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: