Blog Archives

Mass Violence Is Not Uniquely American

12/15/2012

Answer: Neither one will.

In reaction to the shocking massacre of young students and their teachers at school in a small Connecticut town, the media are in the usual attack mode about U.S. Second Amendment rights. Most of them never having owned, fired or even held a gun, seem to think video games or violent movies - and guns - make people do this. And they also talk as if this violence is a uniquely American phenomenon. It's not:

A man with a knife injures 22 school children in China, a man kills 16 students in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself. Thirty-eight school children died in a bomb blast in Bath Township, Michigan (in 1927). School massacres have not been limited to guns or America. They've happened all over the map. Mass murder seems to be something persistent that would be better solved by addressing the psych problem, not the tools used by maniacs. Kakistocracy Report made this observation:

As one blogger pointed out, "it’s not the weapon, it’s the psychopath who preys on the undefended... it’s the reason we have the right to bear arms. Mass murders occur in places where personal arms are prohibited. In the worst cases, it’s one’s own government that’s the perpetrator." Of course, the 'progressives' will never believe this. It is the reason we must utterly defeat progressivism.

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Maybe the coarsening of our culture goes hand-in-hand with the lessening of our freedom. (Read the entire post...)

Our hearts sincerely go out to the victims and their families, friends and classmates. But the media are trying to chalk this up as a lesson about "the American gun culture." WE just want it to be the right lesson.

What's consistent between tragedies of mass murder around the world (there have been so many) is that there's so little consistency between them. Browse the history and statistics about rampage killers. Few other nations have a Bill of Rights or "gun rights," much less a Constitution meant to defend personal freedom (that's still rare). Asia, Europe, Russia, and other places with immense government control over citizens have a large share of senseless losses caused by maniacs. As blogger Velociman puts it:

Forget the political poseurs. They will be, and are, raising their needy heads. I have no desire to enter the fray of gun-free-zones versus heat-packing librarians. I've eaten herring before, and did not particularly care for it.

What we do have, however, is a seriously psychotic individual acting out a rage that is incomprehensible to the vast majority of us. Shooting toddlers. Someone, somewhere, brought this upon this village. I find it inconceivable that this fellow awakened this morning and thought for the first time Today is the day I go berserker.

Again, I do not see this as a gun issue. It is a crazy people issue. I have no facts, I am intuiting here, but I would wager this young fiend, who is by various descriptions autistic, Asbergian, schizophrenic, has a well-documented history of aberrant, dangerous behavior. I am by no means casting aspersions on the autistic. I have friends with autistic children. It is a heart-rending challenge, but it is by no means this. This is something else entirely. (Read the entire post...)

So, WE suggest that a vulnerable and well intentioned public should be very wary of knee-jerk policy that would do little to solve this puzzling human problem that's far from an American one. There is a more tangible risk that "never waste a crisis" opportunism will rear its ugly head in short order.

WE don't question that the President's reaction was sincere, but wonder what he meant when he said, "we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." "Regardless of the politics" seemed a bit loaded. WE don't think that dealing with the issue of the deranged, who suffer from whatever syndrome leads them to commit such heinous crimes, should have anything to do with "politics."

Attorney General Holder, in comments that followed on December 14th said, "we need to discuss who we are as a nation, talk about the freedoms that we have, and the rights that we have, and how those might be used in a responsible way." That was very glib, but "who we are as a nation" meant what?

It was former presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (nickname "Rhambo") who said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." That is about as ominous as it gets for a cabinet member. Fortunately he resigned his cabinet position, and WE hope the rest of the regime never agreed with it in the first place. However, WE'd be very surprised if that wasn't a widely held belief. It is so in character.

This feels like a serious crisis - given the series of similar incidents recently - which is creepy. But the Second Amendment says what it means, and means what it says. The Supreme Court upheld the idea that it represents an individual's right to keep and bear arms - not to commit crimes with them, for goodness sake. Regardless, WE also know that this administration is vehemently opposed to gun rights. With a stunned public ready to accept any solution, this could be a perfect storm (and not in a good way) for politics to kick-in divisively. Would diminished "gun rights" diminish lunacy or crime?

Our founders intended the Second Amendment to serve multiple objectives: for individuals' self-protection, national defense, and as a general warning to would-be despots. The last one seems remote to us of course, but The Revolutionary War was still visible in the rear view mirror when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The very idea of a people needing to overthrow their government seems laughable now. The protections written into The Constitution were so effective, nobody has had to worry about it for 209 years. "It can't happen here!" And what good would our little pea shooters be against the best equipped military in human history? I pity the fool...!

