Broken Democracy

Over the past two years I have been involved in trying to tighten regulations on a certain form of placer mining here in Washington State.  Currently, miners can take a machine called a suction dredge (pictured above) and suck up stream beds, spewing out the sediment which includes residual toxic materials such as zinc, copper, mercury, downstream.  Many of the miners mine areas which are designated critical habitat for fish species listed endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.  And the miners do this for a few flakes of gold which they claim they do as a hobby (but many of them admit they are actually supplementing their income...let's just say the story changes from hobby to income depending on the argument they are making).

In order to change the regulations, which are promulgated and "enforced" by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), we need to change the current laws which the legislature, in the1990s, wrote in broad language requiring WDFW to "go light" on mining regulation.

Working with a broad coalition of groups, we proposed several modest changes (modest in comparison with what is happening in our neighboring states, including Idaho): a study to determine the effects and cumulative impacts of this form of mining, a license fee for the miners (since they pay absolutely nothing now), and a moratorium on allowing the miners to mine with suction dredges in streams that are listed as critical habitat for Endangered Species Act listed fish species in Washington State.  This is the second year we have introduced legislation.  Last year our bill went no where.

From what we understand there are about 1, 500 miners in Washington State.  The current population of Washington State is 7, 062,000 (over 7 million people).  Those 7 million people pay over 200 million dollars every year in restoration projects for salmon, steelhead, and Bull trout (the three main species listed under the Endangered Species Act).  And those 7 million people expect their state legislators to work for the majority of the people, not for a loud, bullying minority of folks whose selfish desire to destroy streams for small flakes of gold.

This past legislative session, we managed to get a hearing in front of the Washington State House of Representatives Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee for our modest bill.  The miners who are very internet savvy, knew about the hearing instantly, and between Facebook and their web sites, alerted their members.  While we have talked to thousands of people about this issue, and believe a large majority of Washingtonians agree with us, the miners outnumbered our supporters in the hearing room.  On top of it, only one Democratic Member of the House stayed for the hearing, while the minority (the Republicans) all stayed and asked softball questions to the miners.

The miners intimidate.  The bully people through the Internet.  The carry guns when they are mining and both Federal and State enforcement officers have told us they are nervous and scared of running into the miners when they are out in the field.  The miners refuse to comply with Federal laws requiring them to notify the US Forest Service when they are mining on our Federal land.  And we have watched videos where the miners admit they don't pay taxes on the gold they collect off of our Federal lands.  They are a small minority who control the majority.

Clearly, democracy is broken.  In today's Seattle Times there was this article which implies that the only way to bring about the change a majority of people may want is to circumvent elected officials.  People wonder why conservationists sue and sane gun law advocates use the initiative process, it's because loud and intimidating minorities "own" our democracy.

We have tried to work with the system we have and have gotten nowhere.  Meanwhile, streams and rivers in Washington continue to be torn up by miners.   It's been over a decade since salmon, steelhead, and Bull trout were listed as endangered or threatened.  The recoveries have been slow if non-existent because everyone is scared to take the steps necessary.  Tightening the regulations on suction dredge mining is small step.  It is low hanging fruit in terms of helping fish survive.  It's what the majority of people in Washington State want, it's what we have committed billions of dollars toward solving.  So, it may be time to figure out how to leave the broken democracy and find a way to give fish a chance.

What I Learned On My Summer Vacation About Suction Dredge Mining

                                                          "Hurt Not the Earth

                                                            Neither the Sky

                                                            Nor the Trees." Revelation 7:3

Summer is drawing to a close.   I began the summer working on a number of projects, including one that was at the intersection of my passion for fly fishing and my work as an ecologist.

A number of years ago I began noticing the same cars and trucks pulled over near Peshastin/Tronson Creeks on the north side of Blewett Pass here in Washington.  Then one day I saw a man operating a dredge in the Wenatchee River which must have drawn a fair amount of attention because there was an article about this type of gold mining in the Wenatchee World.  I became interested in what was suction dredge mining, what were the impacts on streams and rivers, and who mined.  Later, while fishing, I encountered a miner and saw, after he left, a plume of sediment flowing downstream.

