The Skagit River is not Moving to LA!

Posted on by
Reply

To all of my Skagit friends: I have it on good authority that Skagit River water will stay in Skagit county. . 

To everyone else: This may sound bizarre, but ten or more years ago, one of the rumors circulating around Skagit county was that Angelinos were plotting to take the water of the Skagit River to feed the swimming pools of southern California. At that time, the county had put restrictions on new wells in rural parts of the county, tribes were pressuring the state and the county to deal with pollution and culverts that were hindering salmon recovery efforts, and the topic of water was seeping into every conversation.

Then we moved, and I didn’t hear much more about the efforts to take water south to LA. Until today. It’s remarkable how a topic can sit untouched in my brain for a decade or more, then come roaring back to the surface in a second, but that’s just what happened. I was listening to a deluge of information about tribal business ventures, all of which was new to me. And then the speaker began discussing his talks with people about new-fangled tunnel boring machinery. One potential use for this better, cheaper machinery might be to move water long distances from where it is abundant to where it is scarce, such as from the rainy northwest to ever-thirsty southern California. My ears might have doubled in size in that exact moment. Say what?

I raised my hand and asked what the tribes along the Skagit River watershed would think of this idea given their ongoing concerns about water for salmon. The speaker calmly answered that they were not yet enthused, but that Skagit county also had agricultural areas that might get by on less water. Say what? Were people actually talking about taking water from Skagit delta agriculture for this project. Well, maybe not. 

After the program, I got a moment to double check what I’d heard, and the speaker said he didn’t think anyone in Skagit country, either tribes or ag folks had any interest in this project. He added that there are estuaries around the Salish Sea where the mix of fresh water and salt water is changing, and people are looking at ways to reduce the amount of fresh water in some areas. Well, maybe, I thought. Not my wheelhouse. 

So, having calmed down with reassurances that the Skagit watershed will not be feeding swimming pools in LA, I then could take in the potential, not just for transporting water long distances, but perhaps also putting many, many small turbines in these very long tunnels to generate power as the flowing water makes its way from source to destination. That’s intriguing. And, as it turns out, today’s speaker was not fixated on Pacific Northwest water going to California; rather he was thinking about water from parts of northern Canada, where fresh water is a problem, going to the ag areas and population centers in southern Canada or even the US (someday when the US and Canada are friends again). 

This tunneling scheme was just one of many climate friendly projects that tribes are researching as they seek to invest in projects that will benefit their communities and the rest of the world as well. And not all of their business ventures are focused on climate challenges. Many are simply trying to find businesses beyond casinos that could employ tribal members on reservations but also in urban areas. 

Lots of good news was presented, and I welcome that for sure. But I found it a bit ironic that tribes might be the biggest cheerleaders for capitalism today. How rich is that? 

Get Me Out of the Doldrums!

Posted on by
Reply

Waiting, waiting, waiting. Activity occurs, but nothing is resolved. I have this wretched feeling of impending doom, but doom is never finalized. I could be a sailboat near the equator waiting for a wind strong enough to get me out of the doldrums in one direction or the other. Please, can we just move somewhere, anywhere, let’s get this settled. Either the US is finished or we can salvage our Constitution and use it to make some needed changes. 

Our Constitution has been amended and, theoretically, could be amended again. Some simple tweaks are being proposed, and I’m of the opinion that only very simple tweaks could possibly survive the ratification process. One tweak that I support has been proposed by David French. He’s a conservative NYT columnist. He’s also a graduate of Harvard Law and host with Sarah Isgur of the popular “Advisory Opinion” legal podcast sponsored by The Dispatch, a libertarian media organization. Despite my reservations about the NYT, I often learn things by reading and listening to French. 

Please read French’s column here (NYT) or this Daily KOS article here explaining his reasoning for this proposal. Essentially he wants to reinforce the original expectation that Congress should be the pre-eminent brach of government. He suggests replacing the first sentence of Article II in order to accomplish this. “Instead of declaring, ‘The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America,’ it should read, ‘A president of the United States of America shall execute laws passed by Congress.’” There. That’s it. 

