Your local Online newspaper since 1997
The Weekly Edition

The North Olyimpic Peninsula's first all online newspaper since 1997

For the week ending Sunday October 23, 2005 Vol. 5 No. 83, Port Angeles Washington 98362 Copyright 2005.
 

 
Please support our advertisers they support this publication!
 
  Local headlines

Port in review: the following is the minutes of the Oct. 10th Port Commission meeting. CALL TO ORDER – OPEN SESSION             Commissioner Beil opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m.   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   I.          VOUCHERS             Commissioner Hannan stated that he reviewed the vouchers and found them to be in order, and moved the Commission to approve vouchers #A018932 through #A019114 and payroll vouchers #PR006296 through #PR006354 for a total of $798,651.20.  Commissioner Calhoun seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.    II.         MINUTES OF September 26, 2005 COMMISSION MEETING             Commissioner Calhoun stated he reviewed the minutes of September 26, 2005 and found them to be in order, and move the Commission to approve as presented.  Commissioner Hannan seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.    III.        EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION             There are no public comments.    IV.        COMPLETION OF RECORDS The Master Policy Report will be provided at the October 24th Commission Meeting.    V.         Property              A.         Process for Surplus of Property             Bob McChesney, Executive Director introduced this item to the Commission and commented that in anticipation that there might be some surplus activity for Port properties staff has asked legal counsel, Dave Neupert to provide an overview of what that process involves.  Mr. McChesney indicated that this request was brought about in reference to the Landing Terminal property.              Mr. Neupert explained that the ability for the Port to sell its real property is governed by the state statutes that apply to port activities.  He noted the distinctions in the statutes between selling properties that are in an industrial development district (IDD) and properties that are outside of an IDD, and pointed out that the requirements are more stringent for properties within the IDD as far as the type of notice, length of notice, and scrutiny towards the proposed use of the property.  Mr. Neupert proceeded to list what the specific requirements are in the statute for ports selling property within an IDD.              Commissioner Beil asked for clarification on which Port properties fall under the IDD and which properties are outside of the IDD.  Pat Deja, Industrial Development and Property Manager reported that the Landing Terminal is not within an IDD; however the Oak Street property is within the IDD.  Dave Hagiwara, Deputy Executive Director explained that the Board of Port Commissioners back in 1984 or 1985 established four Industrial Development Districts by resolution: 1) Forks Industrial Park; 2) the area in and around the Fairchild Airport; 3) property along the waterfront from Oak Street to Nippon; and 4) Carlsborg Industrial Park.  Mr. Hagiwara noted that John Wayne Marina, Sekiu Airport, and the Landing Terminal are outside the IDD.  Mr. Neupert proceeded to list the statute requirements for ports selling property that is outside an IDD, and reviewed the process involved in amending the Port’s Comprehensive Plan.  Discussion followed with the Commissioners, Mr. Neupert, and staff on Port properties within and outside the IDD.  Commissioner Beil proposed that staff analyze the Landing Terminal property and based on that analysis make a recommendation to the Commission on whether the Port should maintain it in its inventory or if the Port and the community would be better off to surplus it and allow it to be developed by private funds.  Mr. McChesney indicated that staff is prepared to make an analysis and provide a recommendation to the Commission.  Commissioner Hannan commented that he feels strongly that both the Landing and Oak Street are key parcels of property for the Port Angeles waterfront and he hopes that any steps the Port takes would be carefully done.  He mentioned that the city partners are at a critical time right now in trying to reach some resolution for that area and it is important for the Port to continue to work with the city before the Port takes any other steps.  Commissioners Beil and Calhoun individually agreed.  Mr. McChesney also concurred and indicated that this might affect the timing on when staff can bring back a recommendation because staff has to meet with the new city manager, Mark Madsen, to discuss this matter further.  More discussion followed.               Mr. McChesney asked to re-arrange the agenda today in order to move the Marine Facilities Master Plan Update forward to be before the budget discussion.  The Commissioners concurred.    VI.        BOAT HAVENS              A.         Capacity Provisioning Inc. - PABH Wireless System – 10:00 a.m.             