Yet another article betraying the people of Clark County: Consensus emerges for 12 lanes

As usual, The Columbian has done another in their endless series of Goebbelian propaganda puff-pieces on the massive and unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement and loot rail scam on the people of Clark County.

Wrongly entitled "Consensus emerges for 12 lanes," it's yet another hearts and flowers effort that amounts to an article on an article. In this case, it was the article where it appears that Sam "If you're 18 in Portland, you can get an" Adams and "No Choice" Royce Pollard got something of a political hotel room together, and when they emerged, all was sweetness and light.

The fact is this: here we have yet another article where the people of this County were ignored and the massive opposition to this despicable waste of billions of dollars was ignored as if it doesn't exist.

The misleading aspect of this article is that the ONLY "consensus" emerging is between the scum of the downtown Mafia of Vancouver, and the slimy leadership of Portland.

This newspaper's agenda has caused them to ignore the basic tenets of journalism by acting as if we actually want this garbage dumped in our laps and failing to demand a vote of the people to support it.



Consensus emerges for 12 lanes
Bistate partnership would manage its operation
Wednesday, February 25 | 10:41 a.m.

BY JEFFREY MIZE
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Consensus is taking shape to build a replacement Interstate 5 Bridge with 12 lanes.

Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard and Portland Mayor Sam Adams wrote a joint opinion piece that appeared in today's Columbian and Oregonian endorsing a new bridge that could accommodate up to six lanes in each direction, with a new bistate partnership managing the project through tolling, high-occupancy vehicle and toll lanes, and other mechanisms.

"Our new partnership agreement will determine how the lanes will be phased and managed over time to get the right mix of tolling, HOV or HOT lanes, vanpools, and transit fare programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled and pollution," the mayors wrote.

"The Columbia River Crossing will function differently in 2030 than on opening day. Technology will change, as will community needs. We share the belief that a performance-goal-based 'thermostat' is the best tool to ensure the new bridge meets citizens' needs."

As a first step toward that goal, the Portland City Council will consider a resolution at 3 p.m. today that calls for the creation of a Columbia Crossing Mobility Council responsible for recommending how the Columbia River Crossing project should be managed.

More:

Reeking hypocrisy and selective memory: In our view Feb. 24: Who Decides?

In yet another example as to why this newspaper would serve us best if they would close... immediately... Today's twisted, inaccurate effort at justifying additional gerrymandering elections to further this newspaper's agenda is yet another in the series of symptoms of the much greater disease: Rank hypocrisy.

I do not attack this paper because it's "fun." I attack these efforts because they typically either manipulate the facts or leave them out altogether. The self-serving pap of this editorial is the latest in examples to which I speak.

It starts with an absurd and false premise:

Hypothetically, should Yacolt voters get to vote on a library in Ridgefield when only Ridgefield taxpayers would pay for it and only Ridgefield residents would use it? Of course not.

Using a lie to support a lie is done at the expense of the people. There is no way "Yacolt voters" could or would pay for a "Ridgefield library." Libraries are not paid with sales taxes at every retail center in the county, as a gerrymandered taxing district, solely designed to extract the most amount of money with the approval of the least amount of voters, arguably is.

Secondly, of course, this newspaper's moronic support of an unneeded, unnecessary, colossally wasteful I-5 Bridge replacement certainly WOULD requite "Yacolt voters" to pay... and pay... and pay.

Ultimately, the C-Trans vote that this paper is so proud of excluded 51,000 voters from having a say in whether or not we wanted to pay for those "improvements." Then, as now, this fraud known as a newspaper failed to point out that those drawing the lines have the ability to, and will again, draw their boundaries in such a way that every tax generating facility of any size within this county is INCLUDED while dramatic efforts will be made to insure that likely areas of opposition are EXCLUDED.

What this means is the same thing it meant last time: "Yacolt voters" will be paying for this particular "Ridgefield library" because everywhere they shop will be included within the district. What that ultimately means is that while tens of thousands of voters will have no say at all in this offense to democracy, they certainly WILL "pay for the Ridgefield library," because they won't have anywhere they can shop where the payment isn't extracted from them.

Unless, of course, this paper begins to advocate for a dual tax system, where those of us not included in this moronic taxing district will be identified by zip code or something, and not be required to PAY their tax.

