Archive for January, 2007

There used to be a time when folks around here could lament that Democrats were only hard nosed dam breaching nuclear hating nut cases.  Well Democrats in this state just took at least one of those arguments away.  I got word that last weeks Democratic State Committee meeting defeated a resolution that called for the breaching of the 4 lower snake dams.  It wasn’t even a close call. 

I have been saying all along (I hate I told you so’s but… here goes), Democrats need to own these issues.  Breaching dams is a great idea on the surface when it comes to salmon, but consequences of breaching are equally threatening.  And while I don’t have any specific reliable scientific quotes to provide, science promoting breaching the dams weighed against the economics and potential and understudied consequences of doing so are at best iffy.  And I think Democrats are coming around.  Why?  Well, because we have a long term problem with a long term solution that isn’t going to be solved with a stick of dynamite. 

But politically, this is the first step to finding an end to the means and for a variety of reasons.  Democrats are recognizing the complexity of the issue both economically and environmentally.  Democrats also recognize the need for alternatives to the energy and transportation needs the dams provide need to be realized.  And lastly, Democrats have realized the politically important virtue of providing long term solutions to the pasts long term problems.  Something Eastern Washington voters will be able to identify with.

The resolution, from what I heard, was defeated with only 3 votes in the “yea” column.

What does this mean?  Not sure yet.  But there are things that Democrats in the Washington State Legislature (and our federal reps) can start doing now to change the implications for the long term. When those dams eventually come down it should be by simply making them an obsolete resource through long term planning.  By doing so, all the Eastern Washington Republican arguments are lost in the vast sea of desperation this one issue allows them to cling.    

David Goldstein over at HA did something I think most of us blogger would like to do - he held a fundraiser for his blogging efforts and was, what I would consider, wildly successful.

Goldy, being probably the most prolific liberal blogger in Washington State, raised over four thousand dollars to go directly in his pocket… er, actually to his mortgage and other bills.  Anyone who has started a blog and managed to get a bunch of folks reading it knows that it is actually hard work.  In order to keep it interesting and informative, you gotta do your homework and you gotta spend time writing.  Sometimes into the wee hours of the morning.

To tell you the truth, I am a bit envious.  But the amount of folks viewing horsesass.org is quite a bit larger than here at McCranium so I doubt I will be raising that kind of cash next week.  So far to date, I have raised about $200 from generous folks who have donated to my paypal account (during the last revision of McCranium I actually removed the button - it is back now on the right hand sidebar - hint, hint).  Not much, but the great thing about this is that it has paid for my domain registry and hosting fees.  Can’t argue with that!

But more important is what Goldy’s fundraising means in the grand scheme of things.  It is an overwhelming testament that people value the information and opinions that many of us bloggers contribute.  Who else is going to cut through the BS and give you the striaght scoop (or in Goldy’s case - the straight “poop”) on the local, state and national politics of our day. 

When Traditional Media reports, it’s own balance is unnerving.  Thus we are left to filter the information or implications of the subjects alone.  But with a blog, there is no even handed intentions.  We are unabashedly bias.  We give credit where credit is due and smash credibility where it needs a good smashing.  And if we are completely full of shit, we get called on it.  And when we are right, we get noticed.  Recently one of my post was among the daily clips read by Senate Democrats in Washington State.  We are making an impact. 

The final hours of Goldy’s fundraiser are here.  If you are inclined to give by all means go over there and do so.  He is worth it.  And while I am not holding an official “fundraiser”, if you ever feel the urge to give to me you can.  I promise to use it for good and not evil (unless you consider bills evil).   

That’s right!  Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities is officially one year old!  Our special Tuesday night sanctuary in the vast redness that is Eastern Washington has survived its first year and is headed into this second year thanks to the dedication of our participants.  But a special thanks goes to Kendall Miller who’s most regular attendance has made this gathering what it is today. 