Bob McChesney introduced this item to the Commissioners stating that on July 18th the Commission approved the concept of renovating a large portion of the Port Angeles Boat Haven (PABH).  Staff has begun to do some research on the types of services a first class destination marina would offer and one of the services identified was the ability to have internet connection for the marina tenants.  Port staff has been in discussions with CPI to provide wireless internet connection at no cost to the tenants and a one-time cost to the Port not to exceed $2,000 for the year 2005.  Staff is recommending that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to continue planning and implementation processes with the objective of providing free internet service to the PABH before the year end 2005.  Mr. McChesney introduced Craig Johnson, Managing Partner of Capacity Provisioning Inc. (CPI) to address the Commission about the service CPI will be providing and answer any questions.              Mr. Johnson addressed the Commission and handed out an information packet introducing CPI’s new website http://www.fibercity.us/ that is used as a marketing tool to market Port Angeles as a High Tech, High Value “have it all” community to attract people and business.  By providing free wireless internet service (CPI-FreeNet) to travelers and local residents CPI hopes to leverage its marketing dollars by “word of mouth” advertising.  CPI currently provides free internet service to: 1) Port Angeles Airport; 2) Vern Burton Center; and 3) Clallam County Fairgrounds.  Internet service was planned to be available by summer of 2006 for the Coho Ferry Terminal and by the summer of 2007 for the PABH.  Mr. Johnson listed the costs for CPI to be $3500 for installation of fiber to the Boat Yard building at the marina; $500 to install the wireless equipment; and $150 value to provide the monthly internet service.  The Port’s cost would be approximately $1,000 up front (or $2,000 for an additional location at the Boat Haven).  Mr. Johnson mentioned that by providing CPI-FreeNet at the Boat Haven it would accelerate the completion of CPI’s planned wireless project from 2007 to 2005/6.  He also pointed out that the Port would benefit by a definite “value add” to keep current Boat Haven tenants and attract new Boat Haven visitors.  Mr. Johnson talked about the benefits the Port would have if it has a webpage on CPI’s FiberCity website and noted that there is currently a link to the Port’s website on http://www.fibercity.us/.              Discussion followed with the Commissioners and Mr. Johnson.  Commissioner Hannan asked how long the service would be free and if the Port would be able to bring in its own internet service when CPI starts charging.  Mr. Johnson indicated that CPI would commit to a 5-year agreement for free wireless internet connection at the Boat Haven and after the 5-year free service CPI would most likely sell the faster DSL service and keep the slower service at no charge.  Mr. McChesney indicated that when CPI starts charging for its Internet service it would become a different circumstance and the Port would have to open up its options to do something different.  Commissioner Calhoun commented that this is a good opportunity for the Port and he hopes CPI will get to a point that they will be able to charge for their service because that will be an indication of the demand for the service.  However he concurred that as a state agency the Port has certain purchase and competitive rules they have to comply with and indicated that as long as the Port is consistent with those he encourages the development of this.  Commissioner Calhoun moved the Commission to authorize the Executive Director to continue planning and implementation processes with CPI to provide free internet service to PABH before the end of 2005.  Commissioner Hannan seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.    VII.       AIRPORT             A.         Parking Systems Update             Commissioner Beil mentioned a letter that was presented at the last Commission meeting that talked about a concern on the parking machine at the Airport and staff was asked to make a recommendation.  Bob McChesney, Executive Director reported that the evaluation process is still ongoing and therefore no recommendation is available today.  Dave Hagiwara, Deputy Executive Director reported that when the current parking machine was purchased several years ago it was state of the art, but staff recognizes that the machine is now at a point of non-repair.  He commented that the Port would lose about 50% of its revenue from the Airport without a way to monitor parking and pointed out that the revenues from parking fees could cover the replacement cost in one year if the Port receives 100% of the parking fee revenue.  Mr. Hagiwara talked about some of the alternatives staff is looking at and reported that staff is aware of the problem and will bring a recommendation and analysis to the Commission at a future meeting.              