Easy Way to End American Deaths in Iraq

I woke up last night thinking, the answer is so obvious, yet Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld all missed it. End the American deaths in Iraq by no longer reporting them to the American people.

As Frank Rich pointed out Sunday in the New York Times, that is exactly what Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki has done. He ordered his Health Minister to stop releasing any figures on the number of Iraq citizens being killed because of the increasing number dying in the civil war going on. It's bad for morale.

Bush has already implemented part of this strategy. The U.S. Military only releases Iraq civilian death estimates quarterly and that's only because Congress said they had to.

But the problem of the public and the world knowing what's really happening in Iraq on a number of fronts goes way beyond efforts to "hide" the number of deaths of Iraq citizens. As Michael Yon of the Conservative Weekly Standard says the present press coverage of Iraq is censorship. He notes that "we have an "embed" media system that is so ineptly managed that earlier this fall there were only 9 reporters embedded with 150,000 American troops in Iraq. There were about 770 during the initial invasion."

He says there is an an "all too real censorship of the U.S. war effort. I don't use the word lightly. Censorship is a hand grenade of an accusation, and a writer should be serious before pulling the pin. Indeed, some war-zone censorship for reasons of operational security is obviously desirable and important......But we can and should complain when authorities willfully limit war reporting. We should do so whether it happens as a matter of policy, or through incompetence or bureaucratic sloth. The result is the same in any case."

But alas Michael Yon is a little slow on bringing up this issue. We already have implemented this censorship not just in Iraq but also at home in the US. The deaths of US servicemen and women are shielded from public view. Note the official policy and censorship that prohibited the photographing of flag draped caskets of dead soldiers. Keep the dead out of the public view. Part of the "wisdom" of the old saying "out of sight out of mind."

And as we've written previously this censorship includes keeping anyone who opposes Bush's war policies away from him - like blocks away or even in jail.

So not releasing to the American public the names and numbers of soldiers would only be one more step in the censorship game. Bush could officially declare that releasing names and numbers of the dead aids and abets our enemy by letting them keep track of how many Americans have been killed.

We don't want to increase the enemy's morale do we? So the answer is - let's stop releasing to the press how many soldiers have been killed or wounded. Afterall, if we're "staying the course" by whatever name the Bush war cabinet wants to call it , does it really matter what the cost is?
The numbers can be released whenever the war is over.


The New York Times on Oct 10, 2006 reported that "A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.

Americans who have died in the Iraq War now total 2814.
Soldiers from other countries killed - 232.
Americans who have died in Afghanistan 341.

Initiative 937 - Boeing, Avista and Weyerhauser Oppose Energy Independence

So what's a life of a US serviceman worth? What's the life of someone in Iraq who's caught in the crossfire worth? Not much if you accept the head in the sand attitude of some large corporations in Washington State who are contributing to the campaign to defeat Initiative 937.

Initiative 937 is already law in 20 states according to Marketwatch. It is a simple initiative. It requires that by 2020 large utilities obtain 15% of their electricity from renewable resources like wind and solar and undertake cost-effective conservation.

Rather than supporting efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the need to send American servicemen and women to fight a war over oil in Iraq, the large corporations opposing I-937 seem to be only looking at their narrow self interest by not wanting to be obligated to do anything.

They are running childish radio ads trying to scare people into thinking their energy bills will go up. If you factor the cost of the Iraq War into our energy bills, then our bills are already astronomical. Maybe its time for us as a state and a nation to grow up and take responsibility and end our dependence on oil from other nations. Why send billions and billions of dollars to people in the MidEast? Why not spend it in our own backyard?

Initiative 937 says that it is the policy of Washington State that:

"Increasing energy conservation and the use of appropriately sited renewable energy facilities builds on the strong foundation of low-cost hydroelectric generation in Washington state and will promote energy independence in the state and the Pacific Northwest region. Making the most of our plentiful local resources will stabilize energy prices for Washington residents, provide economic benefits for Washington counties and farmers, create high quality jobs in Washington, provide opportunities for training apprentice workers in the renewable energy field, protect clean air and water, and position Washington state as a national leader in clean energy technologies."