Herrera and Orcutt are, rightfully, against this plan by Pridemore, Jacks and Moeller, a plan applauded by this newspaper.

If Herrera and Orcutt were more open-minded, they would heartily support these two bills for one compelling reason: Their constituents essentially would be "subdistricted out" of higher local sales taxes for light rail. Light rail would be built nearby, just a few miles away, but taxes would increase only in Vancouver's core. What a deal for north county residents!

Maybe I missed it. Has this newspaper published the boundaries of this district somewhere?

This is no "deal" for anyone but the morons supporting this unnecessary bridge replacement/loot rail project that so many of us do not want.

But the last line of this corrupted and twisted editorial reeks most of all.

The principle is sound: Those who would directly receive a new service — and who would have to pay for it — would get to decide.

Does this newspaper advocate that the 60,000 or so forgotten commuters who will have to pay this outrageous toll that few, if any, of the bridge replacement/loot rail supporters will pay should somehow have a say in this whole project? Hardly. Yet somehow, "the principle is sound?"

Whether or not WE want ANY of this is a crucial question... a question that neither the bridge/loot rail supporters nor this newspaper have ever demanded that we all be allowed to answer.

Who speaks for the commuters in this matter?

And that's the problem with true "principles." By their very definition, "principles" must apply ALL of the time.... or they're not "principles." They're something else... something dark and twisted and self-serving to the Downtown Mafia and this newspaper.

Odd, isn't it? The "principle" is sound when this paper wants to twist it into an outcome they support. But in the minds of a bridge replacement/loot rail fanatic, the "principle" is silent.

So, to directly answer the question of "who decides?" it certainly isn't the people of Clark County.

And that is the most despicable and hypocritical element of this garbage of all.



In our view Feb. 24: Who Decides?
Light-rail vote should be extended to those who would use it and pay for it

Tuesday, February 24 1:00 a.m.

Hypothetically, should Yacolt voters get to vote on a library in Ridgefield when only Ridgefield taxpayers would pay for it and only Ridgefield residents would use it? Of course not.

This is why taxing entities create "subdistricts," to allow well-defined group of voters to decide if they alone will be taxed to pay for something that they alone would use. Critics call this gerrymandering, which it is not. Allowing people to decide their own taxes for their own services is pure democracy. Devotion to that concept sparked the American Revolution.

Creating subdistricts has succeeded and failed here in recent years. In 1998, 70 percent of voters in the Salmon Creek and Felida areas approved creating the Three Creeks library district, and more than 60 percent approved a tax increase of about $27 a year on a $150,000 home for 10 years to pay for it. The next year, a similar effort failed in Battle Ground. These decisions are neither good nor bad; they are what they are. Three Creeks voters said "Yes," Battle Ground voters said "No," and that's the way democracy works.

In 2004, voters approved creating another library subdistrict that would increase taxes by $20 a year on a $166,000 home. The results were new libraries to be built downtown and in Cascade Park.

In 2005, voters OK'd shrinking the C-Tran district (not the drawing of a subdistrict) from a countywide transit district to one that included about 82 percent of the county's voters. A sales-tax increase later was authorized by voters in the smaller district.

More:

Once again, The Columbian leaves out the facts: Heywood to run for Vancouver council

So, we have an article, apparently written by press release, where former Columbian editorial page editor and current county democrat newsletter editor Michael Heywood announces that, once again, he's running for the city council.

Heywood, who agrees with everything of any substance that the downtown special interests generally and The Columbian specifically wants, has announced he's running against Jeannie Stewart; because, after all, everyone on the council has to go along with the program, whatever that might be.

Well, there's a few facts left out of this announcement that The Columbian declined to provide... so I think I'll fill in the gaps, so to speak.

Mike Heywood was fired from The Columbian for doing porn sites while he was at work at the newspaper.

The word of this came out way back in August of 2005. That the Clark County Democrats continued to support Heywood; continued to have him edit their county newsletter and continue to serve as the 49th District Democrat Legislative District Chair is a subject, perhaps, for another post... but all of those things are true.

That The Columbian announced Heywood's candidacy against a woman is not surprising and normally, I would let that go without comment.