Jeff Robb, Airport Manager, confirmed that problems occur with the parking machine several times per week, and in some cases it requires documentation for accounting purposes and mailing out refund checks in amounts of $3.00 to $5.00.  The fact is the environment can be pretty intense when people are trying to travel and the Port doesn’t want a machine that compounds that.  Mr. Robb confirmed that the parking revenue is around $32,000 a year with a net of about $28,000.  The numbers have increased as a result of Kenmore Air and San Juan Airlines and the parking lot is pretty full.  More discussion followed on the different alternatives and associated issues.   IX.        OLD BUSINESS             This item was taken out of order             A.         Marine Facilities Master Plan Update             Dave Hagiwara, Deputy Executive Director reported that at the September 12 Commission meeting Makers made a presentation on the status of the Marine Facilities Master Plan.  Makers committed to return at the first meeting in October to provide a specific update on the issue of cargo handling systems for Port operations, which is an important part of completing the master plan.  Mr. Hagiwara explained that because this issue will have an impact on the Port’s budget for this year and next year the Commission has directed Makers to resolve this issue early on.  He introduced Julie Bassuk and Gerald Hansmire from Makers to make the presentation on cargo handling.             Julie Bassuk made the presentation to the Commission and explained that the purpose of today’s presentation was to objectively compare alternative log handling methods (i.e. using a crane or continuing operations and increasing log volume with existing rolling equipment); to present financials and a cost analysis, and present information to help the Commission determine their preferred log handling method for the Port.  (A copy of the presentation by Ms. Bassuk is available at the Port Administration Office.)  She reviewed the process used to gather cost and use information that involved meeting with stakeholders to discuss log handling equipment, making a site visit to the Simpson crane operations, contacted three crane manufacturers for initial costs and operation and maintenance estimates, and reviewed the Port’s current rolling equipment.  In addition Makers contacted several Ports in the northwest region, and she reported of those who are doing operations similar to the Port, most are not using a crane.  Where cranes are being used it is to feed the mills.  Commissioner Beil asked Ms. Bassuk to review the log handling operations for each of the ports that were contacted by Makers.  Mr. McChesney pointed out that not having a crane does not impact the Port’s ability to engage in log exporting and loading ships because the ship’s own crane is the preferred method used for loading.  Ms. Bassuk concurred.              Ms. Bassuk continued with her presentation and reviewed the basic assumptions that were used for the cost effective analysis and the different scenarios for log handling operations.  Based on those assumptions and scenarios, she presented and reviewed the initial costs, the annual operating and maintenance costs, and the labor costs for rolling equipment and a crane (she included both new and used crane).  She also pointed out what costs are not included in the cost analyses, such as financing costs, potential insurance premium increases, and return on investment.              Ms. Bassuk presented and reviewed the results of the cost effective analysis for the rolling equipment scenarios and the crane scenarios.  She explained that the results are being reported based on allocating the numbers over a per load charge to see how much the cost per load would increase in the different scenarios when compared to the status quo baseline scenario.  She also reviewed and presented the breakeven points for the crane scenarios and talked about some special considerations in using a crane operation.              In summary, the analysis indicated that rolling equipment are an efficient way to operate for the Port in today’s conditions.  Adding a crane at today’s volumes would add $12.00 to $15.00 per load to the operating costs (financing costs would add an additional $4.00 - $6.00 per load).  A crane is very efficient, but only cost effective at over twice the Port’s existing volume or when both log volumes and land values increase.  She noted that overall log volumes are likely to remain at the existing levels for the Port, which is approximately 17,000 or could grow slightly in coming years.              Eric Haller with Simpson Timber asked if Makers factored in that the Port Angeles Hardwood mill will be opening early next year and those volumes would increase.  Ms. Bassuk indicated she did factor that in and that will keep the current volumes at about 17,000 per year or increase slightly and there is an additional inbound component as well.              Commissioner Beil asked if Makers could look at including the ROI for the land currently used by wood products in the different scenarios.  