I remember the very first Drinking Liberally.  It was myself, Kendall, and a cutout of Bart Simpson with a Drinking Liberally t-shirt.  No doubt it was a lonely first few weeks but things picked up and now we have a variety of folks who show up and share the red-hot conversation over an ice-cold beer.

So come on out tomorrow, Tuesday January 30th, for Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities special celebration of our first year of spreading democracy “one pint at a time!”

Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities

O’Callahans - Shilo Inn

50 Comstock Rd.  Richland

Tuesday, 7:00 PM - Till?

Want to find out more about Drinking Liberally? Then check out Drinkingliberally.org.

And if you want to join the Tri-Cities Chapter of Drinking Liberally e-mail list? It is as simple as just clicking here.

Nothing but a sunny amazing day.  I take the ice in stride as the tour goes about.  Enjoy!!

I wish I could have given you more speed but the “pizza…french fries…”folks got in the way. (that would be Pizza: ||, french fries /\, to those of you who are guessing).  Either way, nothing better than a sunny day at the top!

A beautiful day!

Me, that mountain… today…

What a beautiful day.  I have more…

By the way, I took this picture this morning.  Isn’t it pretty?

[Jimmy says:  I found this article awhile back and decided to repost it here.  Fair use?  Probably not, but important and pertinent food for thought as the debate on Washington's Initative Process moves forward.] 

Laws for Sale

by George Pillsbury

Dollars and Sense magazine, July / August 2000

Say you’re a corporate entity and you want new legislation that will boost your profits -a tax cut, the repeal of “burdensome” regulation, or labor law “reform.” The old-fashioned way is to buy access by making campaign contributions to incumbent politicians and hiring professional lobbyists to help them craft the desired legislation. This can be expensive and time-consuming. And the results are not guaranteed. Today there’s a better way. A wealthy interest such as a corporation or individual millionaire can circumvent those same elected officials and-in 24 states-use the thriving marketplace of ballot initiatives to buy special-interest laws directly.

Ironically, they are exploiting hard-won democratizing reforms of an earlier era. Citizens’ organizations fought alongside political leaders such as populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan and socialist Eugene Debs for the initiative and referendum (or “I&R”) during the populist era of the 1 890s. The goal was to provide a way for ordinary citizens-in “emergency” situations-to circumvent state legislatures when a popular reform was blocked either by the undue influence of big economic interests or the narrow self-interest of the legislators themselves. Eastern and Southern political establishments largely resisted the initiative and referendum. However, citizens’ groups won the reform in more populist Midwestern and Western states. Voters in these states used ballot initiatives to regulate businesses, legislate working conditions, and expand women’s rights.

Now the law in 24 states, the initiative and referendum gives about half the U.S. population the opportunity to exercise a limited measure of direct democracy. Initiatives give citizens the right to create and vote on laws directly. Referenda allow voters to repeal by popular vote any state law. There is also a method for citizens to initiate constitutional amendments.

However, as in campaigns for public office, big money has distorted the process. Wealthy interests-whose spending on ballot questions is not limited by law-have long used their financial advantage to defeat grassroots initiatives. More recently, large corporations and newly minted millionaires have begun to use initiatives and referenda proactively. Sometimes they use the ballot to promote their special financial interests, sometimes to push personal political agendas. Either way, private money ends up making public policy.

HOW DOES ONE BUY A LAW?

A wealthy special interest will start by crafting a ballot question on which the potential opposition is not very well organized, lacks the resources to put up an effective resistance, or is vulnerable and easily scapegoated. Ideally, the initiative poses an issue on which the public is ambivalent or lacks basic knowledge. This is often true for the narrowly tailored economic concerns the big-money interests pursue through the ballot. Then the corporation or individual spends anywhere from $1 million to $10 million (or more) to hire:

* a lobbying firm to plot and manage the initiative campaign,

* a firm to pay signature gatherers to secure placement on the ballot,

* a polling firm to target voters,

* a media firm to run the ad campaign, and

* a top law firm to defend the law every step of the way.