That The Columbian would deliberately fail to mention Heywood's firing for pornography at work is yet another example of their selective memory, and their selective desire to present all of the facts.

It would be ONE thing if they didn't know this. However, since this guy worked for their newspaper, that is just the tiniest bit difficult to believe.

But is it surprising?

Nope.

Email Print

Local News

Heywood to run for Vancouver council

Monday, February 23 8:13 a.m.

Mike Heywood, The Columbian’s former editorial page editor who spent 27 years working for the newspaper, intends to make a third bid for a seat on the Vancouver City Council.

"I’m running because I am interested in the community and seeing the most made of the possibilities," Heywood said. "I think my experience over the years, not only at The Columbian but in the Democratic Party, has suited me to be a good member of the deliberative body that sets policy."

Heywood, 69, said he is a strong supporter of the Columbia River Crossing project, which would replace the Interstate 5 Bridge, extend light rail to Clark College and improve freeway interchanges. He also backs redevelopment of the former Boise Cascade industrial site on the waterfront.

Mike Heywood will make third bid for Vancouver City Council

Heywood has run twice before, in 2003 and 2005. Each time, he failed to get past the primary and advance to the general election.

Heywood was candid when asked why his third run will be different.

"I don’t know it will be," he said. "I’ve been involved in Democratic politics. A lot of people who supported me before have encouraged me to try again."

Heywood said he intends to seek the seat held by Councilwoman Jeanne Stewart, who is entering her eighth year on the seven-member council.

"As I was four years ago, I am somewhat taken aback by her consistent view for the negative and the critical and even the skeptical," Heywood said.

Stewart hasn’t announced if she will seek a third term, except to say that she is "narrowing" her options and intends to run for a position this year.

"What I call myself is an informed optimistic, and I stand by that," she said. "And for people who love to be onboard and want to be a cheerleader, it is very easy for these people to say there is negativism."

Is it hypocrisy, or just ignorance? In our view Feb. 23: Washed Out, Wasted

I'm sure that whoever wrote today's editorial completely missed the dripping irony of the concerns expressed within.

The waste of around a half million dollars rightfully draws the ire of this newspaper. That much, at least, is understandable. But our democrat State Auditor, Brian Sonntag, has, identified the waste, the misspending and the outright theft of hundreds of millions of dollars.... BILLIONS of dollars... and it has been quite some time since I've read a peep out of this paper over that.

The irony for me is that this newspaper advocates the most colossal waste of money in the history of the United States, yet they complain about the relatively and astronomically more minor loss of a few hundred thousand.

Thus, the question: is the editorial staff of this paper so ignorant that they are unaware of the waste of this project? Exclusive of the idea that the people of Clark County do not want this project, and that those ramming it down our throats would dive into a boiling pool of hydrochloric acid before they would actually allow us to have a voice in this matter; could it be that this newspaper simply is unaware that this project is one of waste and pay offs?

Or is it that this newspaper simply doesn't care? For at least the past 15 years or so, this paper has been salivating at the thought of light rail. When the question was put to the people several years ago, this newspaper acted like it was a direct part of the campaign, then as now, avoiding any pretext of fairness in their presentation of facts, perspective and opposition.

One need go no further then the recent history of this newspaper when it came to the issue of increasing our gas tax. Again, this newspaper rabidly supported jacking our taxes up, and what has been the result? Well, in a nutshell, we're getting 80 cents on the dollar. Besides the fact that the statewide project list was cut by almost a third immediately after the vote, this county, which has desperate transportation needs, finds itself subsidizing other projects around the state.

This is the curse of the liberal position. In explaining what I believe to be the main difference between liberals and conservatives on fiscal matters, I've frequently stated that a liberal looks at a situation, sees a problem, and says "we have to fix that," while a conservative looks at a situation, sees a problem, and says "how do we pay for it?"

That is not to say that in this instance, I don't commend this particular editorial, because I do. It points out that Republican State Senator Joe Zarelli (R-18) "embraced a project that wasted public money, and he brushed off warnings by the state's own experts that the project was likely to fail."

I'm not sure, exactly, why this newspaper should express this particular concern over this project, since Sen. Zarelli merely mirrored the exact same type of process followed by our president.

Strange, isn't it? This paper holds Zarelli accountable for "...embrace(ing) a project that wasted public money, and he brushed off warnings by the state's own experts that the project was likely to fail."

