Why are Republicans Still Ignoring U.S.Senator Cantwell's ENRON Reforms?

ENRON is again front and center in the news. But where are the Republicans, who control Congress, in efforts to prevent another ENRON from severely impacting ratepayers? Where are Republicans like Mike McGavick in urging action to protect Northwest ratepayers? Missing in action!

Meanwhile U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington State has made very clear her position of the need to protect Washington State ratepayers from another ENRON. Last year she introduced S. 33 in the U.S. Senate. The bill is straightforward, easy to understand, and short:

"S. 33 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Electricity Needs Rules and Oversight Now (ENRON) Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF ENERGY MARKET MANIPULATION.
(a) PROHIBITION.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 215. PROHIBITION OF MARKET MANIPULATION.
``It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or the purchase or sale of transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, any manipulative or deceptive device orcontrivance in contravention of such regulations as the Commission may promulgate as appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of electric ratepayers.''.
(b) RATES RESULTING FROM MARKET MANIPULATION.--Section 205(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824d(a)) is amended by inserting after ``not just and reasonable'' the following: ``or that result from a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance''.

Did the Republicans who run Congress or President Bush ever act on this legislation? No! Are they doing anything now? No!

So its obvious - the current Republican Congress and President Bush agree that it is all right to charge ratepayers for increased electrical rates that occur as a result of "a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" done by unscrupulous energy traders and brokers.

To refresh our memories on this issue let me quote from Senator Cantwell's statement in the Congressional Record

"...the release of audiotapes of Enron traders gloating about their ability to manipulate energy markets shocked the Nation. As more tapes surface and energy prices continue to rise, the need for the Senate to pass the ENRON Act has never been more clear.

A public utility near Seattle, which is trying to get back the money it lost to Enron's unscrupulous energy trading practices, received the tapes from the Justice Department. These tapes confirm what we all suspected: Enron manipulated energy markets and gouged consumers.

According to these tapes, Enron traders celebrated when a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California in 2000. This shutdown cut power supplies and raised energy prices. An energy trader sang: ``Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing.''

These taped conversations also provide evidence that Enron made secret pacts with power producers, and Enron traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants to shut down. The traders also brag about their ability to manipulate markets and steal money from the ``grandmothers of California,'' who one trader called ``Grandma Millie.''

The arrogance of these traders shocks the conscience. It also demonstrates the need for Congress to protect consumers from energy market manipulation. We cannot let the market abuses that took place during the Western energy crisis of 2000 happen again.

What was the Republican Senate response. Well as Senator Cantwell noted:

"...this language was stripped from the omnibus spending bill. These necessary protections were also omitted from the final energy conference report and the revised energy bill we voted on in April 2004. "

If you think it doesn't make a difference whether Republicans or Democrats control the US Congress think again. This is just one example among many that point the differences. The US Senate does not need any more Republicans and certainly not from Washington state.

Next time you see Republican Insurance Salesman Mike McGavick, who is running against Senator Cantwell, ask him where he was while ENRON was ripping off Washington state ratepayers. We know where Senator Cantwell was.

Senator Maria Cantwell's campaign can be reached at Maria Cantwell for U.S. Senate

Media Dancing on a String while Bush Smiles Quietly to Himself

Did you know that some members of the major news media have been meeting in secret "off-the-record" sessions with President George W. Bush? To accept the Presidential invitation where "iced tea, water, and soda" were served, the media had to agree to not publicly discuss the meeting. Something like a solemn pledge of silence or death.

As Katherine Q Seelye writes in today's New York Times, starting last Thursday, Bush has been inviting groups of 6 or so at a time to come to the White House. They have included newspaper reporters, television reporters, news agencies and magazines.

The problem is - you won't read about what was said at any of these sessions. That is despite the fact that they "discussed a variety of issues including the war in Iraq" at these sessions.

Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief for The Times, said in a statement last night: "The Times has declined this opportunity after weighing the potential benefits to our readers against the prospect of withholding information from them about the discussion with Mr. Bush. As a matter of policy annd practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials."

At least the New York understood what was happening, unlike many others in the media.

This isn't the first time Bush and the media have done this. And Bush isn't the first President to do it. But Bush has probably worked harder than any other President to control what the media has access to or not, including the President.

The Washington Post wrote about "Bush's Secret Dinner -- With the Press" last August:

"About 50 members of the White House press corps accepted President Bush's invitation last night to come over to his house in Crawford, eat his food, drink his booze, hang around the pool and schmooze with him -- while promising not to tell anyone what he said afterward"

Later in the article in the Washington Post they note that Karl Rove has also held several "off-the-record" dinner gatherings with the news media.

Maybe all this fraternity brothers like cozying up with secret barbecues and dinners with Bush and Rove explains some of why why the media has been so ginger with them. Bye, Bye invitation to the next one if you say something not approved as the official Bush line.

In an article published in the New Yorker in 2004 Ken Auletta referred to it as "Fortress Bush". It is a tightly controlled process by the Bush people to stage set the Bush Presidency
just like a movie set.

One reason why is that the Bush media control machine doesn't trust the press and doesn't even seem to believe it. Auletta starts his article out with the following incident.

" Bush has let it be known that he's not much of a television-news watcher or a newspaper reader, apart from the sports section; and during a conversation with reporters he explained, perhaps without intending to, why his White House often seems indifferent to the press. "How do you then know what the public thinks?" a reporter asked, according to Bush aides and reporters who overheard the exchange. And Bush replied, "You're making a huge assumption - that you represent what the public thinks."