Gold miners use gas powered suction dredges (see picture above) to vacuum up large amounts of gravel and sediment off the bottom of stream beds.  This type of mining has recently been the subject of a moratorium in California, more severe restrictions in Oregon, a serious change in regulations in Idaho.  Yet, in Washington, the miners are able to dredge during work windows without obtaining a permit and paying no licensing fee to the state.  And, if they want to dredge outside the work windows, they apply, again fee free, for a permit which are routinely granted.

During some chatter over mining claims on the Clearwater River in Idaho, I began a conversation with several other fly fishermen about this form of mining.  Together, we did a lot of research, read all the literature on the impacts of suction dredge mining to aquatic and riparian habitat, we became familiar with the rules, and what other states allowed.

Then we created a dog and pony show, trying to engage established fish or environmental organizations to seek more restrictions to this form of mining.

See, Washington state is defined by our iconic fish species that are near extinction.  The magnificent Chinook salmon, the mythical steelhead, the large Bull trout.  All, and more, are listed as either endangered or threatened.  Irrigators have had to change how, when, and why they withdraw water from streams.  State officials are not allowed to willy-nilly release hatchery fish.  Hydroelectric dams are required to discharge more water during peak spawning times.  Cities and counties are required to write and enforce strong development codes preventing and mitigating building on flood plains and critical salmon habitat.  The State is requiring extensive changes to how we deal with storm water runoff, requiring developers and landowners to take responsibility for rain water mixed with toxics so the mix does not enter our rivers, streams, and salt water.  Taxpayers contribute billions of dollars in restoration projects.  We are about to invest billions more on removing old culverts and replacing them with fish friendly passages under our roads.  Forest owners and loggers have altered time honored methods of logging in order to protect streams.  Fishermen and women are no longer allowed to fish in many Washington streams and rivers because any catch will harm the attempts at brining our fish back to our waters.

This is the definition of "shared sacrifice."  From alfalfa growers to public utilities to taxpayers and ratepayers, to fishermen and fish managers, we are all giving up something in order to someday, hopefully, see salmon and steelhead run through Puget Sound and up the mighty Columbia, all the way to pristine headwaters in the Cascades.

But folks involved in these sometimes way too long battles to help fish didn't want to take on the suction dredge issue.  Either it wasn't glamorous enough, or, they said: "we don't need the grief from the mining community."

We decided to go alone.  We met with our own legislators, got some interest, and then watched exactly what folks warned us about.  The mining backlash.

By many estimates, there are around 2,000 active miners in Washington.  Mining in this state is done on mining claims, most are owned by a number of mining clubs.  The miners then join a club (even Boeing has a mining club) and pay a "fee" to mine a certain site for a period of time.  Most of the productive placer mining sites are in areas where there have been historic gold mines: Blewett Pass, Stimilkameen, Hart's Pass in the Methow watershed, the North Cascades.  The streams that run these areas are also prime steelhead, Bull trout, and salmon habitat.

It appears the mining community are quite sophisticated in Internet research skills.  The instantly saw the legislation, found our Facebook page, and began carpet bombing our site.  It was, frankly, scary to watch and sad to read their postings.  Clearly they felt threatened by what our legislator was proposing, which was no suction dredge mining in streams and their tributaries that are listed as critical habitat by the federal wildlife agencies, and to obtain a license, the miners had to pay a fee.

Unfortunately we reacted in a way that I knew wasn't good.  Name calling, mud slinging, moral outrage.  A chasm developed where we were convinced we wore the white hats and the miners were evil.  I knew better.  But it seemed that some folks relished the fight and often sought to pick one, talking about "sticking it to the miners," and calling the miners "awful evil people."

During all of this I had lunch with an old friend.  As I described this scene, she wisely said: "it seems to me the miners are not bad people, they are just doing something you don't happen to like."