Yet the President of the United States has done PRECISELY the same thing with hundreds of billions of dollars, and this paper didn't say a word. We're buried under an entire mountain range of debt, and we've arrived here for the precise same reasons, exactly the same way.

It also, finally, gets around to explaining that, like our entire Congress, democrat State Representative Deb Wallace, who is personally responsible for wasting 10's of millions on paying for planning an unneeded and unwanted I-5 Bridge replacement; voted for something she truly had no idea about.

Wallace, when confronted with this waste of money whined: ""In my mind, we were advocating for funding that would provide the fix. You're talking significant money, and why would you do something that's just a temporary fix?" Gee, Representative Wallace... that's a toughie. So, why did you do that? Why did you apparently vote for, and shill for, such a huge waste of money?

No... I can't fault the editorial for that. In fact, giving it this weeks' "Broken Clock Award," wherein much like a broken clock, the Columbian is right in spite of itself, I have to admit they're directly on target.

I do, however, question the focus on a few flowers when we're confronted with an entire National Forest of issues, waste and spending.

Cross posted on Clark County Politics.



In our view Feb. 23: Washed Out, Wasted
Advocacy groups, politicians, scientists must learn from failed East Fork project

Monday, February 23 6:00 a.m.

More than half a million taxpayer dollars washed down the East Fork of the Lewis River recently, wasted as a result of poor planning, and accelerated by the cruel hand of Mother Nature.

As Erik Robinson reported in Thursday's Columbian, last summer's project was designed to prevent further erosion of a cliff bank. For years, huge fir trees and valuable rural property have been dumped into the fickle stream. But three high-water events between November and January swept away the project and the hopes of its designers. Torrents took downstream $575,000 in public money that was secured largely through the efforts of state Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, and state Rep. Deb Wallace, D-Vancouver. Also lost to the rushing water was about $20,000 that property owners had committed to the project.

Even in the best of economic times, this kind of waste is unacceptable, and these are the worst of economic times. And even with the best of intentions — which motivated this project's advocates — painful lessons of such waste must be learned and heeded. There is much work to be done in saving the relatively pristine East Fork, the largest undammed river in Clark County. And when projects such as this one fail, the larger river-rescue effort suffers. When a system of large boulders and six rock-and-log cross veins cannot last more than a few months, a serious review and a fierce resolve must follow.

The chief advocate for the project was Fish First, heretofore an effective fish-recovery advocacy group that has performed yeoman's duty in numerous other endeavors. But this time, Fish First members should acknowledge that three scientists had criticized the group's broader strategy of refashioning seven miles of the lower river. The scientists' report noted: "All reviewers were uneasy over a plan that restricted the East Fork to a single thread channel that could reduce channel and habitat complexity."

Zarelli and Wallace are understandably frustrated by the project's failure. Zarelli, a ferocious fiscal watchdog, also said: "It would be a tragedy to sit and do nothing and watch that bank erode and erode and erode." The state senator also hinted that, although "I'm not a lawyer," there could have been legal ramifications if no action had been taken. Still, Zarelli embraced a project that wasted public money, and he brushed off warnings by the state's own experts that the project was likely to fail.

More:

Major Update - Feb 21: Press Talk: Former prez liked the press

Yesterday, I did a post pointing out the stupidity of Lou Brancaccio's ongoing efforts to justify the continuing existence of The Columbian. In that sorry effort to justify the unjustifiable, Mr. B quoted Jefferson thusly:

"And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."

I won't repeat the many reasons why his column was utter nonsense. I will point out where I disagreed with Mr. B's comparison between what he's doing, and what Jefferson was referring to:

There is something of a difference between "newspaper" and "left-leaning,
agenda-forming, frequently-mistaken, truth-is-no-object, newsletter."

Were The Columbian the very definition of a newspaper; free from bias, factually correct, without an agenda that benefits a few approved special interests at the expense of the vast majority, free from attempting to crush opponents and those wise enough to question either their veracity or their vision, I might tend to agree with both Mr. Jefferson and Mr. B's efforts to invoke Jefferson as some sort of excuse for keeping this newspaper around.

