The continuing delusion of Lou Brancaccio: Looking for reasons for the Columbian's bankruptcy? They start here.

It's not surprising that a local newspaper that's empathy begins and ends with the Downtown Mafia of Vancouver and who reflects their community about as much as the despicable bridge replacement/loot rail project reflects Clark County's citizenry would actually conclude that the paper he works for, a paper that, for example, endorsed ONLY democrats in EVERY open seat in the last election isn't a leftist rag.

Since it is a leftist rag with a leftist editorial staff and editor, it's also not surprising (and dead wrong) when this leftist democrat writes "But I would not conclude -- as you have -- that he 'doesn't appear to be voting the preferences of his constituency.'"

This constituency did not support Baird's voting for ANY bill he hasn't read. Even a delusional leftist like Brancaccio should know that.

This constituency did not support his votes on the Porkulous or Cap and Trade.

That Baird has scammed the people of this district for so long does not mean that his re-election amounts to a reflection of this district. After all, look at the empty-suited moron running this country... I'm sure, in the midst of his delusion, Brancaccio actually believes THAT idiot is reflecting the "preferences of his constituency."

Whatever it is you "try" to do, you're failing. In short, you DON'T do it. Every day that goes by where you don't demand a vote of the people on this unbelievable waste of billions, this paper fails.

Every time Laird pukes out another column hammering everyone to his political right... which means almost everyone alive... this paper fails.

When it comes to Baird, you've printed these stories because you have absolutely no choice. Had you not done so, others would have picked it up, and you'd have looked even more foolish then you typically do.

Even now, Lou is doing his best to make excuses for Baird. While there is no doubt that the Obamatons approve of Baird's failures as a congressman (cowardman) most people to the right of Lenin are incensed and offended by his cavalier, all-too-typical leftist tactic of referring to those wise enough to oppose them as Nazi's and Brown Shirts.

This represents another reason why this paper is circling the drain. Rank, situational ethics when it comes to their leftist pets that carry their water.

by Lou Brancaccio : 8/8/09 4:13pm - Report AbuseDick,

As you know I have disagreed with the congressman on his approach to town hall meetings. But I would not conclude -- as you have -- that he "doesn't appear to be voting the preferences of his constituency."

I would respectfully suggest that if that were the case he would not have been re-elected so many times.

What I try to do -- and what I feel The Columbian tries to do -- is respect the decisions that are made by elected officials -- regardless if they are a R or a D, if we believe they are good decisions. And disagree with decisions that we fell are not good.

But my sense is too many people look at an individual decision or a few decisons[sic] and then try to draw wide ranging conclusions from them.

Most newspaper find themselves in this situation as well. Some conservatives are a little confused by our stance against Baird on this issue. Many won't say "hey I agree with you on this one Columbian" because they only want to continue pushing the idea that we are a liberal newspaper. And this doesn't fit the box we have been painted in.

But I just go back to my earlier point. None of us should expect any elected official to always agree with us. And we should be able to see that some residents out there must approve of what he is doing. He keeps getting re-elected. So not everyone will agree with me -- or you -- on lots of things. That's OK. Let's just respect each other even if we happen to disagree.

Journalism: a thing of the past in the Columbian.

Even though circling the drain for months now, the idiots running our local disgrace of a newspaper simply don't get it... and, for whatever the reason, continue to chose NOT to get it.

Take this morning's leftist screed by their resident leftist fringer, John Laird.

Laird, no more a journalist then I am a brain surgeon, puked his usual moveon.org/DNC-writing-like-the-White House-pays-him swill this morning, by lying/exaggerating/fantasizing about the moronic empty suit's efforts to socialize health care.

It's bad enough this rag is so in the pocket of the leftists that democrats are all they endorsed for any open seat where they made an endorsement (And a grateful group of leftists in the legislature responded by giving them a massive tax break in the midst of our $10 billion deficit) but when this assclown writes like he's working for that moron of a Press Secretary instead of a local newspaper, that's simply over the edge.

This waste of skin actually wrote the following:

Myth: We can't trust government to run the health care system.

Reality: We already do, with health care for veterans and senior citizens, who often receive better care than the rest of us receive from the private sector. Ronald Reagan's classic condemnation of government notwithstanding, government is not the problem. That's because government, actually, is us.

So much idiocy in one short blurb... it's hard to know where to start.

Part of the problem here is that we do NOT trust government, PERIOD. We don't trust it to run health care. We don't trust it to run our economy. We don't trust it to be fair, or equitable, or responsive, or timely, or any number of other things we don't trust government for.

So, when this moron writes "We already do," he's a liar. But to a leftist like Laird, facts are among those "Inconvenient Truths" that he refuses to allow to interfere with reality.

That Government PROVIDES a service, in this case, VA health care and Medicare, by no means shows that we "trust" them.

While my own personal VA care has been good, every time I go there I'm living the lie. NOT that I'm a Veteran (I am). But that I have to pay for that which was promised to me for free as long as I lived in return for serving this country so many years ago.

For many others, VA care has been reduced to a punch line. And this imbecile has done nothing to support his cause by pointing to a system many revile, rightly or wrongly, as some sort of justification for turning the entire system into a mirror image... and expecting THIS government to do it cheaper, faster, better, more efficiently and with greater bang for the trillions of bucks this blithering idiot ignores in costs to us that his Utopia will directly result in.

It's bad enough this idiot tells us the lie "That's because government, actually, is us," when he wants to ram a multi-billion dollar waste of money down our throats (without any say by the government he wrongly says we are) while spewing such bogus platitudes. But THIS heap of garbage?

I am averaging around a $1000 or so a year in medical expenses for that which I paid for with my service.... and that for which I have to provide at least some level of money now for drugs that cost more than twice what they charge at WalMart or Fred Meyers.

And I should TRUST a government that lied about that to get me to enlist?

That I should TRUST a government that lied about the unemployment ceiling to get the Porkulous passed?

That I should TRUST a government that has buried us under generations of debt for unimaginable corruption and pay offs?

Good God but this man is a waste of skin. An utterly clueless leftist shill who disgraces his profession and our community by his mere presence.

To shatter the illusion this moron is trying to scam us with on health care, I only have to ask one question:

If the empty suit is ever successful in socializing our health care... does that mean HE will have the SAME health care as the rest of us?

These follow up questions cut to the heart of the matter: Will he lose his own personal doctor? Will he not be entitled to any of the special treatment he and his family now receives?

You know damned well what the answer to that question is. Thus the rank, reeking hypocrisy of a scumbag leftist columnist and the major reason I won't spend a dime on this rag as long as I live.

Laird, you make me sick. You're a blight on our community with your leftist propaganda and lies. Please, PLEASE go back to wherever it is you came from, and do

Additional idiotic Columbian endorsements.

As the local disgrace to journalism continues it's unbroken string of moronic endorsement editorials, today was no exception.

Going directly to the money quote, here's where these morons stupidly tried to diss the only one of the four candidates, Jack Turley, who's got it right when it comes to that obscenely expensive waste of money known as the unneeded, unwanted I-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail project that resulted from a $100 million dollar-plus pre-ordained outcome study that I could have duplicated for $20.

He's the only one of the four to oppose the Columbia River Crossing project, extension of light rail into Vancouver and the city's plans for redeveloping the Boise Cascade waterfront area.

That, of course, makes him the only one fit to be elected.

The rag endorsed Burkman, of course, although his legendary embarrassment at the hands of Pat Campbell, the Columbian's worthless and laughable endorsement and all, makes his ignorant presence a political liability in any government organization.

But he will, of course, be endorsed in the general because he carries the Columbian's water like an 80,000 gallon tanker.

And, of course, that's what it takes to get their endorsement... that and either a "d" after your name or you're a complete RINO... see the November, 2008 election where this despicable rag ONLY endorsed democrats for ANY open seat in the entirety of the election, from President on down.

