NPI releases thirteenth podcast

We've released our thirteenth podcast - the third in a special series of Priorities podcasts focusing on important issues in the statehouse and beyond.

This episode, a conversation with Gael Tarleton, continues our coverage of the Port of Seattle. Gael is running against incumbent Bob Edwards for Port Commissioner on a platform of change - accountability, transparency, and a clear direction. In the interview, she talks about her background, critiques the Port's problems, and explains her vision for its future.

Gael is a rising progressive star. She's incredibly knowledgeable, experienced, and talented. She has worked at the Pentagon, in the private sector, and currently at the University of Washington.

If you have comments or suggestions for the podcast, or ideas for future episodes, send us a note.

If you want to subscribe to our Media RSS feed to be notified immediately when new podcasts are released, follow this link.



If you are an iTunes user and want to subscribe to our podcast in iTunes, click the button above to do so directly.

Transit oriented development in Portland

Since Portland built their downtown streetcar, over two billion dollars' worth of walkable development has come to the area it serves. I visited the city this weekend (using, of course, Amtrak Cascades) and took photographs of the industrial-to-residential conversions, parks, and overall new pedestrian use that good urban planning brought to Portland's Pearl District. Here's a taste of what we'll likely see in Seattle in the next couple of decades - spurred by our South Lake Union streetcar and Sound Transit's Link system:

Congratulations, Rep. Mom

It's okay to be a mom in Congress:

U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers became the first member of Congress in more than a decade to give birth when her son was born a month early, her office said Monday.

Cole McMorris Rodgers was born at 3:14 a.m. on Sunday at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, according to the office of the Republican from Washington.

The boy was due on May 29, her office said. He weighed 5 pounds, 9 ounces and is in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit to address minor complications, her office said in a press release.

The former Cathy McMorris, 37, married Brian Rodgers last year. This is her first child.

Naturally, while we tend to disagree with McMorris on policy positions, we are heartened that nobody in her party seems to be attacking her decision to have a child and be a member of Congress.

Because that would be wrong. Moms count too.

We're certain that in 2008 the same courtesy will be extended to any Democrat running for Congress who also happens to be a mom.

We're sure incivility is quite dead, and that nobody would ever make crude, sexist slurs about a mom who runs for Congress.

Ban Chinese protein additives now

Goldy had another outstanding post yesterday concerning melamine from China in the food supply. Go check it out if you get the chance.

Imports of these protein additives from China need to be stopped at once. If that disrupts the food supply somewhat, so be it. We can live without frozen pizza and a lot of other overly processed foods for a while.

While many people in the US are worrying about how they could be a hero and pack heat in case a lunatic with a gun ever enters their basement to threaten the Cheetos stash, or that al-Qaeda in Iraq will follow them to the Ozarks, every single day we are importing a potential poison to feed to our pets and children.

And of course, the one time we could actually use some cable-news induced media hysteria to move this topic to the fore, the cable channels are all logical and dispassionate about it. When they mention it. What we need is for melamine to attack some surfers or grope a white woman in a nightclub.

Civility is so sexy

People always need a good laugh on Monday morning, so here's one from C-SPAN 2:

Forum
Civility and American Politics, Part 2
University of Pennsylvania
American Enterprise Institute
Brookings Institution
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 197868 - 2 - 04/30/2007 - 1:15 - No Sale


Boehner, John A. U.S. Representative, R-OH
Gutmann, Amy President, University of Pennsylvania
Lieberman, Joseph U.S. Senator, I, Connecticut

House Minority Leader Boehner and Senator Lieberman talked about options for restoring civility to American politics. They responded to questions from members of the audience.

This panel, "Fundamental Questions on Civility and American Politics," of the Civility and American Politics program was held in the Hart Senate Office Building, Room 902.

Because the dirty hippies won't be nice about death, destruction, corruption and lies, official Washington must have these forums. Anyone who disagrees with Holy Joe and John is being uncivil, and must have their motives examined.

But to quote St. Rudy, if you vote for terrorists Democrats will win. Or something.

Next on C-SPAN, we took our camera to the alleged D.C. madam's bordello for a look at the coin operated beds, which also double as vote counting machines. The Speaker will lock the voting machines, the Speaker is locking the vote counting machines....oh baby oh baby give me some more civility, right there baby! Joe! John! Oh! I - LOVE -- civility! Yeaaaaaaa!

MORE--Think Progress has some fun quotes:

Lieberman:

Critics of Bush’s Iraq war strategy are engaging “in a kind of harassment.” [4/12/07]

Ned Lamont’s primary win “will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.” [8/10/06]

Boehner:

[The war critics’ plan] provides a road map for terrorists. … It is a danger to both our troops engaged in combat and to the long-term security interests of American families. [3/22/07]

Unfortunately, the Democrats latest plan is an old twist on an old adage: failure at any cost. … Democrats are using the critical troop funding bill to micromanage the war on terror — undermining our generals on the ground and slowly choking off resources for our troops. [3/8/07]

People who oppose escalation are taking the “bait” of “al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers” by using Iraq to “divide us here at home.” [2/13/07]

Give it to me, baby (uh uh uh uh.) Pretty fly, Joe.

These guys ought to take the WASL

The Seattle P-I has an Associated Press article about the Washington Assessment of Student Learning this morning in which several "standards" proponents are quoted as being critical of legislation that allows alternatives and delays use of the math and science portions of test as a graduation requirement until 2013.

Representative Glenn Anderson, R-Fall City: "It took us 14 years to get to this point and then it blew up at the end...It was a cut-and-paste job over political fear."

Marc Frazier, Vice President of the Washington Roundtable (a business group): "The question is: Do we have state standards or not?

Steve Maggi of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation: "said he was happy with the Legislature's plan to take another look at math standards, but he doesn't think lawmakers should 'raise the white flag' over graduation exams."

Here's my rhetorical question: Have any of these guys ever taken the WASL themselves? (The answer: of course not). I don't think they really understand how the WASL affects teachers, students, and course curriculum.

Unlike most Washingtonians, I have taken the WASL. And not just once, but several times - in fourth, seventh, and tenth grades. I also seem to recall that our eighth grade class took the science portion in eighth grade (it didn't count, but we were participating in a pilot rollout of that section).

I myself didn't find the WASL to be very difficult - I easily passed all the tests, and I remember that my 10th grade writing score was perfect. I received congratulatory letters from Governor Locke. But my experience has been the exception, not the rule. The WASL was stressful and nerve wracking for many of my peers.

Even those of us who did well didn't enjoy it. It felt like a distraction - and it was. We're talking about hours upon hours of staring at gray paper booklets and marking them up with pencils, then sitting quietly and waiting for everyone else to finish. And if on a test day you were sick and couldn't come to school, you'd likely end up missing class to make it up later.

School administrators across the state have reallocated resources to help students prepare for the WASL, and valuable programs - arts, humanities, music, career preparedness - have suffered. Some elementary schools have cut back recess.

I remember spending entire class periods in my tenth grade honors courses in the months before, just talking about the WASL and the phase in of the district's own standards assessments (such as the Culminating Project). We had all kinds of questions and our teachers tried to answer them as best they could.