Just make sure you keep an eye on both hands, and pay close attention to the man behind the curtain. Just in case...

7 Comments

Want to take V.O.W.S. on transportation?

12/10/2012

6 Comments

WE received a rather interesting invitation a few days ago from the Washington State Transportation Commission to participate in something called a V.O.W.S. survey. Maybe a few readers received the invitation too. WE almost deleted it.

But out of curiosity we did a little dredging to find out what kind of “org” V.O.W.S. is. You see, the e-mail invitation said “voiceofwashingtonsurvey.org.” Something-dot-org usually stands for “organization.” WE checked the Secretary of State website and found that no such organization exists. So, what’s up with that?

It turned out that V.O.W.S. stands for “Voice of Washington State,” which is a government outreach effort “funded” by the Washington State Transportation Commission itself (meaning “with our tax dollars”). Our impression is that somebody dreamed-up this process to give narrowly-framed surveys a “community-input” look and feel. WE wonder how many people have participated in V.O.W.S. so far, and how proportionate responses are geographically. WE doubt many rural people will have their voices heard (like in the Methow Valley or other places far off the beaten path – the ones who use the most gas, and desperately need transportation). But it’s all-new, just launched in 2012, so there are no reports to see from the project, at least we couldn’t find anything online. Maybe this will be fair, but we expect it's intended to collect the opinions of city-folks and wherever big voting blocks are.

Getting back to the current V.O.W.S. survey, the choice being offered is pretty blunt. The basic theme is, “Would you like to pay more taxes and fees or get less service from the DOT?”

WE think that proposition sounds more like a threat or ultimatum than a “choice.” The agency seems to be saying, “Pay more, or else."

A premise, a question like this is very much like asking, “Would you like to pay more for your food or go hungry?” That's not a fair choice. It offers no reasonable option, like not going hungry by eating something cheaper, like a burger instead of a steak, or maybe a bowl of rice or cereal instead of that burger (veggie or otherwise).

The VOWS survey offered zilch in the way of alternatives to DOT's existing programs. It only asked how much more a person would be willing to pay, using various scales like this, with it's incoherent note and instructions:

WE think readers should know more about how state transportation money is spent before filling out something like this.

In 2011-2013 the state transportation budget page shows that $111,500,000 (over $111 million) of DOT's operating expenditures were spent on public transportation while $429,700,000 was spent on highway maintenance and operations. That means about 25% of all operations money went to “public transportation.” WE're not aware of any statewide “public transit.” Truth is, the lion's share of transit money flows straight into county and city coffers. (To be fair, a few transit lines connect counties, but only in the more populated and urban areas.)

There are some other big-ticket items on the expenditure list that aren't related to state roads. You'll see $88,900,000 “paid to other agencies” (in the operations section), and in the capital expenditure section the page says $94,200,000 spent on “local programs.” That’s a huge amount of money ($88.9 million + $94.2 million = $183.1 million) going to things besides state highways and roads. Where does it go? It looks like a lot funnels into things like our nebulous "regional agency," Whatcom Council of Governments. See how much the state spends on rail ($29 million on rail operations + $426.4 on capital projects = $455.4 million total). Apparently a lot of that matching money helps “sustain” the mother of all fiscal trainwrecks, Amtrack. WE like trains, but wonder how efficient all that rail spending actually is.

You’ll find a “funding options” screen along the way:

Don't be shy about clicking "Definitely Not" across the board if you think these "options" are bad news. There many screens, read each carefully. WE think a lot of the fees and taxes proposed look very regressive. The less folks make, the bigger the hit on the pocketbook to simply transport yourself. You'll find a screen toward the end of the survey to enter personal comments. If you're willing to give this a whirl, here’s the link to log-in to the VOWS Survey Panel

WE think the survey should have asked, “Do you think the state’s spending your money on the right things?” at the very beginning. WE have serious doubts about the propriety of spending state transportation taxes on local transit and trails, and for "economic" and social engineering escapades for towns and cities like Complete Streets.

This is a pretty big state. It’s bigger than a lot of countries like Guatemala, Nicaragua, Greece, Nepal and Uruguay. Size-wise, at 71,300 square miles (that’s 184,666 square kilometers) Washington falls between Syria and Cambodia.   We need state highways and roads to move freely between cities and counties. That's much more important than city transit.

Moving people and goods to work and to market, to facilitate the U.S. post, and for trucks to make deliveries to our homes is very high priority. But in the last twenty years or so, spenders have worked hard creating a “regional” approach to transportation that's a fig-leaf for spending on projects that honestly don't rise to statewide significance.

