Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face

In the last pages of the August Primary Election’s “Your Spokane County Official Local Voters’ Pamphlet” you might have noticed (and wondered about) three “Propositions” from Fire Protection Districts (Nos. 4, 9, and 13) each asking for approval of a moderate property tax levy to support the District. (For orientation click this county map of Spokane County fire districts. FDs 4, 9, and 13 are all in the NE quadrant of the county.)

Voters living within the municipal boundary of the City of Spokane (just south of Fire District 9) never see a fire protection district levy plea on an election ballot. That’s because the City of Spokane Fire Department is funded through the budget of the City of Spokane municipal government. Most (perhaps all) of the rest of the overall Spokane County system of fire protection and emergency services comes under thirteen separate fire districts. All these districts, along with the City of Spokane Fire Department, work, mostly out of sight and out of mind, to provide emergency services and deal with the increasing threat of fire. Taken together they represent a major community service that I fear we take too much for granted.

In Spokane we just broke the all time record for the number of consecutive days of over 90 degree high temperatures. The ground is dry. The risk of wildfire, especially in the WUI (Wildland-Urban Interface) is high. When I last checked, today and tomorrow the wind was predicted to increase into the 10-20 mph range. All of this underlines the need for a rapid response to fire.

Home insurance rates are calculated not only on the manifestly rising risk of fire thanks to climate change, but also on the perceived fire response times based on factors like proximity to and staffing of the closest fire station. Fire Protection Districts are specified by Washington State law (RCW Title 52). Districts are managed by an elected board of fire commissioners (three to seven) serving with only per diem compensation. The districts are staffed by some combination of volunteers and paid professionals. It is a fair bet that all of this is managed—and the community’s needs are served—well beyond the awareness of the vast majority of voters. When a fire protection district goes to the trouble to submit a levy increase or replacement levy to a vote it seems to me a fair bet that there is a good reason—especially in our drying and heating climate (and in an inflationary monetary environment). 

If you are served by Fire Protection Districts 4, 9, or 13 (or you know someone who lives within those districts), vote yes on your levy and encourage others to do the same. In the long run you’re protecting yourself and your community, and, whether you can calculate it or not, you just might be curtailing the rate of rise of your home insurance bill. 

By now you should have your August Primary ballot in hand. Don’t wait. Vote! Don’t let a low ballot turn-in degrade your fire protection. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. For the rest of your August Primary Election ballot contests I recommend the Progressive Voters Guide. You can read a few more comments in last week’s post, Washington State Primary!! As of last Monday, my favorite negative voting guide, WeBelieveWeVote.com, was asking for readers to “Please pray for us as we work to resolve our technological issues,” The WBWV website recommends you check out the iVoterGuide.com. If you have time, it is educational to find a candidate, click on “View Candidate Profile” below the name and photo and scroll or click down to the Questionnaire. For the most part, only the most right wing of the candidates responded to the Questionnaire, perhaps on the theory that only similar right wingers would visit this website. Some of the responses are illuminating–and, from my view point, toxic. “iVoterGuide” doesn’t attempt to cover any race in Washington State any more local than state legislative candidates. 

French: “Climate Change is a political [sic] driven agenda”

Spokane County Commission Al French wants there to be a “clear record” that, although he recognizes “that the climate is changing,” “climate change is a political [sic] driven agenda.” Acknowledging that the climate is changing while claiming that it is misguided to address the cause of climate change is a familiar modern-day Republican talking point. Mr. French could only be more clear about his stance if he proclaimed that “climate change is a hoax.”

In direct contradiction of Mr. French, scientists who conspicuously lacked any “political agenda” have understood for one hundred and seventy years that atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (like methane) are major regulators of the earth’s temperature—and therefore its climate. This is not speculation, this is physics. Furthermore, we have direct measurements of the level of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere since 1958 from the Mauna Loa observatory on the big island of Hawaii. (“The Mauna Loa Observatory has been part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Monitoring Laboratory’s Baseline Observatory network since 1972.” 1972 was back when Republicans and Republican administrations still believed in science.) Since 1958 levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from 310 ppm to a new record this year [2024] of 425.22 ppm. For the 10,000 years leading up to the mid 1800s (the industrial revolution) atmospheric CO2 was nearly constant at 280 ppm. The striking rise of CO2 concentrations directly correlates with the striking rise in average global temperature and the ever-more-frequent extreme weather events global heating generates.