Andrew Card ,who is just departing the White House, is then quoted saying essentially the same thing of the press :

"They don't represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."

With this attitude of the Bush people it behooves even more that the media be independent and report to the public what they see and hear. This hasn't been the case for the last five years.

Members of the media now cozying up to Bush for "iced tea, water and soda" and promising not to report on their conversations with el Presidento make a mockery of themselves.

So far few of them have done the hard work of reporting to the people, instead they are content with parroting back the official Bush Media Machine line without critical analysis. They are not independent. Instead they become like puppets dancing on the strings that Bush manipulates.

And Bush is laughing as he thinks to himself how easily they agreed to meet and schmooze with him, for a little" iced tea, water and soda." How easy.

Washington State Again Leads Nation in Recycling

Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law the electronic waste recycling bill, SB 6428, passed by the Legislature. This puts Washington State into the forefront of dealing with this issue. The New York Times today credited Washington state as "enacting the most far-reaching electronic waste bill to date."

In her press release Gov. Gregoire notes “This bill puts our market-based economy to work for the environment.... “It's a responsible step in the best interests of the public, because no matter who owns the equipment at the end of its life, it will be recycled - free of charge.”

In an article in the Seattle PI today byThe Associated Press, Rachel La Corte states that Washington state residents throw out more than a million TV's and computer monitors each year. This figure comes from a two year study by the Department of Ecology.

Nationally about two million tons or 4,000,000,000 pounds of electronic waste are generated each year according to the U.S. environmental Protection Agency.

The New York Times notes that televisions and computers can contain up to 8 pounds of lead as well as other toxic materials like mercury and cadmium which can leach into and poison drinking water supplies.

The new Washington state law requires that computer and electronic companies establish and set up a program to collect and safely dispose of discarded electronics. Manufactures will pay for the system, rather than consumers paying to dispose of the old products.

We know consumers will still pay for it as part of overall system costs but still the disincentive to recycle when you have to pay for disposal when your TV dies is not there. You will be able to do it for free under the new law.

Hewlett Packard and the Washington Retail Association among others testified in support of the bill.

Locally this legislation was spearheaded by Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation.Further excellent analysis of the bill and their efforts can be found on their website.

The passage of this bill is one of the recent success stories of the environmental community here is Washington state. The e-waste recycling bill was picked as one of the 4 priorities of the environmental community this year under their Priorities for a Healthy Washington Campaign. Three out of their four prime bills were enacted.

The text of this legislation and the history of the Legislature's actions on this bill can be seen at the official website for the Legislature. The following Washington state Senators were original sponsors of the bill:

Senators Pridemore, Esser, Poulsen, Morton, Schmidt, Fairley, Benson, Berkey, Regala, Kohl-Welles, Weinstein, Prentice, Kastama, Johnson, Thibaudeau, Kline, Eide, Shin, Rockefeller, Jacobsen, Haugen, Doumit, Oke, Franklin, Swecker, Carrell, Rasmussen, Spanel, Fraser, McAuliffe, Keiser, Brown, Finkbeiner, Brandland, Benton were prime sponsors of the original bill. You can send an e-mail to them to thank them for their support by clicking on their name above.

The final vote in the Senate was 38 to 11. In the House it was 69 to 29.

Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation is one of the success stories come out of progressive politics in Washington state. In 1979, I worked with others to put together and run Initiative 61 for deposits on beverage containers. It was an initiative to the Legislature. We secured 43 Legislatve sponsors but the Legislature ultimately didn't act.

I-61 was placed on the November ballot. We faced a record spending blitz of over a million dollars by grocery stores like Safeway and bottling industry distributors for Coke and Pepsi among others.

Initially having over 70% support in the polls we wound up losing 43% to 57%. As a grassroots organization with little funds we couldn't compete with their million campaign.

After the election the volunteers and campaign people involved in our organization, Citizens for Returnable Beverage Containers, were polled to see what they wanted to do next. Despite our loss they wanted to continue working for increased recycling. We reformed under the banner of Washington Citizens for Recycling and successfully engaged over the years in promoting recycling in Washington State.

A number of years ago the organization changed names to Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation, to broaden its focus but it continues to be an active and successful grassroots organization in this state. A special thanks to all those continuing the good fight.

I Love You George. Let me Continue Your Work!

Here it is. 1000 words.

Rip Van Winkle Green Candidate Dixon Wants to Run for What?

Incredible! The Washington State Green Party candidate Aaron Dixon who recently declared he is running against Washington State Senator Maria Cantwell is really Rip Van Winkle. He has been asleep since 1998.

Talk about name familiarity on the ballot - Aaron "Rip Van Winkle" Dixon. Sure out does the Republican candidate Mike Mc????.

As first reported on Horsesass.org yesterday Dixon hasn't voted in Washington state since 1998. But hey, there's a plus, he can't be blamed for voting for Ralph Nader. Neil Modie today in the Seattle PI also followed up to confirm that Dixon is a non-voter. see "Green Party Senate Hopeful not a Voter"

In a new blog today, Horsesass.org points out that isn't his only problem. Some sleuthing on public records by Republican Richard Pope points out a number of other problems Dixon has.

