Loose change, or be careful what you wish for

Change is on the tip of everyone's tongue these days, and it is inevitable that change will occur. It is a perfectly normal law of nature; however, it is equally demonstrable that the more things change the more they remain the same. Newton captured the concept which is as true in politics as it is in physics.

We have all watched as the environmental movement matured and the guerrilla tactics honed in the '60s and refined in the '70s and '80s developed into a major domestic industry in the '90s. Perhaps the most illustrative manifestation of this evolution is the Gorean concept of invidious climate change. (Apologies to John Norman, author of the Chronicles of Gor. Did you think I was referring to Al Gore?)

My mind is pulled to these thoughts by the recent Ballot Measure 4.

The sardonic nexus I perceive relates to the way the tactics embraced by the proponents of BM4 were the direct outgrowth of the fear mongered by Rachel Carson once upon a time when she leapt to the conclusion that DDT adversely impacted certain birds.

This, of course, lead to the malaria epidemic from which we are just now beginning to recover and which is responsible for over 600,000 deaths so far this year alone.

Her disciples, who brought us the energy crisis and the loss of domestic jobs and manufacturing capacity, spawned a multitude of splinter groups whose adherence to "the public interest" has fallen off the chart.

BM4 ostensibly was a "public interest" kind of proposal, but actually was designed to keep potential producers of critical minerals out of one man's backyard. He clearly has had zero interest in protecting the environment but enough money to attempt to make BM4 happen. The effort involved no more public interest than a good case of cancer, but that was beside the point. He could use all and every tactic in the green team's playbook to bully the general public.

Witness, the initiative process: by preparing and circulating two very poorly drafted initiative proposals, he was able to induce (and pay nicely for) an army of the uninformed to secure signatures from thousands of the ignorant. He abused the judicial system, not once or twice but in three discrete appearances. His minions authored a pseudo-scholarly tract to support his improbable thesis. He flooded the media with the Big Lie, challenging every documented correction as disingenuous. Whenever his personal role in the campaign was brought to light, he declined to dignify it with an apology.

There is much to this tale that is still unwritten, but the substance of the epic is less critical than the motivation and the means that have been utilized. No one seriously debates the need to protect the Bristol Bay fishery or the need for the minerals that the Pebble Project could produce. Nor can anyone seriously debate the economic reality that big projects - pipelines or gold mines - cost big bucks. Our social contract calls for a well-regulated commercial sector and, candidly, we have one that we can be proud of.

Instead, the debate relates to what moral sideboards, if any, should be imposed upon the means used to achieve the desired ends. Should we allow anyone and everyone to use and abuse the initiative process without risk of sanction? Should the courts treat all comers with equanimity irrespective of their motives? Can the media be forever insidiously co-opted without consequence? Just how long can our community tolerate the devil on the dance floor?

Change, good or bad, happens. Actions have consequences. Chaos theory teaches that even the beat of a butterfly's wing can influence the world we live in. In the eternal battle between good and evil, we must all choose sides; although it is often difficult to know for sure who has the high ground.

It is my ardent hope that this recent campaign over BM4 will not be deemed a bellwether but a boundary beyond which we should not go. Simply said: Shame on you Bob Gillam; shame on all the proponents of BM4; and shame on all you, fellow travelers.

Recognize the jeopardy in which you place our institutions. For now, initiatives can address almost any subject. The courts remain generally open to all. The free media will survive. Frodo lives. BM4 may be only a wing beat in the greater scheme of things, but if change is in the wind, let us pick our direction with care.