Mr. French asserts that efforts to lesson our dependence on the burning of fossil fuels will have “a negative impact on communities of color and low income” (see P.S. below). This is total nonsense. His “negative impact” assumes that converting to energy sources that require less burning of carbon fuels will cost builders more and that the cost will inevitably be passed on to home buyers and renters. He rejects (or is intentionally blind to) the long term savings of greater energy efficiency, the possibility of programs to help bridge the gap, and the severe negative effects—especially “to communities of color and low income”—of continuing to fuel global heating. 

The bedrock of Mr. French’s belief that climate change is a “political agenda” is a rejection of settled science. His projection is tantamount to the more plain assertion that climate science is a hoax. For Mr. French any official who supports lessening our dependence on burning fossil fuels is at best deluded or, at worst, cynically engaging in “politics” rather than engaging in a good faith effort to maintain a habitable planet. 

Molly Marshall, candidate for Spokane County Commissioner District 5 to replace Mr. French, understands climate science—as well as the dangers of wildfires and sharply rising insurance rates in response to climate-fueled environmental threats. Vote for Molly Marshall in August and in November. We cannot afford to keep science deniers like Mr. French in office.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Here’s the story of the context of the Al French quote: Commissioner Chris Jordan, in a recorded meeting in November 2023, proposed to add the words “to help address climate change” to “Spokane County’s 2024 Legislative Agenda.” When a vote on the proposed amendment was taken, Commissioner Amber Waldref voted in favor along with Commissioner Jordan, while Commissioners Al French, Josh Kerns, and Mary Kuney voted “nay.” Following this vote that rejected Jordan’s amendment, Commissioner French felt the need to clarify his position. Commissioners Kerns and Kuney made no statement about their “nay” votes.

Here, in brackets, is Jordan’s proposed added language in context:

Spokane County’s 2024 Legislative Agenda

6. Public Building Energy Standards – Spokane County seeks legislative relief from House Bill 1257 known as The Clean Buildings Act. While Spokane County supports expanding affordable, reliable, clean energy sources [to help address climate change] the County requests that the Legislature provide financial assistance to facilitate compliance with The Clean Buildings Act. Spokane County also supports expanding flexibility of compliance pathways to include innovative, cost-effective technologies and strategies, consistent with climate pollution reduction goals.

What follows is a transcript of Al French’s comments on climate change, lest anyone suspect that his words “climate change is a political agenda” are taken out of context: 

“Since we want to continue to beat this horse, I will speak a little bit about why I did not vote to support the language with climate change. It’s because many of its policies are discriminatory in nature and disadvantage communities of color and low income with regard to access to housing and also are inflationary. Again negative impact, communities of color and low income. Not only through the actions that try and harmonize construction techniques in the state of Washington that clearly favor western Washington and disadvantage eastern Washington. The elimination of natural gas is just one example of bad policy created under the banner of climate change. So we have to be more thoughtful about how we take actions and so it’s not as though we’re not in favor of trying to be smart about how we develop alternative energy sources and how we become more efficient, but as I said this morning the banner of climate change is a political banner that bad policy is adopted underneath. And just so that there is a clear record, I recognize that the climate is changing. I recognize that there are things that we can do, but the banner of climate change is a political driven agenda that I do not support because it has a negative impact on communities of color and low income in this community, which is one of my priorities. Thank you.”

Taken from the youtube video of the November 7, 2023 Spokane County Commission’s 2PM Legislative Meeting: https://www.youtube.com/live/Gt4jyNXIkX8 . The discussion of Jordan’s motion to amend starts at around 20:26, French’s statement at 28:20.

A key chance for you to be heard

The August 6th Washington State Primary Election ballots are being mailed this week and should be in your mailbox in the next few days. Watch for it. Do your homework early, then encourage like-minded friends and neighbors to do the same. (I know that focusing on state and local elections while the presidential campaigns are drawing all the headlines is challenging—but it is essential. See below.)

This Primary is of paramount importance to setting up the choices that you will have in November General Election. For races on your ballot with more than two candidates our votes in the Primary will determine the choices we have on the November General Election ballot. Do not ignore the Primary!

