WE don't generally wander far from local, but the PJTV Trifecta (below) caught our collective eye.  Living next to Canada makes Border Patrol a part of daily life, 24/7.  WE like having a secure border, and national security is a truly enumerated federal duty.  Knock on wood we're probably safer than people on the southern border.

But there's a another program here that few citizens are aware of - regular and totally "un-warranted" photo surveillance that Whatcom County (and a slew of partner agencies) engage in on a regular basis.  This aerial surveillance now being done using Pictometry.  What once was merely "mapping" is something very invasive.

Pictometry is not garden variety aerial photography for mapping and measuring for public work.  Using airplanes, look-down and oblique photos are taken regularly and then compared to prior images using a specialized computer program to watch for changes, to see what people are doing.  Boy, if that doesn't fit the definition of "surveillance" WE don't know what does.

Who's watching?  All kinds of agencies are (see list after this paragraph), including the Lummi tribe. The whole purpose is to actively snoop on citizen activity, peering at everyone's home, yard, or farm by taking oblique photos periodically without having to establish "probable cause" or get a warrant.  If the Pictometry computer program flags some perceived activity or change to your property (from a long list of options)  you're subject to further investigation, or maybe even a knock on the door.  Who's privy to what extent of the photo bank isn't clear.  Do they all share everything?  Is there any protection from abuse?  Most importantly, is this much un-warranted surveillance justified?  What would a court say if a citizen objected?

Those involved:  Whatcom County (numerous departments), City of Bellingham, the Housing Authority, Blaine, Everson, Lynden, Sumas, PUD #1, the Conservation District, the "Council of Governments", the WTA, Lummi Nation, Ferndale, Lk Whatcom WAter & Sewer (and who knows how many more - the feds too?)

There were no public hearings about the adoption or expansion and continuation of this program.  There's never been a chance for the citizenry to weigh in over a number of years (4 or 5).  Pictometry is being renewed for 2015 (and perhaps longer), it was in the county budget.  For a taste of the terms, look at this agreement and a truckload more here.

And are these pictures public records?  Will "the people" be permitted to "see" the pictures and reports - Pictometry "product" - that our public servants see?  Not a chance. WE have good reason to expect access to be denied (records withheld) "to protect citizens privacy" (!) if you could believe the hypocrisy of such an oxymoronic excuse. These photos and reports ("product") is being held in the hands of a very tight circle of "interests."  Carefully read this stock clause in all of the Pictometry agreements:

How does all that cozy vendor-agency protection square with the Public Records Act, which says:

If you were lucky enough to attend An Evening with Bill Whittle last month at the Mt. Baker Theatre (sponsored by the Northwest Business Club), you were witness to the inspiration for the following video, live on-stage. See if you can spot the tag line.

Bill Whittle said in a previous Firewall, that you don't hear the phrase, "Hey, it's a free country" much anymore. He's right; you don't. Because it really isn't. Back then, you were free to do pretty much whatever you wanted, subject to a few well-known, well-understood, common-sense restrictions (murder, theft, vandalism, etc.).  Civilized "was" as "civilized does." Crime was something that could be recognized, related to real harm.

Today, it's just the opposite: only the most trivial choices are up to the individual. Anything significant requires a permit. Have you tried a simple home remodel project lately? Government bureaucrats are taking our freedom and selling it back to us as permits.  If you don't pay ritual homage to The Man there will be hell to pay.

If you attempt to follow the mass of confusion evident in Whatcom County government these days (left or right), WE think you'll relate to this.  Whether you agree with Whittle or not about the issues he's describing (about what happens in Washington D.C.), this "Firewall" episode is about crazy-making as a tactic.  There's a very good chance that the  smoke, mirrors, and "process" that make it difficult for citizens in Whatcom County to know who's in charge of what (and accountable for what), what's being spent, and on what authority - all the fog related to "advisories" and overlapping regulations etc - serves those in control very well.  If you find government impossible to follow nowadays, perhaps "You're not crazy dear."  WE think a great deal of what happens is gaslighting, on a local scale.

Bless 'em all:  "People will do anything to save the world … except take a course in science”...