He also asked if Makers talked to DOE regarding handling logs out of the water and expressed concern in whether the Port could accommodate log volumes if everything was handled out of the water, and if the Port could operate effectively with rolling equipment or would a crane be needed.  He asked Makers to expand the analysis and get additional input from log owners on how they perceive the initial operation of a barge coming in without the logs going into the water.              Randy Schuchardt of Green Crow commented that Green Creek Wood Products is offloading a barge today at the Port’s facility and invited the Commissioners and Ms. Bassuk and Mr. Hansmire to come down and see the operation first hand.              Commissioner Calhoun expressed concern in asking the consultants to do additional analysis on crane operations and commented that he feels the presentation today provided enough information for the Commission to make a decision.  Commissioner Beil clarified that he is asking for additional information on the concept of a front end barge and if that works it could preclude any consideration for a crane.  More discussion followed.             Mr. Hagiwara reviewed what the next steps would be in the master plan process.  At the first meeting in November Makers will present draft conclusions of the entire report and at that time there will be several focus group meetings and a public open house.  Through that whole process all of this information will be presented to the stakeholders for additional input.  Commissioner Hannan concurred that the Port needs to move forward with the master plan study and based on the analysis presented today it doesn’t make sense to do the crane under the current conditions, and no further analysis was needed.  However, he also agreed that there is a need for the Port to continue to look at new ways to handle logs for the future and commented that the Port needs to be ready to make a change when needed.  Mr. Hansmire commented that as part of the Marine Facilities Master Plan report a cost analysis of a barge facility at Terminal 7 will be included.    VIII.      NEW BUSINESS             Commissioner Beil recessed the meeting at 11:55 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:05 p.m.              A.         2006 Capital Budget Discussion             Bill James, Director of Finance and Administration reported that at the September 12, 2005 Commission meeting the process for preparation of the 2006 Capital Improvement budget was discussed.  It was noted that the Capital Improvement budget also includes Major Maintenance items.  Mr. James reported that staff has prepared two documents and provided to the Commission in their packet for discussion at this meeting.  The first document is the year-end projections for the 2005 Capital Improvement Budget items.  Mr. James explained that it is estimated the Port will under spend on Capital/Maintenance Projects in 2005 by approximately $370,057.  The primary reason for the under spending is the PFD T7 Development project which was budgeted for $375,000 in 2005 is projected to spend only $25,000.  The under spending of $370,057 will be carried forward to the 2006 Capital Improvement Budget.  The second document is the first projection of 2006 Capital/Major Maintenance Prioritization Budget.              Mr. James explained the first step in the process of evaluating 2006 projects was a staff review of approximately 194 projects in the first cut of the 2006 Capital/Major Maintenance Budget.  He reported that the Commissioners were provided a copy of the initial listing of the 194 projects along with a coding scheme which indicates the basis for approving or rejecting a project and noted that this listing was not included for today’s discussion.  Mr. James indicated it was his hope that by the end of the meeting today the Commissioners will have a good understanding of how the first cut of capital projects was made.  He reported that from the initial list of 194 projects staff made the first cut down to 57 projects for the 2006 Capital/Major Maintenance Prioritization Budget, which is being presented for discussion at this meeting.  The second step of rating the 57 surviving projects was an evaluation by 7 staff members of each project using three criteria: 1) Return on Investment (ROI); 2) Safety; and 3) Job Creation.  The 7 staff rankings were totaled and averaged and the rankings were included in the 2006 Capital/Major Maintenance Prioritization Budget.  Mr. James reviewed the 57 projects listed in the 2006 Capital/Major Maintenance Prioritization Budget and the funding priority rankings with the Commissioners.  Discussion followed.              Commissioner Beil expressed concern that delaying the T-1 Fendering System engineering until 2006 would impact the integrity of Terminal 1.  Dave Hagiwara, Deputy Executive Director reported that Berger Abam looked at this in 2001 and the dock is in good shape for a timber dock, however the real issue is with tanker ships as the fendering system will keep the tankers away from the dock to keep them from beating up against it.  