The Columbian Commentaries

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

2009-08-10T09:33:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-02T08:37:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-31T12:07:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-31T11:02:00.000-07:00

.
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!

2009-07-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

.
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.

2009-07-22T10:15:00.000-07:00

.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?

2009-07-19T16:38:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-02T11:22:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-06-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-06-22T10:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-20T10:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-21T12:07:00.001-07:00

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!

2009-05-18T11:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Is this article the Columbian's dirty little secret?

2009-05-13T12:47:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-05-12T22:45:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-12T18:13:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-05-06T12:49:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-05-05T08:04:00.000-07:00

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?

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

2009-04-16T11:16:00.000-07:00

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:

2009-04-07T08:06:00.000-07:00

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.

Bill Virgin, Seattle PI columnist nails it: Class final: How to kill an American newspaper

2009-04-04T13:48:00.000-07:00

I have nothing to add to this except thanks to Bill for his efforts... and the sincere hope that those running the Columbian both read... and heed, the sentiments within:

Last updated March 16, 2009 5:57 p.m. PT

Class final: How to kill an American newspaper

By BILL VIRGIN
P-I COLUMNIST

Here in our twice-weekly seminars, you the readers have helped analyze and dissect the leading business and economic issues, trends and controversies of the day -- global competition and outsourcing, Boeing and Airbus, Microsoft and the rest of the software/online world, Starbucks and McDonald's, government taxation and spending, good ads and bad ads, paper or plastic.

For our final session together, and our final case study, it is time to turn our attention inward, to consider the forces, external and internal, that have made this the last day of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Our topic for today: How to kill an American newspaper.

One crucial point to remember right at the start is that what is happening now is hardly new or unique to this industry. Papers have been dying for decades. Gone from the ranks are such names as the New York World Journal Tribune (itself a last-gasp attempt to rescue multiple papers including the venerable Herald Tribune), the Dallas Times Herald, the Washington Star, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, the Pittsburgh Press, the Chicago Daily News ...

They, and dozens more lesser-known names, were done in by inexorable trends such as the move of families to the suburbs, the rise of television news as a competitor to the evening paper and labor strife, all of which contributed to the winnowing of many cities from three dailies to two, and from two to one. Seattle is comparatively late to the game as a big city dropping to a single general-interest daily newspaper.

Now, the prevailing worry has it, many big cities (Seattle included) are about to take the next step, from one daily newspaper to none at all.

It has become fashionable to attribute this industry's woes entirely to external forces including: the Internet and its components draining away advertisers and readers; those darn kids who won't pay for information and won't sit still for information that takes longer than five seconds to consume; and most recently a recession that has clobbered what few advertisers the industry still has.

To put all the blame, or even the bulk of it, on those factors is not only too convenient, but also downright deceptive. It obscures a long-standing truth about this business: American newspapers have been and continue to be, as a sector, the worst-run of any industry in this country.

The Internet may have helped weaken the precipice upon which the newspaper industry was standing, and the recession may have given it a helpful stomp to send us into the chasm. But it was the industry itself that walked out onto a ledge of crumbling shale and stood waiting for it to collapse.

If American newspapers want to look for the underlying source of their troubles, a mirror would be a good place to start -- and finish -- the search.

What sorts of mistakes did the industry make? Its reaction to the Internet is a mother lode. Instead of using the Internet as a complement to its print product, the industry went chasing after the Web and offering its most valuable property -- the news it so carefully and expensively gathered -- for free, while chasing the chimera that online advertising would support the whole thing.

The trend was no service to either readers or advertisers -- people read far more in print, and see more ads, than in an online version. The bandwidth for delivering material may be nearly infinite online, but readers' ability to absorb it isn't, and it gets even narrower online.

In the process, what newspapers did was devalue their brands and the heritage and legacies built into them, their core products and the value proposition that brought them readers and advertisers in the first place.

The genius of the American newspaper was never that it was the only place you could get information. Given enough time, money and energy, even in the age of the telegraph you could assemble the same information

But the essential point was that you didn't have to. The newspaper went to that trouble for you and delivered what it collected in a portable, affordable, easily digested form. That readers didn't consume it all didn't matter; by providing enough elements of interest to enough people (sports scores, local news, the crossword and Sudoku, the weather map and TV listings, letters to the editor, the comics, maybe even a business column or two), the daily newspaper aggregated enough readers to be attractive to advertisers seeking a mass audience.

Or at least newspapers did until they began lopping away content and features readers had come to expect. The rationale the industry used was that readers could and would get that information elsewhere, especially online, so why waste valuable print real estate on them? But the message readers got from the newspapers was they ought to go elsewhere for TV listings, stock quotes and the like. Surprisingly enough, readers took the advice and did.

Those were hardly the only blunders made by the industry. The strategy of going after younger readers with pandering and condescending content managed to both drive away older, loyal readers, while also alienating younger demographics who understandably weren't buying what papers were selling. Newspapers treated conservatives with a mixture of revulsion, contempt, indifference and puzzlement, and there went another potentially loyal segment of the reading audience.

Those mistakes were compounded at the local level by missteps made by this newspaper. The emphasis on a Seattlecentric view of the world accomplished the task of bifurcating the market into two and then focusing on the smaller, slower-growing portion. The strategy also rendered the paper irrelevant to those who lived on

this side of the lake but worked on the other, and vice versa.

The P-I also found itself bound in a business relationship with a partner that clearly did not want it around and whose management of the arrangement was, to be charitable, desultory.

Squandered opportunities and botched advantages are not a new phenomenon for American newspapers. Over the years they have created openings for alternative and local-music weeklies, independent business weeklies and city lifestyle magazines. Would those have emerged had newspapers been more diligent about spotting potentially lucrative markets and getting to them before new entrants did? Probably. Did daily newspapers make it far more likely that those startups would thrive? Absolutely.

Despite that bungling, daily newspapers managed to survive for decades, with a few papers lost along the way, on the strength of a franchise so valued by the public that even the industry couldn't screw it up.

Until now. In business there is a phenomenon known as the death spiral, in which the measures intended to rescue a company or industry not only fail to stem the losses, they actually accelerate the decline. In the case of newspapers, the loss of readers and advertisers led to cuts in content and features and greater irrelevancy, which led to more lost readers and advertisers, which led to still more cuts, which led to ...

Which leads to the present, potentially fatal predicament for newspapers, or at least the one you're reading now.

What is the lesson for the rest of the business world?

No business or industry is exempt from challenges and competitive threats (what business hasn't been upended by the Internet, or the economy, or both?). None is promised, much less guaranteed, perpetual survival. What matters is not the nature or severity of those challenges, but how well prepared the company or industry is to evade, counter or adapt to those threats. Newspapers weren't; now they're facing the consequences.

It's a lesson too late learned to help us, but just maybe, dear readers, it might help you.

Class dismissed.

Occasionally, the post of a commenter on a Columbian story rises to this level.

2009-04-04T12:42:00.000-07:00

The only thing I'm going to add is paragraph breaks.

Well Lou, I do buy both the Columbian and Oregonian every day. My problem with subscribing is that sometimes I am out of town and do not like newspapers piled up signalling my place is available for a burglary.

Now first of all, I am not here to join the chorus of bashing. Did you see how far and wide your story on the case of Christina Kopinski went and how fast? (Google it). And I would like to think that you all did that story not because she was a journalism teacher, but would have done it had she been an Art teacher.

That story was a step forward followed by the gutsty[sic] editorial. Why do I say "gutsy" editorial? Because in my 16 years in this community, and I am a native Washingtonian (in two ways) more often than not, The Columbian was an integral part of [and cheerleader for] this subterranean, non-transparent and non-accountable network of power that includes boards, trustees and regents of the local educational institutions, certain charities and community service organizations, business media, chambers of commerce, Mayor Pollard's office and some of his friends and minions, certain politicians in both parties, some clergy and churches, some local historical trusts, some of the old "pioneer" families and old money, port of vancouver members, etc.

They run this place like a cross between a feudal fiefdom, a country club, a Rotarian meeting, a Southern planatation and parts of eastern Kentucky and Appalachia where family trees do not branch. The bottom line is there is no need to keep anything, whether an act or a whole power structure, covered-up if it is clean--only if it is dirty, smug, entitled and unaccountable. There is no need to pile-on and frame the likes of Christina Kopinski and so many other innocents at Clark College, if they were guilty (their guilt would expose, indict and convict them) only because they were/are innocent. And there is no need to run from and arrogantly refusing to answer, non-problematic and non-incriminating questions (as the Clark trustees and administration have done repeatedly) only problematic and incriminating ones.