For most of the choices on your ballot I encourage you to check out the Progressive Voters Guide. Click that link and then enter your address after clicking Click here to choose your customized guide. The Progressive Voters Guide is very helpful in sorting out the rhetoric, but it does not cover Superior Court Judge races, nor does it make the choice among progressive candidates for Congressional District 5. That’s understandable, but a potential problem (see below). (My favorite negative voters’ guide, WeBelieveWeVote.com, wasn’t up and running yet as of yesterday. I’ll keep watch.)

Congressional District 5

Eastern Washington’s federal Congressional District (CD) 5 is an “open” seat. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who held this seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for twenty years, is retiring at the end of 2024. There are eleven candidates for this office on your ballot, five “Prefers Democratic Party” and six “Prefers Republican Party.” Based on the results of the Primary, only two will appear on the November General Election Ballot. (This is thanks to our “top two” or “jungle”primary system—as opposed to ranked choice voting.) If too many Democratic voters fail to vote in this Primary—or vote but evenly split among the Democratic candidates—the choice we have in November could be between two entirely unpalatable MAGA Republicans. This is especially true if Republican voters turn out and are convinced to vote for the two “Prefers Republicans” who have amassed the biggest war chests. 

As a Democratic voter, how to choose? Money is certainly not everything, but these days in the U.S. it is a significant indicator of a candidate’s support and of their ability to mount a successful General Election campaign. Sadly, there is no point in voting for a candidate who has attracted very little money to spend on their campaign. Campaign finance data is available to us, the general public, (complete through June 30)—but accessing it requires a bit of diligence. Campaign data for candidates for federal offices (U.S. Senate and U.S. House) is found at fec.gov (that’s Federal Election Commission). The pulldown menu “Campaign finance data” offers “Find elections, search by state or zip code”. Enter your zip code. This link should take you to the webpage listing all the CD5 candidates (including some who are no longer in the race). 

Let me be clear. I know and I like the personality and the values of all four of the most active “Prefers Democratic Party” candidates. (Bennet-Wolcott has little money, no effective campaign, and has not appeared at any campaign event of which I’m aware. Mr. Welde is well-spoken, has appeared at campaign events, but has attracted minimal campaign funds.) I am hopelessly torn among the other three, Carmela Conroy, Dr. Bernie Bank, and Ann-Marie Danimus. I personally believe that Carmela Conroy is the best equipped (by her long experience in the Foreign Service) to get things done in Congress, but I would be delighted to have any one of these three advance to the November General Election ballot. Of course, it would be lovely if two of them advanced to November—but that is a pipe dream at best. The key here is to get as many people who value women’s rights, truth, and democracy to pay attention and cast their ballot in the Primary. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment.

A Quick Note on Superior Court Judges

There are thirteen judgeships in Spokane County Superior Court. Although all of them are technically up for election this year, only two of them have drawn challengers, Judges Marla Polin and Timothy Fennessy—and only Judge Fennessy appears on the August Primary ballot—because he has drawn more than one challenger (three). (Judge Polin and her single challenger will advance to the November General Election automatically.) Earlier this year there were some rumblings that Judge Fennessy planned to retire, leaving an open seat. Clearly, this is a major part of the reason for his drawing three challengers. In April (according to a very confusing article in the Spokesman) several of the other judges on the Spokane County Superior Court bench asked Judge Fennessy to stay on, as a judge with greater experience than any of the five other judges that have been appointed since 2022. (Judge Fennessy has served since 2017.) I have briefly met Judge Fennessy, I have read several of his opinions, and of the people in the legal profession whom I know all have high regard for him. I will cast a vote for Judge Fennessy. As an aside, there is a rumor among some with whom I have talked that a measure of the enthusiasm for challenging Judge Fennessy is based on his writing the opinions in favor of Planned Parenthood in the case against “Pastors” Matt Shea’s and Ken Peters’ “The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP).” I haven’t the stomach to search out and listen Shea’s and Peter’s judicial recommendations, so take this rumor as you will. 

Vote and remind your friends to do the same!!!

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Extra: Courtesy of Thom Hartmann

Important Note: The August Primary Election ballots will arrive in your mailbox in the next few days. Pay attention. Voting and encouraging others to vote is essential to counteracting the insanity on display this week in Milwaukee.