No more would a president be able to declare that he “can do anything he wants.” Yes, it’s hard to imagine that any tweak of the Constitution could address the myriad issues of our day, but I have to agree with French that clarifying the supremacy of Congress over the Executive Branch would be a welcome attempt to rebalance things. “No Kings!” No, I don’t love the current Congress, but perhaps if there was more clarity about the importance of their role in the great scheme of things, a few of them might get a spine. 

I think such an amendment could shake things up enough to generate some activity in Congress which is moribund currently. And despite the many attempts to secure a permanent majority, it might some day be possible to elect people willing to think and act – as opposed to just grandstanding – once they get to DC. In any event we wouldn’t have a king. 

Your thoughts?

What is Sacred to You?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent article in the Seattle Times gave me pause. Some survivors and family members of the Minidoka Japanese interment camp in a rural area of Idaho are celebrating the cancellation of a wind power project that would have been visible from the area where the camp had been. It would not have been built on the site, which is a National Historic Landmark. Rather it would have been nine miles away but visible from the site.

I have been to Minidoka. My first attempt to find it resulted in frustration. On a later road trip through southern Idaho, I made more of an effort and finally found the site. The visitor center was closed that day (it is closed most days), but it was possible to wander the area, ponder the history that led to its creation, and think of the lives of the people who had lived there. It is off the beaten path on roads used by local farmers. Little is left of the 640 structures that were hastily built to house the 13,000 Japanese American families who were uprooted and sent there – just one barrack, one mess hall, one root cellar, and a fire station. Today, most of the site is barren land. 

Japanese American opponents of the wind farm, led by the Minidoka Pilgrimage Planning Committee, objected to it because they claim the site is sacred. “Siting wind projects located in the viewshed of sacred land and over the universal objections of our community and local communities is not clean energy.” 

I fixated on the claim that the site is sacred. Mirriam Webster (online) offer these definitions: 2a worthy of religious veneration, and 2b entitled to reverence and respect. I accept that the Minidoka site is entitled to reverence and respect. But I wonder if the term “sacred” need apply to the entire “viewshed.” This project was shut down by Donald Trump via executive order supported by Republican lawmakers who object to all wind power projects, not by people who are concerned about the “viewshed” of a historical landmark considered sacred by some.. 

Am I wrong to worry that concerns about the viewshed of any site that is worthy of reverence and respect could lead to unintended consequences? Are wind farms so offensive to our eyes? I thought so once, but as I’ve traveled across the west, visions of wind farms have failed to diminish my enjoyment of open spaces. And what about the declaration that a part of the earth, our common home, is sacred? Who gets the privilege of making such a claim? Does everyone else have to accept it? This feels like a sticky wicket to me. Am I wrong? 

Absolutely this history is important. I visited the site knowing something about these camps, but it was sobering to see the actual site and read more of the history. I hope many, many people take the time to visit either Minidoka or one of the other sites of these internment camps. 

Yet, I am truly curious to know how this issue strikes the rest of you! Please, take a few minutes to read the Seattle Times article and view the website for Minidoka. Comments, please.

Three Cheers for Two States

Posted on by
Reply

Hoopla abounds regarding declarations from France, England, and Canada about their intents to recognize a Palestinian state “soon.” 

Each country has some qualifications embedded in their statements. Those qualifications differ, but their desire for a two state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is clear. I share a desire for a two state solution, but I would not award the status of statehood to Palestinians anytime “soon.” And I doubt that any Palestinian leader would accept the offers that are on the table. Why would they turn down this opportunity? The countries behind the hoopla assume the continued existence of Israel, and that is simply unacceptable to the most vocal Palestinians. 

Palestinian statehood is not being offered in lieu of Israeli statehood. European countries that recognize or plan to recognize a Palestinian state do not have the intent of terminating the Israeli state. Had any past leaders of Palestinians been willing to accept the continued existence of the state of Israel, they could have had a state long ago, imperfect though it might have been in their eyes. 

Israel did not begin with their conception of perfection. From the time of the 1917 Balfour Declaration on, Jews have known that they would not get as much land as they wanted, nor would they get to choose lands most important to them. Rather, they knew that they would get what others offered them. Meanwhile, Palestinians opposed every proposal that included land for a Jewish state.