So on many days, we'd come into class, and instead of actually strengthening our reading comprehension skills or sharpening our mathematics faculty, we were learning about the WASL.

I firmly believe that legislators and the WASL's proponents (chiefly business leaders) should take the tenth grade test themselves so they know what it's like. They should be brought into an actual classroom in an actual high school and be given each portion to complete, day after day. They need to get a taste for the WASL and the testing environment.

It would certainly be interesting to see how many of them could manage to earn a passing score on every single section.

I personally don't believe the WASL is a very good assessment of a student's readiness for his or her future life and career - and NPI believes it should not be a graduation requirement because one test is a poor method of judging a child's entire academic history. (We also oppose its use to make decisions about grade retention or program options).

The WASL was originally implemented under the guise of reform, but it has created a significant number of new problems. It hasn't helped that the Legislature has been underfunding education in recent bienniums (although progress was certainly made in the 2007 session). The state needs to develop a better system for measuring what students have learned. Relying on a high stakes test is a mistake.

Tim Eyman's Initiative 960 is the latest incarnation of a right wing money triangle

We're just past the halfway point in the 2007 initiative season, which runs from almost the beginning of the new year to Independence Day in early July. And as usual, Tim Eyman and his cohorts are working to qualify yet another right wing initiative to the ballot. (More on why they're still in business in a bit).

After tax cuts and legalization of discrimination fizzled last year, Tim has chosen to revive his failed 2003 initiative with a few additional twists.

Initiative 960, Tim's 2007 vehicle, undermines the very concept of representative democracy by requiring two thirds supermajority votes in each house of the Legislature to raise taxes or fees.

Republicans have been losing seats in the statehouse over the last few cycles, and since they're having a difficult time getting elected, Tim hopes to empower them to control budgeting decisions with this initiative.

(It's kind of funny how that "respect the will of the voters" thing works).

What I-960 does is allow a minority to veto important fiscal decisions and block the state from raising needed revenue to pay for public services the people want. It turns the whole idea of a republic upside down.

Just imagine living in a small town with one hundred residents which operates under democratic principles. One day, someone proposes changing the rules to require that at least 66 of the 100 residents be in agreement before any additional funds for the town treasury could be collected.

Under that scenario, even if 65 residents out of the hundred wanted to give the town government more money, they could be told "no" by a minority.

That's not democracy. But that's Initiative 960 in a nutshell.

There is an excellent possibility that I-960 won't pass constitutional muster, but there's no reason to wait and hope that a court will invalidate it if it passes. I-960 is an unwelcome idea that we don't need.

Responding to a public outcry, the Legislature just weeks ago approved a constitutional amendment which removes the unfair supermajority requirement for school levies. That amendment ironically required a supermajority to pass out of the statehouse. It's now going before the voters.

Eyman wants to make every decision to raise revenue just as difficult. He seems to have nothing but contempt for elected leaders and the legislative process. He isn't getting his way, so he's trying to change the rules.

But I-960 hasn't attracted much support. Without huge cash infusions from Eyman's chief backer, Woodinville multimillionaire Michael Dunmire, the I-960 campaign would have run aground and collapsed already.

An analysis of Eyman's public disclosure reports shows Dunmire has directly provided about 71% of the funds to I-960 so far. The following chart illustrates where all of this year's financial donations are coming from.



But this 71% figure is actually misleading, because Eyman has transferred money from previous campaigns to his I-960 effort as in-kind donations.

At least one of those transfers includes significant chunks of Dunmire money as well. The pale blue slice above represents a transfer from Eyman's SaveOur30Tabs committee at the beginning of the year to Voters Want More Choices, the vehicle for I-960. (The red slice is a transfer from Help Us Help Taxpayers).

The actual percentage totaling Dunmire's donations, if you add in this indirect financial support, is somewhere in the mid-eighties - possibly about 85%.

Three donors have contributed a total of $3,250 to the campaign. One of them, John Lashley, doesn't even live in Washington State. The others are the Northwest Healthcare Alliance, a traditional Eyman supporter, and Thomas Schulstad.

Only 11% (about $37,500 in total) of the contributions to I-960 are amounts less than $1,000. (And, as some of those contributions are from repeat donors, the number of actual contributors is even smaller).

These lopsided figures clearly demonstrate that without Dunmire, Eyman's nothing. A whopping 89% of all his incoming funds through March 2007 are either transfers from his other accounts or huge checks from his sugar daddy. Of course, almost none of Eyman's previous campaigns have been grassroots either.

Now, here's a chart showing Eyman's expenditures. As with the previous visual, the numbers here do not reflect April 2007 data because it isn't available yet.



There's also a dominant feature in the expenditures. The biggest by far is the $267,000 Eyman has turned over to Citizen Solutions of Lacey, WA, run by his friend Roy Ruffino, to pay for signature gathering.

Eyman has been dispensing money to Ruffino every few weeks since early January (when the first payment was made). He has also spent money on printing, including almost $16,500 for what appears to be advertising in Fishing & Hunting News.

(Other printing expenses have been for petitions and repeated mailings to supporters. Printing vendors include L&I Printing and Puget Sound Envelope. Data Resources was compensated for mailing costs).

Eyman and the Fagans have also reimbursed themselves for nearly $5,000, including over $3,000 for travel expenses (what for, we're not sure - it seems like an awful lot of money for a few trips to Olympia, for instance).

Eyman also compensated the firm of Groen Stephens & Klinge LLP for legal assistance. (Groen, you might recall, ran for State Supreme Court last year against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander with support from the BIAW).

Looking at this data, we can clearly see a right wing money triangle - with Michael Dunmire at one vertex, Tim Eyman at the second, and Roy Ruffino at the third. The triangle works very simply: during a campaign Dunmire writes big checks to Eyman, who turns around and dispenses most of the money to Ruffino's Citizen Solutions, which then pays petitioners to collect signatures for Tim's initiatives.

After the drive is completed, Dunmire then writes another hefty check or two to Eyman's compensation fund. The money is then split between Eyman and the Fagans, who each pocket tens of thousands of dollars as salary.

That is why Eyman's initiative factory is still in business despite so many failures. Every year, Eyman pulls a stale right wing scheme off the shelf (for example, tax cuts or spending limits), dusts it off, and runs with it. I-960 is just the latest incarnation of this right wing money triangle.

As of the last filings, Eyman's committee has only $13,832 cash on hand. Almost all of the contributions collected so far (a total of over $352,000) have gone out the door as expenditures. As long as Michael Dunmire is willing to write another check or two, Eyman should be able to buy his way onto the ballot this year.

But if for some reason Dumire were to cut off support (which we think is unlikely), I-960 would likely flounder and then die.

You can help us track Eyman's petition drive by reporting any right wing signature gathering activity you observe to Permanent Defense. We will also continue to closely monitor the reports filed by Eyman & Co. with the PDC, and when the April numbers are available, we'll bring you another update.

WSDOT chief to resign

Christine Gregoire's office has just announced that Department of Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald informed the Governor he will be resigning in late July. He says he "plans to live in Seattle and pursue new opportunities in the environmental and transportation fields" but did not elaborate further.

MacDonald has led WSDOT - which primarily oversees highway construction, roads maintenance, and operates the ferry system - for six years.

The Governor thanked MacDonald for his leadership and extended her best wishes.

"Secretary MacDonald has led WSDOT with energy and enthusiasm. The many successful projects and positive results from WSDOT during his time as secretary speak to his ability as a leader and his commitment to service. I am grateful for his service and wish him luck on the next chapter in his life."

The Governor has not yet chosen a successor, but she will likely make an announcement this summer as MacDonald prepares to leave.

Pipe dreams

The P-I's Joel Connelly gives state Republicans a lot of free advice. For example:

A final suggestion: It's time for state Republicans to move away from property-rights extremism, and back toward the party's historical, sensible commitment to conservation.

Look around: Theodore Roosevelt created the first Olympic National Monument. Dan Evans championed the North Cascades National Park and Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Rep. Joel Pritchard led the fight in Congress against environmentally harmful pork-barrel projects. Rep. Sid Morrison put it on the line for the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. Sen. Slade Gorton secured dollars for the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway.

Connelly's columns is a plea for reason from the state GOP. Connelly offers some criticism of Democrats in Olympia, which I suppose is fair enough - nobody is perfect - but Rome wasn't built in a day, and projects like 520 can't be funded overnight.

It seems rather unlikely that - the BIAW, the key right wing player on the issue of land use - is going to suddenly become reasonable, at least under its present leadership. Their modus operandi is to make scurrilous attacks until they get called on it by the press, regroup and then attack some more. There is no discernible evidence that they would be interested in a new Dan Evans.

There's always some chance that Mainstream Republicans will make strides, but again it seems unlikely. The GOP found success in the black helicopter, anti-government 1990's, and it doesn't seem to recognize that times change. Sure, they applied some "moderate" veneer on Dino Rossi in 2004, and tried the same thing with Mike McGavick in 2006, but 2006 showed that voters weren't buying it.

The Republican base seems to be a mixture of theocracy-seeking evangelicals, alleged libertarian types, and anti-tax greed heads, the sort who just complain about taxes nonstop and see no value in public services or the commons.

The Republican Party isn't about to reform itself. More likely, it's in danger of becoming a permanent minority both here and nationally, as its contradictory parts clash and fail to come up with any practical proposals.

Social Security? Hand it over to Wall Street. Health care? Hand it over to Big Pharma. Roads? Build new lanes with the little money left after tax cuts. Schools? Give us vouchers for private education. Public money for theocratic teachings!

How about the environment? Food safety? Have some pork for dinner tonight if you'd like to risk experiencing firsthand the Republican approach to governance. The market should have protected you, and if it didn't, you're a moron for having dinner.

The ideology that has gripped the GOP for the last thirty years or so is that government is bad... and we must break it, no matter the consequences. We used to think they wanted to repeal the New Deal, but it became obvious they had it in for common sense and science as well. Can you say "Kansas Board of Education?" How's that intelligent design movement working out for you in Kansas?

The right wing worldview today could be characterized as an ideology of destruction, as far too many actual human beings have found out in the last seven years.

And then they call us the party of death and shout that we are on the side of terrorists. (If America elect Democrats, America will be attacked!) Then they get bent out of shape if we dare to express our opinions about their poor ideas.

Republicanism, in its current form, is infantilism transferred to politics, as evidenced by their view of an infallible leader, their lack of respect for those who are different and the petty vindictiveness that is a hallmark of the GOP.

And it's not just Rove. Washington state Republicans have an ignominious tradition of spewing bile; from Linda Smith to Ellen Craswell to Chris Vance and Tom McCabe, there is an underlying belief that it's okay to consider the political opposition as one would a wartime enemy, and it far predates 2001.

The destructiveness may be what many people find so objectionable about the current Republican Party. You can have an argument about whether a certain tax is too high or too low, but the Republican Party insisted on making the broad argument that government is illegitimate (except, of course, those portions of government that support industries that support the GOP. I'm talking to you, defense procurement system.) Trillions of dollars wasted on SDI is okay with them; some poor kid getting nutrition through food stamps, eh, not so much. The market will take care of him.

Republicans have invested so much psychic energy in their myths that they have put themselves in a straitjacket. If you're someone who truly believes the media is liberal, that government is out to steal your money and on top of that government can never do anything well, you probably don't have much of value to contribute to public discourse.

Corruption is a hallmark of empowered Republicans. They complain about "waste, fraud, and abuse" but when they are empowered, they make a mess. Which leaves Republicans with nothing much to offer and an awful lot of ex-leaders to bail out of jail.

It's always been fascinating to me how Democrats are expected to perform flawlessly, which I suppose is a measure of understanding that the Democratic Party more closely hews to the needs of the populace and is expected to stand up for regular folks.

I certainly engage in that thinking at times myself. But when Republicans are on their worst behavior, there's something of a sense in the body politic that resembles the question, "What did you expect, they're Republicans?" Odd how that works.

It's an old quote, but sometimes one needs to revisit the old P.J. O'Rourke quip:

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

I'll take taller and richer, even if it is a pipe dream.

"Braindrizzle"

Michelle Malkin is still insane. Can't even get the symbolic symbols right. Too funny.

Mission accomplished

I didn't know Georege Tenet liked basketbtall.

A copy of the book was purchased at retail price in advance of publication by a reporter for The New York Times. Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of "Meet the Press" last September in which Cheney twice referred to Tenet's "slam dunk" remark as the basis for the decision to go to war.

"I remember watching and thinking, 'As if you needed me to say 'slam dunk' to convince you to go to war with Iraq,' " Tenet writes.

No kidding.

State Supreme Court clarifies scope of campaign finance law's "media exemption"

Washington State's highest judicial body unanimously ruled this morning that on air campaigning for Initiative 912 in mid-2005 by Fisher Broadcasting's John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur was covered by the media exemption in the state's Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), overruling a Thurston County Superior Court opinion issued twenty two months ago.

The decision means the broadcasts in question (from Wilbur's morning show and Carlson's now defunct afternoon show in 2005) are not considered contributions under the FCPA. Future broadcasts will assuredly not be subject to limits or reporting requirements unless the law is rewritten.

In 2005, we argued that Wilbur and Carlson (who are no strangers to political activism) had clearly stepped out the realm of simply "discussing issues and recommending action" (editorial commentary) in spearheading a signature drive to qualify an initiative to the ballot, using the public airwaves.

As the Court put it:

Wilbur and Carlson strongly criticized the legislature's enactment of the fuel tax and devoted a substantial portion of their radio broadcasts to supporting the I-912 campaign.

In particular, they encouraged listeners to contribute funds to No New Gas Tax [NNGT], to visit NNGT's web site and offices to obtain petitions, and to circulate and gather signatures on the petitions in order to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

Normally, that kind of communication would be considered a campaign contribution, which has a broad definition in the FCPA:

(i) A loan, gift, deposit, subscription, forgiveness of indebtedness, donation, advance, pledge, payment, transfer of funds between political committees, or anything of value, including personal and professional services for less than full consideration;

(iii) The financing by a person of the dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of broadcast, written, graphic, or other form of political advertising or electioneering communication prepared by a candidate, a political committee, or its authorized agent;

The same statute that spells out the meaning of contribution also outlines a number of exemptions, including the media exemption - the issue in this case.

It's defined as follows:

A news item, feature, commentary, or editorial in a regularly scheduled news medium that is of primary interest to the general public, that is in a news medium controlled by a person whose business is that news medium, and that is not controlled by a candidate or a political committee.

According to the Court, what Carlson and Wilbur did on air is basically irrelevant, because qualification for the media exemption is not based on content, speaker's motivations, intent, sources of information, or connection with a campaign.

It's based on ownership.

The prosecutors argue, and the trial court agreed, that Wilbur's and Carlson's broadcasts supporting the initiative, fall outside the media exemption because the broadcasts constitute "political advertising" rather than "commentary."

[...]

By incorporating the media exemption into the definition of "contribution," the voters plainly intended to protect publications that would otherwise constitute a "contribution" subject to regulation.

In order to give effect to the voters' intent, it is necessary to determine whether the media exemption applies before considering whether the communication at issue otherwise falls within the definition of "contribution."

Thus, the initial inquiry is whether the news medium is controlled by a candidate or political committee and whether it was functioning as a regular news medium with respect to the conduct in question.

The broadcasts qualify for the exemption because the medium (KVI) is owned by Fisher Broadcasting, which controls dozens of television and radio stations in the region. Air time that falls under the media exemption cannot be considered a reportable contribution, the Court said, despite previous Public Disclosure Commission orders and advisories to the contrary.

We reject the PDC's interpretation as contrary to the statutory media exemption. There is no express advocacy or solicitation limitation to the media exemption. Although the term "commentary" is not defined, we believe that it plainly encompasses advocacy for or against an issue, candidate or campaign, whether that involves the solicitation of votes, money, or "other support."

What this ruling means is that individuals who work for news conglomerates or other media organizations may enjoy the protection of the exemption even if they're involved in campaign activity.

Our interest is in seeing that the Fair Campaign Practices Act and other related laws be enforced fairly and equally. While we did read the law differently in 2005, we're appreciative that the Supreme Court has clarified the issue.

Under the proper interpretation of the law, the broadcasts weren't subject to reporting requirements. We stand corrected - and we welcome this ruling.

However, we'll also point out that supporters of Carlson and Wilbur have previously misconstrued what the case is about - and they are doing so again today by claiming they've won a free speech victory. But the issue in the case wasn't the First Amendment, it was interpretation of campaign finance law. The Court itself noted:

Because we hold that the radio broadcasts at issue are not a "contribution" we do not address whether the disclosure requirements of the FCPA are unconstitutional as applied to No New Gas Tax.

Whether, and to what extent, a media exemption is constitutionally required is beyond the scope of this opinion.

There may certainly be a future discussion about whether the media exemption (and perhaps the Fair Campaign Practices Act in general) needs to be fine-tuned or adjusted through legislation.

This is a difficult issue. It's a balancing act between protecting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (i.e. speech, press, assembly) and preventing corrupt practices, including abusive electioneering.

The Court addressed the possibility of reform in a footnote, stating:

At oral argument, the prosecutors argued that without the limiting construction imposed by the PDC, media corporations could become "king makers," providing their favored candidates and ballot measure advocates with unlimited access to the airwaves. But this is an argument more appropriately directed to the legislature.

The media exemption represents a policy choice to accord full protection to the first amendment rights of the press even at the expense of countervailing societal interests that may be served by campaign finance regulations. We note that nothing in our decision today forecloses the legislature, or the people via the initiative process, from limiting the statutory media exemption.

The Court's decision included useful analysis examining the applicability of the media exemption, including references to federal case law such as Federal Elections Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a corporation, group, or union which publishes an "in house publication" is not automatically entitled to the media exemption.

An interesting question not mentioned in the state Court's opinion is whether blogs and online media fall under the press exemption. The FCPA and related federal laws were written before the days of the Internet and widespread citizen journalism. Blogs that are continuously updated would seem to fit the definition of a "regularly scheduled news medium that is of primary interest to the general public".

But the real sticking point, again, is ownership. Blogs or websites owned by candidates and political parties would not fall under the press exemption. But what about online media belonging to citizen activists or groups?

If John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur - who are partisan Republican operatives, not objective journalists - can campaign from a radio station and enjoy the benefits of the media exemption under the law as it exists, then so can every other commentator, including those who publish online.

If we're going to have a media exemption, then it can't just be for traditional media (newspapers, television stations, and radio outlets). It must also apply to individuals and entities operating online media. That actually could help safeguard against the possibility of media corporations playing king maker.

A huge aspect of the Northwest Progressive Institutes's work is communicating directly with the public through the Internet. We offer commentary, editorials, features, and occasionally even breaking news which is definitely of interest. We also campaign for or against ballot measures and candidates, and we lobby to influence the outcome of legislation.

Because our business is using the medium of the Internet to transmit information, we ought to qualify under the media exemption as it has been written and interpreted, as should others. Still, the exemption could be strengthened by adding language that explicitly protects independent bloggers and pioneers of new media.

A number of bloggers have already sought broad legal protection by incorporating to protect themselves - and that trend is likely to continue. (NPI has been registered as a nonprofit corporation since early 2005).

The role of bloggers and online media today is well described by the United States Supreme Court in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: informing and educating the public, offering criticism, and providing a forum for discussion and debate. The highest court in the land used those words to characterize the traditional media, but that's also what we do, and what the blogosphere (including the regional netroots community) does, on a daily basis.

Today's State Supreme Court decision certainly doesn't resolve all the issues or answer all the questions arising from interpretation of campaign finance and disclosure laws. But it does provide valuable guidance to Public Disclosure Commission staff, policymakers, and lower courts throughout Washington.

What does the new interpretation of the media exemption mean for the future?

As Andrew has already noted in a rather lengthy post, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that KVI talk show hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson, who organized and took a leading role in the I-912 campaign, do not have to report any broadcasts as contributions under the public disclosure law.

"The uncontroverted facts establish that the radio station involved here is a regular media entity that is not controlled by a candidate or political committee," (Justice Barbara) Madsen wrote. "The radio station was exercising one of its core media functions in broadcasting Wilbur's and Carlson's talk shows."

That's a rather narrow way to define what KVI does. What, do they have to hang a sign out front that says "K-GOP Radio?"

Because objectivity isn't written into the exemption, and because we do no longer have a Fairness Doctrine, the media exemption covers outlets that promote one political point of view and exclude others.

With the exception of Air America and hosts like Stephanie Miller (Democracy Radio) or Ed Schultz (Jones Radio) the medium is almost completely dominated by conservatives, including a number of of far-right extremists.

A few righties are crowing about "a victory for free speech," but of course, nobody wanted KVI to be silenced - just be honest and follow the law - which as the lower court interpreted it, meant reporting time spent on campaign activity as a contribution. Michael Hood at BlatherWatch put it well:

Our issue was never the talk hosts' right to advocate- it was the unfair advantage they had using the airwaves for non-stop on-air organizing, and logistical planning which clearly seemed to violate election rules.

Way more than mere political discussion or preaching a point of view, it was the nutty-gritty specifics of petition distribution, meet-ups, drops, and other logistical planning; formulation of signature-gathering strategies and tactics with campaign workers and volunteers in real time on the air.

It was hours, days, and weeks of expensive airtime available at no charge to Kirby, John anmd the anti-roads campaign. The opposition could never afford a fraction of the continuous daily political infomercials gifted the campaign by these talk shows. (It was an arguable distinction, one perhaps only of paperwork, but Carlson and Wilbur WERE the campaign, not just citizen/entertainers exercising their blessed 1st amendment rights).

At issue is the power that corporations (like Fisher Broadcasting, which owns KVI) are allowed to exercise using the commons - in this case frequencies licensed to them from the public airwaves.

Their employees used that public resource in a one-sided, relentless campaign to promote one portion of the political spectrum in taking action against another portion of the political spectrum.

Asking for a valuation of the airtime used by Wilbur and Carlson to promote Initiative 912 is hardly an assault on free speech.

Luckily, KVI and its hosts Wilbur and Carlson (basically conservative political campaign organizers with microphones) didn't succeed with Initiative 912, which demonstrates that opponents (including this organization) were able to overcome an early disadvantage in getting an important message out to voters (namely, that tax cuts have consequences!)

It's interesting to ponder - what would conservative reaction be, as Hood alludes in a slightly different context in his post at Blatherwatch, if David Goldstein started using his show as a tool for qualifying progressive ballot measures? He could spend all of his air time soliciting donations, planning meetings, and organizing for victory. He'd never have to report anything. He's covered under the media exemption!

Today's decision severely undercuts the authority of the Public Disclosure Commission, the watchdog that's slowly turning into a paper tiger, which is still reviewing the ruling. Many Republicans have long held an attitude of contempt towards the PDC and disclosure regulations anyhow (ahem, Tim Eyman), as evidenced by the huge sums of untraceable money funneled into Washington by Howie Rich in support of Initiative 933 last year.

The ramifications of this decision are important. Radio hosts are allowed to organize campaigns, so columnists must be too. It's not a stretch to imagine a columnist using space to encourage donations, list meeting times and engage in all the other activity usually associated with political campaigns, and then claim it was "news" or even "journalism", thus avoiding the requirement to report paid advertising.

Last year we saw newspaper publishers abandon any pretense of neutrality in support of a repeal of the estate tax. Why would they now risk making formal donations, when the path to unregulated, unlimited political campaign organizing masked as journalism is so clear?

The Court sidestepped questions about free speech and transparency in elections, but neither issue is going to go away. Citizens have a right to know who is trying to influence their vote.

Those who enjoy freedom of the press have traditionally been those who own a press, and while the Internet is changing that, it's a sad day when the broader public interest in disclosure is trumped in favor of exempting corporate media and allowing overt political campaigning (which is exactly what Carlson and Wilbur did).

The solution to ending right wing dominance and corruption of the traditional media may be to overhaul rules and regulations about media ownership.

The bright side to this decision, which Andrew discusses in his post on the ruling, is that online media and bloggers may end up being protected too.

The United States Constitution does not begin with the words "We the radio hosts". It does say "We the people" - and the Internet is surely the medium of the people if there ever was one.

Republicans for withdrawal of the troops?

Sure...if there's a Democrat in the White House:

Background for the game: More than 13 years ago, one sitting U.S. Senator went to the Senate floor and pleading with President Clinton to bring the troops home from a distant country. This senator made a passionate plea and even cajoled President Clinton by calling the mission “nation building.”

Bonus points awarded: After you guess the Senator and the country mentioned correctly, bonus points will be awarded to the player who can explain how Senator X could be so impassioned and so convinced that our troops needed to come home in 1993, while the same Senator bashes those who advocate bringing our troops home responsibly from Iraq today.

Can you name the Senator who said this in 1993? (Here's a major hint: he's now seeking the GOP nomination for president).

“Mr. President, our mission in ________ is over. It is time to come home. Our mission in ________ was to feed a million starving _______ who needed to be fed. It was not an open-ended commitment. It was not a commission of nation building, not warlord hunting, or any of the other extraneous activities which we seem to have been engaged in.”

“If the President of the United States cannot say, "Here is what we are fighting for in ________, that more Americans may perish in service to the goals, and here is why it is worth that price," then, Mr. President, we have no right -- no right -- to ask Americans to risk their lives in any further misadventures in ________.”

See the answer in these two video clips. Props to Americans Against Escalation in Iraq for putting together the research, and the Democratic Party for the videos.

Lessons to learn from "Buying the War"

In response to last night's Bill Moyers' epsisode "Buying the War, CBS's Mark Knoller says Moyers "got it wrong" concerning the questioning that occured at a March, 2003 press conference shortly before the invasion of Iraq. In one instance Knoller defends a fellow CBS reporter:

My colleague Bill Plante challenged Mr. Bush to present hard evidence to back up his claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

I guess maybe Knoller couldn't know Atrios would post the questions asked from a White House transcript of that press conference. For example:

Bill Plante.

Q Mr. President, to a lot of people, it seems that war is probably inevitable, because many people doubt -- most people, I would guess -- that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is disarm. And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half, by polling standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us.

I'm not exactly sure I would call that a "challenge." There's a question in there somewhere, I suppose, but notice how it is almost expressing a fealty to the administration in its very formulation? There may be poor, misguided people out there (the dirty hippies!) so we better tell them what is what.

If you watched the Moyers episode, his actual point was that press conferences were scripted and the press just played along, raising their hands like actors in a play when they knew there was an approved list of who would be called upon. It was a pathetic performance, probably the lowest point for American journalism since 1898.

It's important to understand Moyers' conclusion: nothing much has changed. The reporters and pundits who were horribly, horribly wrong by and large do not recognize that fact. The worst offenders, like Judy Miller, wouldn't even talk to Moyers. The Beltway pundits and reporters, as a "Gang of 500," live in a different America and frankly the worst offenders have no business still being on the air or printed after making such egregious errors in judgement and fact. It's called professionalism. Regular people get canned when they screw up badly; Beltway pundits seem to get book deals.

The bright spot was the performance of Knight-Ridder reporters who went around official sources and talked to the intelligence officers and others who were actually doing the work on weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda. Moyers suggests that it's not a coincidence that being "outside the Beltway bubble" actually helped Knight-Ridder, although it's small consolation seeing that the reporters who got the story right didn't exactly get much play in the run-up to war. (One might note that McClatchy, which has done great work on Purge-gate, purchased Knight-Ridder and is also the minority owner of The Seattle Times.)

Is there a lesson for regional and local outlets? Probably the same lesson that all Americans should learn: be suspicious of what comes out of AP, New York Times and Washington Post wire services, and contrast it with foreign and other domestic services. Many, many newspapers and local television stations passed on the wrong information to the American public, and they need to understand how that happened and work to avoid doing it again. Lives literally depend on it, and being local outlets does not absolve them from responsibility for the content they carry.

It is now obvious to anyone who cares to look that propaganda and misinformation were used in a blatant manner against the American public, and that far too often media outlets were either dupes or willing participants. It might be asking a lot to request a local newspaper or television station be aware of faulty information in wire service reports, but they will do the public a great service if they pay greater attention to possible errors and propaganda. And really, when it comes to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, anyone who was paying attention at all had to have serious questions about the veracity of administration claims.

If you missed "Buying the War," you can view it on-line at PBS.

Senator Cantwell: Alberto Gonzales Must Go

Senator Maria Cantwell, who in 2005 voted against the confirmation of Alberto "I Can't Recall" Gonazales, is sick of the stonewalling and the nonsense.

"I am convinced that Gonzales has not carried out his duties as attorney general with a blind eye and a balanced hand," Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "He has served as the president's lawyer, not our nation's. Because of this, Alberto Gonzales must resign, and the president must accept his resignation immediately."

Gonzales is so weak that even a few Republicans are calling for his ouster (and, of course, taking an opportunity to distance themselves from the unpopular Bush administration). Gonzales is being hit daily with an unrelenting torrent of political flak and has become a huge liability for the White House.

Senator Cantwell has been suspicious of Gonazales since even before Dubya nominated him to succeed John "Sing Along" Ashcroft as Attorney General.

"I raised concerns about Gonzales when he was first nominated to this position, and nothing I have seen since then has convinced me that my fears were unjustified," she said.

"From supporting warrantless wiretapping, making decisions about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or firing U.S. attorneys, time and again Gonzales has shown he is more committed to the pursuit of a political agenda than the rule of law."

Cantwell added: "In reviewing both Gonzales' record as our attorney general and in reviewing his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have found evidence that he has routinely served political and ideological objectives, rather than the best interests of the nation."

Unfortunately, that's typical of Bush cronies - their allegiance is to party (GOP) and boss (Bush, Cheney, & Rove) over country. In fact, it's the kind of behavior that's expected of them. Loyalty is prized first and foremost.

And sometimes, loyalty means falling on your sword.

When illegal, unprofessional, or unethical actions are exposed, Bush cronies are supposed to take one for the team. The sharing of information with Congress and the American people is discouraged. This leads to embarrassing media spectacles, (remember "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation"?), public outrage, and sometimes resignations (i.e. Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld).

Gonzales is already a huge problem for Bush. He's toast. The only question that remains about his departure is when - not if.

House says start bringing the troops home

The people are tired of the failed occupation of Iraq and the people's House is acting on their behalf:

A sharply divided House brushed aside a veto threat Wednesday and passed legislation that would order President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by Oct. 1.

The 218-208 vote came as the top U.S. commander in Iraq told lawmakers the country remained gripped by violence but was showing some signs of improvement.

Passage puts the bill on track to clear Congress by week's end and arrive on the president's desk in coming days as the first binding congressional challenge to Bush's handling of the conflict now in its fifth year.

"Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Republicans promised to stand squarely behind the president in rejecting what they called a "surrender date" handed to the enemy.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The GOP mouthpieces can keep repeating the same old thing, but it's not 2003 any more.

This is a Republican failure, and unless the powers in that party recognize that failure, they will continue to lose credibility and power.

Memo to Ken Schram: Please stop buying into myths about vehicle fees

For someone who says he's "no fan of Tim Eyman", Ken Schram has apparently been reading too many of the initiative salesman’s emails.

In a column about what he called "life'’s oddities" (which ran in the Reporter Newspapers last Saturday), Ken complained about the Legislature's move to allow cities and counties to levy a $20 a year vehicle fee to pay for road projects.

He wrote: "Not once; not twice, but three times voters have said they wanted $30 tabs." That's not true.

Ken is entitled to his own opinion; he isn’t entitled to his own facts.

Tim Eyman has only qualified two statewide initiatives to slash car tabs: I-695 in 1999, and I-776 in 2002. While each passed statewide (with many citizens unaware of the consequences) both failed in King County, among other jurisdictions.

A third Eyman initiative aimed at repealing fees, Initiative 917, did not qualify for the ballot last year despite support from multimillionaire Michael Dunmire.

The Tri-City Herald emphasized an important point in a recent editorial - that vehicle fees have never actually been $30 because of small service and filing expenses which add $3.75 to the total cost of renewing a car or truck's registration. The weight assessment added as part of the 2005 Transportation Package has added between $10 and $20.

And recent data indicates that the electorate doesn't mind paying reasonable vehicle fees. A poll of 800 registered voters, conducted this month, suggests that voters up and down the Sound are willing to increase the car license tab as part of a $16.5 billion Roads & Transit package. Over 60% of the respondents said they would support such an increase.

These facts undermine the whole premise of Ken's rant about the new law. What's wrong with allowing municipalities to use car tabs as a way to pay for infrastructure improvements? Nothing.

Public services cost money. Besides transportation, our taxes also fund police and fire protection, schools and libraries for learning, and parks and pools for recreation. We can’t have these things if we refuse to pay for them.

As for the Legislature and officials at the municipal level who may soon have the power to increase vehicle fees - if we don't like the decisions our elected leaders make, we can vote them out. That's what representative democracy is all about.

Here comes the Congressional oversight

The Bush administration can run, but it can't hide:

In rapid succession, congressional committees today ramped up their investigations of the Bush administration by approving a subpoena for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and granting immunity to a former key aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

[...]

The House oversight committee also issued subpoenas for the Republican National Committee for testimony and documents about White House e-mails on RNC accounts that have apparently gone missing, in violation of the law.

Were the previous Republican rubber stamp Congress still in power, we wouldn't be seeing any of this. Now that Democrats have control of both chambers, there can be accountability and a check on executive power.

As for Gonzales, he's been politely told to refresh his memory by next week by Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter:

We believe the Committee and our investigation would benefit from you searching and refreshing your recollection and your supplementing your testimony by next Friday to provide the answers to the questions you could not recall last Thursday.

Read the whole letter here. All we have to add is: it's about time.

This just in

Michelle Malkin is insane.

But you knew that.

"Buying the War" tonight on PBS

Bill Moyers examines the run-up to war and the media's role in "Buying the War," tonight at 9 pm on PBS. You can easily double check air times in your area or look for repeats of the program if you wish.

FDA finally crawls into action

As Goldy notes in his own inimitable way, the FDA has crawled into action concering possible contamination of human food with the chemical melamine. From Sun-Sentinel.com:

The government will begin a sweeping search of the country's food supply for the industrial chemical linked to the pet food scare, federal health officials announced yesterday.

By the end of the week, inspectors will start testing for melamine in corn meal, rice bran and other protein products commonly used in bread, cereal and pasta eaten by humans.

The expanded investigation comes as testing found the chemical in animals close to the human food supply - hogs at farms in California, North Carolina and South Carolina. Chickens in Missouri might have eaten it too.

Food and Drug Administration officials emphasized that there is no evidence so far that melamine has entered the human food chain, but they said they were ramping up monitoring as a precaution.

This has been a dismal performance by the FDA. Frankly, I don't understand why we would even be allowing food imports from China to continue at this point. Other countries immediately banned US beef during the BSE scare a few years ago, and that certainly didn't involve the possible intentional contamination of food.

Well, I probably do understand why we won't stop Chinese food imports. They have us over a financial barrel, that's why.

Heckuva job, Georgie.

Giuliani insults everyone's intelligence

So Rudy Giuliani made some asinine comments in which he trots out the old Bushie canard about how if Americans don't vote for Republicans, terrible things will happen. (Don't forget, Giuliani is a "moderate.")

Let's follow the logic the Bushie GOP uses. Something bad happened when a Republican was in the White House, and it was Bill Clinton's fault. Bad things are still happening and there is still a Republican in the White House, and it's Harry Reid's fault. And if Barak Obama or John Edwards are in the White House and something bad happens, Giuliani would have stopped it, even though the event is in the future and may or may not happen.

Seriously, our country can't afford much more of this kind of intellectual dishonesty. The Bushies have darn near wrecked the Army, they certainly made a hash out of Iraq, which cost us the fruits of a brilliant initial effort in Afghanistan, our allies are suspicious of us, corporate contractors have robbed us blind, yet Democrats are the threat to national security?

Okay then.

Maybe Giuliani secretly would prefer to return to the motivational speaking circuit, where he can hang out with his pal Zig Ziglar and fire up the middle management suck-ups forced to attend these life changing seminars.

This is a serious time in our history. Someone who would trot out these ridiculous attempted smears is unfit to serve in the White House. Giuliani is not interested in a stronger, united America, but has instead decided to use the Bushie tactics of division and insult. So who is actually rewarding the terrorists, Rudy?

It shows just how badly off the GOP is when one of their leading contenders has to start Swift Boating a year and a half before the election. Pathetic.

New information in Vancouver arson

Some readers may recall an arson fire last December in east Vancouver that involved the spray-painting of racial epithets. The public never did find out all that much about it, and it never was clear if it was an actual hate crime or if someone might have been attempting to conceal the real motive.

The public still doesn't know an awful lot, but since federal agents have arrested the brother of the restaurant owner it seems likely that something other than a random hate attack happened.

Federal agents took Ibrahim Jouzin, 30, into custody in Portland on Tuesday on a count of arson and for aiding and abetting arson, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle announced. He’s scheduled to appear in federal court in Portland Wednesday afternoon.

Jouzin, an Israeli, is the brother of Jimi Jouzine, whose restaurant, the Galilee Cafe in Fisher’s Landing, was destroyed by fire in the early hours of Dec. 5. After sprinklers doused the blaze, firefighters found the letters “KKK” painted throughout the kitchen and two murals in the dining room also defaced, one saying “Die Arab scum” and the other “Go to hell.” Two men were arrested nearby shortly after the fire broke out.

The article goes on to say that relationship between the brother and the two men arrested immediately after the fire broke out is not clear from court records.

It's been a strange case from the beginning.

Burner one of top three DFA All Stars

(Moved up - Andrew)

Darcy Burner is one of the top three Democracy for America All Stars and thus remains in the running to receive the first DFA endorsement this cycle.

This month, Democracy for America is hosting an online vote to determine which Congressional candidate will receive the first endorsement of the 2008 cycle. These candidates ran in 2006 and lost in close races. They're now determined to win a rematch, so we need to support these candidates early to build towards an even larger Democratic majority in 2008.

Please head on over and support Darcy. She's currently in the lead - and with your help, we can keep her there!

Performance artist Daisey speaks to vandal

Brendan Kiley at Slog catches another post from performance artist Mike Daisey, whose work was vandalized by people claiming to be a Christian group. Turns out they were actually from a public high school in Norco, CA., according to Daisey.

He called them and wound up talking to the guy who poured water all over his notes, and it' well worth reading, but near the end a passage Daisey writes is very moving:

And then I forgive him. He is very quiet--he is obviously shocked. And I tell him, "I want you to remember that a liberal athiest has forgiven you today. I don't want you to ever forget that, as long as you live, do not forget what happened here. I don't have God behind me, but I speak for myself, and I forgive you for myself, and for you. Never forget this."

It may seem a small episode during this difficult time in our history, but by trying to speak to the people who felt they could simply destroy his work, Daisey took a stand, and he handled the episode with aplomb and curiosity. Good for him.

Always spying on you

Via Huffington Post comes a Business Week article which suggests Wal-Mart is creating its own intelligence apparatus:

Wal-Mart posted ads in March on its own web site and sites for security professionals, including the bulletin of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, for "global threat analysts" with a background in government or military intelligence work.

The jobs were listed with the Analytical Research Center, part of Wal-Mart's Global Security division, which is headed by former senior CIA and FBI senior officer Kenneth Senser. The analytical unit was created over the past year and half, according to published comments by its head, Army Special Operations veteran David Harrison.

And get a load of this:

Harrison told a meeting of security professionals last year that Wal-Mart was learning to defend itself by using the vast information it routinely collects about its employees, shoppers and suppliers.

The only public comment to date on the work of the Analystical Research Center, the speech was reported on by the trade magazine Government Security News. Wal-Mart did not dispute the report when contacted by The Associated Press this week.

How delightful, a modern-day group of Pinkertons working for Wal-Mart. So be sure to save a few bucks and turn your personal information over to Wal-Mart, you'll be glad to know those cheap prices will be used to fund a private CIA, as a representative of Wake Up Wal-Mart described the effort.

Gloomy Gus of the 17th LD GOP

The Columbian has an article about the Legislative session in which the reporter must have asked each member of the Clark County delegation to list their top successes and disappointment. For example, here is what Democratic Sen. Craig Pridemore (D-49th District--Vancouver:)

Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver

Successes: Sponsored a successful climate change bill that sets limits on carbon emissions from power plants. Led preparation of the Senate's 2007-09 state operating budget and negotiations over the $33.4 billion conference committee budget that passed both chambers Sunday.

Disappointment: The willingness of the House to collaborate with Senate on key policy bills, which Pridemore called "abysmal ."

While the House-Senate relationship is going to be a hot topic in the interim, there's something else in the article worth noting.

Here's what was published for Rep. Jim Dunn, R-17th District (eastern Vancouver and Clark County:)

Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver

Successes: None listed.

Disappointments: Growth of the state budget over the past 10 years.

Oy. The guy can't even come up with something positive on his own behalf. The people wanted, and got, basic things like education and criminal justice funded to a better degree. Why does Dunn even bother to go to Oympia each session?

Halberstam killed in auto accident

This is truly awful news.

David Halberstam, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author who chronicled the Washington press corps, the Vietnam War generation and baseball, was killed in a car crash early Monday, a coroner said. He was 73.

Halberstam, a New Yorker, was a passenger in a car that was broadsided by another vehicle near in Menlo Park, San Mateo County Coroner Robert Foucrault said.

Halberstam was a giant of American journalism and American history. From The Best and the Brightest to The Fifties, to name just a couple of his outstanding works, Halberstam helped us understand our world and our country.

His wisdom, insight and humor will be terribly missed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and many, many friends and admirers.

Politicians and generals

As the Peninsula Campaign enters its 145th year, President George W. Bush said he doesn't intend to encourage the direct descendant of Gen. George McClellan, who is still in charge of the Army of the Potomac, to make a change in policy, saying politicians in Washington shouldn't tell generals what to do.

Confederate forces abondoned the fight in 1907 and the area is now largely home to Cracker Barrel restaurants and filling stations, but Bush told reporters today that the campaign is improving conditions. Gasoline prices in that part of Virginia are below the national average, and pecan logs are in plentiful supply.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman says Bush could have another six months to show progress, at which point, "The American people will demand to know why we've been funding an Army in Southeast Virginia for nearly 150 years."

The Associated Press reports that presidential candidate John Edwards got another haircut, this time at FastCuts, but he left a big tip and his house is really, really big.

Blogworthy, April 23, 2007 (Legislative round-up edition)

As Andrew notes below, the Legislature has adjourned, so here are links to some articles from various outlets about the session and the issues addressed.

No gun control, no way, no how. Apparently even a modest measure like closing the gun-show loophole will not happen in the foreseeable future in Washington state.

A line-item veto by any other name. The AP reports (via The Olympian) that Gov. Chris Gregoire may sign all or only part of the bill that delays WASL requirements until 2013.

The Evergreen state leads the way. A harmful fire retardant may be banned in other states, thanks in part to Washington's action to ban it. (From the AP via The Seattle Times.)

When I'm 64. Brad Shannon at The Olympian sums up the domestic partnerships legislation and its likely impact. Interestingly, unmarried seniors over the age of 62 can also now enjoy such things as helping partners with end-of-life issues.

That's what I want. The Columbian lists the projects in Clark County that will be funded by the budget, including over $27 million for Clark College construction and over $24 million for WSU-Vancouver construction. So while Clark County Republican legislators complain about the budget, the young people of Clark County can look forward to the economic security that an education can provide.

It's simple, really. Austin Jenkins at Crosscut predicts the next test for Democrats is getting voters to pass the simple majority for school funding measures. (It's at the end of his fine round-up article.) The constitutional amendment will be on the ballot this fall.

Our House. In case you missed it, you might want to check out David Postman's Saturday post concering frustrations Senate Democrats have with Democrats in the House.

Legislature adjourns; 2007 session now over

Lawmakers are now heading home after four months working in the statehouse:

Washington lawmakers adjourned their "Families First" session Sunday night after producing an ambitious $33.4 billion state budget that dips into the state's surplus to spend heavily on education, health care and the environment.

Gavels fell at 9:41 p.m. to end the 105-day session.

Democrats, who have the governor's mansion and lopsided majorities in both houses after last fall's landslide election, touted their achievements as bold and progressive.

"This legislative session was marked by strategic and responsible changes that Washington families can count on," Gov. Chris Gregoire said. "Washingtonians asked us to set a new agenda by investing in and reforming education, addressing our health-care crisis and helping to create family-wage jobs. We are delivering."

There were a number of disappointments, most notably the Homeowners' Bill of Rights, a proposal to protect Maury Island, and a bill recognizing the First Amendment rights of student journalists - as well as legislation to reform the initiative process and shine sunlight on tax exemptions.

We're also unhappy that teachers and school employees were robbed of nearly $100 million in promised retirement benefits and cost of living adjustments. The Legislature should keep the promises it makes.

Despite those letdowns, the session was a resounding success. Democrats led the way in moving Washington forward through a series of landmark accomplishments. NPI congratulates lawmakers on passing a budget that largely reflects Washington's values and responds to the needs of the Evergreen State.

There's a lot to be proud of and a lot to celebrate.

John L O'Brien, Rest in Peace

Perhaps the most famous legislator in Washington state history (who the the House office building is named for) has died, his family announced this morning in a telephone call to the clerk of the state House of Representatives.

Today is the final day of the 2007 legislative session.

Members of the House, both Democrats and Republicans, are currently honoring O'Brien through a series of points of personal privilege, sharing stories and memories. Among those who spoke were Representatives Sharon Santos, Helen Sommers, and Jay Rodne.

The Governor released this statement:

Governor Chris Gregoire today said she was saddened to learn of the death of former House Speaker John L. O'Brien.

"My thoughts and prayers go out to Speaker O’Brien’s family. Speaker O’Brien skillfully led the House of Representatives through challenging times and was respected by those who served with him. His service in the legislature spanned seven decades making him the longest serving member in Washington history. He is an Olympia icon and his dedication serves as an inspiration to me and to all Washingtonians."

O'Brien served for at over half a century, under nine different governors, before leaving the Legislature. He was Speaker, Speaker Pro Tem, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader. He was also widely respected and revered as a parliamentarian.

O'Brien was 95. He is survived by his wife and children.

Performance artist Daisey disrupted by alleged Christians

Monologist Mike Daisey has posted video and a written post detailing how members of a "Christian group," as he describes them, disrupted his one-man show in Boston last week and poured water on written notes he uses in the performance. (Note--Daisey does use the "f" work, so if that offends you or your boss, don't watch the video.)

You really have to see it to believe it. Daisey is obviously stunned beyond belief, but manages to challenge the cowards to stay and talk about why they did it. Naturally they didn't.

Seattle fans may recall this Seattlest interview with Daisey prior to a scheduled February, 2007 performance.

Props to The News Blog, which offered this question:

However, I can't help but wonder what the result would be if 80 performance artists all attended a Church service, and got up in the middle of Mass and destroyed the alter as a sort of performance art.

I'll tell you what would happen: it would be live on all the cable networks for a week.

I've searched in vain using Goggle news for anyone claiming responsibility for this act. These people just exhibited some serious "warning signs," and authorities would be foolish to "ignore them." 'Cause I don't know any sane people who would think it's right to go to the theater and throw water on someone's work, not say anything and then walk out. That is severely anti-social behavior.

Perhaps the most chilling aspect is this comparison Daisey makes:

I sat behind the table, looking up in his face with shock. My job onstage is to be as open as possible, to weave the show without a script as it comes, and this leaves me very emotionally available--and vulnerable, if an audience chooses to abuse that trust. I doubt I will ever forget the look in his face as he defaced the only original of the handwritten show outline--it was a look of hatred, and disgust, and utter and consuming pride.

It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl's work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm's length from me--never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I've chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own--its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.

Sad. This the face of theocracy.

Sine or die?

The Seattle Times presents a round-up of major legislative action this session, including this somewhat amusing snippet:

With Democrats holding a 62-36 advantage in the House and a 32-17 edge in the Senate — the largest majorities in decades — there was little the Republicans could do other than make noise.

"Just sit and watch it go by," said House Republican Leader Richard DeBolt of Chehalis.

Poor baby, I feel so bad for him. It's been about 15 months since the GOP's Speaker's Roundtable sent out those infamous fake sex offender postcards attacking Democrats. How'd that work out for you, Richard?

With the admission that it's very difficult to include everything one wishes in stories, it's a little odd that the Homeowner's BIll of Rights being blocked by House leadership wasn't mentioned in The Times piece. It certainly generated a lot of ink and pixels at the time; for example see Slog's first post about it.

David Postman, also of The Seattle Times, has been blogging from Olympia this weekend. In this post yesterday evening about attempts to hammer out an agreement on funding the family leave bill, it appears that last