The Sears Mall Is Truly Ugly

There are places all over town where green is disappearing and structures are taking its place. But there are some places in town that are so ugly, they are begging to be replaced. The Sears Mall certainly qualifies as one of the prime spots.

Imagine an eye-soothing, noise absorbing four foot high tree topped green berm bordering Benson, Northern Lights, and Seward Highway. Real architecture with interesting lines, aesthetic surfaces, functional design and spaces both inside and out.

Let's hope no one nominates this eyesore for the Historic Preservation List. Instead it should go on the to-tear-down-and-make-beautiful list. If people stop shopping there, maybe it will happen sooner. Or to keep people shopping there the owners could start engaging the community to turn this prime location into a beautiful urban oasis.

Rich M. Wanda's Low Profile Campaign

On Telephone Ave. near Denali.


It's low budget too.



You can go to the Federal Election Commission to see the rest of this chart and how much other candidates have raised and spent.

CH2M Hill: "From time to time, ... the U.S. government investigate[s] whether we conduct our operations in accordance with applicable regulatory ..."

I caught this because someone got to my blog by Googling "ch2m contract fraud." I looked to see what else they found. CH2M Hill bought Veco, according to Bill Allen in the Pete Kott trial, at a bargain basement price when he was forced to sell. When the name on the VECO building was changed last year, I pondered whether CH2M Hill would be a better corporate citizens than VECO had been. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though some commenters linked to spots that showed they had problems with contracting in Iraq and with Katrina relief. So it seemed a good time to add some more information.

Overall, I don't read SEC filings enough to know if this is in the normal range or not. Let's hope it is not. But let's post it and let others give it some context.

CH2M Hill submitted its Form 10K with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) February 29, 2008. I'm posting here the Legal Proceedings section.

The title quote is a bit of fancy legal writing to make things look pretty benign. My legalese isn't all that good, but I would translate it as:

"We have regular investigations from the US Attorneys to see whether we've violated any laws." Given the lax regulatory enforcement under the Bush administration, it would seem to take some real effort to trigger regular investigations.

But not to worry, sometimes we aren't found guilty.

These investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action.

Key issues they list:

• $ 2 million settlement in Connecticut (still pending conclusion)

"we entered into a deferred prosecution agreement" - a subsidiary worked out a deal with the United States Attorney so they aren't going to be prosecuted is what that sounds like.

The DPA relates to an investigation of a Clean Water Act (CWA) violation at two wastewater treatment facilities in Connecticut. Pursuant to the DPA, the subsidiary contributed $2.0 million to community projects and took other agreed upon steps to enhance CH2M HILL's CWA compliance procedures at the two wastewater treatment facilities in Connecticut

I'm guessing at the translation into English: "We worked out a deal where we paid $2million to various community groups to escape from being prosecuted."

• Veco
  

Although we were satisfied with the results of the due diligence review, no assurances can be given that the ongoing investigations will not result in civil or criminal charges against VECO, now a subsidiary of ours. Any such charges and related publicity could have an adverse effect on our reputation in the business community or future business operations.

• Hanford Nuclear Spill
  

On July 27, 2007, our subsidiary, CH2M HILL Hanford Group ("CH2M Hanford") caused a spill of approximately 85 gallons of radioactive waste, during routine maintenance operations on the Hanford Reservation owned by the United States Department of Energy ("DOE").

It looks like they face a possible $.5 million fine from the State of Washington on that one. (Is the "." a typo? If I were writing it I would have written Half-million rather than have it look like five million. Maybe it was intended to be confusing. Who knows?


The whole Legal Proceedings section is below.


