Archive for January, 2007

The New York Times published a piece yesterday that is chilling. I have heard this argument before over our energy policy whereas an alternative to a big expensive war would be to spend the 500 billion on alternative energy products to bring us far closer to energy independence than we are now.  I heard this from Brian Schweitzer in 2004 and now that number is 1.2 Trillion… TRILLION.  The Times can put that in perspective for you.  

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

For those more visual folks, here is one illustration:

I know you righties have your arguments.  “We must fight them over there so we don’t….” blah blah blah.  1.2 Trillion Dollars!!!  A 1.2 Billion Dollar change in priorities and we may well have short circuited the radical terrorists-America-hating forces by simply… not being there.  As the illustration points out, we could additionally improved the lives of Americans in the process.  Doesn’t that sound better than a “Global War on Terror”?  But if you are of the mindset that we would still be fighting terrorists abroad, perhaps you are right.  Just not in Iraq, in the midst of a civil war, with a potential new war with Iran/Syria, and not still pumping our cash to oil rich nations who hate us. 

The priorities of this administration amaze me.

It’s mind numbing cold out there but never fear, it’s time for Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities.  Brave the cold and join us.

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.

The Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS)- don’tcha just luv groups named solely for their acronym?- has sued the State of WA in an attempt to make its leaders fulfill their constitutional duties.  Such originality here in the lovely “Sue Me State”!

Here’s a list of who belongs to the coalition, from the latest Seattle PI article:

School districts in Arlington, Bainbridge Island, Bellevue, Chimacum, Edmonds, North Kitsap, Omak, Pasco, Peninsula, Seattle, Snohomish, South Kitsap; the teachers unions in each district; and the Washington Education Association, the Washington State PTA, the League of Women Voters of Washington, the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, the Washington State Special Education Coalition, the Equitable Opportunity Caucus, the Minority Executive Directors Coalition and the Washington Protection and Advocacy System.

I have an email in to the State League of Women Voters to get specifics on their decision to be part of this coalition, mainly out of personal curiosity.  Honestly, I always give the League the benefit of the doubt in matters like this; their participation, which is always based on extensive research and debate among the members, leads me to believe in the legitimacy of this lawsuit.  I don’t always agree with their positions, but they definitely do their homework and have good, responsible intentions.  I’ve never been overly impressed with the WEA, nor with a lot of local school boards, for that matter, but it seems to me they have a solid argument in this case.

And man was there some “Home Cooking” in that game.  Congrats Chi-Town on the zebras…

I was standing in the checkout aisle at the grocery store and wondered if the hard right rag Tri-City Citizen would make it until 2008.  Suddenly I noticed something that should give Ken Harvey and the good folks at the Citizen some hope.

I like stories like these…

It means I am not the only “prisoner of hope” that believes the Seahawks can win.

Although I supported her 06 opponent, George Fearing, I really don’t have a beef with Maureen Walsh.  There is much I suppose I could complain about:  Her campaign contributors (BIAW, Phillip Morris etc…) and her issue ratings (BIAW 100%), but there really isn’t anything that sets off my “wingnut” alarm and by all accounts she is a pretty good moderate republican and serves her district well.  Amongst one moderate republican I know pretty well (who shall remain nameless here), she gets high praises.  So I was delighted that she was appointed to hold a leadership position in Washington’s Democrat dominated legislature.  Despite the obvious politics involved in such an appointment from democrats, it was good news to see a Washington Democrats reaching across the aisle in her appointment to the Early Learning and Children’s Services Committee.  From what I have read, it looked like a position she would serve well in.

So I guess Thursday’s news that she had withdrawn herself from the appointment is a bit of a disappointment. 

“I don’t like the perception I’m not a team player in my caucus,” Walsh said. “If they found that to be offensive or that its an affront to my leadership, I don’t need to be there, I don’t need to do that.

“This is a good time for our caucus to heal and the last thing I want to do is anything that is counter to that,” she said.

Although she had also cited in other news that family issues also played a part, this news still smells rank with the divisive partisanship of many in the republican caucus.  Yes, Maureen is a Republican and her withdrawal is understandable.  But I’m hard pressed to understand how that will “heal” the republican caucus.  If Washington Republicans are going to achieve that, the need to start listening to the voters.  It’s not like they need to hire a psychic to figure it out when they could just look at the polls.  And they also need to look at is their own leadership. 

Maybe it is my own little delusion that somehow this state, and the country for that matter, could come to a sense of balance in respects to political ideology.  For a few days there I had glimmer of hope that we might see that start to happen.  But now, instead of the potential beginnings of bi-partisan leadership, where good folks with good ideas in a minority party can grow, we have just partisanship. 

I understand it, I just don’t like it.  

What the heck is he saying? 

… Rep. Cathy McMorris, R-Wash., offered a tepid endorsement.