So here is the list of the "Head in the Sand Let's Just Kill People for Oil" corporations and businesses who are opposing the common sense energy security Initiative 937:

Weyerhauser .......................................$101,200
Avista .....................................................$50,000
Boise Cascade ........................................$50,000
Longview Fiber .....................................$50,000
NW Pulp and Paper ..............................$50,000
Regional Solutions Committee.............$35,000
Washington Rural Electric Coop ..........$32,500
Pacific Corp..............................................$25,000
Am. Forest and Paper Assoc.................$10,000
Columbia-Snake River Irrigators.........$10,000
Boeing ......................................................$10,000
Penisula Light Co...................................... $5,000
Port Blakely Tree Farm............................$5000
Sabey Corp..................................................$5000
Westbrook Farms......................................$5000
Columbia Rural Electric Assoc,Inc ..........$2000
WTA Services Assoc..................................$2000

Total.........................................................$456,690

Figures are from Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.

You can help the Initiative 937 campaign by urging your family, friends and neighbors to vote Yes on Initiative 937 on or before Nov.7th, 2006. You can also visit the Yeson937 campaign website to make a donation and volunteer to help.

Cathy McMorris Wake Up Call!

"It a tougher race than I first thought." said Republican Congresswoman Cathy McMorris (WA-5) to Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho. These comments and others were overheard by The Spokesman Review political reporter, Jim Camden, when he called into a town meeting teleconference and was put on mute, not hold like others calling in were.

Damn right! The Republicans have been taking her opponent, Democrat Peter Goldmark for granted, and that's fine with me. They have been taking too many things for granted and their arrogance and elitism is boomeranging back on them.

McMorris was asking Craig for help in defending McMorris's vote for budget cuts for veteran's programs. It was obvious that Goldmark's criticism of McMorris was resonating with voters. Maybe she should also ask for help in trying to defend tax cuts for millionaires while trying to close veteran's health facilities.

Republicans have sent American soldiers over to Iraq, where many have died and many more have been maimed and wounded seriously. How pathetic and hypocritical for Republicans to say "Support our Troops" while cutting services they need back home. It's not enough to ask them to fight for a war that was based on lies, they don't even have the decency to help those needing help when they return to our country.

It's time for a change. If you want to help boot McMorris out of Congress, you can give a contribution to support Peter Goldmark by clicking on this link to "ActBlue" He can use your help now to get his campaign message out.

You can go to Peter Goldmark's campaign website to hear more about the campaign including an excellent collection of audio and video media including his recent debate with McMorris as well as read about Goldmark's positions on issues He has posted issue statements on agriculture, economy, jobs, Iraq, veterans, ethics, energy, education, healthcare and seniors.

The Goldmark campaign has become one of the top Democratic Congressional campaigns in the country because of his aggressive efforts on meeting voters and giving straight talk on the issues. Your help now can help to send a real representative of the people back to Washington, D.C.

Mike McGavick - the un-Success Story at CNA Financial Corporation

Washington's Republican candidate for Senate, Mike McGavick, likes to toot his horn about turning around Safeco - his campaign website talks repeatedly about his leadership and experience. McGavick in his KING 5 debate with Senator Maria Cantwell specifically made a point about turning Safeco around.

However, prior to Safeco, McGavick worked for CNA Financial Corporation in Chicago for about 6 years. CNA Financial Corporation is a large insurance company in Chicago that is owned 90% by the Loews Corporation.

The media has paid very little attention to McGavick's time at CNA Financial. Yet I think there is more to McGavick's story than we have been told.