The point Lou, is not so much what The Columbian routinely covers as much as it is what The Columbian does not cover and why. Take a page from the playbook of a master triangulator like Brian Baird. He knows how to feed the left, right and middle what issue-postures matter most to them in ways that will cause them to hold their noses and still vote for him despite his positions on other issues with which they are in total opposition to him: a trip to Gaza for the left, the continuation of the illegal Iraq War for the right, and a little granola and faux environmentalism for the centrist greenies but not enough to tick-off the loggers in Longview-Kelso.

For if the Colmbian[sic] starts doing what real journalists like IF Stone, George Seldes, Edward R. Murrow and Seymour Hersh did do and do, real journalism without fear or favor, and reporting with no fear of loss of possible "preferred access" to the local movers and shakers who do not do much newsworthy anyway, then you will get your readers and subscribers because people are sick and tired of the incumbent, smug and entitled politicians and community powerbrokers, their lies, manipulations, along those who institutions that so uncritcally[sic] and sycophantically spread their lies even outside of editorial pieces where story choice, placement and who is or is not quoted can work at the subliminal levels just like an open editorial.

If you do that, those on the left will not mind your occasional favorable coverage of the right and vice versa because you will be viewed as writing from conviction and not from opportunism. Courage, integrity, honesty and fair dealing sell because there is so little of it and people are so desperate for it.

"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"; that is the job of journalism and the reason why journalism is the only profession explicitly mentioned and protected in the U.S. Constitution. That is also why the likes of Christina Kopinski at Clark College, and the courage and integrity she demonostrated, must be protected and those who took their covert machinations against her must be outed, relentlessly questioned and exposed.

Lou Brancaccio and editors around the country need to re-orient their filters.

They need to ask, of every article and newspaper editorial:

1. Is this factually correct?

2. Is this article fact, or opinion?

3. When we attack someone, have we talked directly to them to get their position? Or do we just crucify them without being fair, like Mielke in today's idiotic cheers and jeers?

3. Are ALL sides covered, even sides we don't "like?"

4. Are ALL relevant issues covered?

5. Are OUR biases getting in the way of our duty to be fair, just and honorable?

6. If we disagree with community opinion, have we at least honored that opinion by exploring it so that maybe we can be persuaded that WE are wrong... and the community is right?

7. Have we remembered to admit when we're wrong; to right past transgressions and to be careful of the application of our power?

There may be many other standards to consider when a newspaper prints an article. But what's clear here is that it's the rare occasion when this newspaper bothers with these criteria. And if this newspaper or editor actually believes that they ARE following these minimal rules... well, that just tends to show how out of touch they actually are.

Thanks so much to Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi for his comment... a much more civilized way, in many respects, of saying that which I was trying to say. in every post taking the Columbian to task.

More idiocy from Laird: Cheers & Jeers, March 28

2009-03-28T17:03:00.000-07:00

It takes a real uber-leftist scumbag to fail to admit that Governor Jindal's mention of the $140 million in the porkulus package as "waste" was directly on target. There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING related to that earmark (You know... that earmark that the lying Speaker of the House said didn't exist?) that was in the LEAST "stimulative."

However, if you're a "Special Olympian" editorial page editor, however, your obsessive leftist crapping on your page every chance you get, knowing that the object of your derision can't answer you (The true mark of a coward) and knowing that you're lying in your efforts to belittle your political target makes you juuuuust a tiny part of the scum of the earth.

This is the kind of garbage spew that got this worthless rag into trouble in the first place. Deliberate distortion; deliberate arrogance, deliberate falsehood... those are the hallmarks of a steaming pile like The Columbian, one of the most arrogant, cowardly publications in the history of free press.

Laird's toilet product?

Jeers: Remember the way Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal mocked "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring'" on Feb. 24 when he delivered the Republicans' response to President Obama's address to Congress? Jindal's classic goofball comment is hard to forget, for a couple of reasons. First, there's the governor's startling absence of scientific knowledge, which we described in an editorial as "volcanic ignorance." Second, there are the not-so-subtle reminders that Mother Nature keeps delivering. Thanks to "something called 'volcano monitoring,'" we were prepared this week when Alaska's Mount Redoubt continued its repeated eruptions, sending ash clouds 32,000 feet above sea level. On Thursday afternoon Alaska Airlines suspended all flights in and out of Anchorage, about 110 miles northeast of Mount Redoubt.

That might not mean much to the Louisiana governor as he continues his partisan sniping at various federal funding efforts, but it's important to the people of the Pacific Northwest.

Never mind that not one dime of the money in question had been spent on the observatory in question; meaning, of course, that the wasted $140 million played no role, one way or the other.

As I pointed out here, it takes a totally moronic and completely biased worm to deliberately ignore these facts and to deliberately twist and distort the actions of others when they are not around to defend themselves.

Odd, isn't it? The idiots down in Columbianville have no trouble attacking Jindal over a remark he made concerning $140 million... but they've managed to keep their mouths shut over the massive waste of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars with $1.4 TRILLION in interest alone at the national level... while they roboticly go ON, and ON, and ON about the massive $4 BILLION I-5 Bridge Replacement that we do not want and do not need as if that WASN'T the most massive single waste of money in this nation's history.

One day, this stain on our community will become just another unpleasant footnote... much like Pravda or Das Reich.

And they will not be missed.

Is this the future of our local fishwrapper?

2009-03-24T21:28:00.000-07:00

For quite a while now, our local daily has been circling the drain. It started with their over-extension on the new Columbian Building, built based on a theory that flew in the face of reality in a location akin to a ghost town... the heart of the Downtown Vancouver Mafia.

Our local rag's inability to innovate, inflexibility on a far-left perspective, insistence on an-ignore-the-people-to-the-point-of-suing-them-into-silence agenda, the many times they've lied or exaggerated concerning the massive waste of an unwanted and unneeded bridge complete with loot rail that no one wants around here... combined with a complete lack of incentive for anyone but a union hack or fringe left-nut job to actually buy this newspaper and consider it's contents to be anything but fiction.

They are so desperate that they've gone, hat-in-hand, to our own legislature, stuck in the doldrums of a soon-to-be $10 BILLION deficit, and are in the midst of attempting to persuade them that as a business, newspapers are somehow worthy of special consideration and tax breaks that, for example, MY business does not rate.

Newspapers generally, and ultra-leftist rags particularly, are in their death throws. The competition of the Internet and a failure to adapt, a complete lack of fairness, a total inability to grasp the pulse of the entirety of the community they're alleged to serve. All of these things combine to hammer this newspaper like a nail.

So, what happens today?

The Leftist Payback Bill is introduced in the US Senate, so that newspapers may CONTINUE to further the leftist cause... and to do so on the taxpayer dime.

This leads me to a quote from a columnist at crosscut.com:

What if a newspaper folded and nobody cared?
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's print edition dies, and while it's a shock to Seattle's sense of specialness, a new study shows that most people don't really care whether their local daily lives or dies. The real buzz is about what's next.
By Knute Berger
No one likes to see the underdog get beaten, but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, long the David against the Seattle Times newspaper Goliath, just got clobbered. The Blethens are the last men standing in this long-time grudge match, but they're staggering too.
Seattle likes to regard itself as an exceptional place, and staying a two-newspaper town fed our sense that we're something special, a literate, world-class city that could buck the trend that saw most major cities become one-daily burgs. We buy more books, we have more education, we're paragons of the creative class. Members of
Committee for a Two Newspaper Town often made it sound as if having two
daily newspapers was somehow the Platonic ideal of civic enlightenment.
More:

Those obsessing on continuing a failed business model need to get a reality check. Using taxpayer dollars... resulting in an editorial policy set by government loons is not going to appreciably do anything but increase our massive waste of dollars as it is.

Nevertheless, A US Senator (Benjamin Cardin?) that, frankly, I've never heard of, introduced just such a bill.

Lyingly code-named the "Newspaper Revitalization Act," it has zero co-sponsors, which tends to show this as a trial balloon by a back-bencher, just to gauge public reaction... which will be, for the most part, condemnatory.

Newspapers are a business. They've been superseded by a new paradigm, much like buggy manufacturers were superseded by those building automobiles.

In the overall scheme of things, vehicle manufacturers are much more important than newspaper publishers. And neither one of them should receive a damned dime in bailouts from the taxpayers.

*I* don't WANT ANY of MY money to go to The Columbian. And based on their abysmal circulation figures, most in this community agree with me.

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.

