I'm going to make a positive economic forecast.

If you've been a regular reader of this modest blog you'll have noticed a strong economic awareness and context for pretty much everything I do - including I believe foreshadowing the 2008 crisis not long after I started this endeavor.

No numbers on this, just my own particular call.

However, the fundamental problems remain and even a modest recovery will not address the fundamental "failures' of corporate America. The question is not the ability of these organizations to revitalize America, but of Americans to do as they always have before.

The recent civic debate over the Clinton era policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has been a curious matter to me, the recent Egyptian revolution prompting me to articulate my thoughts.

Curious point number one is that DADT is not itself a discriminatory policy per se - credit for Homosexual Discrimination goes to the mass media darling Ronald Reagan. DADT is in fact a compromise program that was always intended to lead to the appropriate end of this unconstitutional policy of discrimination.

Consider also this curious fact: if the policy was really 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' why weren't folks who **asked** booted from the military....? After all, sexual privacy is a good thing, yes? And aren't sexual politics potentially very damaging to any organization?

Lastly, consider the curious fact that we are having a civil rights discussion about the right to participate in global **war**.

Having lived in Washington State for the past 25 years I've witnessed, from a distance, the emerging field of intellectual property rights law. (Curiously, this was coincident with the emergence of family law and the rise of women in the profession of legal practice.)

One particular critique I have of legal practice in this State is that the profession itself has taken control over the constitutional property rights of its citizenry, providing them and withholding them as it sees fit.

Do the public own the practice of the law or do they own us, our jobs, our families, and our individual souls? 'Span of Control'; analyzing who really controls what is a good tool to analyze this.

It is a rather curious fact that 'Law and Order' Republicans rely so much on court records to determine wages, all the more so in this intellectual information age. Is this socialism?

In a recent post analyzing some of the curious sexual politics behind the recent repeal of Ronald Reagan's policy of homosexual discrimination I touched on the desirability of avoiding all sexual politics in every workplace. Doing this would actually be the outcome of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' if it were literally enforced, and not merely a media spun euphemism for discrimination also attributed to Bill Clinton.

Consider, if you will, the sexual politics of those Clinton years - where the right wing disrupted the government and nearly overthrew it with nothing more than gossip about consensual sex - under the leadership of Southern History Professor Newt Gingrich as a newly anointed Speaker of the House.l

Below the jump is a 'Petition For Review (PFR) to the Growth Management Hearings Board concerning the ramifications and processes of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

The jurisdiction of this PFR extends the envelope of practice before the board, consistent with the law and appropriate to the circumstances. These circumstances include the alleged victimization of the petitioner by King County, its Courts and officers (public and private) and the State of Washington as an inappropriate growth management practice. As such, State Courts massive jurisdictional problems over the matters at hand.

Please note that petitioners academic, civic, and professional experience in these subjects is substantial, likely in a preponderance of measures exceeding that of Board members in depth and seniority. Board members Paegler and Earling have direct familiarity with this history and petitioner in fact ‘trained’ them in some regards during the professional emergence of Growth Management.

Lastly please note that there are substantive and procedural matters regarding this case that must remain confidential to the Board and Respondents.