From the Filing:

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are a party to various contractual guarantees and legal actions arising in the normal course of our business. From time to time, agencies of the U.S. government investigate whether we conduct our operations in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Because a large portion of our

20


business comes from federal, state, and municipal sources, our procurement practices at times also are subject to review and occasional investigations by U.S. and state attorneys offices. Such state and U.S. government investigations, whether relating to government contracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines or penalties. These investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action. Damages assessed in connection with and the cost of defending any such actions could be substantial. While the outcomes of pending proceedings are often difficult to predict, as of the date of this filing, our management believes that no ongoing litigation or investigation is likely to result in a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2006, a subsidiary entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut. The DPA relates to an investigation of a Clean Water Act (CWA) violation at two wastewater treatment facilities in Connecticut. Pursuant to the DPA, the subsidiary contributed $2.0 million to community projects and took other agreed upon steps to enhance CH2M HILL's CWA compliance procedures at the two wastewater treatment facilities in Connecticut. Provided CH2M HILL complies with its obligations under the DPA through January 2008, the U.S. District Attorney for the District of Connecticut will recommend dismissal of all actions against the subsidiary in connection with this matter. The violation is related to failure to comply with sampling and reporting requirements of the CWA and there is no evidence the violation resulted in harm to human health or the environment. Although the term of the DPA ended in January 2008 and we believe we have fully complied with the DPA, the DPA will not be released and the criminal charge will not be removed until the U.S. District Attorney for the District of Connecticut is satisfied all conditions have been met. We are currently in discussions with the U.S. District Attorney for the District of Connecticut to achieve this resolution.

In September 7, 2007, we acquired VECO and substantially all of its operating businesses. Prior to the acquisition, on May 2, 2007, the founder, then chief executive officer and principal shareholder of VECO, Bill Allen, entered into a plea agreement with the United States Department of Justice pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to certain criminal charges involving bribery of public officials, violation of campaign contribution laws, and tax fraud. In connection with the investigation of the allegations against Mr. Allen, the United States Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service and certain State of Alaska government agencies commenced investigations of VECO and certain of its other employees. In the process of reviewing VECO's business and operations prior to the acquisition, we engaged in special due diligence designed to address concerns related to the conduct of VECO's past operations and various investigations underway by the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service and certain State of Alaska government agencies. Although we were satisfied with the results of the due diligence review, no assurances can be given that the ongoing investigations will not result in civil or criminal charges against VECO, now a subsidiary of ours. Any such charges and related publicity could have an adverse effect on our reputation in the business community or future business operations.

On July 27, 2007, our subsidiary, CH2M HILL Hanford Group ("CH2M Hanford") caused a spill of approximately 85 gallons of radioactive waste, during routine maintenance operations on the Hanford Reservation owned by the United States Department of Energy ("DOE"). No one was injured, and the DOE's accident investigation concluded that "[because] of low concentrations and short duration of the exposure, it is not likely that the spill event caused an overexposure or chronic health impacts". CH2M Hanford took all prompt and appropriate steps to formulate and implement a corrective action plan that has been accepted by the DOE. In connection with the event, the DOE's Office of Health, Safety and Security has conducted an investigation under its Price Anderson Act nuclear safety authority. The DOE has not yet taken any formal action against CH2M Hanford as a result of this investigation. The DOE has broad discretion in setting fines, but it takes into account a contractor's prompt acceptance of responsibility and the formulation of an appropriate corrective action

21


plan, which is what CH2M HILL has done to what we believe to be the DOE's satisfaction. The Washington Department of Ecology has proposed to fine the DOE $.5 million in connection with the spill and, if the fine is levied, CH2M HILL will be financially liable for it under our contract with the DOE. CH2M Hanford is in discussions with the the Washington Department of Ecology about a possible reduction of the proposed fine. Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") proposed to fine both the DOE and CH2M HILL in connection with the spill. CH2M HILL settled that fine for $6,800 and $24,000 in in-kind services to support the local Tri-County emergency response team. CH2M HILL's management does not believe that this event will materially impact CH2M HILL's business or results of operations.

Walkers, Bikers, and Runners Don't Count

There's only one problem with this sign. At the end of Juneau Street here, it is only a dead end for cars. If you are walking, biking, or jogging, you can continue down a paved winding path to the Chester Creek bike trail.

But if you don't know that, this sign surely wouldn't help you at all.

