A Few Days With Figgins

Leading Through Derision?

2012-09-05T20:09:00.000-07:00

“Last week, the other party, they gave their pitch. … What they offered … was an agenda that was probably a little better suited for the last century, … you might as well have watched it on black-and-white TV, put some rabbit-ears on the convention hall.”

President Barack Obama, Addressing an Iowa campaign audience,

regarding the 2012 Republican National Convention

How disappointing is this? Our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges. Our people are deeply and pretty much equally, divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Instead of getting the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together, we continue to get derisive comments like this … comments that are more likely to come from a Community Organizer, to incite agitation.

Presently, the nearly-equal political halves of the U.S. population are most easily illustrated through the opposing views of the DNC and the RNC, on solving our nation’s current problems. These include our lagging Economy, our incredible Debt, the stance on Abortion, Energy policies, Environmental policies and National Security. To illustrate my point about the counterproductive nature of President Obama’s derisive leadership style, I want to take a look at how that applies to just one of these topics. Hopefully, if I can get you to understand my views on this issue, you’ll see how it applies to the many others.

Tax Relief has been a consistently contentious issue that I think serves well to share my perspective. A very condensed version of the GOP's Platform on this is:

We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income. Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter, and fair. A reformed code should promote simplicity and coherence, savings and innovation, increase American competitiveness, and recognize the burdens on families with children. To that end, we propose to extend the Bush tax cuts-pending reform of the tax code, to keep tax rates from rising.

Of course, the unabridged version of this has many other facets, with several of them being understandably arguable. With that understood, it still seems to me that, in order to draw together the opposing halves on this issue, our nation needs a leader willing to say something like, "Though I don't agree with your stand on this, I can see where you're coming from and I want us to sit down together, to find a solution that works for us all." However, what we continue to get is our President leading the endless drumbeat, stating that all Republicans care about is further enriching "Millionaires and Billionaires." I find this derision to be personally offensive. I'm not a Millionaire or Billionaire. But, thanks to getting the sort of opportunities mentioned in the GOP Platform, I have been able to earn a lifestyle that is well beyond the dreams of a kid (me) who started out as the youngest of three kids, raised by a single-Mom in a time (the Fifties) when that title wasn't even in use yet. Thus, I pretty much resent the implication that I and others like me, are so intellectually and morally inferior that we get up every morning thinking, "What can I do today, to benefit America's Millionaires and Billionaires."

Additionally, I have to say that I find these specific derisive comments from the President to be particularly aggravating as a result of his using "the last century" and "black-and-white TV" as negative connotations. I was born in the middle of the last century and there were some pretty great values that I was given then, foundational values for my life, that I'm deeply disappointed to say have not survived well into this century. For me, a great example can be seen when I tell people, "I'm confident that on the first Sunday after I was brought home from being born at St. Anthony Hospital, my Mom and my Grandma Ray took me to the Second Avenue EUB Church, along with my Brother and Sister. On my first Sunday, I was shown the value of Faith, Family and Community. They remain my life's priorities. Sadly, in this century, fewer and fewer children are even exposed to these great values. And, why disparage black-and-white TV? Are Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech or Neil Armstrong's first step on the surface of the moon any less valuable because they were broadcast utilizing the best medium available at the time - i.e. black-and-white TV?

I guess, if the derisive comment I'm addressing was an exception, it wouldn't be so bad. That certainly isn't the case, though. It continues to be central to the demeanor of the Obama-led Democrat Party. Sad example after sad example can be cited at this week's DNC in Charlotte, NC. Case in point, former Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland, stating that, "If Romney were Santa, he would fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."

As I said at the outset; our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges and our people are deeply divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Another man who called Illinois home when he was elected President, Abraham Lincoln, sized up this situation by looking to wisdom expressed by Jesus Christ, when he said,

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Also as pointed out earlier, our nation is crying out for the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together. It's obvious, from the behavior addressed here, that Barack Obama either doesn't have the wisdom or the interest (or both) to do this. That, however, remains the sort of leadership we need. For this, I recommend Mitt Romney. A guy who was born in the same year I was, who grew up with Faith, Family and Community as his life's priorities, who watched MLK Jr. and Neil Armstrong on black-and-white TV and celebrated their victories, as we all did.

Opposing Views of “Like-Minded People on “Fair Marriage”

2012-08-19T20:33:00.000-07:00

In the debate on legalizing “same-sex marriage”, I’ve encountered instances where, at least on the surface, it has appeared that “like-minded people” have differing views on the topic. Namely, these like-minded people are “People of Faith” and/or “Conservatives”. Here’s what I’ve found in my effort to gain a deeper understanding of these puzzling situations.

Differing Views Among Christians

These have been the cases I’ve found to be most surprising. For me, they’re exemplified by my ongoing dialog with a dear Catholic friend.

Since most would label me as an Evangelical Christian, of course, I have doctrinal differences with my Catholic friend. But, I’m confident that our beliefs match up on fundamentals, including the Holy Trinity and the infallibility of God’s Word. And, I’m just as certain that she is devout in her Catholic faith. Knowing these things and knowing that the Catholic Church’s position on this has been stated as “opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships”, I was bewildered when I noticed her making comments that seemed to imply her support for same-sex marriage, referring to it as "Fair Marriage". With that, I started exploring the topic with her.

Her first points to justify her position were that she has homosexual friends who she loves dearly and that she just hates to think that, if one of them, who is in a same-sex relationship, were to get sick, their partner wouldn't have the same rights for hospital visitation as a married couple would have. My first response was to commend her for being loving, as Jesus commands us to do and to let her know that, though we may disagree on the topic at hand, I too have homosexual friends who I love dearly. But, I went on to say that, at least where we live, the hospital visitation concern is a straw-man argument. In 2007, the State of Washington enacted the "Everything but Marriage" law, creating State Registered Domestic Partnerships and making them the equivalent of marriage under state law. I, also, pointed out to her that, when that legislation was passed, proponents claimed that was all they wanted, that they would never ask for legalizing same-sex marriage.

However, none of our discussion seemed to persuade my friend to change her position. And, she offered validation for her stance by saying, "God is love." Certainly, that is true. I acknowledged that with my friend. I also noted that there are additional aspects of God to take into consideration. Before delving into that, though, I asked my friend, since her Priest opposes same-sex marriage, if she believes she has a better understanding than her Priest does of the truth that "God is love". With that, her demeanor changed and I sensed that not only was it unlikely that continuing our conversation would cause her to reconsider her position, it was likely that our relationship might be damaged.

What I would have liked to discuss with my friend is that, in striving to lead our lives according to God’s will, we can be misled by only taking into consideration one dimension of an omnipotent God. I think this is a common tendency with Christians as we confront a sensitive issue. It’s true of me. And, I think it’s especially true in a case like this, in light of the fact that, when Jesus was asked, “What is the great commandment in the law?” He said, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But, just as we can be misled by only taking into consideration one dimension of an omnipotent God, it can be misleading to take one line of Scripture out of context. The context for this Scripture is:

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

In my words, this means that, in striving to lead our lives according to God’s will, we must follow these “two commandments”, not just one of them … perhaps the one we find easiest to follow. And, if we are to love God, in my words, with all we’ve got, this requires considering more than just one dimension of God … perhaps the one we find most appealing.

Another aspect of God that I see as being very important to bear in mind here is that He is a God of order, not of disorder. And within God’s order, there are things He finds to be virtuous and things He finds to be sinful.

In an article entitled Opposing All But One Man/One Woman Marriage, I offered the following quotation from my own Pastor to provide a summary of the order God established for marriage:

“… the first institution that God created, defined, and established for mankind was Marriage. Marriage was established by God for the development, well-being, and advancement of healthy (spiritually, emotionally, and physically) human relationships. These relationships – particularly when united in fellowship with God – would then be the foundational building blocks for future generations (children/family) and the backbone of local communities and culture. God was quite intentional and specific when He created that first marriage as being between one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve). Because God is both gracious and wise, then we know He wasn’t experimenting with marriage in the beginning – He was defining it!”

Although my Catholic friend and I, presently, disagree about legalizing same-sex marriage, I’m confident that she would agree that this is a good summary of the order God established for marriage. Furthermore, I’m certain she would agree that relationships meeting these criteria are virtuous and that relationships outside this standard are sinful. The remaining question then is, how does a Christian lovingly address this matter?

I think the answer is found in a well-known story from Scripture that involves sexual sin. It’s the story of Jesus’ encounter with a woman who had been “… caught in adultery, in the very act.” This is the story contained in John 8:3-11 where the woman’s accusers bring her to Jesus, saying that according to the law she should be stoned and asking what He says to do with her. God’s loving grace is dramatically demonstrated when Jesus says, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" and when, after her accusers have left, Jesus says to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you …” Generally, these are the parts of the story that get the most attention but that’s not how the story ends. It ends with Jesus telling the woman, “… go and sin no more.” Though He did it lovingly, Jesus acknowledged the woman’s sin and he told her to not continue in that sin.

Frankly, I think the stance of the Catholic Church on same-sex marriage follows this model pretty well. As mentioned earlier this stated position has been “opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships.” However, their accompanying statement teaches that “homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care.” This should be helpful in providing the best answer for both me and my Catholic friend, as well as for other Christians who have been struggling with the question, how does a Christian lovingly address this matter?

The Differing Views of Other People of Faith

It's, also, puzzled me when I've run into others who describe themselves as "people of faith", who also favor legalizing same-sex marriage. For me, the most illustrative example of this involves a State Representative who I first met at a Meet the Candidates event sponsored by our local Christian Chamber of Commerce. Considering this and that he presented himself as a person of faith, I was surprised to later learn that he is openly gay. After learning this, I wasn't surprised to see him promoting the legalization of gay marriage. Since these things seemed incongruous with what I think of as the expected conduct of a person of faith, I continued to wonder about it. My wonder was increased by having my Pastor tell me about he and his wife going to observe a local Gay Pride event and finding booths there sponsored by "churches". When I saw that the State Representative I mentioned was featured as a speaker at a "Marriage Equality" event at a local church, I decided it was past time for me to investigate this incongruity, as it appeared to me.

Although I had puzzled over this matter for more than two years, I didn't have to look too far to gain understanding. I found that the church that had hosted the Marriage Equality event described itself as "A Liberal Religious Alternative To Christianity." That, alone, made it clear that this is a church that does not share the faith that I share with my Catholic friend. Looking further, I found that, unlike my Catholic friend and I, the beliefs of this church have nothing to do with a deity greater than themselves. In fact, the only apparent focus of their worship is themselves. With that as the foundation of their ideology, it's no wonder that they should conclude that whatever their desires are should be OK.

Differing Views Among Conservatives

Last but not least, when I've encountered others who call themselves "Conservative", who support legalizing same-sex marriage, that too has seemed contradictory. When I've questioned it, the typical answer I've gotten is, "Well, I'm a fiscal-Conservative, not a social-Conservative." As far as I'm concerned, that simple answer results in there being little light between fiscal-Conservatives and people of faith, as described above. The only difference is, whereas the above mentioned people of faith worship themselves, these fiscal-Conservatives worship the almighty dollar. Furthermore, that simple answer doesn't change the contradictory nature of the fiscal-Conservative's stance. In fact, it's very illogical. Although their first love is money, not God, they acknowledge at least one truth of what my Pastor says about God's definition of the marriage relationship - i.e. It is "the backbone of local communities and culture." Without that foundation, the goals of the fiscal-Conservatives are not just unattainable, they wouldn't actually exist. When communities and culture come apart, so does the related economy.

Summing Up The Differences

With fellow-Christians, I've found that we are, in fact, pretty like-minded. As we help each other look at this issue through the fully unfiltered lens of our shared faith, I'm confident of our finding agreement.

Concerning People of Faith, as described above, I recognize that we're not like-minded at all. And, I have little, if any, hope for a constructive dialog with these folks. Washington State's "Everything But Marriage" law would not have been possible without folks like me being willing to listen to those in favor of that legislation and working with them to find a solution that worked for both sides. But, understanding that this group's faith is based on a worship of themselves, I fully expect that they will continue to hatefully label people like me as "homophobes", along with their relentless insistence on having their desires OKed and a complete lack of interest in finding a solution that is acceptable to all.

And, finally, regarding fiscal-Conservatives, I've come to understand that we are like-minded on fiscal issues but it is my second Conservative priority while it is their only Conservative priority. However, I'm hopeful that they will discover that supporting my social-Conservative views serves their best interests in attaining their fiscal-Conservative objectives.

Opposing All But One Man/One Woman Marriage

2012-02-20T17:06:00.000-08:00

Redefining Marriage?

For several thousand years, throughout the Earth, marriage has defined a special relationship between one man and one woman. This month, February 2012, Washington State's House, Senate and Governor enacted legislation to redefine marriage as a special relationship between two people regardless of their gender. These lawmakers took this step, legalizing “same-sex marriage”, without any apparent compulsion to verify whether this action was in line with the views of the majority of their constituents. Although the state office-holders who supported this legislation may attempt to position their stance on this as "acting for the greater good" - i.e. They know what's best for us even if we don't know that ourselves – In fact, it's just one of the most recent examples of a tyrannical ruling class imposing it's will on the masses.

Having Your Say

Thankfully, there is an Initiative and Referendum Amendment in the Washington State Constitution. As it applies to this “same-sex marriage” legislation, that means there is an automatic stay on enacting the legislation, to allow time for a related petition process, potentially leading to a referendum being placed on a statewide ballot, to provide for registered voters having their say on the matter. Although proponents of this legislation are likely to present this as standing up for the rights of the “LGBT community” versus the antiquated attitudes of the “Religious Right”, this matter goes well beyond those boundaries. I believe all who are determined to see the United States continue as a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, should support the referendum to reject this legislation.

Standing Up For Liberty

Yes, I’m saying that it’s not just people of faith, who hold the Biblical view of marriage, who should support the referendum to reject this legislation. I believe it should also be supported by those who are ambivalent regarding the definition of marriage and even those who are in favor of “same-sex marriage.” To illustrate my belief, I ask you to simply consider the following question:

When the tyrannical ruling class comes after one group today

and you don't stand up against them,

who will stand up against them tomorrow,

when they come after your group?

Standing Up For Your Faith

Of course, the passion that the vast majority of Americans of faith have for this surpasses their fervor for liberty, due to their beliefs regarding marriage. The following statement that was included in a recent message from my Pastor, Daniel Gettemy, of Calvary Chapel Vancouver, provides an excellent summary of my related beliefs:

My hope, in offering this statement, is to facilitate broader understanding, if not agreement.

What To Expect In Taking Your Stand

A classic approach that you should expect from proponents of the “same-sex marriage” legislation was demonstrated in a message I got from a friend of my youth, who said,

“Gay marriage cannot hurt anyone represented by your Representatives. Gay marriage WILL HELP many who are ALSO represented by your Representatives.”

The above statement from my Pastor should make it clear how I see redefining marriage as being harmful. Furthermore, I don’t see who it helps. In 2009, without redefining marriage, legislation was enacted in Washington State to extend the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners to include the same rights and responsibilities as those extended to married couples. So, when a “same-sex marriage” proponent asks, “When one person in a domestic partnership is ill, shouldn’t they have the same rights as a married person to be visited by their domestic partner?”, understand that they already have that right. These arguments are empty.

And if you don’t agree with the message of the proponents of the “same-sex marriage” legislation, rather than attacking our message, you can expect them to attack the messenger – i.e. me and you. However, this isn’t about any of the personal accusations they will make. It is only about whether the unilateral redefinition of marriage by the tyrannical ruling class should stand.

Additionally, expect that taking your stand will require you to do so for the long-haul. My Wife and I chose to move from California, to make Washington State our home, nearly seven years ago. In 2000, as Registered Voters in California, we supported Proposition 22, an Initiative legally defining marriage as a relationship only between opposite sex couples. It passed easily. However, here we are nearly 12 years later and nothing along those lines has been implemented, as a result of the unendingly insistent actions of the minority represented by the “LGBT community”.

Taking An Appropriate Stance

First, I want to address what not to do. When considering this, the examples I immediately think of are a couple of local “conservative” bloggers known as The Pissants. Like their namesakes, these are beings that thrive in filth and darkness. Like the proponents of the “same-sex marriage” legislation, their primary tactic is to attack the messenger rather than the message. Innuendo and outright lies are their stock-in-trade. And their response to any disagreement is to engage in lengthy tit-for-tat arguments (until, of course, they believe they’ve had the last word), laced with more personal attacks and no constructive dialog.

What I recommend doing is pretty much the opposite of what I described immediately above. Personal attacks are counterproductive. They just harden the position of the opposition and overhearing it is a turnoff to any undecided person who might, otherwise, listen. Just thoughtfully state your views to anyone truly willing to listen. It’s a waste of time to get into lengthy debate with those who want to use the opportunity to personally attack you or to end up believing they had the last word.

An Admonition In Standing Up For Your Faith

Coincidentally, this year’s National Prayer Breakfast took place in Washington D.C. at the same time as Washington State’s legalization of “same-sex marriage” was proceeding. The Keynote Speaker for this event was Eric Metaxas, the author of the current best-selling books BONHOEFFER and AMAZING GRACE, the story of William Wilberforce. I listened to his entire speech and as I did, I was pleased in knowing that President Obama was sitting on the dais and hearing Metaxas’ message. In fact, during his speech, Metaxas gave the President a copy of BONHOEFFER and he committed to reading it. My prayer is that he will do so and that it will work to change his heart. However, in the later part of his presentation, Metaxas delivered a Spiritual message that was aimed right at folks like me and it convicted me deeply. It was an admonition that certainly fits in this discussion for my fellow-Christians and I want to share it with you. I do recommend listening to Metaxas’ entire presentation but I’ve paraphrased his admonition, as follows:

Essentially, Metaxas pointed out that, unlike most around him, Bonhoeffer was able to see the greatest evil of the 20th Century, Nazi Germany’s attempt to exterminate the Jews from Europe. Likewise, he noted that Wilberforce was able to see the wrong of the British slave trade when nearly all of his contemporaries believed it was OK. The answer that Metaxas provides for the question, “How could these men see the truth when others couldn’t?” is: “Because, through His Holy Spirit, Jesus opened their eyes.” With that, Metaxas went on to point out that today, when we find ourselves able to see things like the Biblical view of sexuality or that the unborn are persons, we need to remember that we are commanded by God to love those who do not yet see these things and that without God we would find ourselves on the other side of these issues.

So, beyond my earlier recommendation to “Just thoughtfully state your views to anyone truly willing to listen”, for my fellow-Christians I would add, do so in love and to know that you’re doing so by praying for those who come against you.

Taking Your First Step

In order for a referendum on this matter to be on the statewide ballot this coming November, there must first be a successful petition effort. Petitions are likely to become available in the first week of March. To stay tuned into this, I recommend the Preserve Marriage Washington Website. And, I encourage you to get involved in this effort as soon and as enthusiastically as you can.

Taking A Step Beyond

Supporting the referendum to reject the legislation legalizing “same-sex marriage” in Washington State is Step #1. Step #2 is eliminating the tyrannical ruling class who passed this legislation. So, check the voting record for the State Legislators who have been elected to represent your Legislative District. If they supported this legislation, find out when they’re up for reelection and then find an opponent to vote for whom you believe you can trust to verify whether their actions are in line with the views of the majority of their constituents.

To: Newt – From: An Unemployment Compensation Bum

2011-11-17T17:49:00.000-08:00

Although Newt Gingrich is currently one of those at the top of my list of favored Presidential candidates, I want to take exception to one point that the former Speaker has been stressing in his campaign. Relative to reforming the Unemployment Compensation System, Gingrich has consistently been saying, “It is fundamentally wrong to give people money for 99 weeks for doing nothing.” I think there is an implication central to this statement that is inappropriate and counterproductive.

I agree with Speaker Gingrich that our Unemployment Compensation System is in dire need of reform. And, more specifically, I agree with him that the 25 million Americans who are presently unemployed or underemployed are depending on a system that is costly but does not actually help them get a job. Furthermore, I agree with Gingrich that ninety-nine weeks is too long for any American to be dependent on the government. But, as one who, in the not-too-distant-past, was among the ranks of those depending on that system, I can tell you, the implication that these 25 million Americans are being “give(n) money … for doing nothing” is dead wrong. To illustrate this, let me share some excerpts from an article I wrote this past summer, entitled Meeting the Challenge of Senior Underemployment – One of Our Greatest Socioeconomic Opportunities. It begins with the story I know best … my own.

We moved to Southwest Washington in mid-2005. What I brought to the table was a professional background of 30+ years in Sales and Sales Management, with technology-based business-to-business systems-solutions. Our employment plan was for me to find a “mid-level” job. My Wife, who had been in charge of the administrative staff of a Public Defender’s Office, was only going to work as she wanted to. The way things actually worked out is:

We’ve been in Southwest Washington for about 76 months now. During that time, I’ve had four periods when I was “between jobs”. Especially considering my previous work history, it still astonishes me to note that those periods cover a total of 30 months. Though I won’t bore you with the related stats, without hesitation, I can say that I spent every day of these periods tirelessly leaving no stone unturned in my efforts to secure a job. The yield of those efforts included: a phenomenal number of interviews (with a remarkably high percentage of those having me included in the final round of candidates) and the five jobs I’ve taken. Additionally, due to my employment challenges and the erosion of the investments at the core of our “nest egg”, after a little over two years of “retirement”, we agreed that it was a good idea for Ruth to return to work.

As “I spent every day of (my ‘between jobs’) periods tirelessly leaving no stone unturned in my efforts to secure a job”, one key aspect of my efforts was to network my socks off. In doing this, I became well acquainted with many who were having unemployment/underemployment experiences similar to mine.

Key takeaways from these anecdotes include:

- Though I come from a generation that finds the thought of taking Unemployment Compensation to be repugnant, I and the others I met along the way found it necessary to turn to this system during our extended periods “between jobs”. It made the difference in being able to make ends meet and to not have to watch the eroded “nest eggs” vanish altogether. I think those are purposes that this system, which we all had paid into faithfully for decades, is supposed to serve.

- The fact that I and the many I met along the way who were having unemployment/ underemployment experiences similar to mine spent every day of our “between jobs” periods tirelessly leaving no stone unturned in our efforts to secure a job”, serves as proof that, while we found it necessary to turn to Unemployment Compensation, we found it unacceptable to abuse the system. This fact should also provide clear illustration of why I find the implication of Speaker Gingrich’s position on this to be inappropriate and counterproductive.

As I said earlier, I agree with Speaker Gingrich that our Unemployment Compensation System is in dire need of reform. However, his statement that “It is fundamentally wrong to give people money … for doing nothing” focuses on the victims of our flawed Unemployment Compensation System and not the broken system itself. In doing this, Presidential Candidate Gingrich comes off a lot like President Obama, when he says; we’ve been “lazy”. Mr. Speaker and Mr. President, we aren’t lazy. In fact, we are as industrious and hard working as ever. We just need you to set our nation’s policies to make it more likely for our efforts to bear fruit.

Obama’s 'Throwing Voters Under The Bus' Tour

2011-08-16T17:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, a Twitter friend alerted me to the now-well known Gallup Daily, indicating that President Obama’s approval rating had dropped to 39%. My tweet in response said, “When I see 39% still actually say they approve of Obama's presidency, it depresses me.” Since then, I’ve reached an even lower state of despair as I’ve observed the related political activity coming from the Whitehouse, as well as from the Democrat Leadership in both houses of Congress. I know there’s only one way these folks are ever going to “get it”, if they ever do, but their total self-absorption and their complete disconnection with the overriding demeanor of our nation continues to baffle me.

