Month: September 2006 (Page 1 of 3)

Andrew’s post from today on “catty blogs” reminds me of something we should all be doing. Reading right wing blogs and keeping them honest.

Maybe they’ll do the same thing to us.

I started reading Thurston Pundits awhile back, and started righting writing about it when I noticed that my comments on the blog weren’t being accepted. Andy doesn’t accept any comments (despite keeping the line of code that implies he accepts comments) so I don’t take it personally. So, I just started typing my comments in my own blog and linking back to his post.

Its kind of sad though, if you check Andy’s technorati profile, I’m one of the few who cares enough to actually write about what he’s writing about.

Effin’ Unsound is a much larger effort to do this. Maybe Carl should open that blog up a bit and let the rest of us play.

There should be no independent research in our state funded universities, especially when they touch upon topics that matter to some people. And, if a university happens to research something that politicians don’t like, they should be punished.

Or so says Andy over at Thurston Pundits. He also thinks interrogatory sentences no longer need to end in a question mark. But, that is open to discuss here.

Take it away Andy:

Remember the politcally motivated study the UW is releasing to thwart 933.

Bad move UW. Bad move. One has to figure they didn’t really count on the back lash from the folks that butter their bread on the broader spectrum. I understand that at an org that size, 99% of managers could not find a clue if it bit them in the ass anyway, but this one will come back to haunt them.

I’ve been reading Applebee’s America the last few days, and I want to write down some thoughts. Here is one of the first.

I was wrong about the exurbs, or at least the “community” part of the exurbs:

These are people that seem to have a few major commitments. First of all, their family. I can’t fault them for that, the main subject of the story was obviously dedicated to her husband and the enrichment of her kids. Second, what I said above leads us into money, which obviously plays a roll in their decisions to move around so much.

…

I don’t know, but their frequent abandonment of towns and communities doesn’t speak to a deep connection to people around them. If the roads are so bad getting around suburban Georgia, who really cares about fixing the problem of poor planning, if you are going to leave in a few years anyway?

Anyway, much was made about George Bush’s ability to win the so called exurbs last fall, which was one of the things that put him over the top. If these are the people that populate the fastest growing counties in the country, do I care?

…

I suspect that much of the exurbians political tendencies come from their personal choices of being rootless, not feeling connected to a particular place or holding your ground for a community. These are things that I expect the Democratic Party to stand for, and so I would assume that we would lose among with the relos.

While Democratic Party policies speak to a community commitment, the Republican Party actually sounds like they prefer people to be connected to one another. And, more importantly in 2004, they campaigned like community mattered in the exurbs, where people saw the greatest need for good old fashioned community.

People in the fastest growing communities feel the need for connection, for community, and it makes sense that businesses such as megachurches and Applebees, that provide this kind of service, would do well there.

I was wrong about exubians running away from community. They may be running away from their own responsibility to build community, and rather like to have it delievered to them through church or a place to eat. That may sound harsh, but I’ll admit there is a desire for community, but no one talking locally how to actually build it, rather just sell it.

I like what the relish packet has to say. And, he is much better looking than Mr. McGavick.

First, they took out UCLA, now the Huskies are taking on another visitor from the south, property rights initiative 933.

Back in 1995 the UW issued a killer study to a similar initiative, pointing out the millions it would cost taxpayers. OFM released a study pretty much saying the same thing about I-933 last week, now Dan Woods, head of the Yes on 933 campaign is seeing shadows on the mid-90s in this rambling email:.

To: Yes on I-933 Grassroots Leaders & Supporters
Fr: Dan Wood
Re: UW to Release Anti-933 Study Tomorrow

RIGHT TO THE POINT:

Action Step #1. SEND LETTERS TO NEWSPAPERS.

Write to local and regional newspapers today and tell them what you think about this bogus study that was bought and paid for by the opposition to the Property Fairness Initiative. Here are some thoughts:

* The foundations sponsoring this study are run by the same super-rich backers funding the opposition to the Property Fairness Initiative. They want to buy the election, and buying credibility from the UW is part of their strategy.

* These millionaire and billionaire activists live by difference rules than the rest of us. They build their mega-mansions on the waterfront and use their property in ways that regular people cannot. Then they contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars (pocket change for them) to organizations that want more government control over the rest of us.

* The opposition is using taxpayer resources (the University) for political campaign purposes. It’s flat out wrong, just like state agencies and local governments have spent taxpayer resources to campaign against I-933, which will hold them accountable for the cost and affect of their unfair regulations.

* This is the same campaign tactic as last time. Use taxpayer resources and opposition funding to try to convince voters that there is legitimacy to the opposition message. We won’t buy it this time. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

* When the same people, led by the same person (Glen Pascall) did this before, they were discredited as “bordering on fraud.” Taxpayer resources should not be used for fraudulent political campaign messages.

* Visit PropertyFairness.com to read the initiative for yourselves.

* In Oregon, not a dime has been paid in compensation, yet that does not show up in this so-called “study.” The result in Oregon is that government is considering the cost of their actions and working with property owners. We should have the same fair treatment in our state.