He reminded the Commission that staff has talked to the Commission on several occasions, but because of the Marine Facilities Master Plan the Commission wanted to make sure all facts were in first and that is why this was delayed to 2005 and bumped to 2006.  Commissioner Beil commented that the engineering study for the fendering system at Terminal 1 should begin right away to protect the integrity of T-1 and that should be the Port’s highest priority.  Discussion followed.  Commissioners Hannan and Calhoun agreed with Commissioner Beil that the process should begin now even though construction may not start until January 2006.  Mr. Hagiwara concurred and stated staff can start the project as soon as possible even though funds won’t be expended until next year.              More discussion followed on the capital projects prioritization.  Commissioner Beil suggested that between now and the next meeting the Commission review the 2006 Capital/Major Maintenance Prioritizations and provide any comments to Bob McChesney, Executive Director and have Mr. McChesney summarize the comments and provide that information to each Commissioner.  That way each Commissioner will know what the other’s concerns are.  Mr. McChesney concurred and noted that the next meeting is October 24.  Commissioner Calhoun announced that he will miss that meeting but he will provide his comments to Mr. McChesney this week.  Discussion followed on the October 24 Commission meeting.              Mr. James indicated it was his intent to take comments from the Commissioners on the prioritization at today’s meeting.  Commissioner Calhoun commented that without the Marine Facilities Master Plan completed it is hard for the Commission to make decisions on the capital budget, and until that is complete the priorities are not clear.  Mr. James concurred but noted that until the Commissioners direct staff otherwise staff will continue to work from the priority list presented today.  More discussion followed on the 2006 Capital/Major Maintenance priorities.    X.         PUBLIC COMMENTS SESSION             No public comments at this time.   XI.        ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA             A.         Bob McChesney, Executive Director reported on the results of the Washington State Auditor’s report for year end December 31, 2004.  In summary the audit was successfully completed with no findings or incidents of non-compliance.  (A copy of the Auditor’s report is available at the Port Administration Office.)              B.         Commissioner Beil asked for a briefing on Curtis Shuck’s farewell party.  Mr. McChesney announced the party is scheduled for Friday, October 14th at 4:00 p.m.  It will be a casual gathering of co-workers and friends with cake and punch and the Commissioners are encouraged to attend.              C.         Commissioner Beil asked Commissioner Calhoun for a brief update on the bio-mass project.  Commissioner Calhoun reported that the task force distributed 12 RFP’s and received 6 proposals back.  The 6 proposals were evaluated last Friday of which 3 finalists were chosen to be interviewed this Friday and a selection will be made that afternoon.  Some of the issues the proposals were asked to provide information on included the characterization of the electrical power market and the options for that power, development of a scope for the steam and power generation, determine plant siting options and environmental impacts and permitting requirements, develop operational costs and revenues and capital costs, and also look at alternative technology.  He talked about some of the things that would be looked at if the task force decides to move forward with phase 2 including the financing options, ownership and operating scenarios, and grants and subsidies that might be available.  Discussion followed.   XII.       MEETINGS   XIII.      NEXT MEETING – October 24, 2005   XIV.      EXECUTIVE SESSION – 1:00 p.m.             Commissioner Beil closed the regular meeting at 1:00 p.m. and moved the Board of Commissioners into executive session to consider two property items and one litigation item.  These items are discussed in executive session in accordance with title 42.30.110 of the Revised Code of Washington.  It is estimated that the executive session will conclude at 1:30 p.m.   XV.       ADJOURN             Commissioner Beil adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. and stated the Board of Commissioners considered two property items and one litigation item during executive session.                                                                           BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS                                                                               ______________________________                                                                         Leonard W. Beil, President       ___________________________ John M. Calhoun, Secretary     Audiotapes of the Port Commission meetings are available at the Peninsula College Library and the Port Angeles Public Library. (from the Port Commission webpage)

