It’s a ritual familiar to many of us: we buy the tree, put it in the stand, mutter and curse while trying to stand it straight and, from time to time, add a little water.

For some, it’s not that simple.

The support device that holds the tree in an upright position shall be stable and not damage or require removal of the tree stem base, to allow adequate moisture to reach all parts of the tree. It must also hold the tree securely and be of adequate size to avoid tipping over of the tree, and be capable of containing a two-day supply of water, covering the stem at least two inches. IFC 804.1.2 (1) (2) and (3).

Bear with me just a moment longer.

Trees shall be checked for dryness by the following method: Stand in front of a branch, grasp it with a reasonably firm pressure and pull your hand toward you, allowing the branch to slip through your grasp. If the needles fall off readily, the tree does not have adequate moisture content, and it shall be removed immediately. IFC 804.1.

Electric lights and decorations used shall be listed by UL or FM, and shall not be altered. All Vegetation shall be flame resistive or flame retardant. IFC 804.3.1, 804.4 & 804.4.1.

Do you think I made that up? Those are regulations for setting up Christmas trees in City of Bremerton buildings.

I’m sure the author began his task with the worthy goal of ensuring that the City’s Christmas trees not burst into flame, but somewhere along the way he was gripped by the regulatory fever, a widespread malady, and he lost all control. This happens when regulation writers hold to the fanciful idea that if only they write enough sections and sub sections, they’ll be able to cover all contingencies and avoid all problems. He might have saved himself a lot of trouble by saying simply, “Take sensible steps to be sure your tree doesn’t catch fire.”

Maybe the City would justify all that meticulosity by pointing out that no Christmas tree in a Bremerton city building has ever burst into flames. But my trees haven’t been guarded by such voluminous guidelines, only by that late-lamented commodity called Common Sense, and they have never burst into flame either, leading me to suspect that nothing would be different if all those regulations had never been written, except that a regulator somewhere is content in knowing he did his job. (For further examples of over-regulation, see the student/parent handbook put out by your child’s school district.)

In moderation, some regulations are useful. And while some aim to make us safe and establish uniformity, others try to guarantee fairness, like the ones requiring all public facilities be accessible to the handicapped. But then we have cases like this: in New York City, residents proposed that the City install much-needed public toilets on the city’s sidewalks. The proposal foundered because the proposed toilets weren’t accessible to people in wheelchairs. So because a few people couldn’t get access to much-needed toilets, nobody got access to much-needed toilets, including the blind and the deaf. (For numerous other examples, read The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard.)

Governments and other bureaucracies are excessively fond of regulations because they give the illusionary promise of fairness and smooth sailing for all. But while they’re useful in modest amounts, in their superfluity, rather than preventing problems, they may do little but make us more litigious. .

When taken to excess, as they so often are, regulations are pernicious: they try to shield us from error, but in the process they undermine personal responsibility and our obligation to exercise common sense. They just make us stupid.
Rob Woutat may be reached at rwoutat@tscnet.com.

I have written in previous columns about the need for healing in church divisions and dysfunctional marriages.

Whether it’s in presidential politics, church politics or the politics of our homes, healing and reconciliation seems to come from a focus on what unites us — what brings us together, in many senses of the word.

Here’s the challenge: overcoming our tendency to polarize, us and them, fanned by the media, like the wind on the current Southern California fires. Seemingly like those shifting winds, the media inherently changes the subject when the subject matter is getting too peaceful.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the multitude of media outlets is healthy and those of us not heavily ideological can find, with some hard work, our brand of political truth, continually refined and rediscovered, by dissecting the vast amount of news on the Internet, cable, radio and in print.

Here’s the opportunity: to seek inspiration and change the polarizing dynamic.

Keeping a healthy perspective on all of these political worlds seems worthwhile. We are already deep into the 2008 partisan political circus, where within each “ring” a polarizing slugfest seems the major attraction. If we change our perspective to what can unite us we might envision some interesting possibilities.

One is Obama v. McCain.

It seems at first glance to be simply young versus old, new ideas juxtaposed against time-tested ones, a dove opposed to a hawk, an urban warrior against a former prisoner of war. But it’s much more than that. Even though one is a liberal and the other essentially a conservative, neither is as highly polarizing as many of the alternatives. And both seem to demonstrate strong personal character and family. By such choices we might just begin to address long-standing issues this country needs to face about age and race. And more practically we just might choose two to run who at least claim to reach across the aisle and get some vital work done, as briefly was done just before and after 9/11.

To me it’s much more intriguing and opens up broader potentials than the likely matchup: Hillary v. Rudy.

In Giuliani versus Clinton, we’d have New York versus sort-of-New-York. And two words come to mind: polarizing and uninspiring.

Months ago, I was intrigued by another matchup, well-pedalled nationally. I am not a fan of Dick Morris but I respect his insights on political campaigning, and thought his book, “Condi v. Hillary,” proposed a fascinating contest.

It’s likely that Condi Rice chose wisely in staying out of the presidential contest. Her brand of firmness and diplomacy on the international scene has already born some fruit and may well bear more.

And broadly speaking, Condi’s techniques apply well locally. Confront evil but love your neighbors. Persuade neighbors to work together to address issues collectively rather than grandstand with unilateral diplomacy. It seems a wise approach, whether pushing regional diplomacy on the Korean peninsula or in the Middle East, as she has; or closer to home in local applications to divisions such as over school funding, insurance reform or innumerable land-use challenges.

Secretary Rice’s preparations for the forthcoming Middle Eastern peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, also reveal possibilities that we can apply to personal issues from marriage to religion.

She seems to be starting from her core “spiritual passion” — and from reconciliation learned the hard way from her youthful days in segregated Birmingham, Alabama. Rabbi David Rosen quotes her as saying: “You all have your legitimate grievances, but there’s a moment in history for an inexorable change.”

That message is like the sound of a key in a lock.

Come from your heart, put the past in the past and courageously seek reconciliation. As Condi tries to bring Egypt as well as Israel and the Palestinian factions on board for a Palestinian state, we can make peace and heal our relationships in our churches and our homes — not by ignoring the differences but fully addressing them, by involving others as neighbors, and by doing all of this with the knowledge that our time on earth is not endless.