I grew up in Wisconsin in a family that consistently voted Republican (although my mother was fond of saying that she voted for FDR “every time”). The Republican Party today is nothing like the Republican Party for which my parents voted—it deserves repudiation. Thom Hartmann, in a remarkable roundup that I have pasted below, details its transformation into the violent, radical reactionary authoritarian cult on display in Milwaukee this week. 

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

Trump Sounds the GOP’s Death Knell: The End of the Old Republican Order

JD Vance, now the Republican candidate for vice president, is fully supportive of every aspect of Donald Trump’s cons and nakedly anti-American and pro-dictator policies…

THOM HARTMANN

JUL 16

A lot happened at the RNC yesterday [the first day, Monday], but the most telling moment predicting the future of America’s conservative movement and the GOP was when Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was soundly and loudly booed by the assembled delegates and participants, and then JD Vance was selected for VP.

It was the death knell of the old order, the Republican Party that has held a relatively consistent set of values since the 1880s, and the beginning of something entirely new.

Emphasizing this, Donald Trump picked Vance, a man who — like Trump — no longer embraces the traditional conservative values and policy positions of the GOP, as his vice president.

By ignoring what could be called the Nikki Haley/Mitt Romney/Ronald Reagan wing of the party in favor of this pugilistic heir to the politics of Joe McCarthy, Trump signaled he believes he’s now strong enough that he can ignore entirely the orthodox GOP and take both the party and our country down an authoritarian road we haven’t traveled since the days of John C. Calhoun’s Nullification Crisis.

I grew up in a traditional Republican household. My dad, who had a good union job in a tool-and-die shop, was an enthusiastic Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Reagan Republican and I well remember the values and policy positions that animated the GOP from that era until Trump’s hostile takeover in 2016:

— Traditional Republicans supported the American system of elections, encouraged voter registration drives (my mom volunteered as an election worker for decades), and were proud of their tradition — dating back to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War — of supporting the right of all American (men) to vote regardless of creed or color.

Trump and Vance, on the other hand, embrace Trump’s oily, disingenuous lies about the 2020 election being “stolen” from him, endorse purging Black and college-town voters from state rolls by the millions, and criminalizing voter registration efforts.

— Traditional Republicans supported an expansion of trade relations with other nations, arguing that the “principle of comparative advantage” would benefit consumers and that countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war with each other.

Trump and Vance, on the other hand, want to put massive tariffs — paid for by American consumers — on imported products while embracing trade wars and xenophobic protectionism.

— Traditional Republicans supported — at least rhetorically — balanced budgets and fiscal sanity, historically arguing that taxes and expenditures should at least come close to balancing each other out.

Trump and Vance, on the other hand, were just fine with Donald Trump adding $8.4 trillion to the national debt, more than any other non-wartime president did in four years in the entire history of the United States.

— Traditional Republicans supported rights to privacy and personal autonomy. “Big government” that would insert itself into the private lives of citizens was anathema. They welcomed the gay Log Cabin Republicans.

Trump and Vance, on the other hand, support draconian bans on abortion and are pushing to end Americans’ rights to birth control, gay marriage, and the ability to check out and read the books you want from your local library. JD Vance says women in abusive relationships should not be allowed to get a divorce, and even children who are raped and impregnated should be forced at gunpoint to carry their pregnancy to term.

— Traditional Republicans helped build the American public school system and were proud that by the end of Eisenhower’s presidency it was the envy of the world.

Trump and Vance, on the other hand, want to subsidize private, for-profit and church schools for the upper-middle-class and rich people while ghettoizing the remaining public schools for poor and working-class people.

— Traditional Republicans endorsed the concept of America as a worldwide example of democracy (Reagan’s “shining city on the hill”) and “peace through strength.”

Trump and Vance cheer when Trump hangs his head and trashes the American military and intelligence agencies while humbly deferring to Vladimir Putin. They’re fine with him telling Russia and China they can “do whatever they want” to democratic nations and NATO members.

— Traditional Republicans supported nations’ rights to national sovereignty and joined WWII to push back against Germany’s seizure of independent European nations. My dad volunteered for WWII as soon as he graduated high school; traditional Republicans were eager to defend democracies and never would have thought of draft-dodging five times with purchased X-rays of somebody else’s bone spurs.

