Correction. More Honor. Environmental Lawsuit Settlement Tactics.

Last Thursday, I went to a forum on water, hosted by Doug Erickson and Vincent Buys. It was an upbeat rollout of a solution for some of the water woes of Whatcom County.

Simply said, constraints on water use from the Nooksack River Basin, driven by environmentally clad activism, legislation, and bureaucratic oversight, have risen to the level that local cities, tribes, industry and farms are being turned into bitter rivals. And, there seems to be no end in sight.

The rotating door of local and state environmentalist activist groups keeps putting fresh, enthusiastic, activists into the fray, attaching to, penetrating and wearing down local business and government leaders. Grant driven, environmentally clad, social reform pays well in Whatcom County.

The forum last Thursday had a sense of fresh air. A very high volume water flow, not hydrologically connected to the Nooksack Basin has been appropriated by the Birch Bay/Blaine water authorities. Excess water from these deep wells, added to the reclamation water from Blaine’s state of the art septic treatment system is being proposed as a solution to supplement the twelve or so “distressed” rural water systems located around and north of Lynden. For now, this water is beyond the reach of the environmentalists.

Time will tell how this plays.

Last Sunday, a friend sent me a link to a Growth Management Hearings Board Case 13-2-0022,  a very recent settlement extension. My friend said this settlement extension was for a citizen lawsuit against Whatcom County over water management, filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. They said it showed settlement negotiations were ongoing between Whatcom County officials and the appellants, contrary to, and undermining Whatcom County Council’s decision to continue funding the appeal of the GMHB ruling on Whatcom County non-compliance in ground water management in Skagit and/or Thurston County Superior Court regarding this lawsuit.

After being challenged by another friend on a mix up of GMHB case numbers, I found the first information incorrect, and have rewritten this article to reflect these facts. The settlement extension is for Case 13-2-0022, not for Case 12-2-0013. No excuses for my error—please accept my apology and corrections.

The primary question I asked earlier still stands. Can Whatcom County Council members resist the request by the Futurewise supported appellants Jean Melious, David Stalheim, Laura Leigh Brakke and Eric Hirst to negotiate a settlement rather than undergoing the more rigorous scrutiny and final precedents of Superior Court? What if the GMHB was found out of compliance in their non-compliance ruling?

Who on County Council would want to negotiate a settlement with these folks? Carl Wiemer? Rud Browne? Ken Mann? Sam Crawford? Pete Kremen? Barry Buchanan? Barbara Brenner? Did not the County Council vote to continue funding for the appeal of this GMHB ruling to a higher court?

Why would a settlement not be better than a ruling? Why not kiss up and avoid the legal burdens?

“A typical way these policies get implemented is for environmental interest groups to sue a government agency under either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and for the agency then to settle the lawsuit in the interest group’s favor.”

“Sometimes—as in a 2008 lawsuit filed against the U.S. Forest Service by three environmental groups to prevent oil, gas, and mineral extraction in Pennsylvania—the government not only settles the lawsuit but also pays the interest groups for their complaints (in that case paying out nearly $20,000)…”  - Sagebrush Rebellion Redivivus” by William Perry Pendley, Hillsdale College Imprimus, April 2014

Did not the Lummi Groundwater Management Lawsuit go to settlement several years ago, with the tribes coming out much bigger winners than they would have in a court ruling? Did not Washington State grant property rights not in law to the Lummis by refusing to complete the court adjudication? By going to settlement, did not Washington State leave private non-tribal land owners subject to tribal approval if they want to buy or sell their parcels? Is this not an effort to create a tribal reservation by fiat, contrary to fee title law?

Settlement Tactics 101.

One. Raise environmental concerns through the media / education / smart growth echo chamber. Fully research environmental laws and tort options. Watch for an alignment of sympathetic bureaucrats, judges and elected officials.

Two. Bring an egregious lawsuit that has little chance of standing up in final courts. Request benchmark claims that make all ears ring and eyes bug open.