To illustrate this, let’s begin by taking a look at Obama’s current bus tour in the upper Midwest. The Romney campaign has dubbed this the “Magical Misery Tour.” The RNC has nicknamed it the “Obama Debt-End Tour.” Regardless of what it’s called, many have lamented that, “Here we are, over three years after Obama was on his way to being elected President by promising Hope and Change and he’s just now getting out there in an effort to learn what it was that voters were hoping for.” Sadly, the truth is that this episode of “The Campaigner in Chief” has nothing to do with discovering what the American people want. If you listen to the words and watch the actions actually coming from this political outing, it’s obvious that Obama and his team continue to be convinced of their Devine Right, as America’s Royalty … they’re out there to tell voters what they should have been hoping for.

Of course, what the Romney campaign calls the “Magical Misery Tour” is just the latest example of how out of touch the current far-Left version of the Democrat Party is with the reality of the prevailing views of the American public. Leading up to this bus-based excursion, Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has been in the pulpit of the mainstream media, preaching about our country’s “Tea Party Credit Rating Downgrade.” This, in the face of clear evidence that the Tea Party is almost exclusively responsible for the fact that fiscal accountability has been made a top priority for the U.S. Government. And, Axelrod's sermon (echoed by numerous other Liberal Leaders) was the next level of spin development embodied in the endless repetition of the DNC’s "Millionaires and Billionaires" talking point. That continues in spite of the fact that it requires a complete suspension of reality, accepting the belief that Conservatives wake up every morning thinking, "What can I do today that will make life better for America's Millionaires and Billionaires?!"

Though I'm discouraged by the ongoing tyrannical attitude of today's Democrat Party and I don't understand their insistence on continuing in that manner, there is a way for them to "get it." But, as I said earlier, I know there's only one way for that to happen. Stating how that will happen will be my mantra through the General Elections of 2012. Until that long-awaited event, my repeated message to Tax and Spend Big Government Democrats will be:

“You’re misunderstanding the low approvals indicated by polls for the Whitehouse and for Congress. Those polls indicate that voters aren’t happy with those institutions ... YET. Those same approval ratings will be climbing, election by election, as we send more and more of your type home.”

Comments

Millionaires and Billionaires

Submitted by Mike M Boyer on Tue, 2011-08-16 06:10.

The Fabian Socialists are still trying to remold the world closer to their hearts desire http://www.newswithviews.com/Kress/joe137.htm by fanning the flames of class warfare.

Empty Boots, Not Empty Suits, at Iowa GOP Presidential Debate

2011-08-13T12:42:00.000-07:00

On one of his recent shows, Conservative Radio Talk Show Host, Hugh Hewitt, was rejoicing in observing how similar today’s political circumstances are to those of 1979, during the Carter Administration. According to Hewitt, he did so because he is certain that the present conditions will lead to a “reinvigorated … American renaissance of power and influence”, as it did under the Reagan Administration, from 1981 to 1989. I’m certainly in favor of seeing that happen so, as a member of the Twitter group that Hewitt calls “The Tribbles”, I was able to indicate my support by tweeting “Preach it, Brother @HughHewitt!” As I did, though, I was thinking, “There’s a key ingredient missing here … Ronald Reagan.”

Our nation was blessed to have had President Reagan but a great leader of his stature, typically, only comes along once in a lifetime. I would welcome seeing someone emerge as an exception to this but; so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots. While I would apply this statement to the eight participants in Thursday evening’s GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, I would also say, as a group, they showed themselves to be anything but empty suits. Unlike we do with the current Democrat Party Leadership (as represented by Obama, Axelrod, Geithner, Kerry, Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, Rangel, Clyburn, etc.), we didn’t hear the relentless drumbeat of party talking points and attacks on voters who want to resurrect our great nation. To those Democrats, I’d say, “You’re misunderstanding the low approvals indicated by polls for the Whitehouse and for Congress. Those polls indicate that voters aren’t happy with those institutions … yet. Election by election, as we send more and more of your type home, approval ratings will be going up.” By contrast, what we did get from the announced Republican Presidential Candidates Thursday night was what Moderator, Bret Baier, asked for – i.e. for talking points to be left behind. Instead, what we heard from this group were pretty unvarnished observations about how to get our country back on a positive footing, along with how their ideas differ from the sitting Administration and their Republican rivals.

One candidate, who I thought did quite well in Thursday evening’s debate, was Newt Gingrich. It was good to see him, finally, sort of step out of the shadows in this campaign. Perhaps his strongest statement was one aimed at putting the press (in the person of Chris Wallace) in its place, when he chastised Wallace for “playing Mickey Mouse games” with “Gotcha questions.” Later, he tried the same gambit with Bret Baier. This latter attempt didn’t strike me as seeming justified and I thought it was a clear indication of why Gingrich doesn’t measure up to Reagan. He is a very intelligent man but he often shows that he doesn’t always use good sense. With that said, I thought he did an excellent job of thoroughly addressing all the questions that came his way. My personal favorite was when he called the Federal Deficit Super Committee the “dumbest idea” he’s heard of and he stated that this is a job for the entirety of Congress.

Of course, the sparring between Congresswoman Michele Bachman and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was entertaining. Frankly, I’d tune in to that if it was a TV series. However, I think they both showed more indications of how they fall short of Reagan, as a standard, rather than showing how they could follow in his footsteps. In Bachman’s case, she seemed more like another career politician with her ongoing chant about making Barack Obama “a one-term President” and with her defensiveness about taking rigid positions that have not produced results. Likewise, I thought Pawlenty came off as a career politician, with the difference being that he seemed mean.

Former Senator Rick Santorum didn’t seem to get as much exposure as some of the other candidates. I thought his complaint about that had some legitimacy. However, I didn’t think he made good use of what visibility he did get. He seemed to use most of the time he got to denigrate his opponents. I never find this breaking of what President Reagan called “The Eleventh Commandment” to be appealing.

As per usual, Congressman Ron Paul seemed to have the most vocal supporters in the audience. And, once again, he and his supporters, to quote the tweet of a fellow-Tribble, “came off as nuts.” I don’t know many Ron Paul supporters well but I do know one supporter who is a fellow Tea Party member and quite a nice lady so, for her sake, I’m very uncomfortable in saying this.

The “front-runner” going in to this debate was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I think he remained in that position coming out of the debate too. Mostly, I thought he did a good job of dispelling a press “gotcha comment” that, up to now, he has seemed to be in a “Mittness protection program.” He was very clear and thorough in outlining the seven steps he sees as needed for resurrecting the U.S. economy. And, I thought he did a fine job of illustrating how, both in the private sector and the public sector, he has provided the sort of leadership to get these jobs done. Furthermore, he plainly stated that, by contrast, President Obama is “out of his depth” in this regard.

I have to admit that former business CEO, Herman Cain, is a sentimental favorite with me. The positions he’s taken on the issues are well aligned with mine and I like the down-to-earth way he states his positions. However, he has regularly let his openness get him into trouble. And, his “willingness to learn” on foreign relations leaves many wondering if he would suffer from the same “What will he do when the phone rings at 3:00 in the morning?” weakness that Barack Obama has shown.

Finally, there’s former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman. Out of the candidates participating in Thursday night’s debate, he is the most recent to enter the race. Although I found that several issues he addressed in the debate (securing the border, understanding foreign relations, locally determined education reform, etc.) line up with my views, he did seem like another career politician who is new to the race.

Beyond the GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, there has been significant interest in the likelihood that Rick Perry will enter the race. As Governor of Texas, I’m betting he owns a pair of boots. Maybe he will prove himself to be somewhat “Reaganesque.” Or, perhaps, one or more other candidates will emerge, who seem to fill that bill. But, as I said before, “so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots.” With that said, I did feel that Thursday night’s debate demonstrated another comment I’ve made previously – i.e. There are several Republican Presidential Candidates who are head-and-shoulders above Barack Obama, in terms of being qualified for the job of President. My hope has been, in the process of selecting from this field of candidates, we won’t end up with McCain II. Based on what I saw in the Iowa GOP Presidential Debate, I’m more comfortable with either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, in that regard.

Comments

The battle begins

Submitted by Brittanicus (not verified) on Sat, 2011-08-13 09:45.

0

+-Only one candidate for the White House will stop the bleeding of billions of dollars annually, by illegal foreigners who have taken advantage of the American people? Even Ron Paul in his book, is hesitating on bringing the full power of the law, to halt in its tracks another terrible immigration Reform package; but not so lady Michele Bachmann. Perhaps this is why Rep. Michele Bachmann exempted from being asked questions on illegal immigration? Her stance on this issue is far above the rest who stood behind their dais in Ames, Iowa? Was this leaving Bachman out of this social issue premeditated? Whether this was the case or not, she strands strong as this uncontrolled illegal immigration invader problem has been ignored by administrations for years. Bachmann will not tolerate any form of Amnesty as President. Every Sanctuary City and state that does not comply by cutting of these ordinances will lose federal funding. It’s been said many times before, that American cannot afford to subsidize Mexico, Central America, Europe, Pacific Rim or other nation; its inhabitants impoverished and desperate illegal immigrants anymore? This illogical problem is crippling America’s economy by the massive payouts for families, which have migrated illegally across our sovereign border.

The TEA PARTY has become an immense grassroots movement of tens of millions of one- mind Americans from all racial and religious backgrounds, political parties, no matter what the adverse pundits say? The TEA PARTY members share the focused philosophy of limited government, individual freedoms, personal responsibility, "fair" free markets and above all else returning power to the States and the people. The TEA PARTY is about reforming all political parties and control, so the key principles of our Constitution, once again is the foundation of which this nation stands.

Of course open border disciples, business lobbyist will deny the obvious, that this illegal incursion is drowning us in debt—with no end in sight. (FAIR) American Federation of Immigration Reform that of 2009, reported that overall costs to subsidize the illegal alien household was calculated through, federal, State, County and Municipal sources that it was a $113 Billion dollar problem. Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report in which they estimate the total annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is estimated to be $113 billion combined. The states are bearing the burden of the costs; while the government share is nearly $29 billion, it escalates to $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The state-by-state breakdown begins on page 4 of this report at: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921

Education for the children of illegal migrants and immigrants constitutes the sole largest outlay to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Virtually all of those expenses are absorbed by state and local governments. At the federal level, only about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs is allied with the illegal immigration occupation and recouped through taxes collected from illegal nationals. Nearly all illegal aliens do not pay income taxes; only those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal immigrants when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resultant in payments from the U.S. Treasury. Please note this is not a static expenditure, but these dollars amounts are raising all the time.

Ask yourself, why the Grand Canyon State of Arizona had not choice, but to clamp down against the massive dollar amounts spent to appease illegal alien homesteads How can a small South Western state that is mostly desert, afford to pay out $2 Billion dollars annually for foreigners? Then again-- how can Leftist legislators in Sacramento, California, justify taking taxpayer’s money and giving it to illegal aliens when these persons truly don't exist, other than in ICE enforcement records or Homeland Security? HAS ANY READER THOUGHT OF CHECKING THEIR STATES PAYOUT TO FOREIGN NATIONALS? Although they come here through the magnet of jobs, welfare and each year bring their children. The estimates of 300.000 babies enter via a broken, intermittent border fence, that can no-way be fully enforced without the deployment of troops. Instant citizen for babies is above most payments, is an incredulous cost forced on taxpayers by Liberal judges legislating from their gavel.

Because entering America without papers is not a—FELONY—it is essentially a giant hole in the wall, which imports not only millions of illegal aliens, but a massive population of criminals; bringing death, mayhem and ID theft on the unsuspecting citizens and residents. As I said in my commentary yesterday, the only way to sever the incentive of jobs (which I never thought I would admit) is issuing every citizen and legal resident a government ID CARD. This could be used to get employed US workers. (8 million illegal aliens have stolen jobs from mostly low income Americans according to reputable sources.) The same official ID card could be presented for voting; instead of the mess we have now, with convicted felons, deceased and illegal aliens, fraudulently using the election process to alter an elections direction.

You would also use this federal ID CARD to be checked against other data bases, official birth records to see if you have the right to be issued a driver’s license, vehicle insurance, welfare or other Public entitlements. I shouldn't gloat over the welfare payouts in California, but it is a self inflicted wound caused by the Liberals in the capitol. California, the Godfather of Sanctuary State has a $19 Billion dollar budget gap, with a staggering cost of $21 Billion $ according to the National Conference of State Legislators in 2009. We must wonder how the welfare costs have escalated in two years in the once Golden State?

MY EARLIER BLOGS: http://brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/

No Copyright. Distribute Freely.

From Rab L Rouser via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-08-14 14:25.

0

+-I was going to compliment you an a nice article and point out that, as Michael Reagan points out in his book ‘The New Reagan Revolution’ (on pages 66-67) ;

“Gerald Ford was a flawed candidate, as was John McCain. But I’ll let you in on a secret: We’re not going to find a perfect candidate. Ronald Reagan was not perfect. He was not 100% pure. He was a great man, but he had his flaws. Despite all that he accomplished Ronald Reagan couldn’t win the GOP nomination today.

If Ronald Reagan were running for president today, where would the opposition come from? From the left? No, from the right! Ronald Reagan would not be considered ideologically pure enough to be the standard-bearer of the party.

Conservatives revere Ronald Reagan as the patron saing ot the GOP– and rightly so. But if conservatives in 1980 had applied the same standards to Ronald Reagan that they apply to Joyhn McCain, we might never have had the economic recovery of the 1980′s of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Ronald Reagan caaomplished what he did because he saw the big picture. He waved a bnner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pale pastel shades. He wasn’t a perfect man, but he was a good man–

And a great leader.

I didn’t bother to watch the debate. I have learned that words used at these events are just lies intended to hornswaggle voters into lending their support toward the candidate most to their liking.

I sit back and wait for my intelligent friends to post on trustworty publications such as Red State and then benefit from their sage judgement.

Thank you for your tireless devotion to liberty my friend.

Reaganism

Submitted by Jon R (not verified) on Sun, 2011-08-14 20:04.

0

+-If a political candidate has to compare himself to Reagan; Chances are he is not anything like Reagan. It annoys me to know end to hear Presidential candidates say things like, I am Reagan Republican or What would Reagan do?

You know what candidate? Reagan was a leader. Reagan didn't compare himself to other people. Reagan saw himself as a leader of a movement. Be that person, don't say your like that person.

From @strongthought via Twitter

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:47.

0

+-If we had ‘internet scrutiny’ in 1979 we would be critical of Reagan too. There is a Reagan in that pack of candidates. There is.

From @tamij via Twitter

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:50.

0

+-Nice Gary!

From Michael Beck via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:52.

0

+-Great analysis big Gary. I think correct analysis. This next election, Obama will be in over his head in debating the GOP candidate, just like he is in over his head in running the country. Ron Paul is a total idiot. To think that Iran with a nuclear weapon poses no threat is kooksville.

From Joel Turvey via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:54.

0

+-Gary,

I enjoyed your post very much. You put your finger on what is missing in the Republican presidential primary contest. Having said that, I feel hopeful after watching the last 2 debates. Any one of these candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) would be better than President Obama. All seem committed to encouraging free enterprise and reversing Obama’s policies, especially Obamacare. They are articulate and forceful. And who knows, like @strongthought observed, maybe a Reagan will eventually emerge from this field, especially with the addition of Rick Perry.

My sentimental favorite is Michele Bachmann. She may seem rigid, but she was uncompromising in opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and she has fought against the administration’s positions, despite Pawlenty’s petty comments. She walks the walk on the pro-life issue.

Keep up your good work.

From a fellow Northwest conservative,

Joel Turvey (@joelmt)

From team_Excalibur via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 06:03.

0

+-I have to admit that the “political machine” of either party is not producing a believable candidate I would strongly back and vote for in 2012. Every “hard-line party”, rich politician currently in Congress thinks that the existing two-party system with support from dependent, high-density urban area voters will either save them in the coming elections or replace them with a party clone that holds the “status quo”. It’s ironic that many of the nation’s young voters and “poor” vote for Congressional candidates that are from a very rich and arrogant sector of our society. Why should anyone of the right stuff that we need to replace the Congress or the President in office need to pay millions to promote themselves as a viable candidate and participate as a candidate in a preliminary campaign event??? The whole system is broken! We need real leadership, not accusations and vague political promises! Obamacare is not about medical care improvement, it’s about expanded federal government control of the middle class populous and weakening of the Constitutional rights of every American.

The Democrats are primarily funded by big business interests (those same corporations who don’t pay their fair share of taxes and outsource our critical balance of trade jobs to our national debt “lenders”) and fully supported by new white-collar state government unions in almost all states with very large cities on both coasts. We are headed for a direct political conflict between suburban folks with angered patriotic seniors who paid their “entitlement” taxes the Democrats established over the last 60+ years and progressive liberal socialists and communists headquartered in all of America’s big cities. A dictator will emerge (if he hasn’t already been voted in by the “sheeple” who depend on the current course of federal government-initiated entitlement programs and taxation.) We are under economic attack and still giving borrowed money away to other counties in the world for favors. Meanwhile, Congress just keeps rearranging the deck chairs on the American, National Debt-ridden Titanic…

President Obama: To Employ More Veterans, Get Big Government Out of Their Way!

2011-08-07T07:45:00.000-07:00

In a speech Friday, at the Washington Navy Yard, President Obama overviewed his administration’s new initiative meant to help those serving in the military find employment following their service. The program announced was in response to a report regarding the unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans. Although the unemployment rate for all veterans stands at 8.6 % (lower than the nation’s overall unemployment rate of 9.1 %), the current unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans is 12.4 %. That is an increase over the 11.8 % rate reported for this group a year ago.

As could be expected, with the Navy Yard as a backdrop and surrounded by military personnel, a speech on this topic was well received. Regardless of the setting and the audience, I see this as a topic deserving of positive interest from us all. When our heroes, who offer themselves for military service on our behalf, return from that service to civilian life, I want to see them welcomed on a level playing field and given a head start I believe they’ve earned. Obviously, based on the unemployment rates being reported, our Iraq and Afghanistan-era heroes are experiencing a welcome that is opposite of what I’d like for them to be getting.

President Obama’s plan here consists of two key elements: (1) He is asking Congress to legislate new tax breaks intended to encourage employers to give a hiring edge to veterans. (2) He has ordered the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments to form a new task force, to develop a plan aimed at helping veterans secure post-service employment.

Although I commend the President for having his heart in the right place on this, I don’t think his is the right solution. It’s amazing to me that, even in the face of the abundantly obvious abject failure we’re experiencing with his dogma, President Obama remains an undying big government ideologue. Much as was the case with this approach during the Carter administration, Obama and his fellow-zealots have formulated a scheme for tinkering with the symptoms of this matter rather than diagnosing its cause and prescribing corrective treatment.

In considering this problem and its likely source, I couldn’t help but notice its similarities to another dilemma I wrote about not long ago, in an article entitled Meeting the Challenge of Senior Underemployment – One of Our Greatest Socioeconomic Opportunities. This writing addresses the difficulty being faced by another group of veterans … Seniors who are veterans of business.

When I wrote that article, the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.3%. At that time, the unemployment rate for Seniors (people aged 55 and over) was 6.7%. Initially, that made it sound like older workers were doing better than the general population. However, since the recession began in December of 2007, the unemployment rate for Seniors had increased by a factor of 2.09, while unemployment in the general population increased by a factor of 1.86. Furthermore, the average duration of unemployment for Seniors was 53.6 weeks (more than one year) versus 39.4 weeks for the younger unemployed.

In addition to the similarities between these two groups of veterans, with unemployment, they share corresponding experiences with underemployment. I believe related accounts of this tell us as much as, if not more than, unemployment tells us about the underlying cause of the overall problem here and its likely source.

The following are a few anecdotes, to exemplify this predicament for our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans:

“After almost two years in New York looking for work in law enforcement, Iraq veteran Christopher Kurz just moved back in with his parents in Arizona. His military police work in Iraq and aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier didn't seem to translate into a job.”

“Staff Sgt. Meghan Meade, 27, of East Moriches, N.Y., said her lack of a bachelor's degree also seems to have kept her from getting a full-time job, even doing administrative work. A member of the New York Air National Guard, she said she's spent five years on active duty and did a tour in Iraq. She has an associate's degree, but she's reluctant to go back to school because she's not sure exactly what to study. She's waiting tables and doing temporary clerical work.”

“Hugh Conlon, from Augusta, Georgia, who served in the Army for 20 years as a Sergeant First Class. He served three combat tours as a medic, most recently as a Senior Medical non-commissioned officer for an Iraqi National Police Brigade in Iraq. Despite his extensive experience as a medic in combat zones, Hugh was unable to find a job in the medical field when he left the Army. He was turned down for positions ranging from driving an ambulance to admitting patients to the hospital.”

Although this group of veterans may not hear these things directly from prospective employers, typical reasons that come back to them about why they’ve been passed over include: The prospective employers’ failure to connect the responsibilities of their military duty to civilian job requirements, concerns that veterans might have mental health issues and with Guard and Reserve troops, worry that they will deploy again.

To illustrate the corresponding quandary with the other group, Seniors who are veterans of business, here are a few stories out of the many like this that I’m personally aquainted with:

“A President and CEO of a telecom company. For nearly two years he was “between jobs” but got one six-month consulting gig. Now he is employed as a Senior Operations Manger with a nonprofit.”

“A VP of Worldwide Sales for a software developer. The five years since she left that position have held a VP-level job with a marketing research firm, a VP-level job with a nonprofit, a couple of advisory/consulting gigs and significant periods ‘between jobs’.”

“A CFO-level person who had been working abroad. He moved back home to be with an ailing parent who has, since, passed away. During over three years ‘back home’, he managed to get only two months of consulting work. He has returned to a financial role, working abroad, for a U.S. Government agency.”

“A President of an apparel manufacturer. After two years of unemployment he accepted a position as VP of Operations for a heavy equipment dealer. That job lasted 1 ½ years. He has returned to consulting, as he looks for his next opportunity.”

Here, again, this group doesn’t necessarily get direct feedback from prospective employers about why they have been passed over but the rationale seems to include: The hiring company viewing the candidates age as a negative rather than valuing the experience that comes with the age, concerns that these veterans may lack energy/enthusiasm and apprehension that they may just be looking for a place to ‘coast’ to their imminent retirement.”

So, what does all this indicate? Does it mean that I think Seniors should be getting the same sort of government supported jobs program that the President is proposing for our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans? Well, as temptingly self-serving as it would be for me to say “Yes”, I have to say “No”. Does it mean that I’m opposed to seeing our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans get the help the President is proposing? No. I agree with Hugh Conlon when he says, “That’s no way for America to support the troops”, regarding the unemployment/underemployment experience we’re presently giving Vets like him. Do I think that what the President is proposing is more of a band-aid than corrective surgery? Yes!

