The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

Excavators and Watchdogs

7/22/2013

1 Comment

 
Picture
Between all the watching and digging that people do around here, you would think that things would be pretty well covered here in Whatcom County. Well, it's improving anyway. We the People -- citizen journalists -- are watching and taking notes (and audio and video) like never before. 

Whatcom Watchdog reports that it just added a new Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee page, and also that this committee has three slots open. Step up, folks! Things like this can and will affect your life in profound ways.

After all, who would have thought that the idle murmurs five years ago about something called a "reconveyance" would have turned into an 8000+ acre parks and rec empire, decimating an industry, de-funding a school and a county revenue stream, all on speculation of millions in tourism? WE didn't. Well, WE didn't exist then, but it's a big part of the reason WE exist now!

You should listen to the audio recording of the Bike/Ped meeting, and see how procedure is meticulously followed (not). Really, we need some principled committee members. If you can spare the time, please volunteer. 

1 Comment

The Science is Never Settled!

7/14/2013

2 Comments

 
PictureTorquemada
The faithful followers of the Church of Global Human Caused Climate Chaos (CGHCCC) keep repeating the mantra, "the science is settled!" Of course they need to keep their dogma nailed down, and people who question it (deniers and heretics) must be isolated, persecuted and ridiculed. True science - the pursuit of knowledge and objective truth - is based on the opposite of dogma. It only works when healthy skepticism rules the day. This is anathematic to someone who prefers to promote an agenda. 

Watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) had glommed onto the climate chaos hypothesis as a tool to hammer home their collectivist, illiberal agenda on an unsuspecting public, and now they're mad because it seems to be unraveling. People are not buying it. CGHCCC high priest Al Gore continues to glurge, and Pope Obama has declared a war on skeptics.


PictureCurrents around the Scotia Sea
It is therefore with great satisfaction that WE present to you yet another triumph of truth and objectivity, and further evidence that no science is ever settled, as long as skeptical observation and new ideas are admitted freely into the record. 

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change, Watts Up With That (WUWT) has published an article, New ideas on Antarctic ice sheet formation subtitled, "scientists cast doubt on theory of what triggered Antarctic glaciation". 


A team of U.S. and U.K. scientists has found geologic evidence that casts doubt on one of the conventional explanations for how Antarctica’s ice sheet began forming. Ian Dalziel, research professor at The University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics and professor in the Jackson School of Geosciences, and his colleagues report the findings today in an online edition of the journal Geology.
WE find this relevant of course, because the CGHCCC dogma relies on theories about ice sheet formation (and recession) to prop up their increasingly shaky hypothesis about HCCC. The article continues,

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), an ocean current flowing clockwise around the entire continent, insulates Antarctica from warmer ocean water to the north, helping maintain the ice sheet. For several decades, scientists have surmised that the onset of a complete ACC played a critical role in the initial glaciation of the continent about 34 million years ago.

Now, rock samples from the central Scotia Sea near Antarctica reveal the remnants of a now-submerged volcanic arc that formed sometime before 28 million years ago and might have blocked the formation of the ACC until less than 12 million years ago. Hence, the onset of the ACC may not be related to the initial glaciation of Antarctica, but rather to the subsequent well-documented descent of the planet into a much colder “icehouse” glacial state.
WE won't quote the entire article here, but you can continue reading if you dare. The NSA inquisitors might track it though (that's a joke, Riley).
2 Comments

Deconstructing the Declaration of Independence

7/5/2013

1 Comment

 
PictureThomas Jefferson
WE usually try to stick to local issues, but because of the Independence Day holiday, and as a follow-up to our last post, WE wanted to share something that a reader brought to our attention. It is a fascinating essay explaining how Thomas Jefferson and his collaborators developed the style and logic contained in the Declaration of Independence. 

The founders were declaring independence from Great Britain, of course. But they had to justify it not only to their fellow colonists, but to the rest of the world, including potential allies who would never interfere in a civil war. 

