iPad. I don't get it.

.
I get the book reader... maybe. No camera, video or USB ports make it a rather expensive paper weight in today's era of cheap laptops that can do 10 times as much for half the money.

It's certainly different and all that... but is it worth the buzz?

Even the name iPad... ("Heavy flow? There's an ap for that!") is kind of, well, stupid, according to my 16 year old daughter.


That it is difficult to impossible to print from makes it more a toy than a serious electronic device. Laptop and netbook manufacturers shouldn't lose any sleep over this.... yet.

Had this been built with a hard drive and some version of the ports all computers have at a similar laptop price; 4 or more gigs of ram and the like, there is no question that it would have driven a truck through most of the current laptop/netbook market.

The problem for apple is that there are others on the drawing board that do most of the things this does... and more... for less money.

My guess is that 2 or 3 years from now, most of these things sold today will wind up gathering dust in closets of the households unfortunate enough to have bought them.

But hey. That's just me, and I'm hamstrung by believing that for the money, apple is mostly a joke.
.

The "intellectual dishonesty" and cowardice of a Herrera supporter: Keath Huff fails to address the issues.

.
Yesterday, Keath Huff posted this gobbledygook in defense of Ridgefield Barbie. Why he lied about the bill and who did what is any one's guess, but he did. and I will use this space to point out each and every falsehood Huff relies on in his slavish efforts to defend the indefensible:

Memo: Jaime Herrera and SEIU

KeathHuff

Below is the memo from Casey Bowman, the campaign manager for Jaime Herrera, explaining the “Pro Union Vote” Herrera was supposed to have taken.

I certainly understand her vote, trying to get fair reimbursement for small business owners who are getting short changed by the State of Washington. It is not unlike the poor reimbursement rates that doctors receive from Medicare and other “state run” health insurance. In the end the average consumer pays more to cover the real cost of care.

So, here we have a situation with a bill that does this:

"Collective bargaining" by it's very nature means higher costs. That means that both the taxpayer, who will have to pay the higher subsidies the bill mentions and the customers who are not subsidized will have to do what?

Pay.

More.

Money.

Any time SEIU gets involved in a bill, it's never in the taxpayer's best interests. It's only in THEIR best interests, no matter how much it costs US.

And Herrera didn't know this when she co-sponsored and voted for this monstrosity? And Huff doesn't know it now?

Of course he does. But at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter to a member of the Herrera Herd, who's slavish devotion to this empty suit is simply unfathomable.

More than a few Conservatives voted for this bill in the House and Senate, they tried to right a wrong, which is more than some have
done.

This is a flat out lie. First of all, there wasn't a vote on this bill in the Senate. There was a vote on the Senate version, a bill that, among others, was amended to kill by making it a study. THAT is the bill voted on in the Senate. (Of course, we've already been through Herrera's efforts to throw Benton under the bus for voting "for this bill," which he had not done.

In the House, the vote on this bill was 62 to 35

"More than a few conservative in the House?" Let's see.

Conservatives like Jim Moeller voted for it. Another conservative, Mary Lou Dickerson voted for it. Is this part of the "few" Huff was talking about? No?

Except, those two; of the many democrats who voted for this bill, are hardly "conservative." They are, in fact, as far to the left as the political spectrum allows in the United States today.

In fact, I could only find TWO Republicans who voted for this garbage heap in the House: Herrera and Skip Priest. Herrera's seat mate, Ed Orcutt?

Why, he was a "no."

So.... where's this "more than a few" thing Huff was babbling about?

This was NOT a great bill, but that is often the case we you are trying to get something done while a bunch of liberals have the majority. We can fix that by electing more Conservatives like Jaime Herrera!

With "conservatives" like Herrera, why not just vote leftist democrat and be done with it?

Calling this "not a great bill" is like calling the Titanic a "small boating accident."

As always Jaime is a candidate with a voting record, you can see what she has done and will do for yourself. Her voting record can be found here: washingtonvotes.org

Huff babbles this one a great deal. The only trouble with this garbage is that what washingtonvotes.org records is what happened when the buttons are pushed. Unfortunately for those of us in the 18th, OUR "representative" was frequently gone, out fundraising for her congressional run and ditching us, her constituents.

So, yeah. There's a voting record. And it certainly keeps track of the votes from the button in question. Unfortunately, it's close to worthless here because Ridgefield Barbie has admitted that she's had others vote in her place while she is gone. Here's the whiny, sniveling little "Memo" in question:

From: Casey Bowman, Campaign Manager, Jaime Herrera for Congress

Memo: Jaime Herrera and SEIU

It won’t shock you to learn that there’s a false accusation being made in the race for Washington’s 3rd Congressional Seat, but you might be surprised at just how off base the claim is that Rep. Jaime Herrera is a big union supporter.