If you just listen to what both sets of veterans are being told about why they’re being passed over for employment, you hear evidence of the need for a paradigm shift, not tinkering. Whether it’s failure to connect the responsibilities of their military duty to civilian job requirements, concerns that veterans might have mental health issues and worry that they will deploy again (for military veterans) or it’s viewing the candidates age as a negative rather than valuing the experience that comes with the age, concerns that these folks may lack energy/enthusiasm and apprehension that they may just be looking for a place to ‘coast’ to their imminent retirement (for business veterans); these are the results of businesses looking for reasons not to hire. This is what you find when the business environment has been stifled by ever-increasing regulation and taxation accompanied by government spending exceeding the wildest imaginations. On the other hand, when these factors are reversed, business thrives and you find employers looking for reasons to hire people - i.e. They look for ways to match up the skills a military veteran gains from their service or the experience a business veteran aquires from their career with fitting jobs that need doing in a booming economy. This is the paradigm shift that is called for.

In closing, I want to emphasize that accomplishing this paradigm shift for the two groups of veterans I’ve mentioned here is critical to the socioeconomic future of our nation. To a great degree, today’s Seniors are made up of Baby Boomers. This generation was lavished, more than any other, with education. Moreover, they were raised by the GI Generation, who instilled them with a great work ethic. That meant, not only did they get a great education, they actually went out and tried to accomplish everything they could with that resource and in the process, grew the resource by honing it with experience to create what I call “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” Sadly, this invaluable resource is going to die with the Baby Boom generation, if we don’t put them to work, ideally in mentoring roles with the best of our younger generations. What better candidates for this latter group than our Iraq and Afghanistan-era heroes? By combining and unleashing these immediately available resources, we can reinvent the socioeconomic environment of a true Super Power. But, this won’t result from tinkering. It will require systemic corrective action.

Comments

Very good, well reasoned

Submitted by Big Mike (not verified) on Sun, 2011-08-07 11:19.

-1

+-Very good, well reasoned article, Gary. Thanks!

Your Comment

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-08 07:59.

-1

+-Thanks, Big Mike!

Via Facebook

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-08-07 12:54.

-1

+-Larry J. Smith Good thing. We owe them jobs for their contributions and dedication.

Your Comment

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-08 08:02.

-1

+-I fully agree, Larry.

Much Heat, Little Light

2011-08-02T14:48:00.000-07:00

The result of the end of "the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America"? ... Politics as usual!

Monday evening, by a vote of 269-161, the U.S. Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 … a/k/a the bipartisan agreement to address the debt crisis. According to an AP report on this, “A final Senate sign-off for the measure is virtually assured on Tuesday” and “If the bill were presented to the president, he would sign it.”

Sunday night, President Obama and congressional leaders announced this agreement that, according to another AP article, is a "dramatic resolution" that will "(lift) a cloud that had threatened the still-fragile economic recovery." In that same article, the President is quoted as saying, "(The deal) will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". One can only hope that he was looking in the mirror as he made that statement but I have to admit that the President hit the nail on the head about this being a "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". Sadly, it appears that, after putting the American public through this stressful time, our elected federal officials have only accomplished a continuation of "politics as usual". And, in my mind, it's just the sort of political outcome that's in Barack Obama's "wheelhouse" - i.e. Continuing to dangle "Hope" before the nation's people without delivering much in actual "Change".

What This Deal is Aimed to Deliver

Reportedly, this agreement is meant to cut federal spending by $2.2 trillion over the coming decade. Based on the 2011 Federal Budget, the U.S. government plans to spend $38.2 trillion over the next 10 years. While cutting that by $2.2 trillion doesn't seem very significant, that is this deal's overall "best case" scenario. Getting to the $2.2 trillion level requires the most optimistic outcome of sure-to-be highly contentious follow up work by a "super-committee" of legislators. However, the first phase of this proposed legislation will generate around $900 billion in spending cuts over the next decade, while allowing an immediate $900 billion increase in the government's ability to incur debt. So, the "best case" scenario for this deal's first phase actually means Zero change initially, followed by continuing and ever increasing deficit spending. And, the conservative objective to get Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment, which seemed within easy reach, has been abandoned.

Furthermore, the federal government's ability to borrow more money will now be authorized beyond the 2012 elections. This is being positioned as a relief to the American public, in not having to continue to live under the "cloud" of this "debt crisis", for now, but its true benefit is solely to President Obama, for his reelection aspirations.

Finally, it's being touted that Republicans have achieved a major goal in this agreement through avoiding tax increases. In fact, though, increased tax recommendations are likely to come from the follow up work of the bipartisan "super-committee".

Winners and Losers

As noted above, this "dramatic resolution" claims to result in a number of "Winners". You can, easily, judge those for yourself. However, some have pointed to the Tea Party, as a "Loser" in this deal and I want to address that.

As indicated by the title of this article, I see this "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America" as having produced "Much Heat" and "Little Light". Of course, I was hoping for much more in a real debt reduction plan. And, certainly, I'm deeply disappointed to see the loss of momentum towards a balanced budget amendment. However, the general focus of our federal lawmakers has been shifted from continuing ever-increasing spending to striving to learn to live within our means. That is an accomplishment that the Tea Party can proudly take credit for.

Courageously Achieving More

Although the above mentioned shift in the general focus of our federal lawmakers is in line with what voters were looking for in electing a new Congress last Fall, I had hoped those newly focused legislators would not accept this accomplishment as being enough. For many years now, our nation has been sinking in a morass of "politics as usual". The desire to get out of that quagmire was the driving force that brought the sitting Congress into power. More than anything else, the "dramatic resolution"' announced by President Obama and congressional leaders Sunday night, is "politics as usual". Since that is diametrically opposite of the primary impetus that brought these newly focused lawmakers into office, I was disappointed to see many of them (including Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, who represents the congressional district where I live) support this deal.

Of course, I recognize that what I had hoped for is something that, as folks would say where I was raised in the Midwest, "says easy and does hard". Standing your ground when you’re being hit from all sides on the “debt crisis” with issues like its “cloud” continuing to hang over the American people, its threat to our economy, necessary levels of spending, appropriate levels of debt, its potential impact on Obama’s reelection, its prospective bearing on your own reelection, legitimate needs for taxes/revenues, its impact on job growth, the possibility of passing a balanced budget amendment, countless political pressures, etc.; makes this far from easy. In fact, just the opposite is true; it requires extremely hard work and great courage.

With that said, let me go on to say I understand that the courage required for me to express my views, hiding behind my keyboard, is nothing compared to what I'm asking of those legislators who came into office along with the momentum of the Tea Party. And though I’m disappointed with their not continuing to stand their ground to accomplish even more, that doesn’t mean I’m giving up on them. To the contrary, I’m very proud of the tremendously difficult work they have done and the immense courage they have displayed in doing it. I just want remind them that this is what we were looking for when we voted for them. And, I want to encourage them that the greater level of accomplishment I’d hoped for is, in fact, achievable. For me, the greatest indication of that came from Barack Obama, the antagonist in this episode of “politics as usual”, when he told Eric Cantor, “Don’t call my bluff.” To me, that clearly said, he was bluffing and that his bluff could have been called.

Next time, stand your ground and don’t miss a similar opportunity.

Comments

on Bluffing and Ideologues

Submitted by Mike Frome (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 07:28.

0

+-Hi Gary, I don't believe the president was bluffing, he was merely misusing the language (again). What he meant was "Don't try me because I'm not bluffing". In my view this is because he is an ideologue; a true believer in his closely held (although repeatedly disproved) social and economic theories.

I believe that in his eyes, a failure in congress to act would have been acceptable...he would have done as the extreme progressive wing of his party has been demanding. He would have unilaterally taken the power to set the debt ceiling unto the executive branch, thereby making a complete mockery of congressional budgetary authority for the indefinite future.

To the masses, I believe he would have been able to justify this by making the case "he was the only adult in DC" and "it was in the urgent best interest of the country to act", and I believe that case would have been sufficient for many.

As far as these "cuts" are concerned, a "cut" of a trillion or two into a notional $9T of increases over a decade is another mortal insult to the English language, just on a semantics basis. Never mind the fact that none of those cuts, put off into the indefinite future, are going to happen until they are *again* forced. If our leadership couldn't do anything meaningful now, they are going to be worse than useless in the coming monetary crisis.

Cheers,

Mike

Fool we once, then fool me again

Submitted by Lynn Costello (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 14:32.

0

+-As we've seen from watching the President and democrats today, it is back to business as usual with "investments" in more government and of course an effort to make those millionaires, billionaires and owners of corporate jets pay their fair share. So much for compromise. We wake up realizing once again, we are suckers!

Millionaires & Billionaires

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-08-02 19:03.

0

+-Don't you just love knowing that, with the Liberals never-ending repitition of this talking point, there are actually many out there who must think that Conservatives get up every day asking themselves, "What can I do today to make life better for America's Millionaires & Billionaires?!"

Avoiding McCain II

2011-07-22T16:16:00.000-07:00

If, like me, you’re praying for the 2012 Presidential Election to result in Barack Obama being a One-Term President, the good news is that the most recent Gallup Poll shows that the "Republican Candidate" (generic) leads Obama 47% to 39%. The bad news is that when you fill in “generic” with any name from the current field of candidates, polls indicate that Obama holds the lead over (or, at least, is tied with) each of these candidates.

Thankfully, for now, most Republicans seem to be trying to cleave to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment … “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” … so their relentless knit-picking of each candidate who comes along seems to have waned. Perhaps that is due to the fact that they recognize what has even been acknowledged by one writer at the Huffington Post – i.e. “The least qualified Republican candidate, stands head and shoulders above the qualifications of the incompetent guy we now have in the White House.” Just the same, an aire of unease seems to remain amongst the GOP faithful. I believe the source of this anxiety is what I call “The Fear of McCain II.”

“McCain II” is my metaphor for a repeat of what happened with the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination. Though I will always honor John McCain as a true American hero, I don’t believe he was the best candidate the GOP could have put forward as their 2008 Presidential Nominee. But, like many, I voted for McCain in the General Election, not because he was “my guy” but because he was my preference over Obama.

In order to deal with the angst of loyal Republicans due to the possibility of “McCain II”, it only makes sense to develop a strategy to avoid that. Logically, the first step in this development process is to consider how “McCain I” happened. My view is that, in general, this was the result of the GOP doing “business as usual”, from the time candidates started emeging up through the 2008 RNC in St.Paul, MN. By contrast, the Democrat Party and the Obama Campaign recognized that the 2008 political landscape called for anything but “business as usual”. Their “audacious” approach handed the GOP a huge defeat in that year. That, of course, was discouraging for the GOP faithful. What’s more discouraging is that, so far, the Republican Party seems to be taking the same “business as usual” approach in the current political season. For evidence of this, you only need to look as far as the “top candidate” in the current field of Republican presidential hopefuls.

Mitt Romney is, presently, the clear leader amongst the “top candidates.” According to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll, “Romney also runs ahead of the pack on three crucial attributes: leadership, experience and, perhaps most important, who can beat the president next year.” However, a related report in the Washington Post goes on to say, “Romney’s support is tepid, particularly among the party’s most energized constituency — the strong supporters of the tea party movement.” My belief is that the primary reason that “Romney’s support is tepid” is a fear of “McCain II.” Frankly, I would vote for Romney for President in the 2012 General Election, but it would only be because he would be my preference over Obama, not because he’s “my guy.” Obviously, for me, having this happen would add up to “McCain II.” Fortunately, though Romney is the current “front runner”, there are several other Republican “top candidates” to consider.

Though unannounced, Sarah Palin remains a “top candidate.” The Washington Post report I mentioned also provides a good thumbnail sketch on the outlook for her prospective candidacy. It notes:

“Sarah Palin’s lingering power to shake up the race if she decides to run.” … “the hold that Palin still has on segments of the party faithful despite some long-standing liabilities and deep skepticism among many voters about her qualifications.” … “Palin tops the list as the most empathetic figure. She runs almost even with Romney on the question of who best reflects the party’s core values and on who is most compatible with people on the issues.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry has also been expressing a growing interest in a possible candidacy. Here again, the Washington Post article I mentioned offers a good synopsis of this “top candidate”:

“As the longtime governor of a big state that has produced more jobs than any other state in the country, Perry is seen by some Republicans as a potentially serious threat to Romney. But he is far from a dominant figure in the assessment of rank-and-file Republicans. He attracts the support of 8 percent, with or without Palin in the race, and he is in single digits on all six attributes as well.”

And, as cited earlier, there are numerous other Republican candidates, the least of whom, in the words of the Huffington Post author, have credentials that are “head and shoulders above the qualifications of the incompetent guy we now have in the White House.” Although I’m not going to attempt to provide a summary for the candidacy status of each of these individuals, there is another “top candidate” I want to draw attention to in this regard. It’s the candidate mentioned at the outset of this article … the "Republican Candidate" (generic) who, according to the recent Gallup Poll, leads Obama 47% to 39%. Of course, successful campaigning on the part of one of the candidates I’ve named up to now could lead to that person inheriting the poll-leadership of the “generic candidate”. Mostly, though, the present poll-leadership of the “generic candidate” implies that party faithful are hoping there are one or more superior candidates out there who, for now, have chosen not to join in the race.

So, how does this all fit together and what does it tell us about how to avoid “McCain II?” My belief is that all this clearly indicates the necessity for the Republican Party to proactively get behind a candidate now, instead of taking a “business as usual” approach.” One way of doing this is for the party, as an example, to identify the reasons why “Romney’s support is tepid” and if this is a result of perceptions that can honestly be corrected, to work with the candidate to correct them and give him the party’s full support. Of course, this approach could also be applied to Palin’s “long-standing liabilities and deep skepticism among many voters about her qualifications” and with the view of Perry as being “far from a dominant figure in the assessment of rank-and-file Republicans”. If the GOP was to take this approach with all of it’s “top candidates”, an added benefit could be encouraging some of those superior candidates, who have chosen not to be in the race at present, to get in.

I recognize that the idea of the RNC selecting a candidate for the party’s full support at this stage of the game is very naïve and not very practical. But it is just that … an idea ... a suggestion for something different and better than “business as usual.” Without a different and better approach, we’re almost certain to get “McCain II.” So, Republican National Committee, you folks are the professionals to whom we’ve entrusted our party. If you don’t like this idea, please tell us what you have in mind that’s different and better. I don’t care how dissimilar what you have in mind is from the idea I’ve presented. All I care about is that it’s not “business as usual” and please, that it doesn’t give us “McCain II.”

Comments

From Mark Mahan via Facebook

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-22 19:27.

0

+-I'm with you Gary- we need a good, strong Republican candidate to run. Not because we need a Republican in office, but because we need an excellent choice. I'm hoping that the GOP can find the right person.

From funwithknives

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-22 19:44.

0

+-is apparent here . At least to this Naif. Leave this decision to Fall Convention, 2012 and little time remains for preparations. BHO has the advantage if we allow it.Example: Point/counter-point is coming and Unification is only logical, for concentration of every resource.

“Time ,Waits for NoOne,and It Won’t, Wait for Me…”(or WE)

McCain II

Submitted by Mike Frome (not verified) on Mon, 2011-07-25 07:59.

0

+-Gary, I largely agree with what you've written here. I've referred to it as "pulling a Dino" - a GOP candidate put forth using the "politics as usual" paradigm...and there are far too many first-time conservative activists who view the GOP very skeptically on the national level especially, vis-a-vis fiscal policy.

think that some of the names with lesser recognition can truly shine on their own merit, if they are not placed in the shade of the Name Brand by the party.

I also personally know several people who have expressed that they will refuse to vote if the choice presented by the system is, in their perception, one branch of "the Left" vs. another. I can empathize with that view, although I believe the stakes are far too high.

Josephine – Right Addition for the Vancouver City Council

2011-07-17T16:24:00.000-07:00

This past Friday evening, I attended a campaign kickoff for a candidate who, if you live in the City of Vancouver, deserves your most serious consideration … Josephine Wentzel, Candidate for Vancouver City Council (Position 4).

The Event

The kickoff was exceptionally well done and very well attended. Although Vancouver has been Josephine’s home for close to twenty years, she was born and raised in Guam, thus the theme for the events cuisine was “A Taste of Guam.” I have to say that I thought the food was great, especially the potato salad, prepared personally by the candidate.

The event was held at The Academy, a facility originally opened in 1874, as a girl’s boarding school. Dr. Ricky Lee Jackson served as the Emcee for the evening and he provided the musical entertainment. Of course the music had a patriotic theme, including one of my favorites, The Battle Hymn of the Republic. Several elected officials and other candidates were among the attendees. This included 17th District Representative Paul Harris, who endorses Josephine’s candidacy. He, also, spoke on her behalf at the kickoff.

Some Basics on Josephine

Of course, since Josephine’s Life Priorities seem to be in line with mine – i.e. Faith, Family and Community; I find that appealing. She is boldly Christian and she made that clear in her Kickoff Speech. Since the attendees included her Husband, her children and her grandchildren; the commitment to family (and their commitment to her) was obvious.

Josephine’s commitment to serving her community is what led to her present candidacy. Her political stance is unwaveringly Conservative and naturally, I like that too. She is a long time citizen activist and community volunteer. Recently, she has had significant visibility as Co-Chair for the NoTolls.com PAC, the organization aimed at assuring our community doesn’t get saddled with the $10 Billion boondoggle being driven by the tyrannical demeanor of our present City Council. Beyond this, Josephine’s history in community service has included:

- Court appointed Special Advocate

- Advocate for children with learning disabilities

- Trauma intervention prevention volunteer

- Naval Hospital Candy Striper (Vietnam War Era)

- Red Cross volunteer

- Keynote speaker for legal immigration

- Homeless shelter volunteer

- Sunday School Superintendent

- Worker for free adoptions in Washington State.

- Law Enforcement Officer in Guam

Josephine on the Issues

Josephine’s stance regarding the CRC Light Rail Crossing Project has been pretty clear. We can rely on her to work tirelessly to assure that this, the largest public works undertaking in the history of our community, only goes forward as endorsed by the whole community. Of course, there are countless other issues that a City Council-Member must address. The key elements of Josephine’s candidacy define her approach in addressing these matters. These elements are:

Citizen Empowerment – Here, Josephine says, “I want to strengthen the dialogue between citizens and policymakers to foster positive changes in the community.”

Transparency – Josephine’s view on this is, “Negotiations with our tax dollars behind closed doors need to stop.”

Better Business Environment – Josephine presently works as Public Relations Director for US Digital. Her business background positions her to speak to this much more meaningfully than many career politicians who can only address this academically. Her common sense approach here is, “When businesses thrive, jobs abound.”

For me, the most meaningful comment from Josephine’s Kickoff Speech was one of her “off-the-cuff” comments. She said, “Vancouver City needs Honest Representation.” That is precisely what I’m looking for!

The Acid Test

What a politician says and what they do are, disappointingly, often not the same. I’m pleased to say that, in less than 24 hours of her kickoff event, Josephine put her words on “Honest Representation” into action for me. I have an issue that I don’t see as being worthy of being a campaign issue but it’s one that I want to be supported on in fully developing it’s solution and getting it considered by the City Council. Of course, this isn’t the sort of thing to take up a candidate’s time with at a public event but I did mention it to Josephine, saying, “You may not even agree with my position on this issue but I’d appreciate discussing it and working on it with you.” The day after her kickoff, while I was driving from my chiropractor to pick up some burgers to take home for lunch, Josephine phoned me to learn what my issue was and to start discussing it with me. A candidate who says what they mean and who means what they say?! That is also what I’m looking for!

My Closing Comment

One final thing that came out of my “personal issue” related phone call with Josephine that I want to mention. When it comes to elected officials, we agreed that it’s legitimate for compensation to go with an elected position and that it’s OK for a candidate to see a position as part of their political career but that isn’t the job. The job is serving the community. With Josephine Wentzel, I believe you’ll get a person working her hardest to do her level-best to give us Honest Representation in getting that job done. Please check her out at www.ElectJosephine.com and give her your most serious consideration.

Comments

Comment via email from Fred Mostoller

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-07-17 19:04.

-1

+-Go for it, Josephine ! I sent another message to a friend saying:

Josephine is running for Vancouver City Council. I highly recommend her. You can get an intro on Gary's latest blog. Pass the word !

Kayaking Up the Waialua - An Essential Skill for a Healthy Marriage

2011-07-15T16:56:00.000-07:00

A Good Example of the Need

We have quite a few home improvement projects on our "to do" list this summer. Since handyman skills didn't come to me naturally, we often hire the applicable talent for this sort of work. However, several of the items on this summer's list involved landscaping and they seemed to mostly require brute strength so I decided to take them on myself.

Of course, my Wife, Ruth and I agreed to a landscaping game plan before I dove in. One of the main landscaping projects was to use red rock to replace the areas of bark chips that make up a significant portion of the ground cover in our front yard. Additionally, to address some issues that have been developing with two of the three mature Ash trees presently within the bark chip covered areas; we planned to set all three apart with decorative rings, replacing the bark chips with organic compost amended with organic fertilizer.

As I said before, this seemed like a project that required more brute strength than skill. Equipped with a 1/2 ton pickup borrowed from one friend and a wheelbarrow borrowed from another friend, I thought I could complete the job in a couple of days. About three days into the work, I found myself in our front yard continuing to rake and shovel away at four or five layers of bark chips ... I actually ended up removing about six cubic yards. Meanwhile, for those three days, a cubic yard of red rock had been sitting in the bed of the borrowed pickup, parked in front of our house. Unfortunately, there was no place to put the red rock until I finished with the bark chips removal. Also unfortunately, with the pickup full of red rock, I had no way of hauling away the bark chips. Based on my original plan, I thought the volume of bark chips would be low enough that I could dispose of them via one or two of the city's semi-weekly yard debris pick-ups. This meant that I needed to find a place to store the bark chips until I did have the ability to haul them away ... in other words, I got to move the 6 cubic yards of bark chips twice! And even more unfortunately, removing the multiple layers of bark chips was exposing the upper half of major roots of the Ash trees we were striving to save. This meant that I would need to put down about a cubic yard of compost around the trees before putting down the red rock. But, due to the fact that the borrowed pickup was still filled with red rock, I had no way of hauling in the needed compost.

All this meant that, as I continued working away in our front yard, I was wishing I hadn't started this project and that I had a magic wand that would allow me to return our front yard to its beginning state. At that point, my thinking was that our front yard might actually end up looking worse, not better and that I could end up killing the trees we were striving to save. Since Ruth sensed my exasperation, on a regular basis, she was coming to me with "just one more idea meant to help." When she came to me with what (in my mind) was about the "dozenth" of these ideas, she reacted to this resulting in a negative change in my countenance by saying, "Never mind." I responded by saying, "No, I want to hear your suggestion but I want you to know that it would have been most helpful for me to hear these ideas when we were setting the game plan for this project. At this point, they're tending to just add to my frustration." As I said this, I realized, "We're having another 'Kayaking Up the Waialua' experience.”

The "Kayaking Up the Waialua" Experience

Of course, in order for you to understand where this fits in, I need to tell you about our experience "Kayaking Up the Waialua." This came along with our getting to join in Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa - Married Couples Fellowship's inaugural Kauai Retreat. Of course, this was something we had planned for well in advance and that we looked forward to for months.

Fittingly, the first day of this week-long retreat was our Anniversary. So, that evening, we got cleaned up and dressed up (Aloha style) to go out for our Anniversary dinner. Our dinner reservation, based on a recommendation, was at Café Hanalei at the Princeville Hotel, on Kauai’s North shore, at sunset. It turned out to be a magnificent recommendation. I’ve been blessed that I’ve seen some pretty fancy hotels, from Hong Kong to Europe. None of them compare to the architecture of the Princeville Hotel’s lobby. The Café Hanalei overlooks Hanalei Bay – the Hanalei that Peter, Paul and Mary were inspired by for “Puff the Magic Dragon”. The view is spectacular. The Café Hanalei is a bit pricey but it’s one of those superb restaurants where the food makes it seem well worth the price. At the end of the meal, the restaurant brought out a dessert we had not ordered. I can’t describe it but it was wonderful and the plate it was served on said, “Happy Anniversary”, in chocolate. Afterwards, we waddled to our car and drove back to our resort for a good night’s rest.