Trump and Vance cheer Donald Trump’s promise to turn Ukraine over to Russia, ending the war “in one day,” and want to abandon the rest of Europe to Putin’s tender mercies. The news story echoing around the world today is: “Both Trump and Vance want to give Ukraine to Putin.“

— Traditional Republicans defended America’s institutions of law enforcement; the FBI, in fact, has never had a Democrat at its helm in its entire history.

Trump and Vance supported congressional Republicans when they voted to defund the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies and booed Capitol Police officers when they showed up at the Pennsylvania statehouse. They defend January 6th traitors who attacked the Capitol police officers, putting over 140 of them in the hospital and killing three.

— Traditional Republicans demanded high moral standards from their presidents.

Vance has embraced a man who cheated on each of his three wives, who’s been credibly accused of rape by over 20 women (one 13 years old), and found to have actually raped E. Jean Carroll by a jury of his peers…twice. Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was legendary, he brags about being able to “grab them by the pussy” whenever he feels like it, and he publicly boasted about walking into the dressing rooms of teen and pre-teen girls when he owned that pageant.

— Traditional Republicans honored “law and order,” keeping your word, and integrity in business relations; they had nothing but disgust for con men, hustlers, and lawbreakers.

Vance is now enthusiastic about a man who paid $25 million to make whole people who’d been conned and ripped-off by his fake university, was fined hundreds of millions for business and tax fraud, who stole (along with his son Eric) from a children’s cancer charity, had six bankruptcies leaving creditors holding the bag for billions, and has been sued over 3000 times for refusing to pay his bills to small businesses, employees, and independent contractors.

— Traditional Republicans embraced the right of everybody to practice the religion of their upbringing or choice, and honored politicians who live their faith by church membership and behavior consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the prophets.

Trump and Vance are fine with the fact that Donald Trump has never attended church, brags that he has never done anything that would require him to ask God for forgiveness, and hangs out with religious hustlers who are most interested in getting subsidies and payments that Trump can facilitate from government.

— Traditional Republicans like Ronald Reagan supported rational gun control policies.

Trump and Vance are just fine with an America where the leading cause of childhood deaths is bullets. They embrace armed militias whose members often openly fantasize about killing their neighbors in a second Civil War.

— Traditional Republicans were environmentalists and wanted to protect wild spaces and species. Richard Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Agency into existence.

Trump and Vance are “drill, baby, drill” and say they don’t believe that the climate is changing, at least as long as the fossil fuel industry keeps pouring money into their nonprofits and campaigns.

John Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson for his vice president because he needed Texas; Trump doesn’t need Vance’s Ohio. Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman to balance his ticket both ideologically (Lieberman was far more conservative) and religiously; Trump and Vance are both “Christian” nationalists.

The only reason Trump picked Vance was because Vance will be a brutal enforcer for Trump’s most autocratic tendencies.

He’ll delight in ripping mothers from their babies like Trump did, in moving 11 million asylum seekers into concentration camps, and in stripping Americans of their rights under the Constitution in the face of Trump’s promised declarations of insurrection and emergency. Traditional Republicans like my dad wouldn’t recognize today’s GOP.

JD Vance, now the Republican candidate for vice president, is fully supportive of every aspect of Donald Trump’s cons and nakedly anti-American and pro-dictator policies. And he’s the favored candidate of most rightwing billionaires who’ve expressed a preference.

That should tell us — along with traditional  Republicans and independent swing voters — exactly what sort of future the two of them have in mind for us and for what remains of the GOP.

The county’s electoral landscape and what it means

In the State of Washington (and probably most other states) the “County Commission” is a critical governmental choke point. Nowhere else in our layers of government, national, state, county, and municipal, do fewer people hold more power—a fact little recognized by voters (including this author—at least until the last few years). 

In the United States, at the national and state levels, government is composed of the traditional three branches we were taught about in school: executive, legislative, and judicial. As individual voters, our say in the legislative branch at a national and state level is heavily diluted. Consider that, nationally, each of us has a voting voice in electing just one of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and two of the hundred members of the U.S. Senate. Similarly, in Washington State each registered voter casts a ballot to elect just two of 98 state representatives and one of 49 state senators. In contrast, since January 2023, in Spokane County we vote to elect one of only five county commissioners. Those five hold sway over all of county business while functioning as a combined executive and legislative body. 