Three. Wait for lawsuit fatigue to set in.

Four. Offer to drop the lawsuit if a settlement with some teeny, weeny concessions can be made.

Five. Negotiate a settlement behind closed doors, in extended executive sessions, getting as much as possible in the process. Make those giving up things feel guilty for existing. Rely on your media echo chamber to cover your back. It is of utmost important to destroy the morale of your opponents. Resource use changes come after the social fabric is melted and reformed with “social equity”.

Six. Retire into the shadows

Seven. Do it again, in another place, at another time, with another issue. Activist lawsuits and court rulings happen all the time, only usually at a state or federal level, far removed from our local sensibilities.

In American Representative Republican Democracy, elections have consequences. County Council may legally flaunt open public meeting laws with back room executive sessions to deal with lawsuit driven issues. What a gift between environmental comrades. And what is the test for the rest of us?

Honor. Virtue. Should collusive lawsuit tactics draw dirt in reply? In the face of evil, render what?

What was the major foundation of American Democracy until post civil war anti trust legalese was needed, leading to Constitutional Societies drumming up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the 1930’s?

Rule of honor. A mans word was his guarantee.

Rule of honor. Elected officials were accorded more honor, and generally served with honor.

Rule of honor. Virtue, not religion, not money had the highest respect.

Rule of honor. More honor. Elections have consequences. Elections place officials on stage for service, for praise or shame. In the end, what counts more? Water? Salmon? Shell fish? Crops? Manufactured goods? Drinking water? Children?

Whose children? Who will the next generation honor?

Here’s the rub. Children will honor the adults who deal with honor. Can elected officials rule with honor? Yes. Is this an honorable lawsuit? Doubtful. Was a pressurized settlement always the end game? Likely. ReSources has proven, locally, that small lawsuits do get cash settlements rather than run up larger legal fees. And, ReSources and Futurewise have the hot line to County Council right now, in this big stakes lawsuit. Is this not so?

Honor? More honor? County Council, Whatcom County is watching.

The Washington GMHB enlarges to 150 days the settlement period for a citizen lawsuit against Whatcom County packing house rules.

The  Futurewise et al lawsuit against Whatcom County over groundwater management policies.

How environmental activists sue and settle for maximum gains

Supreme Court ruling protects efforts to designate all childrenas wards of the state and strike down parental oversight rights.

Power, Fear, and Tough Love

Whatcom County has just had a shift in the balance of power on Whatcom County Council. Two council members, one moderate, and one conservative have been replaced by two new council members, both aligned with the progressive movement. That gives a count of one moderate, one independent, one Democrat old boy, and four progressives.

Now is a good time for a discussion in political organizing. Are you ready? Who is the godfather of the modern progressive movement? What can we expect from his disciples? Will they be pressuring the moderates and independents? Will there be power plays? Yes!!

Consider the following insider insight from David Horowitz, a poster child progressive in the 1960’s and 1970’, former editor of the progressive standard bearer magazine Ramparts, and now hated (by progressives) arch traitor to their progressive movement. Horowitz singles out Saul Alinsky as the intellectual and practical father of the modern progressives, a man who shifted American socialists from trying to mimic the failed Russian regime, to taking a more Machiavellian, Fascist approach to unilateral government rule.

“Instead, Alinsky identified the problem posed by Communism as inflexibility and “dogmatism” and proposed as a solution that radicals should be “political relativists,” that they should take an agnostic view of means and ends. For Alinsky, the revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system and then see what happens.

“The Alinsky radical has a single principle - to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots. What this amounts to in practice is a political nihilism - a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the“people” (who, in the fashion common to dictators, are designated as such by the revolutionary elite).

“This is the classic revolutionary formula in which the goal is power for the political vanguard who get to feel good about themselves in the process.”

(pp 5-6 Obama’s Rules for Radicals, David Horowitz, 2009). Horowitz continues a few pages later,

“In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted her 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories (she interviewed him personally for the project).6 In her conclusion Hillary compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King.

