Sleepy Portland Soon to Balloon?

The US population growth trend in the last six years has been to sunny spots not known for rain or snow. Atlanta (up 21.0%), Houston (up 17.5%) and Dallas (up 16.3%) were the top three gainers among larger US metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2006. Much of the growth was due to immigration rather than shifts from other places in the US.

In spite of this data, Mark Abbott, of Oregon State University, and Eban Goodstein, of Lewis & Clark College, think mass migrations to Oregon may be on the horizon due to climate change.

"We expect more contention over water resources much like what we have seen in the Klamath Basin," said Mark Abbott, co-chair of the Governor's Climate Change Integration Group, which is examining what steps Oregon can take to prepare for a warming climate.

Abbott, the dean of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University, said many people are concerned about a large migration of people into Oregon from areas that will be more heavily affected by climate change, such as the U.S. Southwest. Other questions include whether there will be "disproportionate impacts" on human health, such as more heat-related deaths and higher electricity costs among the elderly.

Eban Goodstein, an economics professor at Lewis & Clark College who is studying global warming's economic impacts, anticipates that migration into the region from cities such as Los Angeles and Phoenix will accelerate. "They're unsustainable communities right now in terms of their water supplies. And as temperatures warm up, I would imagine we would see more and more in-migration driven by climate," he said.

What’s interesting about Prof. Goodstein’s comments that both Los Angeles and Phoenix will be sources of migration is that those two cities happened to make the top 10 in population growth in their categories. Los Angeles came in #6 among the “most populated” cities with 4.7% growth and Phoenix came in #10 overall with a whopping 22.4% growth.

Even more interesting is that the one Oregon city that made the top 10 was Bend with a 29.3% population growth. Bend, of course, is on the border between Oregon’s “have” and “have-not” areas of significant water resources--more high desert plateau than rainy forest.

Abbott, Goodstein and other Pacific Northwest scientists and academicians are subscribing to the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which met recently in Brussels.

The Oregonian’s Richard Hill explains the panel’s findings this way:

The Pacific Northwest faces an intense tug of war over vanishing water supplies if the region continues to warm as forecasts show, dividing people west of the Cascades from those east as water "haves" and "have-nots." And even abundant water west of the Cascades may be stretched as people fleeing from drier, hotter regions of the U.S. find refuge here.

Scientists base this warning on findings to be released today in Brussels, Belgium, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a consortium of more than 2,000 climate scientists from 130 countries.

Among other things, the American Southwest will face dust bowl conditions as hotter temperatures rob as much as 20 percent of annual rain. But in the Northwest, dwindling mountain snowpack is expected to make summer water scarce especially east of the Cascades, challenging agriculture, river use and human habitation.
[emphasis mine]

Abbott and Goodstein, in true scientific fashion, are putting their assumptions to the test in following predictions which go against current population growth data. If they (and the other 2,000 IPCC climate scientists in the Brussels’ panel) are right, they should be congratulated for seeing beyond current population trends.

However, if there is not significant flight from those fast growing cities in the sun belt (e.g., Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles) to slower growing cities in the rain belt (like Portland), Abbott, Goodstein, et. al., will share in the time-honored “egg on face” syndrome for following trendy thinking rather the clear data right in front of them.

It will be interesting to follow up on these predictions.

For those who want a sample scorecard, here are 2000 to 2006 figures for top population growth cities:

Most populated
Atlanta 21.0%
Houston 17.5%
Dallas 16.3%
Washington 10.3%
Miami 9.1%
Los Angeles 4.7%
Chicago 4.5%
New York 2.7%
Philadelphia 2.5%
Detroit 0.4%

Top 10 Increases
St. George, Utah 39.8%
Greeley,Colo. 31.0%
Cape Coral, Fla. 29.6%
Bend, Ore. 29.3%
Las Vegas 29.2%
Provo, Utah 25.9%
Naples, Fla. 25.2%
Raleigh, N.C. 24.8%
Gainesville, Ga. 24.4%
Phoenix 24.2%

Castro Blasts Bio-Fuel Strategy

In an echo to the warnings that the global warming frenzy will keep electricity and fossil fuels from helping the poor in developing countries, Fidel Castro has blasted plans to ramp up bio-fuel use as "sinister".