It might shock you to know that even Herrera refered to herself during the appointment process as a "friend to organized labor."

Just exactly what was that supposed to mean?

I KNOW! I KNOW! It means she'll co-sponsor and vote for SEIU-backed legislation!

In 2008 Jaime was endorsed by every major business group in Washington state, including the Association of Washington Business, NFIB, Independent Business Association of Washington, Washington Restaurant Association and others. She has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. She is a strong opponent of “card check” because she has seen the excesses of union leaders and is fully aware of the threats and intimidation that card check would inflict on workers.

HHHmmmmm..... I missed the part about any legislation in this state concerning card check, or any vote on that subject. Why mention it here, except to deflect from the issue at hand?

And had they known of Ridgefield Barbie's SEIU affiliation, as they'll know now, would they be so quick to endorse? I think not.

To prove the false claim that Jaime is a big union supporter, her detractors point to legislation, HB 1329, she supported involving child care centers. Their claim is that the legislation forced “compulsory” unionization of child care workers. That simply is not true.

So, was Herrera lying THEN when she called herself a "friend to organized labor?" Or is she lying NOW?

I dunno. That's a toughie, given her bizarre co sponsorship and support of SEIU legislation.

What to think.... what to think....

Here are the facts:

Let me help you with that. "Here are the 'facts'" SHOULD read: "Here are SOME of the 'facts.' We left out the ones we don't like."

Fact One. Jaime Herrera COSPONSORED THIS SEIU BILL.

Odd, isn't it?

Neither Huff NOR Bowman included THAT fact.

I wonder why?

· Washington state reimburses child care centers for care of kids under the state’s sponsorship. Many of these business owners believe that they should receive a better reimbursement rate from the state for caring for the most vulnerable children.

Many others exercise their right to refuse children who cannot pay whatever they charge. It's called "choice."

What "choice" did Herrera give us? You know, the ones paying the bills?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that collective bargaining WILL make child care MORE EXPENSIVE.

So, if Herrera's efforts had been successful (They weren't, thankfully) the costs of daycare, along with the subsidies for day care that WE pay, would have gone up with the wages.

That means taxpayers would have to pay more for subsidizing day care, and those using NON-subsidized day care would be out of pocket more.

If those running day care centers don't like the subsidized rate, they can always refuse the kids in question.... right?

· The bill allowed child care center owners and workers to choose to have SEIU represent the business in negotiating better reimbursement rates from the state.

Another flat out lie, since day care owners ALREADY HAD THAT ABILITY BY BECOMING UNION SHOPS.

Here's the language from the bill summary:

“Solely for purposes of collective bargaining, child care center directors and workers are ‘public employees’. The directors and workers are employees who work on-site at licensed centers that have at least ONE SLOT filled by a child for whom they receive child care subsidies. as well as owners who work on-site at these centers.”

Do you see anything about "choice" in there? I don't.

. The bill said nothing about unionizing the workforce. Child care enter workers wouldn’t pay union dues or fees and wouldn’t be forced to join a union, at any time. The bill was at the request of the small business owners of day care centers.

Which explained perfectly why so many of those day care centers were so opposed to this, right?

Those are the facts about this legislation. Again, Jaime has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. That is why she is such a fervent opponent of card check. If the facts don’t sound anything like the claims of those attacking Jaime and her voting record, then you should ask them why they are spreading these false claims.

OK... I'll bite. Why ARE you spreading these "false claims?"

Under the bill in question day care centers with ONE CHILD getting state subsidies HAD to be represented by the SEIU.

Look. I'm always willing to be corrected... so feel free.

Just provide me with the language allowing day care centers with subsidized kids in them to opt out of this bill, and we can take the mandatory unionization off the table.

For a much more technical and complete recitation of all the lies this "memo" contains, I invite the reader to head on over to Lew Waters' blog. He nails it.

In closing, what neither the "memo" OR Huff do is mention that Herrera COSPONSORED THE BILL. An oversight?

Hardly. Nor do they mention any of the carefully researched aspects covered by Lew on his blog.

There's a reason these people don't want you to know the WHOLE truth.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.

.

Herrera's support of SEIU begins to bite: Kool Aid drinking supporters are running scared.

.
Jamie Herrera is a tool for the SEIU. In her "defense," there's a blog post that has a copy of some sort of nonsensical wimpy attempt to excuse or justify this quite indicative sell out that Ridgefield Barbie, the fake Republican running in the 3rd Congressional District, actually did something that made sense.