But such a definition does not apply here. The Columbian has long since lost it's place as an important aspect of disseminating information, particularly about an out of control government that views political and financial pay offs as far more important then doing their duty.

Of course, I can't pass on my take of Jefferson's reaction to this cheap, unjustifiable ploy:

I would like to think that Jefferson, who was something of a gifted writer himself, was a little brighter then Mr. B. gives him credit for.

And, I was not disappointed. Clearly, while the "former prez" may have "like the press," he grew to know it like we have, and ultimately grew to loath it.

Like other newspapers of the 1790s, Freneau's National Gazette did not feign neutrality. With the population widely dispersed, newspapers were unabashedly partisan organs that supplied much of the adhesive power binding the incipient parties together. Americans were a literate people, and dozens of newspapers flourished. The country probably had more newspapers per capita than any other. A typical issue had four long sheets, crammed with essays and small advertisements but no drawings or illustrations. These papers tended to be short on facts - there was little "spot news" reporting - and long on opinion. The more closely resembled journals of opinion than daily newspapers. Often scurrilous and inaccurate, they had few qualms about hinting that a certain nameless official was embezzling money or colluding with a foreign power. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper," Jefferson later said. "Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." No code of conduct circumscribed responsible press behavior. [emphasis added]

The Columbian has a long, long way to go before its absence would ever be noticed.

Thank you, Mr. Jefferson, for telling it like it is. As in so many other things, your vision of the future has proven startlingly accurate.

Letters from the moron zone: John Laird Feb. 22 - Leery in Louisiana; timid in Texas

Unfortunately, our community is cursed with a leftist moron as editor of the Columbian's amazingly shrinking editorial page.

Falsely portraying himself as an independent, John Laird uses the bully pulpit provided by the completely out-of-touch ownership of the Columbian to insult, belittle and lie to a public that may not know any better.

Today's putrid effort is no different.

Like most fringe-left nutters, Laird is all about socialism. Obama's massive income redistribution plan makes him positively giddy. To the clueless, the difference between the "Hope and Change" campaign's promise and the "HOPEless and SPARE change" reality results in moronic conclusion and analysis like that presented by Laird in today's inept effort.

Today, the typically shortsighted leftist within Laird takes Bobby Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana, to task for having the wisdom to "Just Say No" to the massive and completely unnecessary income redistribution the empty-suited idiot Laird and his rag supported for president is providing us.

In his leftist zeal at attacking anyone wise enough to disagree with the total idiot running this country, he conveniently forgets the obvious reason for ignoring this welfare from the messiah:

What happens when it runs out?

Politically ignorant and short-sighted leftists like Laird find themselves incapable of getting a vision beyond today. So Jindal and the rest of the governors take this money... this "free money" that morons like Laird seem incapable of understanding actually is NOT "free," SINCE IT COMES OUT OF OUR POCKETS.... what are they supposed to do when the federal spigot is shut off?

Complete and blithering idiots seem to think this gravy train of printed money will last forever. REALISTS, and those possessed of the common sense of at least a rock ape, look beyond the "Publisher's Clearing House" aspect of this funding, to the "what next" aspect.

People that know nothing beyond their own partisanship fail to ask those questions... much like Laird's idiotic column, where he's writing like the DNC is paying him... which, come to think of it, is how he writes any time he gets political.

And Laird's final lie of his column?

This particular stimulus-plan story is yet another affirmation that I am not the idiot that Texans said I was six years ago when I left my native state and moved to the great Northwest.

And on that, we can agree. You see, Mr. Laird, they probably didn't know you weren't just an idiot: instead, you are an idiot wrapped in a moron. And no matter what they may have thought of you personally when you left... clearly, the feeling that resulted on their part was one of great relief that you were gone.


John Laird Feb. 22: Leery in Louisiana; timid in Texas

Sunday, February 22 6:00 a.m.

May 19, 2003 digital image Milan Chuckovich ERD John Laird editorial columist

All Northwesterners should be thankful that Bobby Jindal does not run the Bonneville Power Administration and instead only runs the state of Louisiana.

Jindal, the Republican governor who is often mentioned as one of the GOP's great hopes for regaining the presidency, wonders if Louisiana should accept money from the federal stimulus package. "We'll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use these dollars," he said recently.