Despite the continuing performance failure of IPCC based university "ecology department" models and predictions, WA Governor Inslee keeps truckin' on with his big plan to change the world by dictum. See Executive Order 14-04 dated April 29.  It's loaded with a case of frights that sells best the uninformed, with little understanding of how science works. Demagogues thrive on ignorance, acquiring "power and popularity by arousing the emotions of persons and prejudices of the people."  The AGW crisis politic and its supporting eco-industry feed on true believers - who behave rather like cargo-cultists and the ouija board set - of which there are many in Whatcom County.

Physicist Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims

OCTOBER 29, 2009 by STEPHAN KINSELLA

Physicist Howard Hayden, a staunch advocate of sound energy policy, sent me a copy of his letter to the EPA about global warming. The text is also appended below, with permission.

As noted in my post Access to Energy, Hayden helped the late, great Petr Beckmann found the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (brochures and further Beckmann info here; further dissident physics links). Hayden later began to publish his own pro-energy newsletter, The Energy Advocate, following in the footsteps of Beckmann’s own journal Access to Energy  I love Hayden’s email sign-off, “People will do anything to save the world … except take a course in science.”  Here’s the letter:

***

Howard C. Hayden
785 S. McCoy Drive
Pueblo West, CO 81007

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called “Endangerment Finding.”

It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a “tipping point.” Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output “goes to the rail.” Not only that, butit stays there. That’s the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA­GISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.

§  The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

§  A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.

§  The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.

§  CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.

§  A warmer world begets more precipitation.

§  All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.

§  The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ºC, and the lowest is -117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin “proved” that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He “proved” it using the conservation of energy. What he didn’t know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have “proved” that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn’t.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

MAY 6, 2014 11:01 AM
Steyer Strikes Blow against Small-Town Unions 

The environmentalist tycoon pours money into a local election to kill a job-creating project. 

In 2009 — the immediately preceding time four  council seats contested last year in Whatcom County, Wash., were open — candidates spent less than $7,000 on their campaigns. But during the 2013 election cycle, spending skyrocketed, with outside groups forking over as much as $148,000 to campaign for a single council seat.

There’s one man primarily responsible for this precipitous spending hike: Tom Steyer, an environmental enthusiast, hedge-fund manager, California billionaire, and emerging Democratic kingmaker.

Steyer’s interest in these four obscure local races is simple. The Whatcom county council will ultimately decide the fate of a proposed coal-export facility on the West Coast. If it receives approval, it would be the largest such American facility on the West Coast, but Steyer and his green allies fervently oppose the use of coal, so they spent heavily to support council candidates likely to vote against the export facility. Their efforts were ultimately successful, with candidates perceived as green winning all four contested seats.

"I wouldn’t say [Steyer] was decisive, but he definitely moved the needle [in] the environmental candidates’ favor,” says Todd Donovan, a political-science professor at Western Washington University, which is located in Whatcom County. “He provided an unprecedented amount of money spent on behalf of the environmental candidates, and they all won — and they were fighting an uphill battle. . . . We’ve never seen anything like it.”

Steyer’s political action committee, NextGen Climate, gave $275,000 to the Washington Conservation Voters Action Fund, which in turn spent at least $210,000 on the Whatcom county-council elections. But it’s impossible to get an exact figure for how much Steyer money was spent in Whatcom County.

Randy Pepple, a Republican political strategist in Washington State, says Steyer’s lack of transparency was particularly alarming.

“Instead of Tom Steyer for NextGen PAC writing the checks, instead he wrote them to other organizations that were spending money, particularly the Conservation Voters,” he says. “He hid it. For all his challenges on Politico to be transparent, up here, he laundered money through political committees, so it was not entirely clear where he put all his money.”

Outside cash may have played an instrumental role in the Whatcom county-council elections, but that’s not the only development bothering some of its residents. In particular, union members in Whatcom County are concerned that, if the coal-export facility fails to garner council approval, there will be a huge economic cost.

The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would export up to 54 million metric tons each year, the majority of which would be coal extracted in Wyoming and Montana being shipped to buyers as far away as China. The export terminal would also pay more than $92 million in state and local taxes in the two-year construction period alone, and then contribute $11.2 million a year to the government’s coffers after the project’s completion.

Approval would result in nearly 4,500 construction jobs, as well as 1,250 permanent jobs in Whatcom County — no small matter in a region where unemployment in February 2014 was 7.4 percent. And many of the jobs the Gateway Pacific Terminal would provide are unionized, a fact that hasn’t escaped the notice of local labor leaders like Mike Elliott, a spokesman and lobbyist for the Washington State Legislative Board of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.