Again, as a rule, the Columbian never misses an opportunity to slam candidates who've lost in prior elections that they oppose with that little factoid. Their selective memory, however, doesn't include Inconvenient Truths like that when they back someone.

But this outcome is to be expected. What's best for the people can never be allowed to interfere with what's best for the Columbian. And this is just another shameful example of that truism.

More nonsensical, disingenuous loot rail coverage from the Columbian: Danny Westneat, July 31: Seattle's train a sign of big city progress

.
In the Columbian's despicable, continuing effort of shilling for the multi-billion dollar waste that is loot rail, there is no lie they won't tell, no waste of taxpayer's money they won't demand, and no "leave out all the facts" shiller they won't print.

Danny Westneat is a left-leaning, Seattle Times columnist. In today's effort, he attempts to justify the unbelievable waste of money the people of the Sound Transit area were lied into voting for. Because Seattle's waste of billions has started to run (Only $17 billion more slated to be vaporized... so far... for this colossal waste) those who, to coin a phrase, acted stupidly in supporting this steam crap pile now are doing all they can to backfill their justifications... just like the excuse for a newspaper we're stuck with here locally.

Westneat's column effectively gives credit to loot rail for solving every problem known to mankind.

Of course, his column doesn't talk about the horrific subsidies required or the additional billions waiting to be wasted on extending this system... a system the Times admits matches a couple of the more popular, but geometrically cheaper, bus lines currently running in Metro.

And the catbox liner here locally never mentions that the voters were ASKED if they wanted loot rail, nor does it mention the horrific lies government told the voters in order to get this thing passed concerning costs... and what they were going to get for their money... precisely the same scam these scum are running on us down here.

I understand the Mussolini got his trains as well. And I'm fairly sure he used many of the same methods favored by the lowlifes that want to jam this thing down our throats without a vote so BILLIONS will be wasted... and NONE of it by those supporting this crock the most.

I'm from Seattle. And Seattle is a great place to be FROM. If I wanted to live there, I'd pick up and move. For Vancouver to want to be Seattle is as moronic as shilling this crap in the name of "journalism."

Now, of course, in the interest of fairness, I'm sure that TOMORROW, we'll see a column in this propaganda sheet from someone opposed to loot rail.

But I ain't gonna hold my breath.

The morons at the Columbian strike again!

.
Today's nonsense from the tax-dodgers themselves involves their opportunity to do some more PR work for Gov. Gregoire and the dems running our state's legislature.

As anyone watching for more than ten minutes knows, Oregon is a slow-motion fiscal train wreck. Think of, say, a westernized version of Pakistan and you can get the drift.

While we have a high, business crippling sales and B&O tax, Oregon makes do with a high income tax. Lacking a sales tax kind of acts as a statewide commercial campaign to draw consumers from the surrounding states of Washington, Idaho and Kali-fornia into their state.

Now the primary motivation for our legislature was fear. The 1994 cycle is all too close a nightmare for our state's leftists, and while 2010 is shaping up as a greater or lesser version of the same, that's primarily a consequence of the stupidity, lack of depth, cluelessness and vision at the top of the ticket.

The local rag, of course, benefited from some of your basic quid-pro-quo. They stole money from the other small businesses of this state by arranging for their leftist masters to give them a massive B&O business tax CUT, a CUT that the rest of us didn't get in the midst of this $10 billion deficit... and a cut that, you guessed it, WE will have to make up.

Is it any wonder they lie and exaggerate in their support for the biggest waste of money the northwestern United States has ever seen, given that THEY won't have to pay for it?

Now, this sets the table for today's moronic idiocy. When it comes to matters of development, the morons pumping out editorials view this area as their own, personal, post card. This paper views the Gorge as their own personal fiefdom, advocating restrictions on the residents living there that they, themselves, would never CONSIDER living under.

And how many times has Koenninger regaled us with one of his "the way things were" columns while attacking anyone opposing his Utopian view and his efforts to force others to live under a standard that he, himself, does NOT have to live under.

That, of course, brings us to today's drivel.

Regardless, it seems likely many entrepreneurs and wealthy people will vote with their feet and take a look at moving to Clark County. The county has long been a desirable place for wealthy Oregon retirees, who can enjoy Clark County and the Portland area without paying personal income taxes on pensions...

...So, for their actions on behalf of Clark County, we thank the Oregon Legislature and say, "Welcome, newcomers."

When I left the Army and moved here in 88 or so, Clark County had a population of just over 200,000.

Today, it has a population far in excess of 400,000.

Since that time, our commissioners have done a great deal under the auspices of the growth management plan. But whatever they've done, this paper has been whining, moaning and complaining about the growth management boundary; how often it's been changed (Massive, explosive growth notwithstanding) and the Californication of the region.

Now today's idiocy appears to be throwing out the welcome mat for Oregonian Refugees to move here to a county already burdened by major shortcomings in all manner of infrastructure.

Of course, the preferred member of the O.R. class is that limited to the "wealthy" class... but the problem with that is ALL taxpayers are oppressed by massive tax and fee increases... and the implementation of thousands of dollars in tolls without a vote.

The result? The human tidal wave the idiot who wrote this editorial is referring to will not be limited to those with fat retirements and checkbooks. And if this rag's vision comes to fruition, well, guess what? The commissioners will have to revisit the growth management plan AGAIN, because all of these wonderful people will require somewhere to live, and the kids will require somewhere to go to school, and somewhere to buy groceries, and somewhere to buy furniture and so on and so on.

I would be the first to admit that like the city boundaries of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Vancouver, I wouldn't be caught dead living in Oregon.

That, however, does not explain this bizarre position where, on one hand, the morons running the paper want the "wealthy" to move here because of our oh, so, superior tax structure (soon to be obliterated by the fringe leftists this rag supports as they do everything they can to allow us to become a train wreck just like Oregon when they impose OUR version of an income tax) while, on the other, they bitch like cut cats over growth and it's consequences.

Yeah... you can REALLY trust this waste of wood pulp's vision for our future.

Idiots.

Censorship of ideas on the Columbian web site.

.The Columbian newspaper practices a rank hypocrisy rarely seen anywhere else in the area, and it's time for it to end.

In today's editorial, Laird (or whoever it is) whines about the possible waste of $46,000 if everything in a report's conclusions about the Vancouver Police Department morale issues were not addressed.

But if the report is not respected for its objectivity and expertise, then the whole thing will become an imprudent use of $46,440 the city spent on it; a waste of four months Matrix Consulting Group of Palo Alto, Calif., spent compiling the valuable data; and a troubling disregard for 139 pages of observations and advice.

They snivel about that when the CRC "study," with it's pre-ordained outcome, has wasted 10's of millions... the same study that has wasted, literally, tens of millions of dollars in an ongoing to ram and unneeded, unwanted, wasteful economic black hole that will vaporize increasingly scarce transportation dollars at an unimaginable rate.

It's ironic that the Columbian website censors the word "waste" and it's variations. (Try it. And mention of the word "wasted," for example, shows up as "******.") It's completely bizarre, but given all of the monumental waste this disgrace to journalism supports now and has supported in the past, it's not surprising that they want to avoid the embarrassment of the constant reminders of their perfidy by the public paying attention.

This newspaper supports the waste of billions of dollars... yet they express concern over, relatively speaking, a few thousand.

Is it any wonder they face fiscal disaster? Is it any wonder that so few people actually are willing to fork over money to be insulted both personally and intellectually by a group wholly owned by the downtown mafia and city hall.

Who in their right mind would support such a rag... or those who advertise in it?

What a blight and disgrace on our community. Respond with a position that oppose their agenda... and see how long that idea reminds visible.

This despicable pile of pulp fears ideas that oppose their agenda. And as a result... they will silence them.

That didn't work for Das Reich or Pravda Izvestia, either.

The dumbest question ever asked in The Columbian: Why do we just accept bridge lifts?

We are unfortunately saddled with a moron as the editorial page editor of our local waste of trees known as the Columbian.