Begich Fund Raiser - Long Time No See

We rode over to a Begich Fund Raiser tonight downtown. On the way, something flew up from under a car it seemed. The car stopped as I was passing what turned out to be an envelope, a check, and a checkbook, all of which I gathered and took to the man who I knew slightly. When we got to the fund raiser, there he was. And while he was in a car and we were on bikes, we arrived just a little after he did at the fund raiser about two miles away. We also picked up Ron ZZ on the bike trail and he was going to the same place.

The young woman in the picture surprised me by asking what my daughter's name was. Well it turned out to be the daughter of my daughter's physics teacher who took students on outdoor adventures in the summer.

I'd gone along for one - a ten day kayak trip in Prince William Sound - with this young woman, who was seven years old at the time. I found an old picture of the trip. She's the young one in the middle. But this sort of things happens a lot in Anchorage. She's finishing up college next year, headed for four months in Africa if things work out.





And this man walked into the crowded living room. He said to me, "Everyone's having a good time, I don't think you need me." I agreed. "You're right, just put your check in the basket and you can go." But, he stayed and talked a bit. Nothing earth shattering.








Then we were off to the Alaska Apple User Group meeting at the museum.

On the way home, we caught some late sun. It's setting earlier and earlier - this was taken about 9:30pm.

Bears, Moose, People Part I - The Narratives

Several bear attacks with graphic front page coverage in the Anchorage Daily News this summer have raised the volume in Anchorage's ongoing discussions about the risks of wildlife in town against the advantages of living in a town with moose and sometimes bears.

A lot of the coverage is breathless reporting of the details of specific attacks and pictures of the victims in their hospital rooms along with interviews with people who like living with wildlife and people who want the bears shot

The way people react to such situations is often related to the narratives they have in their heads. We latch onto any incident that seems to support what we believe and we tend to reject evidence that contradicts the stories we've grown to believe. Environmentalists think that Al Gore's movie proves everything they've been believing while many in the Bush administration see it as flawed propaganda.

Without taking people's stories, their narratives into account, we really can't

• understand how and why people respond the way they do, which allows us to
• begin an authentic discussion that can lead to community action that satisfies most people

So, in this post I'm going to run through some of the narratives that seem to underlie the discussions I've been hearing this summer about bears in Anchorage. (Moose are also an issue, but not like bears. Mostly I'm going to ignore the moose issues here.)

I would also note that people can hold more than one of the narratives at the same time. Some people integrate them into one single story, others compartmentalize them and see the world as one story when it fits and the other story when that one fits and never see a contradiction.


The Possible Stories:

Story 1: Bears are dangerous animals and have no place near urban settings where they can endanger people.

This sounds clear, but where do we draw the line?

• By people at risk:
  Wildlife in Anchorage is not worth risking any people's lives, therefore:
• All dangerous wildlife should be removed from the Anchorage Bowl to protect human life.
• However, wildlife should not be removed to protect adults who stupidly provoke (put in your own definition of this) wildlife.
• Wildlife in Anchorage is not worth risking a child's life, therefore any bear in a neighborhood where children live, should be immediately removed.

• By geography. All bears:
• in Anchorage residential or recreational areas should be removed.
• within 10miles of an Anchorage home should be removed.
• within 2 miles of an Anchorage home should be removed
• in any residential areas should be removed
• in areas zoned for lots of less than one acre should be removed.
• that come within five feet of a home should be removed

• By bear behavior - All bears that:
• show no fear of people should be removed
• have been seen eating garbage should be removed
• threaten people should be removed

Holders of this story include people who did not come here by choice and have tried to recreate the ideal life of where they came from. Bears aren't part of that dream. It includes some hunters. It includes people who strongly believe in order and controlling nature. It also includes people who have grown up in Anchorage and have seen the bear population increase dramatically in recent years and are genuinely concerned about the safety of their family. The ADN earlier wrote about

Hillside resident Scott Gorder has seen so many bears in his yard in recent years that he's nervous about leaving his house come summer.

Since he bought his home in 1990 he's seen the number of bears increase, he said.