The "fights" devolved into the usual acrimonious and mud-slinging ways.  To the miners, our science was stupid and clearly prejudiced by our "tree hugging ways."  We, they asserted, do more harm to fish than they do.  Even catch and release, they screamed, kill fish.  Then they went on the drum beat that they have never harmed fish, that dredging releases food for the fish, and that we needed to be careful what we wished for because once "they" close streams to suction dredging, they will close them to fishing (which, of course, WDFW already has done that.  Miners can mine on streams that fishermen can not fish on).  The miners also made the "fight" about us.  They posted Photoshopped pictures of some of "our" folks out mining, they posted decades old information about some of us, and they called all of us names our mother's would blanch at hearing.

Our "side" reacted just as predictably.  We considered the miners ignorant, backwards, lawless, and hypocrites.  We had "sound science" on our side while they relied on people who claimed they were scientists but really were miners.

And as the arguments settled into the usual rhetoric and tactics, I realized I was not solving anything.

The issue isn't about individual miners or even the mining community.  They are doing something they enjoy, find fulfillment in, and have invested time and money.  I understand that.  I have also invested dollars and time in my fly fishing.  But in the two decades that I have been fishing in Washington state, I have also seen the places that I used to fish be removed from being open waters to closed waters.  Why?  Because in this state, we're trying to save the last remnants of salmon, steelhead, and Bull trout.  And to do that, we all have to help.

And this is what the discussion should be about: habitat.  It should be about all of us committed to changing our ways, no matter how large or small, in order to give fish in Washington state a chance.  The mining community, like the irrigators, power operators, catch and release fishermen, developers, foresters, and farmers have all said that they have never harmed one fish.  It's the other guy who is hurting the fish.  Maybe that is true.  The reality is, however, that each and everyone of us is harming fish habitat.  Whether it's camping by a river to dredge for weeks at a time, sucking out water for our crops, turning on lights, using lumber to build a home along a river, we all have harmed the habitat our fish need.

No one really knows for "sure" whether reducing water withdrawals, distancing logging from streams, not permitting development near flood plains, or not fishing in critical habitat will help bring salmon, steelhead, or Bull trout back to some levels we once knew.  But if there is a faint hope that these actions will help, a faint hope, then we should do them.

And it's time, it's time for the miners to join in the shared sacrifice so that someday those miners can be out in their beloved streams, panning for gold and be able to show their children a steelhead.  Because to be able to tell someone the magical story of a fish that swims from high in the Cascades to hundreds of miles to the Pacific and back, is telling magic.  Just as it's magic to find a gold nugget in their pan, the story of the steelhead is magic.  The steelhead story is the story about us: endurance, fortitude, resilience, longing, belonging.

So what did I learn on my summer vacation?  That slinging and catching mud in the name of conservation isn't accomplishing anything except keeping people angry.  That really, the issue isn't about people, about our so-called rights or concerns.  It's not about who is good and evil.  It's not about big government versus liberty.  It's not about 19th century mining laws or 20th century environmental regulation.  It's not about rights.

It's about all of us trying to do the right thing, now, even if it only helps a little.  Because every little thing we can do to create a habitat that these magnificent fish seek, helps.  And that is something we all can believe in.

Fishing for Salmon and Steelhead is Not a Right

Today, the Republican Senate Chair of the Washington State Senate Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on the lawsuit and settlement on the ongoing operation of Chambers Creek Hatchery in Puget Sound.  Essentially, Wild Fish Conservancy sued Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife because they were operating the hatchery without the proper permits and vetting from the federal wildlife agencies.  Since Puget Sound Steelhead are listed under the Endangered Species Act, the federal wildlife agencies (in this case NOAA/National Mariner Fisheries Service) is required to examine and permit hatchery, or non-native fish operations.

 Here is a link that discusses the litigation.

And since nothing is easy in fish politics, particularly in Washington state, this settlement set off a firestorm.

