DSHS--more bureaucratic idiocy in the name of "protecting children"

Here's a link to a Court of Appeals' decision here involving DSHS's ongoing attempt to deny a foster care license to a previously-licensed Eastern Washington couple, Joshua and Janet Ruland.

So what, exactly, was the horrible crime this couple committed to be denied an opportunity to continue as foster parents for needy children? What heinous acts were devised and carried out by this well-meaning couple against vulnerable kids? What depraved indifference and incredible idiocy did these people demonstrate that the state felt compelled to act to keep them away from children?

Answer: Nothing.

The Rulands had been caring for a two-year old boy and his one-month old sister. On one occasion, Janet left the baby girl napping on the floor of their home and went outside and mowed the lawn. When she came back inside a few minutes later, the infant's toddler brother had bitten her on her head and scratched her face a bit. The Rulands took the baby right away to the emergency room where her wounds were determined to be "superficial." Then the Rulands, following foster parent rules, reported the incident to DSHS.

DSHS determined that the Rulands were "negligent." Some time later, the Rulands moved into a new home, and per DSHS rules, because of the move they re-applied for licensure as foster parents. DSHS denied them license renewal.

The Rulands appealed, but for some reason their appeal was filed one day late. On the basis of this one day late filing, and on the one incident, DSHS again denied the Rulands their license.

I know that DSHS workers have a really tough job, and that nobody wants to make a mistake where a kid ends up abused, neglected, or dead. But adversarial actions like these actually hurts the kids who the state is supposed to be helping, and it prevents well-meaning people who want to help those kids from doing so.

Parents and caregivers make mistakes and errors raising children, but it doesn't follow that every mistake or every error rises to the level of "neglience" or "abuse." It was a mistake for these foster parents to leave the toddler alone and unsupervised for a few minutes with his infant sister, but it's not something that should prevent these good-hearted people from being foster parents.

Biological parents make the mistake of leaving toddlers alone and unsupervised with infant siblings all the time. There simply isn't any parent in the world who hasn't had to deal with similar toddler-on-baby bouts of jealousy, rage, harassment, nit-picking, acting out, aggression and fights between siblings. That a toddler boy would bite his infant sister when given an opening to do so isn't unusual, or unexpected. In fact it's normal, and not realistically preventable.

When such an incident does occur, however, the parents need to act to evaluate any injury, treat it quickly and appropriately, and then take steps to socialize and discipline the aggressive child in an age-appropriate manner. This is exactly what the Rulands did. And what did DSHS do? Accuse them of neglect and move to prevent them from ever being foster parents ever again.

Ridiculous.

I wish the Rulands the best in their continuing court battle to restore their right to be foster parents. We need more people just like them.

An Instant Classic

Green Plug--Pond Scum Power!

Here's a link to a Popular Mechanics article about the amazing potential for producing high-quality biofuels from algae.

Pond scum power plants are largely self-contained and highly space-efficient. They can be constructed almost anywhere. They are safe and clean. Plus using algae instead of corn, soybean or palms means that more lands won't be cleared for industrial production, and existing food crops won't be diverted for fuel.

All power to the pond scum!

Why Women Should Vote

This is a copy/paste of a recent e-mail I received:

WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE!

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie "Iron Jawed Angels." It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.

All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. "One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie," she said. "What would those women think of the way I use--or don't use--my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn." The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her "all over again."

This is the story of our Grandmothers, and Great-grandmothers, as they lived only 90 years ago. It was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.

The women were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic."

They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote.

For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms. When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some won won't vote this year because-- why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Hey You! Volunteer for the Presidental Election!

There's going to be a HUGE crush of voters and votes cast in the upcoming presidential election. Your county election board is going to need an equally large number of volunteers to make sure that the election runs smoothly, that every voter who wants to vote can vote, and that every vote that is cast counts.

We need progressives who care about maintaining the integrity of our electoral system to volunteer NOW to work the presidential election. The earlier you sign up to volunteer, the more likely it is that you will be assigned to "plum" jobs of higher responsibility so that electorial integrity is maintained.

I volunteered for this past primary. It was an interesting, eye-opening, and highly rewarding experience, plus I got to meet and greet my heretofore unknown neighbors.

Progressives--please volunteer for this. We need more good people watchdogging the process.