On account of this narrowing of executive and legislative power my message in this post is that we should all pay greater attention to who it is that we elect as county commissioners. This election season in Spokane County three of five commissioners are up for re-election but only one of those three has a challenger—a very competitive and competent challenger worth your vote. Molly Marshall is challenging Al French for the Spokane County District 5 seat that Mr. French now holds. (District 5—see map below.) 

The County Government

Most county governments in Washington State, as established at the state level by the Washington State Constitution (Article XI, Section 4) and the Revised Code of Washington (Chapter 36.32), combine the executive and legislative functions in one county commission consisting of just three commissioners. Each commissioner comes from one of three county districts of approximately equal population—but is finally elected by a countywide majority vote in the general election. (Note: Spokane County, since January 2023 is an exception—see below). A countywide-elected three member county commission is a recipe for uniformity of opinion and concentration of power in one dominant individual commissioner. (Washington State’s Open Public Meeting law, passed in 1971 long after the three commissioner system was established, had the unintended consequence of prohibiting two commissioners from talking about anything touching on county business outside of a public meeting, since two commissioners is a quorum in a three person commission.)

In the decade prior to January 2023 the Spokane County Commission consisted of three mostly like-minded Republican commissioners (thanks to countywide election) dominated by Commissioner Al French, who has served on the commission since 2011 (and previously served on the City of Spokane City Council). In 2018 the Washington State legislature passed a law that changed county governance structure in counties with a population of 400,000 or more to five commissioners elected by district, not countywide. This was apparently such a threat to Mr. French’s power and dominance that he (and others) took a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of the new law all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court—where they lost. 

Have a look at the map of the new districts. (Click here to see the map online where it might be easier to magnify and examine it. It is not an easy map to read.) Here is a much more readable map based on Googlemaps (but lacking the municipal boundaries). Take note that the five districts are required to contain roughly equal populations. As a result, Districts 1 and 2, while geographically small, mostly lie within the boundary of the City of Spokane and constitute forty percent of the population of the entire county. Districts 3 and 4 (NE and SE) similarly enclose forty percent of the county’s population. Districts 3 and 4 achieve that by dividing between them the people of the City of Spokane Valley. District 5 (W and SW) takes in a fifth of the county’s population by including several portions of the City of Spokane, including parts of the South Hill, northwestern Spokane, the Airport, and the Grandview and Latah neighborhoods, as well as the more sparsely populated West Plains.

One thing made clear from the map of the current five districts is that the county commissioners in Spokane County are meant to represent the citizens of the entire county—not just those who live outside municipal boundaries—a common misconception. The Spokane County Commission is a layer of government that overlies and interlocks with municipal governments. I’m not sure what the current count is, but Commissioner Al French once proudly stated on the county website that he served on forty “local, regional, and statewide Boards and Commissions.” A whole lot of what happens in the government that affects us happens on those boards of which most of us are barely aware. Holding a seat on so many boards is a position of immense power often exercised largely out of the awareness of the majority of the public.

Bottom line: County commissioner is a powerful position. Voters ought to pay close attention. County commissioners serve in four year terms. Three of the five Spokane County Commissioners will appear on some ballots (in Districts 1, 3, and 5). Only District 5’s Commissioner Al French has drawn a challenger. Her name is Molly Marshall—and she is a solid candidate ready to actually represent the citizens of the West Plains, Grandview, Latah, and the west and southwestern parts of the county. 

A vote for Molly Marshall is a vote for building rational infrastructure that addresses the threats of wildfire as well as PFAS contamination of the West Plains aquifer, issues that get short shrift from Mr. French. (Of course, he has recently, recognizing his electoral vulnerability, hurriedly cobbled together development proposals that pretend to address these issues.)

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. For those of us who, besides living in a county, also live within the boundaries of a municipality, city governments are more varied in structure and representation. The City of Spokane, for example, follows the executive, judicial, and legislative model with a “strong” mayor as head of the executive branch, a judicial branch with “district” judges, and a legislative branch consisting of a city council of seven members, two elected from each of three geographic districts, plus the council president, who is elected citywide. 