John Laird asked arguable the most asinine, idiotic and moronic question ever put into print by our local community shame:

"Why do we just accept bridge lifts?"

Laird, of course, is shilling for the downtown Mafia. Long since proven to be have abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity, Laird stupidly asks a question with a self-evident answer in some sort of weak effort to justify his paper's bizarre position on ramming a multi-billion utter waste of money down this community's throat.

Laird is so monumentally asinine that he fails to understand the answer to his question... so let me spell it out in terms so simple that the integrity-challenged simpletons shilling this pile of crap.

We put up with the infrequent bridge lifts BECAUSE THE IDIOTIC ALTERNATIVE THAT LAIRD AND HIS ILK KEEP YAMMERING ON ABOUT IS SIMPLY BEYOND COMMON SENSE.

Why do we get vaccinations? To avoid horrific diseases. Why do we change the oil in our vehicles? To help maintain them in running condition.

Why do we put up with bridge lifts?

BECAUSE NOTHING THE DOWNTOWN MAFIA HAS OFFERED JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY PRICE WE'LL PAY IF WE DON'T.

Laird is living proof that you have to be a moron to be a leftist. His total and complete idiocy is an embarrassment to this community and continues to be one of the many anchors around this paper's neck.

Neither I nor anyone in my family will spend a penny on this paper as long as this cancer to our community is employed there. Further, we will do all we can to avoid patronizing anyone desperate enough to advertise in this rag.

What a despicable creature... to ram this thing down our throats with no justification or vote. A history of lies and exaggerations. A genuine blight on our community.

Before it was deleted, I caught this comment on his column:

I'm sorry... I forgot. Disagree with Laird and you get deleted.

"Why do we just accept bridge lifts?"

What an absurd, idiotic, nonsensical question.

Here's a better one:

"Why would we put up with at least $1300 a year in tolls... each... to avoid the occasional bridge lift?

God, I am SO entertained by morons who won't have to pay these tolls every day to go to work telling those of us who will what's best for us.

Tell you what, John: If you're so damned inconvenienced by bridge lifts when you're jetting over to Portland for a restaurant or whatever, then start taking 205 to get there.

Problem solved: BILLIONS saved.

Idiot.

So simple an idiot like any of those scum shilling this bridge that THEY will not have to pay for... so they can get the unwanted and unneeded loot rail into Vancouver.

More lies from the Columbian: County can't deny services to illegal aliens.

So I get a call from a friend of mine yesterday about a bizarre article in the Columbian that wrongly claims that "County can't deny services to immigrants."

First of all, the issue isn't ABOUT denying services to IMMIGRANTS.

The issue is about denying services to ILLEGAL ALIENS.

IMMIGRANTS are those who came here legally from another country. I've yet to read anything about denying services to anyone here legally.

Providing services to those here in violation of the laws of this country here illegally... that is, ILLEGAL ALIENS, is another thing entirely.

So, why didn't the newspaper make that distinction? Because they've allowed their bias to dictate their stories.

THIS paper doesn't want illegal aliens to be held accountable. THIS newspaper doesn't care that we have to reduce services due to expenditures to illegals. THIS paper doesn't care that we've had to lay off county employees because of budget cuts.

Nope... spending tens of millions of our increasingly scarce tax dollars on people violating the law of this land as an incentive for them to stay here is just peachy for the Columbian.

And I get that.

The problem is when their biases interfere with the increasingly tattered remnants of what passes for journalism at this paper, then the public is misinformed.

Now, I haven't decided if that's a result of poor reporting, incompetence, or bias... or a happy (for the paper) confluence of all three.

But the fact of that matter is this:

This county CAN deny "services" to our illegal alien population. The paper is either wrong... or lying.

CA Counties Cut Illegal Aliens Healthcare

From a deeply outraged Los Angeles Times:

California counties cut healthcare to illegal immigrants

With budget problems afflicting counties across the state, some have begun eliminating healthcare to illegal immigrants. Critics say this will only shift the burden to hospital emergency rooms.

By Anna Gorman
April 27, 2009

Forced to slash their budgets, some California counties are eliminating nonemergency health services for illegal immigrants — a move that officials acknowledge could backfire by shifting the financial burden to emergency rooms.

Sacramento County voted in February to bar illegal immigrants from county clinics at an estimated savings of $2.4 million. Contra Costa County followed last month by cutting off undocumented adults, to save approximately $6 million. And Yolo County is voting on a similar change next month, which would reduce costs by $1.2 million.

"This is a way for us to get through what I think is a horrible year for healthcare in California," said William Walker, director of Contra Costa Health Services.

More:

Odd, isn't it? California counties that seem to have to work under the same rules as Clark County now seem to be doing the very thing that OUR paper reports WE cannot do.

Maybe they'll do another article, where first, they'll mention that counties around this country actually ARE doing that which they wrongly allege we cannot; and second, how it is that they could write something... anything, without due diligence and fact checking.

I mean, after all, it took me all of about 10 seconds to discover that, once again, the paper has been dead wrong... as they've been dead wrong on so many other issues.

Yesterday, our moron of a Congressman voted for yet ANOTHER bill he hadn't read: Columbian provides cover.

Unfortunately, the American people have saddled this nation with an unabashed leftist liar.

We are already well aware that Mr. Obama lied during his campaign about every other sentence or so so who's managed to break many of his campaign promises, turn our foreign policy into a complete joke, and bury us in trillions of debt in the first few months of his painful tenure.

One of his fav scams is to force Congress to vote on bills that haven't even been read by those doing the voting.

Now, rest assured: had a GOP president pulled the several stunts this moron has nailed us with over their tenure, the Columbian and every other media organ in this country would be screaming like cut cats.

Yesterday, our erstwhile congressman for the past 11 years, backbencher Brian Baird, AGAIN voted for ANOTHER bill THAT HE HAD NOT READ.

This is PARTICULARLY hypocritical, given that ol' Brian has championed a time requirement between dropping a bill and then voting on it.

How can Brian Baird vote for this, or any other bill, after demanding 72 hours to review bills (Hey.... HERE'S a radical concept: MAYBE he can READ a bill BEFORE he votes for it?) and then vote for this crapfest in violation of his own rule?

For the past five years, Baird has been pushing for a change in House rules to require the waiting period — to no avail.

So, yesterday, when he had the opportunity to live up to his own standard... and perhaps persuade others to do the same.... what did he do?

He caved like a cheap, cardboard suit.

Now, this go beyond the major damage this bill will do to us and our country. The substance of this bill is as harmful as every other Obama initiative.

That is, it will waste hundreds of billions of dollars and have nothing to show for it but a mountain of debt.

Yes, all of that is aside from Mr. Baird's decision to sell us out... and sell out one of his own cherished principles because he, quite apparently, lacks the testicular capacity to stand up to the Belle of Botox or Rahm Emmanuel, who's skinny little ass can be booted out a door as fast as he breaks it down.

Now, these facts aren't secret. And so what does our local fishwrapper, bankrupt in both integrity and money, print?

Another in the series of their info-mercials for their boy, Brian Baird (D-Columbian).

Baird has completely ignored the needs of this community where it matters most. His cowardly non-stand on the organized crime development known as the Branett/Paskenta/Mohegan/Cowlitz casino, his "I am a wholly owned lackey of downtown Vancouver" earmarks, his complete stupidity on failing to demand a vote on the I-5 Bridge/loot rail scam; his vote, to implement NINE THOUSAND earmarks by voting for the Budget, and then again, when he voted for the Porkulous Bill, AGAIN WITHOUT READING IT.

And what does our local rag do?

Immediately write about his malfeasance as if they were on the payroll.

The problem wit this is that when handed a turd sandwich, no amount of fancy bread changes the meat of the matter.

The rag KNOWS that the people HATE the Cap and Trade bill. They know it so much that the phrase "Cap and Trade" wasn't anywhere in this article.

Talk about cover.

