaking with a succinct mission statement and a limited budget.
Of course, it is not impossible but usually does require time - plus a change in attitude from those in charge.
That is the core problem with the Port of Bellingham.
And POB's situation may be considerably different from Everett's in several ways, including the sheer size & scope of the Waterfront Redevelopment anticipated, the relatively lesser size/budget of POB, and its partnership with the City of Bellingham -which has its own limits on funding, plus a much broader mission which does specifically and inherently include quality of life and environmental issues.
It would be simpler if the City were not so 'encumbered', but it is, as it should be.
And, because of its partnership with the City, the Port of Bellingham is also likewise 'encumbered'.
The understanding of that reality is important for whoever will assume new leadership roles at the Port.
On that score, new candidates have a clear advantage, particularly those who have also been active in our community for years.
-------
By that criteria, John Blethen, the District 1 candidate, is clearly the best choice.
Blethen has been an amazing asset to our community for decades, as an enthusiastic volunteer and successful businessman.
His volunteerism reflects his caring for Bellingham and has gone well beyond that expected of any citizen, or two, or three.
It also reflects how in tune he is with the values of the people who have lived here, live here now, and will live here tomorrow.
That is exactly the kind of energy and long-term caring that the Port Commission needs so badly.
Mike McAuley, the District 2 candidate, has similar promise, although his tenure and volunteerism can't match Blethen's [no one does], he has a similar vision and commitment to do the right thing by this community.
McAuley's energy, progressive ideas and integrity make him well qualified to help turn the Port's attitude and management style into a better fit for what Bellingham needs in the long term.
-------
Both Scott Walker, District 1, and Doug Smith, District 2, have done some good work at the Port, in fact both shared responsibility for initiating the Waterfront Redevelopment Project that has become the centerpiece of effort and attention here.
But, this is a long-term effort, a relay and not a sprint, which requires teamwork over many years.
After 18 and 16 years, respectively, these incumbents have already run their legs of the race, and it is time for them to pass the baton to fresher teammates.
They have elected not to do this willingly, but to leave that decision to will of the voters, which is OK, but also reinforces the impression that they are stuck on old ideas and the advantage of incumbency.
But, I hope citizens will understand that this election is really about the citizens themselves, and their offspring and the very future of Bellingham as a place that not only provides economic development (jobs) but also the other two legs of that 3-legged stool that defines TBL [Triple Bottom Line]; quality of life and environment.
Those last two legs are important enough to be clearly stated, not just implied.
Especially in a true partnership with a vital City whose sole motivation in partnering was to maintain -and enhance- that vitality!
That is, if we are to consider our Port as more of a populist instrument than a bete noir....
-----------------------------------
'Bete Noir: (from the French, meaning "dark beast") is used to refer to an object or abstract idea that is particularly disliked or avoided'
-----------------------
A current Crosscut article on the Port of Everett inspired this blog, because of some local similarities and ironies.
This brief excerpt demonstrates the point:
Emotions circle back to the story's bete noire, the Everett Port Commission. Port districts were conceived as populist instruments to break up concentrated capital. Give the waterfront to the people not the fat cats, the argument went. Legislators passed the Port District Act in 1911 and Everett organized its port in 1918. Over the decades, however, most port districts have embraced a credo that holds sacred economic and real estate development. Historic preservation is not a statutory priority.
"Ports have a very slim mission," Commissioner Connie Niva said. "It's not quality of life but to serve as an economic engine." The Collins Building, she noted, "sits on the site where we're building a boat yard," and is not connected to Everett Maritime, the North Marina development company that filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on May 20. Niva emphasized the port's record of environmental stewardship. "We're the cleanest and the greenest," she said.
Does it sound like Commissioner Niva might also have difficulty in understanding the concept of TBL? [Triple Bottom Line]
If so, she's certainly not by herself!
----------
When you think about it, its not easy to accommodate a significant broadening of scope in any undertaking with a succinct mission statement and a limited budget.
Of course, it is not impossible but usually does require time - plus a change in attitude from those in charge.
That is the core problem with the Port of Bellingham.
And POB's situation may be considerably different from Everett's in several ways, including the sheer size & scope of the Waterfront Redevelopment anticipated, the relatively lesser size/budget of POB, and its partnership with the City of Bellingham -which has its own limits on funding, plus a much broader mission which does specifically and inherently include quality of life and environmental issues.
It would be simpler if the City were not so 'encumbered', but it is, as it should be.