In contrast, the City of Spokane Valley government combines the executive and legislative branch in one seven member city council, each of which members is elected not by district but “at large”—an electoral method that tends toward uniformity of political viewpoint. “At large” voting leaves each voter a little unclear as to which of the councilors, if any, actually represents their interests. (If 51% of the voters citywide are deeply conservative and vote accordingly as a bloc in every election, city government will contain zero dissenting voices.) The mayor of the City of Spokane Valley is elected from among the council members by a majority vote of the council. In this system the mayor chairs council meetings, but otherwise serves a largely ceremonial purpose. The functions of the executive and legislative branches in this system are combined in the city council.

My point remains the same: county government, in the form of the county commission, represents a concentration of legislative and executive power, a narrowing, a bottleneck, within our entire system of government—a bottleneck that deserves the attention of the voters.

Here’s Why

In 1988 Dr. James E. Hansen testified to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Hansen was then a prominent forty-seven year old astronomer, physicist, and climate scientist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He presented clear evidence that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution had already started to raise the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. He rather naively expected that Congress, presented with clear scientific evidence, would soon act to reduce the mining and burning of carbon fuels. 

Instead, Congress has done very little (until the Biden administration’s recent efforts) and atmospheric carbon dioxide has steadily increased. Year after year we record higher average global temperatures and ever wilder weather events, while Republicans line up to reject all efforts to address the underlying cause. At no time in our history have Republicans be more stridently opposed to any effort to limit carbon burning—and it is not just a matter of money. It is a matter of worldview.

I grew up in the fifties and sixties, the age of Sputnik, reading about the stars and planets, of worlds with different atmospheres than that of earth, and of vast spans of time through which, on earth, continents had slowly drifted while a myriad of plants and animals had lived, died, and been buried in deposits that very slowly became coal, oil, and natural gas. In college I was introduced to the concept that the earth’s atmosphere also changed over vast spans of time as plant photosynthesis pulled carbon dioxide from a CO2-rich atmosphere to construct those plants and animals that later became coal, oil, and natural gas. Over millions of years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere drifted downward as carbon was “banked” in these deposits. The early greenhouse effect slowly diminished and earth’s climate slowly cooled. The key concept is that all this happened over hundreds of millions of years, a rate slow enough for species to adapt. 

In 1988 Dr. Hansen, addressing the Senate, was trying to make the point that by digging up and burning this fossilized carbon bank over the tiny span of time of the last one hundred and fifty years, mankind is releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere at a jarringly rapid rate. The rapid build up of CO2 results in ramping up the earth’s temperature and the climate—a change so rapid as to exceed plants and animals capacity to adapt.

I was brought up in the Methodist tradition. My mother read Biblical stories to me from an early age. When I noted that the Biblical Creation Stories (there are two) seemed to be in conflict with the science I was reading, my parents explained that the Creation stories were to be taken as instructive allegory rather than literal truth. I was aware that some Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians continued to believe in a literal seven day Creation Story and in an entire earth history encompassing only six to ten thousand years. Even so, I was sure that the overwhelming majority of Christians accepted the burgeoning scientific evidence amassed in the centuries since the Age of Enlightenment. 

In February 2015 U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) famously (and with prideful ignorance of the distinction between weather and climate) brought a snowball to the floor of the Senate—in winter—as evidence that the planet is not warming. Many assumed that Senator Inhofe was financially captive to the oil companies that dominate Oklahoma—but there is a far more basic reason for his stance. Inhofe said, “Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will. There is archaeological evidence of that, there is biblical evidence of that, there is historical evidence of that.” Note that absence of any timeframe. Then he tellingly added, “There are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate.” As a Fundamentalist Christian, Senator Inhofe projected arrogance on anyone whose understanding of geologic time reaches farther back than Noah’s Flood.

Senator Inhofe’s statements are classic modern-day Republican rhetoric, acknowledging the obvious—that climate (weather) changes—while denying that the actions of mankind could possibly be responsible—and legislating based on that denial. Mentally hemmed in by Fundamentalist Christian doctrine, mankind’s actions—or inactions—changing the climate is for these people an unthinkable, arrogant idea. 