The article begins,

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the most masterfully written state paper of Western civilization. As Moses Coit Tyler noted almost a century ago, no assessment of it can be complete without taking into account its extraordinary merits as a work of political prose style. Although many scholars have recognized those merits, there are surprisingly few sustained studies of the stylistic artistry of the Declaration. This essay seeks to illuminate that artistry by probing the discourse microscopically--at the level of the sentence, phrase, word, and syllable. By approaching the Declaration in this way, we can shed light both on its literary qualities and on its rhetorical power as a work designed to convince a "candid world" that the American colonies were justified in seeking to establish themselves as an independent nation.
The thing WE find lacking today, is that the principles contained in the Declaration were considered commonplace to its original readers ("We hold these truths to be self-evident" -- the word "we" meant almost everyone, not just the writers), as the article illustrates:
Although the preamble is the best known part of the Declaration today, it attracted considerably less attention in its own time. For most eighteenth-century readers, it was an unobjectionable statement of commonplace political principles. As Jefferson explained years later, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."
WE fear that these principles are not commonplace anymore. The loss of this understanding may be at the root of many of the problems we face today.

The article then goes on to explain how, based on these principles, the colonists were justified in changing their form of government:
Unlike the preamble, however, which most eighteenth-century readers could readily accept as self-evident, the indictment of the king required proof. In keeping with the rhetorical conventions Englishmen had followed for centuries when dethroning a "tyrannical" monarch, the Declaration contains a bill of particulars documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties. The bill of particulars lists twenty-eight specific grievances and is introduced with the shortest sentence of the Declaration:

To prove this [the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This sentence is so innocuous one can easily overlook its artistry and importance. The opening phrase--"To prove this"--indicates the "facts" to follow will indeed prove that George III is a tyrant. But prove to whom? To a "candid world"--that is, to readers who are free from bias or malice, who are fair, impartial, and just. The implication is that any such reader will see the "facts" as demonstrating beyond doubt that the king has sought to establish an absolute tyranny in America. If a reader is not convinced, it is not because the "facts" are untrue or are insufficient to prove the king's villainy; it is because the reader is not "candid."
Reading the Declaration of Independence, WE follow the reasoning and the logic from one line to the next, and we realize how the colonists were justified in their indictment of King George III. 

Today, WE fear, too many people do not recognize tyranny and oppression when they see it. What's more, they applaud it! Truth be told, they think a nannying, dictatorial government is desirable, and they want more of it! As if we humans are not capable of managing our own affairs (or protecting our environment), we need special humans to do that for us. But which "special" humans? Well, the ones we agree with, of course! Ah yes, but don't you see? There's the rub! People don't agree. When we're talking about special people controlling other people's lives, we must agree. But we don't. But we must. Norman, co-ordinate! (cultural reference)

WE do not know why the understanding of the principles of liberty and freedom no longer seem self-evident to contemporary citizens. Perhaps it is because we have become too complacent. Maybe the American form of government that Jefferson and Madison help to create was so effective that we are too prosperous to pay attention to the things that really matter. Perhaps we're lulled into a sense of security that the Constitution will protect us without anyone actively upholding and defending it. Perhaps we haven't noticed the oppression and bureaucratic tyranny that has been creeping up on us. 

Heaven knows, WE certainly do not want to endure a second revolution, especially while we still have a few remaining protections guaranteed in the Constitution. We can still fix what's wrong at the ballot box if citizens get serious, and start participating in the government process.

In any event, WE encourage you to go read the article. It's a long one, but very interesting for its historical and tactical analysis. If you ever need to write a persuasive essay, this is your cookbook. 
1 Comment

On Independence Day, Liberty, and Kings

7/2/2013

3 Comments

 
Picture
Two hundred thirty-seven years ago, as Abraham Lincoln described it so brilliantly, “our forefathers brought forth to this continent a new nation conceived in Liberty.”

