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..

Both the Columbian and Thomas Edison verify it: Russell's claim of a college degree is fake.

.
Keep in mind the fact that my interview with the Columbian, DONE IN WRITING, did NOT say some of what is printed here.

But here is the entire entry, unfortunately limited to the not-well-read political blog on the website as opposed to being printed in the newspaper... like it should have been.

Jon Russell's degree

Blog: Political Beat

Subscribe

By Columbian Politics (Columbian Staff)

July 6, 2010

Did Jon Russell, the Washougal city councilor who’s running for an open seat in the 18th Legislative District, misrepresent his academic credentials to precinct committee officers?

Yes, says Kelly Hinton, who leveled the accusation at Russell last week on his Clark County Politics blog.

No, insists Russell. So we checked it out.

Russell allegedly told 18th District precinct committee officers that he had a two-year associate degree from Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey. The college offers degrees through correspondence courses as well as at its bricks-and-mortar campus.

The college confirms that Russell enrolled in courses there, but says it has not granted him a degree.

Russell says he has earned more than the 60 credit hours required for an AA degree. He told The Columbian he has sent for his transcript to prove it.

But he concedes that he never got around to doing the paperwork required to get the actual degree.

When he looked into it last week, he said, he learned he would have to reenroll as a fulltime student in order to apply.

Joe Guzzardo, spokesman for Thomas Edison, confirmed the policy. Not only that, he said, it would cost Russell $630 to apply for the AA degree under the college’s “reenrollment to graduate” policy. Until last March, he said, the cost would have been $2,332 for former students living out of state.

“In order for someone like Mr. Russell to finish, they would have to take advantage of the ‘reenrollment to graduate’ policy,” Guzzardo said.

Russell maintains that he never said he actually had the degree. “I’ve always said I’ve earned my degree,” he told The Columbian. “I’ve never said I obtained my degree.”

Nevertheless, he said Tuesday, “I have submitted a ‘request for graduation’ form with Thomas Edison to have my diploma sent to me.”

Russell says Hinton’s blog “is designed to do nothing more than to tear down my credibility” because Hinton, a former legislative staffer, backs one of Russell’s opponents, Ann Rivers, in the 18th District race. “He is trying to turn over every rock,” Russell said.

Both Hinton and Rivers confirmed that they are business associates in a political consulting firm. Rivers called Hinton “a friend.”

But she said she’s not behind Hinton’s blog attacks. “I don’t need to tear down someone else’s building to make myself look taller,” she said.

Hinton confirmed in an e-mail that he supports Rivers’ candidacy, but he said he began criticizing Russell when he was still a candidate for the 3rd Congressional District seat. Russell dropped out of that race in February and joined a crowded field for the open 18th District position.

Kathie Durbin

Unfortunately for the reader not in the know, this article is factually incorrect in ways that just mystify me.

In my blog or in my email to Durbin, I never alleged that Russell had told the PCO's of the 18th District that he had a degree. I made no note of that whatsoever.

What I told Durbin was this:

The evidence I have provided; that Russell has indicated his wife is a “physician” to the 18^th District PCO’s, that he called her a ”doctor” in the Vancouver Business Journal and then changed the story to “family nurse practitioner” after I blogged about it and that Sarah Russell has advertised herself as a doctor at the Columbia River Gorge Medical Clinic in a newspaper owned by the Columbian, if I’m not mistaken, is not something I fabricated.

For whatever the reason, there was no mention of these allegations, which are as much a lie as Russell's fake degree.

And let's review the verbiage Russell was using on his website:

Jon’s experience in politics started as he was working on his degree in political science first at Vincennes University and finished his degree at Thomas Edison State College in Trenton, NJ.

CLEARLY this was meant to deliberately infer that he had completed a BACHELOR'S DEGREE, and NOT an AA.

How Durbin could confuse Russell lying to the PCO's about his degree and lying to the PCO's about his wife is just beyond me.

For those of us actually possessed of 4 year degrees, we recognize the major difference, parsed by Russell, between having more then the number of credits required for an AA degree and actually completing... and receiving... a bachelor's degree.

Russell knows that. Thus his Clintonesque, "it all depends on what the definition of "is," is response:

Russell maintains that he never said he actually had the degree. “I’ve always said I’ve earned my degree,” he told The Columbian. “I’ve never said I obtained my degree.”

Really?

So, this is the kind of representation Russell has to offer? One where we have to parse everything he says to figure it out?

Russell whines that my blog: "... is designed to do nothing more than to tear down my credibility” because Hinton, a former legislative staffer, backs one of Russell’s opponents, Ann Rivers, in the 18th District race. “He is trying to turn over every rock,” Russell said.