And, because of its partnership with the City, the Port of Bellingham is also likewise 'encumbered'.
The understanding of that reality is important for whoever will assume new leadership roles at the Port.
On that score, new candidates have a clear advantage, particularly those who have also been active in our community for years.
-------
By that criteria, John Blethen, the District 1 candidate, is clearly the best choice.
Blethen has been an amazing asset to our community for decades, as an enthusiastic volunteer and successful businessman.
His volunteerism reflects his caring for Bellingham and has gone well beyond that expected of any citizen, or two, or three.
It also reflects how in tune he is with the values of the people who have lived here, live here now, and will live here tomorrow.
That is exactly the kind of energy and long-term caring that the Port Commission needs so badly.
Mike McAuley, the District 2 candidate, has similar promise, although his tenure and volunteerism can't match Blethen's [no one does], he has a similar vision and commitment to do the right thing by this community.
McAuley's energy, progressive ideas and integrity make him well qualified to help turn the Port's attitude and management style into a better fit for what Bellingham needs in the long term.
-------
Both Scott Walker, District 1, and Doug Smith, District 2, have done some good work at the Port, in fact both shared responsibility for initiating the Waterfront Redevelopment Project that has become the centerpiece of effort and attention here.
But, this is a long-term effort, a relay and not a sprint, which requires teamwork over many years.
After 18 and 16 years, respectively, these incumbents have already run their legs of the race, and it is time for them to pass the baton to fresher teammates.
They have elected not to do this willingly, but to leave that decision to will of the voters, which is OK, but also reinforces the impression that they are stuck on old ideas and the advantage of incumbency.
But, I hope citizens will understand that this election is really about the citizens themselves, and their offspring and the very future of Bellingham as a place that not only provides economic development (jobs) but also the other two legs of that 3-legged stool that defines TBL [Triple Bottom Line]; quality of life and environment.
Those last two legs are important enough to be clearly stated, not just implied.
Especially in a true partnership with a vital City whose sole motivation in partnering was to maintain -and enhance- that vitality!
That is, if we are to consider our Port as more of a populist instrument than a bete noir....
-----------------------------------
More on Healthcare: Knowledge as Truth
-----------------------
All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.
- Adlai E. Stevenson
A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle. - KAHLIL GIBRAN
-----------------------
The healthcare debate continues as it should until the best possible combination of attributes have been incorporated into a bill that can be approved by both legislative bodies, and is worthy of signing by the President.
But, now that so much information, some of it conflicting and some of it misinformation, is out there wouldn't it be nice to able to easily verify its accuracy?
Here's an authoritative website that seems pretty unbiased regarding the current healthcare rhetoric which I found useful.
There are also two new NYT editorials on healthcare, by David Brooks and Paul Krugman, which most folks will find interesting.
Have you noticed how the ad campaigns -pro and con- have picked up in intensity?
Maybe the 'factcheck.org' website can help sort out who's spinning what, and at least zero in on the range of reasonable estimates that are used.
--------------------------------
The concept of what constitutes knowledge, and its proper application to real situations has been a constant theme of this blog, because it has been main interest of mine all of my life.
With that in mind, this Wikipedia website goes into some detail in describing knowledge.
This phrase has been closest to mine: 'The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed.'
Of course, there are other definitions, qualifications and interpretations of what knowledge means, especially those which prefer to emphasize beliefs, as opposed to provable facts.
That debate will never end, nor should it, but true knowledge ought to be communicable, capable of appealing to reason and provable to others.
As one of our Founding Fathers put it:
Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - MARK TWAIN
---------------------------------
All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.
- Adlai E. Stevenson
A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle. - KAHLIL GIBRAN
-----------------------
The healthcare debate continues as it should until the best possible combination of attributes have been incorporated into a bill that can be approved by both legislative bodies, and is worthy of signing by the President.
But, now that so much information, some of it conflicting and some of it misinformation, is out there wouldn't it be nice to able to easily verify its accuracy?
Here's an authoritative website that seems pretty unbiased regarding the current healthcare rhetoric which I found useful.
There are also two new NYT editorials on healthcare, by David Brooks and Paul Krugman, which most folks will find interesting.
Have you noticed how the ad campaigns -pro and con- have picked up in intensity?
Maybe the 'factcheck.org' website can help sort out who's spinning what, and at least zero in on the range of reasonable estimates that are used.
--------------------------------
The concept of what constitutes knowledge, and its proper application to real situations has been a constant theme of this blog, because it has been main interest of mine all of my life.
With that in mind, this Wikipedia website goes into some detail in describing knowledge.
This phrase has been closest to mine: 'The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed.'
Of course, there are other definitions, qualifications and interpretations of what knowledge means, especially those which prefer to emphasize beliefs, as opposed to provable facts.
That debate will never end, nor should it, but true knowledge ought to be communicable, capable of appealing to reason and provable to others.
As one of our Founding Fathers put it:
"A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." - James Madison--------------------------------
Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - MARK TWAIN
---------------------------------
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Blue Dogs & 'No Hogs'
--------------------------------
Were I a member of the US Congress, I 'd probably be known as something of a 'Blue Dog' Democrat, but loosely so because of my independent streak that resists being controlled by anything other than my own analysis and carefully weighted conclusions.
But, that would not affect my determination to achieve progress on issues of major importance, like meaningful national healthcare reform.
It is sad that so many of the current minority party allow themselves to be controlled by narrow partisan edicts that are more designed for political games than for necessary action on national policy that matters.
And, its hard to understand the value system that allows that habit to persist.
Maybe these folks are so secure in their heavily gerrymandered districts that they have little worry about re-election.
Or, maybe they see their jobs more narrowly than is in the nation's best interests?
I don't know, but I do care.
And, I'm concerned with any mentality that rationalizes it is not part of a problem, and therefore doesn't need to be a part of the solution.
But, I guess these folks have always been around; you know them best as 'crown sympathizers', draft-dodgers, tax evaders, non-voters, and all manner of other self-satisfied lazy louts with attitudes.
Maybe that dynamic -in reverse- is what causes many other elected officials to waffle, wait and sometimes become co-opted into positions they may or may not wish to support.
There are times when all these dynamics come into play with a vengeance, like now -on healthcare reform, but that itself can be healthy, because better ideas are generated, compromises conceived, and a sense of urgency generated.
Some have expressed concern with deadlines, and hate being 'rushed'. [as in Limbaugh?]
But, without deadlines, is it reasonable to expect any predictability or progress?
How about things like our reaction 9/11?
Or approving annual budgets?
Or making Supreme Court appointments?
Sometimes what people call being 'rushed', simply means they don't want to do it.
Have you noticed?
The broad outlines of what seems desirable for healthcare reform have been pretty clearly known and stated for months.
Some are harder to articulate, determine sustainable financing or make compatible with other programs, but that is the main exercise that is underway -at least among those with legitimate interest in change.
Those who are proud to be 'No Hogs', prefer to block any meaningful change or progress, and leave that burden to 'others', as has been done for 61 years.
So, the 'Blue Dogs' must act as the sounding board for what reform will likely occur, and I'm good with that, because I do believe meaningful compromise is achievable.
But, the Blue Dogs need to not take such a hard line that the impression is left that failure is imminent.
The 'sausage-making' of legislation is always ugly and subject to compromise, meaning no one gets everything they want.
A few ideas that deserve serious consideration are these -maybe more:
• establishment of an independent body of healthcare professionals with the power to review any national program annually and recommend adjustments.
• achieving equity between States in Medicare reimbursement rates.
• continuously examining equitable and sustainable funding methods for national healthcare, so that the goal of NOT creating more federal deficits over time is achieved.
There is even something for the 'No Hogs' to think about:
If there is such a need for change in the existing system that an amazing array of stakeholders agree, and that enormous cost savings -maybe 2/3 of the estimated additional cost- how can this be so simply dismissed?
Think about it.
Continuing the 'status quo' just insures that substantial healthcare costs will be continued to be just wasted!
One would think it's more normal for so-called 'conservatives' to want to cut excesses and use funds more efficiently.
What has happened to that?
And, what has happened to intellectual honesty?
I do believe the Blue Dogs will find a way to responsibly compromise and find ways to pay for the anticipated additional costs of healthcare reform and make the measure 'deficit neutral', which I believe is possible.
Maybe that will take a leap of faith in the form of a commitment for periodic supplemental funding votes.
Some of those options may entail eventual elimination of healthcare cost exemptions from income tax.
Other ideas are also possible, but will require time to identify, quantify and implement.
The so-called 'August deadline' may or may not be met, without extending the legislative calendar.
All that means anyway, is that bills can be reasonably prepared for debate and passage later this Fall.
For an issue so important, it would seem some unusual measures are justified.
President Obama's Press Conference last night pretty much outlined the parameters that would be acceptable for him to sign any bill resulting from Congressional action.
And, his decision to let Congress discuss the various options before imposing any preferred bill of his own is the right way to go.
But, now time is passing quickly and the deadlines required must be respected and if possible, enforced.
If Congress misses its August break, tough luck!
If no unanimous result is possible, then a more narrow and more partisan passage is OK.
Additional delay is not justified, nor is it helpful to the hoped for eventual result.
If members of Congress are uncomfortable with making such a difficult decision, too bad!
They need to get off the fence, or out of the kitchen.
Now is the time for Healthcare reform to happen.
It is too important an issue to 'kick down the road' again, as it largely has been since Harry Truman advocated it in 1948.
We can do better than that, and this is the time!
---------------------
My neighbor and I are both retired and over 70.
Both of us did not look forward to joining Medicare.
Both of us has been very wrong in our unfounded fears!
Medicare has been the easiest and most efficient healthcare program either of us has ever had.
The only reasons I decided to buy expensive secondary healthcare insurance were (a) fear of Medicare Parts A & B, and (b) fear of Medicare Part (d) -'the donut hole'.
I no longer have any doubts about Medicare Parts A & B.
I do have concerns about Medicare Part D, because the prescription coverage is full of holes and unknown costs.
Perhaps these will be addressed in a new Medicare plan, and if they are, my wife and I will be able to save about $7800 per year in SECONDARY INSURANCE costs.
[not Supplemental Insurance of the sort promoted by so-called Medicare Part C Plans]
Think that's not a substantial savings?
But, I'm not just thinking of me, I'm thinking of the millions of Americans who will benefit from a the availability of a national healthcare plan option.
There is nothing wrong with the way the US Government administers Medicare, and much that is right, including efficiency and low costs.
It may be the best deal around for those of us who are retired or 65.
And, remember, its only been around since 1965, when another Democratic American President with courage, foresight and political clout dared to buck entrenched special interests and get it implemented.
Now, 44 years later, maybe its time for President #44 to expand it into a true national program!
--------------------------
A few related links:
NYT:Timothy Egan
NYT:David Brooks & Gail Collins
NYT:Health Care Sausagee
NYT:Editorial
NYT:History of Health Care Reform
----------------------------
Ever wonder how many Republicans have the names Sally, Straw or Rush?
The term 'Aunt Sally' is in limited use as a political idiom, indicating a false adversary or Straw Man, set up for the sole purpose of attracting negative attention and wasting an opponent's energy.
Were I a member of the US Congress, I 'd probably be known as something of a 'Blue Dog' Democrat, but loosely so because of my independent streak that resists being controlled by anything other than my own analysis and carefully weighted conclusions.
But, that would not affect my determination to achieve progress on issues of major importance, like meaningful national healthcare reform.
It is sad that so many of the current minority party allow themselves to be controlled by narrow partisan edicts that are more designed for political games than for necessary action on national policy that matters.
And, its hard to understand the value system that allows that habit to persist.
Maybe these folks are so secure in their heavily gerrymandered districts that they have little worry about re-election.
Or, maybe they see their jobs more narrowly than is in the nation's best interests?
I don't know, but I do care.
And, I'm concerned with any mentality that rationalizes it is not part of a problem, and therefore doesn't need to be a part of the solution.
But, I guess these folks have always been around; you know them best as 'crown sympathizers', draft-dodgers, tax evaders, non-voters, and all manner of other self-satisfied lazy louts with attitudes.
Maybe that dynamic -in reverse- is what causes many other elected officials to waffle, wait and sometimes become co-opted into positions they may or may not wish to support.
There are times when all these dynamics come into play with a vengeance, like now -on healthcare reform, but that itself can be healthy, because better ideas are generated, compromises conceived, and a sense of urgency generated.
Some have expressed concern with deadlines, and hate being 'rushed'. [as in Limbaugh?]
But, without deadlines, is it reasonable to expect any predictability or progress?
How about things like our reaction 9/11?
Or approving annual budgets?
Or making Supreme Court appointments?
Sometimes what people call being 'rushed', simply means they don't want to do it.
Have you noticed?
The broad outlines of what seems desirable for healthcare reform have been pretty clearly known and stated for months.
Some are harder to articulate, determine sustainable financing or make compatible with other programs, but that is the main exercise that is underway -at least among those with legitimate interest in change.