"The sinister idea of converting food into combustible was definitively established as the economic line of the foreign policy of the United States," he writes.

The Cuban leader also notes that Cuba has also experimented with extracting ethanol from sugarcane.

“But if rich nations decide to import huge amounts of traditional food crops such as corn from developing countries to help meet their energy needs, it could have disastrous consequences for the world's poor,” Castro writes.

The problem is not only in importing food crops, but not exporting them. Already, the demand for corn for bio-fuel in the US has resulted in skyrocketing tortilla prices in Mexico--where the tortilla is the main source of calories for many of the poor.

Hmm. Maybe the recent Senate hearings on Global Warming and related policies should have included Fidel Castro--not to mention Mexican President Calderon.

Al Gore's current "moral" crusade apparently doesn't weigh the impact on the poor. We need the corn. Let them eat cake.

Sulzberger Doesn’t Get It

In a front page article in yesterday’s Oregonian, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger wonders why voters have elected Multnomah County commissioner Lonnie Roberts eleven times to public office.

Roberts says he doesn't know how to type and doesn't like to read. If he were any other county employee, his frequent absences would almost certainly cost him his job, but as one of their leaders he enjoys the insulation a four-year term provides. Voters in the wide swath of open land and fast-growing cities that make up east Multnomah County either haven't noticed or cared -- electing him nine times to the Oregon Legislature and twice to the county commission, often unopposed.

"He is very, very popular," said state Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, who decided not to run against Roberts in 2004. "The community loves him and will vote for him every time."

Sulzberger fails to understand County government. He doesn’t realize that some kinds of elected officials, especially policy makers, don’t do the kind of work where sitting at a desk 8 to 5 is important.

Unlike City of Portland commissioners who run bureaus, County commissioners are legislators--policy makers. They’re not administrators. Being accessible Monday through Friday, 8 to 5, is important for an administrator. Being at working and voting sessions is what’s important for a legislative policy maker. In a strange omission Sulzberger fails to mention how many County board meetings Roberts attends or how often he misses votes. Did Sulzberger even do research on that?

There hasn't been a big outcry from voters that Lonnie is only accessible half the year. One wonders if this isn't a tempest in Sulzberger's teacup.

Roberts’ results are in how he represents his district and the county. In fact, he’s the only county commissioner among those serving last term who the Oregonian didn’t think deserving of a recall vote for backroom political decisions. But, perhaps Sulzberger, fairly new to Multnomah County, doesn’t know about that.

Sulzberger has a peculiar way of presenting facts. He sniffs at Roberts starting as a "truck driver turned career politician."

In three decades of public life Roberts, a former truck driver turned career politician, earned a reputation as a likable though loafing leader, a backslapping good old boy more interested in the social than political elements of elected office.

That Roberts has done a fine job on the political elements too is shown by eleven electoral victories--and without a single major editorial favoring his recall. Not bad.

Of most interest is Sulzberger’s objection to the fact that Roberts has a trusted aide, Gary Walker, who does tons of high level work for Roberts and Multnomah County--for cheap.

County staff take all matters directly to Walker. He devours every document that crosses the commissioner's desk, picking only the most important to condense and share with his boss. He estimates he works twice the maximum 1,039 hours he can be paid under restrictions from his public retirement plan. For his efforts, Walker received a $35,000 bonus earlier this year -- by far the largest given to a county employee in memory and more than his $34,000 salary, which he set himself.

Here’s a guy getting only $34,000 a year (before bonus) for top level work--and lots of hours put in doing it. I wonder if Sulzberger bothered to check out the going rate for county salaries. The majority of Multnomah County workers, make more money than Walker. Even Multnomah County truck drivers (Lonnie's old position) make only $400/month less at entry level. With seniority, they actually make more than Walker.

Sulzberger is also upset that he (and possibly unnamed reporters who helped him on the story) had a hard time getting a private meeting with Roberts.

Three times, Roberts agreed to meet one on one with a reporter for this story. Three times, Walker canceled the meeting over Roberts' objections.

