Inconvenient Patriotism

America waved a lot of flags and said many fine words earlier this week about those who serve our country. A day later and a week after our elections, people from Texas, Louisiana and Florida are petitioning the White House to secede from the United States. ["White House to Review Online Secession Petitions"]

I guess that's silly and harmless enough since you and I could petition the White House to disregard those petitions to the same end.

If the presidential election had gone another way, would the petitioners have been satisfied to remain as part of the United States? Would those left-leaning citizens who threatened to move to Canada really have pulled up stakes and left?

People still say the Pledge of Allegiance and it must mean something to say "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I don't like the "under God" part because I don't think God has much to do with how we govern ourselves, that's up to us, but I say the pledge, because the important part for me is the "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" part.

It's too convenient to say you are an American citizen until things don't go your way, then want out. Or then claim to be more of a real American patriot than those you don't agree with.

I think the real tough kind of patriotism is the inconvenient kind the President talked about a week ago when he accepted the second term. The kind of patriotism that doesn't see red and blue states but a United States, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

--Mike Sato

Post-Election Diversion: Channeling Molly

I can’t think of a better time to share a few thoughts about food and cooking than the day after US Election Day 2012. I'm thinking about Molly. 

That’s Molly Stevens, of course, author of All About Braising and All About Roasting.

But starting from the beginning: My daughter gave me All About Roasting as a Christmas gift last year and I spent most of the week that followed enjoying just reading Molly Stevens.

Where better to start than to make the dish on the cover-- One-Hour Rosemary Rib Roast— and not just to try making it but to cook it in earnest, following Molly's directions step-by-step -- channeling Molly, as it were--  for my daughter’s birthday in mid-January. 

The meat counter at Sehome Haggen had a prewrapped piece at $7 a pound and Molly makes it incredibly simple: Two days before dinner, I followed every direction including getting the right kind of kitchen string to lay under the roast and even using the mortar and pestle to mash the garlic into a paste. This cut already had the ribs hinged, so I rubbed the meat with the garlic paste, generously salted and peppered the roast, and arranged sprigs of rosemary between the ribs and the roast and on the top the roast. Then I tied the sprigs down with the three lengths of kitchen string laid under the roast.

(OK, Molly, it wasn’t that smooth and it didn’t look like the pictures that showed how to do it nicely. I cut the strings too short the first time. I got the order mixed up and put the rosemary sprigs on before slathering on the garlic paste. And I had to wash the small baking dish I was planning to use before I could put the roast in the refrigerator.)

But: In went the roast, uncovered, to the refrigerator exactly 48 hours before it was supposed to go into the oven.

For the next two days I was fascinated by how the surface texture of the roast changed beneath the bushy sprigs of rosemary. The surface of the roast contracted from the salt which created a crusty layer. What a wonderful distraction whenever I opened the refrigerator door.

On the big day two days later, we drove the roast 90 miles south to my daughter’s home and got her oven heated to 450 degrees. Two hours after we took the roast out of the refrigerator and having it at “room temperature,” we popped it in the oven.

This is the part that’s filled with anxiety: I wanted it medium-rare and Molly tells me to check it regularly after the internal temperature reaches 100 degrees— and to remember that the roast will keep cooking while it “rests” after being taken out of the oven.

After 60 minutes, the internal temperature is 105 degrees. (OK, all ovens are different.) At 75 minutes, it’s at 110 degrees. Take it out and let it “rest” and it will reach the 125-130 degrees desired?

Five of us are standing around the oven door. "Leave it in for a few more minutes" prevails.

At 80 minutes, the internal temperature is 120 degrees. “Take it out, take it out!”

I imagine that by the time it “rests” for its obligatory 20 minutes, the roast will be well done, dry and spoiled. The rosemary is burned to a crisp. The instant-read thermometer reads 135 degrees five minutes into the “rest.” Ruined? Ruined! No, I had it in too deep and was hitting the rib bone.

After 20 minutes, the first slice of the carve reveals perfection: Crusty exterior, brown then the pink of a juicy interior. The taste? Best piece of meat I’ve cooked. A perfect gift in return for a wonderful present.

Have you Channeled Molly?

--Mike Sato

The ‘Poor’ State of Our Sound

I drank beer with a few folks the other night and talked about saving Puget Sound. The beer was good; the discussion, well, less than satisfying.