 
 

The agenda for the Oct. 24th Port Commission meeting. COMMISSION MEETING   A G E N D A   October 24, 2005 – 9:30 a.m.   Questions and input from the public are welcome during the two public comment sessions and prior to the Board’s deliberation on each agenda item. Members of the public who wish to speak will be allowed to provide 2 to 3 minutes of comment on any agenda item. Once all audience members have had an opportunity to speak then the Board will begin its deliberations.  Members of the public wishing to bring an item to the Board of Port Commissioners’ attention that is not on the agenda may do so during either of the public comment sessions.     CALL TO ORDER – OPEN SESSION   I.          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   II.         MINUTES OF October 10, 2005 COMMISSION MEETING   III.        EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION   IV.        COMPLETION OF RECORDS   The Master Policy Report is attached for information as directed by the Commission.   V.         BOAT HAVENS A.         Resolution 05-926   VI.        AIRPORTS A.         Project Update   VII.       OLD BUSINESS A.         Budget Update   VIII.      PUBLIC COMMENTS SESSION   IX.        ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA   X.         MEETINGS A.         WPPA Annual Meeting – November 30 – December 2, 2005   XI.        NEXT MEETING – November 7, 2005 - Special Commission Meeting   XII.       EXECUTIVE SESSION   The Board of Commissioners will now move into executive session to consider property items, litigation items, and personnel items.  These items are discussed in executive session in accordance with title 42.30.110 of the Revised Code of Washington.     XIII.      ADJOURN