“The title of Hillary’s thesis was “There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” In this title she had singled out the single most important Alinsky contribution to the radical cause – his embrace of political nihilism.

“An SDS radical once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” In other words the cause - whether inner city blacks or women (or coal trains and coal terminals – JK comment) - is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. That was the all consuming focus of Alinsky and his radicals.

“Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were.

“Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.

The following anecdote about Alinsky’s teachings as recounted by The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza nicely illustrates the focus of Alinsky radicalism: “When Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: ‘You want to organize for power!’7

pp 8-9 Obama’s Rules for Radicals, David Horowitz, 2009

Power. How does a society prosper when leaders are obsessed with control? Am I just imagining here? No. Without permission to name persons, all I will say is that within hours of gaining the balance of power, a key progressive leader in Whatcom Wins approached a certain Whatcom County council member and declared the new regime. You may as well accept the progressive agenda, as we progressives have a plan and the power, and will carry it out now, regardless of the political process and rules.

Clawing, grasping power plays. What ever happened to civil debate? What happened to concern for the welfare of opponents? Is there no common ground? After this last election season with the polarizing strategy of the progressives (hit first, hit dirty, solidify an adversarial, mock and gloat dynamic that locks in your people and destroys post election camaraderie with opposition local leaders), and with the "majority" the progressives are claiming, it seems that back room relationships are what will prevail.

I would like to make two points, and will leave the discussion with that.

One. The heart of the king is in the hand of God. There is no power, except that which is established by God. Atheists may claim to rule by their own might or goodness, but then, there are no honest atheists. No man knows everything, even the smartest atheist. He is really an agnostic, feeling his way along like the rest of us.

A consistent “Christian”, who follows “the Book” will discern the fingers of “hand writing on the wall”, putting down one power and raising another. In other words, God has allowed the progressives their majority.  But, can progressives really work with conservatives after their poisonous GOTV campaign? How long will Bellinghamsters cheer for bullies? When will the progressives eat their own? It happens, you know.

Two. Power lies in either fear or love. The fear of coal train traffic in their back yard (which the new County Council cannot stop anyways—the coal will just go to the new terminal going up in Canada) has moved moderates and independents to empower leftist progressives who are promising what they cannot deliver—apart from taking over the BNSF right of way.

Power in love? The Prince of Peace said, “Bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and despitefully use you”.  

Conservatives are very familiar with the cursing stage. (Wendy Harris, Jean Melious, David Stalheim, ReSources, Futurewise,et. al.) We can still envision success for these people as they learn to be givers to all, not just their ideological buddies.

We have moved into the hating stage.  The Dept of Ecology, Puget Sound Partnership and the Growth Management Hearings Board have made their loves known—tribal aquaculture interventions that will promote hate for farmers, loggers and rural residents. What is doing good here? Speak truth. Return kindness and grace, not revenge. Protect the weak by shining the light on predatorial government.

The field is also set for intensified property rights persecution and the economic abuse stage. (Whatcom County Planning has been relentless in trying to insert groundwater management rules to enable planners to deny new wells any where in the county. Futurewise and ReSources are poised to regain the influence they lost four years ago. EPA and other grant monies continue to flow to community organizers to “help us gain consensus” in local resource management. (E.g. $300,000 for floodwater control stakeholder consensus facilitating).

Pray? Ask for interventions that will heal these people? Yes. Do it. And watch out for the bullets.

Power in love? If, as this “anonymous” Whatcom Wins campaign leader is modeling, there is no more significance in public hearings since outcomes are already decided, will good will do good? When a teenager rebels, what does a parent do? They protect the other family members and release that young person to the hard knocks of life.

Fools can be very smart. Very, very smart. A lazy man has more answers than seven wise men. It is easy to destroy. It is hard to build. When fools rule, prudent men hide. When non-profits“share the wealth”, everyone loses. Wise men will move their energies to other priorities, such as training the next generation.Tough love may confront, and it will also allow consequences. Love will work with the weak of today who are the leaders of tomorrow.