Obama versus McCain or not, it seems we can learn much from considering that possibility. We can also be inspired by Secretary Rice who wisely said no to entering that contest.
Larry Little may be reached at lawrencelittle@wavecablecom.

In 1999 Eyman’s most famous initiative, I-695, passed to the horror of elected officials. I remember Gov. Gary Locke pleading with the electorate not to vote for the initiative while promising the Legislature would correct the problem of overly expensive and unfair car tabs if only they’d be given a chance. If they’d done that during the regular session the initiative probably would have failed. But they didn’t act and then it was too late. The gravy train of car tab taxes ended. It was also the time we learned how those car tabs supported everything from libraries to medical clinics to ferries, much to our chagrin. When too many competing interests depend on one tax, the all-too-clever funding mechanism will never work.

But obviously the elected officials in Olympia still haven’t gotten the message, so Tim’s back again. It would never be necessary to restrain the spending habits of legislators if they had any self-control or understood and believed in constraining government spending. Unfortunately I’m not sure any elected official ever met a source of money he or she didn’t want to tap, especially when it’s in the seemingly bottomless pit of taxpayers’ pockets.

Citizens’ initiatives wouldn’t be necessary if legislators kept faith with the people who elected them. Much like I-695, I-960 wouldn’t be on the ballot if the Legislature hadn’t overstepped its bounds in 2005 and slapped “emergency clauses” on many bills which didn’t allow the voters a chance to approve or reject them through the referendum process.

During that same legislative session, they also eviscerated the constraints placed on raising taxes by shuffling funds from one account to another and then another. Their sleight of hand was done to circumvent the limits imposed by a prior initiative which would have required a vote of the electorate. Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens called these maneuvers a “shell game” meant to deny the people a vote.

That previous initiative was I-601 which passed in 1993. It sought to limit spending growth to inflation plus population growth (fiscal growth factor); required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to increase taxes; required the Legislature approve any fees exceeding the fiscal growth factor and required voter approval of any tax increase exceeding the spending limit. From 1987 to 1993 state spending increased 17.3 percent per biennium. After passage of I-601, spending increases were held to an average of 8.9 percent. The last two legislative sessions have seen state spending skyrocket over 30 percent.

It’s no coincidence spending went up under a Democratic governor and a Legislature controlled by the same party.

After all, they didn’t earn their reputation as the “tax-and-spend party” by being fiscally responsible.

Initiative 960 will rein in this runaway spending addiction and hopefully return it to a level of fiscal sanity. It would re-impose the required two-thirds vote of the Legislature to raise taxes. Fee increases would be subject to legislative approval, as opposed to the current practice where unelected members of various agencies impose fees.

No longer could the Legislature shuffle funds between accounts in order to avoid a vote of the people to raise taxes. It would require a 10-year analysis on tax increases by the Office of Financial Management. Of course some believe this analysis is too cumbersome. But why wouldn’t our elected officials, and the people, want to know the long-range consequences of a tax increase? And, if emergency clauses are slapped on a revenue-raising bill, it would require an advisory vote of the people.

Two groups voicing their self-serving opposition to this initiative are the Washington Education Association, representing most teachers, and the Service Employees International Union, representing many state employees. What a surprise!

They fear the Legislature may not be able to continue funneling money in their direction. I hope those fears prove to be correct when this initiative passes.

Initiatives like I-960 wouldn’t be necessary if legislators acted responsibly. This initiative will re-impose the fiscal discipline the Legislature lost when they tampered with the constraints imposed by I-601. Please vote yes on Initiative 960.
Pam Dzama may be reached at columnists@kitsapsun.com.

Who you gonna call?

You’re going to call on the same people you call upon if you needed a cup of sugar. The same people you call if you need help with a flat tire in the driveway or getting your lawn mower started. The same people you call if you have, for instance, a deranged rat running in tight little clockwise circles for hours in your carport like I did last weekend. But that’s a different story. Let’s stick with disasters that reach beyond my carport for now.

We’re talking neighbors. When the big one hits — whether it’s wind or quake — it’s one another we’ll have to depend on in the immediate aftermath. And the city has the guy for you — Mr. Ed Call, emergency preparedness consultant, otherwise known as a cheerful cheerleader for calamity and crisis.

One slide asked: How would your neighborhood fare if isolated for five to 10 days? Well, speaking for my neighborhood, 10 days without cars barreling through at 50 mph would be heaven. But I will admit that if the situation called for much more than our worrying about wine and cheese, we might get a bit uncomfortable.

It’s serious business, don’t get me wrong. One slide contained statistics for the infamous “Hanukkah Howler” of Dec. 14-15 last year — a day and a half of wind. The average Bainbridge home was without power for four days.

And I was here in the Arctic Blast. No picnic.

In fact, it occurred to me at one point that Call might be preaching to the choir here. I mean a couple dozen people don’t drag themselves to City Hall on a Tuesday night to listen to the disaster guy if they didn’t already entertain the notion that disaster is a distinct possibility. But storm stats do work disaster-junkies like myself into a state of action, so I see the point.

Basically, Ed Call will help you organize. Map Your Neighborhood, as it were. It’s not a case of who is going to do what in case of disaster — not knowing what time a disaster will strike means you don’t know who will be where. But it’s a case of getting to know one another, what resources you offer (from ladders to generators to chain saws), what special needs exist (people in wheelchairs, elderly folks, babies or toddlers), and what areas of expertise are available (doctors, nurses, etc.).

Hmm. In my neighborhood, we have a garage sale junkie with a shed full of stuff — surely something in there could prove useful. An inventory might be in store. We’ll have to look further for the special needs (beyond the aforementioned wine). As far as expertise, I’m not sure having salesmen, lawyers, computer developers, writers or draftsmen are going to come in too handy.

Oh, but there is a certified water operator/marine scientist, a science lab administrator, real estate agent, librarian, wedding consultant, former record producer and oh — jackpot — a structural engineer. But that won’t be enough. Clearly, we need to define our neighborhood along geographical boundaries drawn specifically to include at least one medical expert. They have drawn boundaries with specific intent in Texas, after all. We’ve got plenty of cooks. We should try to get a doctor and a musician and then I figure we’ll have it made — we’ll build a structure and open a clinic/restaurant with live entertainment.

Because the reality is, real help may not be able to get to us for days and days, depending on the magnitude of the disaster. It will be up to us to take care of us, and ensure everyone gets water, food and medical attention — maybe provide shelter and clear roads. If children are separated from parents, we’ll need to take care of them.

And that requires we know one another.

So it’s a matter of getting started. The specifics of how much water, how to treat it, what to put together to have on hand and where to put it — that’s part of all this and it’s time to get that started, too.

I came home with some pamphlets and a heightened sense of non-specific anxiety. One woman, describing her experiences after a major earthquake, said flashlights were knocked off nightstands, leaving people crawling around through broken glass at 2 a.m. using their cell phones for light.

Right then and there I vowed to do two things:

Always sleep with a flashlight duct-taped to my palm.

Help my neighborhood get organized enough to help one another through what may or may not be coming. One of these days, we may need more than a cup of sugar from one another.

To get Ed Call to your neighborhood, call (206) 473-7818 or e-mail eacall@comcast.net.

One, a girl from northern Germany, was met here at the end of the school year by both parents and all three siblings, all eager to plunge into Americana, which of course in spring includes baseball. It was tempting to try to explain baseball to a group of Germans, so I tried. I tried to explain the strike zone and strikes and balls and why a foul ball is not a ball but a strike and so on, but probably not soon enough I sensed I was telling them more than they wanted to know. What they wanted wasn’t an intellectual understanding of the sport, just the sensory experience of it.

So we went to a Tacoma Rainiers game on one of those delicious evenings baseball was meant for, and from the left-field bleachers, surrounded by the sweet smells of popcorn and hotdogs and idle pleasure, we had as a sideshow the sun setting on Mt. Rainier. The father of this family, a lawyer with an undisguised appreciation of sensual pleasures, suddenly leaped to his feet and, to the delight of everyone but his family, let loose a prolonged, exuberant yodel.

Another visitor was a young student from Switzerland, near Lucerne, where the three famous peaks of the Jungfrau, the Monch, and the Eiger form what the Swiss call “the rooftop of the world.” We took him on a drive northward from Bremerton one clear, sunny morning and crossed the Hood Canal Bridge just as the sun was hitting The Brothers. “Those are the Olympics,” we pointed out, expecting some excitement for our Northwest beauty. “Nice,” he said politely.

A little deflated, we drove on to Port Townsend, pointing out that this was one of the oldest settlements in Washington state, going all the way back to 1890. Having been to Switzerland, having lived in Europe for a year, I should have known better than try to impress a Swiss with our mountains, or any European with our Northwest version of antiquity.

One evening around the dinner table, with a family of visitors from Argentina, a neighbor of ours, a high school boy who’d studied in Argentina, got into a verbal shoot-out with the Argentinean father over the merits of Juan Peron. The argument raced on — in Portuguese — with the boy interrupting occasionally to provide quick interpretations. The adult insisted that Peron was a great leader, a hero of his country. The boy said, No, he was a power-hungry scoundrel who, with the help of his power-mad wife, cheated his countrymen and stashed away mountains of the peoples’ money for his personal use. Body language revealed the outcome: the American teenager prevailed.

When one of our Japanese girls finished her school year, her mother and an aunt came from Japan for the graduation ceremony. The older women couldn’t conceal their curiosity about a modern American home. With their video camera, and giggling through it all, they filmed the inside of the oven, the dishwasher, the disposal, the trash compactor, the washer and dryer, even the toilet.

The final item on their agenda was to go to the mall in Tacoma to have their ears pierced, though fearful of what their husbands would say.

One evening while a young Russian visitor, a teenager, lounged on our living room floor, the conversation turned to national anthems, and I hummed what I thought was Russia’s. “No, that’s not it,” she said. “How does it go?” I asked. “Will you sing it?”

She snapped to her knees, her shoulders thrown back, and sang it at full volume, as if for a full house. It was a little unnerving.

These memories remain, and now, if I read about a train derailment in Germany or a volcano erupting near Mexico City, if I hear reports of earthquakes in Japan or flooding in Switzerland or the waning of democracy in Russia, I can’t be disinterested anymore.

How else could I get an education like this?
Rob Woutat may be reached at rwoutat@tscnet.com.

But first, what’s the state of the old-fashioned neighborhood? At school, a professor once asked us in the class to take notes on houses and neighborhoods as we walked from school toward the city center. What kind of neighborhoods did we see? Did people take care of and pride in their homes? How could you tell when we were in a new neighborhood?

Neighborhoods bring us a stronger sense of community than any online substitute. You may find people of similar interests in an AOL chatroom, but it can’t beat the warm, detached companionship in a casual greeting to a neighbor, even if you don’t his name. I may not know the name of the man who lives downstairs from me, but I would be happy to help him change a tire or give him a quarter for the dryer if he were one short. That’s what a friendly, mumbled daily greeting has done for our relationship.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was made of streets and streets of narrow rowhouses, like many cities on the East Coast. As we walked from school to town, the houses changed, even in groups of four or five: modest at first, with small gardens and steep steps; then very small and narrow, with bare fronts and no yards; then poorly maintained, with broken iron railings and trash on the front stoop; now suddenly expansive with welcoming porches, wide yards, attached garages. Then the commercial center, with its taller buildings and increased traffic. It was true — if you watch very carefully on a walk, you can watch the neighborhoods go by. But did they have names or identity?

In West Bremerton, neighborhoods names and identities can be hard to define. History has brought us Charleston, Navy Yard City and, if you know where it is, Smith. Geography helps us know where Rocky Point, Callow, Manette, Kiwanis Park, Crown Hill, Evergreen Park, Highland/Pleasant, West Park, West Hills and Anderson Cove are. (Some of my friends believe the area around 15th and Wyckoff should be known as the “Hi-Lo Café” District, but that’s still under discussion.)