The main reason for me filling you in on that Anniversary dinner was because it was so dramatically different from the following day's experience, "Kayaking Up the Waialua." The day started with the two of us going out on the beach to watch the sunrise. Afterwards, we went to a continental breakfast provided by the company the church used to book the trip. We left the breakfast at 9 a.m., so that we could meet the Married Couples Fellowship group on the beach for our first time of praise, worship and Bible study. It was wonderful to get together for praise, worship and Bible study in the midst of such a beautiful part of God’s creation. However, that first time on the beach together was a bit abbreviated because a majority of the couples had signed up for a kayaking trip up the Waialua River. That’s where our challenges started.

Before going on, I need to tell you a little about the sun and me. Suffice it to say, I'm an extremely white guy. When I was a kid, my Mom would make me wear a tee shirt when I went swimming and I’d get sunburned through the shirt. So, that means coating myself thoroughly with sun block before spending any significant time in the Hawaiian sun. You should, also, know that both Ruth and I left home with sinus colds so that was our first bit of discomfort that day. And, we had been up since 3 or 4 in the morning, due to the three-hour time difference between Hawaii and California. Additionally, less than a week before our trip, I’d taken a fall while roller blading and I was suffering from some pain in the left part of my chest and back. I think it was a bruised or cracked rib. Even without all these afflictions, we knew the paddling would be strenuous for us, particularly since we hadn't been doing much in terms of upper-body exercise. However, Ruth thought we’d be able to pull up to a bank to rest, have a drink and a snack whenever we got a little tired. Otherwise, we thought we’d be able to enjoy the beauty, take some pictures and end up visiting Waialua Falls and the Fern Grotto. Here’s what really happened:

During the worship on the beach, I realized I’d been too liberal with applying sun block to my face because it was getting in my eyes and nearly blinding me. As soon as worship was over, we went to our room so I could use some eye drops. Fortunately, that helped, though it took most of the next hour for my bloodshot eyes to stop smarting. Then we drove to the kayak rental place to learn that we had to load the kayak and equipment on our rental car, drive to the river, assemble the kayak, get it and us into the river and do the trip without any further assistance. We, also, learned that we hadn’t dressed properly. Although we had swimsuits and aqua socks with us, we thought that shorts and tennis shoes would be proper dress for the trip we had in mind. We were wrong. By 10:30 a.m., we were in the river, wet up to our butts, hot and sweaty, covered with sun block, eyes smarting and heads aching. If that sounds like fun, there were no banks to pull up to due to heavy foliage along the banks; there was no opportunity for picture taking due to the need to constantly row against the current and the fact that all you could see was the water and the heavy foliage along the banks. The need to constantly row really tested our upper-body strength, aggravated my chest pain and gave us both blisters in the fleshy area between thumb and forefinger. The need for teamwork to keep going straight and to not turn over also provided some interesting testing. I'm pleased to say that we seemed to pass that testing, in as much as, unlike several others, our kayak remained upright. We eventually came to a fork, with one way going to the falls and the other going to the grotto. Since people coming the other way warned us not to try to go to the falls due to strong currents, we took the fork to the grotto. Actually, we went past the grotto because it wasn’t marked well but we did make our way back to a place where you could tie up and with a lot of effort, get out of the kayak. We then hiked up a muddy hill to see the Fern Grotto, being visited by group after group of Japanese tourists who had come by tour boat. While doing this, we drank a soda and scarfed down a couple of pieces of fried chicken we’d gotten at a Safeway the night before. It was hard for me to believe that this fried chicken was from the same species as the macadamia nut crusted chicken I’d had the previous night at the Café Hanalei. By the way, there are lots of chickens running around loose on Kauai, as a result of Filipino immigrants bringing in fighting cocks. It’s kind of disconcerting to be eating fried chicken with live chickens running around you. You sort of feel like they’re cheering on the bugs that are biting you. The return trip was pretty much a mirror image of the initial leg except that we were going against the wind instead of going against the current. The one thing I did enjoy seeing on the return trip was schools of mullet jumping over waves. However, the waves were from the wake of huge tour boats (carrying those Japanese tourists) that nearly swamped us. It was between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. when we got out of the river so the whole adventure had lasted about five hours with about four hours of it being in the river. On the way back to the hotel, Ruth and I agreed that we wanted to do nothing but sit still for awhile before getting cleaned up.

Ongoing Application

No doubt, there were several points during our "Kayaking Up the Waialua" experience when we were having wishes similar to the one I had three days into our recent landscaping project - i.e. wishing I hadn't started this project and that I had a magic wand that would allow me to return our front yard to it's beginning state. But, we survived our "Kayaking Up the Waialua" experience and at Bible study the next morning, we began to have more appreciation for our experience, realizing that everyone had a challenging experience and that it had strengthened our relationships, as a result.

The lessons learned from our "Kayaking Up the Waialua" experience have served us well over the years. Even when you're doing your very best to carry out the game plan you put together as a couple, often life just doesn't go the way you expect. As I noted in the story about our "Kayaking Up the Waialua" experience, "The need for teamwork to keep going straight and to not turn over also provided some interesting testing. I'm pleased to say that we seemed to pass that testing, in as much as, unlike several others, our kayak remained upright." We passed that test because our commitment to each other is to stick together, caring for and depending on each other, regardless of how real life plays out versus our game plan. And that applies even when it's very challenging to do so. A good example here is when, in an attempt to help keep us "going straight and to not turn over" in our kayak, one of us decided to provide some uniformity to our rowing through the cadence of calling out "Right, right. Left, left." but, unfortunately, the cadence being called out was the opposite of the side that person was actually rowing on. Another good example here is when one of us senses exasperation on the part of the other and offers "just one more idea meant to help" but that well-intentioned effort isn’t received gladly. In the first case, we still ended up with a very entertaining story to share about the treasured memory of a trip to Kauai. And, in the second instance, we ended up with the attractive appearance of our front yard causing neighbors to stop by and ask if we were getting ready to sell our home. Moreover, through the lessons learned from our "Kayaking Up the Waialua" experience, as well as from other lessons the Lord has equipped us with to strengthen our relationship, we've been blessed with a marriage that is far richer than we ever imagined.

Unsafe and Insane: When the Loud and Proud Celebration Gets Obnoxious

2011-06-30T16:33:00.000-07:00

Five years ago, right at the end of our first year living in Southwest Washington, we had our first experience with something we truly despise about our community ... the legalized hooliganism associated with how Independence Day is celebrated here. Before you start calling me Un-American and chastise me, as a stick-in-the-mud who just wants to spoil other people's fun, let me explain. I am fiercely patriotic. I love the USA and I thrill at celebrating our independence. I, simply, object to being prevented from enjoying the Fourth of July, celebrating it in the manner I choose to, as a result of the overindulgent manner in which others are allowed to do their celebrating in this area.

Ironically, we really enjoyed our first Independence Day celebration here. We were visiting the Portland/Vancouver area, prior to our physical move, in order to rent an apartment, store a car, etc. During this visit, we stayed at one of the major hotels at the airport (PDX). Since we're baseball fans, we decided to spend the evening of the Fourth at PGE Park. At the time that was the home of the AAA Portland Beavers. PGE Park was a great venue for Minor League Baseball and their post-game fireworks were spectacular. On the way back to PDX from PGE Park, we saw a fireworks show in progress on the banks of the Willamette River, in Downtown Portland. And, it turned out that our hotel room provided a great perspective for the fireworks shows going on across the Columbia River, in Washington. We noted countless cars parked and driving along Marine Drive between our hotel and the river. The most impressive show appeared to be the one at Fort Vancouver. At the time, I thought, "What a great way to celebrate the Fourth! I can't imagine any Patriot not being gratified with that celebration." When July 4, 2006, came along, our attitude got turned a full 180 degrees. By then, we were living in the home we had purchased in Hiddenbrook, a nice area in East Vancouver. That change resulted in an Independence Day celebration experience that was completely miserable.

Unmet expectations are often a major contributor to miserable experiences. Naturally, our expectations about celebrating Independence Day were mostly based on our prior experience. That meant what we had experienced living in Southern California and for me, what I'd experienced growing up in Indiana. Living in the Golden State is quite different from living in the Hoosier State but the way that Independence Day is celebrated is fairly similar in both states. The basic experience in Southern California involved taking in a major fireworks display at a public venue like Anaheim Stadium or a civic site such as the beach in Belmont Shore. In addition, there were the "Safe and Sane" fireworks stands that opened up in the days approaching the Fourth of July holiday. At these stands, you could purchase things like firecrackers, sparklers, etc. ... all small ground-level fireworks meant to be set off in a person's yard or a similar setting. Independence Day celebration, living in Vancouver, turned out to be dramatically different from anything we had previously experienced.

The Misery

The way this unfolded for us seemed to start innocently enough. In the days leading up to the Fourth, we started to notice tented fireworks stands being set up all over the place. That seemed "as expected". Our first hint that we might be about to have a different Independence Day experience than we had ever had before came during a visit to our dog's Vet. The Vet asked, "Is Figgins (our dog) going to need sedatives to get him through the Fourth?" Since we had just gotten Figgins less than two months prior to that and we hadn't been through the Vancouver version of the Independence Day celebration, we had no clue regarding the answer to the Vet's question.

Before going on, since Figgins plays a key role in this story, let me tell you a bit about him. He is the Corgi/Pug mix you see in the photo that accompanies this article. We adopted him from the Oregon Humane Society just before his 3rd birthday. He has the run of our home, including doggie-door-access to our back yard and he is very well behaved ... no peeing or pooping indoors, nothing gets chewed or scratched, etc. When Figgins meets someone new, he wiggles and wags his tail, trying his best to get petted. Likewise, when he encounters a new dog, he wags his tail and does all he can to get the other dog to play. OK, I'll admit to extreme prejudice about Figgins and that I tell him he's the world's best puppy dog. Regardless, he is a very good dog.

The next step in our introduction to the Vancouver version of the Independence Day celebration came on the first of the legal dates for fireworks use in the city. Typically, these "legal dates" include several days prior to the Fourth plus the Fourth itself. On those days, fireworks use is allowed from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (midnight on the Fourth). During the daylight hours of the first of the "legal dates", occasionally, there were some pretty loud fireworks going off. Those got our attention and they caused Figgins to react but, so far, it didn't seem that far out of the scope of our experience. The real difference came with sunset. It was like nothing we had ever known before and it went on until 11:00 p.m. (midnight on the Fourth). Out in the streets, all over our neighborhood, fireworks were being set off continuously. These weren't just firecrackers and cherry bombs (like I'd known, growing up in Indiana). Although those were sort of mixed in with the background the predominant fireworks were aerials that sounded like canon-fire, with many including color-bursts rivaling those I've seen over Anaheim Stadium. What made this an even more unbelievable experience was that there were the equivalent of three major fireworks displays going on right in our neighborhood, surrounding our home ... one to the North, one to the East and one to the South. Later we learned that these were groups of neighbors who had gone together, spending thousands of dollars, to have their own fireworks show on their block. Thankfully, I've never been in a war zone but being in a war zone was the analogy that immediately came to my mind, being encircled by the continuous sound of canon-fire and having the windows on each side of our home brightly lighted (even with the shutters closed) with flash after flash from aerial fireworks explosions. Although this wouldn't have been "our cup of tea" under any circumstances, if we didn't have Figgins, we probably would have barricaded ourselves in the family room with the TV volume turned up as high as we could stand it, as a way to get by. But "the world's best puppy dog" was with us and he was absolutely frantic for every second of the hours of this experience. Although we had gotten sedatives for Figgins, since we had no way of anticipating what was coming, we didn't realize how badly he would need the drugs until the fireworks were fully under way. We did manage to get sedatives into him at that point but they didn't really take effect until the legal fireworks use time had passed.

A Closer Look

Understandably, after going through the experience described above, we determined to see what we could do about it. As I said at the outset of this article, my goal was not to spoil other people's fun. However, I couldn't help but think of a lesson my high school Social Studies Teacher had taught me about independence. He said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." In this case, I saw those setting off fireworks as the ones swinging their fist and our household as the ones getting hit in the nose. And, this wasn't just a grazing blow. We had, pretty much, been knocked out of the ring. With this in mind, I set out looking for reasonable solutions.

One solution you may be wondering about is, "Why didn't they just get in the car with their dog and go somewhere else in town until the fireworks were over?" The answer is, "There's no place to go." Vancouver's population is approaching 200,000, Clark County's population is approaching 1/2 million and Portland's population (across the river) is about 3.8 million. The fireworks experience in our (fairly upscale) neighborhood is what you find in almost every neighborhood in the area.

Another solution we have considered is taking a vacation during this time of year. But, that hasn't worked with our schedule so far. And, like all the other solutions I've mentioned here, it doesn't fit with the lesson I learned in high school about independence - i.e. The way others celebrate their independence shouldn't mean that we can't celebrate ours quietly at home, without drugging (poisoning) our dog and trying to find ways to escape the miserable experience. Since none of the solutions I've mentioned up to now seemed reasonable and we didn't want to end up having the one thing "we truly despise about our community" cause us to move away from the area we've chosen as our home, I began to focus on finding a way to make a change in the community that seemed reasonable for everyone involved.

A Reasonable Solution

As desirable as it might seem to me, banning fireworks in Vancouver's neighborhood's doesn't seem like a solution that's "reasonable for everyone involved". However, it did strike me that perhaps this has been tried before. I can't imagine that I'm any place close to being alone in preferring to enjoy fireworks in a public venue while maintaining the ability to enjoy my home quietly. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, there are 1.52 dogs per household in Vancouver or an approximate total of 300,000. Surely, out of this huge group, there are many others trying to cope with the frantic reaction of their dogs to fireworks in their neighborhoods. The Vets themselves are, obviously, aware of the problem. Anyway, I thought that by looking at attempts to ban fireworks, I might find clues to a more reasonable solution.

What I found was that attempts to ban fireworks had, generally, run into two major obstacles: (1) Complacency and (2) Money. With Complacency, there seemed to be two sub-categories: (a) Those who have just grown accustomed to the way things are and (b) Those who want to keep doing what they're doing, with no regard for the impact of their actions on others. Frankly, I didn't see much that could be done, effectively, about Complacency. Money was another matter.

The first comment I remember hearing about money, in this regard, was that the company behind all the fireworks sales in Vancouver "Gives millions of dollars to the city." I don't know if that meant they actually contribute to the city's budget or to elected official's campaigns or another sort of direct contribution to the city. I've never taken the time to investigate. What I have observed, though, is that the company behind fireworks sales makes funds available to groups for doing things like providing volunteer workers at fireworks stands. A good current example involves my own church. Our Youth Group is getting $6000 towards a Mission trip to El Salvador in exchange for staffing a fireworks stand. Although it would be easy to compare this tactic to that of a drug dealer first assuring a user's dependency on drugs, as a career Sales guy, I have an appreciation for the move. And, through redirection, I see it as holding the key to a solution that's "reasonable for everyone involved". Here's what I have in mind:

In order to find a compromise that allows for fireworks continuing in the neighborhoods while avoiding having some homeowners feeling that they're trapped in their homes in the midst of what seems like a war zone, it seems ideal to find a location in neighborhoods that is away from most homes where fireworks enthusiasts could easily gather to fully enjoy their pursuit. In my neighborhood, Fishers Landing Elementary School seems like a great spot for that. And, that seems like a good model for my solution, in general. The reasons for this include:

- Pretty much every neighborhood has a school that has a big open athletic field, ideal for fireworks.

-Neighborhood schools have ample parking and they're within walking distance of neighborhood homes.

- Schools are not in session around Independence Day.

- School systems are in great need of budget help. If the company behind fireworks sales in Vancouver are as altruistic as they want to appear, surely they would be pleased to benefit our local schools while maintaining their sales. They could, also, contribute to our Police and Fire Departments, if public safety is a concern with this.

- Fund-raising opportunities for organizations, like my church, can be maintained and even expanded. Fireworks stands still need workers, school grounds would need clean up after the holiday, etc.

Hopefully, the above suggestion provides enough of a nucleus of a reasonable solution that I can get others to join me, to fully develop and enact my idea. If you have helpful thoughts along these lines, please let me hear them. In the mean time, I would ask that, if you are a neighborhood fireworks enthusiast, please be as considerate as possible towards your neighbors. This year, in Vancouver, fireworks sales began at Noon on June 28th. Legal dates for fireworks use are July 1 & 2 & 3 & 4. That means, for each of those four days our household will be enduring the misery I described above about our first legal date for fireworks usage experience. Additionally, occasional fireworks usage began even before legal fireworks sales started ... leftovers from previous years or fireworks brought in from out of the area, I guess. Furthermore, once legal fireworks sales start, there are those who will choose to ignore that legal use doesn't begin until July 1st. During the daytime of the 29th, while working in my front yard, a neighbor on the cul-de-sac across the street was setting off fireworks he had just bought. That night, we drugged Figgins for the first time of this, yet another miserable Independence Day celebration season in Vancouver, WA.

Comments

Take a page from Washougal

Submitted by Jon R (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-30 11:12.

-2

+-In Washougal fireworks can only be used on the Fourth of July. This restriction has been very successful. Not 100% compliance, but it works. Camas is a mile down the street and they have no restrictions. It is very loud in the evenings.

Comment via Facebook

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-01 03:05.

-2

+-From Rori Homme:

I completely agree with you on this one. Its not safe, its disruptive and has always been hard on my pets.

Comment via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-01 03:20.

+1

+-From Mike Boyer:

I am appalled at your attitude about this.

...

If you don't like the way we Patriots Celebrate our Independence Day Feel free to move back out of the area.
I have to disagree with you.

Submitted by Steven J Nelson (not verified) on Fri, 2011-07-01 11:51.

+4

+-What would John Adams say?

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."

Do like we do. Take your dog to a kennel in the country and enjoy!

I also completely disagree....

Submitted by Nick Smith (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-03 07:52.

+3

+-1) Move back to California

2) What other freedoms would you like to restrict? Are there too many churches, or should they only get to meet when you decide? Do you not like peaceable public assemblies? Perhaps your ability to even write an article like this should be limited as well? Perhaps you should only have your right against self incrimination available on Tuesdays between 2 and 3.....

3) Move back to California and take your bankrupt approach to governing with you.

4 FYI, I grew up in Vancouver and have never personally purchased any fireworks, yet I would never suggest limiting the freedom of others to do so....

5) Move.

Comment via Facebook

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sat, 2011-07-09 06:56.

-1

+-From Larry J. Smith:

Nice words!

Tim Leavitt: Vancouver's Omniscient Mayor

2011-06-23T16:44:00.000-07:00

Its been nearly three weeks now since Vancouver's Mayor, Tim Leavitt, was a no-show at Bridging The Gaps, an opportunity for voters to be enlightened and to be heard on the topic of the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project … the biggest public works undertaking in the history of the community. Once again, through his absence, Mayor Leavitt showed his unwillingness to listen and respond to the will of the people on this matter. I’ve been disappointed with this ongoing attitude on Leavitt’s part and frankly, I’ve been a bit baffled by it. However, coming away from Bridging The Gaps, I sensed that I was beginning to gain some of the understanding I’d been lacking in this regard. Based on information presented at this event, it appears that there has been little oversight of the CRC Project and that many basic accountability practices have not been followed. That certainly seems like it could hold the key to Mayor Leavitt’s baffling attitude. And, it seemed to be a likely reason why Leavitt and other elected officials who have been supporting the CRC Project avoided attending Bridging The Gaps.

Of course, I hope that elected officials who have been supporting the CRC Project aren’t doing so as a result of corruption. This group has surely exhibited some puzzling behavior though. None more so than that of Tim Leavitt who, when running for Mayor, was opposed to a CRC Project funded by tolls and once he was elected, bought into the CRC Project whole-hog, including tolling. But, the jury is still out as to the reasons behind the puzzling behavior of CRC Project supporters. Perhaps more light will be shed on this topic at the next Bridging The Gaps event being held in conjunction with AFP Washington County (OR) in Beaverton on Monday, June 27th. Details from the announcement I received about this meeting are:

Mon. 6/27, 6-8pm, Beaverton Resource Center - 12500 SW Allen Blvd. - Beaverton, OR: "Bridging the Gaps" Vancouver Forensic Accountant Tiffany Couch, working with legislators in WA & OR, examines where the 130-150 MILLION in taxpayer dollars for the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) has gone, who it has gone to, and for what. Where is the transparency? What does the CRC office have to show for it? A bridge that won't work? Should the brakes be put on this project? Come listen to Tiffany and find out what has been hidden from you.

Although the jury is still out regarding Mayor Leavitt and other CRC Project supporters, in terms of their relationship to the CRC Project’s questionable accounting practices, there is one characteristic of this group that is becoming absolutely clear … they, obviously, believe that they know what is best for their constituency regardless of what the constituency sees as being best for itself. One good indication of this was a pretty sophomoric campaign that Mayor Leavitt, Vancouver City Councilmember Bart Hansen and others were running just prior to the initial Bridging The Gaps event. Basically, this campaign exploited the fact that the Columbia River was at flood-stage and that was necessitating more frequent bridge-lifts of the current I-5 Columbia Crossing. Example Comments from this Facebook campaign included:

Timothy D Leavitt

Well....2:20pm on Tuesday. Traffic on I-5 at a standstill. Choke point? Columbia River Crossing. Wonder how many Moms & Dads are waiting to see their families?!?

Bart Hansen

Guess what? Another bridge lift going on right now. Let's hope it doesn't back up past 39 street this time.

Maybe I'm just an over-sensitive guy or maybe I’m being presumptuous but this seemed like exploitation aimed at pushing forward a $10 Billion boondoggle that I and countless others, are opposed to. Of course, this added to my disappointment with Mayor Leavitt and I hoped to be able to address this with him or City Councilmember Hansen at the initial Bridging The Gaps event. My hope was to get their response to my following comments:- Stop with this.

- Stop the spewing of your related talking points.

- Stop opposing votes on this.

- Instead, do all you can to see that the people are heard.

- Hear what they want with this and what they want to spend on it.

- Then, go do your best to implement THAT plan.

Unfortunately, I never got the opportunity to make my comments to Mayor Leavitt and to get his response. As is evidenced by the photo that accompanies this article, he was unwilling to invest his time on behalf of our community by attending Bridging The Gaps. And the same can be said for Bart Hansen. With that in mind, I want to draw your attention to the woman in the photo who is standing next to Mayor Leavitt’s empty seat. Her name is Josephine Wentzel. Josephine is running for Vancouver City Council, in opposition to Bart Hansen. She wasn’t just present at Bridging The Gaps, she was instrumental in this event taking place. If you’re looking for a candidate who will give their all to assure that the people of Vancouver are truly represented on their City Council and with crucial projects, like the CRC, you should give Josephine your most serious consideration.