What does that mean? How does this all work out? Only time will tell. But, may I suggest, investment in the next generation now will pay off later in spades. As well, as the huge vote (not) from college students last week indicates, progressives may have the council reins, but they are aging and vulnerable to youthful doubts and inconsistencies. It was the oldies that came to the “hot ballot party” last Friday night, not the college students.

In other words, conservatives, spend time with young people and support conservative educators. That is the new (older) do or die battle. Stablizing the next generation, both your offspring and those of others, truly empowers and redeems. Grow local and buy local is still a hot issue. Got the hint, farmers? The question is, do conservatives really have the moxie to do this?

​-- JK

David Horowitz On Progressive Rules For Radicals

Community Organizing 101 In Whatcom County

 

Too much outside funding. Too many planners. Too little local food.

An enterprising grass roots group stirred controversy a couple of days ago. Shoppers returning to their cars parked in the Lakeway Fred Meyer parking lot Saturday afternoon found a snappy advertisement mini-flyer sticky tabbed to their windshields, inviting them to a balloting party. Free food. A free concert. Local candidates on hand to help answer sticky questions. A group dance taking the ballots to the mail box.

Political activist reactions from glee to outrage to the un-politicized urge to simply litter have surely given way to deeper musings. Some one must have a fair bit of cash to throw away in a far away city on parties and short lived friendships. Why the carrots? What is the back game?

Strategies. Goals. Influence. “Almost buying” votes. PDC filing violations.

Facebook pages of political activists these days are crawling with posts, fearing, anticipating, trying to foresee the results of the election in eight days. “These are terrible people…” “I am afraid we have overplayed our hand…” “We need more government—vote for…” “We need less government—vote for…”

Strategies. Votes. Representative candidates. The raw struggle between an increasingly polarized Whatcom County electorate.

A stunningly short planning commission meeting this last week left Planning and Development Staff gasping for air as the Planning Commission tabled their recommended rule changes without so much as a presentation. Was the issue really procedural restraint to protect the appeal over the Growth Management Hearings Board arbitrary water ruling last summer? Was the issue the clarification of impervious surfaces language and regulations in the County Code? Or was the issue the contentious insertion of sweeping well drilling restrictions within the rule changes.

Strategies. Rules. Rulings. Legal wranglings. Environmental precedent settings. Property rights protections.

An article by Ed Kilduff in the fall Business Pulse magazine spotlights the enormously successful Washington Growth Management Act—if measured by the exponential increase in public planners and planner wannabee activists.

Strategies. 1989. Grants. 2013. Large transfers of decision making powers from local to regional, state and federal bodies. An awakening electorate fumbling for their pens and phones and car keys; sharing shock over the reality of gross government over reach, waste and freedom takings; rediscovering public meetings and challenging the swarms of environmental protectionists that hover in the halls of power.

This Thursday, Oct 31/13, food growers, buyers, activists—it’s open to the public—can attend a symposium entitled Recipe for Tomorrow: Climate Change and the Future of Food. A large of slate of presenters representing farm, science, education, tribal and government agencies does not increase my peace of mind. The sponsorship of hardline environmental groups such as ReSources only steels my resolve to probe deeply into—you guessed it—strategies.

Strategies. Climate Change. Pollution. Grants!!! Radical environmentalism grows as long as there are grants for staff projects. Planner jobs proliferate as long as there is grant money to plan. Precautionary environmental protectionism provides an inexhaustible seedplot of grant ready projects. This is a public planner’s heaven. Total job security. An October 24/13 Washington State Commerce Department e-mail advertises, (broader web page here)

”Departments of Ecology and Commerce are offering funding through a competitive grant program for projects that fit under one of the following themes:

“Eligibility: Local governments, federally-recognized tribal governments, and special purpose districts are eligible to apply for all themes. In addition, non-profit non-governmental organizations and academic institutions of higher education are eligible to apply for Theme 3.”