When Roberts finally did sit down alone, he explained his staff's protectiveness. "They get nervous about me. But I've done this for a long time."

A moment later, a visibly panicked Walker stormed in.

"You don't want anyone in here?" Walker asked Roberts.

"I don't need anyone in here," Roberts said.

"Let's get someone in here," Walker said.

Roberts laughed. "I got a baby sitter."

Reading this story, it’s clear that Walker was right. Sulzberger wanted to do a hit piece on Roberts, without any context of the backroom, dysfunctional county government that Lonnie Roberts has stood in contrast to for more years than is comfortable to recall.

Roberts has also stood up for east county issues against the more populous west county steamroller--something City Commissioner Randy Leonard also frequently notes. But that flies over Sulzberger’s head.

The question is not “Why have voters elected Roberts again and again?” The question is why an Oregonian reporter thinks a lone commissioner practicing above board, open government and standing up for his constituents is not contributing positively to political and civic issues.

Scott Ott for President!

See Scrappleface.com

Gone and Forgotten?

Thomas Anthony Casoria




In the Washington Post Anne Applebaum ends her Tuesday, March 20, 2007, column Tortured Credibility with an interesting point.

. . . Who could have imagined, in September 2001, that one of the deadliest terrorists in history would admit to the destruction of the World Trade Center--and that the world would shrug its shoulders?

She thinks it is due to the possibility that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was tortured.

Even if he was not tortured, he was held in secret, extralegal conditions, possible in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, certainly under nothing resembling what we in the United States normally consider the rule of law. The mystery surrounding his interrogation--when it was carried out, how and by whom--renders any confession he makes completely null, either in a court of law or in the court of international public opinion.

I don’t think it’s due to that at all.

Here’s a reality check. If the US captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow, do you think there would be joy in the international community? Hardly.

How about in the US? Despite the trumpeting of Democrats that the Bush administration lost focus on the war on terror by going into Iraq instead of going after bin Laden, if he were captured tomorrow, would Demos be partying? I think not. There would be one fairly gigantic yawn.

The problem is not torture. The problem is that no one cares about the victims anymore. It has been more than five years. The world’s attention span has long passed. The victims are gone and forgotten. Why should world opinion care about capture of someone responsible for killing almost 3,000 people on 9/11--be it Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or bin Laden?

Last year for the 5th anniversary of 9/11, a conservative blogger started a movement to honor each of the 9/11 victims. This blog honored the hero Thomas Anthony Casoria, a 29 year old fire fighter who died trying to save lives at the World Trade Center.

But thoughts of Casoria and the other 2,995 heros and victims don’t raise hackles or ring bells anymore. Even the New York Times, which did the wonderful individual tribute to each 9/11 victim in 2001, did not bother to reach in its archives and individually honor the victims on the 5th anniversary of their death--not even by listing their names. They’re old news, not interesting.

More than that, the world has come to believe that it is the right of terrorists to terrorize. Whatever grief there is for the victims is personal--from their family and friends.

The world’s opinion makers have lost their moral bearings. It’s not “possible” torture or less than pristine prison conditions that caused the world to “shrug its shoulders”. It’s self-centeredness and a willingness to excuse terrorism. One can see it even the holocaust. For decades Hitler’s killing of millions of people in concentration camps evoked anger and disgust. Not anymore.

Shame on world opinion makers for not caring about the victims--and on Anne Applebaum for excusing them.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

This is a 76 minute British-made video mostly of scientists presenting scientific, historical and humanitarian evidence avoided by global warming true believers and most of the press.

Want to hear scientific evidence that matches the earth's historical climate data? This is the video for you.

Hat Tip: Mike's America

Rich Lowery and Political Incompetence

Rich Lowery’s column today points up one of the reasons that conservatives have produced little in spite of their six years in power. Some of their “opinion leaders” throw people on their side under the bus for even small mistakes.

Lowery does this in his column A Conflagration of Bush Loyalists.

Lowery claims that both Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers are incompetents chosen only because they were Bush friends.