…

Last week, we filed a public records request demanding that the University come clean with documents relating to this study. We have received no response to our request for records. Failure to respond will be yet another violation of state law.

You can read about the request and the bogus study below.

…

Our grassroots campaign can beat back their attempt to buy this election.

Farm Bureau Demands Documents from University “Study” Funded by Opposition Groups

OLYMPIA – Washington Farm Bureau today filed a public records request with the University of Washington, asking for public records related to a planned “study” on Initiative 933.

“We want them to reveal who is behind the study, who is directing the study, and what the connections are with the special interests that are funding the anti-fairness campaign,” said Dan Wood, government relations director for Washington Farm Bureau.

“This study is paid for by the same environmental extremist organizations that are backing the campaign against the Property Fairness Initiative,” said Wood. “They are trying to buy credibility from the University and they are using public resources to do it.”

Because the University of Washington is a state agency, it is required to provide public documents, whether on paper or in electronic form, under the state Public Records Act (RCW 42.56).

“It’s an abuse of public trust for any agency to engage in these types of campaign activities,” Wood said. “Under the law, they will need to come clean with the connections to the anti-fairness campaign and they will need to show who is buying this so-called study.”

The Northwest Center for Livable Communities, a division of the University, is coordinating the study on behalf of the Bullitt Foundation, Brainerd Foundation, Wilburforce Foundation and others.

These same foundations funded a University of Washington “study” in 1995, released lat in the Fall campaign. In that year, a similar measure, Referendum 48, sought to address excessive regulations that treated property owners unfairly.

Wood said the late release of the so-called study was a death blow to the referendum, and that opponents hope to repeat the scenario in 2006.

“They’re planning another ‘October Surprise’ for this year,” said Wood.

“This time, the voters aren’t going to be taken in by their tactics.”

In 1995, the University of Washington administration sent two letters to the anti-property rights campaign, telling them to “immediately refrain from the use of the phrase ‘University of Washington’” in their ads against referendum 48.

In similar communication, University Associate Vice President Norman Arkans told the No on 48 campaign that their “wording is misleading in that it suggests that the University commissioned the study when it was paid for by private foundation grants.”

An earlier letter from Arkans told the campaign that, “under state law, the University may not be involved in any way in the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition.” He concluded by telling the campaign that “you are not authorized to use the University of Washington name, trademarks, symbols or logos in any material opposing ballot proposition 48.”

“We hope the University still holds the same values of abiding by the law and not being used for political purposes,” said Wood.

The purchased study in 1995, led by Glenn Pascall, was met with harsh criticism.

The Washington Institute for Policy Studies, which included Pascall on its board of advisors, wrote to Pascall and told him that the study “leaves us with grave concern.”

Cost estimates were based upon “pure analytical fabrication” and the study contained “rhetoric and conjecture without any supportive analysis.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Research Council labeled the study as “bordering on fraud” and pointed out that there was no peer review of the 1995 study.

“This is an example of academic opinions for sale,” said Wood. “Voters were fooled once by this tactic, but they won’t be fooled again.”

“Unfortunately, the University’s credibility will be the biggest price paid for this study. But the anti-fairness campaign is only concerned about buying a campaign message.”

“We’re looking forward to the University complying with the public disclosure law and coming clean about who is buying the study,” said Wood

Over at the 35th LD blog there is a lengthy and (it reads at least) angry post on open primaries and how a lot of Republicans must have jumped over to vote D to push Sheldon last week. I don’t doubt that, but I have a problem with the authors contentions. So, I left a comment.

I fear Eric is correct, that is really isn’t all that important for one to befriend the local LD or county organization to win an election. Though, I don’t think this problem is soley Democratic.

My contention is that local parties need to be broader in terms of who plays. More participatory, more focussed on civic engagement and less on winning elections.

Radio Open Source is putting together a wiki on which to base their coverage of the 2006 elections. They’ve already done a couple of shows so far, one on “Meaning of CT” and on the 2006 elections overall.

Open Source airs on KUOW at 9p, and live on the internet at 4p.

I’ve tried to flesh out the page on Maria vs. Mike, but there are some mostly blank pages on WA 4 (Hastings v. Wright), WA 5 (McMorris v. Goldmark) and WA 8 (Reichart vs. Burner).

If you’ve never listened, Radio Open Source is a unique production in that it regularly brings on bloggers to talk about what they blog about and their show discussions are influenced by the comment threads on their own blog.

Plus, they are the first show I know of to ever say “Emmett O’Connell from Washington comments…” (during the show on Gerrymandering).

I don’t write about foreign affairs all that much, although the topic probably takes up nearly a third of my reading list. My interest was rekindled by this book, and it carried along by an entire category of blogs, including this one and this one.

My tepid nature toward expressing any opinion on foreign affairs can be pretty much summed up by my confusion over the Democratic response to the Bush Doctrine (Freedom everywhere I guess). Instead of calling bullshit and pointing out that he doesn’t believe it himself, we play it straight as if Bush really is working to advance freedom and argue for a sort of bubbly non-interventionist blah blah blah… Ugh.