The rest of the city is harder to define. What do you call the areas in between? I live downtown but between the Harborside District and Evergreen Park. Would that be … the Power Plant District? Diamond Parking Lot Hills? It was asked recently at a open house for the Downtown Sub-Area plan and got no good answers. As the Downtown Plan goes through all appropriate reviews and approvals, we should then talk about what we call where we live.

(Not surprisingly, Manette consistently wins the prize for the strongest neighborhood identity. Manette was also named one of the “Best Neighborhoods in Seattle,” so they must be doing something right. I love having Manette next door and am always impressed that Councilman Brockus has such frequent district meetings.)

But I digress. Regardless if you can name your neighborhood, it’s time to take care of it. No one enjoys a tax increase, but as a resident of Bremerton, I’m excited that (apparently) everything else in the city is so well taken care of that we’re now spending money on quality-of-life issues like sidewalks, parks, trees, and those famous planter boxes.

I’ll be voting “yes” on Proposition 1 in November because I realize how what changes those “quality of life” changes like parks and good sidewalks can make, now that I’m on my second mid-size city. Now that our blight and economic doldrums are on the way out, it’s great to be able to switch gears and talk about neighborhoods for a change.

As the Hi-Lo Café says in its informal (of course) campaign: It’s time to beautify Bremerton. Vote yes on Proposition 1.
Bremerton resident Torie Brazitis is a former member of the Kitsap Sun editorial board. She may be reached at torie.brazitis@gmail.com.

Oh, how times have changed. When I left the company 11 years ago, an entire fraud unit had been established, not only at corporate headquarters in San Francisco, but in the local Seattle branch office as well.

The motivation of my employer hadn’t changed. It had always been to fairly compensate those who’d suffered a loss. But another dynamic had come into play. Now the company had to deal with schemers determined to defraud the company, adversely affecting all policyholders. It was a sad commentary on what had happened in our society.

The latest attempt to take advantage of insurance companies now exists in the form of Referendum 67 which masquerades as another “fairness” issue for the hapless populace taken advantage of by greedy businesses. It’s regrettable our local legislators supported this misbegotten bill. Unfortunately it’s not surprising given their reliance on the plaintiff’s bar for campaign funds. Of course those same trial lawyers will be the biggest winners should this referendum pass.

This act is dubiously dubbed the “insurance fair conduct act” and according to the voter’s pamphlet, Referendum 67 “...would amend the laws concerning unfair or deceptive insurance practices by providing that an insurer engaged in the business of insurance may not unreasonably deny a claim for coverage or payment of benefits to any first party claimant.” It further states that a successful claimant would be able to recover their attorney fees and all costs of litigation and, if the court so decided, triple damages could be awarded. All these consequences are triggered by the concept of “unreasonable” behavior on the part of the insurance company, but the term “unreasonable” is never defined.

No one supports any business acting “unreasonably” but who defines “unreasonable”? The insurance company, the claimant, the attorneys, the judge, public opinion? This vague definition isn’t common in other states’ laws against bad faith. Oklahoma uses this standard: “reckless disregard of duty, intentional and with malice”, while Rhode Island’s standard is “wrongfully and in bad faith refused to pay.” Both these standards are clearly higher than Washington’s proposed “unreasonable” trigger.

The insurance industry is focused on the public good. It exists to “make whole” but not enrich those who incur losses. Without insurance it would be impossible to buy houses, cars, businesses or anything else that would pose a potential disastrous financial loss to the owner.

Proponents of R-67 claim this bill is needed to guaranty that insurers honor their contractual commitments to their policyholders and that claimants have no redress if legitimate claims are denied. That’s false. There are already laws on the books protecting consumers and companies can be sued today for bad faith. Additionally, the state insurance commissioner’s office offers free consumer advocate services.

Supporters claim the opponents of R-67 are predominantly insurance companies. While it’s true many insurance companies oppose this referendum they are far from the only ones. Numerous Chambers of Commerce, including Bellevue, Issaquah, Kirkland, and Redmond oppose R-67. To name just a few more opponents: Avista Corporation, the Washington Construction Industry Council, Washington Food Industry, Washington State Medical Association and the Washington Retail Association.

This unnecessary law will also be expensive for policyholders in the state. Milliman, Inc., a very large independent actuarial and consulting firm founded in Seattle in 1947 recently completed a study of the consequences of R-67 passage. Their analysis indicates a rise in the number of claims filed in addition to increased insurance costs. Common sense and economic reality dictate that if costs increase for the insurance companies, those costs will be passed on to the policyholders in the form of higher rates and/or less coverage.

The Washington Office of Management and Budget also indicates the higher number of suits brought in the court system and claims made to the Insurance Commissioner’s office will also increase costs to the state.

Milliman’s analysis also concurred with a prior study which concluded “...that bad faith, and first party bad faith in particular, is costly for insurers and worth considerable effort to control.” Companies already have incentives to control bad faith claims.

I know of no incident in my 20 years in the industry where the company I worked for actively sought to decline coverage for legitimate claims. No company wants to be accused of operating in bad faith.

Washington doesn’t need this expensive “remedy” for a “problem” that doesn’t exist. Insurance companies aren’t in the business of denying coverage where it exists. Increasing the number of frivolous lawsuits is counterproductive. Please vote no on this costly, misguided referendum.
Pam Dzama may be reached at columnists@kitsapsun.com.

It’s a gift of incalculable potentials.

Consider that there are millions of animal species on earth, each with some means of communication, a means we could call language. Dogs say to other dogs, “Stay off my turf.” Birds have ways of saying, “Careful, the cat’s out again,” or “What say we head south?” We certainly aren’t the only language users on this planet.

But we have this advantage: we’re born with all the anatomical tools needed for speech at an extraordinarily complex level. On top of that, we have a brain that’s equipped at birth with the potential to master any of the world’s 2,700-some languages and perform linguistic feats unattainable by our fellow creatures. With these tools, and then the invention of writing, members of our group have created verbal monuments such as the plays of Shakespeare, the poetry of Yeats, the essays of Montaigne, the novels of Dickens and Faulkner, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

On average, an American 5-year-old, even with no formal training, has already learned 5,000 to 8,000 words, according to a Penn State University Web site. He can already speak in compound and complex sentences and for the most part do it grammatically. He’ll err occasionally, as adults sometimes do, but only because he’s following a kind of logic our language sometimes flouts. “I goed,” he might say, or “I runned.”