If Gonzales goes, it will begin to bring to a calamitous close a style of governing that hasn’t served the Bush administration well. Bush has overrelied on a team of loyalists--often from Texas--who weren’t always the best or the brightest. This hardly accounts for all his problems --Iraq was mishandled by heavyweights like former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--but it has lent added credibility to charges of incompetence.

The U.S. attorneys flap represents the perfect conflagration of Bush loyalists. It began with the asinine suggestion of then-White House counsel Harriet Miers that Bush begin his second term by sacking all 93 U.S. attorneys. Yes, President Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys when he took office, but they were all appointees of another president.

Miers is a Bush friend from Texas who was removed as White House counsel as soon as Democrats took control of Congress, because the White House realized it needed better lawyering. Never mind that Bush had tried to elevate her all the way to the Supreme Court. When administration officials finger Miers for her role in the U.S. attorneys controversy, you can almost hear the unstated addendum, “And we all know she really didn’t know what she was doing.”

Then it was over to Gonzales, another Bush friend from Texas. As NRO's Andy McCarthy notes, there was one person in the country who thought Gonzales should become attorney general, and he was George Bush.

Notice the difference in Lowery’s assessment of Donald Rumsfeld vs. his assessment of Gonzales and Miers. Rumsfeld is a “heavyweight” who happened to mishandle things. Gonzales and Miers are incompetents.

For Lowery, what points to Gonzales’ incompetence?

Gonzales’s defense of his misleading statements that the Justice Department didn’t coordinate on the firings with the White House is that he didn’t know his chief of staff had done exactly that for more than a year. Ordinarily, it would be laughable for an attorney general to claim he was out of the loop on such a sensitive question, but with Gonzales, it has a certain disturbing plausibility.

And why doesn't Lowery think Donald Rumsfeld is incompetent? The problems at Walter Reed hospital didn’t spring full blown like Athena from Zeus’ head moments after Don Rumsfeld’s resignation. Does the fact that Rumsfeld didn’t identify and correct that sensitive situation on his watch show his incompetence? Not to mention Abu Ghraib. [for my assessment of Rumsfeld see here and here]

Imagine applying Lowery's logic to Pres. Reagan’s administration? Does Lowery think Reagan was incompetent because he didn’t know all that his staff was involved in--especially on “sensitive” questions? (Interesting that what is and is not a sensitive question is usually defined best in 20/20 hindsight.)

Actually, Lowery's measuring stick was applied to Ronald Reagan--by the Democrats. At the time National Review stuck up for Reagan's intelligence and competence. And the American people rightly overlooked lesser mistakes and put Reagan on the pedestal of great presidential leaders--which is where he belongs.

Lowery’s answer to mistakes by those in office is “swift firings”.

If Gonzales is forced out, it will be the departure of a characteristic Bush loyalist just as Bush’s approach to management has begun to change. At the beginning of the year, he jettisoned his “my team, right or wrong” approach to Iraq, removing his defense secretary and generals and forging a new strategy. The Walter Reed debacle was met with a round of swift firings rather than wagon-circling. Maybe it’s a new day.

If it is a new day, it’s one that anyone with any political sense will rue. Look at the Democrats. They have a “my team right or wrong” approach. Rep. William Jefferson, caught with bribery cash in his freezer, is quietly being mainstreamed again. And Howard Dean, of scream fame, is head of their national committee. Hasn’t hurt the Demos.

In politics, the best way to deal with incompetence is subtly and quietly. If he’s your guy, even if you get rid of him, you are deemed at fault for making the choice in the first place. That’s exactly the line Lowery takes in this column.

Bush placed such trust in Miers and Gonzales because they passed his “good man” or “good woman” test. He got to know them and concluded they had good hearts. This might be true, but it says nothing about their ability to carry out high governmental functions.

If Pres. Bush gets rid of Gonzales, it will underline how incompetent Bush is for having picked Gonzalez in the first place. It will also underline how incompetent Lowery and National Review were for backing Bush--two elections in a row!

What has happened to the common sense and political competence of the good folks at National Review? They're the ones who are beginning to seem politically incompetent. "One strike and you're out" is not wise policy--politically or personally.