May 08 Wash State Bar Atty Discipline

Here's a link to the latest Washington State Bar attorney disciplines. It's almost as good as reading your local police blotter.

Getting It Right--Remembering the History

In the last month or so I've been reading and contemplating essays and posts written by Very Important People who are Very Serious, Highly Influential and Highly Respected about how they got "it" (the Iraq Invasion and Occupation) wrong. I'm not going to bother with providing links here to these Very Important Thoughts penned by these Very Important People. Most of their writings can be boiled down to these nutshells:

1. I was misled and lied to, and didn't and couldn't know better.
2. I had an emotional reaction to anti-war "hippies."
3. I wasn't really for it, but felt I had to go along once it seemed inevitable.

I've been wondering how come it is that these people, with their advanced college degrees and their professional pedigrees and their network of connections and their ready-made public platforms could have been so gullible and so stupid, and how come lil' ol' nobody me--with no pedigree and no advanced education--got "it" entirely right? How come I knew that the US invading Iraq was wrong, wrong, wrong and that this was a horrible, terrible mistake?

How come? Well, for starters, I have a healthy skepticism of anybody who wants war. I also distrusted Bush and Cheney from the get-go. I also regularly read non-US media. As a rule, I am open to receiving information and evaluating opinions from all sources, and I don't have unexamined emotional knee-jerk discounting reactions towards differing opinions.

But I think the main reason that I got it right was that I hadn't forgotten the past.

I remembered, quite well, the grossly exaggerated claims of Iraq military and weapons super-strength (including claims of chem, nuke and bio weapons) made in the first Iraq invasion (Gulf War I) back in 1991, which were eerily similar to those being made in the run-up to this occupation. I remembered and was aware of the regular bombardment of certain areas of Iraq that had been ongoing since 1991, as well as the terrible impacts of the embargo. I remembered the reports of how the CIA and US military has had Iraq under constant surveillance and close scrutiny since 1991.

I remembered how, back in 1991, the US media reported noxious propaganda as fact (the cold-blooded murders of Kuwati babies in incubators being a particularly odious false claim.) I learned back then that Iraq was a secular, socialist dictatorship, and that Iraqi women under Saddam had rights near-equal to women in Western industrial countries.

I also learned that Iraq had a significant population of Christians. I learned about how Saddam Hussein came to power backed by our CIA. I learned about the long-standing history and frictions between ethnic and religious groups in Iraq--the Shiites, Sunnis and the Kurds, and that people in Iraq were possessed of the full spectrum of political leanings. I learned about the Kurdish separatist rebels who wanted to secede from Iraq, Iran and Turkey to form their own country, and who had engaged in repeated terrorist acts in these three countries and who had also fought a civil war inside Iraq--which led to military repression of the uprising and included the use of mustard gas by Saddam Hussein on a Kurdish civilian population (all with US blessings) because these people were supporting the rebels.
This incident became the well-known rally slogan for the Gulf War--"He kills his own people!" (which slogan was also successfully re-used as a pre-invasion rally cry). (Side note--I've always felt this was an ironic slogan, given that the Kurds themselves don't, and never have, considered themselves as "his" or Iraq's people.)

And I remembered how Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and Schwartzkopf and Gingrich and the lot of the Republicans claimed that a military occupation of Iraq by the US would be far too difficult and wouldn't ever work. And I remembered how the US leaders told the Kurds that if they rose up to overthrown Saddam Hussein that the US would support them--but instead the US abandonded them and allowed the Republican Guard to murder them instead.

So I remembered my history. And I was right for that simple fact. I remembered, and because I remembered I didn't believe one freaking claim my leaders made. None of it was sensical to anybody who recalled what had transpired not long ago.

Blaming 9-11 on Saddam Hussein didn't ever make one bit of sense. Claiming on the one hand that Saddam Hussein was a madman (and warmongers always personalize a country full of people as a demonic incarnation) who had terrible weapons and wouldn't hesitate to use them was the same exact claim previously made that was also completely false. Claiming that an invasion and occupation would be a cakewalk was patently silly. Claiming that gas would be plentiful and cheap for all was obviously false. All of it, all of the endlessly repeated claims and all of the justifications were just propaganda designed to lead a bunch of fearful sheeple here in the US into supporting a never-ending occupation to directly control Middle East oil.