This process has become all too familiar to residents of ballot-initiative states across the country. In Massachusetts, one of the few Eastern states with the initiative and referendum, local landlords and large realtors drafted a 1994 statewide ballot initiative to ban rent control throughout the state. Rent control then only existed in three of the state’s 351 cities, including Boston. Real-estate companies poured in more than $ l million to pay the costs of signature collection, public-opinion polling, and a media campaign. In the three rent-control cities, voters rejected the measure by a wide margin. Statewide, however, landlords won their question with a narrow 51% majority. Today rents have skyrocketed and all three former rent control cities are beset by an affordable housing crisis.

Big-money interests also used the ballot initiative to bring riverboat gambling to Missouri. In the early 1990s the Missouri legislature authorized, and the majority of voters approved, gambling on casino boats. After opponents won a court case halting the measure’s implementation, a second vote rejected the gambling initiative. Las Vegas casinos and other gambling interests upped the ante by hiring one of the nation’s top ballot-initiative firms, the California-based Winner, Wagner, and Mandabach. With more money and better polling, they forced the issue back on the ballot and won. With the same firm’s help, the gambling industry won again in 1998, when further court action forced them to seek a voter initiative for a constitutional amendment.

Across the country in California, Silicon Valley millionaire Timothy Draper spent $2 million of his personal fortune to qualify a school-voucher ballot initiative for this November. Opposed by most public-school advocates, his effort doesn’t even have the backing of many local school voucher proponents. Draper’s wealth, however, has bought enough signatures to make California voters consider his personal plan for free-market schooling. All this without the benefit of any citizen mobilization or legislative debate.

The main issue is not whether any of these are good or bad public policy, but the transformation of citizen initiatives into a marketplace where laws can be bought and sold as commodities. Two basic factors are at work:

The first is the exploding use of paid signature gathering -and the emerging signature-collection industry. Large national firms hire itinerant signature collectors and send them to ballot-question states. The gatherers typically get paid per signature. They have only cursory knowledge of the issues and little commitment to the outcome beyond the paycheck. Setting up at shopping malls or in front of supermarkets, they will often gather signatures for two different petitions at once.

Paid signature gathering has long been recognized as a threat to the honest and democratic use of the initiative and referendum. Over a century ago, both supporters and opponents of the reform noted that petitioning for “ten cents a signature,” the going rate at the time, would defeat the whole purpose of signature requirements-to demonstrate widespread public interest in the proposed initiative.

It is true that in some initiative-and-referendum states the signature requirements are too high for even legitimate citizen efforts. However, in most, popular causes with bona fide grassroots support can collect signatures using volunteers. Initiative backers may still use funds to pay organizers to recruit the volunteers. However, it is still local volunteers at shopping centers, post offices, and community meetings that are the collectors-people who know and care about the issue at hand. Recruiting volunteers requires education and movement-building-and is as important to the initiative process as the final vote itself.

The other particularly troubling feature of ballot questions is the absence of contribution limits. Corporations or wealthy individuals can spend as much as they want to

purchase an outcome-whether to defeat a public interest initiative or buy their own law. The advantage of money has become far more significant since the advent of mass media, especially television. Back when government took seriously its role to protect the integrity of the ballot process, a 1960s reform - called the “Fairness Doctrine” muted this advantage. If, for example, one side of an initiative campaign spent $3 million on a media buy, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required broadcasters to provide either equal time or a ratio of time to the other side to respond. This policy also served to discourage unbridled spending, since this would trigger matching ads for the . other side. Under the Reagan administration, however, the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine, eliminating this important leveler between those with and without large financial resources.