Columbian Cheers and Jeers March 21 blows the call:Jeers: To the Washington Legislature for failing to act on at least two key changes.

2009-03-21T13:48:00.000-07:00

Typically,The Columbian just goes along with whatever our disgrace of a Secretary of State wants, although God alone knows why.

For reasons detailed in many other places, Sam Reed is an embarrassment, both to this state and to the Republican party he allegedly claims.

While our electoral system is burning from an utter lack of due diligence about those voting, in that there is no requirement to prove citizenship, address or eligibility, Sam and the Columbian fiddle by bitching over the cutlery in first class on the Titanic.

Today's snivel fest includes their effort to reduce the number of votes in a given election (and, given the hard-right break of late ballots, this one actually surprised me) by not allowing votes to be counted that aren't TURNED IN by close of business on Election Day (I really would have thought that Sam's democrat masters would have shoved this through with all the rest of Sam's eyewash-disguised-as-election-reform) instead of counting those votes postmarked BY Election Day.

There reasoning? Well, like all of the other "reforms" introduced by our excuse-for-a-Secretary-of-State, it would make it "easier."

"That's unfortunate because the change could have expedited the counting and reporting of election results."

Amazing, that. "Expediting the count" is SO much more important than getting as many legal votes in... particularly, military votes, as possible.

Yeah... these guys REALLY know what's important.

Meanwhile, illegal aliens infest out voting roles, felons who have not completed their sentences infest our voting roles (Ol' Sam, purely make a mistake, sent felon voters THOUSANDS of ballots in the last election in one of his MANY "whoops-as-long-as-its-aligned-with-my-agenda" moments he's famous for.) people are claiming fake addresses because no LEGAL ID is required either to vote... or even to register to vote continue to be a problem for O' Sam.

I mean, after all, Ol' Sam HAS ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE FOR EIGHT FRICKING YEARS... HOW COULD WE HAVE POSSIBLY EXPECTED HIM TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS IN ONLY THE BETTER PART OF A DECADE?????

So, thanks again to the local fishwrapper for handling Sam's Sniveling. How our election system works at all with this moron in charge is a mystery to me... but then, based on his incompetence in 2004, maybe it DOESN'T work.

Jeers: To the Washington Legislature for failing to act on at least two key changes. First, a bill that would require voters to return ballots to the counties' elections offices by Election Day, rather than to simply postmark them by that day, stalled in committee. That's unfortunate because the change could have expedited the counting and reporting of election results. Washington is one of only five states that use this type of ballot deadline. Most other states, including Oregon, require ballots to arrive on or before Election Day.

No accountability at the Columbian: I was kind of hoping that all stories, comments, columns and photos wouldn't end up back in an I-5 conversation...

2009-03-21T12:32:00.000-07:00

Lou Brancaccio's column was typically entertaining this morning.

The upshot is that it was a column bouncing off the Obama-Geithner-Dodd AIG debacle. Lou was using it as an opportunity to brag about how great the Columbian is at uncovering waste in certain segments of local government (I, for one, can't WAIT for their expose' on the massive and complete waste of the 10's of millions in down-the-tube CRC expenditures... but then, I actually DO expect to live forever... which is how long everyone is going to have to wait before this newspaper actually gives a critical look at anyone or anything THEY want.) while they let those they support completely off the hook and under the radar.

Lou's efforts, complete with links to all the EXCEPTIONAL work this newspaper has done ferreting out wastes of, relatively speaking, the chump change of a whole $173,000 plus a few other dollars for some retreat; deliberately ignores the much bigger picture... in size, of, say, the- planet-Earth-to-the-Sun bigger picture.

Big whoop.

We are facing an ASTRONOMICAL, INCONCEIVABLE waste of BILLIONS of dollars here locally, a project that has already consumed TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in waste... and Lou remains silent.

Why?

Because unfathomable waste in the name of a COMPLETE vaporization of BILLIONS on a project that the Columbian supports is perfectly OK.

So, when he's nailed over his continuing failure to address that waste or the massive opposition to this project... not to mention the "symbolism" of ignoring the people of this community and what WE want... what's his response?

I was kind of hoping that all stories, comments, columns and photos wouldn't end
up back in an I-5 conversation... but we'll continue to move forward. ;-)

Of COURSE Lou doesn't want to talk about the bridge.

Why would he possibly be responsive to the questions from someone who will have to pay the thousands in tolls over the years just to go to work... that LOU won't have to pay?

I really DO wonder how supportive the many clowns in government and business in our community would be if they had to pay the tolls they intend to ram down our throats.

Would Lou be so all fired up for this steaming pile if $1200 or more a year was coming out of HIS pocket... just to go to work?

So... he was asked that question. What did he do?

He ignored it.

And that, it appears, is an answer unto itself.

But his phrase just leaped off the page at me:

by No I-5 Bridge : 3/21/09 1:01pm - Report Abuse
Lou wrote in his article: "Still, when times are tough, we all should be sensitive to what the heck we are doing. Especially when you're spending my money. Taxpayers' money."
There's a certain rank hypocrisy about this phrase, Lou. You're hot and bothered when they spend YOUR money.
But when you do everything you can to get them to spend MY money?
Not so much.

Email Print Local News
Press talk: Symbolism counts in tough times
Friday, March 20 11:48 p.m.
BY LOU BRANCACCIO

COLUMBIAN EDITOR

This entire AIG thing is quite the mess. Sick, really.

I think AIG stands for Always Into Greed or something like that. Anyway it's some sort of big insurance company and it is somehow connected to this entire bank, housing, economic collapse that's making all of us, well, as mentioned, sick.

Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, and our political leaders are trying to out-outrage the next guy — in between trying to blame the other guy.

Some of these folks throw around million-dollar bonuses like it's chump change.

But don't get me wrong. I don't have the "Hey, no one should be making a million bucks" thing going on. Frankly, I plead guilty to million-dollar envy. Or even a small fraction of that.

In this country, everyone should have the opportunity to succeed, and if that success is defined by being rich, more power to you. America: What a country!

Still, when times are tough, we all should be sensitive to what the heck we are doing. Especially when you're spending my money. Taxpayers' money.

So The Columbian has been doing stories pretty regularly on how bureaucrats are spending our money.

When the Battle Ground school board planned a resort retreat, we were on it. When the district hired a $100,000 communications guy, we did a story on it.

Heck, we looked into those governments that still were supplying bottled water to employees — at taxpayers' expense.

We've also looked at some training the Evergreen School District did in Denver that had a $73,000 price tag....

by NO I-5 Bridge : 3/21/09 11:02am - Report Abuse

Yet, you and your newspaper support sucking $72,000,000 or more per year out of our local economy to pay for a bridge and light rail that YOU will not HAVE to use every day to go to work. WHat about THAT "symbolism?"

So, in that regard, you're quite right. You and those others behind this massive and complete w a s t e of money have shown that you really don't give a damn how it plays east of I-5 or north of 39th.

So, I find this column somewhat hypocritical when you keep urging the wasteful spending of BILLIONS and the economic damage caused by $10's of millions taken away from our working families every year for tolls that YOU and the vast majority of OTHER bridge/light rail supporters will not have to pay to get to and from work.

Of course, you and the other supporters could always join the tens of thousands of us you've set out to screw. What say you start another editorial crusade... you know, one that will require any public figure using their office or their business to pay a year's worth of tolls, every year, forever. You know, like those of us you're ramming the tolls down our throats? Like that?

Whatdaya say, Lou? You gonna have $1200 or more taken out of YOUR pay every year like you're demanding to take it out of MINE? How about you, Royce? Steve? Jim? The entirety of the Ctrans board?