"I grew up in town," Gorder said, "but as kids we camped everywhere (on the city's edge). I never saw a bear."

In his youth, he and friends camped and fished along Campbell Creek east of Lake Otis. They never worried about bears being attracted to their fish. They left their camp full of food. In short, they did just about everything one wants to avoid in bear country because of the danger of attracting the animals, Gorder admitted.

If I had kids and lived on the Hillside and bears were pawing my back door regularly, I suspect I'd be thinking more along these lines.




Story 2: Wildlife is a special feature of Anchorage and we can all coexist. Of 73* US cities with populations over 250,000 Anchorage is the only one that has a significant bear and moose population. (Though some have coyotes or pumas or poisonous snakes.) The Municipality has promoted the city in the past with a dancing moose called Seymour and the slogan "Wild About Anchorage." The current Anchorage slogan is "Big Wild Life" and the website that promotes Anchorage has bears representing the 'wild' part of the slogan. Living with wildlife is part of the attraction of Anchorage for many residents. People who don't want moose or bears in their yard have 72  other US cities where they can live. People who want this sort of environment have just one choice: Anchorage. That choice should not be removed. Options:

People who do not want the risk of encounters with bears should:

• Move out of Alaska and let the rest of us enjoy this environment
• Move into a part of town that has a negligent risk of bear encounters

A very vocal section of the Anchorage population has always supported the idea of wildlife, particularly moose, being part of our urban environment. This is not a new issue. Wolfsong's website has a series of letters to the editors from three years ago which show a lot of support for then censured wildlife biologist Rick Sinnot who publicly made some candid remarks about people who attracted bears to a neighborhood with dumped fish waste. I'm not sure if these are all the letters from that day or they picked the ones that fit their stand on the issue.

* I took the number from a Lexington website. Various sources give different ways to talk about how many other cities there are. Tucson's website mentions 141 metropolitan areas in the US and Canada with more than 250,000 people. Demographia identifies 96 principal metropolitan areas (in the US) with populations over 500,000.


Story 3: People's perception of risk is skewed. Bears are a minor risk compared to other causes.

Top five causes of death in Anchorage in 2006 were:

• Malignant Neoplasms (Neoplasm =tumor; any new and abnormal growth, specifically one in which cell multiplication is uncontrolled and progressive. Neoplasms may be benign or malignant.)
• Heart Disease
• Unintentional Injuries
• Cerebrovascular Disease (Disease of the blood vessels and, especially, the arteries that supply the brain.)
• Diabetes

The state chart above doesn't identify the unintentional causes. We know that only two people have ever been killed in Anchorage by bears - Marcie Trent and her adult son while jogging a wooded path past a bear kill at McHugh Creek, technically in the city limits, but pretty much out of town - in 1995. (The stories I found said hiking, but they were early news stories. I remember the day well because we were headed right there to hike, but got headed off by someone who called to say it was closed.) So bears are not in the top five, top ten, or even a cause of death in Anchorage for any year except 1995.

[Note, I had to take this story from the New York Times because Google gave me an Anchorage Daily News story that begins " A bear attack Saturday..." but is dated April 17, 2007. The NYT article is dated July 4, 1995. This raises a giant question about the integrity of digital newspaper files that can be changed - intentionally or unintentionally - after the fact. This one is obviously in error - it even has the "last modified" time as earlier than the published time. I'm posting a screen shot at the bottom of the post as documentation in case they change it. An Alaskan Abroad has recently criticized the ADN for changing digitial stories without acknowledging the change. But also reported that they did later follow up with a correction.]

1990-1994 stats from the Municipality of Anchorage (I know you guys are short handed, but those stats are 14 years old and older) lists the ten top causes of death and breaks out motor vehicle accidents from other unintentional causes.

This narrative would go on to suggest that death by bear is a low risk and that if people want to prevent human deaths, they should work on preventing obesity (diabetes was the 5th highest cause of death in 2006 in Anchorage) and various traffic violations that lead to death. Some radical bicyclists who believe this story might advocate banning all cars like the radical safety people might advocate killing all bears. The 1990-94 stats also suggest that we work on suicide (number 7 back then) prevention and crime prevention (homicide was number 8).