“These are the types of jobs we want to create,” Elliott tells National Review Online. “We weren’t going to get on board with these projects unless they would use union construction people and union longshoremen to run the thing. But opponents brought in this billionaire environmentalist from California, and not just him — they’ve come up with a whole lot of money. They’ve got more resources than we will ever have, and it makes all the difference in the world. You shouldn’t be able to come in with a wheelbarrow full of money and influence the electoral process. I just think that’s wrong.”

In Whatcom County, Steyer’s big donations helped Democrat-affiliated groups outspend their Republican counterparts two-to-one. But he may well have created an interesting dilemma for Democrats during future elections. Steyer’s spending in Whatcom County pitted environmental groups against organized labor, creating a deep division among two of the Democrats’ key constituent groups.

Steyer’s spending may have a similarly divisive effect on the national stage. In February, he pledged to donate more than $100 million in support of environmentalist Democratic candidates. Just two months later, the Obama administration announced it would opportunely delay its decision on the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project as reviled by environmental groups as it is beloved of Big Labor.

Ken Oplinger, a self-identified “business Democrat” who served as head of the Whatcom County Chamber of Commerce for a decade, tells NRO that while intra-party divisions may not be enough to win labor over to Republicans, they may well split the vote between Democratic candidates.

“In Whatcom County, because the coal terminal was such an all-encompassing issue, it really did play a role because it was the key issue for labor,” he says. “In places where economic development and jobs [are pitted against environmental concerns], you’ll see that happen, and it’s going to be on a case-by-case level. The blue-green connection is still there, and it’s still strong. But they’re going to disagree on some key issues, and when [they do], it may play a role in those races as it did in Whatcom County.”

— Jillian Kay Melchior writes for National Review as a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center. She is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum


- - - -
While Steyer's bio reads like Mr. Green, you can find out more about the guys actual corporate interests and investment strategy from this April 24, 2014 article at the Wall Street Journal:

Tom Steyer's Glass House

The anti-Keystone billionaire throws stones at the Kochs, but what about his motives?

The psychiatric world defines "projection" as the act of denying unpleasant qualities in yourself, while attributing them to others. Consider liberal billionaire Tom Steyer's riff this week about the libertarian billionaire Koch brothers.

Mr. Steyer took exception in a C-SPAN interview to comparisons between his big-dollar funding of Democrats with the Koch brothers' big-dollar funding of Republicans. The Kochs' priorities "line up perfectly with their pocketbooks—and that's not true for us," said Mr. Steyer, who is fighting against the Keystone XL pipeline. Moreover, he insisted, his politicking is "completely open," whereas the Kochs have "not been huge embracers of transparency."

Why is Mr. Steyer so touchy about motives and transparency? The media tend to give liberal spending a pass, since they assume its motives and aims are pure. Mr. Steyer's problem—and he knows it—is that his own purity remains hugely suspect, even among his allies.

It's old news that the billionaire reaped his fortune at hedge fund Farallon Capital, via investments in "dirty" oil and coal projects. Mr. Steyer, who retired from the firm in late 2012, has since publicly repented for his prior investment ways. But what many greens remember is that he didn't do so until he was caught.

Mr. Steyer had spent months fighting Keystone, attending anti-coal rallies and urging colleges to divest from "fossil fuels," before the press noted that his money was still parked at Farallon, still profiting from Kinder Morgan pipelines and coal projects. It was only then, last July, that Mr. Steyer issued a press release saying he'd directed his money be moved to a fund that didn't invest in "tar sands" or "coal" and pledged this process would be complete by the end of 2013.

And don't think that environmentalists failed to notice Mr. Steyer's specific divestment instructions. He did not say in that July press release that he was pulling his money from "fossil fuels"—only tar sands and coal. That may be because Mr. Steyer as recently as 2012 wrote an op-ed in this newspaper supporting more natural-gas extraction, and last year (as the Keystone debate raged) he helped fund a University of Texas study that supported fracking. Farallon over the years has held positions in natural-gas companies.

more

What a crazy world it is when WE humans find ourselves feeling akin to endangered species, victims all of bad science and the constant contradictions brought on by clueless and unaccountable bureaucracies.  This tale seems quite similar to what we've seen and suffered for years up here in Whatcom County where, like our little buddies fish and fowl, we find ourselves more endangered by ill conceived programs than what ordinary life throws at us.  WE see crazymaking practices year in and year out, cast widely like abandoned river nets, and the slaughter of starlings, geese, beaver, and all manner of critters - by whom, and for what?  Rural folks and farmers are being pinned down and put off their land, as a benefit to what?   Only the out of touch could believe these agencies are worthy to wield such reckless power.

