Monthly Archives: May 2006

Washington State Congressional Campaigns Heating up!

Posted on May 31st, 2006 | 1 comment

Interest has been picking up on the internet in the 3 Congressional House seats in Washington state where Democrats are challenging Republican incumbents.

These are the :

WA 8th CD – Democrat challenger Darcy Burner vs incumbent Dave Reichert

WA 5th CD – Democrat Peter Goldmark vs incumbent Cathy McMorris

WA 4th CD – Democrat Richard Wright vs incumbent Doc Hastings

In the 8th Congressional District Democratic candidate Darcy Burner (WA 8) is literally burning a hole in the seat of the pants of incumbent Dave Reichert. You have to have your pants on fire to call President Bush in to help you these days, considering Bush’s low approval ratings. Yet this is just what Reichert has done.

In an article written by Neil Modie of the Seattle PI, it is confirmed that Bush will be coming to attend a private fundraiser for Reichert on June 16 th at the home of Microsoft executive Peter Neupert. It will cost $1000 a head to see President Bush close up. For only $10,000 you can get a picture with Bush. That money will be donated to the state Republican Party.

Neil notes that this is the President’s only stop in the state. As such I am sure that the President is officially taking time off from his busy job at the White House and that the cost for the plane, secret service time and all the rest will be paid for by the National Republican Party or come out of campaign funds raised, since attending a political fundraiser is not an official duty of the President of the United States.

And I am also sure that Washington State taxpayers will not have to pay for any additional local police and security forces due to the President attending a private political fundraiser on his own time. After all we’re already paying billions of taxpayer dollars for the President’s private war for oil in Iraq that he pawned onto a gullible Congress and American taxpayers.

Darcy Burner, meanwhile had a fundraiser yesterday with Congressman Rahm Emanuel -Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.see writeup at the NPI Blog.

In the 5th Congressional District race in Eastern Washington, Democrat Peter Goldmark held his official kickoff in Spokane last week and did a three day tour of events to reach out to voters. A series of articles and blogs document the increased interest in this race.

In the 4th Congressional District more attention is emerging for Democrat Richard Wright who is running against incumbent” lack of action” House Ethics Committee Chair Doc Hastings.

1 Comment

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

Tagged ,

McCranium.org to the Rescue – My Honor is Saved!

Posted on May 31st, 2006 | Comments Off on McCranium.org to the Rescue – My Honor is Saved!

Seems Tri-City Herald reporter and blogger Chris Mulick last Friday lumped me in the same category as Tim Eyman when I pointed out in a recent blog on Referendum 65 how the news media is in bed with Tim Eyman. Referendum 65 is an attempt to repeal recently passed legislation in Washington state banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mulick touted back in his blog that I’m the one in bed with Tim Eyman. Now isn’t this getting interesting?

Jim McCabe over at McCranium caught Chris Mulick’s blog, entitled “Eyman, Zemke agree on one thing, maybe” He responded with an excellent rebuttal entitled “Chris Mulick, Ya Gotta be kidding me…” Jim does an excellent job of clarifying what the issue is really about. It’s not that the media is the enemy, its that they help Eyman by giving him coverage many other issues and campaigns never get.

Now I’ve been in a few beds but not Tim’s. See I’m old fashioned and I believe in love before going to bed and Tim and I have no love for each other. I like to at least think that the other person I’m in bed with is sincere and honest and won’t lie before we crawl under the sheets, while we’re under the sheets or afterwards.

Now the news media, that’s a different story. The thing is I’m not calling the news media liars. You’ve probably heard the phrase of “putting the paper to bed”. It’s newspaper vernacular such as used in this interesting aside if you really want to get diverted from this story at this point. See The Morning News “Talking Dirty with the Gray Lady”

Anyway, on my blog post last week entitled, “Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65″ my point was that there is a narrow line between reporting news and making up news or believing something is news because a press release is put out. And this is the case with Referendum 65. By writing about Eyman’s reaching out to the churches to save his bacon and keep his initiative business going, trhe media winds up promoting his efforts. They have got another story “to put to bed” hoping that it will grab their readers tomorrow when they open their morning paper.

There have been many other initiatives that have struggled to get signatures but because Eyman is such a mediagenic guy, he becomes a story for some of the media in this state just because he said something. Frequently its an easy story because they quote verbatim from an Eyman press release and don’t even bother to check whether what he is saying is true or not. Opposing vierwpoiunts get short shift. He may get contact information while the other side isn’t even mentioned.

Others reporters have, over time, taken a different position, realizing that writing about any of Eyman’s campaign struggles or stunts before he has gotten his signatures would be helping him get his signatures by giving him increased exposure and credibility.

I can remember in the past numerous comments from reporters in the press and media that an initiative wasn’t a story until you turned in your signatures. They basically had a hands off policy on an initiative only being a major story when the initiative campaign actually secured enough valid signatures. It didn’t matter how many endorsements you released or testimonials and studies you supplied supporting your campaign. If you didn’t have the signatures to show then you hadn’t reached the required threshold level of public support to get media attention. These days it seems some reporters ignore that distinction regarding Eyman’s campaigns and give him coverage no matter what, while at the same time ignoring other initiative campaigns that are worthy and could use media attention.

They do this partly because Eyman can be obnoxious and taunting to the media and he captures their attention. But he doesn’t hate the media as Chris Mulick seems to suggest. In fact he loves the media because they are an integral part of his initiative business. He has worked them enough so they know him. In fact I’m sure some like him because he is irreverent to them. Meanwhile Eyman loves the attention he gets and it works to get him the exposure he needs to keep his for profit initiative mill going.

He knows that by being respectful and matter of fact, he isn’t going to get coverage. But his “in your face” showmanship sound bites fit just what the media wants. It helps them to sell papers. It also makes for 30 second sound bites. One could call it media grabbing theatre.

All I said in my blog, and this is what Jim at McCraniyum.org responded to, is that the media is really doing Eyman’s work for him. How many other campaigns are also struggling to get signatures? Do they get a front page headline in the Seattle PI or a large story in the Yakima Herald? No. They aren’t showman Tim Eyman. Some in the media seem to need Eyman as much as he needs them it seems.

To connect to those who oppose Eyman’s effort to place Referendum 65 on the Washington ballot this November go to Washington Won’t Discriminate.

Comments Off on McCranium.org to the Rescue – My Honor is Saved!

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Media, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , ,

Republicans Continue to Give Away our Children’s Future

Posted on May 26th, 2006 | Comments Off on Republicans Continue to Give Away our Children’s Future

Republicans in the US Senate are beginning a final push to abolish the estate tax. They could commence action as soon as next week. It’s part of the continuing Republican plan for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The US House of Representatives has already voted to repeal the estate tax.

As reported on OMB Watch on Wednesday,

“Senate aides said yesterday that estate tax repeal will likely be the third order of business to come up when the Senate returns after the Memorial Day recess. The Senate will vote on full repeal, and after that likely fails, it is Senator Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) intention to bring his “reform” plan up for a vote. His plan is little better than full repeal as it would attain very little of the actual revenue garnered from the estate tax.”

We join with OMB Watch and urge that you “Take action on this issue! Contact your Senators and tell them to vote no on repeal and no on Kyl’s fiscally irresponsible alternative.”

Americans for a Fair Estate Tax have sent a letter to all Senators urging them to vote no.
A copy of the letter can be seen here: FairEstateTax.org letter .

The following Washington State organizations have signed the letter.

Washington Tax Fairness Coalition
Kids Northwest
Statewide Poverty Action Network
Washington State Association of Churches
Northwest Federation of Community Organizations
Washington Citizen Action
Children’s Alliance
Northwest Health Law Advocates

The Washington Tax Fairness Coalition represents some 73 organizations in Washington State working for fair taxes. The following are some facts taken form an e-mail they sent to their members:

3 Vital Facts About the Estate Tax:

· Repealing or drastically cutting it would cost $1 trillion over 10 years.
· Now, only 1 in 200 estates of people who die owe any estate tax; in 2009, when estates worth less than $3.5m ($7 million for couples) are exempt, only 3 out of 1,000 people who die will owe the tax.
· If the tax rate is dropped as proposed,* more than half the benefits will go to 700 estates worth more than $20 million each – they’ll each get $9 million in tax handouts in 2011 alone. Sheesh. (*serious proposal would drop rate from 45% to 15%)

3 Vital Facts About America:

· The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing. The wealthiest one percent own more than the bottom 90 percent – and it’s been getting worse over the past 15 years, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
· The U.S. faces major new costs for retirement and health care over the next decades. Over the next 25 years, Medicare will grow from 8% to 14% as a share of the economy. Not a good time to lose trillions.
· We have already started to cut federal funding on health care, education, child care, job training, and so many other services.

Wealth in America is not distributed equally. According to Wixipedia “In the United States, 10% of the population owns 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controls 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the total wealth. ”

This disparity in income distribution has continued to increase over recent years. One strong proponent of the estate tax is William H Gates, Sr – the father of Microsoft’s Bill Gates. Several years ago he and Chuck Collins wrote a book entitled Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes, Beacon Press (2003) .

Comments Off on Republicans Continue to Give Away our Children’s Future

Posted in Economy, Republicans, Tax Exemptions

Tagged ,

The Solution to Global Warming – Just Call it "Life"

Posted on May 26th, 2006 | 2 comments

The latest attempt by the conservatives and corporate interests is to mimic a proven tactic from the Bush and Rove notebook of deceit. Remember when they tried to solve the Hanford radioactive waste problem in Washington State. Simple, just rename toxic waste as non-toxic and you no longer have a problem.

Its a variation of the Healthy Forests Initiative – read timber cutting and Clear Skys Initiative -read reduce air pollution restrictions. Its called branding.

Others call it framing.

Well it seems the Competitive Enterprise Institute also likes these ideas of Bush and Rove.. You may have seen the two ads they have just started running on TV. The latest corporate solution to solve the global warming problem is to rename it. Don’t call CO2 a pollutant. Call it life. I kid you not. They will just advertize the problem away.

Watch the ads for yourself. Unfortunately they are right. Global pollution and global warming from CO2 will be your future life all right if they get their way.

Here’s the first ad:

“There’s something in this picture you can’t see.
Its essential to life.
We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in. It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth and the fuels we find it in.
It’s called CO2 . The fuels that produce it have freed us from a world of backbreaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love.
Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant.
Imagine if they succeed.
What would our lives be like then
Carbon dioxide, they call it pollution, we call it life.”

My version:

There’s something in this picture you can’t see.
It’s essential to corporations.
They gather it in. It’s called wealth and power.
Now corporations want to accumulate as much as they can.
They want you to believe global warming is a myth.
They’ll tell you again and again.
Imagine if they succeed
What would our lives be like then?
Global warming, they call it a myth.
We call it greed.

Plug – Get more informed on this issue – Watch “An Inconvenient Truth“

2 Comments

Posted in Economy, Environment

Tagged , ,

Democrat Peter Goldmark Rides into Spokane to Kickoff His Campaign for Congress.

Posted on May 23rd, 2006 | 2 comments

Okanogan rancher and former WSU Regent Peter Goldmark is hoping to steal a page from Ronald Reagan as he officially kicks off his campaign for Congress. With horse and supporters Goldmark rode into Spokane on the Centennial Trail for a rally and the official campaign announcement this morning.

Goldmark is a Democrat running for the 5th Congressional District seat currently held by Republican Cathy McMorris. He has been a rancher for 30 years in the Okanogan area of Northeastern Washington. The 5th Congressional District goes from the Canadian border down to Oregon and from the Cascades to the Idaho border.

In prepared comments, Goldmark said, “It’s important for me to listen to the concerns of the people. After watching the crowd back in DC turn a tin ear to the needs of Spokane, our small towns and family farms, I plan to ride in with some common sense and make some needed reforms.”

“It’s clear we need bold new leadership in areas like health care, jobs and economic development,” said Goldmark. “We’ve seen the incumbent politicians deliver nothing but happy talk instead of progress, and I look forward to challenge.”

Goldmark would bring a much needed perspective to Congress on a number of issues. One is the perspective of the farming community across the country. Besides ranching on an 8000 acre farm for some 30 years, an article in last Saturday’s Seattle PI notes that he served as state Agriculture Director in 1993, was a co-founder of Farming and the Environment and a member of the Washington State Biodiversity Council.

A second perspective he would bring is from the educational viewpoint. He has been a regent of Washington State University in Pullman since 1996, until he recently resigned to run for Congress.

And the third perspective he brings is that of a scientist. He has a PhD in molecular biology from the University of California and did post doctoral work at Harvard University. Such a perspective is badly needed in a time when Bush and most Republicans are doing their best to undermine the credibility of science and scientific research. You name it- stem cell research, global warming, ecosystem integrity, fisheries biology, forestry, air pollution, toxic pollution.

The Seattle PI article notes that Goldmark “has published numerous scientific papers on biology, often based on research he performs in a lab at his 8,000 acre ranch. In the past decade he has concentrated on finding new wheat varieties.”

Compare this to Bush’s time on the ranch cutting brush.

The time is ripe for a change in Congress. Peter Goldmark represents a new voice.

Besides including the city of Spokane, the 5th CD includes Walla Walla, Pullman, Cheney and Colville.

The 5th CD covers 12 of Washington’s 39 counties -Spokane, Lincoln, Adams, Whitman, Walla Walla, Columbia, Asotin, Garfield, Ferry, Pend Oreille, Okanogan and Stevens.

For many years the 5th CD was Democratic. Speaker of the House Tom Foley represented the 5th CD for 30 years, from 1965 to 1995. Democrats hope to return the seat to the Democratic column this year as part of their national campaign to win control of Congress.

2 Comments

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Elections

Tagged ,

Gore Invites Himself to the White House. Will Bush Accept?

Posted on May 23rd, 2006 | Comments Off on Gore Invites Himself to the White House. Will Bush Accept?

I doubt it because the guy has already made up his mind on global warming. The AP yesterday said Bush “doubts” he will watch Gore’s movie. That’s what he said on Monday and he probably won’t change his mind. Bush is really pretty busy still trying to figure out how he should respond to Hurricane Katrina. And after that there’s what to eat for lunch.

Today Gore said Bush should watch the documentary he has produced. The documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, opens Wednesday at selected theaters across the country. It opens in Seattle, Washington on June 2nd at the Guild and Pacific Palace Theaters. (Click here for other locations and times.)

Gore offered to personally come to the White House and view the movie with Bush. Maybe even shake hands and ask how the brush clearing is going on Bush’s ranch. Maybe talk a little baseball.

But unfortunately Gore has already blown any chance of that by saying

“The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that is true”

Oops Al, you don’t question the President or say things that are not nice.

No, I don’t think Bush will accept Gore’s invitation. Besides it’s against protocol. The President runs this old country and he invites you to the White House. How gauche of Gore. You don’t invite yourself to some else’s house. Bush might have to worry about the guy not leaving because Al is certain to start talking about global warming at some point. And he might want to keep on talking. Too much talking – that would cause a ruckus, of course.

No, Bush has it all figured out.

“New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment,” Bush said. “And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment.”

Yes Pollyanna George has it all figured out. He saves time for important things by not reading or watching movies coming from dubious characters like Gore.

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored.

“Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus,” Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. “Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?”

Good question.

Comments Off on Gore Invites Himself to the White House. Will Bush Accept?

Posted in Environment

Tagged , , ,

Washington State Attorney General’s Office Responds to Not Joining Other States on Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Posted on May 21st, 2006 | Comments Off on Washington State Attorney General’s Office Responds to Not Joining Other States on Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Seems the Washington State Attorney General’s Office is eager to get their spin out on why they did not join the California lawsuit challenging the weak fuel efficiency standards proposed by the Bush Administration for light trucks and SUV’s. When I received their response I was not surprised that they really did not seem to comprehend the need for Washington state to be a leader on this issue.

Washington State last year passed ESHB 1397 – the Clean Car Act – patterned after California’s. Instead of joining with other states that have passed Clean Car Legislation to help reduce global warming, Attorney General Rob McKenna has decided to sit on the sidelines and not participate.

The issue of reducing global warming and reducing oil consumption which contributes to global warming requires aggressive action, not excuses.

My previous posts on this issue started with “Missing in Action – Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna , and four updates , here, here, here, and here.

The AG’s Office says they are involved and reference a case regarding the EPA saying it was not going to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant from cars. The interesting point here is that this lawsuit was initiated by Attorney General Rob McKenna’s predecessor Christine Gregoire in 2003 before McKenna took office.

While I attacked Rob McKenna for his lack of leadership in this area I must also, if he has correctly stated it, say that he shares this lack of action with the Governor’s Office. McKenna belongs to the Republican Party which has not shown any initiative over many years in dealing with increasing fuel efficiency standards, beside Bush’s token effort this year.

But the Seattle Times, in an editorial today, entitled “Democrats on Energy, Still a Zero”, points out that nationally the Democratic Plan on Energy released last week, was just as silent on raising fuel efficiency standards, in this instance as a way of saving energy.

The Seattle Times attributes the Democrats timidity to the influence of states with automotive workers and unions. The irony is that with rising gasoline prices, foreign carmakers that emphasized fuel efficiency, with hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid, are busy selling lots of cars.

Whether its reducing global warming or saving energy, both political parties need to be more aggressive on pursuing real solutions to real problems. This includes making serious efforts to increase Federal fuel efficiency standards to both decrease global warming and save energy.

Below is the response I received from the Washington State Attorney General’s Office.

Dear Mr. Zemke,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the state of Washington’s decision not to intervene in Cal. et al. v. NHTSA, challenging the federal fuel efficiency standards published in April 2006. The state of Washington, including the Attorney General’s Office, is concerned about the impacts of climate change and supports the states in their efforts to urge federal agencies to fully consider the environmental impacts of CO2 emissions from cars.
In fact, Washington is currently involved in another key case – led by the state of Massachusetts -which we believe more directly addresses concerns about the regulation of CO2 emissions from cars. Last month in Mass. v. EPA, the states, including Washington, asked the Supreme Court to review EPA’s decision not to regulate CO2 emissions from cars as an air pollutant. View the cert petition here.
When this office was asked to consider joining the suit against NHTSA, Attorney General McKenna authorized review of the case and directed that our agency clients be consulted. The main claims of the states’ case relate to whether NHTSA complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Washington State Attorney General’s office, Governor Gregoire, Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and the Washington State Department of Ecology carefully evaluated the request to join the lawsuit. Based on a variety of factors -including Washingnto’s involvement in Mass. v. EPA- we jointly concluded that this is not a case that Washington should join at this time.
The Attorney General’s office is frequently asked to join lawsuits and file “friend of the court” briefs in support of parties to lawsuits. We evaluate such requests carefully and make decisions based on a variety of factors, including:
· Our ability, in the time provided, to fully consider the legal merit of the claims and the impact of the arguments being advanced on the interests of the state of Washington and its agencies;
· The role and timing of the requested participation;
· The best use of the legal resources of the office; and
· Which states may be most familiar with the legal issues and arguments.
Multi-state litigation presents unique challenges, both substantively and procedurally. Decisions to join a lawsuit or file a brief are made for a variety of reasons, and decisions not to participate should not be construed as taking a formal position on the issues in that case.
To provide further background, there are three multi-state lawsuits currently dealing with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Two are related to cars and one is related to power plants.
The two related to cars are:
· The Massachusetts-led case related to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA’s) authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA)(United States Supreme Court); and
· The California-led case challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fuel efficiency (CAFÉ) standards that were just adopted (Ninth Circuit).
The third case deals with the validity of newly updated New Source Performance standards (NSPS) that EPA adopted for emissions from power plants. This is the New York case you reference in your blog.
Here’s a quick description of the state’s involvement in each of those cases:
(1) Mass. et al. v. EPA re: EPA authority to adopt CO2 emission standards for cars. On Oct. 23, 2003, Washington joined a number of states and environmental organizations that filed a Petition for Review under Section 202 of the federal CAA challenging EPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 and other motor vehicle emissions that contribute to global warming. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ three judge panel issued its decision on July 15, 2005, denying the petition. The states, including Washington, filed a Petition for Certiorari on April 7, 2006, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
(2) Cal. et al. v. NHTSA re: the CAFE rule, alleging that the standards rule should not have been adopted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) without preparation of an environmental impact statement because the rule’s impacts are significant.
The 52-page statement you reference presents an argument that states are preempted from setting their own vehicle emission standards for CO2. However, the rule is about NHTSA, a federal agency, setting fuel efficiency standards for cars, not about whether states can adopt their own standards. Thus, we do not consider the reference to preemption of state law to be relevant to the challenged rulemaking action and understand that it will not be a main focus of the challenging states’ case.
3) New York et al. v. EPA re: EPA regulation of power plant emissions including CO2. We considered joining this case when it was filed last month, but after careful evaluation and because of its relationship to Mass. v. EPA, we opted to wait and monitor the case instead. We determined that if Mass. v. EPA is accepted for review, a decision in that case could resolve a key issue in New York’s power plant case. We continue to evaluate whether to intervene in this case before the deadline.
Thank you very much for your letter and please feel free to call or e-mail if you continue to have questions regarding the Attorney General’s Office and the cases in which we are involved.
Sincerely,
Janelle Guthrie, APRDirector of Media RelationsWashington State Attorney General’s Office1125 Washington Street SEPO Box 40100Olympia, WA 98504-0100Phone: (360) 586-0725Cell: (360) 584-3046E-mail: janelleg@atg.wa.govJoin Attorney General Rob McKenna’s Listserv for the latest news from the AG’s office or visit our Web site at http://www.atg.wa.gov/

Comments Off on Washington State Attorney General’s Office Responds to Not Joining Other States on Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Posted in Energy, Environment

Tagged ,

Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65

Posted on May 20th, 2006 | Comments Off on Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65

A headline in the Seattle PI this morning blares out that “Eyman, Churches Link Up – Initiative King seeks out evangelicals’ help to repeal gay-rights law”

The story behind the story is that the news media once again teams up with Eyman to support his business and right wing issues. Eyman’s picture and proclamation that he is some “Initiative King” is all part of the myth building that the media does to sell newspapers and get viewers and listeners.

I first heard the story yesterday on, of all places, KUOW. Google pulls up KIRO TV, KATU-Portland, and KEPR in the Tri-Cities as links.

A more truthful headline might read “Bigot Teams up with Right Wing Religious Fanatics in Effort to Repeal Law Banning Discrimination”

The measure in question is Referendum 65 filed by Tim Eyman. Below is the official ballot title and summary as listed on the Secretary of State’s website

Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2661 (ESHB 2661) concerning Washington human rights commission jurisdiction and discrimination law revisions [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise description: ESHB 2661 would add “sexual orientation” to the state’s law against discrimination in employment, housing, credit, insurance, and certain contracts. “Sexual orientation” includes

heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and gender expression, identity, appearance and behavior. Should this bill be: Approved [ ] Rejected[ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
ESHB 2661 amends the state’s law against discrimination to prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists. “Sexual orientation” includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. State marriage laws are not modified, employment goals or quotas are not required, nor any specific belief, practice, behavior or orientation endorsed. Religious organizations and owner-occupied dwelling units are exempt from this law.
Click here to read the complete text of Referendum 65.

Referendum 65 is an attempt to overturn HB 2661 passed in the last session of the Legislature.The key to understanding this issue is simple – the law passed would “prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists.”

Now what is confusing is what you must do if you support this ban on discrimination.

1. You must not sign Referendum 65 . Signing it would place it on the November ballot.

2 If Referendum 65 gets on the ballot you must vote to “approve” it. By voting to “approve” it, you will keep in place ESHB 2661 prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This may seem confusing but Eyman and the right wing churches need signatures to place Referendum 65 on the ballot. Once on the ballot you must vote to “approve” Referendum 65 to keep ESHB 2661 state law.

For more information on the campaign opposing getting Referendum 65 on the ballot go to Washington Won’t Discriminate.

Referendums only need half the signatures initiatives do to qualify for the ballot. R-65 only needs some 112,440 valid signatures. The deadline is June 6th.

Remember it is perfectly within your rights to engage in public discussion with other citizens regarding Referendum 65. If someone is asking people to sign the referendum, you can ask them not to sign.

As in any other conversation do not harass, threaten or intimidate anyone, including the petitioner. You only hurt your cause and rightfully can be subject to laws regarding harassment. That is the last thing you want on this issue.

The petitioner is exercising his right to ask people to sign the measure. Respect that but you don’t have to give up your First Amendment right of free speech if you disagree with what they are saying.

Comments Off on Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Media, Religion, Right Wing, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , ,

"The fish are dying…Kill the fish for California…We want dogs to die"

Posted on May 19th, 2006 | Comments Off on "The fish are dying…Kill the fish for California…We want dogs to die"

A reminder of the scum that was Enron!

Below is my transcription of part of one taped conversation beween traders on Enron’s West Coast Trading desk before Enron collapsed. See below to hear audios and see transcripts of other taped conversations. Thanks to the Snohomish PUD in Washington State for fighting to make these recordings public.

Excerpt from Stupid Enron West Coast Trader Desk Conversation:

I know, me too Sonny, you know see, you should be the Senator or some kind of Congressman there in California because it, it, you know what I hate, Sonny
I hate when people are talking stupid. Ha ha

I do too, heh, heh

What we, because you know the more water…. I don’t think they have much water left, Bonneville doesn’t.

Oh really?

It’s getting hot up here. The thing that saved us is it’s never been hot up here.

Uh, Huh.

It’s fucking 90 degrees up here.

Oh!

So they‘ve got to keep all their power here. Nothing forced them to keep their power here so they said oh, California here you come and –it’s beautiful.

Oh, man.

And so my thing is, is you know these guys are just fucking loving it because they’re just getting paid 250 but we’re like, you’re killing the fish, you know, by sending all this water down there. We’re trying to get the fish agencies to rally around us – to keep the water up here.

Oh, oh you’re literally killing the fish?

Yeah man, you’re taking the water out of the river man, and not covering the eggs. Now, you know, the fish are dying cause, you know

The salmon you mean or what?

The salmon. Yeah. You push that button up here…

Oh yeah you got to go with the tree hugger button …

Yeah, exactly our motto is Do you save the Californians or do you kill… kill the fish for the Californians? That is basically the motto.

Oh yeah, you want to ….you kill the Californians huh?

That’s what I’m pushing for…

Heh, heh

I won’t … you know. Our motto up here is we want the dogs to die.

That’s mean, isn’t it?

No that’s true. But that’s a big conflict is, you know, they think short term to keep the lights on in California. We’ll do anything to keep the lights on in California. We like, even kill the fish? Then the fish people, oh yeah, that’s right. So then we rally around that.

So is that going to work?

Aah trying to …

We’ll find out next week, huh?

Yeah. So this is kind of look … That’s my life man.

Yeah, that sounds exciting.

The above is part of just one taped conversation between traders on Enron’s West Coast Trading desk before Enron collapsed. Some other conversations have gotten a lot of play but I thought this one was of local interest to Washington ratepayers. In total some 24,000 hours of tapes exist. The Snohomish PUD sued to make the tapes available. They are still not all available, and Enron and FERC have opposed making more available.

Senator Maria Cantwell handed out a CD that included this conversation at her press conference last month where she challenged Enron’s paltry compensation proposal on electricity contracts that Enron overcharged the Snohomish Public Utility District. She also argued that all the Enron se tapes need to be made public, not suppressed and hidden away.

Thanks to the Seattle Times you can hear the rest of the above conversation at
http:
//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001945474_
webenronaudio02.html
There are a number of other audios and transcripts. This one is part of the one that starts “The big conflict is …” near the bottom of the page.

You can also read the posted Seattle Times transcript of this conversation at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/links/enron-240.pdf

 

Comments Off on "The fish are dying…Kill the fish for California…We want dogs to die"

Posted in Energy, Environment

Tagged , ,

Federal Election Commission Clarifies Rules on Internet Blogging and Federal Candidates

Posted on May 17th, 2006 | Comments Off on Federal Election Commission Clarifies Rules on Internet Blogging and Federal Candidates

On May 12, 2006 the Federal Election Commission’s amended rules on the use of the internet in Federal election campaigns went into effect. Bloggers in Washington State have been very active blogging on candidates for US Senate and Congress, like Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark running for Congress and Maria Cantwell running for re-election to the US Senate..

The new rules are in response to a recent US District Court decision that said the Commission could not give a wholesale exemption from reporting for all Internet activity.

The FEC, in adopting new rules, clarified a number of issues involved but basically exempted all blogging and Internet communication from campaign reporting except for paid advertisements placed on another person’s website.

Surprisingly this exemption for bloggers even included the rabid, rapidly growing in number, rapacious, not so vacuous and insipid as to make you cry bloggers here in Washington state and the Northwest. That doesn’t mean they aren’t busy over at the NSA trying to decipher what it is we’re saying.

The 26 pages of clarification and rules were published April 12, 2006 in the Federal Registry. They make for interesting reading for all bloggers and anyone interested in the free and unregulated use of the Internet under the First Amendment.

“Through this rulemaking, the Commission recognizes the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach. The Internet’s accessibility, low cost, and interactive features make it a popular choice for sending and receiving information.

Unlike other forms of mass communication, the Internet has minimal barriers to entry, including its low cost and widespread accessibility. Whereas the general public can communicate through television or radio broadcasts and most other forms of mass communication only by payingsubstantial advertising fees, the vast majority of the general public who choose to communicate through the Internet can afford to do so.

When paid advertising on another person’s website does occur on the Internet, the expense of that advertising sets it apart from other uses of the Internet, although even the cost of advertising on another entity’s website will often be below the cost of advertising in some other media.

These final rules therefore implement the regulatory requirements mandated by the Shays District decision by focusing exclusively on Internet advertising that is placed for a fee on another person’s website. In addition, these rules add new exceptions to the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” to protect individual and media activity on the Internet. As a whole, these final rules make plain that the vast majority of Internet communications are, and will remain, free from campaign finance regulation. To the greatest extent permitted by Congress and the Shays District decision, the Commission is clarifying and affirming that Internet activities by individuals and groups of individuals face almost no regulatory burdens under the Federal Election Campaign Act. The need to safeguard Constitutionally protected political speech allows no other approach

The FEC noted in its decision that the number of people who relied on the internet for campaign information increased from 30 million in 2000 to 63 million in 2004. They cited reports that some 11 milion people in 2004 looked to blogs as their main source of information and some 18% of American citizens in 2004 viewed the internet in general as their main information source in deciding on who to vote for as President.

Regarding blogging specifically, the Commission noted that:

In light of the evolving nature of Internet communications, the Commission is not explicitly excluding from the definition of ‘‘public communication’’ any particular software or format used in Internet communications. The final rules already exclude ordinary blogging activity from the definition of ‘‘public communication’’ because blog messages are not placed for a fee on another person’s Web site. Thus, an explicit exclusion focused on ‘‘blogging’’ is not only unnecessary but also potentially confusing to the extent that it implies that other forms of Internet communication, such as ‘‘podcasting’’ or e-mailing, might be regulated absent an explicit exclusion for each different form of Internet communication.

The commission also excludes e-mail as a form of political advertising subject to regulation and disclosure. It bases its decision on the fact that e-mail is basically a free activity with no cost involved.

Posting a video is also excluded from regulation and disclosure unless it is placed on another website for a fee.

Comments Off on Federal Election Commission Clarifies Rules on Internet Blogging and Federal Candidates

Posted in Elections, free speech

Tagged , , ,