Aaron Dixon has seriously further eroded the Green Party's credibility. And the Green Party is just as responsible. Reminds me of McGovern's run for President and his choice of Thomas Eagleton for Vice-President. Seems no one really checked on Dixon's skeletons in his closet either. They were just happy to have someone run.

Dixon should withdraw from the race and the Greens should withdraw their support for him..

We need to encourage people to participate in the process of democracy and should appreciate Aaron Dixon's courage to run. It is not an easy task. But he also needed to be realistic, both in his chances of winning and in the reality of his personal life.

To criticize Senator Maria Cantwell for her record representing Washington State in the US Senate while at the same never having voted in the Washington State race in the first place that she fought and won over Slade Gorton is the height of hypocrisy. It means he also didn't vote against George W Bush. He was missing in action sleeping.

Maybe Dixon can start his rehabilitation by voting in future elections. Right now he has no credibility. If he can't vote in local and Washington State elections or national elections like for President, how could one ever trust that he would vote in Washington D.C.?

Right Wing PAC Begins Assault on Washington State Supreme Court

Thought you saw the last of former Washington State Senator Slade Gorton? Or the last of former Washington State Attorney General Ken Eikenberry? Well guess again.

Slade Gorton has re-emerged as Chairman of the Constitutional Law PAC - a right wing Political Action Committee recently formed here in Washington State. Ken Eikenberry is the Vice-Chairman. I believe that is "Vice" as second in command but the purpose of the PAC is really to steal the Washington State Supreme Court from the voters by trying to buy the elections of the next Justices.

Am I serious? Well yes! The Constitutional Law PAC is part of the Right Wing's attempt to muscle their way into the judicical system. They are doing it across the country by pumping conservatives' dollars into select right wing candidates in judicial races.. And they have been successful.

The assault is not new. For example, as People for the American Way reported, a vigorous attempt was made in a number of states in 2000, including Florida, Alabama,Idaho, Vermont, and Massachusetts. . This is a part of the conservative Republicans national attempt to take over the courts from the ground up, not just the US Supreme Court.

The formation of a right wing judicial PAC in Washington state was first reported by Neil Modie in the Seattle P.I. on Nov 25, 2005. Paperwork has since been filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. Alex Mays has been hired as Executive Director and they have started collecting donations.

In today's edition of the Seattle PI Neil Modie continues the reporting on this issue with a story entitled "Political Spending Cap May Backfire" With the Washington State Legislature's just passing SSB1226 to limit campaign contributions by individuals to state judicial candidate's committees, the reality remains that individuals can give whatever they want to PAC's that spend money 'independently" on judicial races.

As we have already pointed out, most recently in our blog on March 7, 2006, entitled "Campaign Contribution Limits - Job Half Done", the Washington State legislature only did half of the job in trying to limit special interest influence in our elections in Washington State. By not setting any kind of limits on contributions to PAC's they are now a giant loophole.

There is a simple solution to the problem. Extend the $1400 maximum campaign contribution total by an individual per election to a candidate to include contributions made either directly to the candidate's campaign committee or indirectly to a PAC or any other campaign entity spending money for the candidate.

Money spent against a candidate shall be attributed as a contribution to the candidate's opponent and also limited to a maximum of $1400 per election. If both a primary and general election is involved a total of $2800 is allowed.

Its simple and its fair. And know what, we wouldn't be the first state to do it. And what I have suggested is not the only way to go. Most states that limit contributions to PAC's do so without regard to whether or not a PAC supports multiple candidates. They limit contributions to PACs period.

Here are a few examples of other state's limits on contributions to PAC's as reported on the National Conference of State Legislature's website:

Alaska $1000/year, only 10% of a PAC's contributions from non-Alaska residents
California $5600/election
Colorado $500/2-year election cycle
Florida $500/election to political committee
Hawaii $1000/election
Kentucky $1500/year in the aggregate to all committee/year
Massachusetts $500/calendar year: lobbyist $200/calendar year
New York PAC's limited to same contributions as candidates
Vermont $2000/2 year election cycle

Washington unlimited

Unlike Washington some other states have limited the transfer of money between PAC's, a technique used in 2004 by the Building Industry Association of Washington ( BIAW) to conceal names of contributors as thousands of dollars schuffled between several BIAW controlled PAC's. Alaska limits PAC to PAC contributions to $500/2 year election cycle, Florida $500/election and Massachusetts $500/calendar year to mention a few examples..

Some states also limit contributions from corporations to PAC's,unlike Washington.

Florida limits such corporate contributions to $500; Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina and North Dakota prohibit corporate and union contributions to PAC's.

The Washington State Legislature needs to address the problems with PAC's in its next session next year. In the meantime PAC's would be wise to be fair and abide by current campaign contribution limits to candidate committees and do the same for their PAC.

Bush "Deeply Troubled" about Afghan Christian Facing Death .

Like, I would hope so because, I guess to me this is about religious terriorism. It is not about religious intolerance. Why are people afraid to call it what it is? If threatening someone with death for their religious beliefs is not terrorism, then what is?

On Tuesday I posted the blog, "Is this for Real? Death for Converting from Islam to Christianity?? I said I was waiting for George Bush to speak out on this. I had my doubts but my God here was a true Christian facing possible death for converting from Islam to Christianity and where was George?

So this afternoon as I'm driving I hear this update on Seattle's KUOW station that Bush has actually said something. He's "deeply troubled" .

I was really wondering if this poor man was going to sacrificed because the President was afraid to speak out. After all, while Afghanistan is like an American colony right now, still we need to maintain the illusion that the Afghans can decide their own laws and justice, including for people who are non-believers.

This fellow's sin was that he converted from Islam to Christianity. And the law in Afghanistan said that is a crime punishable by death. Now this man did not kill anyone or even cause bodily injury to someone.

But speaking out against Islamic religious law might offend people of the Islamic faith in Afghanistan and elsewhere and George could be threatened with death for questioning the Islamic religion. Islamic religious fanatics would scream that he was intolerant of their religion.

But is this religion? Is the world community ready to turn a blind eye on a supposed religious law of condemning someone to die because they choose another religion? This is religious terrorism.

George has to choose his words carefully. So he is "deeply troubled". But I think he needs to be more than deeply troubled. He needs to be involved and say that this is not acceptable and the United States can not accept it and rally other countries to say it is not acceptable. I'm sure some of this is being done quietly behind the scenes as Bush is swearing.

Because this is deeply embarrassing. Because why are we fighting in Afganastan and Iraq if in the end if governments and religious laws support barbaric practices like this.

George needs to talk directly to Afghan President Harmid Karzai and tell him that the world community will likely turn against Islam if this man is killed for his beliefs. He needs to say that continued US support of his government is dependent on this law being abolished.

Sure, most everyone is now afraid to speak out after the Danish cartoon riots but I think many people realize those riots were inflamed and supported by certain Islamic governments and fanatics to intimidate other nations and religions. And it worked so far.

But fighting religious intolerance goes both ways. And for any Islamic country to kill someone for not being Islamic or freely choosing another religion is the height of intolerance. It is a form of terrorism and needs to be called such.

So on KUOW the newcast said that the prosecutor of this case, realizing I guess the extreme problem he is now in, said there is a way to not have to follow the Islamic law proclaiming death to this man. That is, he can be declared to be mentally unstable, you know insane, for converting to Christianity.

Such a simple solution to the problem. Of course this man is insane. Such a simple solution. What's the fuss? What are they waiting for?

McGavick, McCain, Mc????

Senator John McCain is a conservative Republican running for President of the United States in 2008. He is doing what any potential candidate for President must do if he wants to win. He must build up debts that others owe him that he can call in later.

Mike McGavick is running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Washington state that is currently held by Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. McCain was the star attraction at a McGavick fundraiser held Tuesday night at a hotel in Seattle, WA. McGavick hopes to emulate McCain.

However, nationally there is a debate emerging as to just who is John McCain. See Daily Koz's blog, Bushier Than Thou! as one example. See also the article in The Nation entitled, The Real McCain. That same debate needs to occur for McGavick.

McGavick has not run for office before in Washington state. He is hoping that he can appear to be all things to all people just like Dino Rossi did in his run for Governor of Washington state. And he is hoping for a little of Senator McCain's overrated independent status in the media.

I don't think that Democrats can let that happen. McGavick needs to be asked now what he stands for. For instance, what is his position on proposed Initiative 933? I-933 is the initiative being pushed by the Washington State Farm Bureau. It is an attempt to end zoning laws in Washington state by requiring that developers and others receive tax dollars from the state if the state won't let them build whatever they want, where ever they want.

Initiative 933 is being opposed by the Community Protection Coalition.

If McGavick positions are vague then one needs to look at things like his cozing up to McCain. What is McCain's record on so called property rights issues?

Well one place you can look is at his voting record. And actually that voting record has been tallied up by none other than a national organization based here in Washington state.

Chuck Cushman, who was involved with the infamous so called Wise Use Movement that attacked environmental regulations in the past, now runs an organization called the American Land Rights Association. They recently changed their name from the "League of Private Property Voters". Cushman is based in Battleground, Washington.

Their "mission" is "dealing with private property issues including government land use controls, federal and state growth management, wetlands and the Endangered Species Act."

Their 2003 Private Property Congressional Vote Index is the last one listed. Rating issues such as repeal of the Estate Tax, reducing legal barriers to timber sales and cutting environmental
and conservation program funding it gives McCain a positive rating of 67% in 2003. In 2001-2002 he received a rating of 70%, in 2001 a rating of 86%, and a 62% rating in 2000.

By way of contrast Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray in 2003 both scored "0"'s . On the House side Jay Inslee scored "0", Brian Baird "8" Rick Larsen "25", Norm Dicks "8", Jim Mcdermott "0", Adam Smith "8" and Doc Hastings "100".

If McGavick does not like this associating and guessing where he is on issues, then he needs to clearly state his positions. If you go to his website and check on environmental issues it sounds just like what Cushman and the private use people would say because it is so vague. It sounds like something Chuck Cushman would write frankly. I have taken the liberty of making bold those words and sentences that in particular raise a red flag.

Environmental conservation and productive development are not mutually exclusive. We can protect and improve our environment while at the same time allowing responsible human development.
In Eastern Washington especially, the choice to save the salmon or keep the dams has been presented as an either/or issue. This simply isn't the case.
Washingtonians know what's best for their communities and its time the federal government let us solve our own problems.
The environment can be protected while allowing for development such as the dams that make Eastern Washington a bread basket rather than a dust bowl.
The federal government must step aside and allow us Northwesterners to deal with the problem as we see fit for we have the greatest at stake when it comes to keeping our state beautiful and our economies strong.