From tribes who use hatcheries to supplement their harvest to charter boat captains to so-called angling groups, the fireball of anger toward Wild Fish Conservancy and those who support wild steelhead, was enormous.

At the hearing, there were invited panelists, almost all who were angry at the settlement.  There were the usual professions of "oh, I believe in wild steelhead, but..." and the rest of the sentence was something to the effect..."I have an economic right to catch steelhead and hatchery fish are the only fish I can catch and keep."

Now I usually side and am sympathetic with economic loss in the face of environmental regulation.  But in this case, no one has a right to make a living off of furthering endangering an iconic fish that is struggling.  No one.

In the Pacific Northwest thousands of men and women lost their jobs, their livelihoods, because of the battles over the Northern spotted owl.  They lost their ability to be outside, in the woods they loved.  And now our streams and rivers are cleaner, our salt water is better, because logging practices, implemented during those hard times, are far better for wildlife.  Those changes were a shared sacrifice.  Taxpayers footed the bills for re-training of the forestry community, for restoration of the forests, and for research into better methods of logging.

We are currently spending billions of taxpayer dollars for salmon and steelhead restoration.  It seems to me a large number of taxpayers are subsidizing a small outdoor recreation opportunity.  Or to paraphrase Winston Churchill,  never in the length of natural resource management has so few owed their livelihoods to so many gullible taxpayers.

It's time to stop the hatchery programs and let nature see if it can restore our wild salmon and steelhead.  Think of all the money taxpayers will save.

Guns Kill

Seattle is in the process of either exploding or imploding.  Over the span of 6 days, we have had 6 homicides and countless shootings, including someone shot in the leg while attending the Folk Life Festival (usually attending by aging hippies rather than gun toting types).  Today, three people (and maybe more) were gunned down at a coffee shop near the University of Washington and one more was gunned down at a parking lot near the hospital area of Seattle (known as Pill Hill to us locals).  The last victim, a woman, may have been trying to stop her Mercedes from being stolen, or may have resisted a car jacking, although we don't know the facts.

The first murder, on Thursday, is heartbreaking.  Justin Ferrari, a man who used to swim at the same pool I slog through my daily laps, was running an errand with his parents and two children.  He stopped at a stop light and was shot, apparently "in the way" of an argument.

So, here I go again.  The NRA likes to say that guns don't kill, people do.  In part, that is true.  Except, people use guns to kill.  And while I agree that outlawing guns is not going to solve this problem (plus, I have a soft spot for hunters), it seems we are again in need of a collective discussion about how our society uses guns.

I fly fish.  I roam the woods.  And frankly, I am less scared of the cougars, bears, and other varmints out there, than I am of all the other fly fishermen who carry hand guns.  I am amazed at how many people feel the need to pack a gun.  It's stunning to me.  So that, without even pausing to talk, some anal fly fisherman who resents my labs, could whip out his handgun, kill the dogs and more than likely kill me.

Overlay this prevalence of guns with a city that seems incapable of managing the most basic services, rather focusing on issues that keep vocal constituencies happy, and we have created a mess.

Tragic, unnecessary, horrific deaths and injuries.  Guns kill.  Guns kill.

Forget Facebook, Here is Someone Who Made Something Useful

Eugene Polley died recently.  Here is his obit

He invented the wireless remote.

He is one of my heroes.  I can watch multiple sporting events, switch around during the news, or even turn off the TV from my couch.

And the wireless remote isn't a fad, it isn't ephemeral, it doesn't have a shelf life of nanoseconds in order to make some dot.com kid rich.

Like Boeing, Ford, MacArthur, Hewlitt, Packard...Polley gave us a legacy that continues to be useful.

Rest in peace.