Strategies. People. Food shortages. Family food sustainability. If a man does not work plan, he should not eat.

Retired WWU professor Don Easterbrook has survived the recent gang mugging by current WWU non-climate change experts, and posted a scathing review of both the 2013 IPCC report on climate change and the Oct’13 National Geographic featurearticles on rising seas.

Strategies. Facts. Fears. Politicized science. Media and academic suppression of genuine debate. Free internet speech. Angry embarrassment. Protecting tenured teaching posts.

May I suggest that a much bigger problem than climate change is dependence on non-local food distribution systems. We don’t grow local. We don’t eat local. But, planners and scientists write grants local and do property takings local.

Strategies. Working. Growing with your own hands. Value added locally grown food must be economically sustainable. Farmers will not grow what does not pay. Environmental takings do not grow food. Public planner oversight armies do not grow food.

Strategies. Environmentalist lawsuits. Buying votes. Happy face farm/environment symposiums. Academic muggings. Grants to fuel environmental takings. As Pete Kremen recently said, “Whatcom County is under seige by regulations.” So—when the outside environmental grant money runs out?? When scientists are paid to solve farm to table problems instead of ramping up UN change agency environmentalist hot buttons?? Probably, only then will a reduced roster of public planners figure out how to encourage a simply regulated local marketplace that provides truly value added locally grown food. -- JK

• Balloting Party Flyer
• Whatcom County Planning Commission 10/24/13 – Audio
• Edkilduff: Success Of The Growth Management Act
• Birch Bay Watershed And Aquatic Resources Management District (Sub-Zone 1 Of Flood Control Zone) Invites The Public To “Climate And Change And The Future Of Food”
• Climate Change And The Future Of Food – Agenda 10-31-13
• EPA Grant Money Available Through WA DOE And WA COM
• IPCC Vs NIPCC: Whose Peer Reviewed Climate Change Conclusions Are Based On Facts?
• Don Easterbrook Challenges National Geographic Sensationalism Over Rising Sea Levels (Oct/13 Issue)

Balloting Party Flyer

The Low Impact Tourism Myth And The Whatcom County Economy

Low impact tourism is the cream cheese frosting of the Whatcom County economy.  

A philosophy that supplants more vigorous sectors of the local economy with Low Impact Tourism is like a philosophy aimed at eliminating vegetables, meats and, grains from a balanced diet and replacing them with cream cheese frosting.

So one can only assume local politicians intent on promoting low impact tourism to the detriment of more vigorous economic sectors are really promoting low wage jobs with limited hours and equally limited sales tax and other tax income for the economy.

Cream cheese frosting simply hasn’t the nutrition to support a large economy but I would never want to do without it; and, I’d never want to downgrade, or eliminate tourism as an important part of the local economy; but facts are facts.  

I will be issuing a short white paper on so called, “Low Impact Tourism” in the near future but, for now, here are some easily checked facts that help put the whole issue in perspective:

1.  Leavenworth is one of Washington’s most famous destination cities for tourism with a Bavarian Village theme, ski slopes at the edge of town, climbing, biking and hiking trails throughout the surrounding area and, according to the Mayor’s report to the people, more than 2 million visitors a year.

Leavenworth’s total Sales and Use Tax Distributions in 2012 according to the Washington State Department of Revenue was $936,242.  

Based on recent conversation by the City of Bellingham as it examines a move from one area of town to another by Costco Corporation, the entire city of Leavenworth receives less in sales and use tax, despite having 2 million tourists visit, than a single Costco Store in Bellingham provides the city in a year.  

2.  By way of further example, the City of Blaine alone received $1,122,250.96 in sales and use tax distributions in 2012.