For me, freedom everywhere is important. Should be the one point on foreign affairs that we don’t dicker on. I like the idea of an international democracy organization, and I don’t like the double speak on dictators that are our “friends” on one hand and dictators that stand up to us on the other.

What is the difference between Hosni Mubarak/Pervez Musharraf and Hugo Chávez? The first two like Bush’s foreign policy so their distaste for democracy is ok, while Chávez openly doesn’t like the President, so he’s an evil strong man.

Anyway, the point here is to point to another post that put me on this overlly long rant. Jon Perr has a series of really good points that I won’t try to repeat. This is just the first part, read the entire thing:

This week’s coup in Thailand highlighted once again the yawning chasm between rhetoric and reality when it comes to President Bush’s clarion call for the global expansion of democracy. The tanks rolled in Bangkok at virtually the same moment the President lectured the United Nations about people “from Beirut to Baghdad” making “the choice for freedom.” Yet the White House was silent regarding the overthrow of the democratically elected if corrupt Thaksin government.

It’s hardly the first time the global community heard crickets chirping from the Bush White House as democratic regimes were swept away on its watch.

Bush policy has been and continues to be at odds with the lofty rhetoric of democracy promotion. The American confrontation with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez stems in large part from Bush administration support for the 2002 coup that briefly removed him from power. Chavez may well be a thug and friend of Castro, but he was democratically elected, prompting 19 OAS member states to denounce the coup. But in Washington, press spokesman Ari Fleischer blamed Chavez for his overthrow and signaled tacit White House support. Following the collapse of the coup, Condi Rice could only mutter, “I hope that Hugo Chavez takes the message that his people sent him that his own policies are not working for the Venezuelan people.” It is no wonder Senator Chris Dodd protested the Bush policy in Venezuela, worrying that “to stand silent while the illegal ouster of a government is occurring is deeply troubling and will have profound implications for hemispheric democracy.”

Carl Ballard of Washington State Political Report has launched his new blog, and it looks to be a good one:

Q: Do I know you from some other blog?

A: It’s possible. I used to write here. And like everyone else, I write on Kos regularly. And elsewhere with less frequency.

Q: What does EFFin’ Unsound mean?

A: Well the two biggest local right wing assholes (but I repeat myself) are the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and (Un)Sound Politics. But there are a lot of righties in Washington who are EFFin’ Unsound.

Back in 1995 when Dan Wood was shilling for R 48, the grandfather or I-933, the University of Washington came out with a study that pointed out how much that property rights referendum would cost. The 1995 study, which said the refendum similar to I-933 would cost between $3.8 to $11 billion a year, is usually credited with killing R 48.

Dan Wood is back with I-933 this year, and a couple of days ago he was worried about another UW study. Turns out the killer study came from OFM, but he did have time to send out this hyperventalating email:

WFB Demands Disclosure from University of Washington

The Washington Farm Bureau today filed a public records demand from the University of Washington regarding a “planned study” on Initiative 933.

We want them to come clean on who is behind the so-called “study,” who is directing the “study” and to disclose whatever connections there are between the University and the special interests that are funding the anti-I-933 “study.”

The study is to be paid for by the same environmental extremists that are backing the campaign against the Property Fairness Initiative. If true then why do these extremists have to turn to U-Dub to buy credibility and are public resources being used to conduct the study?

Because the University of Washington is a state agency, it is required to disclose public documents – on paper and in electronic form – under the state Public Records Act. (RCW 42.56) We expect an immediate answer from the University.

The Northwest Center for Livable Communities, a division of the University, is conducting the “study” on behalf of the Bullitt, Brainerd and Wilberforce Foundations along with others. These are the same foundations that funded a UW “study” released in 1995 when a similar measure – Referendum 48 — sought to address excessive regulations that treated property owners unfairly.

The University of Washington was embarrassed then and should be now!

In 1995 the respected Washington Institute for Policy Studies examined documents prepared by the University and Evergreen State College and declared that the “studies bordered on fraud.”

“There was no peer review…no ability to replicate their numbers or to independently verify their conclusions…and that the documents did not comply with basic academic standards…”

The authors of the 1995 study acknowledged in their background methodological statement that their estimates of takings costs…”were difficult to prepare due to data limitations, time constraints and the wide range of variables.” The authors themselves called the study “Mission Impossible.” Yet, environmental extremists used the “study” to deceive the public and ran advertisements before the University could stop them.

The Institute’s analysis of the so-called study went further, alleging that the study went beyond the collected data and that the six page document attributed to the University of Washington was pure analytical fabrication with two pages of rhetoric and conjecture without any supporting analysis.

In 1995 environmental extremists used statements from the “study” in advertisements opposing R-48. At that time the University demanded that they cease attributing the “study” to the University. In fact, state law prohibits state agencies (including universities) from taking a position for or against any ballot measure.

If the University releases a property rights study between now and the general election there would be no way to characterize it than as an effort to influence the outcome of a ballot measure.

Our opponents are using tired and worn-out ideas to attack I-933 at a time when citizen awareness of government abuses is at an all time high.