Gophers, artillery, and US Fish & Wildlife
by Glen Morgan
The Official Blog, Freedom Foundation
April 17, 2014

The Freedom Foundation has written extensively about the Thurston County Mazama Pocket gopher saga. This was another Endangered Species Act (ESA) story about a little rodent that through no fault of its own has become a symbol of the abuse of people by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other government agencies and special interests. On April 9th, the USFWS officially listed the pocket gopher as an endangered species, and the residents of Thurston County, Wash., get to enjoy the restrictions and harm this listing will bring to them.

It could have been worse. The original habitat maps used inThurston County for the Western pocket gopher included about 150,000 acres covering thousands of farms, homes and businesses. The final habitat maps issued in the USFWS are much more limited, and the property restrictions issued by the Federal government appear far less onerous than the bizarre restrictions enthusiastically invented by the Thurston County Commissioners and their Central Planning department. Communities near the delta smelt, sage grouse, or spotted owl have paid a far higher price for ESA-induced regulation.

However, as an example of government incompetence, the disregard of science, squandering of tax dollars, and just plain silliness, the pocket gopher saga shows what is repeatedly occurring throughout the United States. Our tax dollars fund this abuse of the ESA, and the consequent harm to our society.

Let’s start with the little rodent at the center of this controversy. Until recently, the pocket gopher in Thurston County had only two tangible enemies. The first was the usual plethora of predators – weasels, coyotes, owls (when the burrowing rodents are above ground), and feral cats. The second was human. The pocket gopher, true to its nature, likes to feed on the roots of plants and trees – particularly newly planted fir trees in forests. The larger timber operations recognized that to improve their replanting efforts they would need to address the pesky rodent that was killing their trees. The US Forest Service (USFS) was happy to help, and for decades sponsored both trapping and poisoning efforts. It was determined that eradication was very difficult and that gophers are hardy creatures. An interesting point here is that Ken Berg, the current director of the local USFWS appears to have been employed by the USFS during the time it sponsored trapping and poisoning of gophers in Thurston County and elsewhere.

Times change. The Forest Service stopping poisoning and trapping the gopher in the early 1990s, and a movement began to instead list the gopher as a “threatened” species. The initial problem was that nobody really knew how many of the gophers were around or where they lived. Early in the survey process, it was discovered that the largest concentration of pocket gophers lived at the Army’s Fort Lewis.  And the gopher didn’t live just anywhere on the base, it preferred the artillery impact range. Since World War I, this is probably the most churned, burned, and impacted piece of land in Washington State, yet the hardy pocket gopher thrived among the fires, explosions, and change. The second largest concentration of gophers was at the Olympia airport in Tumwater, Wash. – hardly an example of pristine wilderness.

Common sense would suggest, based on these findings, that the gophers were doing fine living alongside humans (not to mention artillery and a busy airport). Instead, the regulators decided to “save” pocket gophers from things like tractor tire vibrations, kids on bicycles, cats, dogs, and playground equipment. Inconvenient facts just never seem to bother the self-appointed defenders of nature as they scramble for grant dollars to fund their studies, not to mention their livelihoods. Everyone from the Thurston County Commissioners to the leadership of the local Thurston County Democrat Party were convinced that a burrowing rodent which thrived among exploding artillery shells was bound to go extinct if rural residents were permitted to install big toy play sets in their backyards or move dirt in their fields.

Responding to this nonsense, the Freedom Foundation worked with citizens to launch a local education effort called “Stop Taking Our Property (S.T.O.P.) Thurston County.” We engaged hundreds of people to show up and testify at multiple public hearings, confront elected officials, put up yard signs, and expose the truth. This effort delayed state and local efforts to use the gopher as a regulatory tool and likely prevented some of the most harmful restrictions from becoming law. However, the die was cast years earlier, and neither citizens nor science could dissuade the regulators from their power grab.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologists actually raised questions about both local and federal efforts to list the gophers as threatened or endangered. The state’s scientists pointed out the lack of DNA evidence to show that different gopher groups were really “sub species” in need of their own separate listings. These questions and doubts were suppressed, along with any other information that might fail to support a federal USFWS listing under the ESA.