“The new strategy outlined tonight is worth our consideration,” she said. “However, if the United States’ role is to make a difference, the Iraqi government must follow through on stated intentions. The Iraqis need to take action to prove their commitment to securing and governing their own country.” Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said he was encouraged by the new plan, adding: “I’m pleased that the Iraqis will have more responsibility for their own security.”

Encouraged by a new plan that will send more troops headlong into a civil war?  Encouraged that the Iraqis “will have more responsibility for their own security” when it will be the US troops providing the security?  Doc, c’mon.  Even you don’t really believe that do you?  Besides Bush’s speech, that was about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  Hastings is clearly as clueless as I suspected.

We need to do this:

• Pull troops out of Baghdad and let them finish their civil war without Iranian or any other countries involvment to whatever extent we can provide.
• Secure both northern and southern sections of Iraq as well as central borders and cut off the supply of weapons and food to the point that warring factions are essentially reduced to throwing rocks at each other.
• Wait it out.

There will be refugee’s galore but those that stay and fight for power in the new Iraq will fight themselves into the stone age.  One could argue that warring factions will take the violence to otherwise less violent areas hidden amongst refugees, but if they are re-directed where they don’t anticipate, and cannot re-group there would be a chance that wouldn’t happen. 

My 2 cents but a better plan than Bush’s, and I am just a blogger.

The Denver Post had an excerpt of Bush’s speech tonight.  And like his previous positions, it is clear he doesn’t have a grasp of history or the societies past who have had “hopeful alternatives” presented to them… at the barrel of a gun.  

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

This sort of thinking, that we are providing an alternative to their hateful ideology is foolish.  Overall, I doubt there is the hateful ideology amongst the average Iraqi, and this suggests there were large factions in Iraq that were actively pursuing terrorists activities before we arrived, which we all know is simply not true.  And besides, essentially, we have already provided the alternative, be it as misguided as it is.  What is going on now is the power grab that comes with drastic changes in societies and governments when violence is used as it’s changing force.  It is a vacuum that was created and Sunni’s will be the new refugee’s in a civil war that is playing out similar to the ethnic warring found in Africa.

…step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government…Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

Nobody wants failure in Iraq.  But failure we will have if we continue or enhance our presence in Iraq.  This quote from his speech is the promise of hope and success for the United States and the Iraqi people that will appeal on many levels to Americans.  We simply have a penchant for not wanting to give up.  The realists, our newly elected Congress, and you and I know this.  But what many vocal opponents to this war also understand (though some clearly don’t and have their own ideological trees to climb) is that we are not effectively at war in Iraq any longer.  We are the police in a civil war that is going to play itself out, like nearly every other civil war in history.

The audio is real low.  I would re-encode this myself but time is limited.  Turn your audio (way) up.  Remember this before Dubya’s big talk tomorrow.

Chris Mullick of the Tri-City Herald posted up on his Olympia Dispatch today with some really great news about Washington’s 16th District Representative Maureen Walsh. (sorry for the fair use abuse Chris but a point needs to be made here and not at your expense) 

There can’t be too many legislators more eager to turn the page on 2006 than Rep. Maureen Walsh.

Most notably, the College Place Republican lost her husband Kelly, who suffered a heart attack in April.

But Walsh is clear that things weren’t so swell in her public life, either. Like so many before her, she found being an outspoken moderate in her caucus to be no walk in the park.

Walsh last year openly criticized Republican attacks on her friend and seatmate, Democratic Walla Walla Rep. Bill Grant. Those attacks began with phony sex offender notifications mailed to constituents in his district during session and later featured false and misleading claims in TV ads during his re-election campaign.

It turns out her criticism may have helped her lose one committee assignment and gain another. When House Republicans doled out assignments last month, Walsh found she was no longer their ranking member on the Children and Family Services Committee.

“It was rather disappointing to see that,” Walsh said.

But she won’t go without. In a rare move, House Democrats named her vice-chairwoman of the Early Learning and Children’s Services Committee.

Some in her party advised her not to accept the position.

That’s right!  She won’t go without.  The Democrats with a vast majority understand that bi-partisanship is in the best interest of the state.  When Richard Debolt took the debate to a new low with the phony and politically charged “sex offender notifications”, he effectively shut out republicans who supported that move from potential leadership positions in the heavily democratic dominated legislature.  But if you read The Columbian’s latest editorial, you would almost think that her appointment to the Early Learning and Children’s Services Committee was a partisan move simply because she was a moderate Republican.

Of course it would be naive to give the Democrats too much credit for this kissy face action. There might well be ulterior motives, such as seeking to entice Campbell and Walsh to change parties, or at least to vote more often with Democrats.

This is just one example of bipartisanship in the Legislature, where such cooperation is often discouraged on major bills by party leaders.

Wouldn’t it be great if Republicans and Democrats in Olympia routinely voted for each other’s positions on major bills and amendments and didn’t propose legislation for the unstated but actual purpose of painting the other party into a corner?