Those who are proud to be 'No Hogs', prefer to block any meaningful change or progress, and leave that burden to 'others', as has been done for 61 years.
So, the 'Blue Dogs' must act as the sounding board for what reform will likely occur, and I'm good with that, because I do believe meaningful compromise is achievable.
But, the Blue Dogs need to not take such a hard line that the impression is left that failure is imminent.
The 'sausage-making' of legislation is always ugly and subject to compromise, meaning no one gets everything they want.
A few ideas that deserve serious consideration are these -maybe more:
• establishment of an independent body of healthcare professionals with the power to review any national program annually and recommend adjustments.
• achieving equity between States in Medicare reimbursement rates.
• continuously examining equitable and sustainable funding methods for national healthcare, so that the goal of NOT creating more federal deficits over time is achieved.
There is even something for the 'No Hogs' to think about:
If there is such a need for change in the existing system that an amazing array of stakeholders agree, and that enormous cost savings -maybe 2/3 of the estimated additional cost- how can this be so simply dismissed?
Think about it.
Continuing the 'status quo' just insures that substantial healthcare costs will be continued to be just wasted!
One would think it's more normal for so-called 'conservatives' to want to cut excesses and use funds more efficiently.
What has happened to that?
And, what has happened to intellectual honesty?
I do believe the Blue Dogs will find a way to responsibly compromise and find ways to pay for the anticipated additional costs of healthcare reform and make the measure 'deficit neutral', which I believe is possible.
Maybe that will take a leap of faith in the form of a commitment for periodic supplemental funding votes.
Some of those options may entail eventual elimination of healthcare cost exemptions from income tax.
Other ideas are also possible, but will require time to identify, quantify and implement.
The so-called 'August deadline' may or may not be met, without extending the legislative calendar.
All that means anyway, is that bills can be reasonably prepared for debate and passage later this Fall.
For an issue so important, it would seem some unusual measures are justified.
President Obama's Press Conference last night pretty much outlined the parameters that would be acceptable for him to sign any bill resulting from Congressional action.
And, his decision to let Congress discuss the various options before imposing any preferred bill of his own is the right way to go.
But, now time is passing quickly and the deadlines required must be respected and if possible, enforced.
If Congress misses its August break, tough luck!
If no unanimous result is possible, then a more narrow and more partisan passage is OK.
Additional delay is not justified, nor is it helpful to the hoped for eventual result.
If members of Congress are uncomfortable with making such a difficult decision, too bad!
They need to get off the fence, or out of the kitchen.
Now is the time for Healthcare reform to happen.
It is too important an issue to 'kick down the road' again, as it largely has been since Harry Truman advocated it in 1948.
We can do better than that, and this is the time!
---------------------
My neighbor and I are both retired and over 70.
Both of us did not look forward to joining Medicare.
Both of us has been very wrong in our unfounded fears!
Medicare has been the easiest and most efficient healthcare program either of us has ever had.
The only reasons I decided to buy expensive secondary healthcare insurance were (a) fear of Medicare Parts A & B, and (b) fear of Medicare Part (d) -'the donut hole'.
I no longer have any doubts about Medicare Parts A & B.
I do have concerns about Medicare Part D, because the prescription coverage is full of holes and unknown costs.
Perhaps these will be addressed in a new Medicare plan, and if they are, my wife and I will be able to save about $7800 per year in SECONDARY INSURANCE costs.
[not Supplemental Insurance of the sort promoted by so-called Medicare Part C Plans]
Think that's not a substantial savings?
But, I'm not just thinking of me, I'm thinking of the millions of Americans who will benefit from a the availability of a national healthcare plan option.
There is nothing wrong with the way the US Government administers Medicare, and much that is right, including efficiency and low costs.
It may be the best deal around for those of us who are retired or 65.
And, remember, its only been around since 1965, when another Democratic American President with courage, foresight and political clout dared to buck entrenched special interests and get it implemented.
Now, 44 years later, maybe its time for President #44 to expand it into a true national program!
--------------------------
A few related links:
NYT:Timothy Egan
NYT:David Brooks & Gail Collins
NYT:Health Care Sausagee
NYT:Editorial
NYT:History of Health Care Reform
----------------------------
Ever wonder how many Republicans have the names Sally, Straw or Rush?
The term 'Aunt Sally' is in limited use as a political idiom, indicating a false adversary or Straw Man, set up for the sole purpose of attracting negative attention and wasting an opponent's energy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