From McGavicks website:

"In 1995, Mike went to work for Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation. He held a number of positions and was responsible for developing CNA's e-commerce strategy. Soon, however, CNA tapped Mike’s problem-solving leadership, naming him president and chief executive officer of the company’s largest operating
unit.
Mike’s professional career is testament to his leadership abilities. It’s also a testament to Mike’s unwavering focus on what real leadership is: taking responsibility and solving problems."

O.K. well lets look a little closer.

McGavick worked for CNA Financial through 2000. It was announced in late Jan. 2001 that he had been selected to head up Safeco. But what happened at CNA Financial Corporation while McGavick was there and after he left?

In an official announcement written for the May 7, 2003 annual meeting there is an interesting graph that states the following:

STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE GRAPH

The following graph compares the total return of the Company's Common Stock, the Standard & Poor's 500 Composite Stock Index ("S&P 500") and the Standard & Poor's Multi-Line Insurance Index for the five years ended December 31, 2002. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in the Company's Common Stock and for each Index was $100 on December 31, 1997 and that dividends were reinvested.

STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE GRAPH:
--------------------------1997 -- 1998-- 1999 -- 2000 -- 2001 -- 2002
CNA FINANCIAL CORP.....100 -- 94.52--91.44--91.00--70.13--61.55
S&P 500 INDEX .......100 --128.58--155.63--141.46--124.65--97.10
MULTI-LINE INSURANCE..100-119.3-155.16-215.58-177.65-130.53

Thus $100 invested in CNA Financial Corporation between 1997 and 2002 became worth $61.55 while the same $100 invested in the S&P Multiline Insurance Index was worth $130.53

That doesn't exactly sound like a company you'd want to invest in. And this was the company Mike McGavick worked for from 1995 through 2000. Maybe there's more to the story about Mike McGavick's time at CNA Financial than he'd like us to know.

One place to start is to look at what Mike McGavick actually did at CNA Financial. The story isn't quite as usually told. McGavick was not the CEO at CNA Financial as has sometimes been said. See as just one example Seattle Times 4/17 2006 which erronously lists him as "President, chief operating officer, CNA Financial, 1995-2000"

McGavick's exact position in CNA changed over time, but he was on a senior management team starting in July 1997. He headed up the largest division of CNA Financial - the commercial insurance division, starting in 1997. As such he was the COO of the CNA division entitled Agency Market Operations.

As The National Underwriter in 2002 noted,when he left CNA Financial his " most recent position prior to Safeco was as head of Agency Market Operations"

The 1999 CNA Financial Report to shareholders noted that CNA conducted its operations at that time through 7 separate units of which Agency Market Operations was one. The others were Specialty Operations, CNA Re, Global Operations, Risk Management, Group Operations and Life Operations.

In looking up Loews Financial Statements I came across the following in their 2003 Financial Report:

"Much of Loews'’s attention in 2003 was directed towards CNA, which made great progress in restoring and realigning its balance sheet to reflect claims development on policies written before 2001. CNA conducted a thorough review of its reserve base over the course of much of the year, which resulted in two significant charges in 2003. While this outcome was certainly undesirable, it represented a committed, genuine initiative to create a profitable commercial property-casualty insurance company. In support of these efforts, Loews lent its financial strength to the capital plan that CNA devised to augment its statutory surplus. In total, Loews invested $1.1 billion in CNA during the fourth quarter of 2003... "

Sounds like McGavick left an unprofitable company that had lots of problems that were the result of policies at least partially written during the time McGavick was with the company. Was McGavick just leaving a bad situation? What role did he have in creating or trying to solve the situation mentioned in the 2003 financial report?

In the 1999 CNA Financial Report released in March of 2000 McGavick gives the following perspective on his job at CNA Financial:

"Could you tell us about your efforts in commercial middle markets?

MCGAVICK: First of all, we are aggressively getting off accounts that have been unprofitable. Where we can't find a solution that is acceptable to us, we are getting off the risk. Secondly, and a much more difficult task, is getting adequate price on business that we want to retain. Usually, this is business that many companies would like to have. We have steadfast resolve in getting an adequate price, even in this business. In 1999, we did not renew nearly $750 million of commercial premiums on a base of $3.4 billion as we worked through critical underwriting and pricing initiatives.
It is also important to look at the quarter-to-quarter trend. In middle-market business, as we work to attain rate adequacy, average price increases were 2 percent in the first quarter, 6 percent in the second quarter, 8 percent in the third quarter and 9 percent in the fourth quarter. Retention has been holding steady in the 70 to 75 percent range throughout the year.

You increased prices in commercial middle markets and still produced an underwriting loss. Has anything really changed?

MCGAVICK: When you look at the fundamentals of our book of business, we are in a much better position now than at the start of 1999. At that point, we were coming off two quarters of price decreases - 0.5 percent in the third quarter of 1998 and 1 percent in the fourth quarter - and these rolled over into our 1999 operating results. Now we are sitting on four consecutive quarters of necessary price increases that reached 9 percent in the fourth quarter, and we expect these actions will work their way into our results for 2000."

The following 1997 through 2000 figures are from media release.

The 2001 through 2005 net income figures from the The 2005 Annual Report of CNA Financial Corp.( page 2 ).

Agency Market Operations saw net income (loss) figures of :

1997--------------($326 million) loss
1998---------------($54 million) loss
1999--------------($201 million) loss
2000-------------- $110 million

They list the following net income (loss) figures as a whole for CNA Financial:

1998------------- $228 million
1999-------------($172 million) loss
2000------------$1,182 million * see note below
2001------------($1,605 million) *restated loss
2002 --------------$163 million *restated
2003----------- ($1,417 million) *restated loss
2004---------------$425 million *restated
2005---------------$264 million

The year 2000 deserves special note "...this significant increase in net income is attributable largely to realized gains on our superb Global Crossing and Canary Wharf investments..." SEC info

The year 2000 for CNA Financial as a whole showed a good profit on paper but when you look at the next three years it disappears. As noted, this increase was due mainly to investments separate from daily operations. If you add all the earning from 1998 to 2005, CNA Financial Corporation shows a cumulative loss of close to a billion dollars or $932 million to be more exact. If you exclude 2004 and 2005 as years beyond correcting for 1990's losses, the loss becomes ($1.611 billion) after the input of funding by Loews.

Remember McGavick headed up Agency Maket Operations since 1997 through 2000. In 1999 looking at the income from premiums of $4,799 million and investment income of $686 million and comparing it with the income of $13.282 billion for CNA as a whole, the sector that McGavick headed up brought in $4.799 billion or 36% of the total revenue.

Yet Agency Market Operations that year recorded a loss of $202 million. In 2000 with similiar revenues it only recorded a $100 million gain after McGavich's leadership for 4 years. Agency Market Operations did not contribute much to the income gain in 2000.

After McGavick left to join Safeco in Jan 2001 , the CNA Financial Corporation in 2001 underwent significant restructuring and Agency Market Operations disappeared as a division and as a separate entity that one could individually break out for an on-going income (loss) comparison. What was McGavick's job no longer existed as such in the reorganization.

As noted in Loews 2001 10 - K report filed 3/08/2002 Loews reduced its seven operating groups to five - "Standard Lines, Specialty Lines and CNA Re (these groups comprise the Company's Property-Casualty segment); Group Operations and Life Operations." The group entitled Ageny Market Operations , that McGavick had headed, ceased to exist as such.

"CNA underwent significant management changes, strategic realignment and restructuring in the second half of 2001. These management changes as well as the strategic realignment and restructuring have changed the way CNA manages its operations and makes business decisions; and therefore, necessitated a change in CNA's reportable segments.
The changes made to CNA's reportable segments
were as follows: (i)Commercial Insurance and CNA Excess & Select (formerly
included in AgencyMarket Operations) and Risk Management Operations, were
combined into Standard Lines; ...."