Mr. Baird, you screwed us. Again. Mr. Baird, you sold us out. Again.

And the despicable paper that is The Columbian is aiding and abetting you with their lies and cover. There job here is to point out Baird's hypocrisy as if he were a Republican... not to cover it up and to help it. But then, being a scummy leftist rag keeps that from happening, right?

Despicable.


Energy bill gives boost to biomass
Once-unusable forest slash could be turned into power

Friday, June 26 11:13 p.m.

BY ERIK ROBINSON
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Loggers have long contended that trees are a renewable resource.

Now, the byproduct of logging — the unmerchantable tree tops and limbs that are normally left on the forest floor or burned as slash — could be classified as a renewable source of fuel to generate electricity. The news bolsters a surging interest in biomass energy plants, including one proposal under consideration in north Clark County.

Turning wood scraps into energy got a major boost Thursday with a new provision added to the House version of a major federal energy bill. The bill narrowly passed Friday.

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, said the provision should provide a new incentive for federal forest managers to thin overcrowded forest threatened by wildfire, disease or insect infestation.

"We have in the Gifford Pinchot thousands of acres of forest that are in need of treatment," he said in a telephone interview Thursday evening. "Much of that material would be used for renewable biomass (energy)."

Baird worked with Oregon Reps. Greg Walden, a Republican, and Kurt Schrader, a first-term Democrat from the Portland area, to define logging slash and wood debris from national forests as a renewable energy source. The provision will need to be adopted by the Senate version of the energy bill before it becomes law.

More, if you can stomach it.

The scum of censorship at The Columbian.

Our local newspaper is VERY big on freedom.

Freedom of the press... freedom of THEIR opinions... (even to the point of lies) and, of course, freedom to censor those they disagree with.

As mentioned below, Brancaccio's request for people to "start talkin!" because he's "listening." is limited only to those he wants to hear from. Those he doesn't want to hear? Well, he squelches their voice to silence.

I've noticed an intreped poster over there, one of many daring to stand up to the fringe-left propaganda of our local fish wrapper. And that person's posts were almost completely obliterated this morning, regardless of content.

It's kind of like a local version of BDS. Hatred for dissenting viewpoints can be a terrible thing.

This paper expresses that hatred in a variety of ways. Fringe leftist nut job John Laird, editorial page editor and a propagandist in ways that would make Minister Goebbels blush is a case in point.

And now, Brancaccio has again joined the cast of those who would silence opposition to his paper's positions and agenda.

Gee. I bet he's proud of himself this morning. His actions and those of the Iranian secret police have a lot in common.

The utter absurdity of Brancaccio's latest because of his censorship: Press Talk: What our RAC does for us

It's fairly clear that Lou Brancaccio, the editor of the Columbian, wants us to THINK the paper is flexible and responsive.

He babbled on about their Reader's Advisory Council, a collection of bobble-headed, Amen Choir types that, to hear him tell it, seem to think, among other lies, that "Members felt our bridge coverage continues to be good. "

That any group could possibly believe that substituting opinion for news; lies for genuine polls, and failing to demand a vote for the entirety of this debacle simply confirms how utterly worthless this group is.

They are, in fact, a reflection of a student government, in, say, middle school. They have no real power; they go through the motions but rarely make any real change, and ultimately, they pretty much wind up becoming a reflection of the school administration.

Whoever these people are, their apparent discussions about paint jobs on this Titanic while they continue to support the nonsensical and indefensible positions of this paper... positions that have shoved them towards bankruptcy, serves to confirm who much they serve the role of window dressing... and how little impact or effect they could have, even if they wanted to have any impact, because it's clear that as change agents, they fail.

If this group has not roundly condemned John Laird's divisive and damaging columns; if this group has not repeatedly demanded fairness and accuracy in your coverage of the I-5 Bridge/Loot Rail propaganda or that this paper demand a vote on the entirety of that debacle then they are worthless; not representative of this community and serve no real purpose.

When the Columbian ran those fake polls suggesting that everything is hunky dory about loot rail, did they protest, or did they just sit there and nod like idiots?

The failure of this paper to implement any substantive changes... to go out and scam a B&O tax break when the rest of small business in this state is suffering FAR worse than they are... the failure to actually LISTEN and CHANGE shows that, essentially, you've put together a group that amounts to just another Amen Chorus... or that the paper ignores their positions, much like they ignore most of the positions stated under Brancaccio's columns.

You see, where this idea makes any money is where it's resulted in any changes. And as carefully as I read Brancaccio's column, I failed to note a single instance where this group or any other source of criticism has EVER made any real impact or difference to this paper. Brancaccio says they "WILL" see changes, but that infers that this group, which has been here for years, HASN'T YET MADE ANY DIFFERENCE.

Having the group? Swell. Ignoring them or any other opposition to what you're doing, particularly while you're in the midst of Chapter 11?

Moronic idiocy.

Kinda reminds me of the Supreme Soviet or the former Iraqi Congress under Saddam.

A lot of voting. But not a lot of opposing.

And then, as it turns out, if Lou doesn't "like" you, he censors your ability to comment on his columns.

The irony of his latest scam is the end of his latest bogosity:

If someone wants to comment, let them have their say. I try to keep my pie hole shut as much as I can.

I learn more when I'm listening than when I'm talking.

So start talkin'! I'm listening.

The absurdity of this is that as I write this, a grand total of FOUR posters have been allowed to comment.

FOUR. (There are 5 posters, but Lou is two.) Lou will probably point to the few comments as some sort of sign that everyone believes this paper is hunky dory, and all's well. Other columns Lou have written have resulted in 50, 60 or even more posters telling him how idiotic his positions are.

This column, magically... mysteriously.... not one.

Now, for several months (since the website was redone) many posters have commented on the incompetence of the system because posting there is a hit or miss business.

There have been a number of complaints; posters post, but the post doesn't show up; posters post and the post disappears without comment (censored) and the like.

Brancaccio is fully aware of the idiocy of this system, but merely says his webmaster, Jeff Bunch, should be emailed about this stuff.

That's odd, but yet another sign of Brancaccio's incompetence: Bunch should be called in. He should be told to fix the problem, a problem that has gone on for 9 months now; and if HE can't fix it, Brancaccio should get someone who can.

The incompetent aspect of this is very telling: If this moron won't even fix an obvious SYSTEM problem with his web page, then how is it that anyone could possibly expect him to make any of the many, massive, substantive changes needed to make this paper even remotely competitive and fiscally viable.

Or, we have the second, likely, possibility: censorship.

When Brancaccio says "So start talkin'! I'm listening," what he REALLY means is "If you AGREE with me, I want to hear it. If you DON'T agree with me, then don't bother."

Either way, the RAC is a joke, a farce, and another in the series of offenses to this community.

______________________________________

Local News

Press Talk: What our RAC does for us

Friday, June 19 11:38 p.m.

BY LOU BRANCACCIO,
COLUMBIAN EDITOR

Lou Brancaccio

Summer's here!

And if you're lucky enough to have the summer off, have fun.

We typically give the summer off to our Readers Advisory Council. Of course, they have lives other than just hanging out on our council. But we do hope they have fun, as well.

Our council helps to guide us. In essence, they are another set of eyes on what we do. So throughout the year, we meet every other month to have them tell us how they think we're doing.

We don't turn down positive feedback from them, but we let them know that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for what we can do better so we can get better.

The group is made up of community members, and it's a pretty diverse group. They come from many walks of life.

The only requirement is that they read The Columbian and/or regularly look at our Web site.

We often take their advice, and they'll see changes in The Columbian. Still, a few members feel their views aren't executed. And that's because we can't execute every idea given to us. But certainly, we listen.

We listen to others as well, including those who comment on our Web site. I get quite the group, for example, that comments on this column online.

More, if you can stomach it.

More hypocrisy from our local newspaper: The Columbian - In our view, May 21: Discrimination Fades

So, those who don't want to vote on this referendum don't have to. But to insult and silence those who might not agree? The frequent bigotry of gay marriage supporters cannot be denied.