3.  According to the 2013 report on Washington State Tourism by Damon Runyan Associates, of the six tourism oriented activities examined statewide, Beach, Cultural, Fine Dining, Outdoor Activity, Shopping and, Rural Sightseeing, the three sectors generally defined as low impact tourism are last in terms of dollars spent per partyengaging in the activity while shopping, cultural activities and fine dining led.  It has long been known that Bellis Fair is Whatcom County’s number one tourist attraction and that seems to remain the case though Wal-Mart and Costco are probably close behind.  

NOTE:  It is interesting that a travel industry sector touted as “low impact,” the Outdoor Activities sector, reports, by a considerable margin, the highest spending levels on transportation.

4.   Also based on the Runyan report, two persons working in the Whatcom County tourism industry will earn about 64% of the median family income for the county, qualifying them for low income housing subsidies and other income supplements.

5.  The travel/tourism industry is largely a provider of part time work.  Nationally, the average hours per week an employee works peaks in the third quarter of a year at about 26 hours.  

In short, while the tourism industry truly is an important sector of the Whatcom County economy it is equally, the frosting on the more substantial cake of that Whatcom County economy.  

That means efforts to build the industry beyond what it is today at the cost of more substantial industries and the family wage jobs they provide involves a tradeoff.  

The recent conversion of nearly 9,000 acres of forest land dedicated to use by the forest industry to the 800,000 plus acres of land in Whatcom County already dedicated to tourist uses stands as an example of the tradeoffs made by accentuating a part time, low wage industry in favor of an industry providing a significant number of family wage jobs to county residents.

Frosting is delicious and delightful to behold.  Frosting cannot be the basis of a healthy diet; for an individual or for an economy.

-Jack Petree

Money That Bites

Money. There has been much bluster about outside money in Whatcom County’s 2013 election. The early, high profile, aggressive entrance of environmentalist big bucks from Washington Conservation Voters, and the more recent and quieter arrival of free market big bucks from proponents of the Gateway Pacific Terminal have raised eyebrows everywhere in Whatcom County.

Today I learned of a larger proposed influx of outside money into Whatcom County, $300,000 from the Puget Sound Partnership to “develop a stakeholder process”, facilitating the planning stage of repairing flood control levees. $300,000 for a contractor/facilitator to do something different than campaign against or for a bulk shipping terminal. A larger sum. A very quiet entry. An agreement recommended to County Council for approval. The second coming of the failed WIT / public planner driven process. A mercenary gauntlet thrown down to mock and demoralize the volunteer stakeholder process of the resurrected WRIA 1 Water Planning Unit.

Recently, I saw an interesting infogram. An iceberg was floating in the water. Visible above the surface was a layer labelled “The Exciting Green Marketplace”. The first layer below the water was labelled “Usable Social and Environmental Disasters”. Below that was a layer with three community ideals: 1) Social Equity 2) Public/Private Economic Partnerships, and 3) Sustainable Ecology. Finally, at the bottom was the philosophical foundation layer: eradicate individualism, capitalism and free markets, and implement communitarian groupthink with big government control of everything.

Did you get that last mouthful? Did I lose you there? I hope not.

What will happen in Whatcom County after this election? What is going on under the cover of election noise? Tuesday, County Council is scheduled to look at bill AB2013-335. It is proposed that Whatcom County enter into an agreement to receive $300,000 via the Puget Sound Partnership, the Washington State Governor’s flagship regional non-elected board tasked with “cleaning up” Puget Sound, among other things. Puget Sound Partnership is a regional board. How clean is clean? Who knows? How can voters hold the PSP board locally accountable? Ensure cleanup or “flood control” standards that don’t shift at the ratcheting whim of communitarian puppet masters.

Regionalism. In 2012, Stanley Kurtz published a book entitled, “Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing The Suburbs To Pay For The Cities.” An in depth researcher of community organizer infiltrations, Kurtz points out how unelected regional boards are the tool of choice to bring huge social change all across America.