The USFWS regularly rejects, ignores, or tries to avoid science. A recent example from Eastern Washington was the recent attempt to list the White Bluffs Bladderpod. In that case, USFWS squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars on unnecessary studies while pleading poverty to avoid conducting a DNA test. When a private agricultural group paid the $25,000 themselves, the DNA test confirmed there was nothing to distinguish this plant from others just like it spread all over the Western United States.

Most of the time, USFWS just lists the animal absent any serious science or technical review. It does this in collusion with organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in a practice called “Sue and Settle.”  The scam goes like this: First, CBD identifies or invents hundreds of critters that it claims are scarce. CBD then sues USFWS because these animals, bugs, or plants are not yet listed as endangered. USFWS initiates the listing process and negotiates in a kind of legal kabuki theatre to make it look like a real lawsuit and to run up CBD’s soon to be reimbursed legal costs. Then USFWS throws up its hands and "surrenders," listing the species as endangered regardless of science, truth, or harm to people. The bureaucrats get more power, the environmentalists get their way and taxpayers pay everybody’s legal bills.

Public pressure does sometimes make a difference, even with the USFWS. In public hearings the USFWS held last year about the pocket gopher listing, there were big, pretty signs claiming the USFWS “supported agriculture.” The actual USFWS proposal, however, was that no crops could be harvested, no fields tilled, no tractors driven anywhere near suspected gopher populations except between the months of November and February. Farmers and agricultural folk openly ridiculed the USFWS for proposing to only allow farming in the winter. It was loud, funny, and anyone with even elementary education about agriculture knew the farmers were obviously correct.

The ridicule and embarrassment was enough that even USFWS modified their final restrictions to exempt normal agricultural practices. This is great for the farmers who were boisterous and engaged, but if you happen to be a residential property owner or non-farm business in the affected locations, you will be burdened by the ESA gopher listing. No more sheds, barns, or outbuildings without federal approval (and additional fees, of course). Most landowners don’t even know this has happened to them, but they will learn soon enough.

Some have already experienced a similar process thanks to theThurston County Commissioners’ gopher-based property restrictions (see Pocket Gopher Deed-2014  as a “deed” restriction called a “gopher deed”).

Of course, it isn’t about the gopher. It is about control and restricting the land use of rural residents. Most bureaucrats involved in the process know this. If any of these government agencies actually wanted the gopher to explode in population, they would pay farmers to raise the rodents and we would have gophers by the millions. Such an effort would direct both the money and the power away from government and to regular people, it would solve "the problem," and it would be successful.  Of course, there is no goal to solve any of these "problems."  Why?  Like so many other things in life, finding the answer is as easy as following the money.  And even with the ESA listing bringing federal involvement, it is unlikely Thurston County will back off since they gain both power and revenues from these regulations.

A lot of money has been passed around between government agencies and special interests over just this one kind of gopher. There are grants for the county, the state, and even some nonprofits to “study” the animal. There are tens of millions of dollars for “mitigation” and “habitat” purchases. There is money to be made for consultants, planners, and other courtiers. All this money is taken from the people and used to grind down the local citizenry in a process that is designed to punish regular people not on the grant money train.

If you don’t think this matters to you, you probably won’t have to wait long before you get to experience something similar. “You might not be interested in government, but government is interested in you,” as the saying goes. Unless you live in an urban core, there is most likely a critter, insect, or plant near you being considered for listing by the USFWS. If it isn’t the gopher, a butterfly, a bird, or a plant, it might be a slug. The USFWS is currently paying people to count slugs all over Western Washington. Inevitably some of them are in your yard. Of course, John Davis, former editor of Earth First! was famously quoted as saying “…Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs…” I’m sure the Center for Biological Diversity would agree with that statement. In fact, it appears that slugs, like pocket gophers may have far more value to these folk than people. We live in a relatively free country where they can believe this nonsense, however, we should not have to support it with tax payer dollars. Defunding and dissolving USFWS would be a good start towards stopping the insanity.

Until then, the pocket gophers will continue to thrive alongside exploding artillery, and the USFWS will continue to destroy people’s lives and communities, ignoring science and helping to pay off their special interest friends. 

For those who want to see how local elected officials sell this type of scam to those who actually believe them, read their editorial in the local paper here.

If you want to listen to how a local Representative - Republican JT Wilcox thinks of this type of legislation, you can listen to my interview here.  