What kills me in reading the essays by these Very Serious and Very Important People who were totally wrong is that none of them seemed to recall or have taken into consideration what happened before 9-11. Their flawed analyses personify and have unconsciously incorporated the media and government propaganda concepts of a pre versus post 9-11 world. This is why they really were all so wrong, because for them, history is quickly forgotten. The history meant nothing. For them, anything that happened before 9-11 was irrelevant and meaningless.

For me--the history meant everything. That's why I got it right.

"Ten Commandments Weekend" for US?

Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Brownback have proposed Sen. Resolution 483 to establish the first weekend of May 2008 as "Ten Commandments Weekend"

Assholes. Here we go again.

This type of dog-whistle "resolution" is nothing more than cheap political pandering by Republicans (and yes, Lieberman is a Republican by his votes, positions and conduct--despite his nominal label as "independent") designed to trigger highly-predictable Pavlovian support by adamant Christianists and an equally predictable outcry by all others, which only serves to reinforce Christianists' false beliefs:

1) That the United States and its citizens are spiritually and morally bankrupt and that government promotion of Christianity is the most important step necessary to overcoming same;

2) That Republicans care about and will protect and promote their religion beliefs;

3) That this resolution and others like it are code for an implied promise that more direct and forceful actions by Republicans to "put God back in the public square" are sure to come if Republicans could only have more political power;

3) That their religion is under attack and that they are being persecuted and victimized by level-headed, rational secularists and others who object to religious pandering by elected officials on the grounds that it is a waste of time, effort and resources, is exclusive of other faiths and beliefs, and is against the clear and express foundational principles of our governmental system.

Damn Good Questions--Fed Bailout

Athenae at Firstdraft.com has written an amazingly powerful essay entitled "It's A Small Crime" reflecting on our passive acceptance and lack of outrage about massive federal bailouts for uber-wealthy corporate types versus the nasty judgments we reserve for poorer Americans.

Excerpts:

. . .

Let me ask a couple of questions here. Does Bear Stearns have a big screen TV? What about bling? Any bling they could sell?

. . .

Let me ask those questions, those questions we ask of every beneficiary of the smallest drop of government assistance. Let me ask why this is the ONLY scenario in which our parsimonious bullshit about personal responsibility, about choices and consequences, about "survival of the fittest" and other forms of sicko math, need not fucking apply.

. . .

Let me ask how on earth we can take all the time it takes to think up all the ways we think up to sit in judgement on every individual case we hear about, about how that person just didn't work harder, didn't suffer enough, didn't earn "our" money, didn't deserve "our" charity, didn't bleed in front of us enough, and all the while, all the fucking while, we give it away by the millions and never ask where it goes. All the while.

. . .

I think we should ask with the same nasty assumptions at the back of our throats, the same willingness to believe that somebody else is running a scam on us to get a fat government check, the same nasty, mean, small little pinchingness we use toward individual human beings. I think we should ask those questions. . . .

Seattle Native to Succeed Fallon or Petraeus?

PI reporter Mike Barber interviewed Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli about his background and upbringing, his career within the military and the Department of Defense and his military philosopy.

He is apparently being considered by some as a successor to either Fallon or Petraeus.

Chiarelli grew up in the Magnolia neighborhood of Seattle and attended local colleges, earning a Masters from the UW. Chiarelli is currently an advisor to Def. Sec. Robert Gates. He served two tours of duty in NATO under Gen. Wesley Clarke. He has served two tours of duty in Iraq.

Chiarelli counts both Gen. Clarke and Gen. Eric Shinseki as his close mentors, and in Iraq he had a central role in the inquiry into the Marine massacre of civilians at Haiditha.

From the article:

An experienced teacher and writer, Chiarelli co-authored two papers in recent years that are considered influential in helping to change Iraq strategy from its beginnings under Rumsfeld to the counterinsurgency focus favored by Gates and carried out by Petraeus.

One paper emphasizes the need to balance providing security in Iraq with winning the peace by supplying basic needs, including clean water, electricity, plumbing and sanitation. Another discusses the dangers of military and civilian leaders being too optimistic about "essentially unpredictable" military operations.

Victory in this war, he says, won't look like victory in other wars.

Based on the interview piece, Chiarelli comes across as a reasonable, temperate and thoughtful man. But not having read his papers, I do wonder what exactly he thinks a "victory" will look like.