 

  Opinions and Commentaries

Federal Digest:TOP OF THE FOLD PANDEMIC KILLS ??? MILLION WORLDWIDE... In recent weeks, news of the latest outbreak of "bird flu" has gained currency in the mass media. Some suggest there is nothing to fear, while others warn that hundreds of millions may be in peril. The truth is that either scenario is possible---which is to say, the real issue is one of probabilities. The avian viruses exist in nature mainly in bird populations, both wild and domestic. They are constantly mutating, or, in scientific terms, undergoing antigenic drift and shift. Some of these viral changes can infect other species; this includes mutating into a form that can be passed to and, potentially, among humans. Most avian viruses are not transmissible to humans, and the few that are generally occur where large numbers of birds and humans live in close proximity and contact. Infection is more likely when the virus has mutated into a form that infects other mammals, such as pigs. Conditions favorable to such mutation did exist widely in the Western world but now are found to a much greater degree in Asia. This is particularly the case in China, which is why so many new influenza strains, like the one in question, H5N1 type A influenza, first surface there. H5N1 has been a source of concern since it was first detected in 1997. If it mutates into a form that is highly transmissible among humans, rather than only from direct contact with infected animals, it could set off a pandemic. This is precisely what scientists now think caused the 1918 influenza (Spanish flu) pandemic. World War I accounted for some 16 million military and civilian deaths from 1914 to 1918, but in 1918 alone, there were more than 40 million deaths from influenza. The U.S. saw 600,000 flu deaths that year---roughly the same death toll of the entire Civil War. Victor Vaughan, Surgeon General of the Army at the time, said in October, 1918, "If the epidemic continues its mathematical rate of acceleration, civilization could easily disappear from the face of the earth within a few weeks." Fortunately, it had run its course in less than a year, having killed off most of its hosts. Notably, the pandemic of 1918 infected mostly those aged 20-40 and spared the young and elderly. The mortality rate was 40 percent for those infected. American scientists have just revived an active specimen of the 1918 influenza strain for research purposes (our global adversaries have taken note). Rutgers bacteriologist Richard Ebright hopes that this strain does not find its way into the hands of a "disgruntled, disturbed laboratory employee," as may be the case with the military strain of anthrax that found its way into mail circulation shortly after 9/11. Research on the 1918 influenza genome suggests the H5N1 shares some virulence factors with the 1918 strain, but it is clearly differentiated because the H5N1 infectious rate has remained contained for eight years---accounting for fewer than 100 deaths in that time period. Johns Hopkins University's Donald Burke, MD, says, "We're seeing lots of these cross-species interactions now in Southeast Asia. I call it 'viral chatter' because it's like the terrorist 'chatter' that goes on over the airwaves and suggests something serious is just around the corner." Indeed, new studies from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Mount Sinai School of Medicine conclude that real trouble may really be just around the corner. Modeling of the H5N1 infectious rate should it become transmissible among humans indicates that the loss of life could be in the hundreds of millions, particularly in Third World populations. Since 9/11, our nation has undertaken massive civilian and military planning and preparation to enhance our response and recovery capabilities in the event of a catastrophic attack---including an attack utilizing biological WMD. These efforts have collateral benefits for a pandemic of natural origin, as the response and recovery protocols are very similar. But one is left to wonder whether a national response, which must be massive and swift, would be more effective than, say, the national response to Hurricane Katrina? The disconcerting answer is, maybe. President George Bush, himself recovering from substantial criticism (much of it unwarranted) that the central government did a miserable job responding to Katrina, is staying well ahead of the H5N1 potential pandemic curve. He should, given that a pandemic, by comparison, would make Katrina's wrath seem trivial. Noting that the response and recovery efforts to Hurricane Katrina congealed only after military leaders were deployed to the region, Mr. Bush said this week, "If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine?... And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move." Of course, there are some constitutional questions regarding the use of military forces in domestic civilian operations. President Bush signed an executive order that, in effect, bypasses the Posse Comitatus Act in the event of a national crisis, though it comports with the U.S. Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 and the Tenth Amendment. (See The Patriot's commentary on new momentum to rescind the Posse Comitatus Act, below.) However, if a pandemic does reach North America, don't expect an outcry about military occupation and quarantine. John Barry, distinguished visiting scholar at Tulane University's Center for Bioenvironmental Research and author of The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History, told researchers this month that, in addition to the mortality outcome of the 1918 pandemic, one of its most alarming features was that it ripped apart the basic humanitarian fabric that binds civil society. In other words, military deployment will be critical to the success of any response and recovery effort, and continuity of government and commerce. On average, pandemics have occurred in 40- to 50-year intervals. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences reports, "[A]nother influenza pandemic is possibly inevitable and even overdue." So, how vulnerable are we now?  We are back to the probabilities question. While a pandemic is not likely, we are overdue. Right now, H5N1 is akin to a tropical depression far off in the Atlantic---one with little likelihood of making landfall in the U.S. On the other hand, it could well become a category-five storm that threatens the entire nation. If H5N1 or a future influenza strain does become highly transmissible among humans, we have far better epidemiological tools to track infectious outbreaks. We also have anti-flu drugs and can develop specific vaccines more quickly. Further, we have isolation protocols and can utilize resources appropriated for bioterrorism response and recovery. Though it has been suggested that 100 million doses of H5N1 vaccine be stockpiled, this would be both exceedingly expensive and possibly ineffective, depending on the form the virus takes if it becomes highly transmissible. Of course, many thought that improving the levees of New Orleans would have been exceedingly expensive. There is the theoretical possibility that an outbreak could become pandemic before we are able to contain it, even with all of our improved tools for recognition and response. That possibility is far higher today than in 1918 because population centers are far more dense, and one infected individual can travel halfway around the world in a day---as visitors from Asia and Africa regularly do. That visitor, landing in a major air-traffic hub in the U.S., could pass the infection to hundreds of people who are traveling to other urban centers across the U.S. Within a matter of hours, the nation could have pockets of infected citizens coast to coast. All this having been said, the most effective measure---the bedrock foundation of survival---is individual preparedness. Being prepared is not difficult. The primary means of protection against pandemic infection is sheltering in place. To learn more about preparing your family to shelter in place, link to this Recommended Action Plan for Mitigating the Consequences of Natural or Attack Catastrophe on Your Family and Community (http://FederalistPatriot.US/useprpc/plan.asp). As for when to implement your family preparedness plan, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Have you something to do to-morrow; do it to-day."

