"But (he says) we've been given this choice: either we preserve and protect the environment or we have a strong economy."
Larson's proposal? We must, "support and encourage people that create jobs as opposed to stifling and choking off people who want to do good things.”
I suppose, if you buy the false choice that is the premise of his polemic, you are stuck accepting Larson's conclusion: sacrificing the environment is a good thing.
Now, when it comes to managing resources, I'm something of a conservative. No, not one of those corporate spinmasters selling the idea that green is the new gold. More of the old school, the don't eat your seed corn variety.
Larson and his ilk are what I call expedient conservatives. Worry about today, and tomorrow will take care of itself. They seem particularly fond of the business model that internalizes profit while externalizing costs; that is increasing their wealth at the publics expense.
All the trappings of practicality and realism aside, these folks need demagogues like Larson to convince the public to take the bitter pill that is their prescription for what ails us. In fact, the result will be another bout of the disease that still infects us. But then demagogues were created to preach unbelievable doctrines to those so slow they will believe it.
And in the present economic environment, with the consequences of unregulated enterprise dragging us into depression, the villains of the piece need plenty of fools repeating the mantra, regulation is the problem
The people who need a free hand to reach into the public purse are quite willing to make the necessary contributions to buy government.
People who would have us believe that creating jobs entails foregoing protecting the environment are not "people who want to do good things." Larson's backers want us to accept, what's good for them financially, justifies the permissiveness they seek.
Larson can be ridiculous in the excesses he uses to mislead the public and pose command of the issues. Recently he made a big deal, yelling and pounding the table, about how BP couldn't get a diesel-hydrogen unit going.
"Why isn't that permit issued?" he demanded. He bragged, "I'll pass a resolution that says that the County and the Clean Air Agency have to get together and get this passed."
Great theater. But after his posturing was over, BP's corporate representative had to explain to Tony that the company had no problems with either the County or the Clean Air Agency. The only holdup was BP itself.
But let's not let the facts get in the way.
As Larson is flushed out, and forced onto the public stage, his limited understanding of county issues becomes apparent. And as he delivers one after another contrived speech, the real purpose of his candidacy becomes apparent: maintain a majority on the council to help Sam Crawford.
They intend to minimize protection of critical areas, forgo preservation of resource lands, and gut regulation of the building industry.
They intend to keep Whatcom county out of compliance with state and federal laws intended to bring reasonable order and conserve our critical resources for the long run.
They will eat our seed corn.
Larson proposes a false choice: the economy or the environment. His program is based on a phony paradigm.
In this election the choice is between expediency and experience.