In Which Professional Sports Fanatics Expose Themselves As Drug Addicts

We haven't posted in a long time but events over the past few months regarding Seattle's attempts at bringing back an NBA team (as well as NHL) brought us back to the keyboard.  Here is a brief synopsis: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/05/public-arena-investment-capped-at-120-million-until-hockey-arrives-in-seattle/

First, my disclaimer.  I am a sports nut.  Last night while eating dinner I watched the Golf Channel play a re-run of Payne Stewart's US Open win in 1998.  I watch horse racing, hockey, softball, baseball, lacrosse (which, by the way, I still don't understand), football, basketball...but I am also very very leery of the economic model called professional sports.  It's almost as bad as the economic model banks ran on during the last decade: "make the money and run, and if you're not making money, hold someone hostage until you do."

Seattle had an NBA team until this city decided it was no longer going to be held hostage.  A mere 7 years after we spent a lot of money and sold bonds (which we are still paying off, by the way) renovating what is known as Key Arena (a legacy arena from the 1962 World's Fair) with luxury boxes for the rich and smaller seats for the rest of the public, the team ownership, a bunch of oil drenched cowboys from Oklahoma, lit out of town after paying a minimal sum for breaking the lease.  It was far too easy.

Now, a rich hedge fund guy with the "cool hip man" 48 hour no shave look waltzes into town after quietly buying up light industrial land south of downtown.  He schmoozes an unpopular mayor who sees redemption if he can land a sports team.  And of course there is a problem.  The rich hedge fund guy doesn't have enough cash to build the stadium on his own (and by the way, refuses to say who are his co-investors), so he needs the city and county bonding authority.

Listen up all you rabid sports fans in Seattle.  When you keep saying this isn't going to cost the taxpayers anything...like your credit card, public entities have a credit limit.  They can only issue so many bonds at prime interest rates (in other words, not have to pay a lot of interest).  Once that limit is hit, they have to spend a lot more money to get money.  So, in issuing $200 MILLION in bonds, that means $200 MILLION that isn't going to be used for repairing bridges, building sewers, updating transit infrastructure.  Oh, those projects may get done, it will just cost us a lot more money.

Second, all you rabid sports fans keep saying that taxpayers will not ever have to pay a bloody red cent because the bonds will be paid back with revenues from the arena.  Let me stop laughing at that one.  Over the mountains there is a town called Wenatchee who was lured by a song-and-dance man to build an arena.  They were told they would not pay a bloody red cent because revenues would cover the bonds.  Guess what?????  Here, apparently Mystery Hedge Fund Man is saying he will cover the bond payments if revenues fall short.  Of course, if revenues fall short that means he isn't making money either.  Get it?

Third, remember the professional sports model.  It isn't that the teams aren't good, or the salaries blown way out of proportion, or expenses way too high.  No, the reason they don't make money, we're told, is because there are not enough "state of the art" stuff in the facility so we have to keep re-doing the stadiums and arenas (talk about environmentally unsound).  So, mark my words, in a few short years, this state of the art arena will be a relic and Mystery Hedge Fund Man will threaten to take the team to, oh, I dunno, Wenatchee.

I heard they have an empty arena.

Dialogue

We haven't written in awhile, but feel it's appropriate to begin today, three days after the brutal killings and assaults in Tucson, Arizona.  As the link in the caption alludes, there is now much discussion and loud debate (only in America can we have loud debates about loud political debates) over the climate of our political culture.  Almost immediately after it was reported that a moderate Democratic Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, was the target of the shooting (and indeed was brutally shot in the left side of her head), the TV, radio, and internet content providers instantly went to their respective "airwaves" and began alleging that the murders and assaults were the result of violent language in today's political climate.  One "target" of the commentator's rage is Sarah Palin, who last summer posted a map of America with various Congressional districts covered in "crosshairs," urging her followers to "target" those districts and vote out the incumbent Congressional representative, replacing them with more conservative followers of Palin.  Giffords was one of those districts.