"What is needed now is a truce — temporary, perhaps, but better if extended — between the two opposing factions that are at war over the word "marriage."

What a bizarre perspective.

One of the major problems (of the many) with editorialists on this paper is an inability to be forthright.

This paper wants a "truce" because gay-marriage proponents have gained 99 percent of what they want, and this paper does not want the Prop 8 scenario to play out here, since they rabidly support gay marriage as much as they rabidly support the I-5 bridge replacement/loot rail debacle.

For those who demand gay marriage, just like for those who oppose it, there can be no such thing as a "truce..." Advocating that those opposed to this development remains silent, particularly when this "truce" would represent a victory for the side this paper represents and a crushing defeat for the side this paper loathes, is an underhanded way to demand that the anti-side just accept it.

Gay marriage has NEVER been voted into place by the people. As a result, this sorry effort just serves as yet another in the series of Columbian hypocrisies, where in they're all ABOUT the "will of the people" when it suits them or they want it, but are violently opposed to that same will if there is a risk where, as is typically the case, the people ignore the collective "wisdom" of this newspaper and go in another direction.

Once again, they PICK the issues where they fear our will... and make every effort to tell us that what WE want doesn't matter... when they don't happen to like what that might be.

Instead of saying "truce," this paper should have just come out and said something to the effect of "OK, we've got most of what we want, now... so it's time for those opposing this to shut the hell up, and end any effort to find out if the PEOPLE want this."

This is the rank hypocrisy of this publication that keeps me from buying it. This is the double-standard that is editorial policy by social engineers who think we're too stupid to think for ourselves.

Yup. These morons are ALL about getting our "will" when and WHERE they want it. But when we MIGHT oppose them?

They don't want to hear it where it counts... at the ballot box.

No "truce" (which this despicable waste of pulp uses as a euphemism for demanding acceptance of what THEY want) is in the offing. And one can bet that had this bill died in the legislature, you can damned well bet that these morons wouldn't be asking for a "truce" THEN, would they?


In our view, May 21: Discrimination Fades
Governor signs bill that expands rights of domestic partnerships; it’s time for a truce
Thursday, May 21 1:00 a.m.

When discrimination dies, it doesn't always go quickly or quietly. Sometimes, prejudice passes incrementally. Although a judicial ruling might serve the same purpose of kicking down a door, the legislative process often unfolds in stages.

One of those seemingly small but profound steps occurred Monday when Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill that grants domestic partners all of the rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples. The measure often has been called the "everything but marriage" bill. We'll get to the semantics debate a little later.

First, though, we'll point out that the bill is significant because it accords long-overdue equal rights to more than 5,300 domestic partnerships that have been registered in two years. Domestic partnerships of gay or lesbian couples were recognized by the Legislature in 2007. The law also allows unmarried, senior heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners. That's more than 10,000 people, representing all 39 counties, who have gained virtually all of the rights of married spouses. As Gregoire said at the bill signing, those rights "will make for stronger families, and when we have stronger families, we have a stronger Washington state."

Among the latest rights granted to domestic partnerships are those related to sick leave to care for a domestic partner, unemployment and disability insurance benefits, business succession rights, adoption and child custody. In recent years, rights were accorded relative to hospital visitation rights, beneficiaries, the right to refuse to testify against each other in court and public assistance provisions.

What is needed now is a truce — temporary, perhaps, but better if extended — between the two opposing factions that are at war over the word "marriage." The day might come when that word applies to gays and lesbians. But it's not here yet, and for now, the best strategy is for everyone to calm down, recognize marriages and domestic partnerships as they are recognized by law, and save the semantics war for another day.

More, if you can stomach this rank hypocrisy.

The Columbian proves we do not need a bridge replacement!

I've got to admit I was stunned and amazed. The Columbian has provided, literally, millions of dollars worth of in-kind advertising in the form of fake polls and "articles" in support of ramming this despicable project down our collective throats.

Yet, yesterday's article (with the obvious title, answered "yes") "$4 billion: Too much for this?" provided any sane, unbiased individual with all of the facts needed to condemn the idea of replacing the I-5 Bridge for the purpose of getting light rail into Vancouver.

What the article proved to me is that we don't need to replace the bridge. Period. And for that, I do have to thank Brancaccio for providing all the reasons needed to trash this project, even though it means we will have already wasted in excess of $140,000,000 in taxpayer money for the nonsensical stack of paper that failed to address what really needs to happen here... the development of a new bridge elsewhere.

Wagner on the current bridge:

Wagner said he has no doubts the existing crossings are safe, so much so that he drives and cycles across the spans without hesitation.

"If we don't have an earthquake of any magnitude, those two bridges are going to stay there until something hits them," he said.

First and foremost: Wagner tells us that the current bridge is SAFE. Get that? SAFE. That is a lack of SAFETY has no place in the replacement discussion.

He expresses concern about earthquakes... but then says nothing about the easiest, simplest, fastest, cheapest solution: retrofit.

And, of course, the type of earthquake he envisions could well flatten a new bridge as well, since the new bridge provides no guarantees, meaning that all our $4 billion... or $5 billion or $6 billion (These projects ALWAYS cost MUCH more than they say, and the cost overruns are ALWAYS huge...) only gets us a CHANCE at a better earthquake response. I'm not willing to spend BILLIONS on a chance... especially when the real reason is to bring light rail into Vancouver.

Second: Wagner tells us, “The existing spans, opened in 1917 and 1958, are structurally sound.”

That is, the bridge isn't falling down any time real soon. Further, there was nothing here about retro-fitting the current bridge to make it more able to withstand the earthquakes light rail fans use to hide the real reason for this bridge.

Third: Wagner tells us that even when constructed,

“…during a 3 hour stretch of southbound morning commute, traffic would crawl along at 10mph or slower across the replacement bridge through Hayden Island and portions of north Portland.”

So... we're going to spend an unknown number of BILLIONS of dollars for this?

Fourth: "We have a bridge that's functioning, maybe not as good as we would like, but it's there, it's safe, it's open, the freeway's moving,"

These are ALL reasons NOT to build this horrific waste of money.

What they are, are reasons to build an ADDITIONAL bridge SOME WHERE ELSE.

I am not concerned with the excuses or legalities of finding ways and reasons not to ask us if we want this proven-to-be-unneeded bridge.

Morally and ethically, if not any other way, the reason to get our permission FIRST is clear: this thing will suck as much as $100,000,000 per year out of our local economy and away from many families that simply will not be able to afford this massively unneeded project.

I get why this interview didn't take place with, say, a Pollard. No politician shilling this thing wants to eat their own words in the next election... and they will.

NOTHING provided in this interview even BEGINS to justify this massive expense. When Wagner says: "The two sides of the river have to come together on what's going to happen," he's lying. What he SHOULD say is that the 35 or 40 self-appointed people who want to ram this thing down our throats without a vote are agreeing on the execution... kind of like saying "we'll go with a hanging, instead of a firing squad."

When Wagner says: "And on the Clark County side, while there is growing support for light rail," he's lying AGAIN.

With each of the many stabbings, shootings, robberies and massive expenses of Max, if anything, support for light rail is completely down the toilet. And he offers nothing to back this assertion.
Unfortunately, reading these obvious falsities shows that Mr. Wagner is delusional. He's spun this as positively as he could because he personally stands to benefit from this project.

What he thinks about voting on this is completely irrelevant. As a bureaucrat, Wagner can feel free to ignore us as he marches forward doing everything he can to make this happen. But interviewing THIS guy?

Besides shooting this project in the foot... what more did that accomplish?

So, I do appreciate Mr. Brancaccio's article, although I'm mystified as to why he would print something that confirms the position of many bridge opponents while weakening the position of the loot rail scammers, including himself, that have, while simultaneously providing literally millions in in-kind coverage, including using fake polls, to support this massive, colossal, utter waste of taxpayer resources.


