With the Columbian, it's perfectly OK to lie in a campaign....

.
... if it's for a good reason.

In their continuing effort to rehab Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, we get columns like this today from their editor, wherein he tells us:

OK, I’m not quite as hard on the mayor as some might be over this switcheroo. I
appreciate when someone sees the light and has the courage to change course.

I just wish it had come before the election.

Of course, if that "realization" HAD come "before the election," Leavitt would have lost, making the issue moot.

I had known, and wrote, that Leavitt was a lying scum bag the SECOND he came out "opposed to tolls." With Steve "I can be bought" Stuart on his campaign and The Liar's utterly nonsensical "I'm not an obstructionist" position, there are two irrefutable conclusions:

1. Leavitt was NEVER opposed to tolls.

2. The toll issue was the ONLY campaign issue Leavitt could gin up to separate himself from Pollard.

It was fake. It was made up out of whole cloth. Leavitt was lying about that position from the beginning.

And now, he's made the political decision to come out of the Columbian's "pro-toll" closet NOW, to reduce the massive political damage he's inflicted on himself later, when he runs for whatever other office he's got in mind.

Of course, as the Columbian has just pointed out, it's perfectly OK to lie, when the lie dovetails with THEIR lies and agenda.

The problem is Brancaccio's ignorance about this issue, and his pro-spin position.

Instead of focusing on Leavitt's lack of integrity, his record of lies, his cynical political ploy to get elected....

We're told that Leavitt "saw the light and changed course."

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son.

Leavitt didn't CHANGE anything.

This was Leavitt's position from the beginning (as I repeatedly stated during the election run-up) an now, like his political decision to lie to the ignorant who actually voted for him, he's made the political decision to come out of the closet so he'll get a little political cover when he starts advocating for tolls to get this thing built, because like most of the bridger/looters, they'd shoot their own mothers to get this thing built, saddling us with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt per year, and tasking 65,000 commuters with yet another massive fee to work in Oregon.

Most of the bridger/looters won't have to PAY these fees, of course. And it's easy to make others spend THEIR money.

And now that The Liar is in the fold and has fully drank all of the Columbian's kool aid.... why, he's magically "seen the light."

What a crock of Grade A horse shit.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.
.

Part of it was right, Lou, but here's a different perspective.

Another view using Brancaccio's prose.

I guess becoming numb to the circumstances around us has its benefits.

For example, let’s say you’re a newspaper editor or editorial page editor who trashes most everything in sight. After awhile, one gets used to all the yelling and shouting, and it sort of becomes ambient sound.

It’s the crying wolf too often syndrome: If your modus operandi is to constantly bang the drum, it’s pretty easy — a benefit, if you will — to tune out the yelling. You get used to it.

But this isn’t about the papers I love to read. Rather it’s about this numbing phenomenon. Getting used to stuff.

And getting used to stuff may not always be the right thing.

As one of the blogs you frequently read in a given day, I do applaud your decision to actually mention this effort by name... finally... But you see, you still have a hard time figuring us out.

I have frequently taken your paper to task over the two+ decades I lived here since I left the military because of factual inaccuracies and agendas where your paper uses it's bully-pulpit to ram your agenda home... or to protect favored politicians, even from themselves (Lke Baird)... or to build an agenda, regardless of what the people want... by printing articles that make us seem to be supportive... when all the while, you ignore or belittle opposition to your efforts, and certainly fail to demand that these issues be put to a vote because, well, after all, we can't have a little thing like the will of the people actually get in the way of either your paper... or the government.

Fake polls for the CRC, outright attacks by Laird with you, all the while, preaching something called "civility."

So, yeah.... I admit it: I trash your paper.

But because you leave the most important element out of your "vision," the element of the wants of the people.... your paper DESERVES to be trashed.

You want to hear from us at the polls when you think our will dovetails with your own.

But in everything from I-200 (The legendary initiative that got rid of the affirmative action in this state's public sector (on the surface, at least)) in the face of your paper's "the sky is falling" attacks both against our efforts to pass it, and the nonsensical doom and gloom pronouncements of the editorialists there at the time up through I-695 ($30 car tabs and vote on tax and fee increases) through Koenninger beating the hell out of the Bea's and your paper's SUPPORT of Vancouver suing the voters into silence on downtown redevelopment, your organization has done, in my opinion, far more harm then good.

So, we leave you to engage in the cheerleading, whoopy-wall kind of stuff.

We use our meager resources to remind you that "fairness" and "accuracy" and "news" are more then mere arcane concepts. They are the standard to which you are, allegedly, to be held, but which all too often are forgotten through selective censorship either in stories (tell me again why you've failed to mention Russell's fetish for telling the world his wife is a doctor) or comments (disagree with you or Laird, do it in public on your website comment section, and you're far too often gone) or why you use obviously flawed polling with pre-ordained outcomes and, of course, why you typically fail to seek out opposition to the CRC that few want... and that most who DO want it won't have to pay for it.

I trash your paper. But I don't have a staff that writes for me, either. You have assets far superior to any local blogger. Nevertheless, that hasn't kept me from scooping you on the bogus Baird death threat by getting the actual FBI report or Russell's college degree fantasy. And writing articles in favor of or in agreement with your paper accomplishes nothing.

I know.... because on occasion, I have done that as well... but to what end?

And, at the end of the day, if you focused more on the science of journalism and less on crushing opposition by ignoring it or attacking it... if your paper truly cared about what the people wanted over your own, oh-so-superior vision... then I would have much less to say about your august organization.

But then, the likelihood that you would have had to carve out your very own B&O tax exemption or declare bankruptcy would have been much less as a result, since I and many others might actually have BOUGHT your paper.

Fat chance..

The Columbian finally gets around to reporting what I had last month: The FBI "death threat" report on Baird

.
I posted, in its entirety, the redacted FBI report that I requested last December.

The local paper, which frequently accesses this blog, knew at least two weeks ago that I had the report they're finally blabbing about now.

They also know that the report was closed back in mid-August.

So now, we get 2 different stories, one here and one here.

Now, this paper has repeatedly proven itself to not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. But the irony of all of this is that Lou Brancaccio, in charge of the zoo, has routinely bad mouthed and dissed the local blogging community. And I DO mean "repeatedly."

Yet, I managed to scoop him by a good two weeks. Now how could that be possible?

And this nonsense about the case being closed on November 10th is just that. The case was closed the day after it was opened. ("Incident close request sent 2009-08-14 19:59:46.0")

So, I guess my concern is this: why did the paper wait so long to report this?

And how is it that my little ol' blog could scoop such an august, professional journalism organization?
.

Sure, if by "long time" you mean at least next week.

.
Sadly, the local stain on journalism has managed to suck enough creditors in to escape bankruptcy.

This time.

But the basic elements that forced the rag into bankruptcy remain just as much in place now as they were when the papers were filed.

Hard news print media is obsolete.

Fringe-left reporting and editorial agendas that screw the people are just as obsolete (Go to wiki and look up "Seattle Post Intelligencer" for more information)

Allowing a thug with a keyboard to chase any hope of readership away from anyone not a communist or worse. (Yeah, I'm talking about Laird.)

Cheerleading for a project costing billions that they won't have to pay for in the face of overwhelming opposition while doing everything they can to stifle that opposition in the midst of a propaganda campaign that would make Dr. Goebbels green with envy.

So, what this amounts to is a temporary reprieve.

The patient has been notified they are dying. The only question remaining, thankfully, is how long do they have to live.

And given the damage this despicable rag is doing to our community, let us hope that a merciful end arrives for it soon.
.

The clueless Brancaccio.

.
So, I was reading Brancaccio today... and he's such a card. He tells us:

I was far from a saint, but that teacher taught me an invaluable lesson:

The quicker you figure out where the line is — the one you can’t cross — the more successful you will be.

Everyone’s line — I learned — was different. Play it too safe and you’ll never stand out. Play it too risky and you’ll stand out for all the wrong reasons.

I give a lot of credit, for whatever success I have had in life, to that lesson from that teacher.

Well, imagine that.

Up to this point, there hasn't seemed to be any line he and his organization wouldn't cross.

From loot rail to port levies to endorsing only democrats for open seats in EVERY election.... from false portrayals of non-partisanship to allowing a fringe leftest moron to hammer people with his editorial keyboard, the lines have been non-existent.

I have to wonder why he bothered mentioning them today.

And by the way? As "important" as he tells us teachers are, in the end, their "importance" is no greater or lesser than anyone else. And in the end, during a horrific recession when our economy and its people have have been forced to face slashing cuts across the board, those working for us in government, including teachers, should not be immune to that requirement.

My revenue is off 54% from last years highs. As many as 20% of the workforce is unemployed around here between those showing in the figures released by unemployment and those who've simply said "the hell with it."

I ask myself why those who are working for US seem to be immune to the draconian cuts the rest of us face... and I can't come up with an answer.

While this newspaper advocates that we pay more an more to support those they deem "important," I must say I have had enough. My taxes continue to go up while my income continues to go down.

I will be voting "no" on all tax increases until those who would spend them come to realize that when our president talked about "shared sacrifice," I can't believe that he was only referring to non-government employees.

No matter how "important" those employees think they are.

And teachers... if you think you're underpaid or under-appreciated for your 183 day per year job? Then quit.

No one forces you to work as a teacher.... so quit. The dozens of teachers laid off will be more than happy to take your place for even less money.... and, after all, isn't that the nature of our economy?

What's that? You've got no where to go?

THEN STFU UP AND STOP WHINING. THANK GOD EVERY DAMNED DAY THAT YOU EVEN HAVE A JOB.

Millions of us don't.
.

Of Press Talk and self-delusion.

.
I recognize that the Columbian was moronic enough to carry the empty suit's water like Gunga Din in the last election. In fact, they carry it as much as they do that of our local Cowardman, Brian Baird.

They're as vested in this miserable excuse for a president as Chris "He makes my leg tingle" Matthews.

But don't pee on our legs and call it rain.

An obviously off-his-meds Lou Brancaccio showed a depth of delusion; a complete disconnect from reality that, if he were working for me, would cause me to fire him immediately.

His idiocy reads thusly:

A year ago, if someone asked when Armageddon was coming, you'd likely get the answer, "Coming? It's here!"

The economy had collapsed, the housing market had withered, jobs were scarce, benefits had disappeared and the Washington State Cougars could barely buy a win if they had Bill Gates' money.

Today — just a couple of days past a wonderful turkey dinner — things are better than they were a year ago. Well, maybe not for the Cougars, but I think I saw a glimmer of sunshine peaking through the clouds.

It is good to have hope, look at the positive things, be thankful.

What's better then all of that is to live in the land of reality, a commodity strangely absent from the word processor of Mr. Brancaccio.

Those who view the situation as ANY better then a year ago are guzzling Obama-Aid by the gallon.

By almost EVERY measure, from unemployment to depressed housing prices and construction EVERYTHING IS WORSE, INCLUDING OUR BANKRUPT NEWSPAPER.

Reading garbage like this shows that it's not only fiscally bankrupt; it's intellectually bankrupt as well.

The moron running the show did everything he could to damage our economy as a strategy to get elected. And the leftist morons at the Columbian wee willing accomplices to his scam of being able to claim that HE and HE alone SAVED us!

Well, not we have a MOUNTAIN of debt that didn't exist when he took over; an abysmal foreign policy, utter cluelessness in commanding our Armed Forces; a horrific project being rammed down our throats, the highest unemployment in the state... and THIS idiot says he sees a "glimmer of sunshine?"

The brilliant strategy of this cancer on our community, of providing much less while demanding much more to pay for it drives people away in droves. Combine that with Brancaccio's continued ineptitude and incompetence, along with that of leftist scumbag John Laird, and you have a recipe for disaster.

And no amount of self delusion... like peeing on our legs and calling it rain... will fix that like firing a few of those responsible for this sorry state of affairs at this newspaper ever would.
.

Laird overdoses on scumbag pills and then hits keyboard; Brancaccio silent.

.
For those who have the short attention span required to follow this despicable crap pile of a newspaper, your attention is drawn to Lou Brancaccio's hypocritical effort of September 14 that, no doubt, was a direct result of getting his figurative head caved in as a result of the obvious bias, abandonment of anything approaching journalistic tenets and the supreme arrogance this rag uses as a corporate strategy to ram their agenda down our throats... without asking, of course.

The money quote?

At what point, many wonder, does the way in which we deliver the message become the message? And when the delivery becomes the message, can anyone hear the real message?

Does calling the president a liar or a Marxist move the health care discussion forward?

Can we disagree with someone without being disagreeable?

We all should think about how we treat others. How our message is delivered.

Clearly, the "we" he's referring to doesn't apply to that fringe-left waste of skin they've hired to run the editorial page, John Laird.

As I pointed out at the time of Brancaccio's column of lies and hypocrisy:

You allow scum like John Laird unfettered access to a keyboard that he has used to PUMMEL everyone to the right of Mao and you ask US how WE should deliver OUR message?

This rag is a cancer in our community. On one hand, the guy in charge of their colossal failure as a business organization moralizes to us about what some us us call the empty suited, anti-American racist bigot in the White House under the guise that the anger becomes the message, instead of the message itself.

On the other hand, he allows a dull-normal cretin like Laird to engage in the VERY conduct he decries!

Snippets of today's Laird used toilet paper:

Tea party patrons, rejoice! Unite! Or for some of you, I suppose, to arms! Your grass-roots movement has gained such momentum as to warrant a national blue-ribbon, round-table, fact-finding, rootin' tootin' hoedown!

Headline speakers will include the electrifying and eloquent Sarah Palin, a renowned expert on how to abandon your statewide elected office and make millions writing a book, and U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., who used her publicly funded congressional Web site to urge people to storm the U.S. Capitol and create bedlam in the hallways. According to my investigative aides, the Tea Party Convention's Diversity Committee will meet in an Opryland Hotel & Convention Center broom closet.

This was the year their crusade was born, and the screaming and kicking hasn't stopped yet. Whereas American town hall meetings for more than two centuries were places to exchange ideas and formulate solutions, now they're different, thanks to the Tea Party types. Now, town hall meetings have become boisterous, bigoted shout-downs where the only things that matter are volume and venom, unleashed by adults who remind children to be sure to behave at school assemblies.

And then this moron launches into a self-serving steaming pile actually DEFENDING the indefensible, which adequately labels much of what Obama has done to us.

Now, I fully understand that it is both Laird's right, and this paper's right, to spew whatever nonsense they choose. Just like it's my right to drill them directly between their moronic, unfulfilled principles when they engage in this kind of crap.

But I ask you: where in this moronic heap of detritus Laird spewed is any of that "..think(ing)... about how the message is delivered" stuff?

It's no where to be seen.

In short, in Brancaccio's stilted world, WE should reign in how WE perceive and address the president, for example; but it's perfectly OK for HIS OWN STAFF to address ANYONE smart enough to disagree with Laird (which would include anyone with the intelligence and awareness exceeding that of my 13 week old Cavalier King Charles Spaniel puppy) is treated in print like high-level morons.

As I've noted before, I haven't subscribed to this despicable waste of wood pulp for years. The questions they need to ask themselves are these: can we proposer and grow as sycophants of the fringe left? Is our survival as a paper best served by doing the bidding of an increasingly smaller segment of the population unable to think for themselves? Is continually assaulting our increasingly smaller credibility within this community the wisest course?

But most of all, does this course make it MORE likely, or LESS likely that those in the center and the right will actually fork over money to be abused in this way?
.

My reaction to today's Lou Brancaccio's media flatulence.

.
We are cursed with an utterly clueless daily paper for our region of the woods; the Columbian.

From time to time, their managing editor makes ragged and frequent attempts to justify that cluelessness, including today's effort. There is, perhaps, no one more critical of our local paper then I. I can, without doubt, claim that this paper wherein he writes about yet another in the long series of so-called advisory boards where, as he puts it, "We'd regularly gather readers to ask them how we're doing," either, as in this case, hand picks the participants or ignores the results if those results might tend to derail this rag from it's agenda.

I can modestly claim that there is, perhaps, no one more critical of this paper than I. I can also claim that no amount of criticism; no amount of fact-based correction; no appeal to something unheard of in our local despicable rag (aka "ethics") will make any difference of any kind to those in charge.

In short, the dog and pony show Brancaccio writes about today will change absolutely nothing. It will make no difference in their bias. It will not get them to write ALL of the facts, not just the ones they like. It will not stop Brancaccio in particular, and others within the Columbian from writing about Brian Baird as if the check was in the mail. It will not get them off their moronic I-5 Bridge/loot rail kick, or cause them to do what common decency demands: require that we, as a community, get to vote this crap pile up or down. It will, in no way, end the editorial double standard of wanting the will of the people to be heard on some things, but not heard on others when that will is likely to conflict with their agenda. It will in no way result in a course correction (just check out today's idiocy from John Laird, where's he's all about how great the passage of R-71 is statewide, while forgetting (or, per usual, not caring) that it failed here by a substantial margin) and it will NEVER result in the one thing vital to this, or any other paper's survival:

That the paper in question reflect and speak to the politics and philosophies of the vast majority of its possible readership, and not just the tiny, far left fringe it emulates.

How is the Columbian "doing?" Well, gee.... I don't know.

One would think that facing bankruptcy could be a clue. One might even ponder the meaning of occupying and then abandoning a brand new, state of the art temple of leftist journalism within the same few month time frame as a result of economic necessity might send a message. One would point out the utter stupidity of reducing features and amounts of news and then increasing the price for even less of a paper might be an indicator.

But one would be wrong, for to admit that this paper's course is so completely to the fringe left that no one to the political right of Mao would ever want to spend money on it would be to require some introspection that those running this disgrace to journalism appear to be genetically incapable of engaging in.

Brancaccio's idiocy is best summed up in his own words:

I have not said that. I simply stated a fact that you have the opportunity to see more fringe -- however it is defined -- on the Internet.

When your paper ONLY endorsed democrats for open seats in the last election... when your paper took positions closely mirrored by the fringe left concerning R 71 and I-1033, including quoting a moron in a story who lied when he said that PEOPLE WOULD DIE if 1033 was voted in (as it was here in Clark County) when your paper lies, exaggerates, prints pap garbage like these articles and then demands that billions of taxpayer dollars be spent on an unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement with loot rail, it's fairly clear that the biggest fringe element around here isn't on the internet, except where you post your articles.

By almost any measure; from horrific subscription numbers to abysmal ad revenue, this community has sent you message after message. And as long as you refuse to listen?

Well, expect CONTINUED horrific subscriptions and ad revenue.

Because your pathetic effort deserves no less.
.

Brian Baird: Coward (XXXVI) Yet another in the series of Columbian rehab efforts for their boy Baird.

.
Our local paper has worked far harder than even the Cowardman to rehabilitate his image, and today is no exception.

Brancaccio writes for this clown like he owns a piece of him.

The latest effort? Excusing the Cowardman's decision to use his made-up death threat as an excuse to avoid facing us:

We've heard from many readers who said Baird should have never even mentioned the death threat, let alone turn it over to law enforcement. They say he was just using it as cover to get out of doing the town hall meetings.

But not turning it over made no sense to me.

Few things, apparently, do.

When you get to the point that Baird or one of his minions made it all up, the rest is easy.

IF this threat WAS real, the BEST way to handle it would have been TO turn it over...AND THEN NOT MENTION IT.

Good God, but our community is cursed with morons at our local paper.

You can bet that Baird had no idea this was winding up with the FBI. The LAST thing he'd want is what he got: that he made it up as an excuse to avoid facing us.

The reader at this point might ask something like: "Well, it doesn't say THAT anywhere, does it?"

Nope. Sure doesn't.

But unlike the Columbian, I am unable to suspend common sense and just go with the rest of the leftist tards and not draw the proper conclusion.

The FBI, we are told, did not deem the threat "credible."

What does that mean, exactly?

Well, it could mean there never was a threat. It could mean that their was a threat, but the threatener has vaporized. Or, it could somehow mean there was a threat, and the threatener is unable to walk, talk and/or is a quad amputee.

The standard for threatening a congressman isn't "credibility." The threat, credible or no, in and of itself, violates federal law.

In short, anyone making a threat (and let's remember, there were two such threats: spoken (left on a "message" to the "office..." oddly, a message we've never heard) and a fax) has violated the law, even before the issue of credibility enters into it.

But is it illegal or credible to threaten yourself?

Don't think so.

So, here we are.

We've never HEARD the "message" leaving the threat. We've yet to get an identification of the person BEHIND the "threat." And we get this additional idiocy from Brancaccio:

It's not Baird's job to figure out if it's real or not. Leave that to the professionals. He got this one right.

Of course it is. When you threaten yourself, you KNOW it isn't real. PARTICULARLY when you DIDN'T TURN IT OVER UNTIL AFTER IT BECAME THE EXCUSE TO AVOID FACING US... AND AFTER A BLOG BROKE THE STORY THAT THE COWARDMAN NEVER REPORTED IT.

If the threat was real, it's also not the FBI's job to determine if it's credible or not. That's a court's job.

But... no arrest... no trial... no conviction... PRECISELY like I and so many others SAID there would never be... and it adds up to Baird using the fake threat as an excuse.

Of course, Brancaccio isn't going to let this rest, is he? He's going to keep going after the story, since now that the investigation is closed, they will be more than happy to provide a copy of the file..... right?

Fat chance.

Brancaccio and the rest of the Cowardman Clown Posse want this put to bed now. They NEED this to go away.

Well, guess what: that ain't happening.

They have one month to get that file and report on it, or I'll FOIA it myself and break it here. But it's about time that blogs stop carrying the stain on journalism's load, that they get past their rank partisanship and end their efforts to rehab the scumbag Cowardman representing us.
.

Brian Baird: Coward (XXIX) Brancaccio blows it again: Press talk: Who's watching these guys?

Occasionally, the blinding leftist bias guiding the editorial leadership of our local version of Pravda leaps up and bites them in the butt... and today's bizarro world column from Lou Brancaccio is no different.

In it, Lou pats himself on the back (he should have callouses on both his hand... and his back... from repeating the act in print far too often to give it any credibility) because HIS paper reported on the Washougal debacle. He even goes so far to print THIS bit of self-flaggulatory crap:

The farther away from the core of a strong local newspaper you get, the more likely you are to see shenanigans.

Of course, our community is cursed with a paper at the HEART of many of these "shenanigans," like rabidly supporting a city council who twice files suit against the people to silence them on the matter of downtown redevelopment; by using bogus polls to support the "shenanigans" of ramming an unneeded and unwanted multi-billion dollar waste of money down our throats without a vote, indebting this county over $100,000,000 a year for the next 30 or more years... and engaging in rampant efforts to rehabilitate our local Cowardman, one Brian Baird.

The problem with Brancaccio's media tripe is that when you badmouth blogs, like clarkblog.org, now put out of business by this self-same paper (can't take the competition, you understand) and continually say crap like:

And good luck if you think bloggers are going to somehow do this work. Watch most bloggers closely. They mostly complain about the government based on stories we're doing … and throw in complaints about the media for good measure.

you whiz in your own Corn Flakes because you don't want to address the fact that in arguably the most important local political story in decades, it was a blog that vetted the crap Baird was ladling out, only to discover that Baird had made it all up, and that there wasn't any real death threat.

Now, the bogus death threats have been under investigation by the Capitol Police since shortly AFTER Bob Koski confirmed that no death threat complaints had been filed. Yet, this paper has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to hold our lying Cowardman accountable for HIS "shenanigans."

So what's happened here is that our so-called "crusading" "strong newspaper" has become an accessory after the fact.

It's this kind of bias and effort to cover up the cowardice of the Cowardman because this rag so rabidly supports him that makes this tain on journalism a danger to our community... and a far worse offender than any ol' Lou points out in his self-congratulatory screed.
.

Brancaccio blows it AGAIN: his self-serving column on "fairness."

Brancaccio cherry picks ONE issue, in this case, matching convention headlines with the two political parties, and from those, concludes that he's "fair."

Clearly, self-delusion is a major tenet of running this paper.... because what this had nothing to do with was "fairness." This is not an issue of fairness. This is, instead, an issue of self-justification.

Using the Pollard Hilton for anything, subsidized by taxpayer dollars as it is (and is... to the tune of millions) is in the vested interest of this very newspaper.

It hasn't been so long that, in the interests of their faux brand of "fairness," this very paper rabidly supported the idea and act of the city of Vancouver to sue it's citizenry into silence over building that facility; a facility that has never come close to turning a profit and which, most likely, never will; into the Nazi political version of silence where, once again, their opinion might interfere with this despicable rag's agenda.

This used toilet paper is all about forcing us into silence. In everything from censoring reader comments on stories, to supporting gerrymandered tax districts where tens of thousands don't get to vote; but tens of thousands sure get to pay; to their rabid and wholly unjustifiable support of the I-5 Bridge replacement/Loot Rail project; unneeded, unwanted, massively expensive... this propaganda sheet has either demanded, or fostered through their silence, that we not be allowed to vote on these issues.

So, yes, Lou; you and your paper have never been in the same room with "fairness." You and your paper are an irresponsible cancer on our community, a place where fairness, ethics, and journalistic tenets are characteristics as foreign as Sanskrit in this paper.

This blog has over 1100 posts. Hundreds of these are devoted to documented, verified instances of the rank, unfair bias that this newspaper is known for; in everything from only endorsing nothing but democrats for open seats in the last election to cheerleading for gerrymandering a bogus tax district where, once again, tens of thousands of us will be silenced... but not exempted... from paying a tax this rag wants... after having gone whining and sniveling to an all-too-accommodating democrat legislature who obsequiously and meekly cut THIS PAPER'S B&O tax in the midst of this horrific, $10 BILLION deficit... but who damned sure didn't cut the taxes of very many others.

No, Lou... with a years long record of lies, exaggerations, and insults... with your rank hypocrisy about how a message is delivered BECOMING the message while you do nothing to rein in that scumbag editorial page editor of yours, who does everything you squealed that you abhorred, week in and week out; to the vast majority of editorials endorsing garbage tax increases such as the massive gas tax where this state lied repeatedly as to what this money was supposed to be used to build... all the way to that $8 BILLION carbuncle on this communities ass known as the CRC... your despicable rag has been anything BUT "fair."

And cherry picking this one situation, where the over riding concern was neither party nor "fairness" as much as it was backfilling the massive abuse of this community that it took to get that steaming crap pile built... does not "fair" make.

And it would take a particularly slimy worm to try and show that it did.

But then, that's you.... right, Lou?

Congratulations to the Columbian for crushing a blog opposing your propaganda: clarkblog is no more.

.
The comment received on my post yesterday below says it all:

I was sad to discover a "farewell" message from the chief, Bob Koski, when I checked in at clarkblog.org yesterday. I think it was up for maybe 24 hours before he "pulled the plug" on his blog. He mentioned how his enemies had stepped up their attack on him, & that his health wasn't up for the fight.

While I am sorry to have seen it come to that. I respect Bob's decision. I hope to see someone take up where he left off.s to

Hail to THE CHIEF!

George

I view this as an attack on ALL of us.

This big-bully attitude; the idea that those opposing your propaganda must be silenced, that the Nazi way, so beloved by our local rag and our Cowardman leads to this... silencing the largest clearing house of information at the street level for us mere mortals is, perhaps, the most disgusting crap, in a mountain of feces, that our local stain on journalism has ever engaged in.

The rank hypocrisy of this is obvious; Freedom of the Press is not an arcane or nebulous concept that applies only to something laughingly called a newspaper. Freedom of Speech is not something that begins and ends in the ghetto-fab hallways of the most damaging influence in the Northwestern United States.

I'm sorry that it seems to have taken such a toll on Bob Koski, proprietor of clarkblog.org. I wish that he had found a way, but he fought the good fight, the brilliant fight and put up with truck loads of garbage that would have crushed lesser men or women much sooner.

I didn't always agree with Bob or other posters on clarkblog. But I ALWAYS agreed with their RIGHT to speak their minds.

To George, who asked on his blog "So, now, what do I do with it?"   I say: Pick up the mantle established by those who've fought the fight. Speak your mind. Call "bullshit" on the mighty. Don't let those who hide under the now non-existent cloak of fairness, of in-depth fact gathering, of unbiased, non-responsive blather where those wise enough to disagree are publicly humiliated, attacked and belittled by big, tough guys hiding behind barrels of ink get away with it.

Never, EVER allow the judgment of those with a nonsensical agenda where they, somehow, are magically imbued with knowledge or vision they believe to be oh, so, superior to our own push you around. When scum like the Columbian attempt to ram their agenda's down OUR throats... when, for example, they would task US with paying for THEIR vision at the rate of $1300 or more per year, a fee THEY will not have to pay; stand up to them. Call them the lying, thieving scum they are. DEMAND that they do the RIGHT thing, EVERY time.... and not just when, as is so often the case, it's convenient for the asshats running their show.

Speak truth to power.

When our Cowardman lies, like he did about fake death threats, call his cowardly ass out. When the president lies or ignores another in the series of his campaign promises, long forgotten but rarely mentioned as he shatters them so effortlessly; as he haslied about issue after issue while this disgrace of a newspaper remains silent (after all, they endorsed that dillwad, and they're no more capable of admitting they were wrong then they are of using common sense.) point out his lies.

When government abuses us (A thousand dollar permit fee for a $4500 car port? Really?) then call them out on it.

Be fearless. Be correct. Make your mistakes loudly. And never, ever be afraid.

When Laird is printed, nail that fringe-left moron. When Brancaccio snivels about "civility" and then ignores his same standard or allows his own staff to ignore it, nail him for his rank hypocrisy. When the local rag lies, as they have so many times in the past, in an effort to buttress their agenda at our expense, then blast them for the intellectual cowards they are.

If the local rag was fair; if they were not complete leftists, if they didn't engage in rank hypocrisy and double standard in everything from their editorials to their endorsements... if they did their fricking jobs... then our blogs wouldn't be necessary.

If they didn't use their positions of privilege to help those they favor, as they have spent so much time, effort and energy to rehab Cowardman Brian Baird's image, or attack those they disagreed with as if somehow only THEIR vision was worthy or of merit, then, well, these blogs wouldn't be necessary.

But this rag is accountable to no one. Their subscription numbers are diving into the tank, and editorial introspection is such an arcane concept to these fringe left scum that they have no real clue why.

I've been disgusted by the despicable acts of this rank excuse of a newspaper before. But their effort here has sunk to new lows.

My health is great. I look forward to ANY attempt to silence me.

An exception to political talk on this blog: Seattle Seahawk uniforms: In the Name of God, stop.

There is no doubt in my military mind that these are the butt-ugliest pieces of uniform crap I have ever seen.

.

These are so God-awful that John Laird's writing looks good in comparison.

.

These are so God-awful that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's nose grew one inch SHORTER instead of 5 feet longer just by looking at these uniforms.

.

These are so God-awful that Lou Brancaccio's wreaking rank hypocrisy smells like pure manure instead of the chemically enhanced variety he usually trowels out.

.

I'm from Seattle. I've been a Seahawk fan as long as there have BEEN Seahawks. I've even played football; from little league, thru military, thru a brief stint as a tackling dummy in college. And I HAVE seen some UGLY uniforms. But THIS... this uniform is so ugly, it made my LCD screen melt even BEFORE we lost to Chicago.

.

Burn them.

.

Now.

.

Jack Patera is spinning in his grave. And if Jack isn't dead, I'm sure that once he dies, the mere THOUGHT of these ass-ugly uniforms will MAKE him spin in his grave.

.

Even Oregun's moronic turd uniforms look better... and until this leprechaun-green crap came out, I didn't think that was possible.

.

Another Sunday, another steaming pile of John Laird Columbian crap.

.
The local rag continues to cement their reputation as having a death wish when it comes to surviving in our struggling economy.

The rag, which portrays itself as some sort of even-keeled purveyor of news, has had at least 2 consecutive fringe-left whack jobs as their last editorial page editors: Michael Heywood, who, after leaving the Columbian became the editor of the newsletter for the Clark County democrat party, and their current Marxist, John Laird.

Laird is a lying scumbag. The irony that this despicable stain on journalism would allow such a moron to have a platform that enables him to lie, to attack, to insult and belittle, cannot be lost on this blogger.

Was it just a few days ago that Lightening Lou Brancaccio, the inmate in charge of that particular asylum, did a column where he was so hypocritically whining and sniveling about the message delivery?

At what point, many wonder, does the way in which we deliver the message become the message? And when the delivery becomes the message, can anyone hear the real message?

Does calling the president a liar or a Marxist move the health care discussion forward?

Can we disagree with someone without being disagreeable?

We all should think about how we treat others. How our message is delivered.

So.... how come the standard that Lou so hypocritically would apply to us is so ignored within the confines of the morass that HE runs?

Why doesn't he apply that standard to the people that work for him?

Why doesn't he reign in that lying scumbag?

Does calling Governor Palin a liar move any discussion forward? Is it OK for leftists to call Bush every conceivable name, but then have you climb up on the platform of civility?

Does Laird HAVE to be such a lying asshole with every column?

Why is it that YOU don't give a damn about how YOU, or YOUR people, "treat others?"

Laird is a total leftist. He appears to be genetically incapable of being any of those things you sniveled about when it comes to everyone else.

He lies like the scumbag he is in the very first paragraph of his weekly, fringe left, moveon.org propaganda.

Where in the world did Sarah Palin come up with that ghastly "death panels" term, you ask? Well, she made it up. And this from a woman who on July 26 admonished the media: "Stop making things up!"

You know, I do apologise for constantly referring to Laird as scum. "Scum," as a word, is quite inadequate to describe the rank hypocrisy of this stain on our community. To use the term "scum" is to do a disservice to the word.

It is a shame that, in fact, the embarrassment that is our local paper could, in fact, be a force for good.

They could be a voice for the people. They could hold politicians accountable, regardless of party. They could put the will of the people ahead of their own agenda.

Unfortunately for us, they are none of those things. This rag is a cancer in our community, and it is sincerely hoped that they will disappear like the used toilet paper they really, really are.

.

Another steaming pile of hypocrisy from the local stain on journalism, the Columbian.

.
The Columbian is a proven leftist rag, apparently ran by the cluelessly moronic.

Take today's pro-Obama rant by Lou Brancaccio. In it, he whines and snivels about the reaction to the messiah's neo-communistic health care socialization program, a floundering turd of public policy that the masses have risen up to crush.

And in it, this moron asks the following questions:

At what point, many wonder, does the way in which we deliver the message become the message? And when the delivery becomes the message, can anyone hear the real message?

Does calling the president a liar or a Marxist move the health care discussion forward?

Can we disagree with someone without being disagreeable?

We all should think about how we treat others. How our message is delivered.

Really? Do we REALLY have to do that, you fricking lying hypocrite? (How's THAT for "message delivery?")

You allow scum like John Laird unfettered access to a keyboard that he has used to PUMMEL everyone to the right of Mao and you ask US how WE should deliver OUR message?

This is not new news. Over twelve years ago, a Columbian reporter expressed concerns over the integrity of the profession:

NEWSPAPERS TRY TO REGAIN CREDIBILITY WITH READERS
From: The Columbian
Date: July 28, 1997 Author: MIKE FEINSILBER

WASHINGTON -- Would you believe this? A lot of editors worry that you wuldn't -- that people are less willing these days to believe what they read in the nespapers. They fear that, for a variety of reasons, newspapers are suffering a crisis in credibility, losing the irreplaceable asset of believability. The press has a lot to worry about these days: stagnant circulation, too few young readers, the Internet's

...Almost 12 years later, and the message has not been received by this organization, even though it originated with one of its own reporters.

What a cluelessly moronic series of things to say. You have a leftist scumbag that has insulted and belittled in column after column and when some of that is aimed at you, YOU ask US to "think about how we treat others?"

Good God, you hypocritical scumbag. How can you even look into a mirror?

And yeah... I gave a great deal of thought to the message. And I completely stand by it.
.

Brian Baird: Coward (XXV) Brancaccio's patty cake on the wrist.

.
The lead off line explains it all:

"Look, I'm guilty of liking Congressman Brian Baird."

Really? Gee, from all of your efforts to save this moron from himself, we'd have never guessed that.

The guy's a democrat. In open seats, you only endorse democrats. YOU endorsed THIS clown, and you'll CONTINUE to endorse him and support him as long as he runs.

Face it, Lou, you'd dive into a vat of hydrochloric acid before you'd endorse anyone running against Baird, this eyewash notwithstanding. Anyone else in the seat would be likely to ignore your agenda... and you can't have that.

"Baird isn't stupid. Quite the opposite. So there really is something else at play here."

What's at play is he, like you, have been infested with the Obama bug. Both of you wrongly believe that you can support any leftist deal you want. With Baird, he thinks he can FINALLY show his true, cowardly leftist colors.

So he is.

Instead of merely calling on him to take YOUR advice (as if it's better than anyone else's) you SHOULD be demanding the Cowardman's resignation.

But if Baird turned out to be an axe murderer from Pawtucket, Rhode Island, you'd STILL support this clown.

You're such a leftist that you can't help it. And while I get that you can't help it, while that may excuse YOU, it doesn't excuse your continued employment at the paper.

Treat Baird the same way you'd treat a Republican.

Somehow, I think the tone and tenor of this column would be quite different then warm, fuzzy pap you spewed today.

Brian Baird: Coward (XXI) Words have meaning, Lou, and failing to provide context for mine is just part of your problem.

.
This has been a very tough month for Brian Baird, our resident Cowardman. It's been a month that our local waste of wood pulp has done everything it can to save this idiot from himself.

I've pointed this out, repeatedly. I've shown many, many examples where this stain on journalism has failed this community, again and again, by writing as if Baird's campaign pays them.

Oddly, that claim has not been disputed, to my knowledge. But then, it's hard to deny the facts of the matter.

So, when the Columbian portrayed David Hedrick as some sort of a nut, *I* wrote

That said, words have meaning. For example, when I characterize this worthless rag as a stain on journalism, that means something. So when this scumbag waste of pulp characterizes David Hedrick's lecture to the Cowardman during the Dog and Pony show at the Amphitheater as a "rant," that is a deliberate act, done to belittle Hedrick as these clowns continue to take a dump on the science of journalism in their quest to rehabilitate the Cowardman's destroyed image.

So, of all that, what did Lou Brancaccio mention in his latest Baird rehab effort?

They zeroed in on our description of what Hedrick said, as a "rant."

After reading our story and headline, one conservative blogger said it was done "to rehabilitate (Baird's) destroyed image."

Go figure.

So, in mentioning this blog without having the guts to link to it or name it, Brancaccio, in his own cowardly way, failed to provide the context for what I wrote AND failed to use ALL of the quote. But then, referring to Baird as "Cowardman" simply goes against the Baird Rehabilitation program this rag is now almost constantly engaging in.

Go figure.

Brancaccion blows off accurate criticism of his use of the word "rant" to describe Hedrick's accurate criticism of our Cowardman. As usual, Brancaccio misses the point.

When that moronic coward characterized those of us who are wise enough to oppose Obama's efforts, efforts that he and this rag support as fellow fringe left whack jobs, This newspaper failed to apply that same word to Baird.

Now if, as Brancaccio is trying to sell us, the word "rant"

simply means "a loud rhetorical delivery expressed with strong emotion." How could you argue with that? OK, OK, we love arguing.

Then why didn't this despicable waste of space fail to use it when Baird actually did engage in a "rant?"

How come it only became a "rant" when someone confronted Baird, but wasn't a rant when the Cowardman stupidly confronted us?

The word "rant" also has negative connotations. Again, these so-called "journalists" know damned well that it's a negative label.

THAT'S the point, Brancaccio. But then, you knew that. Your disingenuous, out of context bullshit doesn't change that.

And, of note, is your double standard on referencing sources so the reader, if so inclined, could judge for themselves if you were right or wrong.

There is much more at stake here then your limited, biased perspective when it comes to the facts of the matter. You continually fail to source those of us smart enough to disagree with you by our efforts to provide alternative perspectives to the leftist crap you typically write... much like your column today.

There's no excuse for that, of course. So, here's a clue: Everything I write is copyrighted. If you're going to use my product, you have to ask me first.

See, Lou, I don't make a dime off of what I write, so quoting, sourcing and linking you and that rag all come under "Fair Use." Doing the same to my product?

Not so much.

So, feel free to swing on by when the mood strikes. I'll be more than happy to HELP you "figure," since you seem incapable of the act yourself.

And who knows, Lou. Maybe you'll grow some balls and actually source our words.

But then, I doubt it. Because as insecure and academically bereft as leftists typically are, they certainly don't want to expose anyone to a perspective that disagrees with theirs... and certainly not while giving the writer in question an opportunity to clarify positions to a level simple enough that even YOU can understand it.

Since you asked.
.

More leftist deflection from our local fishwrapper: Oh goody! WE made them say "inartful."

.
Politics, as a business, sucks.

The observance of politics is frequently toxic to the extent that the anger and frustration one feels when those who have a public position that is, allegedly, requiring of some level of trust, fairness, and journalistic tenets deposit those elements of their profession into the toilet with their respective processed lunches.

Recently, the democrat newsletter known as the local paper, for example, felt it "newsworthy" to publish the sniveling whines of someone who didn't like a fundraising letter.

Do I even have to mention the party that sent the letter out?

Of course not. Anyone reading the tripe this rag publishes knows automatically which party provided the letter.

The abandonment of journalistic fairness took place throughout the entirety of what we can laughingly call "the story."

Even the moron writing this article had to admit that ALL political parties engage in what some will call "objectionable" verbiage in their fundraisers:

Democrats have been just as guilty, according to Portland pollster Mike Riley, quoted in Tuesday's Columbian: "Both parties do that. They are using some of the hot-button issues to see what activates the voters. It's politics as usual within the party faithful. No one that I know puts any credibility in thesetypes of polls."

The idiots publishing this slop knew that before they published it.

So... why did they publish it? What was the point?

It was, of course, part of their ongoing effort to rehab our Cowardman's image.

It failed, of course, because nothing this waste of pulp has, is, or will do can achieve that.

And where these scum failed... again... was when they failed to get a fund-raiser from the leftists at the same time... say, any one of those demonizing President Bush (who, compared to the Empty suited, anti-American racist bigot currently running the country is starting to look more and more like Abe Lincoln) and stopping just short of demanding his assassination; and doing the same thing to the authors of THOSE efforts.

Since these leftists agreed with that kind of nonsense, and since an institutional double-standard for leftists is just company policy around there; well, fat chance that would ever happen.

All of which begs the issue: Why didn't it happen? Why didn't these morons go out and get a leftist fund raiser to compare this with?

IF you're going to do such a moronic story, the ONLY way it works, in the interest of fairness, even-handedness and JOURNALISM is to do it for BOTH parties, PARTICULARLY when your own source TELLS you that BOTH PARTIES DO IT.

But that would be yet another instance of this rag allowing facts to interfere with it's agenda.

And they can't have that... can they?

Their bogus editorial goes on to spew:

Much like the definition of "journalist," the true meaning of "survey" often can be a little blurred. Our advice: Check the source, make sure it's genuinely identified and decide if it's got an agenda.

Given the trainwreck that is your paper, and given your obvious hatred of anything to the right of Lenin, why don't you take your advice and jam it where the sun don't shine?

The definition of journalist is sunk in stone. There's nothing blurry about it, except to those who've abandoned the definition... the science... and the principles of what a journalist is SUPPOSED to be.

You know... like this paper?
.

Brian Baird: Coward (XVIII) My take on Brancaccio's idiocy of today.

.
I could not have POSSIBLY said it better than this:

Brian Baird: Coward (XVII) So, who's Lying? The Columbian as they continue to front for Baird? Or Chief?

.
My, my. Aren't we in a conundrum.

We have the local rag; a despicable waste of wood pulp with a history of lies, distortions and exaggerations.

Then we have Bob Koski, with arguably the most popular Clark County political web site who has never been known to lie, distort or exaggerate... a website that seems to have a much broader readership than the rag.

As noted below, Koski has indicated that the completely worthless waste of skin representing us in Congress has, up to COB Friday, failed to notify the Capital Police of any of these so-called death threats.

Koski, of course, ultimately did the job of the leftist leg-humpers infesting the local paper by actually taking the time to engage in that quaint custom of actually VERIFYING a source's claim, even if that source is the fringe leftist nutberger you support.

And what he found out, as mentioned below, is this:

When I called Records and Reports, I spoke with the very polite and helpful lady there who is responsible for typing and submitting any kind of a report like Brian Baird is claiming was filed. I asked her specifically if she had a report of a telephoned threat that stated "You think Timothy McVeigh was bad, there is a Ryder Truck out there with your name on it," or anything remotely similar to a statement like that.

She said that if anything like that had happened to any member of Congress, she would know about it. She has heard nothing, repeat NOTHING like what Brian Baird claims to have reported to the Capitol Hill Police, or from any other member of Congress.

So, along comes the Columbian. Their managing editor, finally seeing what the rest of have seen in a heartbeat; namely that Baird is in political trouble of Titanic proportions, immediately does what the Columbian will always do in situations like this:

Write something to cover Baird.

If chief's allegation is accurate; namely that no death threat was reported, then he is done. He is over.

Brancaccio knows this. The scum at the Daily Kos knows this.

So, Brancaccio FINALLY gets around to looking into this situation... which he SHOULD have done BEFORE word ONE of this "threat" bullshit ever was printed.

And what does he have to print?

Absolutely nothing that refute's Koski's claim.

Nothing.

Oh, as usual, Brancaccio attack's Koski's veracity. He asks some totally moronic questions with self-evident answers that even a fringe left not job like himself should be able to answer, such as:

But a few things puzzled me:

-- There was no name attached to the info the blogger said he had from the Capitol Police. I asked the blogger if he had a name. He said I was bothering him. I should do my own legwork.

And you should have. These things are also completely irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that YOU didn't ask the damned question BEFORE Koski did.

-- The Capitol Police had been quite uncooperative with us but was willing to give out info to someone else?

So, idiot, did you actually talk to someone in records? Or did you talk to their PIO?

Maybe they were so "uncooperative" with YOU because they know what a worthless, biased rag you work for.

-- And why would Baird lie about something like this? Eventually you would be certain to get caught.

No one has EVER said that Baird has been the brightest bulb on the tree. But then, maybe he was counting on your legendary journalistic incompetence. I know *I* do.

Why would he lie?

Are you fricking KIDDING me?

He would lie because he's a liar.

He would lie because he got stuck on stupid.

He would lie because he called people something that, were he to do it to their faces, might wind up with him getting punched in the mouth.

He would lie because there is NEVER, ANY excuse for failing to face your constituents. And he needed one... and you've done all you can to get him one.

EVER. No matter how much YOU spin for him like he was giving you a briefcase full of cash.

Brancaccio ends with this:

"Look, we hold all politicians accountable. I'm sure Baird has been none too pleased with much of our coverage. But we won't jump into a story without vetting it first. We'll still make mistakes. But we'll work hard at not making mistakes. And don't blame the bloggers here. Users simply have to manage the information they get. from wherever they get it. And the best bet for good info still is newspapers."

And here, in a nutshell, is precisely why I don't believe Brancaccio and I DO believe Bob:

When the rag's editor writes: "But we won't jump into a story without vetting it first," then how come they didn't vet THIS story "first?" How come they took Baird's word for it?

"Vetted" my ass. There was no vetting done here by this rag. Koski did the vetting.

And Brancaccio's column, while rife with innuendo and snide remarks, provides absolutely NOTHING to show that Koski is wrong.

This is yet another of the despicable, inexcusable efforts by this rag to provide cover for Baird; cover that he's desperate for.

But it's too late. Baird is done, and this massive, colossal waste of wood pulp with him.

Who to believe? Who to believe?

Gee. That's a toughy.
.