Until recently, the courts have not helped. In last year’s Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation case, the Colorado Supreme Court turned back attempts to restrict paid signature gathering or limit contributions, citing the “free speech” rights of money. In their reluctance to challenge the so-called “rights” of big money, the courts devalue the speech and rights of those without money. “Free speech” in the realm of politics and public policy loses its meaning when money buys access to speech through ads, polls, phone banks, and signature collectors. Here speech is actually rarely “free” but comes at an increasingly high price for media buys and the like. In a positive turn, the Supreme Court may have begun to recognize the gravity of the problem with this year’s Missouri u Shrink decision. By a 6-3 majority, the high court upheld the power of the states to place contribution limits in state election campaigns.

There are those who would throw the ballot-initiative baby out with the big-money bath water. Columnist and pundit David Broder argues, in his Democracy Derailed, that big money has terminally corrupted the initiative process. He concludes - with other economic and governmental elites who dislike any form of direct democracy - that the public should never have the right to vote directly on the laws that govern it. As corrupting as money has been, however, ballot questions can remain a positive component of democracy. They provide voters with a valuable tool, under special circumstances, to advance political and economic reforms stymied by either the self-interest of legislators (such as reforming campaign-finance laws that favor incumbents) or the power of wealthy lobbies (who can unduly sway legislators with campaign money, prestige, and perks for their districts, and jobs when they leave L office). Environmentalists have used ballot questions to block nuclear power plants, clean up ,~ toxic wastes, promote recycling, and create conservation land trusts. Recently, proponents of campaign finance reform have used ballot initiatives to get around the resistance of entrenched politicians.

Like any part of our democracy, however, ballot initiatives are only as democratic as their process. Reform and regulation are necessary, just as in election campaigns, to keep them fair and true to their original purpose. Comprehensive reform must:

1. Curtail paid signature gathering: The signature-gathering process is central to the democratic, educational, and mobilizing value of ballot initiatives. Volunteers committed to a cause should be the primary gatherers. At the same time, prohibitively high signature requirements in some states, like Nevada, should be reduced.

2. Restrict or ban donations from for-profit corporations: Current federal and state laws already ban corporations from making direct campaign contributions. While ballot questions are considered “lobbying,” not electioneering, for-profit corporations already have more than enough influence through lobbyists and other means.

3. Restore the “Fairness Doctrine” This levels the playing field-enhancing rather than limiting speech. It also can discourage the overuse of paid media and provide incentives to rely more on direct voter education at meetings, from organizations, over the Internet, or through earned media generated by the campaign itself.

If the role of money goes unchecked, ballot questions will continue to be bought and sold like cars, appliances, or any other consumer good. With common-sense regulation and reform, however, ballot questions can be saved from this corrupting influence and restored to their original purpose. They can embody the noble ideal of democracy. As the Constitution of the State of California puts it, “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

George Pillsbury is Director of the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project, which does research and education on the role of money in state elections. He is also Development Director of Boston VOTE, a new coalition working to increase electoral turnout and promote electoral reform.

Well, if you are at today’s hearing on Washington’s proposed legislation on HB 1087, you might be hearing that from Tim Eyman and his throng of supporters including sugar daddy Michael Dunmire.  The largely Democratic legislature bringing this legislation to the table will hear opponents of HB 1087 spin a tale that by banning the practice they are being disenfranchised from the political process and their rights to free speech will be diminished.  But this is about fraud, and the potential for fraud.  Yet, while no actual testimony of fraud will likely be given, the fraud has really become the initiative process itself.

Citizen initiatives are just that.  Citizen initiatives.  But with a small group of well financed ideologues take over the process, it is no longer about the average citizen, and more about the interests of the well financed ideologues. 

The populist initiatives coming out of these groups and run to the goal line by mouthpieces like Tim Eyman may seem all well and good on the surface, but once you start seeing who garners the benefits, folks like you and I are far less served by their efforts. 