$4 billion: Too much for this?

Bridge official says discussions now under way to pare massive project

Saturday, May 16 3:03 p.m.

BY JEFFREY MIZE
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Columbia River Crossing Sketch shows what a replacement Interstate 5 bridge, with light-rail tracks under the southbound span, could look like from downtown Vancouver south toward Oregon.

Donald R. Wagner, P.E., Regional Administrator for the Washington State Department of Transportation during an interview at The Columbian newspaper regarding the Columbia Crossing project Wednesday May 13, 2009. (The Columbian, Troy Wayrynen)

There may not be enough money to build a bridge, freeway and transit project costing $4 billion or more, the top state transportation official in Southwest Washington told The Columbian.

Planners and engineers already are looking to slash costs on the multibillion-dollar Columbia River Crossing project, even while the community continues to haggle over bridge design and other sticking points, said Don Wagner, the Washington State Department of Transportation's regional administrator.

Possible cuts include delaying one or more of the interchange projects and slicing off a bridge lane in each direction, he said.

"Just like most of us in the real world, we dream about the car we want," Wagner said in a wide-ranging interview last week. "And at some point, stark reality says, 'Huh. I dream about it, but I don't have quite enough money to get it all today. Maybe I need to take off a few of the options off of this car.' And we are starting those conversations right now."

Wagner said he doesn't believe it's politically possible to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge without extending light rail into Vancouver and predicted the crossing project would be on "life support" if voters shoot down a light-rail measure.

Despite those looming obstacles, there are benefits to replacing the I-5 Bridge, namely a 70 percent to 90 percent easing of congestion at one of the region's most notorious bottlenecks, Wagner said.

Money remains a constant consideration. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski has suggested the region might be looking to build too much. Last month, Kulongoski used a similar car analogy, saying that "some of us like to go into the Maserati dealership" but "there is always the day of reckoning."

Wagner, however, declined to call the crossing project a Maserati or even a Cadillac.

"What we have out there is a good solid Chevy, with a few extra options on it right now," he said.

Removing a bridge lane — a significant revision given the heated battle that occurred earlier this year to get both sides of the river to back a bridge with six lanes in each direction — would save roughly $150 million, Wagner said.

Between $200 million to $300 million could be trimmed from the budget if overhauling the state Highway 500 interchange was delayed, and another $400 million to $500 million could be saved if the Marine Drive interchange in Oregon wasn't rebuilt, he said.

"There would be a lot of unhappy campers, people saying, 'But I thought I would get this?'" Wagner said. "But it would be a safe structure; it would be a functional approach. It would include proper tie-ins of all the interchanges. They just wouldn't have as many lanes on them. You might have to wait in line to get onto the freeway."

Saving another $750 million by killing light rail isn't going to happen, Wagner said.

"The two sides of the river have to come together on what's going to happen," he said. "And on the Clark County side, while there is growing support for light rail, I am going to stop way short of saying that everybody likes light rail because I've certainly had enough people tell me that they don't like light rail.

"But our side of the river seems to be one that says, 'Look, we have to have highway improvements out there or we don't have a project.' On the Oregon side of the river, it's really pretty close to just the opposite. If they don't have light rail, they have no reason to be at the table. And this project can't be built without money coming from both states."

Public vote

Although there is no requirement for a public vote on either building a replacement bridge or imposing tolls that could cost commuters more than $1,000 a year, a vote will be needed on one or more aspects of light rail.

More:

Is this article the Columbian's dirty little secret?

My entry below was written early this morning as it was one of the stories on the Columbian web page.

And while this article hasn't been deleted... as I write this, there is no reference to it on the Columbian's web site that doesn't require a search.

Why?

It's an article from today (13 May) at 1:15 a.m. Why is it gone so that most people will not know it was ever there?

If I hadn't just happened on it early this morning, there';s a good chance I never would have known about this tax break passing.

Is this newspaper ashamed of themselves?

I doubt it. They just don't want the hassle.

Surprise! While the REST of the business community suffers, the Columbian (among others) scam a tax cut for newspapers.

Last February, word leaked out that the newspapers around here were making an effort to scam special consideration from the legislature, because, well, they're newspapers.

I challenged that assertion; the people of this state should not be tasked with being forced to support an outmoded, obsolete business model when we're not being given any choice in the matter.

Since democrats control the government of this state, and since newspapers in this state endorse in elections like the democrat party was paying them, however, I should have known that the dumb asses in the legislature would sell us out to give their buddies a tax cut... while ignoring the rest of us in small business as our revenues plunge and we ALL suffer.

I guess it pays to know people... right?

"Blethen (Of the Seattle Times) said he understands that lawmakers may wonder why newspapers should get tax relief when other businesses are hurting.

"The answer is the unique role of newspapers," he said. "The unique role that they play in society and the unique role that they play in our self-government and the unique role they play in binding and creating community."

That's a crock, of course. In the age of the internet, no one cares except the unions that
print the papers and the leftists using them as democrat party organs.

Well, the d's delivered the pay offs in spades... so, assuming our own waste of wood pulp hasn't managed to go out of business by November, next year, we can expect yet another round of leg-humping for the left.

After all, the democrats bought them, fair and square.





Wash. gov OKs tax cut for newspapers

Tuesday, May 12 7:45 p.m.

Gov. Chris Gregoire has approved a tax break for the state's troubled newspaper industry.

The new law gives newspaper printers and publishers a 40 percent cut in the state's main business tax. The discounted rate mirrors breaks given in years past to the Boeing Co. and the timber industry.

Newspapers across the country have resorted to layoffs and other cost-cutting moves to deal with a wounded business model and a recession-fueled drop in advertising.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer printed its final edition earlier this year and was converted to an Internet-only publication with a much-reduced staff.

Gee.... the Columbian is going to blow a gasket over this one: US Senate Backs Allowing Guns In National Parks

Last December, the Columbian blew a gasket over allowing guns into parks... as if they were some sort of zone where criminals (The odd murderer/robber aside) simply don't tread, thus there is no conceivable need for non-criminals to be allowed their Second Amendment rights inside the borders of this federal property.

"... Jeers: To the Bush administration for overturning a 25-year-old rule and allowing people with concealed-weapon permits to carry loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. The Columbian opposed this effort back in May, and, more compellingly, the change was opposed earlier by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Yet this week the Interior Department announced that the new provision will take effect in January if the state in question allows concealed weapons.

"According to The Seattle Times, the change will have limited impact in Washington state. Even though the state has a concealed weapons program, the Times reported, “many visitors won’t be able to pack a gun because Washington only recognizes concealed-weapons permits from a handful of states with requirements as stringent. That’s just eight states, the closest of which is Utah.”

"So, in addition to loaded guns being taken into previously pastoral parks and crowded campgrounds, there now is this huge new bureaucratic and enforcement nightmare. We hope the next administration reverts to the old rule."

The idiocy of such a position is obvious to someone not blinded by a bizarre, leftist, anti-gun agenda. And the verbiage?

"So, in addition to loaded guns being taken into previously pastoral parks and crowded campgrounds"

As if the view is somehow diminished by my decision to carry a concealed .45 Colt Combat Commander?

As I stated before: Idiots.

As I had written:

"In situations like these, I tend to think of those writing these editorials in terms of "what would THEY want if their life was on the line?"

If these writers were at risk in a classroom. If there was a Columbine-style shooting going on in a school where they happened to be; would they pissed that I was carrying a .357 magnum? Would they be so outraged when I pulled my weapon and ended the threat?

It's not hard to imagine these sanctimonious hypocrites in a Virginia Tech classroom, whimpering on the floor in little liberal, whinny puddles, howling with outrage that some student or faculty member; or even worse, say, a college-student military-veteran had actually come to class with a firearm and was ready to use it to SAVE THEIR INCREASINGLY WORTHLESS LIVES had actually done so.

And so now what happens?