However, it is not a straight line from violent political discourse to a deranged gunman shooting at a Congresswoman and killing a federal judge.  While it appears Congresswoman Giffords was the target of the shooting, there are many other variables to the motive of this crime, including the possibility the young man was insane.  Nonetheless, this crime is a vivid reminder of theories of criminal behavior that we have forgotten in this "lock 'em up and throw away the key" era: society has a huge role to play in crime.  How we shape our children, address mental health issues, regulate instruments of violence (guns), poverty, education, greed and wealth.  Whether it's an Enron executive inflating stock value or this young man who shot at a crowd of people on a Saturday morning, our society shaped and informed those acts.

Unfortunately, ideology and violence are a potent mix.  The reason the picture with this blog is of a Northern spotted owl is because it is merely one example of violence and ideology.  In the 1990s the Pacific Northwest was split apart by widely divided sides on how our federal and state forests were managed.  The Northern spotted owl was listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and violence broke out in the woods, federal offices, and in state legislatures.  A colleague of mine had an owl nailed to his door.  So-called eco-saboteurs reigned terror upon federal offices, logging companies, and even a research facility at the University of Washington.  These same "eco-saboteurs" later testified that they had large caches of automatic weapons and had trained on how to kill corporate executives.  Loggers revved up chainsaws, threatening to cut down trees which held tree-sitters (and in Humboldt County, California, a tree was felled with a tree sitter in it).  These are violent acts in the name of "righteousness" and ideology.

Those of us who sought dialogue were laughed at for not being "pure."  Even attempts by President Clinton to find compromise, where portions of forests could be sustainably harvested and other areas protected, was ripped and tattered by the vastly opposing sides.

Until, until we are ready as a society to reflect on our own, individual reactions to ideologies we don't agree with, we will not find "reasoned" discourse.  While it does take a village to raise children, to change how we talk about heated issues will take each of us to quiet down.  Then to turn to the person next to us, summon courage, and ask them to quiet down.  To tell that person you will listen, but only if they talk, not yell or threaten.  Perhaps this will never happen.   And more deranged people like the Tucson shooter, or the Unabomber, or Peter Young (an animal "rights" advocate who encourages violence), or the man who murdered the abortion doctor in Kansas, will continue to feed off of our collective anger.  It's up to each of us, individually right now to not point fingers at anyone else but ourselves if we want this cacophony of anger to stop.

Drill Here, Drill Now

During the 2008 presidential campaign, environmentalists mocked Sarah Pallin's simplistic slogans of "drill here, drill now."  But, today, President Obama is going to announce a breathtaking proposal to open up vast areas of coastal waters, including in the Arctic, for oil and gas drilling.

I suspect many environmentalists did not hear President Obama during the campaign talk about the "necessity" of opening new areas for drilling nor his endorsement of nuclear power.  The next issue, highly complex one, will be when the US Forest Service begins opening up federally managed forests for the harvesting of woody biomass as a source of biofuels.

Drill here, cut there....

China Rising, II

Yesterday, it was announced that Geely, a Chinese auto company bought Volvo, formerly owned by Ford (a little known fact to all the Volvo drivers who thought it was a company from Sweden, which it once was).  Geely's major financier?  Goldman Sachs.  And Goldman Sachs  is funding this deal.

Great article here about why American taxpayers may end up holding the bag, again, with these "too big to fail" banks.

Alan Greenspan Strikes Again!

Apparently Alan Greenspan, the consummate Washington, DC insider, is going to deliver a paper at the Brookings Institute tomorrow.  And he will "admit" that the Fed, under his tenure as chairman, did not predict the severity of the housing "bubble" and subsequent crash.  Ya' think?

But the most disturbing part of his talk is that he refuses to believe that regulatory efforts can at least mitigate these kinds of debacles.  In fact, in his usual "magical" language, he talks about how "central controls" will ruin capitalism.  And that we can not do anything to prevent bubbles, merely analyze them in their aftermaths.

I suppose the millions of people who lost their homes due to foreclosures or are underwater in their loan to equity ratios will be consoled with his thoughts.

Can a Mansion Be Green? Come on...