Somewhere on Facebook a stalwart of the SpokaneGOP interjected, “God is in charge of climate change,” an echo Inhofe’s worldview. These days, when you scratch the surface of many Republicans the first thing you find is a Fundamentalist Christian, the majority of whom have little or no concept of geologic time and many of whom subscribe to young earth creationism, a set of beliefs that makes it impossible to comprehend the threat of global heating—which is based in part on the rapidity with which we are ramping up the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I was right years ago about a majority of Americans accepting post Enlightenment science, but the number who cling to a form of young earth creationism based on a literal interpretation of ancient stories remains startling—and these people are the backbone of the modern-day Republican Party. A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38 percent of adults in the United States held the view that “God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so” when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings. 

The next time you hear a Republican answer a question about the importance of climate change and their answer begins with something like “Of course the climate is changing” your followup should be “Do you think the earth is closer to six thousand or hundreds of millions of years old?” You should assume their understanding of the world and of science is limited by a bedrock young earth creationist belief system that soothes the believer in the conviction that fossil fuels were put in the ground by God for the sole benefit of mankind. From that viewpoint, of course, it would be arrogant to think that humans by their actions can affect the climate. After all, “God is in charge of climate change.”

These people are the base of the modern day Republican Party. They are the same folks who who want their particular brand of “Christian” government in which women aren’t allowed to make their own reproductive decisions, a government that declares a woman’s life and health is worth less than a fertilized egg. 

We face stark choices in this year’s elections—principal among them is whether or not we will leave a habitable planet to our children and grandchildren—Republicans are universally on the wrong side of this issue, nationally, statewide, and locally. Vote your future accordingly.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. It is not my intent to demean the people whose bedrock beliefs I describe in this post. I believe they are misguided, shielded by family, by cult, or circumstance from a rational understanding of science, but that doesn’t keep them, necessarily, from being people with whom I am happy to share the world. I draw the line when they strive—as a minority—to take the reins of government, jeopardize the habitability of our planet, and impose their narrow beliefs over hard-won freedoms I have fought to gain and retain my whole life. That is precisely the threat we face in the upcoming elections.

P.P.S. Donald Trump is often quoted as saying “Climate change is a hoax” and advocating all manner of increase in the digging up and burning of fossil fuels. In his four years in the White House he tried hard to open up public lands to oil and gas exploration. If returned to the White House this fall he will have staff and tools at hand to complete the task, thanks to his staffers’ Heritage Foundation Project 2025. Click that link, then hit “COMMAND F” and insert search words like “renewable energy” or “oil” or “climate change.” Read a little around each mention to understand the magnitude of the reverse revolution Republicans are prepared to enact.

P.P.P.S. James Inhofe died last week at age 89. An extensive obituary, including his anti-climate advocacy, is available in the New York Times.

The proper focus

Years ago a high school friend of mine pointed out to me that, on social media, satire like that of Andy Borowitz is quite often taken by readers as truth rather than pointed humor. He provided examples, and, consequently, I have tried to steer clear of writing or promoting satire for fear of being misunderstood. However, after finally steeling myself to watch the first half hour of the Biden-Trump debate and being buffeted by Trump’s continuous “firehose of falsehoods,” (coined, I believe, by Ruth Ben-Ghiat) I thought Mr. Borowitz hit the nail on the head so squarely that I had to share this as a fitting way to round out the week:

George Santos Urges Trump to Step Aside for Him

“Now is the time to pass the torch to a new generation of liars.”

JUL 8

READ IN APP

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Arguing that age has dimmed Donald J. Trump’s ability to lie, former congressman George Santos proposed on Monday that he supplant the former president atop the GOP ticket.

“Over the course of his career, President Trump has produced an impressive array of falsehoods,” Santos said. “But now is the time to pass the torch to a new generation of liars.”

Santos said that, although Trump spewed a continuous stream of whoppers during his debate with President Biden, “From the earliest moments, it became worryingly obvious that he is no longer the liar he once was.”

“According to fact-checkers, Trump lied 30 times during the debate,” he said. “I could’ve done 60.”

Santos said he was “saddened” to issue his assessment of Trump’s decline, but added, “As a board-certified neurologist I had no choice.”

Subscribe here [to The Borowitz Report] for more

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. In the realm similarly grim assessment, the Lincoln Project 4 minute video titled “Aftermath” is a masterpiece summary of where Trump, armed with the Project 2025 blueprint would take us. Be sure to watch the hard-hitting ending—and then share the link widely.