May 19, 2003
digital image Milan Chuckovich ERD
John Laird editorial columist[sic]

As a Northwesterner, I urge Jindal to take his time. In fact, Bobby, just say "No." You'll find other ways to solve Louisiana's $2 billion budget shortfall. No doubt, you've got a better plan than the big, bad federal government for creating 50,000 jobs in your state, as the stimulus plan projects. And with Louisiana's recovery from Hurricane Katrina moving along at break-neck speed, let your state's $538 million for infrastructure projects go elsewhere.

There's nothing political at all about Jindal's reluctance. No, sir. It's only a vicious rumor that he is feathering his nest among Republican voters, building his base in anticipation of the 2012 presidential election, knowing all along that even if he says "No" to the feds, his own legislature could decide to take the money anyway, and therefore both he and the legislators could impress voters. No, that's only a rumor.

More:

In our view Feb. 22: Fair Funding

One of the many problems The Columbian has is the selective presentation of facts. Today's editorial, wherein they take a stab at discussing the issue of Clark County bleeding gas tax revenues, is all-too-typical of their exercise in propaganda.

I have yet to experience, in the 21 years I've lived here, a tax on or for any transportation issue, method or mode that this paper has opposed.

That is, this newspaper, physically located at the heart of any effort or outcome to "improve" transportation (Look it up: The first light rail debacle back in 96 or so, where this paper provided 10's of thousands of dollars in unreported in-kind donations to the "yes" side; both efforts, including the despicable gerrymandering effort now being emulated by Sen. Craig Pridemore, to jack up our sales tax for C-Tran; the idiocy of replacing a bridge with 3 through lanes with another bridge with 3 through lanes AND light rail... all have had this paper's most rabid support.) has never, ever questioned the need or the desire of the population it allegedly serves for any of these programs.

Dangle the words "tax" and "transportation" in front of these people, and they'll react like a starving pit bull confronted with a t-bone steak.

So now, they make a sordid attempt to shift our focus from the $4 BILLION gorilla in the room, an ape that has already wasted 10's of millions of dollars in a "study" with a pre-ordained outcome that only would support the Columbian's demanded outcome, rejecting the only sensible conclusion (That a 3rd bridge... and then a 4th bridge... would be needed before any effort to replace the perfectly functional, perfectly serviceable bridge that we already have takes place) that any group without an agenda would arrive at.

Relative to the nickels and dimes of the taxes discussed in this piece, taxes increased with the gloating approval of this very publication, the bridge replacement crushes all of these in comparison. The bridge replacement and loot rail will suck up all transportation funding for the next two decades or longer, all for a project that will make absolutely no difference to anyone, except the special interests like the Columbian demanding this massive waste of money.



In our view Feb. 22: Fair Funding
Beware jumping to conclusions about state transportation spending list

Sunday, February 22 6:00 a.m.

To enhance the accountability of the Washington Department of Transportation, state legislators recently asked the agency to compile a dollar-for-dollar list of spending in each of the 39 counties. Sources of funding include the base gas tax of 23 cents per gallon, a nickel boost in 2003 and a 9-cent increase in 2005. The report extends from 2004 through 2017.

We're glad the lawmakers requested the data; the report is informative and educational. Likely, it will be used by politicians and agency officials in planning projects and funding throughout the state. As state Rep. Deb Wallace, D-Vancouver, said in a Columbian story by Erik Robinson, "I think people want to know what they're getting for their dollar. … It does become a measuring stick for us."

But beware the cozy comfort of statistics. Jumping to conclusions about mere numbers can be a risky endeavor. And whether it's incumbent politicians campaigning for re-election or engineers deciding the scope of projects, the primary focus of transportation infrastructure should be trained on just one target.

That target is need. This is the foundation for virtually all tax systems in federal, state and local governments. When and where police protection is needed, that greater need is funded in part by taxpayers who may go months or years without a visit from a police officer. Similarly, the need to fund public education is met in part by people who have no family members enrolled in public schools.

More:

Feb 21: Press Talk: Former prez liked the press

Lou Brancaccio is the editor of The Columbian, which seems to be a great deal like the position of the Captain of the Titanic with the faint view of ice up ahead and darkness approaching.