WE have low expectations that the situation will change on its own. Cities and counties where the big concentration of votes are love wallowing in the transportation pig trough. They claim they’re bringing home the bacon, bringing federal (and state) taxes back to us. But WE wonder, how much better would transportation be if the approach to spending was more rational? Think about the overlap in transportation missions with layers of duplicate paperwork wasted on local projects (state, county, and city). A lot of transportation work could be done faster, cheaper, and with a lot less confusion if jurisdictions took more direct responsibility for their own needs. The same work could still get done, and we might have a nickel in our pockets at the end of the day. How could the situation be improved?

We’ll cut to the chase. WE have a theory. Ready?

Federal transportation:   WE think federal funds should be spent on national-scale projects, not state and local ones. National work would include the interstate highway system, airports that serve interstate and international traffic, and other projects that benefit the whole country (like work at border crossings, that would make sense).

State transportation: WE think state transportation money should be directed strictly to work that's legitimately state-scale, like state highways and roads (pa-leeze!), not for county roads or city streets, buses, or local street improvement projects, park trails, and so forth. Sound reasonable?

County transportation: WE think county transportation funds should be collected locally and spent on roads within a county that connect its towns and cities and to get us to the state and interstate roads. In rare cases, trails might be okay but only when the towns are close enough to make trails practical for walking and biking (or whatever). WE think recreation shouldn't be confused with transportation. And, lastly, county money shouldn’t be used to supplement city budgets. There was a time when our two biggest cities (Bellingham and Lynden) had their own bus systems. Then the WTA became a massive [whatever it is]. That wouldn't have happened without state and even federal funding. But that’s a topic for another post. Let’s just say for now that WE suggest the WTA has become a transportation sinkhole.

Lastly, Cities: They need to take direct responsibility for street and trail projects within their boundaries. The feds, state and the county constantly shovel money into cities. What’s amazing is how much money goes to city transportation projects here when our cities and towns are so tiny, transportation-wise.   Check out the reality:

Bellingham’s area is 31.7 square miles, Lynden is 4.1 square miles, Ferndale is 6.3 square miles, Everson is 1.2 square miles, Sumas is 1.4 square miles, Nooksack is .7 square miles, Blaine is 8.5 square miles, and Birch Bay is a whopping 21.2 square miles.

Yet millions are spent on transportation in these small cities, schlepping-up state and federal transportation funds. WE think a river of state and federal money is misspent in this state, flowing into “local” transportation that’s way out of whack with actual state and federal need. And the Transportation Commission wants to know how much more we'd like to spend.

Knowing what we do, we think this V.O.W.S. survey and the new transportation mind-set are seriously flawed, headed in the wrong direction. This is a huge state and on every level transportation priorities look out of whack. Here's a good article that was published in the Weekly Standard last year on this subject, "Interstate 2.0"

Take the VOWS survey if you're willing. Again, here’s the V.O.W.S. link Don't be shy - share your thoughts below too. Don't be afraid to disagree. This really is an open forum.

6 Comments

Obamacare has so arrived through WAHA, Game of Monopoly

12/5/2012

2 Comments

Because the feds, the State of Washington and Whatcom County don’t provide much hands-on healthcare service to the public (unless you’re in jail), you may wonder who may be making decisions “on our behalf” now that the Affordable Care Act is rolling ahead. Who’s putting Obamacare into action here?

The answer is Whatcom Alliance for Healthcare Access (WAHA). Effective November 30, 2012, its name was updated to “Whatcom Alliance for Health Advancement.”
Their website says the organization will remain the same, with a new look.

While WAHA says it’s non-partisan, it has long claimed our medical system was (or is) broken, and WAHA’s issue advocacy has only supported one solution (ahem), Obamacare. Since last year, WAHA has been directly involved in transforming the healthcare delivery system from the free-market to the new ACO (accountable care organization) model. Take a look under the hood of the preliminary plan (in particular the "Vision for Payment Reform" on Page 7) to see the sweeping changes in store.

WE did some background dredging to turn over rocks as we generally do, and discovered that Regina Delahunt – this county’s own Public Health Director – is also the agent and president of this non-profit, which is also technically a charity. As such, WAHA has been doing pretty darned well. It received a massive multi-year grant from the feds for up to $5.7 million to coordinate work that’s coincidentally tied to Regina Delahunt’s day-job.

WE don’t besmirch, but we do wonder if that pushes the boundaries of "public-private" partnership. It seems odd and complicated that a public employee, who’s a department head with a direct interest in the county’s relationship with an organization, should also be the organization's official “agent” and “president.”