In Loews 2003 Annual Report they note that

"Over the course of the last two years, CNA has been replatformed, re-positioned, re-taffed, and re-underwritten. It has demonstrated unparalleled initiative and resolve in coming to terms with its past, all in an effort to lift any and all clouds of uncertainty as it works to become a strong, focused, and profitable commercial property-casualty insurance leader. Although the nature of the insurance business is to take calculated risks, which from time to time can imply a volatile earnings profile, CNA believes that its recent actions have positioned it to perform at a high level in the years ahead."

One could speculate that McGavick in late 2000 saw the writing on the wall and decided it was time to get a new job. As noted in the same report above there is this further discussion of CNA's reorganization in 2001 after McGavick left :

CNA’s organizational structure was streamlined and its infrastructure costs were reduced. From 2001 to 2002, roughly $200 million in annual operating expenses were eliminated, while cost reductions to bring overhead in line with the current size of the company are still ongoing. Selective staff reductions were made at the same time that high-caliber managers and technical underwriting professionals were recruited through investments in compensation plans and training and development programs.

"It definitely seemed like an opportune time for McGavick to move on in Jan 2001. Maybe he had no choice considering the circumstances. You'll have to ask him.

Final Note:
To cover myself in case I made a mistake or two in intrepreting this information cited above I give the following excuse. Sid Cato of Cato Communications made the following statement in a news release reviewing the best and worst company annual reports.:

CNA Financial, "an insurance company regardless of what it calls itself." He said that traditionally its annual "is awful. As it is this year." he said CNA "more than once" has made his list of world’s worst reports. Its ’98 product, he said, contains "precious little of substance."

Feel free to comment.

Initiative 920 - Message from William H. Gates

The lawyer, and father of Bill Gates of Microsoft, William H. Gates has written the following important message for Washington voters. I received it in an email from the Noon920 Campaign.

"I hope that you will join me in voting No on Initiative 920 this November 7th. This misguided initiative will gut $100 million a year from funding our schools and have real consequences, like higher class size for the young people of Washington.

Initiative 920 would repeal the state estate tax, a tax that only the wealthiest in our state pay. In fact, 99.5% of Washingtonians don’t pay the tax. With a threshold of $4 million per couple, less than 250 estates a year pay this tax and family farms are fully exempt.

Join me in preserving critical funding for public education, and the only fair and progressive tax we have in Washington State."

William H. Gates, co-author of Wealth and our Commonwealth

The Noon920 campaign has the following additional recommendationn:

Next week the ballots drop in the mail around the state.
As people start to vote, please reach out to your friends, family and neighbors and encourage them to vote NO on 920.
If you're a part of an organization, please reach out to your members and alert them to the importance of voting NO on 920.
Also encourage them to endorse the campaign through our website at www.NoOn920.org and contribute as they can.

Send your friends and family in Washington state a copy of this page by clicking on the e-mail link below - it looks like a little envelope.

And encourage them also to vote:

No on Initiative 933 - the developer's initiative to end zoning, growth management and environmental protections and
Yes on Initiative 937 to promote use of renewable clean energy

Initiative 933 - Anti-Government Special Interests Groups Overreach Again

Initiative 933 writers deliberately wrote Initiative 933 to be so sweeping that it doesn't just include real property (land and permanent buildings on it) but also "personal property"(cows and other animals, trucks, boats, stocks, businesses, trademarks etc.)

As stated in today's Seattle Times, the Farm Bureau's spokesman Dan "Wood has said that personal property was included in I-933 to guard against attempts to circumvent the initiative's intent."

Unfortunately this opens up a whole new potential set of lawsuits that our elected officials will have to contend with and we, the taxpayers, will have to pay for.

In a critical analysis released yesterday Seattle Attorney Hugh Spitzer points out that this completely expands the initiative into a whole new area of law that affects many other regulations not specifically related to real property where the "pay or waive" scheme would apply.

Spitzer's analysis says :

Claims for public compensation would likely include demands for payments as a result of:
- Regulations governing the insurance, securities and health care industries; Regulations governing professions (such as plumbing, cosmetology, and physical therapy);
- Rules controlling who is qualified to carry out other tasks that require specialized training and experience, such as installing fire sprinkler systems or operating sex offender treatment facilities; and
- Regulations governing wild and domestic animals, livestock, food crops,fertilizers, pesticides, drugs and motor vehicles

Now it would not just be developer interests that win big with I-933 but all other types of interests that oppose government regulation of any kind. Maybe that's why out of state multi-millionaire developer Howard Rich's Americans for Limited Government gave $260,000 to the Farm Bureau to help buy signatures to put I-933 on the November ballot.

One has to wonder what other hidden agendas have been tucked away in I-933 by those that hate government of any kind. I-933 is a conservative lawyer's dream.

The technicalities of I-933, and its intended and unintended consequences, point out the risk the public takes in approving complex legislation sponsored by narrow political interests that are trying to avoid the public scrutiny and vetting of consequences of the proposed legislation by ignoring the usual legislative process of hearings and debates.

As we noted in a previous blog this is intentional:

"...a new taped interview of Howard Rich by High County News talking about how initiatives bypassing the legislature is a good thing and how it will have a "very far reaching" impact on future regulatory actions. Rich is the Chair of Americans for Limited Government, on the Board of the CATO Institute and a libertarian free market person who was behind the term limits movement.

Opponents to Initiative 933 are running an aggressive campaign to alert the public to the dangers of Initiative 933. For more information go to Noon933.

Wright Calls for Hastings to Step Down as Chair of Ethics Committee

House Speaker Dennis Hastert appointed Washington State Rep Doc Hastings to Chair the House Ethics Committee. Hastert sacked the previous Chair and 3 other Republican members after they too aggressively investigated Tom DeLay. Hastert is Hasting's boss and with the sacking he clearly sent a message to Hastings as to what he wanted him to do. Since then the committee has been pretty much inactive.

Today at 10 A.M. Hasting's Democratic opponent, Richard Wright, is holding a press conference calling for Doc Hastings to step down as Chair of the House Ethics Committee.

You can read the press release over at McCranium.It's good to see Wright getting more aggressive in this race.

Wright questions the unbiasedness of anyone called to impartially investigate someone, then saying. "I think the Speaker has done a great job" Um, great job at what. You can see a video clip of Hastings remarks here.

The problem is that anyone who chairs the Ethics Committee would be appointed with the approval of the Speaker. Hastings was appointed by Hastert. That's a conflict of interest because the Speaker is part of the investigation.

The House Speaker controls the legislative future of whoever sits on that committee and everyone knows it. What is needed is the appointment of an independent counsel. Otherwise all you are going to get is a whitewash.

Takings Initiatives Accountability Project

The Center for Public Integrity has set up a new website called the "Takings Initiatives Accountability Project" It is a good source of additional information on the initiative battles in Washington, California, Arizona and Idaho by New York real estate developer Howard Rich to severely limit any future zoning laws, growth management regulations and environmental protections.

Included is a new taped interview of Howard Rich by High County News talking about how initiatives bypassing the legislature is a good thing and how it will have a "very far reaching" impact on future regulatory actions. Rich is the Chair of Americans for Limited Government, on the Board of the CATO Institute and a libertarian free market person who was behind the term limit movement.

The Takings Initiative Accountability Project reports that Rich's organizations have put $5 million into the four states which have active ballot campaigns to pass initiatives that promote developers rights over community rights. That is over 85% of all the money raised for these efforts.
Sounds like a true citizens effort doesn't it? Now which of those states does Howard Rich live in?