In today's episode, Mr. B. again attempts to engage us with the idea that continuing to have a daily newspaper in this community is important somehow. He quotes Jefferson:

"And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without
newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer
the latter."

And then infers that this newspaper somehow qualifies as to what Mr. Jefferson was referring to.

I would like to think that Jefferson, who was something of a gifted writer himself, was a little brighter then Mr. B. gives him credit for.

There is something of a difference between "newspaper" and "left-leaning, agenda-forming, frequently-mistaken, truth-is-no-object, newsletter."

Were The Columbian the very definition of a newspaper; free from bias, factually correct, without an agenda that benefits a few approved special interests at the expense of the vast majority, free from attempting to crush opponents and those wise enough to question either their veracity or their vision, I might tend to agree with both Mr. Jefferson and Mr. B's efforts to invoke Jefferson as some sort of excuse for keeping this newspaper around.

But such a definition does not apply here. The Columbian has long since lost it's place as an important aspect of disseminating information, particularly about an out of control government that views political and financial pay offs as far more important then doing their duty.

The Columbian rabidly supported downtown redevelopment at taxpayer expense. Of course, that they directly, materially would benefit from such a redevelopment naturally had absolutely nothing to do with that support... much like that envisioned, but not completed benefit would be paid for with the money of others.

The Columbian rabidly supported the Vancouver city council's efforts to sue the citizenry into silence. The Columbian rabidly supports an absolutely unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement... a replacement that will make the downtown area look oh so much prettier, but will do nothing to address the primary issues confronting us in the transportation realm: reducing congestion and increasing freight mobility.

In the last election, the ONLY candidates The Columbian would endorse for any open seat at any level just happened to be democrats.

Newspapers that treat their communities in this manner; who only put their, in this case, rapidly dwindling impact behind their agenda instead of acting as a voice of the people, in no way qualifies as the vision that Mr. Jefferson had in mind.


Press Talk: Former prez liked the press

Friday, February 20 7:32 p.m.

BY LOU BRANCACCIO,
COLUMBIAN EDITOR

Lou Brancaccio

A couple of hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson gave a sweet shout-out to newspapers.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right," Jefferson wrote.

"And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter."

Hey, that’s the way he rolled.

And indeed he should. Jefferson, one of our brighter presidents, understood the critical role newspapers play. So important, in fact, that he’d dump all the governmental politicians before he’d see the elimination of newspapers.

I thought it important to pull this quote out of the quiver because — as I’ve said many times — these are very challenging times for newspapers.

The economy has hurt newspapers just like it has hurt most everyone else. Plus a major underpinning of newspapers — classified advertising — is struggling against the craigslists of the world.

I suspect you’ll see us and other newspapers adjusting to these issues in the near future.

More:

This blog has one purpose, and one purpose only:

To allow opposing points of view to The Columbian Newspaper.

We have a newspaper here in Southwest Washington that has been suffering sever financial difficulties. A major part of that is based on their editorial arrogance, their tonedeafness, their insulting columnists, their "our-agenda-and-our-agenda-alone" driven "journalism," where they will violate every journalistic tenet known to man in pursuit of their, frequently enlightened self-interest driven agenda... to the expense of our community.

Granted that this newspaper has put together an utterly incompetent commenting system that has malfunctioned for months, deleting some comments, not allowing others to post, and other completely clueless administration of the Columbian's web site.

Frequently, comments holding the Columbian writers and anonymous editorialists accountable for their positions, agendas, lies and outright fraud are almost all automatically deleted. Outrageous lies posted by their fellow leftists are allowed to remain; comments taking them to task by those not sharing the left wing perspective vaporize as fast as they're posted.

This blog will be used to post articles and editorials, and subsequently to critique their inaccuracies, biases, flaws and frequently, their arrogance and flat out journalistic ineptitude.

The rules here are simple:

Those so inclined may feel free to comment on anything they like, relevant to the coverage provided by the newspaper. While the focus here will be primarily based on opposition views to the newspaper's stories and editorials, those who agree are welcomed here as well.

There will be some level of civility required: to begin with their will be no moderation, but comments exceeding PG 13 will be deleted. Keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Stick to the point of this blog: which is to provide a frequent and nearly instantaneous ability to provide public feedback to the frequent nonsense this paper foists off on this community as "journalism."

So, let's go!