Well, the thing about credibility is this: If you don't lie, fabricate or exaggerate, then I've got nothing to write about... do I?

Unfortunately, the paper deliberately left out the FACT that I began nailing Russell's "credibility" as soon as he announced for Congress; instead of verifying that truth, relying alternately on the "I said I began criticizing Russell" when he announced for Congress, thereby deliberately failing to destroy Russell's position that my primary motivation for Jon Russell Watch wasn't my support of Ann Rivers, but instead, my opposition to Russell.

Typical.

And by the way, Jon.... I'm given to understand that you brought your own lies to the attention of the paper (Not that, since they read my blogs several times a day, they didn't know about them anyway) so I wanted to give you a hearty "Well done!"

So, while whoever wrote this has a fact check problem with a narrow-focused view with blinders, leaving out much of the other allegations which directly impact on Russell's increasingly non-existent credibility, this is, I suppose, better than nothing.

Barely. But this is, I suppose, what passes for "journalism" at the lazy C.

Cross posted at Jon Russell Watch.
.

Report on my Brian Baird/FBI FOIA Request.

You learn a lot about things in the Administration by interacting with it's Agencies.

On December 3, I requested a copy of all death threat investigations against Congressman Brian Baird. The mandated turn-around time for that request is, under federal law, 20 days.

I received the investigation yesterday via fax, although they indicated they had sent it to me on January 29.

Once I called them (again) and asked them about it, they actually faxed the completed, moderately redacted report to me that day, for which I am grateful. (11 pages total)

The upshot of the report is this:

On August 13, 2009, Capitol Police notified the FBI that on August 11, at 2124, a "threatening message" was left on the voice mail of Baird's Washington, DC, office.

The message, by it's nature, included the originating number of the phone call. Further identification was provided by the caller, who IDENTIFIED HIMSELF.

The message, a quoted in the report, is this:

"Brian, [REDACTED] here. You think we're all Timothy McVey[sic] types, huh? I'd keep a close eye out for those Ryder rental trucks if I were you. You never know when one might show up. Bye."

The call originated from Wichita, Kansas.

The next day (August 14) an Special Agent of the FBI and someone referred to as a "TFO" attempted to interview the self-named individual, but missed him at his residence. A few minutes after leaving his residence, the "TFO" received a phone call from the subject on what was identified as the subject's cell phone.

What transpired next, quoted verbatim from the report:

[REDACTED] advised [REDACTED] that indeed he did place the phone call to Congressman Baird, but he certainly did not intend this call to gain the attention that it obviously did. [REDACTED] advised the number [REDACTED] was his DSL computer line, which can be accessed and used as a telephone. [REDACTED] advised after observing Congressman Baird in a television interview the night of 8-11-2009, where he stated the people opposing Obama's Health Care Bill were reminiscent of Timothy McVeigh. [REDACTED] became upset and verified by calling Baird's telephone number.

[REDACTED] advised he left Congressman Baird a message stating that if he was going to consider the opposition, which included [REDACTED] to be McVeigh type[sic], then he better be watching out for the Ryder trucks. [REDACTED] advised in no way did he intend to cause any problems, and certainly he was not going to go out and rent a Ryder truck and do harm, nor did he now anyone who would. [REDACTED] advised he was venting his frustration and utilized his freedom of speech and certainly was not a terrorist. [REDACTED] advised he has worked for [REDACTED] Wichita for [REDACTED] years and was not a trouble maker. He advised he was so sorry if he had caused the FBI to spend any amount of time or money to track him down in response to his phone call.

[REDACTED] also advised that just last night, he also called a Georgia Senator in response to calling people "Racist" just because they opposed Obama. [REDACTED] was advised that many people share his emotions and feelings, but there are better ways to express them. [REDACTED] agreed, and again apologized.

TFO [REDACTED] and SA [REDACTED] terminated the phone interview, satisfied that [REDACTED] posed no threat to conduct any acts of terrorism. [REDACTED] considers the investigation closed due to [REDACTED] lack of any past criminal activity other than several local speeding violations, as well as his admitting the phone call was his way of venting frustration."

Created 2009-08-14 19:07:44

Incident close request sent 2009-08-14 19:59:46.0

This is the report without further comment. I am going to review the timing of the report and threat, used in part as a justification to avoid holding a town hall meeting. But one thing is clear: less than 72 hours after making the report, Baird knew it lacked substance and stood as no possible source of harm for him.

There was no mention of a "faxed death threat" provided by the FBI, under the auspices of my search request, Subject "BAIRD, BRIAN/ALLEGED DEATH THREAT."