   The Excavators' focus is devoted to local issues, and sometimes it takes a mighty strong grip on the steering to keep stories close to home. WE're diverging only an itsy-bit by sharing this brief but brilliantly written history lesson. Think about about how incestuously nanny local and state programs have become. The truth of this article is self-evident. If you've followed local politics an iota (left or right) you may recognize how history repeats (or politics work), with the new control-happy majority at county council in post-election payback mode, joined at the hip to the ideological moonbats who have run Bellingham threadbare.
  This article is about far more than the Affordable Care Act. It's about the wages of growing the public addiction to "subsidized" programs* that weaken the foundation of society itself, and calling it progress.
______
   *On March 25, Whatcom County Council approved expanded definitions for the use of "economic development investment" (EDI sales tax) funds for the construction of private single and multi-family homes under the figleaf of "affordable housing." Freddie and Fannie What, here we come.

Dependence Day:  The corrupting effects of Obamacare
Jay Cost - February 24, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 23

On February 4 the Congressional Budget Office dropped a bombshell. Analysts there found that Obamacare’s structure will create an enormous implicit tax on work, such that people on the lower end of the economic scale will have an incentive to quit their jobs or scale back to part time to maximize their premium subsidies. In an earlier study, CBO had estimated that this disincentive to work would destroy the equivalent of less than a million full-time jobs. Now, it projects that an equivalent of more than 2 million jobs will be lost as people voluntarily leave the workforce.

Many liberals celebrated this development. They trumpeted the new possibilities: Parents will have more time to spend with their children, young people more time to go back to school, and so on. As liberal pundit Matthew Yglesias wrote, “If Obamacare really does cause millions of people to voluntarily leave full-time employment, that shows us how much avoidable suffering the earlier system was causing.”

But conservative critics have the better argument. Perhaps the best rejoinder came from Keith Hennessey, former director of the National Economic Council and now a lecturer at Stanford University. At his blog, he finds that the law can trap people just as easily as it can liberate them. A family of four making $35,000 a year would face a steep implicit tax by adding income from a part-time job; in that scenario, the family isn’t working less for the sake of the kids, but “because the government raised [their] marginal effective tax rate and made work less financially rewarding.” This is an excellent point, and speaks to the potential damage that this implicit tax will wreak.

The economic arguments against this disincentive to work, while significant, are not the entirety of the case to be made against it. Indeed, they may not even be the strongest. There are important civic ideals at stake that, while often overlooked, get to the very heart of the nation’s experiment in republican self-government.

What does it mean to be a citizen of a republic? For centuries, philosophers have generally concluded that citizenship has two essential qualities—freedom and equality. In other words, nobody in a republic is your master or lord, and nobody enjoys a higher civic status than you. The state, insofar as it compels you, does so on behalf of everybody. Governmental coercion is legitimate only if it is on behalf of the public good.

In practice, this ideal has been exceedingly difficult to realize. History has shown time and again that republics are often, if not inevitably, corrupted by factional forces who capture the government and twist it toward their own, selfish ends.

The Constitution, with its labyrinthine system of checks and balances, is an effort to mitigate this danger. Importantly, the anti-Federalist insistence on a Bill of Rights was seen as an extra safeguard against corrupting influences. By their reckoning, even if government fell into the “wrong hands,” it would be limited in what it could do to you, and by extension to the republic itself.

Nowadays, we are wont to correlate liberty with dynamism. A free society is one where risk takers can innovate, create new solutions to problems, and make everybody better off. There is no doubt that all of this is true. Even so, it would be anachronistic to see the Founding generation as making the same arguments. Liberty was essential primarily because of its civic benefits, above all as a bulwark for true republicanism against the despotic pretensions of the likes of King George III.

We cannot reconcile these republican notions with Obamacare’s disincentives to work. If we take the Framers’ hard-earned lessons seriously, the sort of clientelistic relationship that exists under Obamacare is incompatible with authentic citizenship. The problem arises from two different directions.

First, a government captured by factions will simply have more power than it previously did. Once people come to depend on those benefits, they will have little choice but to abide by whatever strings the government chooses to attach.