Talking about saving Puget Sound is less than satisfying the same way reading about how the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council addressed and approved the latest State of the Sound report. (“Little progress reported in Puget Sound health”)

According to the Sun article, there’s progress on reopening polluted commercial shellfish beds and restoring habitats but many other indicators of the Sound’s health— Chinook salmon and orca populations, herring stocks and eelgrass beds, and water quality— are not improving. The best that can be said is that it would be worse if nothing were being done, and that the problems weren’t created in a day and won’t be solved in a day.

So what do we know?

We know a lot of money has been spent but there’s not enough money to do what’s necessary. In fact, we might not know, exactly, how much money is needed but it’s a lot more than the $230 million a year that’s been spent since 2008.

We know what work’s been done thus far but we don’t know whether the work’s been effective because we can’t afford to monitor effectiveness and decide what actions work, what actions don’t work.

We think we know that people know the health of the Sound isn’t good but that doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in what they do in their lives. And, as Skagit County citizen Pete Haase told the Council, picking up dog poop isn’t going to save the Sound.

Uncap me another beer.

The Partnership and its Leadership Council seems mired in the same rut saving Puget Sound has been in for years and years: not enough money to get the job done right, not enough ways to show that spending the money and doing the work are making a real difference, and not enough people caring enough to insist that Puget Sound be protected and restored to health.

Where’s the leadership?

We need the leadership, political or otherwise, that says let’s protect the Sound by first enforcing existing laws that protect the Sound. It’s not an easy task but essential: Do No More Harm.

We need the leadership, political or otherwise, that brings together businesses, soccer moms, the hook-and-bullet crowd with whale huggers, tribes and local governments to establish an ongoing revenue source to put real money into cleaning up polluted runoff, restoring habitat and reopening polluted shellfish beds. It’s not an easy task but it has been done: the Centennial Clean Water Fund (the cigarette tax) is one example from the mid-’80s.

We need the leadership, political or otherwise, that gets on the road and into our communities to energize and publicize the many, many local efforts underway protecting and restoring parts of Puget Sound. It’s not an easy task but we need to build awareness of what’s at stake in saving Puget Sound neighbor-to-neighbor, project-by-project— and shape that constituency into one that insists that the Sound be protected and restored to health.

Enough beer for now. Where’s the leadership?

Look, tell me what you think, and I’ll buy the next round.

--Mike Sato

No Coal: Two-Minute Drill

Coal Carriers vs. Ferries  (RE Sources)

Last Saturday I got to say in two minutes what one of my concerns was about the Gateway Pacific coal export facility proposed in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve and what I’d like decision-makers to investigate when making a decision on the permit application.

The process itself is what’s called ‘scoping’ for the project’s Environmental Impact Statement, supposedly the basis upon which local, state and federal jurisdictions will make their decisions. You can read all about what ‘scoping’ entails here.

Saturday’s meeting in Bellingham will be followed by public meetings on Nov. 3 in Friday Harbor, Nov. 5 in Mount Vernon, Nov. 13 in Seattle, Nov. 29 in Ferndale, Dec. 4 in Spokane, and Dec. 12 in Vancouver WA. Detailed schedule here.

If you choose to make a verbal comment at one of the public meetings, you have to do it in two minutes or less. It’s a good idea to comment on some aspect of the project that affects you personally and to conclude your comment asking that the environmental impact study address a specific question or an issue the project raises.

Two minutes, as many of us find out, isn’t much time to express your care for the Salish Sea and your concern about its threats. But it can be done and it’s really a fun exercise for the good.

Here’s what I said in two minutes:

“Over the last 25 years, I have worked with others to protect and recover our endangered Southern resident orca whales, the endangered salmon they eat and we eat, and the places the whales and the salmon depend on for their health. 

An oil spill in these waters would devastate the orcas whales and the salmon we are working so hard to restore to health. 

Every year, over ten thousand large vessels enter and exit the Strait of Juan de Fuca to and from the Pacific Ocean. Over the last 25 years, we have advocated for stricter oil spill prevention and for more rapid and effective response to oil spills. 

This proposed coal export facility and a proposed oil export facility in Vancouver BC will add over fifteen hundred large vessel transits to the narrow waterways in Whatcom, Skagit and San Juan counties. 

This EIS should examine:
One, how much will more large vessel traffic increase the risk of an oil spill in these waters,

Two, how adequately can our system of oil spill response and recovery protect our shores and waters when large vessel traffic increases,

Three, how much will more large vessel traffic affect the health of endangered Southern resident orcas —the effects of more underwater noise, more vessel interaction, and prey availability. 

And last, please examine all measures the shipping industry must take to minimize the risk of an oil spill and to maximize timely response and recovery of oil should a spill occur. 

