Letters

Details

Written by: Nelson Strasser

Published: 26 May 2015

I know that most people work hard, come home to the family, watch TV and generally struggle through the pressures and demands of modern life.

So, they get their news mostly from the TV. Let us assume that TV news is objective. The TV news would give you late breaking events, but, since it is always a “snapshot” in time, and rarely reports events in historical context, it is not very helpful toward giving you an understanding of the world.

I have the advantage of not owning a TV and being semi-retired, and a library hugger. So, for instance, I have read 13 books on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the surrounding area. From my reading, I claim that I have discovered what is wrong with American foreign policy: It has been unsuccessful internationally, and is destroying us domestically.

Foreign policy is taught in terms of “self-interest,” sometimes called Machiavellian, or “Realpolitik” but the basic tenet is that “The ends justify the means.”

This is not to say that countries don’t sometimes act altruistically, but that when self-interest conflicts with morality, self-interest always trumps morality.

Let us leave aside the question of whose “self-interest,” because the argument could be made that the self-interest of giant corporations is different from the self-interest of say, middle-class people.

Let me take an egregious example to illustrate my point (and there are scores of others): The United States Government conspired with the British to overthrow the democratically elected of Iran in the early fifties. There was no cover story about democracy, or defending our freedom, or Communism, or Fundamentalism, or some other reason they give you to explain why they are murdering people or sending your children to die. They just wanted the oil.

However, as you probably know, there was a consequence to this nefarious act, called by the author Chalmers Johnson in his book by the same name, “Blowback.” That is why Iran became our enemy. We started it, and that, you will never hear on the evening news. So, the point is that sometimes these Machiavellian schemes backfire, and we thus we get “blowback.”

However, one could make an argument that sometimes these naked “self-interest” moves have succeeded, but on balance, they are a wash. In fact, considering all of the wars that are continuing and the five trillion we a have spent on them, and the staggering debt that we have acquired (Hell, we owe China over a trillion dollars!), it would probably be easier to argue that naked self-interest is a large negative.

But, that is not my claim. My claim is that this policy of the “ends justify the means” has cost us the moral high ground, and that we have lost the strength, albeit intangible, that comes from belief in ideals that keep us bound together and strong.

Take a look at the symptoms: We are heading to bankruptcy from being sick, and the consequent health bills. If current trends continue, half the country will be obese (based on BMI) and a hundred million people will have diabetes by the year 2020. People that have a passion for life  and strong beliefs don’t eat themselves to death.

Another indicator that we are rotting from the inside out is that what used to be a crime is no longer punished, and poor people are filling the prisons for petty offenses (See “The Divide,” by Matt Taibbi, available at the library).

A good example of how things have changed  is the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s (Read  “Inside Job,” also available through our library). A thousand people in the industry went to jail. In the exponentially worse scandal of 2008, almost no one has gone to jail. It is against the law to torture people, and yet the authors and perpetrators of torture are walking free, and in fact, thriving. Now, torture is OK. This is not what I was taught to believe; not in school and not in religious services.

So, my claim is that amorality has failed and, further, that our salvation will be found in returning to the old dispensations, so that we can love our country and love ourselves. 

Nelson Strasser lives in Lakeport, Calif.

Details

Written by: Tim Williams

Published: 25 May 2015

I read with interest Jim Steele's opinion piece in LakeCoNews ( Steele: Community power choice aggregation is here, Sunday, May 24: http://bit.ly/1RipHFL ) and agree particularly with these points.

First, as a matter of course, decisions of magnitude should never be fast-tracked and the public should be encouraged to be involved in the vetting, especially when the county hasn't the resources or expertise to do so.

Second, while the $2 million inducement sounds wonderful ($500,000/quarter), is it guaranteed and is it competitive with what is offered elsewhere?

Thirdly, to rely on a required analysis that is generated by the benefactor of the contract would be incredibly naive, if not criminal.

I'm all for this initiative and choice in power and source production, I don't know if we can do any better than what's offered, but chances are – neither do you.

In engaging a competitive market place the usual course of action would be to put out a request for proposals so that you have a competitive process (as required by law), otherwise it appears some backroom deal was struck and now we're just going through the formalities.

I'm not saying that's happened, ever. But it can have that appearance and appearances, as with smoke, often indicate something is amiss. The community's confidence in the board suffers and then too does the progress the board can make.

To deal with these important issues the board needs the full community's support. Please begin to rebuild our trust in our elective officials and this institution.

Tim Williams lives in Clearlake, Calif.

Details

Written by: Jim Steele

Published: 24 May 2015

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting an information item was presented by California Clean Power, a private company seeking a sole source contract from the county.

This is an important change in the way electrical power is delivered to Lake County customers.

You will have a choice of power suppliers that will provide electrical service over the existing Pacific Gas and Electric lines, and PG&E continues to provide all other electrical functions and charges.

This is called community choice aggregation (CCA) and was provided by California Assembly Bill 117 (2002 Stats., ch. 838).

CCA could bring the following benefits to a community: competitive, sometimes cheaper rates; consumer energy choice; environmentally friendlier electric supply; additional county revenue and programming designed for a community.

Wow, as one board member said, “This is a no brainer.”

I agree, on the surface this can be a game changer. A competitive choice of power is big.

What bothered me at the meeting and the reason that I argued not to forward this to the next meeting was the lack of community engagement before bringing such an item of countywide significance to a vote.

There is essentially one meeting to introduce the item, the next meeting to OK a sole source contract and an additional meeting for a second reading.

The same process took several years in Marin and Sonoma counties, where the program cut its teeth and we can benefit from hearing from their experience before launching this in Lake County. I love the idea, but you know about the devil and details.

The quick process of vetting this idea and voting on a 10-year obligation without a robust staff analysis available for public review may leave important unanswered questions.

I get that we don’t have technical staff resources for such an analysis but a community engagement process, where many eyes are on the topic, would serve as well.

In the meantime, this is on a fast track so I’d like to offer some questions and hope to hear back from folks before the next vote.

First, a feasibility analysis is required by law but this was provided by the company that stood to gain from the 10-year contract. This seemed a conflict to me and questions the objectivity of the analysis, particularly whether we can use power generated locally.

One board member wanted to use power from The Geysers, but we may not be able to afford that source or any other than the same suppliers to PG&E.

This is a competitive business. California law requires a 33-percent renewable source mix which may go to 50 percent under some legislative proposals so these sources can be an expensive bid. Our mix of outside to local power supply might not change.

Second, the sole source company will guarantee that total electrical rates will remain 2 percent below PG&E. But the company also indicated that there is so much room between the power cost to them and the PG&E rate that they can guarantee this. Perhaps we should negotiate the guarantee at 4 percent or even 10 percent.

I don’t know, I’m not an expert – none are on staff either – and we only have a glowing one-sided presentation so far.

The 2-percent per person will be a $750,000 per year savings to the people of Lake County; imagine the swing in savings for each percent increase.

Third, the company forecasts a public benefit payment to the county of $500,000 quarterly which really is a compelling reason to sign this deal.

But it reminds me of the deal offered on TV that promises a large cut in price for the first 10 callers. It makes you wonder what the final price really is if they can offer such a huge cut in price. So are $1 million payments to Lake County possible? Maybe not, but we will have to take that on faith.

My challenge to the public is to become involved in your government process, review this proposal online, check the details and help your supervisors make the best choices on your behalf.

This looks like a really good deal, is it?

Jim Steele represents District 3 on the Lake County Board of Supervisors. He lives in Clearlake Oaks. He can be reached via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .