The irony... and hypocrisy... about the Columbian's PCO babble.

(Full disclosure: I am an elected PCO)

To call the Columbian's position on PCO elections "bizarre" is to do a disservice to the word.

Don't get me wrong: I can't argue the main thrust of their point concerning PCO elections, except, of course, abysmal Secretary of State Reed's edict concerning PCO elections is, once again, aimed at reducing HIS workload... which, come to think of it, pretty much describes the entirety of his tenure in the Secretary of State position.

What I CAN get wrong was the newspaper's indefensible position in light of THEIR efforts to conduct private business (The baseball/ballpark scam) on the public's dime (The moronic and indefensible 5% admissions tax) was perfectly fine with them at the time.

So, on one hand, they demand that we pay an extortive, exorbitant amount of money (from which they would have made bank off advertising) in the midst of a horrific recession with double-digit unemployment so the downtown interests can make a bundle as we subsidize the Yakima Millionaires baseball team; and on the other, they get upset about PCO elections being on the ballot.

One of the many problems with out local newspaper is a lack of consistency an a philosophy of situational ethics.

It's not unlike the current contrived controversy over that Fluke woman and her fake birth control claims.

Everyone knows she lied; no one talks about that, instead, the focus is on Limbaugh.

As for me, its a matter of applying the same standard to everyone.  The same standard for endorsement.  The same standard for integrity.  the same standard for coverage.

I oppose Tim Leavitt and Steve Stuart because they lied to get elected and they see their arrogance as making them out to, quite wrongfully, be superior in their vision for our community to the extent that they have done everything they can to avoid a promised vote on a minor aspect of the money-sucking CRC scam.

And the newspaper covers for them.

I oppose Marc Boldt because he, too, has lied and recently BROKE THE LAW with a BLATANT conflict of interest.

And the newspaper covers for him.

I oppose Jaime Herrera because of how she got here and what she's done since her arrival; her faux efforts to do something about the bridge being just that: fake.  Artificial.  Designed to make the masses believe she actually cares about our position on the CRC scam... which her abysmal outcomes on the subject, she has proven her lack of worth.

And the newspaper covers for her.

I oppose Jon Russell because he lies, almost incessantly, and portrays himself as a Christian while doing so.  He's used multiple identities, lied about his education and shown gross incompetence as a Washougal city councilman.

And the newspaper covers for him.

A year ago, former Rep. Jim Jacks (D-Vancouver) was kicked out of the legislature for alcohol-fueled abuse of female staff.

And the newspaper covers for him.

This is what makes this all so problematic:

Apply the SAME standard to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

Frankly, if you can't justify PCO elections because it's "private business on the public dime," then the very idea you could support ANY ONE'S "private business on the public dime," like this very newspaper did so stridently on the ballpark scam, is, well, rather rank hypocrisy.

One standard.  All the time.  For everyone... and no passes for those carrying the newspaper's water on the CRC... as most on my list arguably ARE doing.