If you cannot ensure the safety of our shorelines, our whales and our salmon, don’t permit this project.”

Now, you try— and let me know how it turns out.

--Mike Sato

Fall Colors— You Mean It’s Not Jack Frost?

I thought it was simple: While I’m sleeping, this spirit— something between Jack Flash and Jack Black — paints fall colors on the leaves when it starts to get colder and the nights get longer.

Turns out that it’s a bit more complicated and, if you like chemistry more than myth, a bit more interesting

Trees, the kind whose leaves change color in the fall, produce green chlorophyll in their leaves to photosynthesize sunlight, water, minerals and carbon dioxide into sugars which they live on.

When the nights get longer and days cooler, trees make less and less green chlorophyll and different chemical pigments become more prominent in different trees or at different stages of leaves turning-- reds, oranges, browns — as the sap leaves the trees, go down the twigs and trunk and are held in the roots until spring.

Cool, eh?

That might account for how the leaves change colors but how do you think the frost gets dusted on the garden in the early morning this time of year?

--Mike Sato

“Obama Lies America Dies”

That’s what the bumper sticker on the SUV with the Romney/Ryan sticker said.

My first reaction in the post office parking lot was to punch out the old guy who got out of the vehicle.

Of course I didn’t but my visceral anger surprised me. I hear all kinds of ignorant people saying ignorant things and sometimes people know better, which makes them stupid people saying stupid things. And I usually shrug it off.

But this crossed the line. This was political hate speech.

I’ve disagreed with a lot of people but in only one or two instances would I have considered the disagreement based on the other person having told a lie, that is, made “a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive.” There have been false statements and misunderstanding but very rarely a deliberate intent to deceive.

The President hasn’t lied, and neither is America dying.

Some places and people are having a hard time of it and we need to fix a lot of systems to make sure everyone has a fair shot at a good living— but America isn’t dying. To say America is dying is an insult to all the people who are working hard to make it work better.

The real trouble with political hate speech is that it spurs hateful reactions, like wanting to punch someone out. It doesn’t invite discussion; it kills discussion. I want to live in a civil society where I can discuss the facts that support my values and differ in my conclusions without hating those with whom I might disagree.

This isn’t just about political speech during election years. It’s about how we conduct ourselves in advocating for and against a major project like coal ports and pipelines, shoreline developments, endangered species protection, mineral extraction, logging, fisheries regulation, water rights— you name your issue.

So, what say?

--Mike Sato

Saving Puget Sound: Brand, Re-brand, No Brand

My colleague Joan Crooks of Washington Environmental Council wrote me a nice email on Monday dressed up just like a message from People For Puget Sound. She even got the typography of capitalizing the “F” in “For” right. Maybe it was meant to be new wine in old skin or maybe old wine in new skin or old wine in old skin —somebody help me here— but it just tasted weird and strange.

In essence the message was that the People For Puget Sound saving Puget Sound beat will go on— somehow and soon, stay tuned. I will. After all, Joan has my email address and everyone else’s that was in the massive database of the now-defunct 20-plus year-old organization.

The “People For Puget Sound” brand, however, is pretty heavily damaged. Here’s why:

The organization knew well in advance of founder and executive director Kathy Fletcher’s retirement in 2011 that it needed to rebrand itself from “Kathy Fletcher’s organization.” Hence, it spent nearly two years upgrading its administrative systems, updating its strategic plan and developing an executive director search and transition plan.

The new executive director would be chosen to carry out the strategic plan with all systems operational and move the organization forward into the next decade. The transitional pivot in the rebranding was the 20th anniversary celebration throughout 2011, first looking back on the organization’s accomplishments, then— and most important-- looking forward to the next 20 years under new leadership introduced throughout the Sound at community and member events.

New executive director Tom Bancroft and the board of directors chose not to follow the transition plan, instead choosing to reduce work force to reduce operating expense. Thence began the eclipse of People For Puget Sound: declining public engagement, declining public profile, declining influence. Members and the very people of Puget Sound weren’t told what, if anything, the organization was doing and accomplishing for the Sound. No accomplishments, no funds raised. No bangs, no bucks. Classic death spiral.

The board and Tom Bancroft never rebranded People For Puget Sound; they sank “Kathy Fletcher’s organization.” And now, WEC has taken the nameplate and says one day she will float again.

Will she float again as a USS Nimitz alongside WEC’s USS Stennis? Or a dinghy towed behind the WEC yacht? Will wait to see.

--Mike Sato