Delahunt introduced the "Community Transformation Grant" grant, a federal CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) program that was awarded in January to WAHA. Without question, the federal government is hell-bent on helping "communities implement policies that sustain environmental and systems changes" to "achieve health equity." The minutes of the February 7, 2012 “Board of Health” committee meeting fail to mention Delahunt's central relationship with WAHA.

This 2007 report page named Delahunt in the “partner” role:

Given the number of doctors, dentists, labs, and specialty care centers here plus PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hospital which is a first class medical center, who believes that Whatcom citizens have ever been systematically deprived of access to healthcare?

It doesn’t matter. WAHA is here, it’s Obamacare central, and they say they’re representing you, me, and all of us. Ever hear of them? A lot of decision making about what care we should get, from whom, and at what cost will be run through WAHA.

Whether you love it or hate it, the healthcare system seems headed toward something very monopolistic with all this central guidance (that's extremely expensive).

Have you noticed how many doctors have changed their shingles lately, and that more than ever say “PeaceHealth”? WE don’t have a beef with PeaceHealth, but we understand that most small practices and practitioners have had little choice but join-up to become part of an ACO (affordable care organization) just to stay afloat. Some say a lot of docs will retire soon. Who knows if that’s true; only time will tell.

Whatever your position, WE thought we’d encourage people to pay attention to WAHA and its relationship with (and within) Whatcom County. It’s hard to know how “auditable” the effort will be. Most of what’s available about WAHA is its own glowing hyperbole. Ever hear of the “Care Transitions Project” or “Project Impact”?

They say they’re providing “a community process.” Does that mean anything to ya? Community process, how? But here's what they show in presentations...

... who are the "community members"? Mostly insurance companies and provider insiders. Here’s what WAHA writes about itself at its website (it has a couple versions: this, and this – take your pick):

WAHA Overview

The Whatcom Alliance for Healthcare Access (WAHA) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to connect people to health care and facilitate transformation of the current system into one that improves health, reduces costs and improves the experience of care.

WAHA is committed to collaborating with others in our community to develop solutions, both legislative and programmatic, to problems that exist in our health care system, so that all residents of Whatcom County have access to health care services. Health care access is not just a local problem. It is a symptom of a larger state and national crisis — a health care system that is broken. WAHA is committed to facing this problem and working together as a community to build legislative and programmatic solutions that ensure that all Whatcom County residents have access to health care services.

History and Leadership

In 2002 the St. Luke’s Foundation convened over 200 Whatcom County citizens for a Community Healthcare Access Summit in order to increase awareness about eroding access to health coverage and care, and to identify potential strategies for developing a community-based response. Our alliance of providers, consumers, and community leaders is the outcome of that summit.

WAHA is governed by a Leadership Board of Directors comprised of health care providers, consumers and community leaders from public and private sectors. These leaders, as well as other community partners, serve on WAHA’s advisory committees dedicated to: 1) delivering health insurance and care connection services; 2) fostering public engagement; and 3) developing sound health care policy.

Whatcom Alliance for Healthcare Access has wanted only one thing for years – central command and control, and they’ve definitely got the lead seat. Why would we expect them to write anything but a promising "outlook" as they go forward, spending millions? Who will hold “affordable health care” accountable to us?

ALERT: There's been talk that a "special facilities district" could be formed for the purpose of creating a countywide ACO. Sound tame? NOT. Such a district created by council (not a public vote) would potentially (a) have only few token elected public officials on its board, (b) with "operative" appointees filling more seats, and [brace yourself] (c) such a district could have broad TAXING POWERS. But this is wouldn't be like most special purpose districts. This would have less citizen control. Just as for the WTA, citizens wouldn't have direct accountability through the ballot box. We have real local control over our fire districts, school districts, and water districts - but we wouldn't have it over a healthcare district like this. A proposal is looming - probably coming early in 2013 by all accounts.

Last council session, on November 20th, the county (WE think wisely) turned down the opportunity to involve us in a demonstration for Washington State’s “Health Path Strategy 2.” That would have put the county in the position of being responsible for the healthcare choices of people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (“dual” eligibility). What other “strategies” will WAHA field and present on behalf of the state and HHS?

WE don't know how WAHA will horse-collar doctors and other providers, or if services will be more or less available through our health plans. However this comes down, how much transparency there will be as price-setting negotiations occur? The public should know more about that, but we doubt much if anything will ever revealed about the cost of all the new overhead that provides zero in terms of actual provider service.

There’s a lot about this that promises to be everything WE feared Obamacare would be; a big game of Monopoly with insiders at the helm, managing “Community Chest.” Pay attention, ask questions, and stay tuned. Here's WAHA's new look and URL - dig-dig!

