Logging and Global Warming in California

It's an interesting article. The Center for Biological Diversity is ornery, but I am not sure this theory, that doing some selective logging will increase green house gases in the atmosphere, is going to fly. First, it's ecologically wrong. And second, by filing litigation in five different counties, it's clear the Center is using one of it's favorite tactics: litigate them to death.

I think the collaborative spirit that other environmental organizations have embraced when it comes to decisions about logging is welcome relief from the antagonistic hyperbolic rhetoric that happened in the last part of the 20th century. Without some forest management on these and many other forests, particularly in the west coast, these forests really will be of no help in altering global climate change. Logging, in the ways sought here, will help rural communities, who are already suffering from this current recession. Plus, the forests probably will be healthier. It's a win-win and the other environmental organizations know this.

The Center is using very little foresight.

"I'm in this world, but not of it."

Rest in peace, J.D. Salinger.

A Marketing Whiz

Maybe he can give lessons to the President?

China Rising

Click here to read a fascinating article on China's ascendency in the world.

Small Ball

And now President Obama is beginning to play small ball.

Not good.

Urban Wildlife Conflicts

No, I'm not talking loud parties! I'm talking animals. This is the third time in less than 12 months that wildlife agents have been called into a neighborhood in Seattle to find (and in this case, kill) wildlife. Cougar, Black bear, and now coyote.

Maybe instead of the usual response (trap, kill or re-locate) we should figure out how we live within the wildlife territory not the other way around.

Not An Activist Court? Bah-Humbug

The decision announced today by the US Supreme Court (Citizens United v. FEC) is an appalling use of judicial activism by the 5 conservative judges (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas). Instead of narrowly ruling on the facts presented to the Court in last year's term, the Chief Justice asked for and received a re-hearing of the case based on parameters he set. In other words, he wanted to examine whether campaign finance regulations barring corporations from buying advertisements to endorse candidates, was a unconstitutional ban on free speech.

As we all know, the First Amendment is for individuals, but long ago the US Supreme Court decided that corporations are "individuals," and therefore entitled to the same constitutional protections.

This case unravels years of sane campaign finance laws which, while not doing a good job at keeping out obscene amounts of money in federal campaigns, at least had the noble idea that people contributed to a candidate's election. Now, we'll have the candidate from Citibank, the candidate from Boeing, the candidate from Goldman Sachs, from Johnson & Johnson....

And we all know the "magic" of corporate marketing. They managed to convince a whole nation to leverage their homes to the hilt to buy flat screen TVs, granite counter tops, and stainless steel appliances against the homeowner's better interest, just think of the snarky ads they will come up with the convince you to vote for their candidate. Signed, sealed, delivered...Senator Bank of America.

Look at how corporations have perverted and corrupted sports in America. Wow, maybe a corporation can get naming rights to the US Capital or even the White House! Goldman Sachs White House or the Blue Cross US Capital.

I have one more thought: really this decision isn't about "free" speech, it's about bought and paid for speech. Manipulated speech. Advertising speech. It's about marketing a candidate. Instead of Manchurian Candidate, think AIG Candidate, primed and programed to do the bidding of the huge insurance corporation...

May we live in interesting times...we sure do now!

Can Any Party Really Last?

Everyone and their mother is blogging about the Massachusetts election yesterday. But I thought this short piece about whether any national party can "re-align" and stay in power for years and years in this technologically driven world was very interesting.

We expect immediate results, we want government to fix things, and from my perspective there has been very little collective self reflection on how banks and Wall Street found the openings to prey on us. It's not like we kept the doors closed....

That said, the apparent anger which motivated many Massachusetts voters seems in line with seeking immediate results.

And while jobs, jobs, jobs should be the government's key objective, remember what is lost in all the hub-bub about health care is that if we can spend less (as a nation) on health care, we can spend more on infrastructure, buying cheap TVs, and granite countertops for our kitchens...

Who Knew Massachusetts?

Who would have ever guessed the Fate Of The World rested on a US Senate race in Massachusetts?