Second, the government will now have less to fear from its opponents. Dependency degrades the capacity of the citizenry to operate as a check on the antirepublican tendencies of the government. As Madison and Jefferson argued toward the end of the 1790s, this was the last, best hope for true republicanism. In their telling, a junto of financial elites from the Northeast had seized control of the government, perverting public policy towards their own, selfish ends. The only recourse was the ballot box, where they hoped to mobilize the people at large to stand up for the public interest. If the government has turned citizens into clients, how will the citizens then stand up to the government should it misbehave?

All of this might sound far-fetched, but these very dangers arose in the 1880s and 1890s, as the government began dispensing pensions to Civil War veterans. The Republican party essentially captured the votes of the pensioners and forced them into an alliance with the manufacturing and financial sectors of the economy, against the agricultural interests with which many pensioners might otherwise have been affiliated. It was, in a word, a massive logroll. The pensioners voted for ever more generous benefits, but they also voted for protective tariffs and the gold standard. These economic policies socked it to the poor farmers in the South and West, and the gold standard probably would never have survived had it not been coupled to the pensions and the tariff. The sum total was an electorally unbeatable coalition that was nevertheless of questionable public utility; yes, the economy developed during this period, but its development was highly uneven, with poor farmers left on the outside looking in. The South in particular would not see any real benefits from economic modernization until after World War II.

There is a similar dynamic today, though it is less pernicious. The entitlement state is unsustainable in the long run. Eventually, it will wreck the public finances of the nation, yet it remains unreformed because a vast array of groups are dependent on the status quo. It is difficult to expect citizens to rebuke the government when supported by it. This makes it harder, not easier, to realize the public good.

This is not to say that we should hold these republican values above all others. In practice, we have rightly made trade-offs; senior citizens who can no longer care for themselves, or vets too sick to work, are tended to. There is a broad consensus that people who cannot depend on themselves for food, shelter, and medical care should depend on the government, concerns about republican citizenship notwithstanding.

But note: This is not what Obamacare does. Its disincentives to work are not geared toward the sick, the elderly, the disabled, but toward working-age, able-bodied adults. These are people who can work, but who will choose to substitute governmental dependence for self-reliance. This runs contrary to the broad consensus about the appropriate boundaries of the welfare state.

Who is to say that some coalition will not gain control of the government to leverage the Obamacare clients for their own political gain, just as the Gilded Age Republicans did with the Civil War vets? And, should that happen, how can these people be expected to do their duty as citizens to stand up for the public good? It is worth noting that the Republican regime of pension benefits, protective tariffs, and the gold standard did not fall apart until after most of the vets had passed away.

On any given policy question, it is easy nowadays to overlook the civic implications. We take our civil society for granted; we can hardly imagine our government turning against its own people, so we just assume that this republic we inherited will be here for generations to come. 

But the Founders understood better, and history shows us differently. Republican government is easier to philosophize about than to maintain. It requires, above all, an active, engaged, and independent citizenry that can be called upon to vindicate the public good when it is threatened by factional designs. While we admit of important exceptions to this principle, Obamacare nevertheless violates it by encouraging dependency among citizens. This is a dangerous development for a republic such as ours.

Jay Cost is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

     The headline at the Bellingham Herald reads, "Under new leadership in Whatcom, Futurewise to try cooperation". That might just work, following the last election, what with the county council now stacked with sympathetic syncophants. (No, not all, but WE think WE know who you are.)  Given the massive amount of outside money spent on the ugly tactics of last fall's election, nobody should make the mistake of assuming the results were a genuine mandate from the electorate. The perspective of this council has become very narrow, in most ways deaf and blind to the self reliance of "county" people who don't share their Bellingham addresses. There's little knowledge, fondness, or respect for the rich diversity of county life outside Bellingham's city limits (in the small cities, small towns, for farmers and their rural residential neighbors).

Futurewise wants to be a "resource" for government, promoting their brand of environmentalism, "to prevent urban sprawl before legal action is needed". If that isn't a veiled threat, WE don't know what is. Very cooperative.  Given that Futurewise has a constant and imposing presence at our county's department of Planning and Development, the word "co-opt" would be more accurate.

Sensible planning is one thing, but WE reject the premise that Futurewise, or any other person or group, should claim authority to direct and dictate where people live and whats best for the county. Not everyone wants to live in cities. Those who want to live in urban villages or pack & stack cubicles, fine; enjoy that lifestyle if it’s your desire.

But WE find vigilante public-private policymaking neither appropriate nor healthy for community planning. Why should the Growth Management Act – a state law - need this self-appointed enforcement arm?  On what authority? Is the GMAFB not adequate? (oops, that should read GMHB) (Google it!)