By the time he’s in the third grade, his vocabulary has exploded even further. Still, with about 615,000 words in the Oxford English Dictionary, there are plenty more to learn, and for those lucky third-graders, those dictionaries, those gifts of words, will propel them further, eventually giving them access to Shakespeare, Yeats, Faulkner, and all the rest.

If you think third-graders aren’t sophisticated enough to sense the significance of this gift of words, you should be there when the Rotarians present the books to third-graders one by one, calling each student by name.

“Thank you so much, one said.” Is this really mine? Can I take it home and show it to my mom?”

“Wow! I’ve never had my own dictionary.”

One boy found a picture of a sextant. “My dad and I saw one of these in a movie! I’m going to show him this page tonight! It names all the parts!”

“Look at the aardvark!”

“This book has sign language!”

In the classrooms where second- and third-graders were combined, second graders looked on enviously, knowing they’d have to wait one long year to get dictionaries of their own, and that in the meantime their classmates would be getting the jump on them. But as one second-grader looked inside the copy an older classmate shared, he was awed: “Are there power words in it?” he asked. “OH, it’s FULL of power words!!!”

One girl merely hugged the Rotarian who presented her the book.

“What do you think we mean by ‘the spirit of learning’?” a Rotarian asked.

Without hesitation, hands shot into the air.

“Reading a lot.”

“Learning lots of new things.”

“Learning lots of words and liking it.”

Without words, a third-grader couldn’t have said, “Look at the aardvark!” Or, “Is the flag for the Philippines in here? I can’t find it ... Oh, that’s because they’re in alphabetical order and I’m looking at the flags that start with C.”

Through words, we transmit culture from one generation to the next, and the literature and history we write will be time capsules to be deciphered ages hence by generations we’ll never know. Those third-graders have the potential to create records of their own, to let their posterity know who they were, and where, and why. It begins with the gift of words.
Rob Woutat may be reached at rwoutat@tscnet.com.

Our son was in that race. We are very proud of him. As in each race over his long and successful running career — through high school in Kitsap and later in college, graduate school and now recreationally and for his corporation — he has been fast, but also focused and prudent. I watched him at the mid-point of the Boston Marathon a couple of years ago, where he was one of the top finishers. He was so focused that my shouts, even when coupled with those of several other spectators I had recruited into fans, were not heard by him although he was only a few feet away.

Which brings me back to that unusual outcome in last Sunday’s race in Chicago between the two top female finishers. I watched the on-line streaming video as the camera focused for over 10 minutes on the steady striding Romanian Adriana Pirtea, sometimes ahead and sometimes behind her coach, but always in the lead with no woman seemingly anywhere close.

Then the unusual happened.

Coming out of the final turn, and apparently out of nowhere, was Ethiopia’s Berhane Adere at full sprint after 26 miles of running. Just as Pirtea raised her hand to wave at the crowd acknowledging her apparent victory, Adere sprinted past her, weaving across the finish line — and immediately collapsing.

Lessons abound.

We could focus on the “what-ifs.” As Pirtea noted, what if someone in the crowd had shouted a warning at her? What if her coach had shouted a warning, say a quarter-mile back? There is little doubt in my mind that Pirtea would then have won. I doubt she will make that same mistake again. She is likely to personify the expression, “It’s not over until it’s over.”

Yes, we could focus on her taking that incredible moment for granted, as we all do so often in so many less dramatic ways. Or we could focus, as the media so often does, on those athletes who apparently cheat with enhancing drugs such as Floyd Landis in the Tour de France, Barry Bonds in baseball and Marion Jones on the Olympic track.

But it seems most worthwhile to ask what drove Adere, a wife and mother of a 10-year-old, to give her all, collapsing across the finish line with nothing left?

Watching our son win and sometimes lose races, year after year, but always watching him keep his wits and common sense with him, I have some clues. Watching stars such as Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods gives further clues.

Tiger Woods’ fellow golfers noted that he has “mental toughness” and that “no one is scrambling the way he is.”

Perhaps newcomer Pirtea can take heart from her lesson in what Michael Jordan has learned, “I have missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I have lost almost 300 games. On 26 occasions I have been entrusted to take the game winning shot … and missed. And I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why … I succeed.”

As a friend of mine noted, it’s “physical intelligence.” It has been called, “It’s knowing how to turn up the volume on the language of the body to make it easier to hear its voice.”

Perhaps when we focus on what’s within we can call forth a superhuman strength, like a woman lifting a car off her child. But even more likely it’s the day-in, and day-out, struggle. For long distance runners it’s the 100-plus-miles weeks. For most of us maybe it’s in the most difficult, challenging and worthwhile aspects of our lives, perhaps most especially from time to time in our marriages, with our families and in our spiritual lives.

So what is it that 34-year-old Adere has learned, that we might learn from her?

Four things: She trained with her husband and by doing so she believes she improved her finishing speed. Her teachers believed in her. She expresses a deep belief in God. And lastly, she says, “It is a great honor to win for the country.”

Running with all of this within, she won.
Larry Little may be reached at lawrencelittle@wavecable.com.

The celebration was attended by the school board members and various
dignitaries including north-end legislators. Even state Superintendent of
Public Instruction Terry Bergeson, spoke.

“This is such a beautiful school. It’s a beautiful learning space for
children ...” she said. “I came here three years ago and saw the site in
which the school was built on. This is an environmentally wonderful site
that focuses on sustainability.”

I’m not sure what she’s talking about with regards to “sustainability,” a
currently favored buzzword. The high school is sustainable? The environment
is sustainable? This speech was less than impressive from the person in
charge of the state’s school system.

I supported building Kingston High because I believed this area needed
another high school. The bond measure was supported by over 60 percent of
eligible voters in the area. So I was surprised to receive a flier at the
open house which purported to explain “Just the Facts” about what is
referred to as the “Simple Majority” amendment to Washington’s constitution.

The flier was put out by North Kitsap School District and described House
Joint Resolution 4204, passed during the last legislative session. The bill
was requested by the governor and co-sponsored by Kitsap Democratic State
Reps. Appleton, Haigh, Lantz and Rolfes.