State of the Union Scheduled

In case you missed this, the Obama Administration hadn't scheduled his first State of the Union (until today). They were hoping he could announce the passage of some sort of health care "reform." Of course, that isn't happening any time in the next few weeks. The President Obama went to Massachusetts where there is a huge battle for Senator Ted Kennedy's seat. Polls today suggest a Republican may win, although with Obama's appearance on Sunday, who knows what will happen.

But it was announced today that President Obama will deliver the State of the Union next week, giving up on having a signed health care bill in hand.

Hopefully he is listening to what is going on. People are more than a little frustrated that they don't even know what the Lords of the Senate and House are wrangling over in terms of health care "reform." Maybe he can use this speech to let us in on the negotiations.

The fact the Coakley v. Brown race in Massachusetts is so close should say something to the Administration...are you listening?

Making Government Difficult

Just when I thought I was the only one bothered by the hoops elderly folks had to jump through to get a discounted bus pass, finally, someone else noticed. In King County there are only two places where an elderly or disabled person can go to apply for and receive a discounted bus pass. It's ridiculous that they should even have to do that. Hello! Can't a bus driver tell if someone is over 65? Kids who sell tickets at movie theaters can!

And then here is Seattle. Seattle. Some policy wonk at the parks department, yes, the parks department, decided park visitors needed a code of conduct. No fire starters for your barbecue (of course, the park staff uses leaf blowers to removed sand from side walks at beaches, but God forbid if you want to start your barbecue...), no spitting, no sex, no going into a bathroom of the opposite sex...you get the drift. The kicker is if you're caught, the park staff with BANISH you from the park for 24 hours! I feel like the city reverted itself to a pre-school.

Government gone amok!

Compassion

It's one of the great things about America and the rest of the world. We have compassion.

Click here to listen to President Obama. Probably his best speech.

Googling China

Of course, everyone knows the "business model" for Google is selling ads. So when someone or something in China began hacking into systems in the US and interfering with Google, well, the largest company finally decided to stamp it's feet and tell China where to go! For so many businesses, they salivate at China right now: lots of money, largest population...if only we can get them to spend...

It never bothered Google that China enforced a censorship on them before, but now when it looks like their credibility to deliver "product" might suffer...

Show me the money, Google!

In the Crosshairs

As the economy changes our ideas of the 'haves' and 'have nots,' many issues will come under scrutiny. One that caught my eye were hunting licenses in Montana. In most states there is a fee disparity for licenses. For instance, when I fish in Idaho, I pay more for a license than a resident. The flip is true, an Idaho fly fisherman pays more for a Washington license than I do. Same thing has been true for hunting licenses.

However, in Montana, which restricts the numbers of hunting licenses, there are a number of hunting licenses reserved for nonresidents that are sold through guides and outfitters. These guides and outfitters frequently take their clients to private access areas to hunt, for instance large tracts of ranch land the guide leases from a rancher.

Hunters in Montana are fed up with this system, believing the rich out of state hunters get a better deal. On the ballot this fall will be an initiative to eliminate this system and increase the out of state license fees, much like what is done in many Western states. Of course, if this idea passes, the guides and outfitters claim they will be severely hurt. Private land owners who lease out their land (think Ted Turner) may not respond by allowing unaccompanied hunters onto their lands. Their sense is that hunters usually behave quite badly (think piles of beer cans left near a smoldering fire). It's a class war if there ever was one.

More interesting, however, I think is the backlash between the perceived economic disparity. In other words, part of this initiative is based on anger that "rich, out of state" hunters get better and different opportunities for natural resources. And as our economy continues to create a larger divide between the rich and everyone else, I suspect in many other areas we will begin to see these kinds of backlashes.

Ya' Think!

Shocked! I'm shocked! Mark McGuire finally admitted he used steroids. Shocked. Even more shocking? He used them during the season when he broke the home run record. Shocked!

Are We Surprised By High Unemployment?

During the last decade we not only failed to create jobs in this country, we went backwards in terms of population growth (we grew) and job creations (we eliminated).