Although I never got to address Mayor Leavitt with my views on his juvenile Facebook campaign, not long after the initial Bridging The Gaps event, this matter was dealt with and on a much higher level. In a letter to the C-Tran Board of Directors, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler stated that she can’t help find federal funding for the CRC Project without a district-wide vote on a proposed sales tax increase to fund light rail. Her stated preference was to see a vote on this in November, or in a February 2012 special election. In further comments, the Congresswoman indicated she feels the C-Tran vote will provide an “accurate gauge” of what Southwest Washington wants and she stated, “My whole focus is on if the people who are going to be asked to pay for the bridge agree with what we’re doing.” Mayor Leavitt’s position on this seemed diametrically opposed to that of U.S. Representative Herrera Beutler. Instead of looking to a vote, as “an ‘accurate gauge’ of what Southwest Washington wants”, Leavitt prefers to look to “multiple local agencies in Oregon and Washington” as “a good barometer”. Specifically addressing Herrera Beutler’s stated position, Leavitt said, “I’m at a loss at this point in understanding why the Congresswoman appears to be saying she doesn’t respect the locally elected officials.” Countering Mayor Leavitt’s comments, Rep. Herrera Beutler said that if local officials are positive there is support for the project, then they should hold a vote quickly, so funding is clearly in place. “Let’s not be afraid of finding out what people want,” she said.

This exchange between Mayor Leavitt and Congresswoman Herrera Beutler most clearly illustrates what I stated earlier – i.e. One characteristic that has become absolutely clear about Leavitt and other CRC Project supporters is that they, obviously, believe they know what is best for their constituency regardless of what the constituency sees as being best for itself. According to a recent interview of Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, the CRC Project is being driven by four key individuals: the Governors of Oregon and Washington as well as the Mayors of Portland and Vancouver. Those of us living in Southwest Washington must look to the Mayor of Vancouver and the Vancouver City Council to champion our cause in this regard. Our best course of action is to keep speaking up to those who presently hold those offices and if they continue not listening, vote in candidates who will

Comments

Columbia River Crossing

Submitted by Rab L Rouser (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 20:17.

0

+-It seems likely to me that much of the $15 or so million dollars that cannot be accounted for has found its way into somebodys pockets.

I suspect that Mayor Leavitt has changed his tune from NO TOLLS to SPEND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE because some of those funds are coming his way.

Since he was elected primarily on a NO TOLLS platform does he not owe his constituents a plausible explanation for his change-of-heart on this issue?

If only we could have laws that bind politicians to their campaign promises.

CRC Light Rail Crossing Project: Rickshaws Make Better Sense

2011-06-06T16:52:00.000-07:00

Saturday, June 4, 2011, was sunny, with temps in the upper 80s in Vancouver, WA … our first 80 degree day since October 6, 2010. In spite of that, a dedicated group of community-minded Vancouver citizens willingly sacrificed four to five hours of that precious time to attend Bridging The Gaps, an opportunity to be enlightened and to be heard on the topic of the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project … the biggest public works undertaking in the history of the community.

Sadly, Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt and the majority of elected officials invited to attend Bridging The Gaps, didn’t join their constituents at this meeting. In Mayor Leavitt’s case, I knew that he had posted an update on Facebook about the day’s great weather and stating that he would be “cruising around town, enjoying our beautiful open spaces and trails.” My initial thought on this was, “How sad, when a group of folks Leavitt is sworn to represent are willing to sacrifice a big chunk of their first summer-like day for the sake of the community, their Mayor is unwilling to do likewise.” I was very disappointed to see Mayor Leavitt use this “Sunny Day Excuse” as his latest rationale for not hearing and responding to the will of the people. Going into Saturday’s event, I continued to wonder about this ongoing attitude on Leavitt’s part and frankly, I was baffled by it. Coming out of this meeting, however, I thought I was finally beginning to understand. Based on the information presented at Bridging The Gaps, I don’t think it was the sunlight that led Mayor Leavitt and other elected officials to remain outside. The expert presentations at Bridging The Gaps were very revealing. This included a number of stunning questions related to the accountability of the CRC Light Rail Crossing Project. I believe it was this revealing light of truth that frightened the delinquent elected officials away from Saturday’s meeting.

Before going on, I want to encourage you to view the recorded presentations from Bridging The Gaps at http://couv.com/. According to COUV.COM, these will be available late Monday, June 6th. Please check them out and come to your own conclusions. Although I don’t intend to provide a “blow by blow” report on Bridging The Gaps, I do want to draw your attention to some of the presentation points that hit home the hardest with me.

For me, the most revealing presentation was made by Tiffany Couch, Founder of Acuity Group, a forensic accounting firm. Ms. Couch was hired by local businessman David Madore, the host and sponsor of Bridging The Gaps, to help him try to make sense of a blizzard of documents he received from the CRC Light Rail Crossing Project, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Based on the review of these documents and details of related meetings with CRC officials, it appears that there has been little oversight of this project and that many basic accountability practices have not been followed.

CRC is unable to produce several essential accounting reports. Here are their replies regarding the reports requested:

Total CRC Funding, By Source – NO REPLY.

Total CRC Expenditures – PARTIAL REPLY.

Project Deliverables – “DOES NOT EXIST”.

Financial Statements – “DOES NOT EXIST”.

Benchmark Costs of Newly Built Overpasses – NO REPLY.

Master Vendor List – NO REPLY.

Audit Reports – “NO AUDITS PERFORMED”.

- WSDOT’s report of expenditures for CRC:

Total $108 Million.

$15 Million not coded to a vendor name.

$38 Million not coded with a specific purpose (e.g. rent expense, engineering expense, etc.)

$77 Million has gone to a single vendor - David Evans and Associates.

If you’re astonished by this, I’m with you. Thankfully, we’re not alone. One of the few elected officials in attendance was State Representative Ed Orcutt (WA-18). His response to this presentation was that he will be calling the State Auditor on this and possibly, the State Attorney General.

When you check out the Bridging The Gaps videos at http://couv.com/, you’ll find more revealing information from:

- John Charles, President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute – On the CRC, as a Light Rail Project, not a Bridge Project.

- Joe Cortright, President and Principal Economist of Impresa – On the $10 Billion price tag for this project plus its inaccurate forecasting and other financial risks.

- Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research of Washington Policy Center – On how this project serves the interests of the government agencies involved but not the interests of citizen mobility.

Furthermore, when you check out the Bridging The Gaps videos at http://couv.com/, you’ll discover that proposals for a 3rd and a 4th bridge were presented. These bridges could be included in an alternative plan that’s vastly superior to the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project. And, this stands as proof-positive that the folks behind Bridging The Gaps aren’t anti-bridge. They are just opposed to the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project.

Although I’ve lamented the lack of attendance of elected officials at this event, I do want to acknowledge and express my appreciation for those who did attend. As mentioned above, State Representative Ed Orcutt (WA-18) was present. He is encouraging a county-wide vote on the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project. Beyond his comment in response to Tiffany Couch’s presentation, the concerns he expressed about the CRC included:

- Having just two bridges makes no sense.

- The tolling plan for the proposed project is disproportionate for Washington residents.

- Light Rail just takes up space.

The following two photos are a great illustration of this last comment by Orcutt:

The first photo depicts I-84 during the morning commute. You’ll note the area to the right of the road that is taken up by The MAX, Portland’s Light Rail. That area was originally set aside for freeway lane expansion. Now, there is nowhere left to expand the freeway and you’ll note that there isn’t a MAX train anywhere in sight.

The second photo shows where I-84 feeds into I-205, during the afternoon commute. If you look at the feeder roads, you’ll note that traffic is backed up beyond sight. And, you’ll note the area in the middle of I-205 that is taken up by The MAX. Here too, this is space that was originally allocated for freeway lane expansion. Now, here too, there is nowhere left to expand the freeway and, again, there isn’t a MAX train anywhere in sight.

In addition to Ed Orcutt, State Representative Paul Harris (WA-17) and Tom Mielke, Chairman, Board of Clark County (WA) Commissioners, were in attendance. Thankfully, the citizens of our community have been able to rely on these public servants to join us in speaking out with their concerns on the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project.

In closing, I want to get behind two admonitions given at Bridging The Gaps:

One admonition came from David Madore, the event’s host and sponsor. He said, on this topic, it is time (for you) to move from Spectator to Participant. And he said, if you don’t, this (tyrannical boondoggle) will become a reality. I believe he is dead right.

The other admonition came from George Golden, who gave the Benediction at the outset of Bridging The Gaps. He said, accomplishing good things requires honesty and courage. Especially considering the information presented by Tiffany Couch, I don’t believe we can rely on those supporting the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project for honesty. And while we may sometimes be baffled by their seemingly bold actions, those actions can’t be called courageous. When looking for honesty and courage, we won’t find it if we don’t see it when we look in the mirror. Find yours and bring it to the next meeting. See ya there!

Comments

I suspect that a portion of

Submitted by Rab L Rouser (not verified) on Mon, 2011-06-06 15:42.

+1

+-I suspect that a portion of the unaccounted for money has found it's way into the pockets of the City Council and especially Mayor (No Tolls) Leavitt.

He sure changed his tune in a hurry after weaseling his way into the Mayors office.

The Very Revealing Light Of A Sunny Day In Vancouver, WA

2011-06-05T16:17:00.000-07:00

Saturday, June 4, 2011, was sunny, with temps in the upper 80s in Vancouver, WA … our first 80 degree day since October 6, 2010. In spite of that, a dedicated group of community-minded Vancouver citizens willingly sacrificed four to five hours of that precious time to attend Bridging The Gaps, an opportunity to be enlightened and to be heard on the topic of the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project … the biggest public works undertaking in the history of the community.

Sadly, Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt and the majority of elected officials invited to attend Bridging The Gaps, didn’t join their constituents at this meeting. In Mayor Leavitt’s case, I knew that he had posted an update on Facebook about the day’s great weather and stating that he would be “cruising around town, enjoying our beautiful open spaces and trails.” My initial thought on this was, “How sad, when a group of folks Leavitt is sworn to represent are willing to sacrifice a big chunk of their first summer-like day for the sake of the community, their Mayor is unwilling to do likewise.” I was very disappointed to see Mayor Leavitt use this “Sunny Day Excuse” as his latest rationale for not hearing and responding to the will of the people. Going into Saturday’s event, I continued to wonder about this ongoing attitude on Leavitt’s part and frankly, I was baffled by it. Coming out of this meeting, however, I thought I was finally beginning to understand. Based on the information presented at Bridging The Gaps, I don’t think it was the sunlight that led Mayor Leavitt and other elected officials to remain outside. The expert presentations at Bridging The Gaps were very revealing. This included a number of stunning questions related to the accountability of the CRC Light Rail Crossing Project. I believe it was this revealing light of truth that frightened the delinquent elected officials away from Saturday’s meeting.

Before going on, I want to encourage you to view the recorded presentations from Bridging The Gaps at http://couv.com/. According to COUV.COM, these will be available late Monday, June 6th. Please check them out and come to your own conclusions. Although I don’t intend to provide a “blow by blow” report on Bridging The Gaps, I do want to draw your attention to some of the presentation points that hit home the hardest with me.

For me, the most revealing presentation was made by Tiffany Couch, Founder of Acuity Group, a forensic accounting firm. Ms. Couch was hired by local businessman David Madore, the host and sponsor of Bridging The Gaps, to help him try to make sense of a blizzard of documents he received from the CRC Light Rail Crossing Project, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Based on the review of these documents and details of related meetings with CRC officials, it appears that there has been little oversight of this project and that many basic accountability practices have not been followed. These include:

- CRC is unable to produce several essential accounting reports. Here are their replies regarding the reports requested:

o Total CRC Funding, By Source – NO REPLY.

o Total CRC Expenditures – PARTIAL REPLY.

o Project Deliverables – “DOES NOT EXIST”.

o Financial Statements – “DOES NOT EXIST”.

o Benchmark Costs of Newly Built Overpasses – NO REPLY.

o Master Vendor List – NO REPLY.

o Audit Reports – “NO AUDITS PERFORMED”.

- WSDOT’s report of expenditures for CRC:

o Total $108 Million.

o $15 Million not coded to a vendor name.

o $38 Million not coded with a specific purpose (e.g. rent expense, engineering expense, etc.)

o $77 Million has gone to a single vendor - David Evans and Associates.

If you’re astonished by this, I’m with you. Thankfully, we’re not alone. One of the few elected officials in attendance was State Representative Ed Orcutt (WA-18). His response to this presentation was that he will be calling the State Auditor on this and possibly, the State Attorney General.

When you check out the Bridging The Gaps videos at http://couv.com/, you’ll find more revealing information from:

- John Charles, President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute – On the CRC, as a Light Rail Project, not a Bridge Project.

- Joe Cortright, President and Principal Economist of Impresa – On the $10 Billion price tag for this project plus its inaccurate forecasting and other financial risks.

- Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research of Washington Policy Center – On how this project serves the interests of the government agencies involved but not the interests of citizen mobility.

Furthermore, when you check out the Bridging The Gaps videos at http://couv.com/, you’ll discover that proposals for a 3rd and a 4th bridge were presented. These bridges could be included in an alternative plan that’s vastly superior to the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project. And, this stands as proof-positive that the folks behind Bridging The Gaps aren’t anti-bridge. They are just opposed to the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project.

Although I’ve lamented the lack of attendance of elected officials at this event, I do want to acknowledge and express my appreciation for those who did attend. As mentioned above, State Representative Ed Orcutt (WA-18) was present. He is encouraging a county-wide vote on the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project. Beyond his comment in response to Tiffany Couch’s presentation, the concerns he expressed about the CRC included:

- Having just two bridges makes no sense.

- The tolling plan for the proposed project is disproportionate for Washington residents.

- Light Rail just takes up space.

The following two photos are a great illustration of this last comment by Orcutt:

The first photo depicts I-84 during the morning commute. You’ll note the area to the right of the road that is taken up by The MAX, Portland’s Light Rail. That area was originally set aside for freeway lane expansion. Now, there is nowhere left to expand the freeway and you’ll note that there isn’t a MAX train anywhere in sight.

The second photo shows where I-84 feeds into I-205, during the afternoon commute. If you look at the feeder roads, you’ll note that traffic is backed up beyond sight. And, you’ll note the area in the middle of I-205 that is taken up by The MAX. Here too, this is space that was originally allocated for freeway lane expansion. Now, here too, there is nowhere left to expand the freeway and, again, there isn’t a MAX train anywhere in sight.

In addition to Ed Orcutt, State Representative Paul Harris (WA-17) and Tom Mielke, Chairman, Board of Clark County (WA) Commissioners, were in attendance. Thankfully, the citizens of our community have been able to rely on these public servants to join us in speaking out with their concerns on the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project.

In closing, I want to get behind two admonitions given at Bridging The Gaps:

One admonition came from David Madore, the event’s host and sponsor. He said, on this topic, it is time (for you) to move from Spectator to Participant. And he said, if you don’t, this (tyrannical boondoggle) will become a reality. I believe he is dead right.

The other admonition came from George Golden, who gave the Benediction at the outset of Bridging The Gaps. He said, accomplishing good things requires honesty and courage. Especially considering the information presented by Tiffany Couch, I don’t believe we can rely on those supporting the proposed CRC Light Rail Crossing Project for honesty. And while we may sometimes be baffled by their seemingly bold actions, those actions can’t be called courageous. When looking for honesty and courage, we won’t find it if we don’t see it when we look in the mirror. Find yours and bring it to the next meeting. See ya there!

Meeting the Challenge of Senior Underemployment – One of Our Greatest Socioeconomic Opportunities

2011-06-02T20:05:00.000-07:00

Recently, I’ve had a couple of lengthy discussions with a friend who, like me, chose to move to Southwest Washington from Southern California. In those conversations, we compared notes on our different experiences with moving and in becoming a part of the community where we both now live. One of the most significant differences in our respective experiences is that my ability to find the sort of employment we had in mind for me, in moving here, has turned out to be much different than what we envisioned. I told my friend that one reason why reality turned out to be different from what we had anticipated was that I’d failed to take into account the impact that my (then) approaching the age of 60 would have on my ability to find the sort of employment we had targeted for me. I was surprised (and frankly, had my feelings get a bit hurt) when my friend, who is an employer, differed with me that my age had impacted my employment as I’d indicated. Since then, I’ve come to accept that it’s completely logical for our views to differ on this. My views come from the perspective of having dealt with this “where the rubber meets the road”. My friend, who I recognize as being exceptional as an employer who understands the value in hiring more experienced workers, probably hasn’t interviewed for a job himself since 1979 or earlier and that has to insulate him from a fully realistic perspective. Regardless, it alarmed me to think that there may be many influential people, like my friend, who don’t even recognize that this challenge exists. I couldn’t be more certain that it exists and that it’s worsening. With that said, I believe this present reality may hold a much needed silver lining for the restoration of our nation’s socioeconomic health.

According to Gallup, U.S. unemployment presently stands at 9.3%. According to AARP, unemployment is 6.7% for Seniors (people aged 55 and over). Initially, that makes it sound like older workers are doing better than the general population. However, since the recession began in December of 2007, the unemployment rate for Seniors has increased by a factor of 2.09, while unemployment in the general population increased by a factor of 1.86. Furthermore, the average duration of unemployment for Seniors is 53.6 weeks (more than one year) versus 39.4 weeks for the younger unemployed. Additionally, since the beginning of the recession, there has been a dramatic increase in early enrollment for Social Security retirement benefits and spending of retirement savings. For many Seniors, this means risking poverty in their later years.

The stats outlined above should help support the reality of the challenge I’m trying to address here. To take that a step further, I want to augment these cold hard facts with some living breathing human stories. Fittingly, I’ll start with the story I know best … my own.

Let me start by acknowledging my understanding that my age has not been the only factor causing my employment in our new home to be different from what we expected. Certainly, I have my own set of pluses and minuses. Another key factor is that, though I’ve come into this area on business since 1979 and I thought I had a good sense of where I’d fit in, I didn’t have a well developed network of local business contacts. The Portland/Vancouver business community is quite provincial and having such a network is a must. And, since we moved to Southwest Washington in mid-2005, that means we made our move just as the economy was slowing, moving towards the recession that hit fully in 2007.

What I did bring to the table was my professional background in Sales and Sales Management, with technology-based business-to-business systems-solutions. Our employment plan was for me to find a “mid-level” job with Base Pay of at least 60% of that which I’d had in my last corporate position. My Wife, Ruth, who had been in charge of the administrative staff of the Orange County Public Defender’s Office, was only going to work as she wanted to.

Here is a thumbnail sketch of how things have worked out with our Plan versus Actual:

We’ve been in Southwest Washington for about 70 months now. During that time, I’ve had four periods when I was “between jobs”. Especially considering my previous work history, it still astonishes me to note that those periods cover a total of 30 months. Though I won’t bore you with the related stats, without hesitation, I can say that I spent every day of these periods tirelessly leaving no stone unturned in my efforts to secure a job. The yield of those efforts included: a phenomenal number of interviews (with a remarkably high percentage of those having me included in the final round of candidates) and the five jobs I’ve taken. Additionally, due to my employment challenges and the erosion of the investments at the core of our “nest egg”, after a little over two years of “retirement”, we agreed that it was a good idea for Ruth to return to work.

OK, enough of my own story for now. As I said earlier, I understand that my age has not been the only factor effecting my employment since moving to Southwest Washington. To provide a bit more clarity here, I want to share some related specifics from a few other human stories. As I, also, mentioned earlier, one of the other factors that I recognized as negatively impacting my employment expectations in my newly chosen home was that I didn’t have a well developed network of local business contacts. So, as “I spent every day of (my ‘between jobs’) periods tirelessly leaving no stone unturned in my efforts to secure a job”, one key aspect of my efforts was to network my socks off. In doing this, I became well acquainted with many whose experience was not that different from mine. These included:

 A President of an apparel manufacturer. After two years of unemployment he accepted a position as VP of Operations for a heavy equipment dealer. That job lasted 1 ½ years. He has returned to consulting, as he looks for his next opportunity.

 A CEO of a company providing business training products and services. For three years now, he has returned to consulting, as he looks for his next opportunity.

 The General Counsel for a financial services company. He went into private practice for two years while looking for his next opportunity. Now, he is Divisional Counsel for a technology services company.

 A Director of Sales and Marketing for a software developer. The four years that have passed since he held that job have included three jobs and three significant periods “between jobs”. Now, he is working as a Manufacturer’s Rep.

 A VP of Sales and Marketing for a Fortune 500 company. He was unemployed for most of a year before taking on a role as VP of Sales and Client Services for a small local software services firm. Then, he moved to a job as VP of Sales and Marketing for a local consumer goods manufacturer.

 A VP of Client Services for an outplacement firm. The three years since she left that position have included two jobs and two significant periods “between jobs”.

 An SVP Worldwide Support and Services for a software developer. Now she is consulting while looking for her next opportunity. This followed two stints as COO for local companies and two times “between jobs”.

 A VP of Worldwide Sales for a software developer. The five years since she left that position have held a VP-level job with a marketing research firm, a VP-level job with a nonprofit, a couple of advisory/consulting gigs and several periods “between jobs”.

 A President and CEO of a telecom company. For nearly two years he was “between jobs” but got one six-month consulting gig. Now he is employed as a Senior Operations Manger with a nonprofit.

 A CEO/President of a beverage wholesaler. Since leaving that job, he has done over seven years of consulting while looking for his next opportunity. Now, he is working as a Manufacturer’s Rep.

 A VP Sales and Marketing of a company providing business training products and services. After about 1 ½ years of unemployment, he is launching a new company offering media services for businesses.

 A CFO-level person who had been working abroad. He moved back home to be with an ailing parent who has, since, passed away. During over three years “back home”, he managed to get only two months of consulting work. He has returned to a financial role, working abroad, for a U.S. Government agency.

 A Director of Sales and Marketing for a corporate continuing education services firm. This was followed by nearly five years that included consulting and looking for his next opportunity plus a 1 ½ year stint as a Sales Manager for a web-based services firm.

 A VP of Human Resources for a business and technology consultancy. This was followed by four years of consulting and looking for his next opportunity. Now he is working as a Director of HR for a small local investigation services firm.

Though this may seem like a fairly long list, I can assure you that it is not, by any means, an exhaustive list of those I met in job-networking, whose experiences were similar to mine. It’s not even a complete list of individuals whose experience was like mine, who are also Seniors but that is one thing everyone on this list has in common … they are all Seniors, at least aged 50 plus. Another thing they all have in common is that they are all quality professionals.

Unfortunately, the unemployment/underemployment challenges I’m addressing here haven’t been limited to me and my business contacts. Just this past month, The Columbian published an article entitled Older And Out Of A Job that addresses and evens expands on many of the same issues that I’ve raised in this article. I have no doubt that countless stories, similar to the ones I’ve listed and the ones detailed in The Columbian’s article, can easily be found throughout the U.S.

So, what does this tell us? Obviously, there is a lot of unemployment and underemployment here. Surely, the earnings of this group has been significantly diminished and along with that, the positive impact that this group’s spending has on our economy has, likewise, been diminished. Of course, I don’t know how my diminished earnings experience compares to the folks I’ve listed but here’s how this has played out for us:

As noted earlier, the Target Income of our employment plan for me was a Base Pay of at least 60% of that which I’d had in my last corporate position. My first job came close to matching up with our plan, with Base Pay of about 97% of our Target Income. Job #2 was about 68%, job #3 was about 83% and job #4 was about 67%. I’m choosing to not include the income from my current job in this conversation. I believe I’m in this job because it’s where the Lord wants me for now. If you want to know more about that, you’re welcome to check out an article entitled An “Off-Duty” Grandpa’s Perspective On Autism. Suffice it to say that my leading to be in this job had little to do with what it pays and that a calculation of how its pay stacks up to our Target Income for me yields an outrageously low %. Although a Target Income for Ruth was not included in our original plan, I think it’s appropriate to note that her income is about 44% of her pay from her last corporate position.