A particular peeve of mine has been what is now being called "greenwashing."  When some developer manages to spend a lot of money to amp up the thermal values of windows, install the oh-so perfect heating system, maybe even slap a rain barrel on the gutters, and obtain LEED certification.  How can two people living in 10,000 square feet even think it's "green?"

Finally, some folks in Berkeley are calling it what it is: greenwashing.

The Incongruence of Federal Farm Policies

On one hand we have Michelle Obama, the First Lady, opening local farmer's markets near the White House, exhorting kids and parents to eat better, and even growing her own food on the White House lawn.

On the other hand, an important and vital forum about anti-trust issues in Corporate Agriculture, and until yesterday, not one "local" farmer had been invited to the discussions.

Not a good sign.

And Reason This Became Criminal Is....?

Will someone please explain why this is criminal?  I get all the airport security rigamarole, but really, to give this young man a criminal record because he wanted to kiss his girlfriend?  What is wrong with this picture?

The Complications of Being a Conservationist

Today's ruling from USFWS demonstrates the complications of being a conservationist. Long sought by many environmentalists, a ruling to place the Sage Grouse on the endangered species list would thwart many wind farms and other alternative energy projects in the basin regions of eastern Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming. Of course, it would also make it very difficult for natural gas exploration.

So the current administration chose a middle ground, announcing they were concerned about the viability of this amazing upland bird, but could not, at this time, place it on the list.

Every single environmental/conservative decision has enormous consequences. We'll probably soon know whether the rejection of the application sends this bird into extinction. On the other hand, by listing it as a candidate species, perhaps, just perhaps, all the efforts by conservation groups, private landowners, and governments may just work.

It's complicated, right?

Understanding Regulation

Every day there are stories about how regulation prevents a good guy from fulfilling his passion. In this story, it's about someone who wanted to start a small farm in an area of King County, Washington which used to be filled with small farms (ah, I remember many a summer picking strawberries out in Carnation) but which is now filled with Microsoft mega-estates. Yep, there is open space, that is, unbuilt lawns for the large, gated estates.

What we don't really understand in our society is often regulation is meant to protect special interests. For instance, during the Northern spotted owl debates in the Pacific Northwest, large multi-national timber companies encouraged enforcement of the Endangered Species Act because they knew it would eliminate competition from smaller, more nimble logging companies. And indeed, the big companies survived, the small ones went bankrupt. But the cleverness of this "campaign" was the small logging companies thought it was the forest activists that wanted them out of business, not their so-called colleagues in the big timber companies!

And this story about the farm is another example. Surely the hip Microsoft millionaires shop in chic markets exclaiming local foods. But they just don't want the smell of manure next door to their "LEED Certified" houses behind gates. So they regulate farms away from their fancy homes....

Underwater Homes Part 2

Great piece in the Wall Street Journal about walking away from homes with no equity.

I still think we have a long long way to go in this real estate debacle.

The Myth of Green Jobs

Great piece on the myth of green jobs here.

The one thing the author did not mention is that many of the manufacturing jobs for the green technologies, such as wind turbines, smart meters, electric cars, will all be overseas jobs. And while the United States may, may have the R & D jobs, those will be miniscule compared to the potential manufacturing.

The wild herd running toward green jobs might want to think a little before leaping off the cliff. Certainly the number of jobs created will not replace those eliminated, much less make up for the huge and vast unemployment we currently have.

Money Under A Mattress

And why is it we need banks?

Tiger

Gotta' post about this. And the only thing I have to say is: "will we ever have a week without an apology?

Great analysis of Tiger's moment here.

And thank you Jenny Sanford for setting the standard that wives do not have to be humiliated during this ordeal. Stay away!

Real World

With all the hype on all sides of the political spectrum about stimulus and jobs, here is a short piece from a mid-size business owner (who actually manufactures something...) on why his business is not ready to hire, yet.

I think it's going to be awhile before those unemployment numbers start to decline. And remember, we are adding more people to the work force than jobs we are creating.