Kurtz also brings to light a new network for White House community organizers. (Not a new network for UN based NGO Smart Growth activists). Traditionally, socialist community organizers have worked closely with liberal church groups to achieve their goals of inner city social upheaval. Recently, however, the newly minted agency Building One America (formed by leaders of the scandalized Gamaliel Foundation) has added a new social change sector—public sector employees sympathetic to the progressive goals of socialist community organizers. The Chicago-Alinsky molded friends of the Obama White house are noisily linking into the network quietly developed by the UN Smart Growth radicals. There will be more big government courting of local public planners. Liberal churches are passe.

In other words, in addition to religious social terrorists like Jeremiah Wright, the USA now will have public planner social terrorists to deal with. (Something Whatcom County has been dealing with for two decades—think multiple Resources lawsuits (Carl Weimer) and Futurewise and its unofficial first review privileges at the County Planning Department.  A key element of this movement is the shifting of governance from local elected councils to regional, appointed boards. Does this sound like Puget Sound Partnership? Kurtz’s book deals primarily with urban/suburban community tax base mingling. A few months ago, in a three part series of articles linked to in today’s news digest, Kurtz pointed out another critical mass development.

Students at Harvard recently “pressured” the administration to divest Harvard of the stocks of fossil fuel industry corporations. The uber progressive Harvard administration cheerily complied. Seattle mayor, Mike McGinn has also jumped on Bill McKibben’s bandwagon, instructing the city of Seattle to avoid holding these stocks as of now. Gas and oil stocks are hot commodities, and such actions will really do little to harm these corporations at this point.

BUT—and this is important, a generation of college students are practicing “killing”, imagining the death of industrialized society—studying fossil fuel stock divestment on their i-pads, texting about it on their i-phones, and dreaming about it while flitting about in their parents’ Toyota Prius cars—industrial enabled conveniences. At some point, “the mother of all dialectic struggles” will begin, and the industrial complex will be carved up and redistributed by a matured generation of millenials.

I finish with a nod to another recently released book, “This Town”, by veteran DC reporter Mark Liebovich. “This Town” humorously and cynically profiles the “Beltway Club”, bloated by both Republican and Democrat lobbyists, making fabulously huge salaries in K Street offices on the backs of tax payers. Has K Street come to Whatcom County in the form of PSP funded facilitators? Is the end of local volunteer government at hand?

Am I cynical? Yes. Is there a path through all this? Yes. “Let him that stole steal no more, but rather, let him work with his hands, that he may have to give to him who has need.” Will you or I learn to work and share from public planners whose environmentalist consultant/facilitator friends feed off planning grants from Puget Sound Partnership? Probably not. Could we learn to work under the tutelage of outside fossil fuel interests running at an environmentally sound bulk shipping terminal at Cherry Point? That would be more probable.

Even better, learn the ropes and start your own business. Avoid the philosopher king urge to “kill the masters” that give us lights and communications and wheels and wings. Question the establishment environmentalists. And, learn to appeal regional board grant driven power grabs. In the event of failed appeal, graciously hold your nose and work the bridges. Remember the hidden hand. All hard work brings a benefit.

And, please vote. Vote for candidates who will deprioritize the group think zoned high density urban globalist university talking head enclaves. Vote for candidates who will support work ethic building clean heavy industry and the sweat of the brow value added agricultural farmer (not just farmerless Ag land). Vote for the choice to work local and live local—in the whole county, not just in Bellingham. --JK

Candidates Who Support Farmer Sustainable Value Added Agriculture

The New Peasant Farming Communes Of Global Warming Prophet Bill Mckibben. To Get There? Divest Now Of Fossil Fuel Stocks.

City Of Seattle Blacklists Energy Stocks

$300,000 Grant Through PSP For Whatcom County Flood Control Planning. Should Big Money Legitimize A Regional, Unelected,Environmentalist Board?

Mark Leibovich Unmasks The D.C. Beltway Lobbyist Culture In This Town. Does Whatcom County Have A Consultant/Lobbyist Problem?