2 Comments

Tyrants Won, Citizens Zero

12/4/2012

1 Comment

This isn't a local story, but it has local object lessons -- and links all up and down the left coast.

Environmental zealots in the federal government have successfully put another productive family business out of business, as the Washington Post reports:

SAN FRANCISCO — An historic Northern California oyster farm along Point Reyes National Seashore will be shut down and the site converted to a wilderness area, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced on Thursday.

Salazar said he will not renew the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. lease that expires Friday. The move will bring a close to a yearslong environmental battle over the site. (Continue reading...)

The Trojan Heron reported on the plight of this family run oyster bed in Marin County, CA in an article entitled Scientific and Governmental Misconduct:

Back in September, we covered the plight of a small oyster farm in Drakes Estero in Marin County, California. With respect to government bullying and scientific misconduct, that story sounds eerily like our own. To top it all off, the local band of environmental zealots down there (Environmental Action Committee of West Marin) is headed by none other than Amy Trainer, the former in-house attorney for the Friends. Small world.

The accusatory environmental narrative leveled at the oyster farm is essentially identical to the one put forward by the Friends against homeowners here. Funny how that is, don't you think?

Back in September, everyone was waiting for Interior Secretary Salazar to make his decision on whether to shut down the oyster farm or let it continue operating. His decision came down today: he is ordering the shut-down and removal of the oyster farm, which has been in the Estero for about 90 years. (Continue reading...)

But wait, there's more!

The Framing of an Oyster Farm - Drake's Bay Oyster Company from A Visual Record on Vimeo.

Meanwhile, last week in a left-hand/right-hand maneuver, lame duck Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire invoked an executive order commanding that the state use its powers to reduce ocean acidification to protect shellfish (and shellfish farming operations). Naturally, it all ties back to everyone's favorite bogeyman, anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Ignoring all benefits of carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life, the order exaggerates still hypothetical (and permanently non-falsifiable) risks. Once again our agencies are being pressed by politicians to increase regulations that will curb freedom without objective scientific justification.

All the talk of "blue ribbon" panels is nothing more than rubber stamps by the high priests of the environmental religion. And therefrom, real people lose their jobs, and national prosperity diminishes measurably at the hands of these first amendment violators. These infringements on our freedom are being implemented at all levels of government.

Rampant environmental hysteria is being stirred up by collectivists, and otherwise sensible people fall for it, with devastating results. Too few people remember what it was like, and what it means to live in a free country. We need to restore those principles back into our education and our media. The environment will be better for it too.

WE have raised alarm repeatedly that Salazar and the BLM are headed up the coast, our way, swinging a wrecking ball through the San Juans. Still think their programs present no risk?

1 Comment

GPT Opponents Ignore Dihydrogen Monoxide Threat!

12/1/2012

1 Comment

The last chance for verbal public input on the environmental impact study scoping for the Gateway Pacific Terminal was held Thursday, November 29 from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m in Ferndale. Opponents were livid that paid supporters hijacked the hearing process. WE are not aware of any paid or bused-in support, but WEthinks opponents doth protest too much. WE don't approve of the tactic, but it is hardly a novel idea, and it is frequently used by 'progressive' interests. Turnabout is fair play. See Alinsky's Rule #4.

In any event, WE heard from supporters for about three hours, including local mayors and city council members who feel that their constituents would be well served by the Gateway Pacific Terminal.

For the final hour, a steady supply of opponents greatly exaggerated the dangers of burning coal, coal dust, diesel particulates, etc., while ignoring the terrifying risks posed by the chemical dihydrogen monoxide, which:

is called "hydroxyl acid", the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
may cause severe burns.
is fatal if inhaled.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of Styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
for enhanced interrogation, torture.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Large sections of the proposed terminal will be immersed (that's right, immersed) in this hazardous chemical, which is responsible for the deaths of countless humans and endangered species alike, yet nobody seems to be very concerned about it.*

*Yes, Sheldon, that was sarcasm. Bazinga!

All kidding aside, the Gateway Pacific Terminal is a big project, and area residents may be affected both positively and negatively. To ensure that people and the environment receive due diligence, WE prefer objective science, the rule of law, and rational risk assessment over the "precautionary principle", which is merely a reasonable-sounding expression for environmental histrionics.

1 Comment

Mass Violence Is Not Uniquely American

Want to take V.O.W.S. on transportation?

Obamacare has so arrived through WAHA, Game of Monopoly

Tyrants Won, Citizens Zero

GPT Opponents Ignore Dihydrogen Monoxide Threat!

Categories

Archives