I voted yes for one initiative.  The $30 car tab initiative.  Living pay check to pay check, it was good news that once a year I wouldn’t have to somehow scrounge up enough money to pay the $500 or so fee on the 4 or 5 year old car I had finally found myself able to afford and allowed me to drive something far more reliable than the broken down 16 year old Toyota station wagon (although I still miss that car… memories).  And at the time, I held no quarter against the likes of Eyman because I was feeling relief.

Now, years later, I don’t carry those same feelings.  I think many in this state are quite a bit like me.  And it wasn’t until I understood the impact of lost state revenue from the 30 dollar tabs I was enjoying did it hit home.  So when the legislature implemented the gas tax and I-912 suddenly appeared it dawned on me that our legislature was doing something right.  And with the gas tax, they were spreading the costs around.  I could live with that and I agreed that if we wanted a solid infrastructure in this state, we were going to have to pay for it.  It was just a little more at the pump and not whacking me once a year with a hefty fee.

But last year things got scary weird.  We had initiatives to repeal gay rights, relieve the most wealthy of folks from having their inheritances taxed… I mean, who were these initiatives for?  How did that benefit me?  What really struck me though, was the paid signature gatherer.  I’ve met a bunch.  Each one, usually not from my neck of the woods, was equally clueless about the initiatives they were promoting.  The last one I met actually had the nerve to explain to me that if I was to die tomorrow, my benefactors would have to pay taxes on my assets they inherited.  I knew better and tried to explain to him and was met with anger that made me a bit uneasy.  Is not misrepresentation fraud enough? 

Our local Ace Hardware stores had the “death tax” initiative taped to the counters.  The Ace franchise is owned by the local (and quite wealthy) Griggs family.  Suppose they had a motivation?  Well, it didn’t work for me there either.

Although the initiative process has been around in Washington State for some time, I think most folks recent memories around Eastern Washington have given them a sense of trust in folks like Eyman and why they pass in this area with relatively wide margins if they get to the ballot.  For me, that sense of trust was lost long ago and I think my assumptions about their motivations are dead on.

Will banning paid signature gathering significantly change the initiative process?  With the millions of dollars that would be available for advertising, Internet signature gathering, and the high chance that gatherer’s would most likely be paid by the hour, I think not.  But what it will do is reduce the possibility of signature fraud, and perhaps enhance the integrity of the initiative process itself. To me, that doesn’t sound like disenfranchisement or limiting free speech.

If you are looking for a little history on banning paid signature gathering, I found this. 

You tube has some funny stuff…

I know I am not the only one who has had a crappy project partner.  Look out Dylan… it gets worse in college.

Hey… there is this blogger dude in Seattle.  A funny guy that can deconstruct republican arguments faster than republicans can deconstruct the constitution. Shoots straighter than Dick Cheney on a drunken hunting trip. Did I mention he was funny?  Oh yea, he also needs money to pay the rent (I’m sure he would also take an iBook if you got one to spare). 

We bloggers pretty much exclusively do this work for free.  Our thanks for doing this is your reading, your comments and participation, and our personal catharsis… mostly the latter. Goldy is constantly keeping up not only on the happenings in Washington State, but nationally as well… he deserves support. 

I owe a lot to this guy for all the traffic he has sent my way over the past 1 1/2 years.  And also for keeping us all well entertained as we traverse this crazy world of politics.  With that said, it is fundraising time at Horsesass.org.  If you got a few bucks to spare to help support Washington’s best blogger, go on over and toss some change in his metaphorical/digital guitar case.

Hey… maybe I need to do a fundraiser?!?

In the wild world of politics I have found myself in some strange places.  I’ve infiltrated a seemingly private “press” conference with Mike McGavick where I narrowly escaped the “who exactly are you” question (from a rather large mean looking dude) and was able to join in with local press as McGavick laid out his ultimately failed talking points to a few of us while Democrat’s waited outside with Cantwell signs and video cameras.  It was fun.  As I said before, riding in a limo is only fun if you don’t belong in one.  So when I received an e-mail from an ink-fingered friend to inform me of a Washington State Republican leadership conference call with bloggers I asked to join in. 