Like so many other liberal proposals, this one also carries the underlying
assumption that “it’s for the children.” You’re never supposed to question
any of these propositions.

House Joint Resolution 4204 seeks to amend our state constitution by
changing the current requirement for passage of a school levy from 60
percent of voters to a majority of voters (50 percent plus one).

Additionally, it eliminates the prerequisite that the votes cast must
represent at least 40 percent of those voting in the last general election.

According to the flier handed out at Kingston High School, the change would
“authorize excess capital, maintenance and operation, and transportation
levies for school districts.” Today, well over 90 percent of these levies
pass under the current requirements.

While it’s true this change isn’t an automatic tax increase, it certainly
will make it much easier to pass school levies which many times do raise
property taxes. Since most are approved easily now, I don’t understand the
need to change the constitution. And it’s quite worrisome that a minimum
requirement for voter turnout would no longer be required. Without this
stipulation, a tiny number of voters could pass levies affecting all
property owners in the district.

The supposed driving force behind the need to change the current levy
requirements involves the fact these restrictions were put in place over 60
years ago and aren’t needed today. After all, the reasoning goes, there were
over 2,000 school districts then and only 295 now and any funding requests
must include detailed information.

Again, according to the North Kitsap School District flier, “The super
majority requirement was proposed to address voter concerns and confusion
about school funding elections.” The “super majority” requirement was passed
in 1944 and that quote implies the voters at the time were easily confused
with requests for school funding.

This is the Greatest Generation that managed to survive the Great Depression
and defeat Germany and Japan in World War II. I don’t believe they couldn’t
understand requests for school funding. It’s much more likely they were
concerned about the ease with which more money was funneled into the schools
with little accountability for results.

Sixty years later that same thought occurs to me if this constitutional
amendment passes. The proponents of the measure, the school boards and the
teachers’ union, see this as an easy way to continue funding school levies,
with little opposition. As property owners struggle under the burden of
increasing taxes it doesn’t seem logical to make it easier for a taxing
entity to pass levies without a supermajority vote of the people affected.

This constitutional amendment isn’t needed when most levies pass without
much difficulty. It won’t benefit “the children” if voters run out of money
to fund the bottomless pit of taxing requests. Kingston High School might
not be here today if this change had existed years ago and the taxpayers had
exhausted their ability to pay. Please vote no on this unnecessary and
ultimately costly amendment to our constitution.
Pam Dzama may be reached at columnists@kitsapsun.com.

He wandered around the lower 48 for a couple of years, then headed for Alaska, long a sanctuary for people fleeing bad marriages or the law and a magnet for risk-takers, lovers of wilderness, and those who just want to disappear.

In April, 1992, an Alaskan local dropped McCandless off at the Stampede Trail about 75 miles southwest of Fairbanks, north of the entrance to Denali National Park. As he headed down the snow-covered route, he carried with him some camping equipment, a camera, some books — including a field guide to the area’s edible plants — 10 pounds of rice, and a .22 rifle with several boxes of ammunition.

Several locals recognized an ill-equipped hiker when they saw him and tried to discourage him; a .22 was adequate for hunting birds and small rodents but futile against bears, and he didn’t appear to be prepared for the Alaskan wilderness.

His original plan was to hike to the coast, but the marshy fields of tussocks made travel too difficult so he made his home in an abandoned bus where, by foraging for edible roots and berries and killing small game, he got along for almost four months. He died some time in August and his decomposed body was found by moose hunters in early September. He was 24.

Krakauer theorizes that McCandless didn’t die from an inability to find food but possibly from ingesting marijuana seeds, which contain a poisonous alkaloid that causes weakness and loss of coordination and interferes with the metabolism of nutrients, eventually bringing on starvation.

It’s hard not to react somehow to this young man’s story. If you’re young and idealistic and attracted by risk, you might admire a man who lives his dream, an idealist who refuses to be chained to the material world, who is courageous enough to live life on his own austere terms — a Thoreauvian/Emersonian, march-to-your-own-drummer, hitch-your-wagon-to-a-star kind of guy. Even though his life ended prematurely, he tried. He gave it his all. You have to admire him for that, especially if you once entertained those kinds of dreams yourself but didn’t have what it takes to carry them out, or still intend to carry them out some day in the future.

On the other hand, maybe you don’t. An older person may see McCandless as a self-indulgent innocent who turned his back on his family and the benefits their labors provided him, a child who, despite his ample intellect, didn’t have the sense to listen to the advice of people savvier than he, a wastrel who contributed so little to the lives of others, a naïve romantic who got in way over his head and paid a fatal price for it, a self-centered misfit whose only contribution to his fellow man was an illustration of heedless behavior and a senseless death.

A former wilderness traveler myself, in a burst of reckless and prolonged irrationality I once contemplated a solo expedition of several hundred miles along the border lakes between Minnesota and Ontario in winter. I make this confession by way of saying that although I’m now well past the risk-taking age, I understand the yearnings. I also make allowance for his youth.

We can’t know what McCandless might have contributed if he’d been more cautious and lived a longer, more useful life. Those who’ve lived as long as I have might rebuke him for his choices, but in a more thoughtful moment we should be grateful that our lives won’t be judged solely on the little we’d achieved at 24.
Rob Woutat may be reached at rwoutat@tscnet.com.

Critics say that we live pampered lives and deserve what we get. Long ago, we shrewd, scheming types apparently figured out we could save money by moving to Kitsap County, living cheaply in a bucolic outdoor paradise and gracefully sailing to work on state-paid cruise ships. And just live with it, state of Washington!

That is hardly the case. But Kitsap residents, paddling upstream against strong currents to avoid plummeting over the waterfall, drift slowly toward ceaselessly increasing costs for intra-regional transportation. The logical conclusion is that it eventually will become impossibly unaffordable for most to leave Kitsap — ever. Many argue that’s already happened.

The question now is: How did we get into this situation? More importantly, why are we paddling so meekly?