It didn't.

Herrera cosponsored and voted for a bill that will unionize child care workers. For reasons I've already set forth, that is one of the worst imaginable ideas concerning the issue of day care, period. Further, she also VOTED AGAINST HER CAUCUS (The vote was 62 to 35 and most of those 35 were, well Republican... much like almost all of the 62 were, well, democrats)

But there is no excuse for cosponsoring a SEIU bill if you are to refer to yourself as a "conservative."

That any conservative would even consider voting for this cardboard cutout in the face of her support of SEIU... the same group supported by such luminaries as Barack Obama; Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Barney Frank and the like supports... is admittedly a mystery to me.

Those people have something in common with our fake Republican. And what that "thing" is stands as a reason for her to never gain election to even the position of dog catcher.

Calling someone who would co-sponsor the SEIU bill a "conservative" is moronic. Deliberately failing to mention that little factoid as a part of your efforts to defend the indefensible?

That's something else. That's sordid. That's cowardly. That's fraud. And that's what Herrera supporters who either agree with her actions or support them while THEY masquerade as "conservatives" could fairly be labeled.

As a conservative, just ask yourself this:

Would YOU co-sponsor and vote for a SEIU bill?

If you haven't eaten yet, feel free to head on over to this bogus effort to defend this clueless empty suit's support of SEIU.

Don't do it if you have eaten, though. Because you won't be able to keep it down.

As far as that goes, the one thing that amazes me the most is how many leftists votes Herrera takes that the Herrera Herd just goes along with.

The lie then, is in referring to this fake Republican as a "conservative."

What both Huff and this Bowman guy deliberately left out is that not only did Herrera VOTE for this what you admit to be "not a GREAT bill;" the simple idiot co-sponsored it.

Co-sponsored, Huff. She co-sponsored the SEIU bill, and then voted for it.

Much like she voted for stripping out the $229,000,000 from the state's emergency fund to help the democrats with their massive spending increases this session, "conservatives" would neither COSPONSOR A SEIU BILL, VOTE FOR A SEIU BILL, NOR VOTE AGAINST HER CAUCUS TO EMPTY OUT THE STATE RAINY DAY FUND.

I have to wonder: what leftist cause, bill or series of causes or bills would it take for the Herrera Herd to get that she's as conservative as my cocker spaniel?

And by the way, Huff? Your constant whine about checking "her voting record" is even more proof that there is nothing this woman can do to get you to wake up:

What washingtonvotes.org HAS is a record of how her voting buttons were pushed. It doesn't have a record of WHO PUSHED THEM the dozens of votes she MISSED VOTES so she could go out and fund raise.

I get that the SEIU thing is causing her problems. No true conservative would consider voting for a so-called Republican who not only voted for SEIU legislation, but COSPONSORED THE BILL.

And no amount of spin from you, or Bowman, or anyone else can make up for the fact that she sold us out to the SEIU here, just like she ditched us to go to a DC special interest fund raiser during session; and just like she voted to help the democrats rape us financially just a few short days ago.

NO other GOP candidate in this district would CONSIDER carrying the water for the SEIU. Her vote there makes her unfit to hold the office she has now, let alone go to congress to do anything but answer phones at a receptionist desk.

I'm just astounded that you people have, apparently, drank enough Kool Aid to fill an Olympic Swimming pool.

Unbelievable. If you people believe her to be a conservative, then I'm ashamed to call myself one.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

The Columbian's hypocrisy on offshore drilling; the will of the people and the massive waste of the bridge/loot rail

Fascinating take on the mind set of the Columbian.

Smitty says...

Curious. You tell us:

"But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people and their elected officials, for the most part, just don’t want it. That there is even any oil to be had off our shores (particularly in the Northwest) is a matter of speculation; solid science points to plentiful supplies elsewhere."

There's nothing any greater about our location than the Gulf Coast or the East Coast; and you fail to provide any proof of your assertion, save your own parochial view. And if you were all that concerned about "solid science," you never would have bought into that global warming nonsense.

There is no reason not to engage in further exploration on THIS coast, either.

And while the last half of your observation is, of course, flat wrong (There is precisely zero reason to allow drilling off the coast of say, Florida, but not off the coast of Washington, for example, except YOU don't want it) the most bizarre aspect of your perspective is this:

"But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people and their elected officials, for the most part, just don’t want it."