Surely, the folks listed above were affected similarly, with income as well as with erosion of the investments at the core of their “nest egg”. And, no doubt, there are people on this list who have found themselves in the position of needing to risk poverty in their later years by enrolling for Social Security retirement benefits early and by spending retirement savings.

So, with all this said, where is this silver lining I’ve alluded to? The answer requires taking a closer look at the folks involved than they seem to have gotten from many prospective employers and matching that up against certain aspects of the current socioeconomic crisis in the U.S.

In taking this closer look, the qualities that I see as being most important to recognize in these individuals are the qualities of their generation … the Baby Boom generation. In my opinion, the greatest overall value Baby Boomers have to offer is what I call a “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” This generation was lavished, more than any other, with education. Moreover, they were raised by the GI Generation, who instilled them with a great work ethic. That meant, not only did they get a great education, they actually went out and tried to accomplish everything they could with that resource and in the process, grew the resource by honing it with experience to create … “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” I have no doubt that you would see this reflected in the respective resumes of every individual mentioned in this article.

The aspects of the current socioeconomic crisis in the U.S. that I have in mind for the qualities of the baby boom generation to match up against, generally, fall under the heading of Global Competitiveness. Obviously, just reducing the unemployment/ underemployment of this group and making better utilization of this group’s “Great Wealth of Wisdom” would be a boon to the U.S. But just think about the impact this could have on some of the issues of our Global Competitiveness that are troubling us so much right now. Things like:

Education

Our diminishing ability to compete in the Global Economy because of the continuing decline in the quality of education we’re providing our youth is a common lament. More lamentable is that no solution seems to be getting implemented, generally and it doesn’t seem that anyone is offering a solution that can be implemented in time for the U.S. to maintain its position as the predominant global economic power.

Well, the “Great Wealth of Wisdom” of the Baby Boom generation can match wits with anyone in the world and that resource is available right now. Furthermore, by giving more emphasis to having Baby Boomers mentor younger workers, we can increase growth of this resource and magnify its impact. Finally, aiming this resource at Education Reform in the U.S., can affect an ongoing state of regeneration of this resource. If we don’t take steps like these, if we just go on as we are now, sadly, this invaluable resource will die with the Baby Boom generation.

Innovation

Lets see, innovations from this generation have included: DNA fingerprinting, the Personal Computer, the World Wide Web, OCR and text-to-speech technology, the Flex-Foot prosthesis, Controlled Drug-release technology, the USB port, Rechargeable batteries, Ethernet, the Cell phone, etc. Any questions?

Other

In addition to Education and Innovation, the other major areas of consideration for determining Global Competitiveness are: Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Environment, Goods Market Efficiency, Labor Market Efficiency, Financial Market Development, Technological Readiness, Market Size and Business Sophistication. As I said earlier, obviously, making better utilization of this “Great Wealth of Wisdom” would be a boon to the U.S. I think it’s just as obvious that these other major areas are where the positive impact of unleashing this resource would be most evident.

In order for the silver lining I’ve mentioned to become a reality, the remaining question is: What is the most expedient way to go about unleashing this resource? As you might suspect, I think I can help with this but I don’t think I’m one of those who we should be looking to for the best answers here. I think the Innovators from among the Baby Boom generation itself are those we should look to for this. Innovators like the friend I mentioned at the outset of this article, who has built a very successful business on his abilities as an Innovator/Problem Solver.

In submitting this challenge/opportunity to our nation’s greatest Innovators, I want close by pointing out a few reminders about the group of people who comprise this invaluable resource, this “Great Wealth of Wisdom”:

- These are not necessarily folks who are all on the verge of retiring. Most of the Seniors I know, who are at early Retirement Age for Social Security (62) want to work for another 8 to 10 years. For many of them, the unemployment/ underemployment experience that they’ve had in the past few years has provided further encouragement for them to work well beyond Social Security Retirement Age. And, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Baby Boom went through 1964. These folks are presently aged 47 so they may be looking to work another 25 years or so.

- And, these folks are a great value. If you stop to do the math, you’ll recognize that, with one of my four jobs that I included in this discussion, I was knocking myself out to do the best job I could and I was doing so for about 40% what was once just my Base Pay. Of course, I can’t say that there is a 1:1 comparison between my experience and the experience of others I’ve mentioned in this article but I think it’s a pretty good indicator that the “Great Wealth of Wisdom” I’ve mentioned is presently available at a great bargain.

- Finally, these folks are anything but quitters. With the individuals I’ve mentioned here, just think about the number of new jobs taken on, the “between jobs” efforts, the consultancies, the entrepreneurial attempts, etc. Sure, there has been ample unemployment and underemployment but you didn’t hear much about folks who were just giving up. Of course, the need for income has been a factor in the stories of these people but what’s a more significant factor is that these folks have a burning desire to make the best contribution they can with all they’ve been blessed with. Knowing that, I’m confident that, if they were approached by one of the Innovators I’ve mentioned, to join a newly-formed Silver Lining, Inc., the nearly unanimous response from this group would be like mine, in saying, “Put me in Coach!”

The Sky-High CRC Light Rail Crossing Project - A Most-Important Public Forum

2011-05-28T17:09:00.000-07:00

The Portland/Vancouver community is being given a marvelous opportunity to be enlightened and to be heard on the topic of the proposed CRC Project … the biggest public works undertaking in the history of the community. This event is entitled Bridging The Gaps. It’s scheduled for Saturday, June 4th, from 1pm to 3:30pm, at the LifePoint Church Campus – 305 NE 192nd Avenue – Vancouver, WA 98607.

The key elements of the agenda for Bridging The Gaps are:

- Expert presentations on the proposed CRC Project, Light Rail and practical alternatives.*

- Elected officials, presently involved with the proposed CRC Project, have been invited to discuss the project and to debate the issues.*

* Event organizers are encouraging citizen participation and questions throughout the agenda. To assure ample time for this, a Community Interaction time is being made available following the formal agenda, from 3:30pm to 4:30pm.

The proposed CRC Project is for a single bridge, replacing the current I-5 Bridge across the Columbia River, connecting Northwest Portland and Southwest Vancouver. The embedded YouTube video makes it apparent that there are folks in the community who view the cost of this scheme as outrageously sky-high. Considering that this cost is over 10 times as much as the cost of the I-205 Bridge that connects Northeast Portland with Southeast Vancouver and that many in the community believe that two additional bridges make more sense than one replacement bridge, the value of the opportunity that Bridging The Gaps offers seems pretty obvious.

Specific Bridging The Gaps agenda topics include:

Transportation Priorities / New Bridges

Spending Accountability / Funding / Oversight

Citizen input / Vote / Transparency

Confirmed expert panelists are:

Joe Cortright, President and Principal Economist for Impresa, a consulting firm specializing in regional economic analysis, innovation and industry clusters. Regarding the proposed CRC Project, Cortright has said, “The region needs to take a closer look at this mammoth project which would require us to go deeply into debt, tie up the region's limited financial resources for decades, and … there is little evidence to suggest that the bridge will achieve its primary purpose.”

John Charles, President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, a public policy research and educational organization that focuses on state and local issues in Oregon. Charles’ summary on the proposed CRC Project is, “Among the hundreds of projects we’ve seen, the current CRC proposal stands out as a doozy, throwing staggering amounts of money at a wasteful, ineffective plan.”

Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research of Washington Policy Center, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan think tank that promotes sound public policy based on free-market solutions.

Tiffany Couch, Founder of Acuity Group, a forensic accounting firm.

Elected officials invited to participate as panelists include:

Jaime Herrera Beutler – U.S. Representative (WA-03)

Peter DeFazio – U.S. Representative (OR-04)

Tim Leavitt – Mayor, City of Vancouver, WA

Sam Adams – Mayor, City of Portland, OR

Tom Mielke – Chairman, Board of Clark County (WA) Commissioners

The real VIPs are:

Not just Very Important Participants, in fact the Most Important Participants are the citizens of the Portland/Vancouver community. Bridging The Gaps can only be of worth, if YOU show up. Please do.

High-Stakes Redistricting Meeting Set For Vancouver

2011-05-16T17:23:00.000-07:00

On Thursday, May 19th, from 6pm to 9pm, the Washington State Redistricting Commission will be holding an informational meeting and public hearing at the Hilton Vancouver. Frankly, The Columbian’s May 12th article on this does a fairly thorough job of describing both the purpose of the commission and of this meeting. After reading this article, however, I felt that there was one key aspect deserving of much more attention … the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process.

To illustrate “the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process”, let me start by asking readers from the Vancouver area how they think the Republican Governor they elected in 2008 and the Republican U.S. Senator they elected in 2010 are doing for them? Of course, my question is facetious … in spite of the fact that Clark County voters preferred the Republican candidate for Governor in 2008 and the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010; in both cases the statewide vote put the Democrat candidate in office. That’s the way it’s been for voters in Southwest Washington and that’s how it’s likely to be for some time to come. Typically, voters in the more heavily populated Seattle/Tacoma area, who tend to be more Liberal Democrats, determine the outcome of statewide elections. That may indicate some need for reform in statewide election processes but, for now, that’s the way it is. With that in mind, assuring that U.S. Congressional Districts and State Legislative Districts are laid out as fairly as possible, to result in election outcomes that are truly representative of voters in their respective communities, has added significance for voters in areas like Southwest Washington. That’s what this coming Thursday evening’s public hearing is about … laying out the way Washington’s congressional and legislative districts will look for the coming decade … and thus “the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process.”

As the result of growth in population since 2000, a 10th U.S. Congressional District is being added to Washington State. Of course, adding this 10th district will impact the layout changes of the current nine districts. Since Southwest Washington’s 3rd Congressional District is 15.2% above its target population, a district-size reduction is anticipated, to allow a portion of the current district to become a part of the new 10th Congressional District. Some reports state that this will make the 3rd Congressional District more of a Republican-district than the Swing-district it has been. My caution to Conservative Republican voters in Southwest Washington is to be on guard for Gerrymandering politicians using this as cover to allow them to set up the new 10th Congressional District as another sure-to-be Democrat-district. You already have zero (0) representation in the U.S. Senate. A 10th U.S. Congressional Democrat-district will only further diminish your being represented at the Federal level.

The State Legislative District in Southwest Washington that I see as meriting the closest watch during redistricting is the 49th. This district is approximately 2,500 below its target population. That means the area covered by this, currently; Democrat-district must be increased. Of course, Democrats will be OK with Gerrymandering this district to keep it as Democrat as possible. Voters in Vancouver should remain alert to this and insist that the 49th district is laid out as fairly as possible, to result in election outcomes that are truly representative of voters in that community.

Although I’ve focused here on redistricting considerations for two districts that I see as being particularly important to voters in Southwest Washington – the 3rd U.S. Congressional District and the 49th State Legislative District - the Washington State Redistricting Commission is responsible for completing their work as it applies to 10 congressional districts and 49 legislative districts. That magnifies the significance of this work and it amplifies my call for “the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process.”

Comments

Hopefully your process will

Submitted by Jeffery Reynolds on Mon, 2011-05-16 19:21.

0

+-Hopefully your process will be more bipartisan than Oregon's.

Oh who am I kidding. Buckle up.

Dems Play 'Let’s Make A Deal' For Washington's 49th District Seat

2011-04-12T17:30:00.000-07:00

This is being written to encourage voters in Washington State’s 49th Legislative District to immediately do all they can to have their voices heard about who they want to represent them in Olympia for the balance of 2011 and 2012. According to articles in The Columbian, the 49th District Democratic Central Committee is on the verge of making this selection and they plan to take this action by the early afternoon of Wednesday, April 13th … about 16 hours from now.

I had hoped to provide some depth of information on the seven applicants for appointment to replace resigned Rep. Jim Jacks, to give voters in the 49th District an opportunity to express their preferences on this to the 49th District Democratic Central Committee. However, in a meeting on Monday, April 11th, the Democrat group narrowed the field of applicants to three and stated their intention to make a final selection by noon tomorrow and to have their selected applicant sworn in by 12:15 p.m. With that being the case, the best I’m in a position to do is to provide some observations about the three final candidates, to encourage voters to do what they can to add information to what I can offer and to express their related views to the 49th District Democratic Central Committee.

Applicant #1 – Sharon Wylie, 61, is reported as a “former legislative lobbyist”. According to The Columbian, she has declared herself “an environmentalist and a huge fan of light rail.” Of course, most folks who love the Pacific Northwest could be considered environmentalists but voters should consider if Wylie’s definition adds up to her just being another Liberal fan of the government over-regulation that continues to stifle the economy of the Pacific Northwest. And, considering that Clark County voters have consistently rejected light rail, voters should consider how her pro-light-rail stance lines up with their no-light-rail stance. In describing her experience and qualifications, Wylie noted her two terms in the Oregon Legislature in the 1990s and working as a legislative lobbyist for eight years, beginning in 1998. Although she references other work, as a consultant, it’s hard to find any experience that Wylie has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, voters should consider what real-world experience Wylie has that would help her connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

Applicant #2 – Temple Lentz, 35, who is touted as Campaign Manager for Tim Leavitt, in his successful run for Mayor of Vancouver in 2009. Since many in Vancouver view Tim Leavitt as the Candidate who opposed tolls for funding the CRC Project (a key to his successful run), who flipped to favoring tolls after he was elected; voters should consider whether they can rely on Lentz to say what she means and to mean what she says. Also, on the subject of “tolls for funding the CRC Project”, it should be noted that it was Lentz and her Husband who filed a PDC complaint against David Madore and NoTolls.com. The PDC determined that complaint to be without basis. In addressing the 49th District Democratic Central Committee, Lentz vowed to “advocate for the Columbia River Crossing.” Considering her attempt to smear Madore, it seems she’s won’t let ethics or the will of the people get in the way of her advocacy. Lentz also stated that “the 49th District is the last progressive stronghold in Clark County.” I can only guess at how to define Lentz’s statement but, at least, it makes her sound like someone determined to legislate towards her perspective of “progressive” and to not particularly be concerned with the views of her constituency. Additionally, Lentz promised to “fight for women’s right to make decisions about their bodies.” Of course, that is code for favoring wholesale abortion in lieu of sexual responsibility. Obviously, individual voters can determine how this stance lines up with their own. Furthermore, Lentz also promised to favor Labor over “the rich.” Voters who are employers, using their wealth to create jobs in the 49th District, as well as voters who are employed by these “rich” employers, should give this serious consideration. Finally, it’s also hard to find any experience that Lentz has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, much the same as with Wylie, voters should consider what real-world experience Lentz has that would help her connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

Applicant #3 – Jeremy Zegas, 28, State Senator Craig Pridemore’s Legislative Assistant. Zegas noted that he has worked on four political campaigns. In fact, Zegas stated that “All I’ve done in Vancouver is campaign” since moving here in 2008. Beyond this, I can’t tell you much about Jeremy Zegas. Pretty obviously, what I’ve said about Wylie and Lentz also applies to Zegas – i.e. It’s hard to find any experience that Zegas has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, voters should consider what real-world experience Zegas has that would help him connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

In closing, I want to share that in looking at this situation and this field of applicants, I’ve been reminded of the old TV show "Let’s Make A Deal." If you’ll remember, that show featured Monty Hall getting audience contestants to choose a prize from behind Door #1 or Door #2 or Door #3. Typically, the prize packages were made up of a nice prize behind one door, a very nice prize behind another door and a booby-prize behind the remaining door. A Contestant was said to have been “Zonked” if they selected the door with the booby-prize. My concern for the present status of the process to make the appointment to replace resigned Rep. Jim Jacks is that it seems highly likely that there is a booby-prize behind all three doors in this metaphorical game of Let’s Make A Deal and the result will be the voters of Washington State’s 49th Legislative District getting thoroughly Zonked (of course you can fill in your own euphemism here) through 2012. Apparently, I’m not the only one with this concern. State Rep. Jim Moeller (D), who occupies the other position in the 49th District, urged a more deliberative process than the one being taken by the 49th District Democratic Central Committee. Moeller and I see eye-to-eye on very little but we do agree on this one.

Comments

Zonk!

Submitted by Rab L Rouser (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-12 20:26.

+1

+-Since the voters of the 49th district were foolish enough to elect Jim Jacks they deserve whichever big-spending liberal the Communist Party selects on their behalf.

It's Door #1

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Wed, 2011-04-13 17:43.

0

+-Well, the 49th District Democratic Central Committee submitted their three finalist to the Clark County Commissioners and, they appointed Sharon Wylie. You can read the specifics in The Columbian's report on this: http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/apr/13/jim-jacks-replacement-be-announced-today-noon/. Hopefully, for the sake of voters in the 49th, I was wrong about there being a booby-prize behind every door in this deal. I doubt it but time will tell

Something's missing

Submitted by Chad Minnick on Mon, 2011-04-18 13:30.

0

+-The County Commissioners were the ones responsible for actually appointing legislator, from among the Party's three finalists. Why didn't the Commissioners, which has a 2-1 GOP to Democrat majority, take more time and consider the candidates more carefully?

It looked to us on the outside like the Republican County Commissioners simply rubber-stamped the local Democrat party's decision rather than doing their Constitutional duty of making the best possible choice. So now we have professional lobbyist from Oregon?

“Is Anyone Listening?” Sessions on Columbia River Crossing Boondoggle

2011-03-19T17:45:00.000-07:00

During the past month, several “Listening Sessions” have been held in the greater Portland/Vancouver area regarding the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project. If you’re not familiar with the CRC, it’s a scheme to replace the I-5 Bridge that connects Portland, OR with Vancouver, WA. Its current estimated price tag is $3.6 Billion, which easily makes it the largest public works project in the history of this part of the country.

The first of these “Listening Sessions” was one I announced in a previous article, entitled Vancouver Council’s Rush to Build “The Bridge of the Tyrants” . This was a U.S. House Transportation Committee “Listening Session” being held, in part, as the result of encouragement from U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. Although I was very pleased and encouraged to announce this meeting, I also experienced some significant related frustration because my travel schedule meant that I wouldn’t be able to attend. According to The Columbian’s account of this meeting , it seems that I wasn’t the only one who experienced frustration related to this meeting. I’m confident that Congresswoman Herrera Beutler’s intentions for this meeting, as a “Listening Session” were genuine. Apparently Committee Chairman, U.S. Rep. Mica, had something else in mind, though. The Columbian reported that Mica “wielded his gavel — and his wit — to cut short testimony on the bridge project”. This report went on to note that less than half of the people who came, “(hoping) to send a message to Congress, pro or con, about the Columbia River Crossing were lucky enough to get seats inside the small community room at the Clark Public Utilities building” and that “only five, chosen by lot, got to ask questions at the session’s end.”

Next came two “Listening Sessions” conducted by the CRC itself. These were held on March 10th. One session was held in Portland during the day and a like session was held in Vancouver in the evening. I attended and testified at, the evening session. Since the observations I would make about this meeting are, generally, the same as comments I’ll make about a more recent meeting, I won’t go into detail about this event. However, I do want to say that, aside from public comments offered regarding the final design of the CRC’s planned bridge, my impression was that all other aspects of this “Listening Session” were just for show. Since it appeared that the CRC was electronically recording this meeting, I’m assuming they will be posting this recording on their Website - http://www.columbiarivercrossing.com/Default.aspx. If so, you can check out the details of this session and judge for yourself.

The most recent “Listening Session” on this topic was conducted by We The People – Vancouver (WTP). This was the first in what WTP intends as a series, saying they are “scheduling meetings where representatives and subject matter experts will be invited from both sides of this project and both sides of the river to listen, speak, and dialogue.” Especially since I’ve been such a vocal proponent with WTP’s Leadership to do this, I’m pleased that they have launched this initiative. The Special Guest invited by WTP for their first “Listening Session” was Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt. Here too, since I’ve been such a vocal proponent of Mayor Leavitt doing more to engage with his constituents on this topic, I was especially pleased that he accepted the invitation.

Unlike the previously mentioned CRC “Listening Sessions”, I didn’t get the sense that Mayor Leavitt’s participation at WTP’s event was just for show. However, I can’t say I felt that Mayor Leavitt’s listening, though seemingly genuine, could be categorized as the sort of listening one does, with ready willingness to hear why they should consider adopting the opposing view/s of another. It really seemed more like the sort of listening a person does to better understand another’s view/s in order to respond with as much detail as possible to justify view/s held coming into the dialogue. This was magnified by the demeanor of the two Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that Mayor Leavitt brought with him to the meeting. Bringing SMEs along was, of course, a wise thing for Mayor Leavitt to do. However, their attitude (particularly with one) seemed condescending and adversarial ... no way to foment an ideal atmosphere for open dialogue. Here again, let me point out that WTP electronically recorded this meeting. I’m told they will be posting this recording on their Website soon - http://www.wepeeps.org/index.html. Please feel free to check out this recording and come to your own conclusions about this meeting.

Regardless of their demeanor, the presence of the SMEs that Mayor Leavitt had join him for the WTP “Listening Session” helped me to start getting a better idea of where the disconnect is between government officials, who seem to be hell-bent on the present CRC scheme and a significant portion of the community, whose attitude is, “This scheme does not map to what we want or need.” And, if I’m right about the source of this disconnect, I’d like to offer some suggestions on steps to take to move in the direction of resolving this disconnect.

As is most often the case, what SMEs present can be “down in the weeds.” Once dialogue is initiated at that level, naturally, it will tend to remain “down in the weeds.” Though I’m not a SME and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to try to participate in their “down in the weeds” dialogue, listening to it gave me the opportunity to observe that the disconnect on this topic isn’t really at that level. It remains at a much higher level … a level where non-SMEs, like Mayor Leavitt and folks like myself still need to connect before handing the matter over to the SMEs. With that in mind, I thought it could be helpful to take a second look at some of the views Mayor Leavitt expressed at this event and contrast them with my own.

The first views I want to revisit are personal ones. Mayor Leavitt pointed out that he moved to Vancouver in 1980 when his family moved here from Yakima. His primary purpose in bringing this up was to point out that he has found Vancouver “a great place to live” and wanting to maintain that reality is a key to why he “strives to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community.” By contrast, my Wife and I moved to Vancouver more recently … in 2005. However, we did so without having a close friend or family member living here. We chose to move here because we too saw it as “a great place to live” and we want to do what we can to help keep it that way. My point here is that I genuinely believe, at this high level, Mayor Leavitt and I are on the same wavelength.

However, I did notice that Mayor Leavitt’s views and mine began to diverge noticeably when the level of observations dropped down to those specifically related to the CRC Project. To illustrate this, here are a few of Mayor Leavitt’s related views, contrasted with mine:

Leavitt - The I-5 Bridge should have been replaced long ago.

GW - I understand that the present I-5 Bridge has its shortcomings and it won’t always meet the needs of our community. It seems to be meeting today’s needs though. It’s not like you hear reports of parts of the bridge falling off into the Columbia River or that it has anything to do with the present challenges in the very down local economy.

Leavitt – The CRC discussion has been going on for the better part of two decades. There’s been a lot of public outreach on this topic. We’re now in the 11th hour of this project.