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 3/21/09 11:08am - Report Abuse

Your central thesis I believe is correct. It is hard to wrap one's mind around the arguments and data in vast tomes like The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith or Das Kapital by Karl Marx, but particular micro examples, symbols, metaphors or even whole allegories like Gulliver's Travels, can take the mind quickly from a micro example to realization of a macro crises and some of the reasons for them. And no I did not take your piece as a defense of Obama at all. Your point, is that in rhetoric, it is not so much the dollar amount involved that makes a given example appear so egregious and thus its use as an example so effective, but the nature of the example--as perhaps a microcosm or a broader macrocosm--itself. The conventional definition of "chutzpah" for example, is killing one's parents and then pleading mercy on the court on the grounds that one is an orphan. These AIG execs might give chutzpah a whole new meaning. The points being made about Congress and both parties are correct. This is is but one of many examples of the unbridled greed celebrated by the conventional textbooks in economics as well as the character Gordon Gekko in Wall Street that the Republicans celebrated and facilitated, aided and abetted by all sorts of triangulating Dems, at work, and this is what greed really produces. Now, as for suggestions? How about taking a look locally at some of our most favored politicians, local institutions and personalities, and do the 5 Ws of journalism on them and their own AIG-like behaviors? And finally Lou, how is the narrow, parochial and totally unsupported Columbian endorsement of Baird earmarks, because they bring home some alleged local pork, and yet represent anti-Constitutional forms of appropriations, any different than the behavior of the AIG execs who put narrow, parochial and selfish interests above the common good or even the U.S. Constitution itself?

by Lou Brancaccio : 3/21/09 12:05pm - Report Abuse

I was kind of hoping that all stories, comments, columns and photos wouldn't end up back in an I-5 conversation... but we'll continue to move forward. ;-)

by R Frog : 3/21/09 12:10pm - Report Abuse

You're right about the symbolism, Lou. That's why the seeming small donation (or investment, as some say) by the city of Vancouver to help build a private development on the waterfront has raised so much stink. Or why wasteful (or righteous, as some say) earmarks are nothing more than just spending without oversight (like the bridge for Microsoft up in Redmond). Or how promises for ample time to review legislation and lack of lobbyists in the White House are symbolic, since our new President seems unwilling to keep his promises for less than a month. Or how about the symbolism of our pledge of allegiance, destroyed by P.C. action groups and atheists, turning into something new under the "Change" by a group running under the assistance of the DNC, called Organizing for America (OFA), which asks you to pledge support for Obama, not the office. Worshiping false idols.

Symbolism is critical. And it runs both ways. But we cannot pick and choose what makes a good news story. AIG get bonuses, politicians get pork. I don't see a lot of difference.

by R Frog : 3/21/09 12:12pm - Report Abuse

"I was kind of hoping that all stories, comments, columns and photos wouldn't end up back in an I-5 conversation..."

Maybe because they are related to the issue at hand. Let's spend countless dollars, tax the citizens excessively, tax them again with both tolls and subsidized light rail, and then spend additional money to add nice artistic features like water and wind turbines, artwork, tiled pedestrian walkways. How is that not symbolic of waste?

by NO I-5 Bridge : 3/21/09 12:29pm - Report Abuse

Lou, I appreciate your position in avoiding uncomfortable discussions. But you insist on addressing literal drops in the bucket, primarily for your paper's self-aggrandizement.

All of the expenses you're patting yourself on the back for exposing COMBINED wouldn't pay for one WEEK'S worth of consultants and other leeches on the CRC rip off.

You concern yourself over thousands here locally when unwanted and unneeded BILLIONS are at stake here and you do absolutely nothing about that.

The problem is that the unbelievable massive w a s t e of money you support and the many negative impacts of that support dwarf everything you've written here in importance and impact.

I bring up this issue in an effort to do the one thing you refuse to do, and that is to hold you and those who support this colossal w a s t e of money accountable as you act against the wishes of those who live here and who will actually be given no choice about paying the bills you're forcing down our throats.

I find it much more than odd that you're willing to address the "symbolism" of these, relatively speaking, parking ticket expenses while you not only turn a blind eye to the serial murderer expenses you advocate, but then fail to address the issue when directly confronted.

There's a word for that, Lou. And that word is "cowardice."

by R Frog : 3/21/09 12:37pm - Report Abuse

@I-5: I was just going to say "elitist", but sometimes it's hard to differentiate the two.

by No I-5 Bridge : 3/21/09 1:01pm - Report Abuse

"Still, when times are tough, we all should be sensitive to what the heck we are doing. Especially when you're spending my money. Taxpayers' money."

There's a certain rank hypocrisy about this phrase, Lou. You're hot and bothered when they spend YOUR money.

But when you do everything you can to get them to spend MY money?

Not so much.

by Coleah Penley-Ayers : 3/21/09 1:01pm - Report Abuse

I was initially upset at the AIG bonus issue, until I heard that the bonuses were not for doing a 'good job', but rather were 'retention bonuses', it got me to thinking. A retention bonus is meant to keep contract employees around and aren't conditional on their future personal 'performance' or the overall 'success' of a company. I though immediately of the military's 'reenlistment bonus' contract and wondered if we lost a war if the public would want our service people to payback their promised bonus. Same issue, differing perspectives.

It isn't always what it looks like on the surface, and I can see why it could be a legal battle if the AIG employees stand on principle. Had I ever risen to a level of commanding a retention bonus similar to the 73 AIG employees (an average of appx $136,000 each), people would be hard pressed to get me to pay it back just because the company overall took a dump.

I do note that a Senator did try to raise the issue of the AIG bonuses before the bailout was rushed through. He was ignored. Having only three days to digest an 1,100 page proposal before getting a bum's rush to vote just shows how insane our legislators mode of operation has become. So much for government transparency.

In my opinion Obama has turned our country into chaos in short order by his squared-chin bullying toward a rush to judgment. I don't know of many who voted for him who are still mindlessly chanting 'Obama, Obama, Obama' or 'yes we can'.

But alas they wanted 'change', and mindless fast change is what they got.

More:

Liars, damned liars, and then, the Columbian: In our view March 18: ‘Righteous’? Really?

2009-03-18T09:48:00.000-07:00

Though circling the drain, the partisan spew and cover for democrats continues unabated.

We have massive public backlash mounting against Baird, Obama and all the Congress that is making all of this AIG and bailout garbage possible.

So what does this abortion of a newspaper do? What do they chose to write about?

They go to work to engage in damage control for Brian Baird. Baird, who carries the downtown Mafia's water like Gunga Din, is getting hammered; not only for his idiotic earmarks (and these are not the only stupid moves he's made in the earmark arena) but for the Columbian's despicable press coverage and his outright PRIDE in molesting the taxpayers in the midst of this horrific recession.

Let's remember that this despicable waste of pulp endorsed the empty suit currently in the process of destroying this county's economy... and that Brian Baird has supported every financial move this moron has made.

The Columbian is drawing the wagons in a circle around our embattled Congressman, because he is taking almost universal heat from all corners on being proud of his continuing financial rape of his constituents specifically and all Americans generally. As far back as February, this shame of a newspaper had started to provide cover for Baird's despicable votes for Obama's porkulus, with yet another fawning article that covers the malfeasance this clown has engaged in.

Baird has had his problems with earmarks before... earmarks that returned tens of thousands in campaign contributions for his "favors." Baird's corruption on earmarks is well known. The Seattle Times spent a considerable amount of time on the issue where Braid (among others) wasted millions on earmarks for the military that the military did not want.

So, the Columbian rises to the defense of their lackey, doing all they can to make sure he keeps shoveling MORE wasted millions into the steaming pile known as downtown Vancouver.

They start with a lie:

"Baird’s description of federal earmark offends his critics, but he speaks the truth"

And sprint downhill from there.

Baird's molestation of the taxpayer doesn't just "offend his critics," it also offends his supporters, because it's not being done for any reason but to enrich his "friends."

The most laughable among the many lies contained in this pork feces published by this rag today is THIS beaut:

"...You get a 30-to-1 return on our investment. Bash us for that earmark, Bobby Jindal."

"Baird got that 30-to-1 ratio from a City of Vancouver Web site description of the project"

Gee. That's akin to going to a Nazi Party website and believing their descriptions of one of their more scenic concentration camps.

In other words, then, like the City of Vancouver, Baird has NO FRICKING IDEA WHAT, IF ANY, RETURN THERE WILL BE.

Because as we all know, like the Columbian, the City of Vancouver would NEVER lie to get what IT wanted.

Except for downtown redevelopment, a $ 4 BILLION waste of money on an unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement and loot rail... and suing the voters into silence, I mean.

Now, I'm sure that Governor Jindal would have no problem shredding Baird's idiocy on this issue. Hell, I can do it right here:

If, in fact, this project would have ANY return of "30-to-1" anywhere in it...

...DON'T YOU THINK THAT PRIVATE BUSINESS WOULD BE DOING IT, INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TAX MONEY ON THIS?

There ya go, Congressman. Keep the change.

As usual, this editorial is rife with false, pie-in-the-sky, made up on the spot numbers, printed by a bunch of kool aid-drinking, self-interested liars who want this redevelopment tax money like a heroin junkie wants their next fix.

There is nothing righteous in voting for hundreds of billions of dollars of unneeded pork. But then. Baird has a track record of doing that very thing, so maybe it's because he's so out of touch with his constituency that he's left only to rely on his partisan bent... and screw the voters and taxpayers.