This "environmental statement" does not say where McGavick is on the Endangered Species Act, on protecting Federal Regulations on Air and Water Pollution, on cleaning up Puget Sound, on making polluters pay for cleaning up their toxic waste, protecting wilderness areas, or global warming or much else. It's emphasis seems to be on his saying we should get the Federal Government out of our state and let us develop whatever we want. This sounds like an appeal to the Chuck Cushman's of the world, not to most of Washington's voters who love Washington State because of it's environmental qualities. These people do not want to trade for the sake of some dollars in developers pockets the quality of life we now enjoy.

Is this for Real? Death for Converting from Islam to Christianity??

If you thought we were liberating Afghanistan from religious fanaticism, among other things, when the United States went after Osama Bin Laden, please explain this. "Afghan Man who became Christian may face Death for Rejecting Islam"

I'm waiting for President Bush to speak out on this. Will he speak out? Will he ask this man's life be spared? Or will he keep silent out of fear of offending Islam? Is this religion or fanaticism?

An Afghan man is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death on a charge of converting from Islam to Christianity, a crime under this country's Islamic laws, a judge said Sunday.

The defendant, Abdul Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada said. Rahman was charged with rejecting Islam, and his trial started Thursday.

During the one-day hearing, the defendant confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago while working as a medical-aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in the Pakistani city of Peshawar, Mawlavezada said.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law", the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam."

Where is the US Congress on this? Don't tell they can't rush back into session to pass some type of international plea for this person's life to be spared. They did it for Terri Schiavo. Even President Bush showed some hustle for once and rushed back. And this person isn't even brain dead! And, My God, he's of the Right religion.

This isn't a cartoon. This is about a real person. This is a question of religious intolerance, of religious intolerance within a religion. This is a clear issue for humanity that needs a response and a clear rallying cry from the world community to declare that this is wrong and inhumane. But it is a day later for this story and I don't hear a peep. Isn't something wrong here?

This story is about both religion and humanity. It is about the distinction about tolerating other religions and religious intolerance within a religion and what is reasonable and humane and just. Will the world conscience speak up?

Will individuals and individual nations speak up? Will the United Nations introduce a resolution declaring that this is barbaric and not acceptable to the world? Or have they been cowered by religious fanatics? Are their tails between their legs and they are hiding out of fear of a repeat of what happened over the manufactured and purposely inflamed outrage over some scribbling on a piece of paper?

The AP story continues:

Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death, said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, deputy chairman of the state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Repeated attempts to interview Rahman in detention were barred.

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman converted back to Islam, but he refused.

"He would have been forgiven if he had changed back. But he said he was a Christian and would always remain one," Wasi said. "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty."

Will the world react to this or not? Or are they too cowered by the reaction of some Islamic fanatics to a few Danish cartoons?

This is really a true test for non-Islamic peoples and countries as long as we do not act self righteous. Because Christians have a few skeletons in their closet also, like the Inquisition.

It is also a test for Islam as to whether they will enter the 21st century world or not.

Can we afford to really ignore this? If we do we are at peril for our future.

Should we in Washington state care? Well besides the larger issues here, we, like 49 other states are seeing our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends and neighbors, dying over in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting as Bush says, for democracy.

Stories like this make me wonder what it is we are fighting for.

Update Initiative 917 Snafu by Eyman

Its obvious that any petitions Tim Eyman turns in to the Washington Secretary of State on Initiative 917 will be closely scrutinized as to complying with Washington State law. In tiny print on the bottom right corner of Eyman's first initiative printing of I-917 there is a small declaration area as required by law but it does not provide a space for a signature.

The problem is that there is no indication that one has to both print and sign it for the petition to be accepted by the Secretary of State as there is only one line to write a name on. The declaration is hard to see and blends in with the initiative text. The Secretary of State's official letter of Feb. 9, 2006 said the declaration had to be both printed and signed.

There is no notation on the front of the petition that the signature gatherer has to print and sign their names on the back. Eyman, in sending out his new "revised' petition, does not tell his supporters that the old petition clearly has to be both printed and signed even though there is no space to do both.. All in all it makes things very confusing, hardly what one would expect from a so called professional initiative monger.

What I guess what it all means is that each petition is going to be closely scrutinized if he turns them in.

Is this petty or is it worth it? Well we are talking about proposed Washington State legislation that repeals the other half of last year's legislative transportation package. Even though it wasn't Eyman's initiative, he championed Initiative 912 to repeal the gas tax, which the voters soundly defeated in November. This is the other half of the legislature's transportation package.

So one can expect because of the proposed loss of millions and millions of transportation dollars for state, county and city transportation projects and that impact on businesses in Washington State that there will be a vigorous campaign to defeat I-917 if it were to be on the ballot.

It now appears that one part of that campaign may be to vigorously scrutinize and challenge any petitions Eyman turns in because of the confusion and uncertainty he has created with his poorly designed petition. Because of the controvery, it is hoped Washington's Secretary of State will be on top of this.

Eyman of course claims there is no problem, that his petitions are legal and that everyone is printing and signing their name. What would you expect him to say?