And for all the talk about small businesses and innovation, a recent City of Seattle order to a parking lot near our brand spanking new light rail, to stop selling parking spaces because some urban planner has a utopian vision that people should live, shop, and walk to and from transit rather than park and take the train. So now we have a parking lot attendant unemployed. Great.

What is that giant sucking noise?

Underwater Homes

This is a very interesting op-ed piece about homes that are "underwater," in other words, the home owner owes more than the house is appraised or can sell in an open market. The question addressed by the commentator is why, in our "free market economy" it seems legitimate for businesses to walk away from assets which are collateralized for more than they are worth, but it is considered a sin, morally wrong, for a homeowner to do the same thing?

What's even more interesting but not addressed in this particular piece, is how it is lenders (think banks) could allow debt on private residences with so little an equity margin. It's like forcing someone to gamble their life's savings at the craps table in Vegas.

While I personally love owning a home (I can have dogs without having to worry!) and would probably do everything possible to keep my home, I can understand folks walking away from a desperate situation, where it seems they will never recover any money. Essentially they are paying rent with interest on the house.

My sense is that in many parts of this country the real estate market is looking at years if not a decade before housing prices will recover to similar levels of the "greed and gluttony" decade. Yes, yes, I agree there is some individual responsibility here. I mean, when some ya-hoo pulls up in a Mercedes, tells you your house is worth double what you paid for it two years ago, your guard probably should have been up. I remember listening to a realtor here in Seattle constantly tell me there was no way the market could crash because there is no more room to build. I would roll my eyes. I have been hearing that line for 30 years and seems to me developers have been finding lots of land to develop. But I suspect a lot of people were seduced by the same "reasoning."

So, if it is going to take years or a decade before a house is worth what is owed, does it make financial sense to keep paying a ridiculous amount on it? If banks walk away from assets all the time, why can Joe Dokes?

Heading for the Doors

It's not just the Democrats, but last month it was also the Republicans. I think we have made getting elected to office one of the least enjoyable things to do and as a result, we will find our leadership becomes less able to handle the complex world we live in.

Not a good sign.

Pay in Cash?

In my on-going series on banks, I thought I would pass this article in today's New York Times about the fees Visa (and your bank) charge for using a debit card. Remember, a debit card is your money. Yet Visa (and your bank, which takes a fee from Visa) charge retailers and venders a fee for every time you use your card. If you don't use your PIN, in other words, the card swipes as credit, even though your checking account is debited, the fee is even higher (hence the reason Costco only accepts debit cards).

So, since retailers don't make a full dollar for every dollar they charge you, the cost of goods and services increases to cover that deficit.

Simply amazing what those bankers think of, isn't it?

Death Penalty Death Knell

Why not start off the New Year with an intense topic? The death penalty.

There are a few topics in America that are polarizing, you know, where people stand on one side of the line or the other. But the death penalty is one of them. Either you are for it or against it.

In Texas, there is a raging debate about whether a truly innocent man was executed last fall. This debate is what death penalty proponents have worried about forever and anti-death penalty advocates knew would happen sooner or later. However, it's not quite clear, of course, whether the man was innocent....

Then there were the problems in administering the lethal injection in Ohio, which resulted in suspending the executions of two inmates.

Today's news brought another interesting twist in the debate. The very think tank that crafted the legal underpinnings to the Gregg v. Georgia decision in 1976 by the US Supreme Court, opening the door, again, for capital punishment, is going out of businesses because, essentially, they can no longer justify the death penalty. Now, they didn't say it that boldly, but that is what happened.

It will be interesting to watch as debates over capital punishment begin to unfold in the next few years. It's political hot potatoes to come out against the death penalty, particularly if you're a Democrat. President Obama supported the death penalty in his presidential campaign, even for non-capital but heinous crimes such as child rape. Slowly, very slowly, the US Supreme Court has been narrowing the ability of state's to administer the ultimate penalty.

Which is to say, nothing is every final in our society. The death penalty was abolished in 1962, re-instituted in 1976 and may well be effectively abolished again in the near future.