After all, the empty suit in the White House and this massive waste of space newspaper wouldn't have it any other way.

In our view March 18: ‘Righteous’? Really?
Baird’s description of federal earmark offends his critics, but he speaks the truth
Wednesday, March 18 1:00 a.m.

Brian Baird seldom passes up the chance to be blunt. Sometimes the Vancouver congressman's outspokenness is not the best approach. Three years ago, for example, when replying to a letter writer who had thanked him for a scholarship, Baird fired back with a seething, undiplomatic indictment of the student's poor writing skills.

Usually, though, Baird is spot on with his perceptions and frank expressions. Such was the case last Friday when he described as "a righteous earmark" the combined $5.59 million in new federal funding for Vancouver's waterfront redevelopment project. As Jeffrey Mize reported in Saturday's Columbian, that funding includes $2.5 million in stimulus money plus $3.09 million from the 2009 spending bill that President Obama signed last week.

Predictably, Baird's comment elicited quick and severe opposition among bloggers and other critics of both Baird and Obama. He noted after a formal Friday gathering at the old Boise Cascade site: "Everyone bashes us for earmarks. This is a righteous earmark. You get a 30-to-1 return on our investment. Bash us for that earmark, Bobby Jindal." Baird got that 30-to-1 ratio from a City of Vancouver Web site description of the project, which estimates how much every public dollar spent is expected to yield in projected higher tax revenues.

Yes, the return on investment would take years to realize. And yes, the "dividends" are estimates. But the data are compiled by informed researchers, and besides, the only certain way to eliminate estimates is to abandon the project and accept the status quo: an abandoned paper-mill site on prime waterfront property.

Here are key questions for local residents to ponder when assessing this righteous earmark:

More:
.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer: RIP 1863 - 2009

2009-03-16T15:26:00.000-07:00

The future of the Columbian as foretold by the Seattle Post Intelligencer?

There are many reasons for the death of this newspaper... reasons that I cannot help but think our local newspaper SHOULD have noticed... but have chosen to ignore.

Newspapers are essentially an outmoded method of news delivery. They cannot be updated; they waste resources (trees), they're a huge cause of pollutants, and a logistical, time consuming and expensive item to deliver.

That leaves the electronic medium. The obvious problem with that strategy is simple: newspapers are already competing with well-established electronic media... and the now omnipresent internet.

How do you charge for providing something that is provided, essentially, for free?

You don't.

The Seattle PI has been reduced, essentially, to a blog. One can see the effectiveness of a blog because, after all, you're reading this one.

Now, I don't have a staff of writers or researchers available. Nor do I have the brand name awareness of the Seattle PI which has, after all, been around 3 times more than I have.

And this brings me to what I believe is the most critical reason why the PI failed... why the Seattle Times SEEMS to be failing, and why the Columbian is failing... and these are reasons in addition to issues of technology and finances... because not every newspaper is teetering on the brink.

That reason?

Bias.

Newspapers have had a place in our communities and our societies. They've played a role in developing this country as tools of democracy. They've served as tools to hold our leaders accountable. They've sometimes been positive forces for change... but more recently, negative forces for change.

The critical element for newspapers has been under attack for years. Our local newspaper had a reporter that was prescient in expressing his concerns, a quote I reproduce here:

NEWSPAPERS TRY TO REGAIN CREDIBILITY WITH READERS
From: The Columbian Date: July 28, 1997 Author: MIKE FEINSILBER

The Columbian 07-28-1997

WASHINGTON -- Would you believe this? A lot of editors worry that you wouldn't - that people are less willing these days to believe what they read in the newspapers. They fear that, for a variety of reasons, newspapers are suffering a crisis in credibility, losing the irreplaceable asset of believability. The press has a lot to worry about these days: stagnant circulation, too few young readers, the Internet's ...

I stopped paying to read the Columbian over 13 years ago. They attacked people they disagreed with unmercifully, using exaggeration, lies, bias and gallons of ink to attack individuals wise enough to understand that while this newspaper is a PART of our community, it does not RUN our community.

In Seattle, in what appears to be an increasingly leftist area that I am FROM (And, in the interests of full disclosure, point out that I used to be an employee of the PI a LOOOOONG time ago) those who aligned themselves with the left wing a-men choir that the PI had unabashedly and unashamedly become have now accessed all of those technologies and other sources for free that the PI charged for.

Why read the PI if you can get the latest leftist pap from Kos, or Horse's Ass... for what amounts to free?

Loyalty is a fine thing... until it starts reaching into your wallet.

The PI attacks Congressman Dave Reichert because he was smart enough to vote against the Empty Suits "Generational Indebtedness Act," telling us it was a "partisan" move. They failed to mention the 11 democrats who also voted against it. Were they "partisan? The PI lost their collective minds over the Gas Tax... and kept silent when we were screwed by WADOT who then cut the project list by 30%; an obvious fraud... in supporting the idea of a death tax... and on, and on... and on.

This represents something of the Chinese water torture approach to anyone to the right of Lenin.

If a newspaper beats the hell out of a large segment of the public they depend on to support them financially... what's the incentive to give them money if you're a part of that segment?

Well, based on the PI going under, it would appear their isn't one.

Here, we have a completely leftist newspaper, one that only endorsed democrats for any open seat in the last election, with an editorial page editor apparently PAID to beat the hell out of anyone to the right of Stalin. He uses insults, slams, lies and libel towards those he doesn't agree with... and that typically means those wise enough to avoid the leftist Kool Aid drinking he's so enamored of.

Why on earth would anyone not a fringe-left whack job buy the Columbian when this clown writes most of his columns as if the very idea of conservatism is a personal affront, and he needs to use his soap box to kick the hell out of those he disagrees with?

Now... that is not to say that *I* don't do precisely the same thing: I do, and I admit it. Unlike the two newspapers under discussion, how ever, I don't hide anything from anyone in the realm of news. And part of the reason why I spend time doing this is to provide SOME counterpoint to the lie-driven, agenda driven morons that spew their lies as if they were God's own truth.

But the MAIN difference between us is.... YOU DON'T PAY ME TO READ ME. For the thousands who've stopped by my blog, there is absolutely no charge. I refuse to have the google ad set here for a variety of reasons, so I don't even make any money off of THAT.

And those issues, of course, just go to politics.

The other main issue is one of agendas.

For several years now, the Columbian uses itself as a club to literally BEAT on those opposed to their agenda.

In the alternative, they go out of their way to ignore those opposed to their Orwellian vision of what they want us to become.

They have a track history of this type of arrogance and community damaging garbage: The current issue is their utterly absurd and nonsensical lies and exaggeration in support of their demand that we get light rail into Vancouver... and oh yeah, let's waste $4 BIOLLION to make that happen... all the while, typically writing as if tens of thousands of us are not completely opposed to their moronic idea... going so far as to elect an anti-light rail, anti-bridge replacement county commissioner this past November.

Some at the Columbian have come right out and attacked those who oppose their massive black hole of precious and increasingly fewer transportation dollars as they do their damnedest to force US to pay hundreds of dollars a year in tolls THEY will not have to pay.

There have been other episodes of Columbian idiocy besides their rampant lies about the bridge replacement; there support of gerrymandered elections for tax increases, their support of the city of Vancouver actually suing the voters into silence for downtown redevelopment? their support of the overwhelmingly rejected Port tax increase, the biggest increase in our history.

Their relative silence on the destruction our prtesident is causing this country (of course, they endorsed him... and once they endorse you, you can do no wrong) their failure to hold our congressman accountable for his earmarks and for voting to bury us under an additional trillion in debt... because HIS earmarks are RIGHTEOUS. There attacks... repeated attacks... against a couple trying to build a house in the Gorge... their idiotic demands that a state representative, now a re-elected county commissioner, "resign before the people do it for him," right before he won his first of four re-elections to the House and his subsiquent re-election as a county commissioner.

This goes directly to the point brought out by Feinsilber, above.

If the people believe you've abbrogated your responsibility by putting your politics or your agenda ahead ofwhat's right for the people... well, guess what?

You become the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

When a newspaper lies, distorts, exaggerates, attacks and loses sight of their primary responsibility of telling the unvarnishede truth, they become an increasing stain on democracy; and people like me become increasingly less likely to want to pay to be abused by tonedeaf idiots like many of those writing for this newspaper today.

There are lessons to be learned in the demise of the PI. As of now, the Columbian maintains their blinders... and continue to circle the drain.

Seattle P-I to publish last edition Tuesday

By DAN RICHMAN AND ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTERS

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer will roll off the presses for the last time Tuesday.

