Ostrowski's Outlook VII
Fall 2000
Well, it didn't work. At least in the sense that I didn't get as much response to my salmon article as I expected. What impressed me, however, was that half the people who did respond didn't want to be identified. One of them actually had several good suggestions for other preservation techniques such as salt curing and solar hydro-solidification (sun drying). Another person said, "Thanks for clearly articulating my frustration with the rabid response to the rapid decline" and asked: "What part of the engineering or business management or poli-sci curriculum covered the wisdom of spending 98% of the resource dollar on 2% of the problem?"
Larry Southwick wrote a very thoughtful and perhaps even philosophical response and was willing to have his name attached to it. That article appears elsewhere in this newsletter. Dick Warren still hasn't learned that I always have the last word and said, "What do you know about salmon? I'll bet the closest you ever came to a salmon was at a restaurant!!" I won't respond since he's getting on in years and I don't want to rattle him. I did clean up his spelling, however.
Next subject: Governmental Reform. Last time I said that salmon recovery wasn't as much a scientific problem as a management problem. This time, I've applied the same sound principles to the game everyone is trying to play: reforming government.
I have three initiatives that I think are worthy of your consideration. The first is an initiative that would revise the State Constitution to prevent legislators from legislating. It occurred to me some time ago that we'd all be better off if the legislature didn't meet, so I've come up with a way to do that and not rock any legislator's boat too much. What I propose is that we continue to elect legislators but require that they stay home and pay them to stay there. If they go to Olympia and try to legislate, we dock their pay. It'll even be easier to choose whom to vote for because the person with the least energy would be the best candidate.
The second initiative would be much more disruptive but, therefore, better. It's in conflict with my first initiative but I understand that isn't supposed to be a problem. What I propose is that we eliminate separate elections for legislators and fill the Senate with already elected County Commissioners and fill the House with already elected City Council members. Of course, there are too many of them to fill the seats available in the Capitol but that's just a math thing and we can work it out later. The beauty of this proposal is that it gets double duty out of elected officials and eliminates the need for legislative staff. The other thing it does is eliminate the "them and us" kind of discussions amongst people who represent the same people.
My third initiative has nothing to do with the other two but would test voter's environmental support. What I propose is that all rules established by the Department of Ecology not be valid until they are passed by a simple majority of those voters who actually vote on the measure.
I used to think that this initiative stuff was a bad deal and wasteful until I realized that I or anyone like me can prepare initiatives on any subject we like. Direct democracy may be only a mouse click away. If it is, I want to be there manipulating it. If you want to help me, let me know. I need people who are willing to bend the truth a tad to collect signatures. It also helps if you can speak in sound bites. I'm still at ostrowj@pacifier.com.