Some will question raising this issue now rather than waiting but there is not much reason to second guess. The fact is Eyman knows he has a problem or he would not have gone to all the effort and expense of redesigning and re-mailing his petitions. We are not bringing anything new to his attention. It is better to be aggressive and challenge Eyman and challenge the media to acknowledge that Eyman is not some professional initiative wizard. If Eyman was employed by someone else to run an initiative campaign he would have been fired by now. That's why he goes to such great lengths to hide his mistakes.

Eyman Again Prints Up Invalid Initiative Petitions, Again Lies to his Supporters

BREAKING NEWS STORY
For more information, contact Steve Zemke
stevezemke (at) msn (dot) com

Tim Eyman’s current Initiative 917 petitions for $30 license tabs are invalid and violate Washington state law. He has resent “redesigned” petitions to his supporters but lies and tells them that signatures on the old petitions are “valid”.

This directly contradicts an announcement issued by the Washington State Secretary of State on Feb. 19, 2006 and posted on their website.

Amazingly, this is not the first time Eyman has done this and lied to his supporters. In 2003, as first reported by MajorityRules.org he printed invalid petitions for Initiative 807.

That time he forgot to print the correct initiative text on the back of the petition. He sent out new petitions late in the signature drive and never got enough new signatures on the valid petition. He then also lied to his supporters that the invalid petitions were legal and to send them in.

Eyman has again just sent out a letter to his supporters, enclosing a new copy of his I-917 petition. He says the "redesigned I-917 petition makes things easier” and to "copy it and send in the old ones."

Never does he say he made a mistake. The petition is "redesigned" because Tim did not comply with a law passed last year by the Washington State Legislature. The law became effective on Jan 1, 2006.

EHB 1222 requires that all initiative petitions now carry the following statement to be signed by the petition gatherer:

I,............., swear or affirm under penalty of law that I circulated this sheet of the foregoing petition, and that, to the best of my knowledge, every person who signed this sheet of the foregoing petition knowingly and without any compensation or promise of compensation willingly signed his or her true name and that the information provided therewith is true and correct. I further acknowledge that under chapter 29A.84 RCW, forgery of signatures on this petiton constitutes a class C felony, and that by offering any consideration or grautity any person to induce them to sign a petition a gross misdemeanor, such violations being punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

The Secretary of State’s Office declares that “It is the interpretation of the Secretary of State that this declaration must not only be printed on the back side of the petition sheet, but must also be signed by the signature gatherer, and the signature gatherer’s name must be printed in the appropriate location. To interpret the law as not requiring the oath would render the new law meaningless. It is therefore the interpretation of the Office of the Secretary of State that lack of a signature on the declaration will cause the petition sheet to be rejected pursuant to RCW 29A.72.170(1).

Now what is it that Tim does not understand about the official intrepretation of the law by the Secretary of State. Somehow he found out the petitions were invalid and decided to pay for reprinting them and remailing them.

In his letter, however he tells his supporters “All the signatures, whether on the old petition or redesigned petition, are valid and will count so get them filled out and sent back to me as soon as possible.” He then says “But we ask everyone to start using the new, redesigned petition because it’s better.” Didn’t he really mean to say legal?

Initiative 917 is Eyman's latest attempt to enact $30 license tabs. I-917 also would roll back about $1.5 billion in vehicle and light truck weight fees and annual motor home fees passed last year by the Washington State Legislature.

My friends over at Permanent Defense and HorsesAss who have been working together with me fighting Tim Eyman's bad initiatives over the last several years will be adding comment as this story develops.

Initiative Assigned Number: 917
Filed: 01/09/2006
Sponsor Mr. Tim Eyman Mr. M. J. Fagan Mr. Leo J. Fagan PO Box 18250 Spokane, WA 99228 (425) 493-8707 Fax (425) 493-1027

Ballot Title Initiative Measure No. 917 concerns limiting motor vehicle charges This measure would cap motor vehicle registration charges at $30 per year, repeal taxes and fees exceeding the $30 limit, calculate vehicle taxes and fees based on purchase price, and retire certain bonds. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary This measure would limit motor vehicle registration charges to $30 per year for vehicles weighing less than 22,000 pounds, and would repeal certain fees and charges exceeding the limit. Replacement and reflectorized plate fees would be reduced. A new valuation schedule based on purchase price would be used in calculating motor vehicle taxes and fees. Regional transit authorities would be required to retire or defease outstanding bonds pledging motor vehicle taxes as security for repayment.

Initiative 924 Campaign Suspended (Ended)

The Seattle Times yesterday reported that the Initiative 924 campaign has "been suspended" for lack of funds. You should instead read "been ended" for lack of funds.

Initiative 924 was the so-called first class Education for Washington Initiative. It's goal was to require that school districts spend 65% of their budgets on "classroom instruction."

Seems the sponsor could only come up with some $9600 by the end of Jan and has filed no February report with the state Public Disclosure Commission. PDC says that is OK as long as less than $200 was raised.

In an e-mail responding to an invitation to speak Brian Janssen, the initiative's sponsor, is quoted as saying "To ensure success we needed to run a multimillion-dollar campaign, with most of the funds frontloaded for kickoff." The campaign had barely started to do that. Janssen had contributed more than half of the $9600 raised and said he couldn't give any more.

Seems this is a case where the media over hyped the reality of there really being a campaign. Still, the Washington Education Association raised some $17,892 in February to oppose the campaign. They formed a campaign committee called "No Gimmicks for Kids". They hired a campaign consultant Kelly Evans. And the Seattle times reported that the campaign was going to start polling.