A completely-controlled-by-democrats Senate now BACKS allowing guns in Federal Parks AND Wildlife Refuges.

How much that must suck for the local fishwrapper.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which he said would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

"If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm," Coburn said.

Twenty-seven Democrats joined 39 Republicans and one independent in supporting the amendment, which was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The amendment was approved 67-29.

This is OVERWHELMING support for a position this newspaper abhors. I guess someone is clueless... and I've got to wonder who.

Will this newspaper re-evaluate their position to something that actualy relates to common sense?

Nahhhh.

Senate Backs Allowing Guns In National Parks
Senate Backs Amendment To Allow Loaded Guns In National Parks
WASHINGTON, May. 12, 2009
E-Mail Story
Print Story
Sphere

(AP) The Senate on Tuesday backed an amendment that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which he said would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

.

"If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm," Coburn said.

.

Twenty-seven Democrats joined 39 Republicans and one independent in supporting the amendment, which was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The amendment was approved 67-29.

.

Groups supporting gun control, park rangers and retirees opposed the amendment, which they said went further than a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges.

.

A federal judge blocked the policy in March, two months after it went into effect in the waning days of President George W. Bush's term. The Obama administration has said it will not appeal the court ruling.

.

More:

Yet another bogus, pro bridge, pro light rail editorial. Will these clowns ever learn?

It wasn't even a subtle manipulation of a bunch of cherry-picked facts. It was and out and out embarrassment of an editorial that hid issues and manipulated information to tailor a specific outcome while the rest of us are on the hook.

In yet another despicable effort to manipulate the public, this newspaper has made a bogus attempt to tie the relatively low noise planning and construction of the I-205 bridge to the unsupportable and inexcusably massive waste of money represented by the unnecessary, unneeded and unwanted replacement of the I-5 Bridge.

They deliberately overlook the reasons that the I-205 Bridge did not garner such massive public opposition. The attempt to make the dog is a cat, is a boy is a girl connection, making excuses that, essentially, the only REAL difference between the needed "visionary" construction and the unneeded, blindingly biased and arrogant construction of a replacement I-5 bridge is the "when" of it.

They COMPLETELY ignore the fact that the I-205 bridge more then DOUBLED our interstate capacity while THIS massive waste of money makes no impact on capacity AT ALL.

So, at the end of the day, we blow a $4 BILLION (Before the massive, "Big Dig" like cost overruns of several billion more) hole in our scarce transportation dollars pool, AND WE WIND UP WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT, except the VACUUMING OF AT LEAST $100,000,000 OUT OF OUR LOCAL ECONOMY EVERY YEAR TO PAY FOR THIS MONSTROSITY.

So, we get a local-economy killing, no traffic improvement, criminal vein inserted into our community, and this newspaper CONTINUES to lie; CONTINUES to manipulate, CONTINUES their efforts to ram this unbelievable waste of money down our throats.

And Lou wonders why their circulation continues to dive into the toilet? Really?

Puke.

In our view May 6: Bridge Differences

Yes, they both cross the Columbia River, but I-205 and I-5 bridges vary greatly

Wednesday, May 6 1:00 a.m.

Even though they have opposing views, supporters and critics of a new Interstate 5 bridge often try to advance their respective arguments by using the Interstate 205 bridge as a role model.

Advocates of a new bridge will argue that, just as the I-205 bridge showed a visionary approach, a long-term perspective reveals the need for a new I-5 bridge. And the I-205 bridge was built with little to no opposition from the community, so a new I-5 bridge should draw similar public support. Also, there was no public vote on the I-205 bridge, so why should there be a public vote on the I-5 bridge?

To the contrary, opponents of a new bridge will argue that no tolls were needed to build the I-205 bridge, so no tolls are needed for a new I-5 bridge. And the I-205 bridge doesn't have light rail, so why should a new I-5 bridge? Also, the federal government paid 90 percent of the I-205 bridge's cost, and we should expect the same commitment on a new I-5 bridge.

Both sides are guilty of jumping to conclusions. As Jeff Mize reported in Monday's Columbian, there are many dissimilarities between the two projects. Understanding these differences can advance public awareness as the long and complicated bridge-replacement process continues.

This is not to say the I-205 bridge — formally designated the Glenn Jackson Bridge (in honor of a former Oregon transportation commissioner) — is not worthy of emulating. It has no bridge lift, and neither should a new I-5 bridge. It's not an "iconic" structure, and there's no need to get fancy with a new I-5 bridge. But here are a few differences for the two opposing sides to consider:

-- The I-205 bridge opened more than 26 years ago. Times were different. This helps explain the $175 million cost of the I-205 bridge, compared with the new I-5 bridge's estimated cost of $1.2 billion to $4.2 billion.

-- The I-5 bridge project is more complex. Some might argue that, even with inflation, the I-205 bridge's cost would be only $386 million. But that's jumping to a conclusion without realizing that today's Columbia River Crossing project is more than just a bridge; it's a five-mile project (from state Highway 500 to Columbia Boulevard in Portland), and the proposal includes seven new or rebuilt freeway interchanges.

-- Funding sources have changed significantly in the past quarter of a century. The I-205 bridge was a new project, built back during the completion of the vast Interstate Highway system, a massive federal undertaking. The I-5 bridge project is a replacement, proposed at a time when federal commitment nationwide is not as heavy, and during an immense economic downturn when budgets everywhere are getting slashed.

More, if you can stomach it.

Giving credit where due: Laird's column of 3 May - What's in a name? Maybe a fight!

I have hammered John Laird like a nail on this blog for his blind partisanship. It seemed like every column he inked had some reference; overt, veiled, indirect or direct to the "evil" of the political right.

This column was strangely lacking. Could the message, sent repeatedly to those Laird answers to, finally have been heard? Did Laird hear it himself, or was he force-fed a dictate to knock of his writing as if it were cleared by Washington State Democrat Party Chairman Comrade Dwight Pelz?

Either way, I have to also note when something is done right... when something begins to approach the tenets of journalism.

Laird's column this time achieved that. Hopefully, this column wasn't a fluke, and he will repeat this type of writing in the future.


John Laird May 3: What's in a name? Maybe a fight!

Sunday, May 3 1:00 a.m.

John Laird

Portlanders spend (waste) a lot of time arguing over what to name stuff. The latest dispute is whether their 39th Avenue should be changed to honor Cesar Chavez, the late labor leader whose activism was carried out mostly in places other than Portland. In 2007, Portlanders fought the same fight over Interstate Avenue. Exhaustion set in, and the street kept its name.

Playing with names used to be fun back in the good ol' days. Shirley Ellis, in her hauntingly philosophical étude of 1964, led our chorus: "Shirley Shirley bo birley banana fanna fo firley fee fi mo mirley! Shirley!" (Some of us sophomore boys devoted long hours to ferreting out first names that would produce vulgarities when we chanted "The Name Game.")

But name games aren't much fun anymore, especially in Portland. In Clark County, we're not so argumentative over names. Been there, done that is our attitude. After all, in "Vancouver — not B.C. — Washington — not D.C." we're used to having our city and state confused with other places.

In Portland, though, the near-riot rages on over what, basically, is a dumb idea. I don't mean honoring Chavez but changing the name of 39th Avenue. As several sane observers have pointed out, the best way to honor a hero is to add a name somewhere, without taking away another name. A recent editorial in The Oregonian provided a great alternative: Attach the Chavez name to a new bridge planned over the Willamette River for pedestrians, transit and light rail. Instead of sending a message to 30,000 cars a day on 39th Avenue, The Oregonian editorialized, send that message to 42,000 transit riders a day (plus bikers and pedestrians) who will use the bridge.

Portlanders also are fighting over the proposal to tear down Memorial Coliseum and replace it with a baseball stadium. Veterans groups claim this will insult those who have served in the military and deserve to be memorialized. Perhaps, but has it occurred to them that a new stadium with the same name could actually bring greater honor to veterans than the drab structure that's currently on the site?