The Hearst Corp. announced Monday that it would stop publishing the 146-year old newspaper, Seattle's oldest business, and cease delivery to more than 117,600 weekday readers.

The company, however, said it would maintain seattlepi.com, making it the nation's largest daily newspaper to shift to an entirely digital news product.

"Tonight we'll be putting the paper to bed for the last time," Editor and Publisher Roger Oglesby told a silent newsroom Monday morning. "But the bloodline will live on."

In a news release, Hearst CEO Frank Bennack Jr. said, "Our goal now is to turn seattlepi.com into the leading news and information portal in the region."

The new operation will be more than a newspaper online, Steven Swartz, president of Hearst Newspapers, said. The so-called "community platform" will feature breaking news, columns from prominent Seattle residents, community databases, photo galleries, 150 citizen bloggers and links to other journalistic outlets.

On Jan. 9, New York-based Hearst put the Seattle P-I up for sale and said that the paper would stop printing if a buyer were not found within 60 days.

Despite community concern, no buyer emerged. The P-I lost $14 million last year.

"The thing that should not be missed here is that the P-I is not going away. The P-I is going online," Oglesby said in an interview. "Nobody is happy about the newspaper going away. That's a sad thing. The editorial voice is still going to be here."

About 20 news gatherers and Web producers will stay on with seattlepi.com, plus another 20 newly hired advertising sales staff. The publisher will stick around through the transition period, but does not expect to be part of the ongoing online operation.

"Our goal is to just let the quality of the Web site speak for itself," Swartz said in an interview. "We're very excited that the people who are staying with us will continue to evolve and experiment and innovate. The newspaper industry needs more innovation, needs more experimentation, and I think the new seattlepi.com is an innovative experiment and I think that the eyes of the country and this industry are going to be on what we do in Seattle."

Baird sells us out on another earmark: The Columbian is positively giddy

2009-03-14T10:41:00.000-07:00

So, Brian Baird and this fishwrapper are just all bubbly about how they screwed the taxpayers with millions in earmarks.

The article makes me want to blow chunks... and here's a few well chosen words in response to the headline:

Baird is proud of ‘righteous earmark’

It's at LEAST as "righteous" as the millions he wasted on the "Boat that nobody wanted" in return for the $14,277 in campaign contributions Baird got from Guardian Marine in return for shilling out $17.65 million in THOSE earmarks.

It seems that Mr. Baird is simply incapable of grasping the enormity of his stupidity and the colossal waste of money he's so proud of.

"Bash" this earmark? I don't need Jindal or anyone else to "bash" this earmark when I can beat hell out of it all by myself.

Being in the pocket of the Downtown Vancouver Mafia is nothing to be proud of, Mr. Baird. Cementing your alliances with corruption isn't worthy of a press release, Mr. Baird. This slobbering coverage from this rag because they're all about jacking up their property values using taxpayer dollars isn't the thing that town hall meetings should focus on, Mr. Baird.

At the end of the day, you helped the empty suit to bury this economy in yet additional TRILLIONS of dollars of debt with your pork-laden garbage.

And that's nothing to be proud of, Mr. Baird.

See? It was easy. And Gov. Jindal didn't even need to break a sweat.

Your corruption and that of this newspaper are despicable, Mr. Baird.

Baird stands behind the earmarks. "We didn't just say, 'Oh, a company in our district wants an earmark — let's get it for them.' We looked at the mission, we looked at the history of the boat, and we looked at the alternatives out there," he said. "And I think that's pretty good work, frankly."

...And Rep. Baird still wants to get patrol boats like Guardian Marine's (That the Navy can't use and like the ones we ALREADY own that are tied up at a dock in Seattle's Portage Bay (except for yearly maintenance runs)) into Coast Guard hands. During a congressional hearing earlier this year, Baird asked an admiral if they could "chat" about "other alternatives that are available on the marketplace" to the Coast Guard's slower, 87-foot patrol boats.

"Might we do that?" Baird asked.

"Happy to do that, sir," the admiral replied.

Yeah. It's just coincidence that these people gave you $15,000 for your campaign... right, Brian?

No, dammit. I will condemn this earmark and the corruption it speaks to and the debt it assigns with all of my might.

Mr. Baird, you and this democrat lackey newspaper ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Poster by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi does an amazing job of calling Baird's perfidy out. It's worthy of reproduction here, and I do it here in it's entirety:

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 3/14/09 9:45am - Report Abuse

It is called "triangulation". The apex of the triangle stands "above" the "left" or "right" ends of the base. Give a little to the "left" on their most important issues, they will hold their noses, vote for you, even after what you feed to the "right". Same thing on the "right": feed them a little on their pet issues, they will vote for you, often as the "lesser of evils" (when what we often have is the evil of lessers) while they hold their noses for what you give to the "left". All the while you appear not even "centrist", but at some imperial and etherial level above it all. Of course what you "give" to the left, right and center is what is not really yours to "give" especially when there is nothing to give without robbing future generations of a chance your generation had: taxpayer dollars going where they are most needed and fiscal solvency. This concept was articulated by Dick Morris, a political operative, who worked mostly the Republican side but also worked for Dems like Clinton as well. But blaming these politicians can be like blaming a rabid dog for biting. These types, as Plato noted in his famous dictum "Those who seek power are invariably the least fit to hold and wield it", are typically narcissists, megalomaniacs, manipulators and many are outright psychopaths (see the book "Snakes in Suits When Psychopaths Go to Work" by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare) So it is up to us to stop trading away our liberty and tax dollars by supporting those who cynically pander to our baser instincts, selfishness, myopia and narrow single-issue or identity politics. We are also to blame. It is time to relentlessly out them, drag them out of the subterranean power cliques they operate through, and with hard-core and rigorous facts, the law, and contradictions in their own rhetoric expose them to the accountability they eschew. I have been up close with these types and they are nothing and cannot debate when pressed; that is why they hide and every two years come around counting on our short memories.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 3/14/09 10:00am - Report Abuse

Here is an article in the Seattle Times called "The Favor Factory" with links to look up any Congressperson and see for any given year, how much in earmarks they got, to whom the earmarks went, and from whom they got campaign contributions. You will see an amazing correspondence between who gave and who got (sometimes literally within days of getting an earmark a campaign contribution given and vice versa). And every one of these types will look straight into the camera and say "But I assure you than in my mind there was no connection between the campaign contribution and the earmark--previous or subsequent--for the person who gave it." What else are they going to say? That does not settle it and it shows their own arrogance and contempt for the trust placed with them that that is all they have to say. Earmarks are about escaping transparency, scrutiny, accountability and the normal appropriations processes mandated by the U.S. Constitution. There is no way around it as President Obama himself noted. Now go check out Mr. Baird or whomever you wish. By the way, in the U.S. Constitution, only two crimes are explicitly mentioned as "High Crimes and Misdemeanors": Treason and Bribery.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008257178_favorfactory12.html

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 3/14/09 10:07am - Report Abuse

Mr. Baird's record on earmarks for 2008:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/favorfactory_2008/lawmaker.php?id=H6WA03135

Baird, Brian N.

(House, D-WA) Totals
2008 Defense earmarks: $13,600,000
2003-08 Campaign contributions from earmark recipients: $68,800

Campaign contributions from earmark recipients
Recipient Amount
Gencorp, Inc. (HQ) $2,000
General Electric Co. (HQ) $11,000
Caterpillar, Inc. (HQ) $2,000
Battelle Memorial Institute, Inc. (HQ) $500
Oregon Iron Works, Inc. $17,500
Boeing Co. (HQ) $9,500
Accenture, Inc. (HQ) $500
Northrop Grumman Corp. (HQ) $1,000
Cassidy & Associates $500
SILVER EAGLE MANUFACTURING CO $2,000
Outdoor Research, Inc. $2,000
CASCADE DESIGNS, Inc. $4,000
Armor Systems International, Inc. $2,000
Honeywell International, Inc. (HQ) $5,000
Rice University $250
Nlight Photonics Corp. $6,550
Lockheed Martin Corp. (HQ) $2,000
Insitu, Inc. (HQ) $500

Has anyone ever heard of "conflict of interest" and recusing oneself from a vote in which one has even the appearance of one as a matter of honor?

Unlike our local waste of paper, the information provided above tells the REAL story about the despicable use of earmarks... earmarks the Empty Suit repeatedly campaigned AGAINST.

Email | Print |

Local News

Baird is proud of ‘righteous earmark’

Friday, March 13 | 11:23 p.m.