Like many of our island neighbors, Kitsap’s ferries are the marine highways to Seattle. You just can’t get there from here if not by water, and there are no other carriers that will compete with the Washington State Ferries. We face a disquieting trend: the sole cross-Sound transportation provider assesses costs and losses each year and asks a separate, appointed, unelected board called the Washington State Transportation Commission to adjust fares accordingly.

And we here in Bremerton have gotten used to being the stepchild of the Washington State Ferries (WSF). I know it’s a longer run, which takes more fuel. I know they have to slow to a crawl through Rich Passage. Believe me, we’re happy to still be in the family — but even stepchildren should have a few rights. As if Bremerton isn’t limping along enough with the few, infrequent, slowed runs that we can get, the recent report from the state auditor’s office suggests that WSF cut runs that run at low capacities, with a significant nod toward Bremerton. In theory, if two consecutive sailings run at 45 percent capacity, canceling one will cause the other to run at 90 percent capacity.

Clearly, auditors do not ride ferries. As ferries costs increase and services dwindle, the one option left — the autonomous but polluting favorite — is to drive around. If mid-day sailings from Bremerton change from “few and far between” to “almost never,” drivers will cheerfully drive around through Tacoma or drive up to bursting-at-traffic-capacity Highway 305 and take the Bainbridge run instead. Capacities will further drop — surprise, surprise! — and further runs will be cut. That doesn’t take a professional to figure out.

We need to refocus the discussion: ferries are both highways and transit systems. They are not cruise ships and should not be run as such. Ferries move people and goods from one point to another, and I expect the boats to be only simple, safe, clean, and affordable. That’s it.

If WSF had kept this in mind, it would have alleviated much of the tangible resentment the ferry road show found in Kitsap County when it asked for even greater farebox recovery.

Like the old line says, the world is getting smaller. But regional transportation policies are pushing Kitsap forcefully toward the Olympics and away from Seattle.

When the cost of getting off our peninsula surpasses inflation, expectations and then all reason, five wealthy riders will eventually sail quietly across on the gold-plated luxury Washington state ferry yacht that makes only two sailings daily from the very best ports. The lucky five and the tourists will enjoy flat-screen televisions, personal butler service, and private espresso bar while the rest of us reminisce about the days when we used to be able to go into Seattle for fun. We will dimly remember the shape of the … what-you-call-it… Space Spindle.

This is all about access — to services, to jobs, to hospitals, and to people. Reliable and affordable ferry service expands access. Expensive and tourist-oriented cruise ships do not.

And that’s worth paddling harder for, folks.
Torie Brazitis is a former member of the Kitsap Sun Editorial Board and current member of the Bremerton Ferry Advisory Committee. She can be reached at torie.brazitis@gmail.com.

If you haven’t been in this situation before, you must not be a bureaucratic member of the government. When it comes to explaining why more funds are always necessary, look no further than the county’s director of administrative services. At the recent public “Community Conversations” meeting held in Port Orchard, he was asked a question about slowing down county spending. He responded, “It’s not as easy as it seems. That’s why we’re in this crisis. Our strategy is to educate you and ask you for money.”

This would be a great line in a comedy routine if it wasn’t so tragically pathetic. Like the kind-hearted manager, we’re just supposed to open up our wallets and start doling out the dollars.

Some members of the audience suggested ways to control spending. One idea was to stop requiring the “one-percent for art program” in county public buildings. The answer indicated a county ordinance would need to be changed, and the money wouldn’t necessarily go to the general fund. That’s not an adequate answer.

While art is wonderful, especially in the eye of the beholder, it’s hardly a core function of government, especially in times of “crisis”, to use the county director’s word. The Poulsbo City Council is also considering mandating the “one-percent for art program.” Rather than spend tax dollars on art, have any of these elected officials considered asking for donations of art, or having rolling art exhibitions by local artists?

Between 2005 and 2007, the county’s general fund revenues increased by almost 8 percent, while expenditures skyrocketed over 13 percent. The persistent cry for more money doesn’t solve, nor address, out-of-control spending. But it seems the only game plan many politicians, especially Democrats, carry in their playbook. When in doubt, “educate” the ignorant masses about why they need to pay more taxes.

Several weeks ago, William H. Gates, father of the richest man in the world, suggested the answer to Washington’s tax problems is simple. Just institute an income tax. He rightly pointed out that the poorest pay a higher percentage of their income in state taxes. But the total taxes paid by those in higher income brackets represent the huge majority of taxes collected.

It’s the same old tired argument maintaining the “rich” don’t pay their fair share. Recent U.S. Treasury Department figures show the top 1 percent pays almost 36 percent of taxes, while the top 25 percent pays almost 85 percent of taxes. In 2004 the bottom 50 percent paid 3.4 percent in taxes, down from 4.4 in 1996. These figures show the results of President Bush’s dastardly tax-rate cuts.

It’s wrong and dangerous when half the population pays next to no tax and depends on the other half’s willingness to transfer ever more of their income to all levels of government. It creates a dependency on the part of the least advantaged while simultaneously unfairly punishing those more successful. While counterintuitive, lower tax rates consistently increase revenues. This “punish the rich,” redistributionist mentality isn’t healthy.

When government isn’t trying to find ways to take more money from middle-class taxpayers, it’s trying to suck more of these same folks into government programs, making them more dependent on government’s largesse. The latest example of this ploy is known as SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. SCHIP was originally set up to cover children in households at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, about $41,300 for a family of four. This year, Washington State passed legislation increasing the income level to families making roughly $50,000 and by 2009 it will extend to families making $60,000.

According to President Bush, the legislation just passed in the House of Representatives adding $35 billion to the program would include coverage for children in some households with incomes up to $83,000, hardly my definition of poverty. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill.

The Democrats will demagogue the issue and accuse him of hurting “the children.” Hardly. Instead, he’s trying to stop the expansion of SCHIP to children currently insured by private plans into one run by the government. It’s just another liberal plan to suck the middle class into depending on government for their well-being.

If the answer is ever-increasing taxes and expanded government programs you have to wonder what the question is. Whatever it is, I don’t think it’s encouraging.
Pam Dzama may be reached at columnists@kitsapsun.com.

If you start at the southern end and drive north, you begin with a mile-long downhill stretch where the speed limit is 35. As you near the bottom of that long hill, you go into an “S” curve where the limit drops to 25. In the middle of that “S” curve, a side street, Roosevelt Street N.E., comes in from the left, making a “T” intersection.

Now imagine you’re on that side street and wanting to turn left onto Illahee Road. You’ve stopped at the stop sign and looked to your left where you have a clear view of cars approaching from that direction. Seeing none, you look for cars coming down the hill from the right, but because of the curve in the road, your sight in that direction is severely limited, so you don’t know if a car may be approaching from around the curve, beyond your sight distance. All you can do is inch out into the intersection, feeling your way, your knuckles white on your steering wheel, hoping no car is coming from the right.

If you have a passenger with you, he can roll down his window so you can at least hear cars coming. If you’re religious, maybe you pray. But at some point you have to commit to this left turn, so you hold your breath, hit the accelerator, and make your move, then glance into your rear view mirror out of fear that another car is bearing down the hill and about to crash into you from behind.

Those who live along N.E. Roosevelt find this simple left turn more hair-raising than it need be, especially if they have young children in the car. At least three drivers have been hit at this corner, but not in the way you might think. While looking fearfully to the right, where they understandably expect the greater danger to be, they made their move without paying enough attention to what’s coming from the left, then pulled directly into the path of incoming cars. WHAM. In two of the three accidents, their vehicles were totaled.

It seemed that the county’s Public Works Department should have a solution to this problem: they could mount a mirror at the intersection to give Roosevelt residents a longer view to the right, a solution that would be cheap and simple: a few dollars for the mirror, plus the labor to install it. In inexpensive investment in public safety.

Independently of one another, two Roosevelt residents called the Public Works Department with that request.

We’ll send someone out to look at the intersection and get back to you, they promised — and they did, but not satisfyingly: “The sight distance is adequate for a 25-mile zone,” they said.

It was another illustration of the fact that governments don’t always live in the same world as their citizens. In the eyes of government, in a 25-mph zone, cars go 25 miles an hour. The trouble, as real-world inhabitants know, is that many downhill drivers on Illahee Road build up speeds of 45 to 50, and on entering the “S” curve at the bottom, may slow down to 35. The few who do slow down to 25 can glance in their rear view mirrors and often see cars piling up behind them, their drivers irritated, displaying their middle fingers, itching to pass.

So, needing to make that intersection safe but getting no help from county government, residents along Roosevelt acted on their own. They found the mirror they needed, ($195, shipping included), pooled funds to buy it, and will install it themselves.

On the positive side, this is an example neighbors working together to solve a common problem.

On the negative, it’s a disappointing story about government failing to make an inexpensive investment in public safety.
Rob Woutat may be reached at rwoutat@tscnet.com.

Wow. They can’t pitch, field or produce runs, and they’re just not feeling “good about themselves?” It must be time to break out the Kleenex. Exactly what do they have to feel good about?

Pitching, defense and scoring runs represent the skills necessary for baseball teams to succeed. They’re the fundamentals on which the game depends. We’ve seen what happens when one or more of those abilities disappear.

If winning a baseball game depends on proficiency in the basics, what happens in the game of life when our educational system doesn’t focus on the fundamental skills necessary for students to succeed? In the short term, we know they’re put in remedial classes at community colleges. Hopefully that corrects the problem, though years later than it should have been fixed. But what happens to the others?

That concern was on my mind when I read these recent headlines in the Kitsap Sun, “Does Falling Behind Mean Schools Are Failing Kids?” and “WASL Takers Avoid Testing ‘Train Wreck.’” The results presented in the stories failed to produce a reason for celebration.

I’m not a supporter of federal funding for education. I’d rather see the monies spent on the Department of Education returned to the states for use by local schools. But that’s not going to happen anytime soon. So I was hopeful that when the federal No Child Left Behind Act was passed, it would at least bring some accountability to the system of doling out tax dollars.

Theoretically, if “adequate yearly progress” is not attained by a school two years in a row, then the school is placed in the “needs improvement” category. At that point, 10 percent of federal dollars are to be used for professional development in addition to allowing students to switch to a school of their choice. This restriction only applies to schools serving low-income students under the federal Title I program.

Based on the recent WASL results, four Kitsap County schools fall into the “needs improvement” category. Some of the blame for not achieving the necessary progress was placed on the fact that special-education students were obliged to meet the same grade level standard as other students. I have never understood the wisdom behind mainstreaming special-education children, whose needs are clearly different than their classmates. And it’s absurd to require them to meet the same grade-level achievement.

But the overall results on the WASL, while showing some improvement, are still disappointing, especially in the core area of math, a necessary fundamental skill. While most Kitsap school districts exceed the overall state scores at the various grade levels, it’s hardly reassuring to see the percentage of those meeting standards decline progressively from third to 10th grade.

Much of the responsibility for these results probably rests with the current in-vogue focus on the “collaborative” approach to learning as opposed to a fact-based method. Students are encouraged to work in teams to find the answers to problems. North Mason is experimenting with something called Powerful Teaching and Learning (PTL). It’s described as a cultural change in teaching. According to the Kitsap Sun, “PTL is student-centered, not teacher-centered. It promotes thinking that leads to personal reflection. ... It strives to make learning relevant to the student and to develop relationships with and among students.”

All these faddish approaches to learning focus too much on making sure students feel good about themselves instead of achieving concrete, measurable results based on facts.

And now schools in South Kitsap will start 45 minutes later on Wednesdays so teachers can have extra time for planning. As described in a recent Kitsap Sun article, “collaboration time will allow teachers to discuss students’ needs and collaborate on what works best to help them learn.” When I was teaching, years ago, those meetings and discussions took place after school and didn’t disrupt the school day.

John McClaren’s introspective explanation of the Mariners’ collapse is reminiscent of the educational system’s desire to ensure students feel good about themselves in the learning environment. Without a strong grounding in the skills necessary to succeed, those “good feelings” are hard to come by. Just ask the Mariners what happens when core skills necessary to win games disappear. I guess the answer is you “just don’t feel good about yourself.”
Pam Dzama may be reached at columnists@kitsapsun.com.