Over the past 40 years, many people, myself included, have considered the Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be a major obstacle to achieving a two state solution. “Just Say No” to those settlements, and peace will ensue. I’ve read or listened to legal explanations of why the settlements are legal. I’ve offered links to those arguments for those curious enough to wade through history. But I’ve also thought that it doesn’t matter if the settlements are legal, they still might not be wise. Legal and wise are not synonymous.

This year, stories of “settler violence,” I.e. settler attacks on Palestinians, have been in the news. In one story, settlers even attacked IDF soldiers who were returning from dismantling a bomb making factory in a Palestinian town in the West Bank. That was shocking, not just to me, but to many in Israel. Other incidents of settler violence have appeared in western media. But I don’t trust accounts in most western media regarding anything happening in the middle east. 

Then today, I stumbled across a podcast called “Unpacking Israeli History” that focuses specifically on the issue of settlements and recent stories of settler violence. I’ve listened to other episodes of “Unpacking…” but this is an especially good one. I can’t construct an adequate summary of the whole West Bank settler issue, so I’m suggesting that you find time to listen to it yourself. Especially listen to it if you, like me, have long felt that the settlements are an ongoing impediment to a two state solution. 

The protracted war in Gaza is horrible. But releasing Israeli hostages might go a long way to ending the war, and it’s frustrating to hear all of the Hamas slogans – “From the river to the sea,” “Globalize the Intifada” – etc. and not “Free the hostages!” How did this get so one-sided? And how is it that the press that promotes the Hamas version of events can continue to neglect to mention that the goal of Hamas is the extinction of Israel. Is that detail not important? 

I would like to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians before I die. As I am now in my 80s, and nothing resembling peace is on the horizon, I’m not optimistic. Since October 7, 2023, I’ve been paying a lot more attention to this part of the world. One thing I’ve noticed is that Jews, both  Israelis and those in the diaspora, are open about their disagreements about Israel, whereas Palestinians seem only to speak the party line. It makes a difference if you believe that you put your life in danger by disagreeing with that party line. Jews, on the other hand, are raised to argue over everything. This stark cultural difference is a big factor in my support of information about the war that comes from Israeli sources. I’m confident that if it is not accurate, a truer version will be out shortly. It is shocking to me that so many colleges are scenes of students and faculty uncritically spouting Hamas’ propaganda. Is thinking not allowed on campus anymore?

Well, this rhetoric about a Palestinian state is unlikely to bear fruit, IMHO. But life is full of surprises, though I’m not holding my breath. Meanwhile, here’s a link to the podcast and transcript.

Settler Violence: Hard Truths with Haviv Rettig Gur

Here’s the Thing about Money

Posted on by
1

Recently, some ultra rich people made a public statement that they didn’t need the tax cut recently signed by Trump. They might be in the minority of the ultra rich, but I’m certain their sentiment is absolutely true. There is a point at which the only point of more money is to one-up someone else. Your needs – and indeed, your wants – have been satisfied.

We are not there yet. In fact, every time I relax a bit and think we are OK, something happens to shake my confidence. Here’s some history of our financial life. We got married when we were still in grad school. I had a $200/mo. stipend from a fellowship. He had a $200/mo. check as a RA. We paid $80/mo. rent and ate at a corner bar & grill more often than we should have. We saved enough to make a down payment on a basic VW bus, modified it into a camper, and took off most weekends for somewhere. 

We also saved some money for a trip to Alaska on a state ferry. (People could sleep on the deck in those days.) But suddenly, the beloved bus needed an expensive repair and that was the end of our dream trip to AK. Next, he suffered a TBI (traumatic brain injury) in a bicycle race. Suddenly, our minimalist two income lifestyle was a zero income lifestyle. He couldn’t work, and I couldn’t leave him alone. Things eased up a bit when his boss let him come back to work long before he could do anything useful. I started work mid-August for my first year teaching, not knowing that I wouldn’t get a paycheck until October 1. When September 1 came around with no check, I panicked, but we scraped together enough to survive the month. Together, we agreed we needed to keep some money untouched, and we would never, ever build a budget based on two incomes. 