BY JEFFREY MIZE
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Twist Architecture and Design Redevelopment of the former Boise Cascade site could include a series of high-rise buildings with hotels, condos, offices, hotels, shops and restaurants, along with parks and trails.

Congressman Brian Baird had finished the polite introductions and obligatory thanks.

Then, the Vancouver Democrat moved closer to a clay model depicting the high-rise waterfront community that Gramor Development and its local investors want to build on the Columbia River waterfront.

"The infrastructure money leverages so much more," Baird told Gramor President Barry Cain late Friday morning as he examined the model. "They’re not building waterfront. They’re not building Columbia Rivers anywhere."

The waterfront project, proposed for a barren former industrial site west of the Interstate 5 Bridge, will benefit from two federal contributions: $2.5 million in stimulus money and another $3.09 million from the 2009 spending bill President Barack Obama signed this week.

"Everyone bashes us for earmarks," Baird said, standing where a cluster of office buildings, condominiums, apartments, stores and restaurants could pop up in the next 10 to 15 years. "This is a righteous earmark. You get a 30-to-1 return on our investment. Bash us for that earmark, Bobby Jindal."

Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, delivered the GOP’s response to Obama’s Feb. 24 joint address before Congress and criticized federal officials for what he called an "eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."

As for the 30-to-1 figure, Baird used an estimate developed by the city of Vancouver of how much every public dollar — city, state and federal — spent on infrastructure will return in higher tax revenues.

Baird attended a Friday gathering with representatives of Gramor and its investors, along with city, Port of Vancouver and Clark County representatives, to show his support for the project and boost its community standing. A push pin in the clay model indicated where organizers had set a small tent, chairs and podium for the event.

More Columbian Bridge propaganda that ignores the massive opposition: Bridge designers search for function and beauty

2009-03-13T13:22:00.000-07:00

Yup... bridge designers are searching for an ever-increasing way to make this turd in a punch bowl as expensive as possible.

Unfortunately, as usual, this is yet another in the massive series of propaganda pieces that would have made Herr Goebbels blush with pride from our own, circling the drain Columbian.

See, the designers that have attached themselves like a leech to the neck of a water buffalo for the millions they're ripping off from us taxpayers aren't concerned with the fact that we don't want this thing... they're the modern-day equivalent of Concentration Camp Guards.

You know... orders are orders and all that rot?

Of course, that didn't work in Nuremberg, and it ain't doing to well in Clark County, either.

A poster in the thread says it best:

I desperately want these supporters like Royce and the C-Trans mob to come out and defend this garbage heap.
They have no courage, or they would willingly put this thing to a vote. In this instance, they're doing absolutely everything they can to AVOID a vote... because they already know the outcome... and GOD forbid that the people forced to PAY this despicable bill should ACTUALLY HAVE A SAY!
These are the same embarrassments to democracy that actually SUED the voters into silence over the organized crime activity known as "downtown redevelopment."
There is no lie they won't tell... no effort to avoid dealing with the massive opposition to this project... no amount of OUR money (now already exceeding $100 million for a "study" with a pre-ordained outcome ("Oh, gee... the ONLY option we can POSSIBLY do is to replace a perfectly serviceable bridge for FOUR BILLION DOLLARS so we can bring loot rail into Vancouver!")Like anyone breathing didn't know, several months in advance, that such was the ONLY outcome the Downtown Mafia and this newspaper would EVER accept.) they won't spend to convince us that everything is sweetness and light... and no worries, mate... we're not only going to SCREW the commuter... but THEY ARE GOING TO ENJOY IT!

Bridge designers search for function and beauty

Matching gateways could be posited at different ends of I-5 crossing

Friday, March 13 11:35 a.m.

BY JEFFREY MIZE
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Touchstone Architects and Columbia River Crossing Bridge designers are paying particular attention to piers and pile caps, using lighting to illuminate the supports from the inside out. Another feature could be artwork panels reflecting the region’s history or natural resources.

Touchstone Architects and Columbia River Crossing A 25-foot-wide path for pedestrians and cyclists could feature mosaic tile or other features and provide expansive views looking east toward Mount Hood.

Touchstone Architects and Columbia River Crossing One possible design for a new Interstate 5 bridge from Oregon looking north on the east side of the bridge.

Touchstone Architects and Columbia River Crossing One possible design for a new Interstate 5 bridge from Oregon looking north.

Touchstone Architects and Columbia River Crossing Large gateways could greet drivers as they enter and exit the primary crossing, providing doorways to Vancouver and Portland.

1 of 5

Dramatic lighting would illuminate double V-style piers that support a new Interstate 5 bridge.

Matching blue gateways on each side of the crossing would welcome drivers as they enter Vancouver and Portland.

A 25-foot-wide path for pedestrians and cyclists would feature mosaic tile and provide expansive views looking east toward Mount Hood.

The Columbia River Crossing’s Urban Design Advisory Group got a glimpse of these concepts Friday as it examined the latest work of two design consultants, bridge architect Bradley Touchstone of Tallahassee, Fla., and illumination expert Faith Baum of Bloomfield, N.J.

The crossing office hired the two last fall, largely in response to criticism from Portland officials and others who felt the proposed bridge was flat, unimaginative and drab.

Touchstone has been working to provide a signature design for a project that could cost $3.5 billion or more for bridge, freeway and transit improvements.

Preserving views, providing a meaningful nighttime experience and making the crossing environmentally sustainable are among his design priorities, along with creating a project that both stands out and fits in.

"That iconic form should be something that is absolutely unique to this place," Touchstone said.

Baum said preliminary plans call for using white light, not different colors, to illuminate the structure from the inside out.

The goal is to juxtapose white light to provide a more subtle context and to enhance the environment’s natural color while still providing a lighting system that is easy to maintain and affordable to operate, she said.

"We want this bridge to look as beautiful 10 years from opening day as it does on opening day," Baum said.

Gee... a leftwing polling outfit, paid for by democrat interests that want to jack up our taxes, tells us that we SUPPORT tax increases.

2009-03-07T18:51:00.000-08:00

Are you stunned?

I'm stunned.

A leftist pollster, paid for leftists, concludes thaty the people of this state actually would support tax increases to make up for leftist, out of control spending.

And for some reason, this birdcage liner sees that as news.

Nah.... no bias HERE, I tell ya!

AP Source: Poll: Wash. voters open to "sin" taxes

Saturday, March 7 2:45 p.m. BY CURT WOODWARD - ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

Voters might support higher "sin taxes" to take the edge off deep state budget cuts, but they seem to recoil at tax hikes for businesses, according to polling by political interest groups pushing for a statewide tax referendum.

Washingtonians also prefer a temporary tax increase that "sunsets" after helping the state get through its present budget crisis, according to the poll of about 800 likely voters across the state.
An across-the-board sales tax increase of 1 percent was initially unpopular, but voters seemed more willing to accept sales tax increases if they were presented as an average monthly cost of around $20 or less, the polling showed.

The research, conducted earlier this month by Goodwin Simon Victoria Research, a national Democratic polling firm, is part of a growing effort among left-leaning political interests to blunt the effects of the state's budget deficit, presently about $8 billion and growing through mid-2011.
The data was provided to The Associated Press by a person who had been briefed on the results. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the research.

'LIBTARD LUNACY DELIVERED WITH CLUELESS VEHEMENCE' just doesn't sell...

2009-03-06T14:55:00.000-08:00

I wish I could take credit for that nifty catch phrase, but it's more an apt description of what's happening to newspapers generally and the Seattle PI in particular.

This effort from poster jaundos at Sound Politics sums up the current newsprint publication of the Seattle PI (A former employer of mine, I might add) which is, fortunately for this region of the country, doomed to extinction as a viable entity.

Yet, our own newspaper of record, the Vancouver Columbian, insists on following the same, clueless, libtard editorial model; a place where facts are twisted or ignored, and it's the agenda, the agenda, the agenda... all day, every day.... delivered with clueless vehemence.

Their current embarrassment is their deliberate efforts to ignore the massive opposition in Clark County to the disgrace known as the I-5 Bridge replacement and light rail project.

In keeping with their policy of lies, they refer to this bridge as having "12 lanes."

This bridge has 3 thru lanes in each direction, precisely like the bridge they would have us unnecessarily replace.

So, any time any of the 5 people or so who agree to replace this bridge achieve yet another agreement on anything, it gets the front page, golly gosh gee-wiz treatment by this rotten excuse of a newspaper.

The tens of thousands who oppose this colossal waste of billions of dollars?

Not one word.