And why exactly do we have to keep pretending that any military "victory" or "win" is even remotely possible or necessary in Iraq anyway? My government wrongly invaded Iraq under demonstrably false pretenses. We've pitted ethnic and religious groups against each other, installed a non-functioning puppet government, wrecked the infrastructre, imposed martial law and took over the press, destroyed the economy, pillaged its resources, and imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered its people.

Isn't that enough of a "victory"?

An Excellent Test

It also proves the point that eyewitness ID isn't always that great or reliable.

Idiots at Reuters--Shark De-Finning Case (Updated)

Well it looks like I broke the story about the god-awful 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the industrial shark de-finning case before the mainstream media did.

So today Reuters reported the decision correctly, but some idiot got the headline totally ass-backwards. The headline reads: In U.S. court fight, the shark fins win

No, the shark fins did not "win" anything. The sharks lost. The US government lost. The American people lost. The industrial de-finners who have figured out a way to skirt our species protection laws won--at least for now.

The subtext of humor in the "tone" of the headline pisses me off too. Wholesale slaughter of species isn't funny.

Here is the decision, straight from the Court's website:

The Government seized the fins pursuant to the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (“SFPA”), which makes it unlawful for any person aboard a U.S. fishing vessel to possess shark fins obtained through prohibited “shark finning.” 16 U.S.C. § 1857(1)(P)(ii). TLH does not contest that, on its behalf, the KD II purchased the fins at sea from foreign vessels that engaged in shark finning. Instead, it argues that the KD II is not a fishing vessel under 16 U.S.C. § 1802(18)(B), and for that reason the forfeiture of the shark fins it possessed would violate due process. We agree that neither the statute nor the regulations provided fair notice to TLH that it would be considered a fishing vessel under § 1802(18)(B). We therefore reverse the judgment of forfeiture and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So I saw the stupid headline and then spent the next 10 minutes navigating Reuters website trying to find a contact link to an editor for correction. Jeez they make it difficult. I guess they don't really want feedback from us "ignorant masses."

Idiots.

Update: Thee Reuter's headline about the shark fins "winning" is correct, but only in a highly technical, legalese sense. In forfeiture cases involving seized goods, the seized goods are named in the case title. So it's not unusual to see case titles like "US v. 700 Siberian Tiger Pelts" or US vs. 20,000 lbs. of African Elephant Ivory Tusks." That's just how it's done.

But when the seized goods "win" --as is the case with the seized shark fins--what it really means is that the people who broke the law won.

What pisses me off about Reuters is the bemused tone of the headline, and the lack of context in the piece about what negative impacts this decision will have on all efforts to protect species.

Like I said, wholesale slaughter of species just ain't funny.

King Co. Animal Shelter--A Stinking Mess

The King County Council is holding a public hearing on April 14th about the deplorable shelter operations documented by an outside consultant. Per the consultant's report, these same systemic problems were occuring back in 1998. Despite increases in shelter operations budgets since then, conditions haven't improved, and are the same or worse than the last series of independent inspections.

Burnout of workers in animal care is fairly commonplace, especially in "kill" shelters. But there's apparently been no real recognition of the potential problems burnout can lead to by King County, so there's no system in place to minimize it, prevent it or deal with it.

So if you have staff or management working in an animal shelter who don't come from a mindset or a life philosophy that animals absolutely have basic rights and deserve our kindness and care, who don't feel personally responsible for the animals, and who aren't self-reflective and don't understand how humans can become uncaring and cruel because of burnout, then you have systemic disasters like what has been going on at the KCAC shelter.

In general I oppose privatization of public services, but in this case I conditionally support Councilman Bob Ferguson's call to privatize the shelter operations, as long as it is operated by a long-established animal welfare group such as the Humane Society or PAWS. These groups have the correct mindset towards animals, understand the challenges of shelter staff burnout, and know how to deal with it and keep it under control.

Among other things the consultant found:

1. Animals without food or water, sometimes for days.

2. Animals housed in filthy cages, not cleaned for days.

3. Numerous open cages while adoptable animals languished unseen in back rooms (note--KCAC has strict time limits on how long an animal is "adoptable" before it is euthanised).

4. Staff not following basics of santiary cleaning procedures or animal handling.

5. Staff not keeping accurate or complete, updated records.

6. Staff not cross-checking lost animal reports with shelter animals and not entering lost animal reports into computer system.