As Independence Day nears, it’s a good time to reflect on that ideal - on liberty and the meaning of representative government, particularly as it operates here.

Numerous local campaigns are underway, and politicians of all stripes will vie for votes promising to “protect” every aspect of modern life for us - health, safety, and welfare.  Some campaign promises will likely include pledges to protect the world from us. Will protection include safekeeping citizens liberty? Likely few candidates will willingly address the growing reach and imbalance of the local administrative state, and how that impacts freedom. Even the best-intentioned may find themselves veering away from the topic, worried that standing up for freedom will be interpreted as radical.

Our forefathers suffered prolonged distress and oppression at the hands of a king at a time when power was centralized, and top-down hierarchy was the norm of social order. The will of “the people” was an irritant, and loyal subjects had no choice but endure the indignities of subservience. The power of the state was absolute, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were vulnerable to the whims of local magistrates and bureaucracies. Freedom was limited to permissions. [Does this ring any bells?] And measures to maintain the king’s central order carried the weight of the crown, without regard to rights or the burdens carried by the “governed.”

The nation’s founders, early classical liberals, dared to rebel when talk of liberty sent upstarts to the gallows. The colonials fought, somehow prevailed, and the rest as they say “is history.” Every 4th of July flags wave, and we celebrate living in the land of the free.

How much of the founding Liberty that Lincoln spoke of is still relevant? Has the protection of our freedoms become passe' now, if that duty is considered at all?  Perhaps some rights should be forfeited to achieve bureaucratically controlled designs to achieve community “visions” of progress.  And perhaps we should accept that our private property is a "natural resource" that the state and county should manage.  NOT.  Much of this new local "governance" smacks of dominion, not far from the ham-fisted control that infuriated colonials.

While politicians walk in local parades this week surrounded by flags, touting American beliefs, conviction to freedom may not stir in their hearts. The idea that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth” may seem laughable and hackneyed. "Get with the program, times have changed. Polls confirm what the people want, which is holistic and sustainable community management."

We have a county executive who promised he wouldn't “be ideological,” but goes whole hog for this stuff. Following suit, candidates left and right scramble to avoid the issue of rights as they fit into the big picture. Have the foundations of representative democracy become vestigial, given the local political climate?  WE feel that top-down bullying and magisterial orders feel like a yoke. Mountains of bureaucratic dictums and regulation should not incapacitate the flexibility and wisdom of the people to manage their lives, businesses, homes, and farms.  The "the private sector" must not be considered the government's oyster.

WE are not in bad company. Here’s a quote written by the Supreme Court that’s only a few days old:

         “The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.”

Those words were published in Washington DC on June 26th in regard to state initiatives. It’s something of a national shame that the statement was written in a Supreme Court dissent (Case 12-144).

Four justices that some would expect not to agree did agree about “these truths.”  (Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor)  So, the principles of liberty still rattle in a few highly placed heads, just as these important concepts remain central to our state and federal constitutions. But how functionally important are liberty concepts here, in this county?

Too often in the hallowed halls of the Whatcom County courthouse it's said that “people need to give up some rights” for the greater good. Really? Should that ever be necessary, much less permissible? And we hear that "anything not permitted isn't permitted."  Government is taking our rights, and selling them back to us as permits! How does that "square" with the Supreme Court statement above?

This area's bureaucrats assume a prostrate position when interpreting federal and state dictums, particularly any dictum that comes with grant funds tied to its tail.

Instead of the state having to prove that some problem or nuisance has occurred, citizens are asked to “prove” that future activity will do no harm. Precautionary principle trumps constitutional principle. Our local guilty until proven innocent regulations and restrictions about "community resource protection" turn justice itself on its head.


Picture
Speaking of heads, Jack Louws has made a habit of saying he’s "the head of Whatcom County."  WE see a bit of a crown on the guy...  Has “a man who would be king” moved into the corner office of the county courthouse? For years he's been sitting on boards, voting to wheel-and-deal public funds, and building up a retinue of courtiers.