Now the e-mail I got from my ink-fingered friend said the group was interested in folks across the political spectrum.  I was suspect.  After all, I haven’t exactly been kind hearted to many republicans.  Maybe it’s a genetic thing that gives me an aversion to much of the ideology, so at first blush I wasn’t buying it.  But being me, I dropped a line to House Republican Communications Director John Rothlin.  John responded quickly and was very friendly.  After brief niceties I received an e-mail with instructions to join the call.

Before I go on, I do want to say that I fully appreciated the chance to participate.  The one thing I get concerned with myself about is becoming far too influenced by my own presumptions of how the world works and where I get my influences in blogs and media.  Living in an echo chamber isn’t healthy.  I think that is how folks like this wind up who they are.  So with that said, I hope I am invited back. While I didn’t agree with many things that were said, I was able to take something away from the discussion. 

One the agenda:  Election Reform; Tribal Gambling

The election reform I will describe as the same old, same old.  Absentee ballots not being forwarded in the mail, and paid signature gatherers for initiatives were the two main issues. 

This old argument about absentee ballots seems to go round and round.  Republicans want to make sure that voters are eligible to vote and democrats want to make sure those who are eligible can vote without hardship.  I am of the latter since I believe you should get that ballot no matter if you moved across the street, down the road, to a nursing home or are working out of state.  If you have an interest in your district and plan on voting there and only there you should be able to vote in that district… and nowhere else.  Doing anything else culls voters from the roles and as was often noted in the conversation, close elections may hang in the balance.  When you are in the minority I suppose this matters more than if not.

Paid signature gathering for initiatives is another dog chasing its tail.  We have a problem and opposition to this bill baffles me.  But both the right and the left know that the real issue isn’t about the potential for fraud in Washington’s initiative process that is at hand.  It is the money.  When you can have a single person (Michael Dunmire comes to mind) float hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance an initiative, including providing advertising and pay to signature gatherer’s it is no longer a ”Citizen’s Initiative” and easily falls into the hands of a small interest group.  What is so bad about that you ask?  Well, if people are really willing to give their time to something they believe in they will stand out in the rain and ask for those signatures.  No one is taking away the advertising dollars and opponents can still raise money to advertise on their own. Nowhere in the bill does it restrict what groups can spend to get their message out. It does get the uninterested out from in front of Safeway pestering me to repeal yet another tax or tell me the fags are going to take over.  I find paid signature gatherers personally insulting in that when I ask them about the thing they want me to sign on to they are generally misinformed or outright ignorant to the issue.  It’s all about money.  

This is getting to be a long post so I will split this up in another post, A Stranger in a Strange Place - Part II, where I will hopefully give some credit where credit is due and expand on it’s attendance.  Feel free to comment.

Part II

[note: Inserting Part II into the Part I post is for continuity for incoming links to this post] 

It’s no surprise that Republicans would raise this issue to promote their agenda.  To be honest I think it is among the most foolish of moves from Democrats.  As I started to write this I noticed Goldy has already posted on this and he is absolutely correct.  It’s a sucker bet that Washington State Republicans would not make this an issue.  And I hope there is more opposition from Democrats as well.  Aside from all the politics involved, it is really a bad idea.

Back to the conference call… in attendance: 

Bloggers - Sharkansky (soundpolitics.com), Jim Walker (Orbusmax), Mike Gallion (Mr. Completely) and myself (others may have been there but I didn’t catch their names).

R-Folks - Representatives Condotta, Chandler, Crouse, Kristiansen

Issue: Gambling Compact:  (Leg. opposition info)(more)

This issue blindsided me.  I guess it’s hard to pay total attention but I would have thought I’d pick up on this one.  But…. WTF!