What "elected officials" want or don't want, is, of course, completely irrelevant. Again, you have no way of knowing this: there's never been an "elected officials" referendum; and of the "elected officials" on the West Coast, which should have a say? Isn't Obama an "elected official? And it is nice that he's started to adopt yet another Bush policy. Slow, mentally, to adopt a policy he campaigned against but the, Obama's never been big in the truth-telling department; but nice.

But THE most bizarre element of this is your declaration: that: "But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people... for the most part, just don’t want it."

Well, I believe the people "just don't want" a multi-billion dollar waste of a replacement bridge and light rail, either. But I have yet to see your editorial either pointing that out or demanding a county wide vote to prove it.

See, that's one of the humongous problems with your editorials. You typically engage in that situational view where you make unsupported assumptions (You really have no idea what the people want about drilling) and use them to support your agenda, and then fail to demand that which will truly show the will of the people about this horrific waste of money by doing the unheard of thing called "asking us."

Strange, isn't it? Your paper is all about the will of the people when you think it supports your view. But when that will opposes yours?

Not so much.

The Columbian and situational ethics. You get something out of it whether you buy them...

... or not.

What's wrong with Dino? The impact of former Gorton staffers working for democrats and Patty Murray.

.
It suddenly became clear yesterday why the former Gorton staffers coalesced around a fake Republican like SEIU-supporting Jaime Herrera.

It became clear when the word hit the Times that former Gorton chief of staff Tony Williams held a fundraiser for Patty Murray.

We all know by now that Lobbyist Slade Gorton endorsed Herrera. On the surface, that's a huge get. But below the surface?

Gorton didn't know Herrera from Adam. If she had bit him in the ankle, he wouldn't have known her. Her legendary political insignificance, as illustrated by her monumental lack of accomplishment in our legislature would have buried her beneath any radar that Gorton was looking at back in DC.

So, along comes ANOTHER former Gorton chief of staff, one Jay Vander Stoep, who is now working to do the best he can to keep Herrera from coming across like a blithering idiot (and failing, I might add)

As the article points out, in the event Rossi can ever get past his ego and make public the decision he's long since made as to whether he will run or not, he's going to do so without the services of two Gorton stalwarts, Williams and Vander Stoep.

Apparently, either loyalty or adherence to alleged Republican principles don't seem to be qualifications for a Gorton chief of staff, as amply illustrated by Williams.

But it is the CALIBER of these people that's at issue.

Now, I freely admit that Williams is, of course, no longer a Gorton chief of staff or a Gorton anything.

But how could Gorton have hired someone with such obvious mercenary tendencies?

The article in question then alludes to Vander Stoep's decision to bail on Rossi as well:

Another member of Rossi's inner circle, who was a key player in the 2004 and 2008 gubernatorial races, Jay Vanderstoep, also does not plan to be part of the Rossi campaign, if there is one. Nothing personal. Quite the opposite. Vanderstoep just wants to work on other things.

So here, the deal isn't that Vander Stoep has stopped being an alleged Republican. It's instead that he just doesn't want to work for Dino.

And folks.... this had to hurt.

The buzz out there has been stifling. Will he or won't he? These two defections from the Dino camp; one the equivalent of political treason/mercenaryism of the highest order; the other a "blow off" of monumental proportions must cast doubt on Dino's quality as a candidate and his viability in the election.

As I have pointed out before: there has never been any advantage in Rossi waiting to make a decision. In fact, his INdecision makes him look vacillating and unsure of himself while hurting other candidate's chances to take out The USS Patty Murray.

Taking hits like these and his fellow Realtors endorsing our local dim bulb tends to show that Rossi is a mere mortal like the rest of those running. Combined with his two prior losses in state wide races... and, well, you can see the gist of the issue.

These two senior "Gortonians" voting with their collective feet and the bitch slap of the Realtor endorsement (hey, I admit it. The Realtor endorsement is like the Israeli ambassador endorsing Adolf Hitler, given the massive damage this woman has done and is doing to out economy, which, in turn, does tend to hurt Realtors) is causing a disturbing trend.

These defections are a crushing PR blow to The One. How does Rossi explain it?

Rossi lost my support with his moronic, politically stupid support of ignoring the vote of the people of Seattle when they came out swinging against using taxpayer dollars to pay off a scumbag to keep the Sonics here: $75 million in tax dollars to keep millionaires playing a game in Seattle, a moronic idea that Rossi wanted to use state dollars to make happen, and an idea that I condemned as having cost him the election, well, before it cost him the election.

The splash from this betrayal will reach a long way. And it should hit all of those whose campaigns are being run by those similarly qualified as Williams. And you know who you are.
.