7. Non-compatable animals put together--leading to severe stress, food hoarding, fights and injuries.

8. Staff not relocating animals once non-compatability determined.

9. Animals not being vaccinated.

11. Cruelty and neglect reports not followed up, properly investigated or documented.

12. Outdated "contagious disease" notices posted in adoption areas falsely implying current outbreaks (which could negatively impact adoptions.)

13. Facility showing significant wear and tear (same physical plant problems as last time).

14. Unsanitary food storage and handling.

15. Sick animals housed with healthy ones. Quarantined sick and injured animals not closely monitored.

16. Substantial difference in conditions and staff conduct when consultant pre-announced versus surprise or "undercover" visits.

17. Significant management and staff turnover, with new management not having background in animal care/shelter management.

18. Staff "doing own thing" with animal care--not following procedures and guidelines.

19. Donations of food and money not used for animal care.

20. No follow-through on spay/neuter coupons leading to minimal improvement in pet overpopulation.

21. Disciplinary procedures inadequate or simply not followed.

Rules of Engagement?--Free Fire Slaughter

Here is a link to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Against the War's video feed of Winter Soldier testimony.

It's impossible to do justice to the heartbreaking testimony of these soliders talking about the unconscionable, immoral and illegal conduct of the occupations of these two countries by providing snippets and summaries in a blog post. Instead, every American should simply watch and/or read their testimony in its entirety.

Sometimes I'm just so ashamed of the willful ignorance of my fellow citizens about what is being done to these people in the name of "freedom".

All I can say is if there is a just God, then America is truly damned.

Foreclosure Sharks in Puget Sound--Updated

In an unpublished decision entered yesterday, the Washington State Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's decision and concurred that defendants:

Dick and Cecilia Pelascini;
Thomas Boboth; and
Pacific Shoreline Mortgage, Inc.

had violated the Consumer Protection Act.

Per the court's decision, they took advantage of a long-time homeowner who had fallen on hard times and was facing foreclosure and convinced her that they were helping her "save" her home by setting up refinancing when in fact they bought it out from under her for far less than what they would have paid via a public trustee's sale.

After signing the paperwork the "homeowner" (plaintiff) was allowed to stay put until the Pelascinis later decided to sell the home.

Then they evicted her.

From the decision:

The Pelascinis' argument rests on the false premise that they "did help plaintiff save her house." The trial court found that Pace-Knapp reasonably interpreted the Pelascinis' promises to mean that they would refinance her home, which means she would continue to own it.

Taking the unchallenged findings as true, we conclude that the Pelascinis deceived Pace-Knapp when they promised her that they would help her "save" her home and implied that they would refinance her loan. Simply stated, the point is that they saved her home for themselves so that they would not have to bid at the rescheduled trustee's sale. They did not help her save her home for her, as suggested. The Pelascinis' practice of preying on this and other vulnerable home owners on the eve of foreclosure is the type of practice likely to deceive future distressed owners in the same manner.

Despite claims by local corporate media and real estate professionals that the Puget Sound area is somehow immune to the national subprime scandal and its impact on housing markets, the blood is in the water here, the sharks have smelled it, and they are beginning to feed.

Why is it that predatory foreclosure sharks can't immediately be put out of business and be brought up on criminal charges?

UPDATE:

The Washington legislature just passed HB 2791 which on the face of it substantially increases regulation of the sharks. The bill apparently provides for increased plain-language disclosures, extends the right of recission (canceling) a contract for some additional days, requires the sharks to first determine if the homeowner can actually "buy back" the home under the terms offered, requires the sharks to act in the homeowner's best interests and establishes that the homeowner will receive at least 82% of market value if the homeowner is evicted.

Gov. Gregoire hasn't signed it yet.

Wa State Attorney Discipline Mar 2008

Here's a link to the details of this month's Washington State Attorney Discipline notices from Bar News. (And there are disciplinary actions that don't appear in this publication.)

It's as good as or better than reading the local police blotters.

9th Circuit Rules in Favor of Industrial Shark Finners

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided in favor of large-scale industrial shark finners premised on a technical violation of "due process" by the feds in a civil forfeiture case brought against the defendants for violating the Shark Finning Prohibition Act.