So, we continue to be confronted with an effort that has included a study that has wasted in excess of $90,000,000 to arrive at a pre-ordained outcome; the continuation of a project that nobody wants, the giant sucking sound of $72,000,000 or more in tolls being sucked out of our economy and away from our families... and all of it ENTIRELY done to bring in light rail to Vancouver, at a cost of $4 BILLION... not including interest and cost overruns that will add additional billions in costs... but a minimum of about $10,000 for every man, woman and child in Clark County... not including the over $1,000 per year per commuter in additional taxes in the form of tolls... taxes that are not needed, not wanted and not asked for by those who have to pay it.

Local government lacks the courage to ask us the question: Do you, the people, want this?

Oddly, I never thought that a former soldier... a holder of the Combat Infantry Badge, could be a coward. But he is. And that shames me, as it should shame everyone in our community.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the critical issue of a county wide vote on the issue of this project, neither Pollard nor his only announced opponent, City Councilman Tim Leavitt have or will pledge to allow democracy have it's way with this situation, and they both fully intend to ram this project down our throats.

There is no money for this. We do not need this. We do not want this. Yet we have an out of control government that is forcing us to take it whether we want it or not.

And for that, there is no excuse.

There is simply no lie this newspaper will not tell to further their agenda.

2009-03-04T10:17:00.000-08:00

The unconscionable lies of the Columbian are part and parcel of why I, and thousands of others refuse to by this colossal waste of space... a crime of the First Amendment's freedom of the press, because they are left to actually LIE in support of their agenda. And that makes them no better then scum

Today's lie?

-- A bill allowing C-Tran to designate a subdistrict for light rail funding advanced out of the House Transportation Committee on Friday. It moved out of the Senate committee earlier.

This would be a significant development for light rail in Vancouver, and it should appeal to all Clark County residents — in or out of the subdistrict — because it would advance the user-pay concept. Taxes would increase only in the area directly affected by light rail, and only residents who are directly served by light rail would vote on such an increase. The increase, likely a small boost in sales tax, would fund maintenance and operation of light rail, which could be built with up to $750 million in federal transit funds.

And here are two more good things about a transit subdistrict: It would be an option, and voters are the ones who decide.

Words fail me... almost.

To call this a lie is to do disservice to the term "lie."

If the people of Clark County, who will be denied the right to vote on this entire project, actually SUPPORTED this garbage, then we wouldn't NEED a "taxing district."

These scumbags would just put the whole thing up for a vote county wide, and then live with the consequences of that vote.

But the little worms supporting this are doing so,not BECAUSE we want it... but because THEY know we don't.

And along comes The Columbian, who lies over and over and over in ways that would make either the Nazi's or even that empty-suited clown Obama blush, and he's lied more in one month then the last 5 presidents put together in 30 years.

From a comment on this utter lie of an editorial:

Clark County residents are appalled at the notion that you can keep us from having a voice on a tax while you force us to pay it. Clark County residents view that as a stain on democracy, a kind of organized crime that would make Al Capone blush with envy. And Clark County residents view those who support such a concept as scum. And yes, that includes this newspaper.

Like the C-Tran scam you were so wild about, "voters" will NOT get to "decide."

SOME voters will make that decision, but not ALL voters. ALL voters will just be given the privilege of being forced to PAY this tax. And that is as despicable now as it was when you supported the last worthless effort.

The demise of this newspaper simply cannot come soon enough. Minister Goebbels could learn a thing or two from you.

It is of note to point out this paragraph:

SOME voters will make that decision, but not ALL voters. ALL voters will just be given the privilege of being forced to PAY this tax. And that is as despicable now as it was when you supported the last worthless effort.

The Columbian knew when they printed this sewage that the lines will be drawn precisely like they were drawn for the C-Trans crime. That is, they will be gerrymandered to maximize revenue, and minimize participation by the very voting public that should be, according to this excuse for a newspaper, glad that this disaster... this mass screwing of the people of this county is taking place.

It's time to organize a boycott of this despicable rag and anyone who advertises in it. This cancer has got to go... for they have long since lost any legitimacy when they are reduced to lying to the public... just like their Nazi and Communist predecessors.

In My View March 3: Moronic Ignorance

2009-03-03T10:18:00.000-08:00

As noted, The Columbian is totally in the tank for the left. Their now-legendary support of democrats and ONLY democrats for every open seat up and down the ticket in 2008 will stand the test of time as acting as a stealth propaganda sheet for the left.

Today's blithering idiocy is no different.

Like a petulant punk, the paper deliberately twisted Gov. Jindal's response to the messiah's State of the Union Address a few days back.

They started the process with obvious Goebellian propaganda puff pieces that, among other things, allowed their candidate of choice, the ubiquitous "No Choice" Royce Pollard to shoot off his mouth on the subject as if what he had to say had any greater importance then what I have to say... or, for that matter, what my pet Cocker Spaniel has to say.

It doesn't... but those "in-kind" contributions start early when they newspaper perceives a solid threat to their boy.

So, the rag pushed out two puff pieces designed both to smack around yet another Republican AND to let the whole world in on the "wit and wisdom" of the Commissar of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Vancouver.

He had nothing of any value to say (when does he?) but the newspaper, in their continuing effort to go out of business, couldn't pass on the opportunity to actually act like the pearls of wisdom oozing from his mouth were, somehow, newsworthy.

That said, today the newspaper attacked Jindal over his declaration that $140 million was scheduled as part of the porkulus bill to be wasted on volcano monitoring.

Whether the moron who wrote the editorial (And it sounds like Laird, who has them common sense and leftist tendencies of a rock ape) is simply a moron... or if he needs to increase his dosage, the fact is that again, the Columbian deliberately missed the point of the exercise.

Odd, isn't it? The idiots down in Columbianville have no trouble attacking Jindal over a remark he made concerning $140 million... but they've managed to keep their mouths shut over the massive waste of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars with $1.4 TRILLION in interest alone at the national level... while they robotically go ON, and ON, and ON about the massive $4 BILLION I-5 Bridge Replacement that we do not want and do not need as if that WASN'T the most massive single waste of money in this nation's history.

What Pollard has to say... what this rag of a newspaper that bears only a passing and accidental resemblance to journalism has to say... is meaningless. And with each and every one of their continuing violations of journalistic tenets, it becomes, if possible, more so with each edition.

In our view, March 3: Volcanic Ignorance
Offense taken by scientists, N.W. residents as Jindal mocks volcano monitoring

Tuesday, March 3 | 1:00 a.m.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has turned a primitive ritual into some sort of political self-sacrifice. Last week, Jindal tossed a heaping helping of his own political credibility into a figurative volcano.

As Jindal presented the Republican counterpoint on Tuesday evening to President Obama's address to Congress, he was complaining about government waste when he condescendingly belched forth with "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.' Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."

Oh, dear. We'll get to the response from the more respected sources — the scientists — later. First, though, allow us to reverse the circumstances. Suppose Washington state Gov. Chris Gregoire went on national TV and decried wasteful spending on hurricane monitoring? She would rightly incur the wrath of every resident on the Gulf and East coasts. Studying hurricanes is more than playtime for scientists. It's the business of saving lives and property.

Admittedly, we've got a dog in this fight. Oops, wrong metaphor. We've got a volcano in our backyard. "Does (Jindal) have a volcano in his backyard?" Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard asked in a Sunday Columbian story. "We have a volcano that we are told could go off any time. And it would be nice to get a little warning." Mount St. Helens in Skamania County is less than 10 miles from the northeast corner of Clark County. As the crow flies — no, as the ash blows — this volcano is less than 50 miles from the Vancouver-Portland metropolitan area with 2 million-plus residents.

For Jindal's enlightenment, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens killed 57 people, including Columbian photographer Reid Blackburn, and destroyed 250 homes, 47 bridges and more than 150 miles of road. We'd like Jindal to know that Mount St. Helens is less than 100 miles from the Seattle area, which has several million residents who face their own volcano peril with nearby Mount Rainier, arguably and potentially the deadliest volcano in the nation.

These facts define in horrifying terms a danger that should not be mocked or trifled with by politicians, especially governors who are struggling to recover from their own natural disasters.

As for the more respected opinion of scientists, we yield the floor:

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

2009-02-25T18:34:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2009-02-24T08:45:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2009-02-23T12:39:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-23T08:01:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2009-02-22T14:36:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-22T12:32:00.000-08:00

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.

In our view Feb. 22: Fair Funding

2009-02-22T10:51:00.000-08:00

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.

Feb 21: Press Talk: Former prez liked the press

2009-02-21T14:57:00.000-08:00

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:

2009-02-21T12:39:00.000-08:00

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!