Of course!!! But wouldn’t it also be naive to not believe “Republicans in Olympia” (think about why I put that in quotes) have painted themselves into a corner with the actions of Debolt’s stunt regarding sex offenders?  Or perhaps that the overwhelming majority Democrats hold is because of… you know, that voting thing?

As we saw with the “sex offenders notification” debacle, not all Republicans felt it was a productive move in light that there was real business to take care of in this state.  You might remember this from our 8th LD Rep. Larry Haler…

“I’m appalled at it,” he said. “I came over here to build bridges and this burns those bridges. It makes me want to throw up. My constituents didn’t send me over here to do this.”

Haler, who said he apologized to at least three Democratic colleagues Tuesday, said DeBolt “has no room for deniability.”     

Wow… lets see, Republicans want to work with Democrats and Democrats want to work with Republicans?  Next thing you know, Dogs and Cats will be living together!!!!  

I’ll expand with that I would like to see Shirley Hankins and Larry Haler in some leadership positions.  If Republicans want to have a voice in these times, it starts with level headed folks like these.  And when you are in the minority, one would think it would be best to work across the isle to be sure your district was represented the way you believe it should be. And not try to inject false debate, fear and ideology when voters have already shown you the way.

So to the The Columbian, if you ask me, it is folks like Debolt, and the Washington State Republicans who have painted themselves in a corner.  But Maureen Walsh isn’t painting floors. 

And I took a wrong turn and had to climb out of it… uhhhg.

I dunno, but I like his Seahawks prediction…

If you want to watch the “real” predictions click here. 

One of the more controversial posts ever on this blog was regarding the double murder of Larry and Jo Ulrich and the subsequent conviction of Kevin Hilton.  I picked up on this via the Tri-City Herald’s online forum where I noticed a heated discussion regarding the case and the appeal to over turn his conviction.  The Herald, wishing to avoid such controversy on their site squashed the discussion so I led it here.  Some 300 plus comments ensued in that posts thread and I gotta tell ya, it was interesting.  This case has all the makings of a courtroom TV mystery/drama.  Some believe the case is cut and dried and that Hilton is guilty of the murders, while others insist on his innocence and that the evidence that led to his conviction was faulty or a plant.  Me?  I’m not so sure either way.  Some of the evidence seems damming and some suspicious.  Whatever your opinion on this case is, we are going to be hearing more in the very near future.  But the crux of Hilton’s conviction, shell casing found at the scene, has now been officially thrown out, the conviction is overturned, and a re-trial is almost certainly forthcoming.

The high court posted its decision Thursday, a day after a group of justices considered 20 petitions for review, including Benton County Prosecutor Andy Miller’s in the Hilton case. Only four petitions were granted by the group.

That means Hilton, 49, will be transferred shortly to the Benton County jail from the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla, where he’s been serving a life sentence for the murders of Josephine and Larry Ulrich.

The denial by the Supreme Court came almost a year after the state Court of Appeals granted a new trial, ruling that search warrants for Hilton’s home were invalid because they were too vague.

Supporters of Hilton are vocal.  A blog chronicling the Hilton conviction was developed awhile back by Hilton supporters and offers their case.  I had earlier, and continue to host the appellant brief and a bit of media on this case since I first became interested.  In the interest of fairness, I plan to add other documents of the prosecution to the listing as soon as I get them.

As this case develops, I will write more.  But as a matter of commentary here I will say that I truly hope a re-trial does not happen in Benton County.  Enough old wounds are going to further be opened, and enough emotions to boot.  Something that rarely harbors the whole truth are emotions, and a process such as this I would hope would be removed from that as much as possible.  Hilton, with his appeal, won a new trial.  And it should be a fair one.

Update:  I’ve closed comments on this thread.  They were getting a bit unproductive. 

Last November, Doc Hastings issued some news citing Nancy Pelosi and Jim McDermott being proponents for dam removal in the Northwest.  Specifically this issue likely targets the lower snake.  As many of you know, I don’t support removal of the dams in their lifespan.  While some have said the dams can last for ever, I have always thought that at some time they will out last their usefulness.  But Doc owns this issue.  My question to readers is this… Why?  More to the point, why do democrats allow Hastings to own this issue. 

The question of dams and salmon is undeniable.  Dams aren’t helping.  Yet organizations like Save our Wild Salmon, and democrats across the west evangelize this issue and fuel the fire that burns them every time a would be advocate for a real solution runs in Washington’s 4th or 5th Congressional districts.  You know… a democrat. 

I’ve said it before, changing our energy policy could someday make these dams obsolete.  And breaching dams is more about the replacing the lost energy and transportation.  Environmental impacts could be very serious.  There has to be a thoughtful balance.  Something I don’t believe Hastings, despite his rhetoric, really understands.  After all, if our energy policy and thus our sources for energy changes, letting the dams go wouldn’t be such a big deal for folks in this area.  As long as it was done right.

I know this is a tired old issue around here but the us vs. them mentality eventually has to give.  What do you think?  Better yet, what can we do to take this issue away from dolts like Hastings?