If you care about species protections, go read this decision. Seriously.

Here's the nutshell:

. . . Claimant-Appellant Tai Loong Hong Marine Products, Ltd. (“TLH”) owned the shark fins. TLH, a Hong 2474 UNITED STATES v. APPROXIMATELY 64,695 POUNDS Kong company, had chartered the KD II and ordered it to meet foreign fishing vessels on the high seas, purchase shark fins from those vessels, transport the fins to Guatemala, and deliver them to TLH.

The Government seized the fins pursuant to the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (“SFPA”), which makes it unlawful for any person aboard a U.S. fishing vessel to possess shark fins obtained through prohibited “shark finning.” 16 U.S.C. § 1857(1)(P)(ii).

TLH does not contest that, on its behalf, the KD II purchased the fins at sea from foreign vessels that engaged in shark finning. Instead, it argues that the KD II is not a fishing vessel under 16 U.S.C. § 1802(18)(B), and for that reason the forfeiture of the shark fins it possessed would violate due process.

We agree that neither the statute nor the regulations provided fair notice to TLH that it would be considered a fishing vessel under § 1802(18)(B). We therefore reverse the judgment of forfeiture and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Did you get that?

Despite the clear and express intention of the Act--protection of sharks by outlawing industrial shark finning in US waters--the Court determined that because the Act apparently didn't forbid "non-fishing" vessels from obtaining or possessing shark fins from non-US fishing vessels while at sea, that the civil forefeiture of the shark fins was invalid on due process grounds.

There's clear evidence of collusion and it's patently obvious that the defendants intended to skirt US laws. Instead of directly de-finning the sharks themselves, the just arranged to get them from non-US industrial de-finners on the opean ocean.

It's not like they just happened to stumble upon each other's boats out in the ocean and one of the boats just happened to have 64,695 pounds of shark fins that the other just happened to want. They planned this.

By using such a narrow definition of "fishing vessel" to reach its conclusion, the Court makes a mockery of the intent and spirit of the laws protecting vulnerable and threatened species.

Green Plug--Volunteers Needed

The 2008 Seattle Greenfestival is looking for volunteers to help run the two-day event April 12 and April 13 at the Washington Convention and Trade Center.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is a scheduled keynote speaker.

Our city has lost a tremendous percentage of tree cover in the last decade. If there's a question and answer period I intend to ask the Mayor whether he's actually going to follow through on past ideas, promises, current plans and funding to re-tree the City.

Americans 0, Predators 100

Investigative reporter Greg Palast has a must-read article posted that exposes the back-scratching giveaways and the gross corruption behind the Bush administration's massive government bailout of predatory banks, brokers, corporations and lenders.

Gov. Spitzer was leading the charge on behalf of Americans to fight back against these predators. Palast explores how Spitzer's resignation at this critical juncture is a huge win for the predators, how the "exposure" of Spitzer's sexual escapades may have well been exquisitely politically timed, how the bailout does next to nothing for American homeowners, and how it is certain that so many of them will still lose their homes.

Article excerpts:

. . .

The press has swallowed Wall Street’s line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn’t afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That’s blaming the victim.

. . .

Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.

. . .


Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.

. . .

Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count. . . .

There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.

New Terrorist Threat--Root Vegetables

A raw turnip in a gift bag led to a bomb scare at an Indiana law firm. The police bomb squad used a robot to move the gift bag to a parking lot and then unsuccessfully tried to detonate it before discovering the vegetable.

I guess I could understand someone panicking over a suspicious package in the weeks following 9/11.

But it's 2008. Come on people. Get a grip for crying out loud.

Whatever happened to using a trained explosives dog and handler to first assess the threat? Nah. That would be too easy, too "pre-9/11". Plus I suspect the cops were happy to have an opportunity to play with their high-tech bomb robot, which "justifies" this expense.

And what about the cost to taxpayers for the police response to these persistent false alarms? So Chicken Little gets a "suspicioius" package and instead of just opening it up he calls the cops. The cops come, evacuate the building and cordon off the parking lot. Then they send in a robot to retrieve the package and try to blow it up.

Shouldn't the Chicken Littles among us start paying for these false alarms?

On second thought, the terroristic turnip was sent to a law firm, so perhaps the attorney's guilty conscience went on overdrive, or perhaps his fears weren't entirely unfounded.