WE have to ask, who runs this county? Bellingrad? A bunch of legal eagles from who-knows-where? Or is local government accountable to citizens from all across Whatcom County?

Under new leadership, instead of being an environmental watchdog, Futurewise says it wants to have "broader appeal". Really? The best way WE see that happening is to butt out, and allow the local community to develop with the control and consent of its people as it sees fit, without special interests and self-anointed authority figures trying to influence the lives and settlements of the citizens in a supposedly free country.

According to the report, Futurewise has now decided to focus its efforts on helping to "solve" the water rights dispute. The "dispute"?  That's rich. Futurewise has been a central protagonist in the dust-up. And they claim to represent whom, exactly? By what process did the public request this "help"? WE will lay dollars to doughnuts that the rights of individual citizens won't be defended or championed in their efforts -- just a SWAG. 

Meanwhile, Futurewise previous local chapter director has moved on to RE Sources for Sustainable Communities -- which could be another fine organization, if they'll just live and let live. WE don't think it's in their nature to do that, unfortunately. 

     We have a water controversy going on here in Whatcom County. It should be resolved through the local watershed Planning Unit, which allows concerned parties to thrash it out fairly and in the light of day. However, sensing power (or the possible loss of it), rogue government players have been scrambling for position outside of legally prescribed mechanisms to monopolize water resources.

WE're sure these planners would love to implement all those grand schemes they learned about in poli-sci planning school -- but for one important detail: a free society doesn't work that way. In America, government is empowered by the citizens, and not the reverse!

For example, listen to this. That's right, it's Jack Louws asserting at a State Auditor's Office (SAO) audit exit interview on Jan 30 that Whatcom County Council granted him "legislative authority" through an inter-local agreement, to "make decisions" and act without taking policy direction or being accountable to council. Wha... wha... what?! WE were always taught that such "powers" were not transferable between the branches of government.  If they were, what would checks & balances and the separation of powers even mean? It trashes our bicameral home rule Charter.

WE have said this before: we have a runaway executive department. Is the council even aware of it? Are they okay with that? Do these people know what the powers of the government branches actually are?

The executive grudgingly acknowledged that his "legislative" actions must be open, but wants self-selected administrative "staff teams" to meet to plan on their own, as secretly as they'd like, beyond the constraints of the Open Public Meetings Act so only a few can manage water issues beyond public scrutiny. It’s chilling to see how far the five party* "Joint Administrative Board" junta (which claims to be operating under RCW 90.82) has strayed, contemptuously, away from the heart and purpose of the state Watershed Planning Act, which says, 

(emphasis ours)

Anybody listening to what executive Louws and his staff teams say can’t believe they hold any of these principles in any regard whatsoever. They appear to be operating under the principle that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. That's certainly true if the citizens let them get away with it. Are we going to let them get away with it?!

*The five big dogs on the "joint administrative board" who claim to manage the whole watershed are Merle Jefferson (Lummi tribe), Bob Kelly (Nooksack tribe), Steve Jilk (PUD #1), Kelli Linville (City of Bellingham), and Jack Louws (county executive).  Everybody else including council, outta the way.

Update: WE have added another audio clip from the same meeting with the reference to "legislative authority". Executive Louws very deliberately used this phrase twice, so WE believe it was no slip of the tongue. It was more likely very carefully chosen; scripted even.  If his words were ill-chosen, then that needs to be corrected ostentatiously. Because the overreach implied by those words is quite a corruption of well established government principles.

WE noticed this article, about the girl who went in for a routine tonsillectomy and ended up on life support. This family has been criticized as publicity hounds for doing what any parent would do: Give their child every chance for life, as long as any scrap of hope remains. 

So who locally will be making the decision to pull our loved ones off of life support? God knows, there are plenty of reasons to have fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) when it comes to our health care these days. For example, what are the central planners cooking up here? Or here? Buzzwords like "Local Health Reform" and "Transforming Health Care in Whatcom County" leave us with a queasy feeling in the pit of our stomachs, especially with all the news events of 2013 under our belts. Transforming has become a dirty word, especially when we like our health care, and we want to keep our health care. On who's authority does anybody deem to transform it? And who the hell are these people, pray tell? In 2014, with a new panel of county council members, WE think it would be a good time, and very worthwhile to ask some probing questions.