 
 
 

MRC: Olbermann Likens White House to Clinton's "White House in Crisis" MSNBC's Keith Olbermann led Countdown again Thursday with what he's whittled down to the simple heading as "The Leak," and soon forwarded the notion that the Bush White House is in a "crisis" similar to that which enveloped the Clinton White House after the Monica Lewinsky revelation. Interviewing former Clinton Chief-of-Staff Leon Panetta, Olbermann pointed out how "the rundown for tonight's show was given a title by our producer that shook me. The title simply was, 'White House in Crisis.' I already hosted a news show on this network that had that title some years ago. Is it applicable now? Is in fact in your opinion this White House in crisis?" Panetta agreed.     Olbermann's 8pm EDT show back in 1998-99 was titled The Big Show, but the MRC's Tim Graham recalls that for a while after Lewinsky broke the program carried an on-screen tag of "White House in Crisis." And on that program, of whatever name, in the summer of 1998, Olbermann infamously ruminated about how "it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses." Olbermann also wondered, "would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?"     [This item was posted Thursday evening on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org. To share your thoughts, by posting a "comment," go to: http://newsbusters.org/node/2407 ]     In 1999, Olbermann earned a runner-up spot for the "I'm a Compassionate Liberal But I Wish You Were All Dead Award (for media hatred of conservatives)" at the MRC's "DisHonors Awards for the Decade's Most Outrageous Liberal Bias." On the August 18, 1998 Big Show on MSNBC, shortly after (probably a day or so after) President Clinton's speech following his grand jury appearance, Olbermann asked then-Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief James Warren:     "Can Ken Starr ignore the apparent breadth of the sympathetic response to the President's speech? Facially, it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses. If he now pursues the President of the United States, who, however flawed his apology was, came out and invoked God, family, his daughter, a political conspiracy and everything but the kitchen sink, would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?"     Check this MRC page for a RealPlayer clip of that question. (Given it was done with 1998 technology and at a bit rate for dial-up playback, it's very small and blurry): http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/dishonor1999/welcomeaward6.asp     Fast forward to Thursday night, October 20, Olbermann asked Leon Panetta, who appeared from the offices of the Panetta Institute (presumably in California, but Olbermann didn't say):     "This question may sound a little bit inside baseball-ish, but I think it returns to the mainstream as it goes along. Every item in a news broadcast has its own page in the computer rundown. And we think, unintentionally, this page in the rundown for tonight's show was given a title by our producer that shook me. The title simply was, 'White House in Crisis.' I already hosted a news show on this network that had that title some years ago. Is it applicable now? Is in fact in your opinion this White House in crisis?"     Panetta: "Well I don't think there's any question that you know, just look at the issues that they're confronting with a war that's bogged down in Iraq, with the problems that they face with Katrina, the collapse there, with the problems of energy prices going through the roof, with the nomination for the Supreme Court in trouble and then if you add on top of that a scandal involving the highest aides to the President in the White House, you've got a White House in crisis."     Olbermann: "Well, if and when we get nostalgic for the simplicity of 1998, I'm going out for a drink. Leon Panetta, former Chief-of-Staff for President Clinton, now at the Panetta Institute. Great, thanks for your perspective and your time sir."

 
 
 
 

Read our Daily Edition for free!
 
 
 

We accept credit cards; for a four month run on your ad at $9.95 per month the cost will be, $39.80 if you want your ad to run longer than that you'll need to send a check for the amount of months you desire. Just take the $9.95 X the number of months you want it to run for, then make your check payable to: PETER RIPLEY 114 E. 6th #102 Port Angeles WA, 98362 (click money bag to our online credit card payment option)

Classifieds Place your ads here for just $9.95 a month! E-mail pajournal97@hotmail.com for details

Family Hair Care Tanning Salon Call 360-452-1741 for an appointment.

(If you say that you saw this ad here, and take out a loan with Capital Advance,
You'll get $1.00 off the regular price for a subscription to the Port Angeles Journal)

(click here to the site)
Email lovebytes and say you saw this ad here and get 20% off a year membership!
 
 

(click on shield to webpage) Truth is my Shield Wil Gormley PI Bonded