He and his county department heads don't seem overly fond of Council scrutiny.  Recent moves were made to expand administrative latitude to simplify (avoid) council's informed review and consent of spending decisions, "for efficiency."  Uh-huh.


PictureWho's the boss?
And talk in the county is that he brought the “Lynden Mafia” along. Well-heeled consigliares and lieutenants whisper in his ear, with raging appetites to split economic and resource pies.  Not all policy decisions affecting our lives and business are made in council chambers, not by a long shot.

WE dislike the notion that kingly power, or godfathers, should dominate representative government. Legitimate power "rests in the people." Here's to honest self-governance, open and accountable.

This nation once confronted a king, declaring
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. (See Executive appointments and advisory committees, plus other favored "partners" and special "teams".)

  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. (Remember this, with it's educational goal being "give in".)

  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; … in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. (Promoting that Whatcom County should go along with outside control and interests, like the WIT - and this outside "integration" isn't going away.)

You may recognize these brief excerpts from the Declaration of Independence. But aren't we getting that sort of treatment today?

WE thought this was supposed to be a free country. We feel the people deserve better than to be "managed." We're citizens, not subjects.


3 Comments

PLF Wins Case Against Offsite Mitigation Extortion!

7/2/2013

1 Comment

 
PictureVictory!
    In January WE shared news that the Supreme Court accepted a case fought by Pacific Legal Foundation related to wetlands mitigation for land disturbance, "Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District."

We are happy to report that they won, and that nexus and proportionality really do matter.  There's a great video about the case here at YouTube, and additional information at the PLF site.

The opinion states:  "Our decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987) , and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994) , provide important protection against the misuse of the power of land-use regulation. In those cases, we held that a unit of government may not condition the approval of a land-use permit on the owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the government’s demand and the effects of the proposed land use. In this case, the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) believes that it circumvented Nollan and Dolan because of the way in which it structured its handling of a permit application submitted by Coy Koontz, Sr., whose estate is represented in this Court by Coy Koontz, Jr. 1 The District did not approve his application on the condition that he surrender an interest in his land. Instead, the District, after suggesting that he could obtain approval by signing over such an interest, denied his application because he refused to yield. The Florida Supreme Court blessed this maneuver and thus effectively interred those important decisions. Because we conclude that Nollan and Dolan cannot be evaded in this way, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision must be reversed."   [Complete case information is available at the bottom of this post]


Here's more from Justia.com:

In 1972 Koontz bought 14.9 undeveloped acres. Florida subsequently enacted the 1972 Water Resources Act, requiring a permit with conditions to ensure that construction will not be harm water resources and the 1984 Henderson Wetlands Protection Act, making it illegal to “dredge or fill in, on, or over surface waters” without a wetlands permit. The District with jurisdiction over the Koontz land requires that applicants wishing to build on wetlands offset environmental damage by creating, enhancing, or preserving wetlands elsewhere. Koontz decided to develop 3.7-acres. In 1994 he proposed to raise a section of his land to make it suitable for building and installing a stormwater pond. To mitigate environmental effects, Koontz offered to foreclose development of 11 acres by deeding to the District a conservation easement. The District rejected Koontz’s proposal and indicated that it would approve construction only if he reduced the size of his development and deeded a conservation easement on the larger remaining property or hired contractors to improve District wetlands miles away. Koontz sued under a state law that provides damages for agency action that constitutes a taking without just compensation. The trial court found the District’s actions unlawful under the requirements of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, that the government may not condition permit approval on the owner’s relinquishment of a portion of his property unless there is a nexus and rough proportionality between the demand and the effects of the proposed use. The court of appeal affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed.  (more)
Complete Supreme Court docket, Case 11-1447  here

Cornell University Law School (page)
  • Syllabus [HTML] [PDF]
  • Opinion, Alito [HTML] [PDF]
  • Dissent, Kagan [HTML] [PDF]
1 Comment
    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.