Perception of risk is not necessarily related to actual risk. Certainly the ADN front page, big pictures coverage of bear maulings is far more graphic and attention grabbing than its coverage of traffic deaths. And how many of the cancer or heart disease or diabetes deaths get front page coverage with pictures? Every non-lethal bear mauling does.

There are certainly other stories/narratives people carry in their heads about bears in the city.

• The Timothy Treadwell story was about how humans and bears can live together in complete harmony. One of his bear friends ate him, but only in the 13th summer that he lived with bears in the wild.
• As humans moved from the pre-modern to the modern world, they moved from being part of nature to being conquerors of nature. But today we are finding out that many of those conquests - dams, DDT, automobiles, for example - were short term fixes with long term negative side effects. People holding this story would argue that we need to get back into balance with nature, to understand nature. If we do this, we can probably live fairly safely with a limited bear population.
• No one and no thing should restrict my freedom to do as I please. I'm going where I want to go, when I want. I've got a gun and if I run into a threatening bear, I'll shoot it.

People sometimes take anger or frustration about something in their life that they can't overcome and redirect it toward something they feel safer attacking. I'm sure you all know couples who are in bad marriages but take out their anger on some 'legitimate' cause rather than confront each other. I'm sure there are spouses who rant and rave against bears because they really resent having been dragged up to Alaska by a spouse.

So those are some of the narratives. Did I get yours? Part of yours? If not add it on in the comments. Even if the narratives aren't completely accurate, just talking them out helps people become aware of stories in their heads that they've acquired along the way without seriously examining. It also helps people understand that sane, reasonable people can hold contradictory stories.

In the next post on this topic, I'll try to identify the various components of this issue that can be manipulated (in the positive sense) to effect changes.



* Here's the ADN story with the incorrect dates I mentioned above. All photos can be double clicked to enlarge.

Anchorage Musk Oxen - Blogspot v. Word Press

BB who set up the Women Serving Women Veterans website and I met today because she had a number of questions about how to make things happen on the blog. We'd met at the Juneteenth Celebration when I video taped her and a couple of other folks with exhibits there. She also confirmed my earlier conclusions that Blogspot was a lot easier than Word Press as a platform for a blog, though you can probably do more with Word Press if you have better computing skills. Someone had told her to use Word Press. (I had suggested Blogspot.) She said she spent 2 1/2 days trying to set things up in Word Press, and had gotten a lot more done in 2 1/2 hours on Blogspot. Probably some of what she did for Word Press helped get her ready for Blogspot.

So one thing we did was go into the Word Press site she'd set up and put up a post to redirect visitors to the Blogspot site. That was the first time I'd actually been in a Word Press blog and it certainly has a cleaner look than Blogspot and with what I've done on Blogspot, I could figure things out fairly easily in Word Press. At least for the simple things we did.

Anyway, so, can anyone figure out, from the musk oxen picture, where we met?






The way home we had an interesting layer of clouds over Anchorage.

Doug's Second Guest Post - The Long Ride Home

[Here's Doug's report from after we dropped him off at the airport. I guess we should have waited to see if the plane was leaving on time. Since his flight was going over the pole and not through Southeast AK, I suspect the volcanic eruption that shut down Alaska Airlines wasn't the cause of the delay. Excerpted from his email with his permission.]

My journey home wasn't quite as smooth as I had hoped.After you dropped me off (thanks for that and for the all Alaskan breakfast), I went to the check-in to find that the flight had been put back to 8.00.p.m. It was too long and too nice a day to hang around the airport, so I wandered off around Goose Lake [I think he means Lake Hood], strolled down Wisconsin Ave, pausing for a 5 cent lemonade at a garden sale, and took myself down to the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail where you and I cycled. Didn't find my camera, but enjoyed the walk into town, past families and individuals enjoying their Sunday in the sunshine, walking and on bikes. After taking a few photos downtown, I had a coffee and wrap in Kaladi Bros., and got a bus back to the airport. I tried ringing you to say good-bye again, but you were obviously out (on your bikes?) by then, and I didn't leave a message.