The WEA had also been busy in February running a grassroots campaign lobbying the Washington State Legislature, called "Take the Lead". As reported on the L-2 lobbyist form for February, some $410,532 was spent by The WEA's lobbyist Debra Carnes for television ads and media buys and other grassroots activities.

Update: As blogging goes note I mentioned to Andrew over at the NPI blog that the Seattle Times reported on this story and that I intended to put something out on it. Of course that was a mistake, never mention to another blogger I guess what it is that you intend to do before you do it. So Andrew has a blog pre-dating this one, but I am not copying his. I had been looking up additional PDC information beyond what the Seattle Times had before I posted this story.

Environmental Activists Score Huge Success in Washington Legislature

I just received an e-mail from Amy Zarrett of the Priorities for a Healthy Washington Campaign and wanted to share with you their legislative report on the just completed Washington State Legislative Session. They have done a fantastic and successful job pushing their selected bills and deserve recognition and thanks from us.

REPORT FROM THE CAPITOL
For the fourth year in a row the state's conservation community selected four proactive proposals to bring to the legislature with the hope of improving the lives of people and protecting our quality of life. We wrapped up the session with a stunning .750 batting average with three out of the four bills passing. Additionally, the effort to halt any attacks on community protection and land use laws was a complete success.

The issues with their end-of-session status are listed below. To see how each Representative and Senator voted, click on the link at the end of any issue update. Also you can read the news of session as reported in the state capitol's daily paper on March 9th.

Launch Electronic Waste Recycling
SSB 6428 passed the Senate on a strong bi-partisan vote of 38-11 on Monday, March 6th. The House had recently approved the same bill with a vote of 69-29. This bill will provide safe, free, and convenient recycling for the millions of outdated computers, monitors and TVs piling up in our homes, schools, and offices. Each year, these obsolete electronics turn into millions of pounds of "e-waste" which contains lead, mercury and other substances too toxic to be thrown in the trash. The legislation will create hundreds of jobs and establish the most extensive manufacturer responsibility requirements in the nation.
http://www.environmentalpriorities.org/e-waste

Clean Up Puget Sound
The bill to get failing septic systems cleaned up (HB1458) passed the House on Saturday February 11th with strong bi-partisan support in the House, 70-25. The Senate passed the bill 28-15 on February 28th. The bill is part of the Governor's legislative package to implement early actions under her Puget Sound Initiative. The bill is directed at failing systems dumping sewage into Hood Canal and parts of Puget Sound and provides funding and flexibility for local governments to design programs to require repair of failing systems. A grant and loan program is authorized to assist low-income homeowners. The legislature passed the Governor's Puget Sound Budget for 2006 of $56 million to accelerate toxic cleanups and prevent new pollution.
http://www.environmentalpriorities.org/pugetsound

Energy Independence through Renewable Fuels
The Renewable Fuels Standard bill (SB6508) passed the House earlier in session with a strong, bipartisan vote, and the Senate on a somewhat closer 29-19 vote (with 1 absent) on March 6th. This proposal would reduce Washington's dependence on fossil fuels and provide a new market for Washington crops. This legislation will grow a new biofuels economy by including a minimum percentage of biofuels in the statewide fuel mix. The standards start at 2%, and ramps up to 5% for biodiesel and 10% for ethanol. This bill will attract biofuels jobs, provide farm income, and reduce the state's vulnerability to volatile oil markets.
http://www.environmentalpriorities.org/biofuels

Protect Kids' Health by Eliminating Toxic Flame Retardants
Despite strong bipartisan support, the legislature failed for the second consecutive year to pass important legislation to phase out the use of toxic flame retardants (HB 1488) called PBDEs that are rapidly building up in breast milk, our bodies, and in wildlife. Out-of-state chemical industry interests lobbied aggressively against the bill, spreading misinformation about its impacts. PBDEs are chemical cousins of long-banned PCBs, and are known to impair learning, behavior, and development in lab animals. The bill was supported by the Washington State Nurses Association, the Washington chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and many more public health, faith, and environmental organizations.

Defending our Communities
All the efforts to roll back land use protections were halted by an effective campaign to maintain community safeguards. In addition, several successful bills will help resolve long-standing conflicts on Growth Management issues. We all value the place where we live. The security and protection of our homes, our communities, and even our drinking water depend on having balanced laws that allow growth while protecting farmland, shorelines, and our quality of life. That is why these attacks were stymied and why positive reforms passed to help give communities more flexibility as they responsibly implement land use improvements

Washington Initiative Process not the Problem!

It seems that the in thing to do these days in Washington State is to criticize the initiative process as what is wrong. That misses the larger picture.

Over on Horsesass.org Goldy continues to pitch for so called "initiative reform" as if that will send the Tim Eyman's and Farm Bureau's and Evergreen Legal Foundation's running with their tails between their legs and we'll never see them again.

The attack on the initiative being focused on the initiative process rather than the issues and voters involvement means focusing on small details rather than viewing the larger picture. What is needed are more voters who take signing the initiative seriously. It requires that they take the time to read and understand what it is they are signing in support of before they sign.

The initiative is a legal process, written into the Washington State Constitution - a right of voters to petition either the citizens or the Legislature to enact a law to address concerns of a voter or voters. Getting voters to sign to put an initiative on the ballot is akin to getting sponsors on a bill being introduced in the Legislature. The same as sponsors of a legislative bill are saying to fellow legislators, please vote for this bill, signers of an initiative are helping those who wrote ther initiative ask voters to support their initiative.