Aside from what Goldy posted about the Spokane’s being the catalyst for more tribal gaming across the state, another potential was noted as a consequence.  This would be where the Tribes could buy land, put it in trust, and open a casino.  The mechanics of that I am not sure about but I am guessing that setting a new precedent under this compact would be another step closer to this becoming a reality.

I realize this would all be great news for the Tribes, but gambling has a social price tag apart from the perceived benefits of added revenues. Don’t get me wrong, I like to go down and play a little blackjack now and then, but this idea has a sour taste to it.  And the last thing we need is more politicking around this issue where so many more important things need to be addressed.

Go Onions!

Down with Big Potato!

I picked up on this link today regarding a potential cure for cancer and as exciting as the possibility is, it could literally be thrown in the ditch because there simply isn’t any money in it for big pharm.

Investigators at the University of Alberta have recently reported that a drug previously used in humans for the treatment of rare disorders of metabolism is also able to cause tumor regression in a number of human cancers growing in animals. This drug, dichloroacetate (DCA) appears to suppress the growth of cancer cells without affecting normal cells, suggesting that it might not have the dramatic side effects of standard chemotherapies.

The “drug” DCA, which could loosely be described as industrial waste cannot be patented and so may be overlooked for funding of human testing as most drug companies prefer something that they can legitimately charge more than 2 dollars a dose. 

It is expected there would be no problems securing funding to explore a drug that could shrink cancerous tumors and has no side-effects in humans, but University of Alberta researcher Evangelos Michelakis has hit a stalemate with the private sector who would normally fund such a venture.

Michelakis’ drug is none other than dichloroacetate (DCA), a drug which cannot be patented and costs pennies to make.

It’s no wonder he can’t secure the $400-600 million needed to conduct human trials with the medicine - the drug doesn’t have the potential to make enough money.

As a cancer survivor of sorts (it was a minor ordeal), and having family who have died from the disease, I would hope this news would be acted upon on the fast track.  And having seen the affects of traditional cancer treatments first hand, an option like this shouldn’t be overlooked simply because it isn’t profitable.  If the President ever needed anything right now to put a bright light on his legacy (Iraq isn’t looking so great), this could be his chance!!! But for some reason, I don’t think that will happen. 

He [Bush] said his goal is to promote what he terms a “culture of life” that includes safeguards for the unborn, including restrictions on the use of fetal tissue for medical research.

Anti-abortion, or pro-life activists, have long sought to overturn the landmark 1973 “Roe versus Wade” Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States. They have been heartened by the fact that President Bush has named two new Supreme Court justices in his second term, both of whom are believed to be critical of the original Supreme Court ruling on abortion.

It’s all a matter of priorities…

Update: I found an important post on the Ko’s on this.  There is some contention sprinkled with a bit of hope.  I’m no conspiracy theorists by any stretch and agree that if there is a buck to be made from this by big pharm they will find a way.  I dug pretty deep into this today and along side of the skepticism there was quite a bit of discussion about DCA’s use with chemotherapy that looked more than interesting.  I think my major point here is that it could be slow going if only free market forces are responsible for DCA’s investigation.

Drinking Liberally is tomorrow night! Tuesday is the big day where once again we will be blessed with our beloved leader’s interpretation of our “State of the Union”.  It sounds like Captain Obvious is eager to discuss at least one of our favorite topics here in the Tri-Cities; “energy”.

So come on down to O’Callahans and watch the master of linguistic clarity deliver yet another flawless reading of his carefully crafted script.  But remember, the State of the Union address is at 6:00 pm so be there early enough to watch.       

Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities
O’Callahans - Shilo Inn
50 Comstock Rd. Richland

Want to find out more about Drinking Liberally? Then check out Drinkingliberally.org.

And if you want to join the Tri-Cities Chapter of Drinking Liberally e-mail list? It is as simple as just clicking here.

I haven’t made up my mind yet.  And this doesn’t make up my mind.  But I like the idea of a Obama Presidency.