In 1975, Seattle voted down a school levy and laid off teachers. I survived that layoff because the district opted not to lay off any special ed teachers, of which I was one. I survived future layoffs based on seniority because I now had one year over the layoff threshold. Unfair, but hey. Spouse was self-employed during these years, always making some money, but the amount varied from year to year. By this time, we were building a savings account so that we could survive a few months in event of a new mishap. We realized that we had enough money to make a down payment on a house, which we did. Mortgage payment, taxes and insurance was equal to the rent we had been paying. (Life was different back then.) 

We continued to live as a one-income couple despite our two incomes. We made basic improvements to the house, but nothing fancy, and sold it twelve years later at a handsome profit, which we applied to a duplex where we lived in half and rented the other half. After which, we moved to a boat and sold the duplex at a profit. We did not sell the boat at a profit, but we didn’t lose a lot. And somewhere along the way line, a great aunt died, willed some money to my mom who divided it in half and gave my sister and me each $10,000. That doesn’t sound like a lot today, but we didn’t need it at the time and put it into savings. Later, my mom died, and we inherited another sum, again a modest amount that we didn’t need at the time. We bought a new car for $10,000, two tax deferred annuities, and a handful of blue chip stocks just as the market was starting on a huge upward trend. 

Meanwhile, spouse took a job with a paycheck in lieu of the unpredictability of being self employed. His employer had a 401K plan, so when his plant eventually closed, he had a little pile of money to invest. No. We did not buy Microsoft when it went public. Most of our initial investments paid off before they tanked as the 80s blue chips gave way to the 90s tech boom which gave way to the dot com bubble. We did eventually buy some Microsoft, but after the initial investors had made many millions of dollars. We bought Apple at it’s peak in the ‘90s and watched its value plummet on rumors of impending bankruptcy. But Bill Gates bailed out Steve Jobs, and we didn’t sell at the bottom, and now it’s worth a lot more than we paid for it despite its uncertain future re: China.. We lost money in the dot com bust, but came out with enough to keep us afloat.

I’ve read lots of advice about saving for retirement, about renting vs owning, about the 4% rule (theoretically, you can use 4% of your total pile of money each year and you’ll never run out of money). But right now the present is chaotic, the future so unpredictable, that who knows if we’ll be OK until we die. We don’t have long term care insurance. Many friends do, but I just don’t trust insurance companies. Yes, some have benefitted, and it’s a bit risky to be self-insured for what could be massive expenses in the future. We will either be OK or we won’t. Spouse’s opinion is that if we run out of money, the whole world will be a shambles, so we’ll have lots of company. Occasionally, he’s right.

In any event, we got a call last Thursday from the real estate agent who has the listing for the house we want to sell. I really like the house, but we might be the only people who do. It’s been on the market a month, some lookers, right price, but people always have some nit-picky issue with it. The reason for her call was that another agent was showing the house and saw that a toilet was leaking. Water damage. If there are any two words you never want to hear about your house, it’s “water damage.” 

We were already on our way there to pull some weeds, so when we arrived, she explained it all to us. Our handyman is on vacation, so we had to call a real plumber. Simple fix, and $275 later the new part had restored the toilet back to normal. Then I had to call a company that deals with water damage. Good news, they were able to start work on Friday afternoon. The first part, ripping out the damaged bits, will take a few days and a few thousand dollars. The last part will take a few more days and a few thousand more dollars. The house will be “temporarily unlisted” for about two weeks (we hope not more), and will forever be tainted as I suspect word will get around about “water damage.” 

Meanwhile, spouse continues to make coffee in the morning. Also sometimes in the evening as he can’t tell 7:30 a.m. from 7:30 p.m., especially at this time of year. He also takes care of our garbage and our recycles and asks me many times a day what day is it. I still love bumming around with him. So that’s good. 

Well, back to the point about money. It’s great to have some, I’m glad we do, I hope it lasts, and I just wish the damn toilet hadn’t leaked.