While there is no legal requirement on the number of sponsors on a bill, the initiative process requires that at least 8% of those who voted in the last Governor's race sign the initiative.
Voters need to view their signature as being akin to being a sponsor of the initiative.

Signers of an initiative are, by signing the initiative, indicating their support for the initiative by asking that this issue be put on the ballot. Printed on all initiatives are the following words "We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters of the state of Washington, respectfully direct that the proposed measure known as Initiative ...(ballot title)... a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition, be submitted to the legal voters of the state of Washington for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on ..."

As a result of signing, among other things, voters are asking the state to commit state tax dollars to verify that an adequate number of registered voters have signed the measure. They are asking state taxpayer dollars be used to put the measure on the ballot and to commit state and local taxpayer dollars to hold the election, count and certify the election results. By signing an initiative, whether they understood it or not, voters are committing tax dollars to aid in the passage of an initiative.

Signers, by default of signing, are also letting the sponsors of the initiative use their signature as a sign that the initiative has their support and the support of thousands of others. Signers are not just signing to put this measure on the ballot. Sponsors of an initiative use the number of signers as an indication that voters see the need for this new legislation.

The problem is that many voters do not know what they are signing because they have not read the text of the initiative on the back of the petition. Too often they believe what a paid out of state signature gatherer tells them about the measure.

While we in Washington State have to live with the law if the initiative passes, the paid signature gatherer is off in some other state collecting signatures. We wouldn't sign to buy a used car without understanding what it is we are signing yet voters repeatedly sign measures, without reading the fine print, that can have wide ranging impacts on their daily lives. Examples this year include measures to eliminate zoning for developers and reduce tax dollars for transportation. (The sponsors of these measures say they are to prevent government from taking your property and for $30 license tabs)

The mistake that progressives and others made regarding Tim Eyman's anti-tax initiatives was ignoring the fact that he was and is running his initiative mill year round - 12 months, 52 weeks, 365 days out of the year. You can not let someone organize and work the media that way and the grassroots that long and expect to come in a month before the election and spend a few dollars and stop him.

Fighting bad initiatives and bad policy and wrong headed ideas requires year round response. It requires rebuttal. It requires vigiliance and involvement. It requires that we propose counterproposals. It requires offense as well as defense. So far progressives and Democrats and labor and good government groups and others have been playing a lot of defense, but defense at best means things stay the same, and any score by the opposition means you lose.

So it's necessary to be active, to participate, to commit time and effort and money and go on the offense. At best so called "initiative reforms" are likely to be few and only slightly change the rules.

The calls for initiative reform are not what is needed. It's like crying "Three strikes and you're out? What do you mean, we need 4 strikes before you're out." Meanwhile the other side is continuing to play.

Crying you don't like the rules is not going to beat the opposition which continues to play. Get with the game folks! Its still being played.

Campaign Contribution Limits - Job Half Done

The Washington State Legislature has taken a giant step by passing legislation to expand the campaign contribution limits put in place by Initiative 134. It has added the Washington State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

It also adds municipal and superior court and port commissioner races in counties with over 200,000 registered voters. This expands campaign contribution limits to these races in 5 counties. As of 2004 according to the Secretary of State’s office website the following counties had over 200,000 registered voters.

KING 1,087,406
PIERCE 405,023
SNOHOMISH 352,238
SPOKANE 251,184
CLARK 207,411

What the legislation doesn’t do is limit individual contributions to PAC’s. This is strange because this still leaves a giant loophole in the law. As I noted in a previous blog on Feb. 23, 2006:

“The BIAW spent some $569,009 of so called independent PAC money helping elect Rob McKenna Washington State Attorney General. Giving a contribution directly to McKenna's committee would have limited them to some $2700. Spending it separately from the candidate's committee put no limits on how much could be raised from individual donors. That's why on election night McKenna personally thanked them for helping get him elected. Independent. Yeh right. Also of note - the Republican Leadership PAC WA spent some $1,265,000 and the Realtor's Quality of Life PAC some $101,862. Meanwhile you and I, if we had it, were limited to giving $2700 maximum in the race. Sounds fair right. This needs to change!”

Unfortunately the right wing has formed one of these so called independent PAC’s to help elect their kind of judges. Now instead of giving money directly to their favorite candidate for the Washington State Supreme Court, all they need to do is spend this money “independently”. There will be no legal limit on the size of the contributions they accept.
It’s time for the public to ask that they also abide by the limit on individual contributions.

"ah this ah this this ah huge storm"

Remember how President Bush, in trying to defend his lack of action, seemed to said that no one could have anticipated what Hurricane Katrina was going to do? Seems now that video taken before the storm hit utterly refutes Bush and makes him uncatagorically a liar. You can view a good collection of the actual video at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-katrina2mar02,0,5568671.story?coll=la-home-headlines.

It time for the American people to wake up and demand this guy be impeached. This is beyond incompetence. As you listen to the video you see he was fully briefed several hours before the "ah huge storm" hit.

Remember that fly over picture several days later and that "ah dazed look"? Was he stoned or something?

Was there a similiar briefing before he invaded Iraq where he said "ah this ah this this ah huge war"? I doubt it. He probably said "ah this ah this this ah huge cakewalk" or something similiar.