GW - How is it that I and a significant number of others in our community have the sense that we haven’t been engaged with on this topic, if the CRC discussion has been going on so long, with “a lot of public outreach”? Why is it that, while making a show of “listening”, elected officials and bureaucrats predominant efforts seem to be aimed at keeping the public from officially expressing their views through elected officials or through voting initiatives? Considering the significance of this, admittedly, important project; shouldn’t this be done before determining that we’re at the “11th hour” and cramming a boondoggle that includes every imaginable bridge-feature down the throat of the public?

Leavitt - Folks on other side of the river won’t allow another bridge beyond the CRC Project.

GW - What?! Oregon is a sovereign State but it’s not a foreign country. If they really believe this sort of extortion is appropriate, in order to force us to have the bridge project they want us to have, wouldn’t it be just as appropriate for WA to install toll booths just for Northbound vehicles with Oregon license plates that want access to WA, Canada and AK?

Leavitt – We need to act now before we lose the Federal money available for this and while President Obama has this project on his radar.

GW – Again, I say “What?!” “The Federal money” comes from us. Why should our taking the time to assure that our money is spent on what we need and want have anything to do with whether or not our money is available to us?

Of course, the contrasting views above do not represent an exhaustive list. But I believe that the items listed are typical of the disconnects between the opposing sides on this topic and I do believe that the overall disconnect that continues to bog down this project remains at this level. With that in mind, here are some ideas on appropriate steps that could be taken, in order to move forward from here:

In my testimony at the CRC “Listening Session”, I stated, “You can’t ‘unscramble’ an egg.” My point with this allegory was that I didn’t expect the CRC to undo the work they’ve already done or to un-spend the money they’ve already spent. However, I did urge them to “stop throwing in more eggs and stop scrambling them” until the public is fully engaged on what they want and what is needed. So, my suggestion for Step #1 here is to simply put the brakes on this project until the above-mentioned disconnect is resolved.

Switching metaphors, instead of trying to “unscramble an egg”, I suggest taking the “peeling back the onion” approach to this project. In other words, deal with this matter, layer by layer, along lines like these:

Use both traditional and new media to educate the interested public on each major issue. Then, using the same tools, determine how that public sees the need, as well as what they want, on each of these issues. Where there seems to be consensus, close the issue and move on.

For issues where predominant consensus isn’t clear, schedule real listening sessions and/or voting initiatives. Here too, when this process produces consensus on an issue, close it and move on.

Using this sort of approach, as Step #2 will eventually allow us to arrive at a real 11th hour, not an artificial one.

I know this seems like an overly simple approach to addressing a major disconnect about a $3.6 Billion project. However, it does appear to me that, somehow along the way, some simple basic high-level understandings were not achieved before the project moved along, getting way “down in the weeds”, to a point where no one seems to see a way out without a result being forced on one side or the other. I, also, recognize that, even if it makes sense to many, it may not be realistic to expect my suggested approach to be taken by all the governmental entities involved. My hope is that this approach will, at least, be adopted by the City of Vancouver, with Mayor Tim Leavitt as its Champion. Even if this ended up meaning that Vancouver was the “lone voice in the wilderness”, with a position on this project that opposed the position of every other governmental entity involved, Tim Leavitt could hold his head high while continuing as Mayor and afterwards, knowing that taking this stand provides the strongest affirmation of his commitment to “(strive) to make decisions that are in the best interest of (our) community.”

Comments

A Bridge too far Removed from Reality

Submitted by Mike M Boyer on Sat, 2011-03-19 11:15.

+3

+-Since Oregon will NOT tolerate a third bridge it must be that our current Interstate bridge will have to be demolished before construction on the Pie-In-The-Sky bridge can begin.

When I build myself a newer and better house I do not demolish my old one. I sell it or rent it out.

The Folly of the Light Rail Mafia never ceases to amaze me.

What I wanted to know and

Submitted by judyinwash on Mon, 2011-03-21 05:50.

0

+-What I wanted to know and didn’t hear – what were the factors that changed between 1999 and 2006 – when light rail was written into their results, but not before. Why WON'T Portland let us build other bridges? Why work JUST on the I-5 bridge?

I heard on the radio yesterday there was a poll taken in Oregon and 60% want the new bridge. Why didn’t they poll Clark County who will be most affected by it?

And what happens when the fiat system (federal reserve notes) are only worth 1 cent on the dollar? Can we get our money back if they can’t finish it?

I'm looking into the possibility of working from home for the company I work for in Portland. I already pay almost $200/month just for parking! I can't afford another $100/month just to travel the bridge!

I'm so angry about this whole thing and NO ONE will listen!

Vancouver Council’s Rush to Build “The Bridge of the Tyrants”

2011-02-15T07:26:00.000-08:00

If you’re not familiar with the Portland/Vancouver area, you may not be aware of a bridge across the Columbia River known as The Bridge of the Gods. It’s about 40 miles east of the Portland/Vancouver metro area and it connects Cascade Locks, OR with Stevenson, WA. Although the bridge is actually named after a geologic event involving a landslide that temporarily dammed the Columbia River, most tourists assume that the name of the bridge comes from the “heavenly” views one can get of the Columbia Gorge, as you cross the bridge. Considering that The Bridge of the Gods is a two-lane bridge, opened in 1928, its present-day use really is more fitting for tourists than for use as a vital commercial link.

Destined for far broader notoriety than The Bridge of the Gods is what I am hereby dubbing The Bridge of the Tyrants … the $3.6 Billion scheme presently known as the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project. According to today’s article in The Columbian, entitled Vancouver council backs cable-stayed bridge design, the latest episode in this tale has Vancouver’s City Council rushing to settle on a final bridge design, due to pressure being applied by the Democrat Governor of Washington, along with the Democrat Governor of Oregon. This, in spite of the fact that the Portland/Vancouver area constituents of these elected officials have not been given the opportunity to determine what, if any, new bridge they favor. In fact, the overwhelming majority of opinions coming from these constituents seem to be opposed to the present CRC scheme and yet these elected officials appear fully determined to have their way in this matter, regardless of the objections of the public.

One aspect of today’s article in The Columbian that reflects the above-mentioned tyrannical determination of current elected officials was the mention of Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt and Vancouver City Councilor, Jeanne Harris, as serving on a Project Sponsors Council, advising the governors. As you may recall, Leavitt is the Mayor who opposed a toll bridge when he was running for office but he reversed that position once he was elected. And, try as she may to forget her YouTube infamy for her “Gavel Down!” performance, doing all she could to stifle any comments in opposition to the CRC scheme at a Vancouver City Council Meeting, that’s who Jeanne Harris is and who she continues to be. Being reminded of who these elected officials are should give you a pretty clear picture that they won’t be speaking up in this regard on behalf of the constituents they were elected to represent. If you want any further clarification, it should help for you to know that these same folks were recently successful in marginalizing their fellow-City Councilor, Jeanne Stewart, by removing her from any appointments where she would represent the Vancouver City Council on matters related to the CRC. In a previous article, entitled Revelations from a Town “Brawl” Meeting in Vancouver, WA, I referred to Jeanne Stewart by saying: “Thankfully, (the meeting) also featured a Vancouver City Councilor who I think typifies the very sort of Citizen Leadership our community is crying out for.” I’m sickened to know that, for now, the tyrants who call themselves her fellow-City Councilors, have silenced her voice, boldly speaking out on behalf of her constituents.

Another aspect of today’s article in The Columbian that reflects our elected official’s tyrannical determination is that there was no mention of the U.S. House Transportation Committee’s “Listening Session”, scheduled to be held in Vancouver this coming Monday. I provided an overview about this meeting in a recent article entitled Herrera Beutler Announces: People Will be Heard Prior to “Gavel Down” on CRC Project. In announcing this meeting, U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler said, “I agree that this issue is huge. We can’t afford to get this wrong. I believe we need a safe bridge that moves people and freight efficiently. Beyond that, I have not had enough answers about what it looks like and how it will be funded. The whole purpose for this listening session is for you to tell us what you want. I want the chairman of the committee to hear from you. I believe we need something, but we don’t need it at any price.” When I posted this article, I wasn’t able to provide details on the specific time and location of the meeting. Even today, Herrera Beutler’s Communications Director let me know that they’re still nailing down final details and that they’re not ready to publicly announce anything until the information is firmed up. However, I want to do all I can to get out the word and to encourage as many Portland/Vancouver area residents as possible to attend this meeting and to do all they can to have their voices heard. So, here is the unofficial information I have on the time and location for this meeting, which will be open to the public:

Monday, February 21, 2011
9:00 a.m to 11:00 a.m.
Vancouver Service Center
1200 Fort Vancouver Way
Vancouver, WA

I’ve begun to wonder if it will take public protests, like those recently seen in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, in order to stop this local tyrannical fiasco. Perhaps we will have to show up at Esther Short Park in Vancouver and in Pioneer Square in Portland with signs reading things like:

Pull the Plug on the CRC

Stop the CRC

No CRC

Yes 192nd Ave Bridge

FastTrack 192nd Ave Bridge

No Tolls

No Light Rail

Stop the Waste

No More Debt!

Keep FREEways!

Fire the CRC!

No Bureaucracy!

No Bureaucrats!

Meanwhile, before those protests and before we send Leavitt and Harris off to Vancouver’s version of Sharm El Sheikh, show up ready to speak your piece on this topic (and wave signs like those noted above, if you’d like) at this coming Monday’s critical U.S. House Transportation Committee’s “Listening Session”.

Comments

bridge

Submitted by Michael Frome (not verified) on Tue, 2011-02-15 19:41.

0

+-Gary, there are at least some of us who are dead set against any new spending of any sort that is not absolutely urgent in nature. This bridge business is not (to my understanding) urgent. Yes, I've had to commute across it before. Is the thing seriously in danger of falling into the river from decrepitude? If not, we need to make do with what we've got until economic times improve. Which will be a while. Especially in the face of continual profligate boondoggle spending.

What very much annoys me is some of the same people who whistle endlessly about how we mustn't dare make any gov't cuts because Little Timmy will Go Hungry (or some such pabulum) will sit there and defend this kind of outlay without any apparent sense of irony at all.

What I'd like to know is who will be the financial beneficiaries of this ridiculously inflated expenditure of public funds. Which companies, which unions, which PACs funding which politicians. Them and their so-called "prevailing wage". Fie on all of them.

I'm guessing that was the

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-02-16 08:27.

0

+-I'm guessing that was the same sentiment the people said before the bridge collapsed a few years back in Wisconsin, killing a number of people. Quite frankly why do we keep waiting for a major disaster to spur us to action? Why not get ahead of the problem and actually make an investment in our national infrastructure like Eisenhower did in the 1950s?

Follow the money.

Submitted by Steven J. Nelson (not verified) on Wed, 2011-02-16 11:04.

0

+-Mike you are right. We need to follow the money trail. Check into the train manufacture's and the design firm's campaign contributions and political entanglements.

Herrera Beutler Announces: People Will be Heard Prior to “Gavel Down” on CRC Project

2011-02-09T07:36:00.000-08:00

At her first Clark County town hall meeting since taking office, U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler addressed many of the topics that are uppermost in the minds of her constituents. From my perspective, she was successful in doing this for two reasons: (1) Most of the town hall agenda was set aside for open Q&A between attendees and the Congresswoman and (2) It was obvious that she and her staff have been working hard to be well informed on the topics that were raised and to be able to report related progress that their efforts have already yielded.

For my money, the most significant question dealt with by Herrera Beutler was when she was asked her view on the funding and construction of a new Columbia River Crossing (CRC). Considering that the CRC is anticipated to be the biggest public works project in the history of our area, I think it’s fair to say that this was the most significant question dealt with by our Congresswoman not just for my money but for the money of everyone living and working in the greater Portland/Vancouver area. I have to admit that I was very pleased to hear Rep. Herrera Beutler say that she supports a new bridge but that she will take her direction on the topic from her constituents. Especially in view of the “Gavel Down” demeanor of the Vancouver City Council on this matter that says, “We know what’s best for the public, no matter what they’re saying themselves”, this is very welcome news.

Of course, saying that she will take her direction on this topic from her constituents is nice. What is more important is that our Congresswoman was able to point to immediate action to go along with her words. As a member of the House Transportation Committee, Rep. Herrera Beutler announced that the committee’s chairman will be in Vancouver on Feb. 21 to listen to the views of residents of the 3rd Congressional District about the CRC project. In making this announcement, Herrera Beutler said, “I agree that this issue is huge. We can’t afford to get this wrong. I believe we need a safe bridge that moves people and freight efficiently. Beyond that, I have not had enough answers about what it looks like and how it will be funded. The whole purpose for this listening session is for you to tell us what you want. I want the chairman of the committee to hear from you. I believe we need something, but we don’t need it at any price.”

Although the specific time and location for this “listening session” has not been set, the related Press Release from the Congresswoman’s office provides the following summary of this meeting:

The Committee will hold similar listening sessions in various regions throughout the country regarding the upcoming transportation reauthorization bill, legislation to authorize funding for the federal share of the nation’s infrastructure projects. The Chairman of the Committee, U.S. Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), will be personally facilitating the listening session. Southwest Washington has a direct link to the nation’s transportation and infrastructure planning with Herrera Beutler serving on the Committee.

I’ll be doing what I can to “get the word out”, as soon as I receive the Press Release covering specifics on the time and location for this “listening session”. With that said, I want to start encouraging you now to do all you can to be present for this meeting and for you to encourage as many others as you can to do likewise. Unlike a meeting of the Vancouver City Council, Jeanne Harris won’t be present to shriek “Gavel Down!”, keeping you from expressing your views on this topic. But, if you don’t show up to take advantage of this great opportunity, the effect will be the same.

WA Governor Prescribes More Disease as the Cure for Schools

2011-01-23T07:42:00.000-08:00

If you read the Education page on WA Governor Gregoire’s Website, I think you’ll come away with the impression that Governor Gregoire thoroughly understands today’s goals and challenges with our Education System. She should, for goodness sake! She’s a Teacher, herself, having earned her teaching certificate from UW.

Furthermore, I think you’ll find that Governor Gregoire’s stated Education Agenda makes good sense. And, since it’s based on the recommendations of a steering committee called Washington Learns, that seems to give it more credibility. Considering that Washington Learns is headed up by Governor Gregoire, one has to wonder whether the committee’s recommendations might be slanted to match up with Governor Gregoire’s views but, without looking into this further, I’ll consent to the legitimacy of this committee’s recommendations.

Where things don’t appear to be adding up is in real life – i.e. How is Washington’s Education System actually performing and how is management of our State’s present budget crisis impacting this? According to the American Legislative Counsel, Washington ranks 16th amongst our 50 States, with an overall grade of C+. I guess that doesn’t sound so bad, by comparison. However, when you look at specifics determining this ranking and see that, as an example, only 37% of Washington 4th Graders are reading at or above a Proficient level, while 63% are reading below that level, it’s pretty obvious that there is great room for improvement.

Although Washington Learns touts itself as “a diverse group of business, community, education, government and minority leaders”, Washington State appears to be continuing with a Top-Down Management approach that is about as far from being connected at the “community” level as you can get. It is, also, obviously failing. The primary reason that Washington ranks 16th, as compared to other States, with an overall grade of C+, is because most other States are being run in a similar Top-Down manner and those States are failing too. It’s probably, also, true that today’s Proficient Level is no place close to the higher proficiency required when I was in 4th grade, in 1956/1957.

Now added to “real-life”, with Washington’s Education System, is Washington State’s budget crisis. To bring this down to a more personal level, this means, that just in Vancouver Public Schools (VPS), in the present school year, Governor Gregoire’s budget (crisis) proposal will result in a nearly $3 million shortfall. Although VPS has already trimmed nearly $1.5 million through freezing hiring, limiting travel, etc. the primary options available to VPS for addressing the balance of this shortfall pretty much adds up to a Reduction In Force (RIF). Obviously, this will result in fewer Teachers working in our Education System. Do you think the percentage of Washington 4th graders who are at or above a Proficient Level will go up or down from its current 37%, as a result of a RIF? I think even those 4th graders who aren’t reading at a Proficient Level could answer this question.

So, what is Governor Gregoire proposing to meet the challenges of our failing Top-Down Managed Education System, now severely impacted by our State’s budget crisis? Gregoire’s proposal, as summarized in a Seattle PI article on this, is to “centralize authority for kindergarten through the university level in one giant department of education.” In other words, More Top-Down Management. “How could a woman who earned a teaching certificate from UW, who gives the impression that she thoroughly understands today’s goals and challenges with our Education System arrive at this conclusion?” you ask. The “real life” answer is that she’s worked in state government almost all the time since getting her JD from Gonzaga in 1977 and she’s held elected state office, as a Democrat, since 1993. In other words, Gregoire is a Big-Government-Democrat Career Politician.

I, on the other hand, am a Limited-Government-Republican who has spent almost all of my working life in the private sector. I believe that our communities (our businesses, our civic organizations, our places of worship and especially, our families) are what have made our nation great, not our government. And, I believe that the solutions to the current challenges our nation is facing can be found best in our communities. Thankfully, I’m far from being alone in this belief, as it applies to meeting the challenges faced by our Education System today. One of the best examples of this is StudentsFirst.org, the political advocacy organization founded by Michelle Rhee, the leading authority on education reform issues. A key foundational belief of StudentsFirst.org states: “Parent and family involvement is key to increased student achievement, but the entire community must be engaged in the effort to improve our schools.”

Generally, plans for the above-mentioned reform are aimed at moving authority away from Federal and State Departments of Education and placing more authority at the School District level. The plan I favor goes a step beyond this. Here’s an overview of that plan:

Eliminate Federal and State Departments of Education, as well as School Districts.

Leave in place or establish a State-wide organization, headed by an elected official. However, this organization should have minimal authority, minimal staffing, minimal hierarchy and minimal infrastructure. Its primary purpose is to serve as sort of a nucleus for a network of schools, operating as independent businesses. Legitimate roles for this organization would be along the lines of consolidated purchasing to leverage economies of scale – e.g. purchasing paper products, negotiating insurance coverage for all employees in the network, etc. Likewise, it would be legitimate for this organization to be supported through State taxes.

Establish schools in the above-mentioned network as independent businesses according to neighborhoods served by a respective High School – i.e. A High School serving a particular area plus the Junior High Schools, Middle Schools and Elementary Schools serving that same area. It may be desirable to include pre-K Education in this plan but Higher Ed should be managed separately. Otherwise, this plan is meant to cover K-12.

Each of the above-mentioned independent businesses would be managed by a Board comprised of the Principals of the respective schools, the most competent members of their school staff, the most competent parents of their school’s students and community members from businesses, civic organizations, places of worship, etc. Each Board would select a CEO who, along with the Board, would operate their business fairly autonomously. Their responsibility would include to determine the best way to get any remaining budget needed supplied by the community they serve and to operate according to a balanced budget.

Since present Union contracts are with organizations that are being eliminated, Union relationships with our Education System would be returned to Square One. I have to say that I’m particularly fond of this part of the plan. I come from a family of Blue-Collar Workers who were Union Members. I understand the legitimacy of Unions, as a safety net for workers. But today’s Unions, especially in the public sector, have gone way beyond their legitimacy. Union membership should be completely optional for workers. And, while it is legitimate for protecting workers to be a Union’s top priority, Unions representing Educators should also be able to easily provide evidence of how they benefit Students. I can’t imagine that today’s Unions can do that.

I know this plan may seem pretty drastic to some. It’s certainly not something that could or should be done overnight. But I’m convinced it’s the right direction to go. It’s become cliché to say that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. I don’t want to say anything unkind about Governor Gregoire and I do not think she’s insane but planning to fix our failing, Top-Down Managed Education System by applying more Top-Down Management just doesn’t make sense.

Comments

Top Down Managed Education

Submitted by Phil Frommholz (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-23 16:10.

0

+-Question?? How many Federal and State levels of management are actually required to teach a child to read, add, subtract, multiply and divide? The answer NONE.

We have gotten away from basic teaching of core educational requirements to be successful in life. When we complicate it with all the other junk we impose on our school system we abandon the reason we have teachers in the classroom- to teach kids the basics. Yesterday I was in Office Depot and there were 10 of us on line waiting for one cashier. The other "sales associates were busy doing "inventory" They lost sign of their primary mission- "sales" which is in half of their title. Any time we use the word

"administrator" in the context of education , we have identified someone who is hindering the education of our children.

Washington Learns? Seriously?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-23 16:41.

0

+-You're about two years behind the curve. Washington Learns hasn't meant much of anything since they released their final report--the real action since then has all been in the Basic Ed Finance Task Force and the subcommittees that HB6696 established.

It's not me who is behind the

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-01-24 05:26.

0

+-It's not me who is behind the curve. Washington Learns is the reference on the Official Governor Gregoire Website.

NCLB

Submitted by Mark Mahan (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-24 16:20.

0

+-Gary- I agree with a lot of what you say. How does this fit in with "no child left behind"?

Great question, Mark. The

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-01-25 05:25.

0

+-Great question, Mark. The plan I referenced is, obviously, aimed at creating a different business model for our education system. Improved education is, of course, the primary goal. If NCLB didn't go away, along with the DOE, it is one of many considerations each of the independent businesses would have to make. This is a good example of why we couldn't and shouldn't move to this model overnight.

Epic FAIL

Submitted by Mike M Boyer (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-24 19:10.

0

+-Epic FAIL

school management plan

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-25 13:19.

0

+-Gary, like you I hoped Rhee would bring a fresh watch to this "education reform" project, begun in Washington State by Boeing Corp with Goals 2000 late 80's. However, with her departure due to her sponsoring Mayor's race, you described the flaw in consolidating power for Education, taking decision-making away from local Districts' elected officials.

From one of those ranks, Ellensburg School Board, I can tell you Central Planners would have their hands full passing a bond or levy in a community. You NEED electeds who meet people in the produce isle or on the soccer field, who are responsible for the local decisions.

By the bye, Business DOES have its tentacles in the mix -- unfortunately it is the politically connected fat cats who want a "competitive global workforce" that will have their way with our kids.

Gregoire = Big Government

Submitted by Bob Dean (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-25 13:32.

0

+-Gary,

Do you realize that Gov Gregoire is trying to nationalize our state education system. Gregoire wants us to adopt the new Common Core State Math Standards which were written by outsiders. The assessments for these standards will be written and controlled by unknowns in Washington DC. Whoever controls the assessments controls what will be taught in every class in America.

Gregoire wants this despite the fact that we spent over $100 million dollars changing to new math standards in 2008. Our new standards were developed and written by Washingtonians and they have been rated higher than the common core standards.

The legislature and Gregoire authorized State Superintendent of Education, Randy Dorn, to provisionally adopt these standards last March before they were even written. Now there is legislation pending HB1443 that will make the adoption and nationalization of these standards permanent unless we can get it stopped.

State and local control of education has been at the core of our republic since its inception. Gregoire is doing everything she can to end that control and give it to those in Washington DC.

If people don't want to see this happen then they need to call and/or email their legislator and tell them to vote No on HB1443 and to vote No on adopting Common Core State Standards.

Bob Dean

Based on the actions of the

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-01-25 17:41.

0

+-Based on the actions of the WA Legislature yesterday, the subject may be completely academic ... no pun intended. The Democrat Majority is continuing on a course that will decimate the ranks of good Teachers in WA. Here's a statement on this from State Representative Paul Harris (R-LD-17):

The House of Representatives today approved a bill that would make reductions of $340 million for the current fiscal year budget. The approved legislation would still leave a $260 million shortfall for the 2009-11 fiscal cycle, which ends June 30 of this year.