Finally on the plane, I found myself seated by a charming Anchorage hairdresser called Lulu who was on a visit to her parents in UK, leaving her husband in Anchorage holding the fort. We chatted and got along well enough to give each other moral support when we finally arrived at the Kafkaesque nightmare that is Frankfurt airport, where we were shuttled between Condor and Lufthansa desks, trying to get someone to take responsibility for us failing to make the Heathrow connection several hours earlier.I can't say I feel I would be likely to ever use Condor again.

Eventually we got on a flight to London just after 8.00.p.m.Frankfurt time. On arrival, we both retrieved our bags, which had miraculously travelled on the same plane as ourselves and went on our respective ways at around 9.30.p.m.
I eventually got home at around 11.30. p.m. last night in a state of total exhaustion (again!) and after a good night's sleep I seem to have resumed a normal post jet-lag state. The sun is shining after heavy rain this morning, my washing is done and I'm off to the shops to restock my cupboards with hopefully slightly less unhealthy comestibles than I might have purchased before Joan began to enlighten me on the error of my ways

Wild Hares or Hairs?

The blogger at Anarchy In The AK comments yesterday about an ADN report on the surfer who got pulled out with the tide in Turnagain Arm.

What the ADN fails to mention is that Paul is not just your casual dip-shit that gets a wild hare up his ass and decides to go surf the bore tide.

OK, I have to be careful all the time that I don't write 'their' instead of 'there' or 'its' instead of 'it's' so I'm not casting stones here. But it made me think, "It is 'hair' isn't it?" And what the hell does it mean anyway?

Daily Writing Tips has this discussion:

DWT reader Jess received an email in which the sender said “I got a wild hair about me.” Jess says that the expression was used in the sense of acting impetuously.

However, the expression for which “wild hair” is a shortening is “to have a wild hair up one’s ass.” The meaning of this vulgar expression is “to have an obsession or fixation about something.”

Garrison Keillor conveys this sense in his August 2, 2008 News from Lake Woebegone segment. In this instance it’s not a hair but a quarter, and it’s not up anything, it’s between the butt cheeks. He’s talking about a woman who is very angry about something and is going to confront her brother about it:

…she stalked across that farmyard like somebody who’s carrying a quarter in their butt. If you go around carrying a quarter in your butt, you won’t think of anything else.

Disagreement exists as to why a hair should cause such single-minded discomfort, but I suppose there could be such a thing as a painful ingrown hair. The word “wild” in this context refers to the fact that the hair in question is not going where it is wanted.

The meaning implied in the email, “to act impetuously or in an uncharacteristic manner,” doesn’t seem as apt.

The comments at the end suggest

• common use of the idea of a spontaneous act
• no agreement on hare or hair
  

and a reference to Kevin Drum's discussion of some Google results in A Wild Herr.

Thomas Frank, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule

A lot of times I'm just wordy. But usually there's a purpose, beyond laziness, even if the purpose isn't achieved. Usually it is to show connections - connections among seemingly isolated events and also to show the context of how I got to the idea. The chart below is an attempt to make some of this clearer. Unfortunately, the way I use simple computer tools to cobble things together means I couldn't put links in the chart. But they're below.




So, KWMD, a radio station licensed in Kasilof, but translated into other areas like Anchorage at 104.5 and 87.7 on the FM dial, plays a lot of shows plucked from all over the country. Things that some people would call way left. But I remember before Nixon resigned 34 years ago this week (August 8, two days after my son was born). It was during Republican Nixon's administration that legislation like the Clean Water Act, The Environmental Protection Agency, the Privacy Act, and Affirmative Action passed. At the time he was considered a conservative Republican. So I would say that while KWMD makes NPR seem reactionary, it really is only slightly left of Nixon.

Tonight, KWMD aired a show called Media Matters from WILL, a station in Illinois. On that show, host Bob McChesney interviewed Thomas Frank, author of The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule.