More:

The Idiocy of The Columbian never ceases to amaze: In our view April 16: Progress for Felons

As stated here, here, here and here, the sheer unadulterated idiocy of restoring voting privileges before the completion of a sentence, is the decreased likelihood of the payment of restitution to a criminal's victims or government is obvious.

The leftist moron who wrote this editorial supporting this bizarre nonsense fails to address in his haste to restore the felon's "rights" that the felon violated the victim's rights without a second thought.

We're lied to:

First, regaining the right to vote could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Utter nonsense. They provide not one shred of proof that recidivism is influenced in any way by voting rights. Not one. It sounds good, so they print it.

But I just can't feature any of these clowns going, "Gee, if I rob this 7-11, I won't be able to vote in the upcoming school bond levy."

Second, it would encourage participation in the democratic process. After being under government's thumb (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to vote a way to help elect those who serve in that same government.

This non sequitur is a right they voluntarily gave up by violating the rights of their victim. And who would they vote for? A candidate more likely to get tough on crime? Or a candidate more likely to be lenient while the public gets caught in the middle and screwed?

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of voting by felons after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a poll tax, denying to poor felons the right to vote that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot vote until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to vote as long as they stay current on payments.

I'm touched by the concern expressed here for the criminal. But when it comes to the victim?

Not so much. What this law "signals" to a criminal is that when you shoot someone, either killing them or crippling them, this newspaper is going to be far more concerned about your right to vote then it is your requirement to pay your restitution.

They falsely equate restitution, which is, after all, an effort to at least partially make your victim whole, with a bogus poll tax. That is a crock of pure, grade A BS.

When the "new law" fails because felons WILL NOT "stay current" on their restitution payments, how long will it be before this newspaper leads the charge to remove even THAT requirement?

And what mechanism has that waste of skin Sam Reed implemented to enforce any of these requirements?

Reed will make sure that all felons are registered as a part of their release program, and then do absolutely nothing to make sure that they ARE current. If he couldn't set up a program that would keep track of convicted felons that haven't had their rights restored, how can anyone expect this incompetent boob to set up a program to keep track of these felon's payments?

This bill is sheer idiocy. I wonder when we're going to see this rag write an editorial demanding that convicted felon's gun rights be restored?

After all, the Second Amendment isn't the second suggestion, and all these arguments for restoring felon voting rights can certainly be applied to restoring felon gun rights.

In fact, substitute the word "gun," for the word "vote," and you come up with a pretty persuasive argument... right?

First, regaining the right to possess guns could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Second, it would encourage participation in firearms training. After being under government's thumb unarmed for so many years (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to own firearms to help protect others from criminals.

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of denying felons the right to possess or own firearms after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a requirement for felons to remain helpless and unarmed, denying to poor felons the right to self defense that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot own or possess firearms until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to own or possess firearms as long as they stay current on payments.

That, of course, is "different" somehow. Right?

But is it?

A "right" is a "right." Voting is a "right," and so is owning or possessing a firearm. How can anyone supporting this bill oppose the restriction of ANY "right" by these people?

The fact is that the primary driver for this bill, our utterly worthless leftist-masquerading as a Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, has shown a monumental level of incompetence when it comes to administering the issue of keeping felon voters of the rolls.

Of course, that incompetence is, in part, driven by his agenda which has included the elimination of the felon voter rules for years now. To that end, Reed has done absolutely nothing to set up a system to identify felon voters to keep them from voting.

Well, he HAS whined, repeatedly, about how HARD it is to do that particular task, but besides that, he's done absolutely nothing to implement that requirement, and in the last election, he was directly responsible for sending out 10's of thousands of ballots to felon voters disqualified from voting by their felony conviction.

And now, we expect this clown to implement a far more exacting, far more complicated and cumbersome system than a blanket prohibition?

Ohhh. I'm really confident. Aren't you?

The leftist rag sickeningly claims racism as the basis for the opposition to this issue, contending that because of the "disproportionately" high percentage (I guess the idea that a "disproportionately" high percentage of people committing crimes just happen to be "of color" doesn't enter in to their world) of criminals are "of color," that could "conceivably" ("Conceivably?" Is this guy smoking crack? What was the minority vote in the last election?) favor Democrats.

I oppose this bill ONLY because those who will benefit from it are those who cheerfully and willingly violated the rights of their victims without concern to voting rights.

The ONLY question to consider is this: Will this bill make it MORE likely... or LESS likely that restitution will be paid.

The restoration of rights should ONLY be granted after the COMPLETION of ALL of a sentence. To complete incarceration... mandatory... required incarceration because YOU have VOLUNTARILY committed a crime or crimes, EARNS you nothing.

Again, I seriously doubt that any of the morons supporting this travesty face the possibility of restitution from a convicted felon. I seriously doubt that any of the women who had voted for this had been rape victims. I seriously doubt that any man who voted for this had a murdered wife or child. I seriously doubt that any of these people have had a knife held to their throat, had their house burned down or have been robbed at gun point.

Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't about race. This is about holding those who would victimize us fully accountable for their actions... not scamming the system with $5 per month payments so we can get more criminals voting.

And this newspaper presents NOTHING... and those supporting this garbage present NOTHING that eliminates the need for accountability... and to make the victims whole.

You want to crank this up?

Then put these people on a repayment schedule and LOCK THEM BACK UP WHEN THEY FAIL TO STICK TO IT.

But don't even think they'll give a damn enough about this precious right to avoid recidivism just because a bunch of liberals got together and decided to remove yet another layer of accountability.

In our view April 16: Progress for Felons
Those who have completed incarceration are one step closer to regaining right to vote

Thursday, April 16 | 1:00 a.m.

State senators correctly voted on Wednesday to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons once they complete their incarceration. The decision was as decisive as it was logical. The vote was 29-19, basically along party lines, with Vancouver Democrat Craig Pridemore wisely voting for the measure and local Republican senators Joe Zarelli and Don Benton opposing it.

The bill returns to the House, where it passed last month, for a vote on an amended version. Senators on Wednesday approved an amendment that would allow voting rights to be revoked again if a felon intentionally fails to comply with legal financial obligations. We're not sure that amendment contributes much to the bill. It would seem to place on felons who no longer are incarcerated an additional financial requirement to vote that nonfelons do not face. Even so, the imperfect bill would be an improvement over the status quo. We hope it is approved by the House, where its sponsors include Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver.

Arguments both for and against felons regaining voting rights (after incarceration) are rational and reasonable. Two opposing views are presented in capsulized forms accompanying this editorial.

If this change occurs, Washington will become the 14th state (joining Oregon) to restore voting rights to felons who complete their incarceration. Two states — Vermont and Maine — allow even incarcerated felons to vote. That's too lenient, in our view, but once a felon comes out from behind bars, regaining the right to vote could accomplish three things.

More:

The cowardice, censorship and lack of integrity of the Columbian is noticed:

When you have any organization that's run by a complete lack of integrity, that cancer spreads throughout.

If the editor is going to be a complete liar on the handling of his own column... then how is it that we can believe ANYTHING he OR HIS NEWSPAPER says? (The article and his lies are in this link.)

by R Frog : 4/6/09 8:08pm - Report Abuse

Yep, censorship is here. Trying to figure out what they removed...

by R Frog : 4/6/09 8:24pm - Report Abuse

So, I'm wondering why Lou, et al, decided to get rid of a perfectly acceptable criticism in these comments. For Van Cougar, and all those who dish out that many of us are conspiracy theorists, where's You Kiddenme's post? Comment #1? The same comment that the next comment references? Oh, that must be because if a comment is critical of this column, it deserves deletion. Thanks, Lou. Now we know even better where you stand.

by dee little : 4/6/09 9:11pm - Report Abuse

RF:

..hey...you're right.

HEY, LOU: remember this? "Dee, please get back to me why you see the YKM post remain. Thanks much.""

i'm getting back to you.