Rep. Paul Harris, R-Vancouver, voted against Substitute House Bill 1086 and issued the following statement:

“I believe we must abide by the state constitution which places basic education as Washington’s paramount duty. The budget Republicans offered today would better protect K-12 education. Unfortunately, the majority party voted down our striking amendment and chose to go with their proposal, which contained deep cuts to schools. I’m especially concerned this bill retroactively goes after money that has already been allocated by our school districts for K-4 enhancement programs. As a former school board member, I know firsthand how these cuts will impact school districts. Retroactively going after dollars already allocated feels like we are breaking a promise to our schools and kids.

“I’m also concerned this spending plan still does not solve our budget shortfall this fiscal cycle. This is a continuation of what has been done the last few budget cycles – unsustainable spending. The message was clear in November: Come up with some solutions to live within your means during tough economic times just like everyone else. Pushing spending into the next fiscal cycle does not do that. We need to solve these budget problems now in a responsible manner so we are ready to take on a much larger shortfall for the 2011-13 cycle. This just exacerbates the problem.”

Our Failing, Top-Down Managed Education System

Submitted by Al Peffley (not verified) on Fri, 2011-01-28 10:15.

0

+-The national association of teachers' unions must be lobbying hard for this national education standards political power structure. This is what happens when professional unions are allowed to take over all state government departments and form centralized management systems for civil servant services. The only power the voters have is to cut off tax dollars to feed the beast, and the economy "going down the tube" was a hidden blessing to help partially derail this socialistic, progressives-driven train. The "Stimulus Money" just bought them two more years of unsurpassed education programs spending. If you control the public education system, you control the majority of the public's attitudes on politics and social entitlement programs that enslave them to whatever the people in control want (as I look back, this progressive plan has been evolving in Washington State public schools, with specially-designed textbooks, since the late 1960's.) The complete God-less secular state, with a top-down management system for everything in education, seems to have been always their highest preparation objective...

This is good and bad

Submitted by Ethan Pulka (not verified) on Sat, 2011-01-29 12:17.

0

+-First off we do need to decrease the union and all the sidelines school's use. But if we privatize them as a business who is to say that Wal-Mart or another corporations only teaches our children how to stock shelves? We need a education guideline and test to make sure these school allow all the children to learn equally.

Also if we privatize schools, will we have to pay? or will they still be public.

will we have to pay?

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sat, 2011-01-29 14:12.

0

+-Do you not understand?! We already pay. Where do you think the money comes from to fund Public Schools?! It's from taxes, taken out of my pocket and yours (assuming that you do pay taxes).

“Train up a child in the way he should go …”

2011-01-19T15:45:00.000-08:00

– The Story of an Exceptionally Good Teacher,

Getting This Job Done -

The first time I REALLY became aware of Carrie Newton, she had come to work dressed as a Crayon. If, like me, you’ve spent most of your working life in the business community, you may be thinking that I’m talking about a colleague who ended up in serious conversation with her boss and/or HR regarding proper attire for the workplace. However, I should point out that, this past September, I started working in an Elementary School. Knowing that and knowing that Carrie is the Kindergarten Teacher whose classroom is next-door to the classroom where I work, should make her being dressed as a Crayon sound a bit more appropriate. Actually, I had noticed Carrie wearing costumes on two or three previous occasions. I’m not sure what it was but there was something about seeing her dressed as a Crayon that made me realize she is a person who is very enthusiastic about her work and it made me think that, if more Americans were as passionate about their work as Carrie is, the American workplace would be greatly improved.

Thanksgiving marked the next significant step in my interest being piqued by Carrie. Although this, too, involved Carrie wearing a costume, giving you more details than I did about her day dressed as a Crayon is in order. First, providing details about the costume, itself, are important. You may not be surprised to learn that Carrie was dressed as a Turkey for Thanksgiving but you can’t really appreciate it without experiencing it first-hand. Hopefully, the photo provided here will help. More important, though, are details about the Thanksgiving Program that Carrie led while in her Turkey costume. Since Carrie has responsibility for both a morning and an afternoon Kindergarten class, there were two Thanksgiving Program presentations. I got to attend them both. Again, you can’t really appreciate this without experiencing it first-hand but here’s an overview that I hope will be helpful:

- Carrie led each class into the school gym, wearing her Turkey costume.

- The backdrop of the stage in the gym was adorned with Thanksgiving decorations that looked like they could have come from my time in Elementary School … in the middle of the 20th Century. The decorations depicted adult and children Pilgrims as well as adult and children Indians. The centerpiece was a very identifiable Christian Church, complete with a cross on its steeple. Later, I learned that these decorations had been found at a garage sale, by Carrie’s Mother.

- Each of the kids was in a Thanksgiving costume that they had made from construction paper. The kids were grouped according to one of six costume types. Each group had specific lines that went along with the program that Carrie led. The groups and the lines they delivered, when Carrie pointed to them, included:

o Pilgrim Men – “Bang! Bang! Bang!” – With hands holding make-believe muskets.

o Pilgrim Women – “Mercy me.” – With tilted heads resting on folded hands.

o Pilgrim Ministers – “Praise the Lord!” – With up-raised right fists.

o Indian Men – “Big and brave!” – Accompanied with a “pumping up with Hans & Franz” sort of macho pose.

o Indian Women – “Hush, hush, hush.” – While cradling doll babies in their arms.

o Turkeys – Of course, “Gobble, gobble, gobble.”

o All – “Pop! Pop! Pop!” Whenever the word “corn” was used in the program.

It was obvious that the audience (Kindergarten kids’ family members, along with other classes) thoroughly enjoyed the presentation. At the conclusion of the program, Carrie led her students and the audience in singing the American Folk Song, This Land is Your Land. I have to admit that I was grinning from ear to ear and that I had tears in my eyes throughout both program presentations. Although I recognized that there were parts of the program that some might question for “political correctness”, in the end, I don’t think there was anything that could be pointed to as inappropriate. My thoughts along these lines were, “When you pour yourself into your work the way Carrie does and you develop the sort of following she has, minor points of ‘political correctness’ are unlikely to attract much scrutiny.” Moreover, I recognized that “The Story of Carrie Newton” is something I wanted to become more familiar with and to do my part in sharing that story, for the benefit of others.

In getting better acquainted with Carrie, one of the first things I wanted to learn about was what she saw as her overall objective, with the enthusiastic approach she takes to her job. Generally, I wasn’t surprised with her responses to my questions along these lines. She said she wants her students “to love school”, “to be enthusiastic about school” and for their experience with her to be “memorable.” What did surprise me was that, to exemplify this, Carrie referenced the book Made to Stick. I was familiar with Made to Stick, as a business philosophy aimed at helping companies to make their products/services more interesting/memorable. I, also, was aware that the Made to Stick philosophy has application to teaching, both within and outside of business. But, I have to admit that I was a bit surprised at it being applied by a Kindergarten Teacher. I have to; further, admit that this revealed a prejudice on my part about the qualities of “a good Kindergarten Teacher.” Maybe, like me, you tend to think of “a good Kindergarten Teacher” as a good-hearted person who is naturally skilled with young kids, who has fun getting them started in school. If so, like me, you’re seriously underestimating the depth of “a good Kindergarten Teacher.”

By now, it should be obvious that I’ve come to think very highly of Carrie Newton. And, I’ve quickly discovered that telling “The Story of Carrie Newton” can’t realistically be done in one sitting. Her story seems to have far too much depth and texture for that. No doubt, she is much more than “a good Kindergarten Teacher.” “Exceptionally good” seems like a more fitting label. With these things in mind, it seems appropriate to begin by considering the path that has brought her to this point and to take a look at some of the facets of her classroom that further indicate her depth, “beyond the costumes.”

The beginning of Carrie’s career in Education doesn’t sound a lot different from many who work in this field … as a young woman who grew up in Washington State’s Tri-Cities, who was entering college at Gonzaga University, she knew she “wanted to help people.” At Gonzaga, she discovered a love for Special Education. Upon graduating from Gonzaga, she was given offers from three different school systems. Southwest Washington is blessed that she picked the offer from Vancouver. Though Carrie truly loved Special Education, after 10 years working in that field, her two Daughters were born and she simply found these compounded responsibilities to be too hard. However, finances didn’t allow Carrie to work only as a stay-at-home Mom. Although she did leave her position in Special Ed, in addition to her Mom-duties, she worked at providing Home-Daycare and she worked part-time in ELL (English Language Learners) classes. Eventually, as Carrie’s daughters were reaching school-age themselves, this led to opportunities to work in Kindergarten, where she discovered another love. Thus, for the past seven years, she’s been working as a Kindergarten Teacher.

When it comes to aspects of Carrie’s classroom that show what I referred to earlier as her depth, “beyond the costumes”, I discovered a revealing example one day while waiting to talk to her in her classroom. I noticed, among the many things adhered to the windows of her classroom, a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. That led to me reflecting on my thoughts and feelings about MLK, as well as considering what a challenge it must be to convey the lessons embodied by that historic figure, if you didn’t come from his time yourself. Since Dr. King was assassinated in 1968 and Carrie Newton is an Educator who was born in 1969, she is among those who must deal with the aforementioned challenge. When Carrie arrived, I pointed to the picture of Dr. King and I talked about how different things were in the days when I was a student in a Kindergarten class. I talked about the three “colored kids” who were in that class, who continued in my class through High School, with at least one going on into college with me. I, also, shared that, as a “white kid” from that time, though I now recognize that what MLK represented resulted in some much needed seeds of change being planted in my heart, it wasn’t welcomed by me initially. I went on to disclose that I will always look back with deep regret for the painful experience it must have been, growing up as one of those three “colored kids.” Without my prompting, Carrie told me that one of the methods she uses to convey these “lessons of the heart” is to have a time in her classroom when only girls are given gummy-bears, as rewards and that she lets the boys know that it’s just because the girls are girls, like her. Of course, there’s no way to fully convey what our culture was like when I was in Kindergarten. Even I couldn’t do that with today’s kids. But it’s comforting to know of the intentionality of an exceptional Educator like Carrie to teach these “lessons of the heart” and to assure that our culture continues to strive to be one that “judges people by the content of their character and not by the color of (or shape of) their skin.”

Especially, considering some details of the Thanksgiving Program described above, I was surprised to visit Carrie’s Facebook page and learn that she defines her Religious Views as “Christian - still searching”. However, I really appreciated her candor and humor about her “still searching”, as expressed in her Favorite Quotation: “What if the Hokey Pokey is what it’s all about?!” When I asked Carrie about what might seem to be a contradiction between the things expressed in the Thanksgiving program and her Religious Views, she let me know that she is certain enough about her views that she strives to teach her students to have a “basic Christian attitude” and particularly, “to be kind”. In fact, “Be kind!” is a class slogan, as she teaches her students to view themselves as part of their “classroom family” and beyond that, as part of the community. Underneath this, of course, is Carrie’s understanding that a key to her effectiveness as a Teacher is her ability to establish a relationship with each of her students. Without inappropriately sharing any personal information, Carrie told me about her relationship with one student, that illustrates this well. According to Carrie, this was a student who “came in naughty” and that this seemed to stem from some very negative circumstances in the student’s personal life. As a result of Carrie’s kind and caring attention (my words, not hers), this student learned to express himself about these circumstances in a productive way and this has led to significant positive changes that have made this student fit in well with his “classroom family.”

Based on what I’ve told you about Carrie so far, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that her interests in the field of Education don’t stop at her classroom door. She is deeply concerned for our Education system. Her first concern is for colleagues who are “losing the joy of teaching”, as a result of current pressures on those working in Education. Beyond that, she shares the concerns of many of her colleagues that, in looking for ways to improve our Education system, the public and elected officials may be in a position where they “can’t see the forest for the trees” and as a result, in looking for ways to reduce expenditures, they may end up cutting “muscle” instead of “fat”. Frankly, this is the basis for a more politically-oriented article I plan to write but I know that Carrie agrees with me that the best approach to resolving the challenges faced by our Education system is to do so from the ground up, rather from the top down. In other words, the folks who are in the best position to know the needs of the elementary school where we work are the folks who work there, not folks who work in Washington D.C. or in Olympia, WA. With that said, if you are one of those top-down folks, I heartily recommend that you do all you can to seek out those like Carrie Newton, who can benefit you with the wealth of their “where the rubber meets the road” understanding.

In closing, I want to touch on the topic of whether or not a Kindergarten Teacher like Carrie Newton can “make a difference”. Just from watching Carrie with her students, as well as with her colleagues around our elementary school, you can tell that she isn’t among those who may be “losing the joy of teaching”, as a result of current pressures on those working in Education. However, it does seem that these present circumstances have led to Carrie questioning whether or not her enthusiastic work really makes a difference. I was pretty surprised by this. Another book I’ve read for its application to business philosophy is entitled All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten. Although its primary focus was on how the world would be improved if adults adhered to the same basic rules as children, I always felt that it provided an implied endorsement of the difference Kindergarten Teachers do make. Maybe I was wrong or maybe, since that book came out in the late 1980s, that understanding has been diminished. Regardless, it’s a shame. I think that the enthusiastic work of an exceptionally good Kindergarten Teacher like Carrie Newton clearly makes a difference and one easy way for our Education system to be improved is for work of this nature to be acknowledged and encouraged. In the absence of this, I felt compelled to encourage Carrie through sharing that Miss Summerlot (my Kindergarten Teacher) and numerous others, including College Professors, are still making a difference in my life. The most significant example I offered was of Laura Fasig, who taught Kindergarten Sunday School for me and before me, for my Mother. Mrs. Fasig was my Grandmother’s age and her teaching still makes a difference in my life … in my mind’s eye, I can still clearly see the scene she created, with felt cut-outs, of Jesus’ encounter with Zacheus. Sixty years from now, when I’ve had the opportunity to say “Thank you!” to my Grandmother and to Laura Fasig for the positive difference they made in my life, a man who “came in naughty”, as a student in Carrie Newton’s Kindergarten class, will be treasuring the positive difference she made in his life and the way that life contributed to our community.

Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go,

And when he is old he will not depart from it.

Let’s Sit Together!

2011-01-16T07:50:00.000-08:00

Although I’ve been a Contributor for Red County for nearly 2 ½ years now, I’ve continued to imagine an idealized blog I think of as We The Purple … where posts are more aimed at building on the common ground between the Reds and the Blues. It’s sort of my American Dream. Frankly, I was pretty much ready to give up on anything about that dream becoming a reality, as I observed the sad spectacle of those using the recent tragedy in Tucson to disseminate hatred for their political opponents. Thankfully, with the passing of time, the balance of commentaries has shifted quite heavily towards more sanity and truth. Along with these more rational and edifying words, have come some worthwhile suggestions for concrete actions that can be taken to move our nation in the direction of my American Dream. One of these is the idea put forward by Colorado’s U.S. Senator (D) Mark Udall that, for the upcoming State of the Union speech, Democrats and Republicans sit together rather than dividing up by party. I think this could be an excellent first step in the right direction.

I realize some may say that Udall’s suggestion is nothing more than empty symbolism. Of course, it would be symbolic but I don’t see it as being empty. I can remember participating in a TweetChat group around the time the Tea Party started forming. During one session, one participant commented on “those across the aisle” and stated that he wanted to “destroy them”. My @Reply to him was to remind him that “those across the aisle” are our fellow Americans and that aiming to “destroy them” was not appropriate. Since following Udall’s suggestion would mean that Reds and Blues wouldn’t actually have an aisle between them, it should make it easier for them to see each other as fellow Americans.

Others may say that Udall’s suggestion seems like a typical Liberal reaction, looking for an opportunity for us all to hold hands and sing Cumbayah. I suppose some may have that sense in doing this but I see it as an action that can begin to effect positive differences in the way our elected Representatives work together. My views on this come from the practical experience of having run a network of office equipment Dealers for over a decade. One of the biggest advantages to using a Dealer network, as a channel of distribution, is that you have the opportunity to have your products and/or services represented by the strongest independent office equipment companies in their respective markets. One of the biggest challenges with this is that you’re working with the strongest independent office equipment companies in their respective markets … underline the word independent … and having them work together seamlessly with their fellow Dealers doesn’t come naturally. One of the best strategies for overcoming this challenge is to get the Dealers together regularly, giving them many opportunities to socialize. When you’ve had brunch with your neighboring Dealer at the Moana Surfrider and you’ve taken a picture of him and his Wife, as they shop along Kalakaua Boulevard, it becomes much more difficult to be stiff-necked with that guy the next time a Dealer Territory dispute arises. I see Udall’s “Let’s sit together!” suggestion as holding this same potential for our elected Representatives.

One aspect of Udall’s suggestion that makes it more likely to be a “Cumbayah moment of empty symbolism” is that it’s a suggestion for a one time event. To really effect positive differences in the way our elected Representatives work together, I suggest that this step should be applied in general and not just for the State of the Union speech. My thinking is that, if our Senators and Members of Congress regularly find themselves in circumstances where they’re less self conscious about expressing views that may conflict with the stance of the party they’ve chosen to align with, it’s more likely that they will succeed in expressing the views of those who they’ve been elected to represent. According to Carl Anderson’s new book, Beyond a House Divided: The Moral Consensus Ignored by Washington, Wall Street and the Media, “In dealing with many high profile issues, we have found consensus where conventional wisdom would have us believe it is most unlikely: on the issues of religion in public life, abortion, marriage, and the role of government, among others.” According to this, We The People are, in fact, We The Purple. If so, all the more reason for eliminating artificial barriers that prevent this productive environment from being a reality and instead, foster a counterproductive atmosphere.

Finally, I want to suggest that, if this step can be taken, that we not stop there. One question I haven’t addressed here is: Why have our Senators and Members of Congress been sitting separately, by party, for State of the Union speeches up to now? The answer is that it’s just been a custom. There is no requirement to do so. With that in mind, I think the time is right for us to take a close look at all the routines our elected officials follow that aren’t requirements. The goal in doing this, of course, would be to determine if these routines should be replaced with methods that are more effective for our elected officials in truly being our Representatives.

Comments

Let's Sit Together

Submitted by Craig Williams (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-16 15:17.

0

+-Gary, I wholeheartedly agree with you! We are all citizens of the same great country and no matter what our political differences we are all due respect and civility.

Our state and country is in fiscal crisis, and fighting over deck chairs while the ship sinks is foolish.

- Craig Williams

Vancouver, WA

advocatus diaboli

Submitted by Michael Frome (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-16 16:50.

0

+-Hi Gary, I'm going to not exactly disagree with you in spirit, but would like to add my observations as a neophyte in the political realm.

I have in the past (as I still do) been able to see and even articulate different sides of a policy argument, even when thinking about a policy in which I've decided my position...indeed, such thinking is needed to determine one's position.

Having said that, I see myself as a historically moderate independent who has been pushed with great force directly into the conservative camp. There are some aspects of conservative ideology that I quite frankly disagree with; however, in the face of a liberal agenda, relentlessly pursued, and which in my opinion has both the capacity and aim of destroying aspects of my freedom that I hold dear, I must choose a side and act upon that choice with vigor.

In short, my view is that the current liberal movement as embodied by the democrat party has an aim to unlawfully restrict my exercise of freedom, and the conservative movement embodied by the republicans...much less so.

In my experience, the greatest damage is done when these two groups actually are acting in concert, because it often represents an unholy compromise that yields principles to expediency.

Seating by State

Submitted by Jon Russell (not verified) on Sun, 2011-01-16 20:30.

0

+-I think they should be seated by State Delegation. The States they represent are more important than party politics.

Seating by State

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-01-17 07:19.

0

+-Thanks for the suggestion, Jon. I very nearly included that suggestion in my article. However, I think this is a good idea for State legislatures too.

seating by delegation

Submitted by Michael Frome (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-17 10:32.

0

+-I really like that idea!

It would serve as a reminder to our representatives (of both parties) that there exists within their constituency people of different opinions who are also entitled to be heard and whose concerns must be weighed.

Perhaps it would provide a better mechanism to demonstrate to them that they owe their allegiance and effort to all of their constituency, not only their base. Hard to say. Perhaps it would just make everybody really uncomfortable until someone had the gumption to propose changing the rules back to "party seating"...it would be an interesting experiment.

seating by state delegation

Submitted by Craig Williams (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-17 17:03.

0

+-An excellent idea Jon!

- Craig

In memory of Judge Roll in particular

Submitted by David Knight (not verified) on Mon, 2011-01-17 18:52.

0

+-I would be more in disagreement. While I appreciate the need to keep a civil tongue, and avoid unfounded and personal accusations, there has been all too much R's and D's ganging up against the people. When politicians get along too well, all their friends get bailouts and the public gets the bill.

They are indeed a political class which walk around airport body scanners and exempt themselves from mandatory federal health plans. This is why there is a tea party. There is absolutely NO mandate for ANY more laws, especially in the realm of gun control for the little gal.

If they want to have a little friendly competition to see how many "oh so well intentioned but" repressive laws they can lift off our backs, that might be a good place to start. The FDA for instance, would make a fine consumer advisory panel - a place from which they can justify all those decisions made on our behalf - to all the other advisory organizations that will spring up to guide consumers in their quest for REAL health. They are one of the main reasons our health care system is a mess today.

Great and mighty organizations seek to mislead us - and as in the past - will stop at NOTHING to achieve their ends. In memory of the Assassinated Judge - who was a true constitutionalist and hero to our country - we could stand a bipartisan effort to return to the principles that made this nation great, the original intent of the constitution that we swear an oath to.

The enemy

Submitted by Edmundg (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-18 01:39.

0

+-Horse manure! Now, I know that there is a huge push for civility in political discourse, but it is only in one direction---we conservatives must be civil, whilst the left has no such restrictions. Consider the "Daily Kos" printing a headline shortly after the Tucson shooting: "Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin!"

What many do not yet realize is that there are very few Democrats remaining in American politics. That party has been usurped by communists. Yes, yes, I realize that they prefer other names, such as liberal, progressive, social democrat, socialist, state capitalist, etc. But you can paint a jackass with zebra stripes all you want; it is still a jackass. These are communists and they are hell-bent upon overthrowing the greatest Republic ever. Therefore, they are the enemy!

What they are doing is illegal and unConstitutional, and I resent it.

Hahahahahaha, yup, you've got

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-01-18 14:05.

0

+-Hahahahahaha, yup, you've got us Edmundg, we're communists, all of us. Because, as you well know there's a pretty straight line between "healthcare for poor people" and "lets overthrow the government and do only what the government tells us to". What's worse than that is that not only are we communists but we're actually attempting to destroy America. It's probably because we hate all of the good that America does, because as well as know communists are also all godless and actually are the creation of the devil to destroy mankind as we know it. It starts with protecting the poor, and who knows, after that maybe ensuring clean drinking water and then BLAMO, instant American destruction.

What's especially fiendish is that, in an age of 24-7 news coverage, we've managed to usurp an entire political party and have just lying in wait for when we can send out the secret communist signal to have all Democrats rise up and destroy the government from within. Why we didn't take over the Republican party, which would be far less obvious, is beyond me (especially since we got together as communists have been unable to do in the past and decided to take over a national political party at all levels). Oh well, what can you do...

I do hope you realize that I'm being fully facetious and am really just mocking the absurdity of your claim. I mean, at least disagree with me on issues in an intelligent manner like a rational person, but please try to stay away from the conspiracy-theory type broad-based personal attacks. They come across as rather, well, desperate.

I agree with the point of this post though, I think the idea of sitting together at the SOTU is a great idea.