This week [August 10, 2008] our guest is Thomas Frank. Well-known author of What's the Matter with Kansas and Commodifying Dissent, Frank has recently been appointed a columnist at the Wall Street Journal. His new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, has just been released on Metropolitan Books.

You can hear the RealPlayer version of the Media Matters Interview with Frank.

You can also hear a short audio excerpt from the book (Alaska's corruption is briefly mentioned within the first two minutes.)

So why should you care? Because Frank, in the interview and I assume in the book which I do plan to get, fills in a lot of the details of what I watched happening as a professor of public administration with the rise of the conservatives. His narrative matches one that I think is a plausible explanation of what has gone on since Reagan came into office.

Essentially you have a group of folks with overlapping world views - Republicans, Conservatives, and people whose goal in life is to amass money and power. Some of these people are honorable people who sincerely believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, and rational debate. Others are scam artists whose basic interest is their own and they are willing to play people who can help them. It's the honorable ones who are writing insider exposes as they are growing more and more disgusted with how the Bush administration has perverted their conservative values. But, they did go along with much of it because they had ideological beliefs that they thought were being pursued. And they found social issues - abortion and then homosexuality - with which they could seduce the so called Religious Right to join their party, though these weren't issues they really cared about.

What are those beliefs?

• Government is the problem.
• Free enterprise is the answer.

So the agenda of the most Machiavellian members of this cabal were to trash government institutions - The Wrecking Ball - and make this change as permanent as possible. Why?

Some honestly believed that government power threatened the free market and was wasteful. And after years of Democratic rule, the left wing ideologues and the equivalents of the greedy ones on the right, had done their share of looting and caused their share of government inefficiency and corruption.

More sinister were those who saw advantages in weak, incompetent government:

• it can't perform its regulatory functions efficiently (thus allowing corporations to get away with health, safety, labor, and environmental violations)
• it makes government look bad, thus gaining voters to their own candidates

Frank argued in the interview that conservatives have been carefully plotting this for forty years (and we've seen more and more evidence of this coming out as in the right wing Federalist Society training lawyers for federal judgeships) and they worked to make these changes permanent for the inevitable day that they are out of power. (Well there was Rove's Permanent Republican Majority, but fortunately people who 'know' they are right are also blind to their own arrogance and weakpoints.) Frank listed two ways they do this:

• Deficit spending takes money out of the treasury that can support the Left's programs. Clinton inherited a deficit that made it impossible for him to fund the programs he wanted to set up, like a new health care system. He spent his eight years creating a surplus which W quickly turned into an even greater deficit. Frank argued, and I'm inclined to believe it because I've heard conservatives talk about this strategy, that it was all intentional to gut government. And an Obama administration, should we get there, would face the same harsh reality.
  
• Privatizing as much of government as they can, thus getting rid of the collective memory and competence that was the legacy of a time when people trusted (mainly) the government. If their jobs weren't simply eliminated through privatization, then many were so disheartened they left or took the privatized jobs which paid three or four times as much as they earned working for government.

Privatizing also has the advantage of giving away chunks of valuable governmental investments at bargain rates to friends and supporters. (I can go into much more detail on most of the points, but this is a blog post, not a book. But as an example, I worked at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) when the Reagan administration came into power in 1981. I saw the incredible group of dedicated experts with years of experience who would have been dispersed if the proposals to privatize the weather service had been carried out. And how private companies would have greatly benefited from cheaply gaining control of the enormous investment taxpayers had made for the weather satellites and other infrastructure.)

A caller suggested a third method of perpetuating the destruction of government:

• Filling the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with extreme conservatives who have been raised in this ideology. Frank amplified the point saying that one of the ways this group plans to dismantle what is left of the New Deal is to have social programs that redistribute wealth declared as unconstitutional unfair taking of property.
  

I've heard enough bits and pieces of evidence over the years that suggest this is a plausible narrative to describe what has been happening. You can listen to the interview to fill in some of the details, or better yet get the book and judge for yourself.