Washington State's Initiative 933 actually goes further than the other initiatives in that it makes the initiative retroactive to 10 year's ago to basically do in King County's Critical Areas Ordinance. It requires compensation for any "damage' done to a property's value as a result of any action taken by the state or local government. Although intended to be a "pay or waive" law there is legal ambiguity as to whether or the law is actually written to allow the government to do anything except pay the property owner.

The ballot title for I-933 is slanted to benefit the Yes campaign. The ballot title was written by the Washington State Attorney General's Office. At the time it was issued there were behind the scene rumors that there was help in drafting this title by interests sympathetic to the initiative's sponsors. The title was challenged in Court but the Court usually defers to the Attorney General's wording and did so in this case.

The use of the term "damages the use or value" is very ambiguous and is sure to be the subject of lawsuits galore.

Here's the actual ballot title from the Secretary of State's website:

Initiative Measure 933 - Proposed by Initiative Petition
Initiative Measure No. 933 concerns government regulation of private property.
This measure would require compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property, and would provide exceptions or payments.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
Yes [ ] No [ ]

» Explanatory and Pro/Con Statements » Full Text


Initiative 933 is being opposed by the Citizens foCommunity Protection.

Washington's Initiative 933 doesn't involve the issue of eminent domain. Washington State's Constitution already requires that people be compensated if Government takes their entire property.

What the initiative is really about is the proper balance between public needs and private desires. Initiative 933 would end new zoning, growth management regulations and environmental protections that apply equally to everyone. Local government works to help stablize a community and give property owners a sense of relief that their neighborhood isn't going to drastically change because of what a developer wants to do.

The initiative is correctly called a Developers Rights Initiative. It would benefits development interests without requiring accountability on their part. They would be able to force communities to waive any new laws and regulations from applying to them or require compensation from taxpayers.

Unfortunately the opposition is trying to frame the issue as one of takings. The issue is really one of community rights to have agreed upon rules and regulations for everyone. Waiving rules and regulations for one property owner or developer can mean that neighboring property owner's land can lose value. But they will not be compensated. That is why I-933 is a developers rights initiative, not a property rights initiative. And that is whiy citizens should vote no on 933.

How an issue is perceived has a lot to do with winning. Bush and conservatives have framed some of their issues to benefit their side, like trying to redefine the inheritance tax as the death tax. Really the issue should be viewed as collecting taxes on wealth where it has appreciated in value but no tax has ever been paid on the appreciated value before the person died.

So what is I-933 about? Is it about uncontrolled development or "takings"? Is it about ending zoning and environmental protections or is it about compensation for "damaged property"?

The issue is about control over where people live and work. The so called "right" for someone to develop their property anyway they want is a loss in community control. Uncontrolled development can decrease the value of other people's property as a result of waiving community protections for a few.

I urge citizens to vote NO on Initiative 933 this November 7th.

Will Republican Whitewash Win Out Over Independent Investigation?

Republican Representative Doc Hastings, representing the 4th Congressional District in Eastern Washington, was personally selected by House Speaker Dennis Hastert in 2005 to head the House Ethics Committee. Hastert as House Speaker is Hastings' boss as well as the boss of the other Republicans on the House Ethics Committee. If this isn't a conflict of interest in investigating Hastert's role in the Rep Mark Foley House Page scandal, I don't know what is.

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert is in deep trouble. He is being called to task for not responding and acting on accusations that one of his cronies, Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, was sending sexually suggestive electronic messages to underage teenage Congressional pages.

But Hastert is in charge and is pulling a fast one on the media and public. He has claimed responsibility in an attempt to stop further outrage by the public, but his initial statements are day by day being corrected and contradicted.

On Friday, the New York Times quotes a Hastert spokesman, Ron Bonjean as saying, "The speaker has taken responsibility and is taking control of the situation."

Right, taking control just like he did in 2005 when the House Ethics Committee was purged by Hastert of those Republicans who were too aggressively going after Tom DeLay who subsequently resigned.

As the Seattle PI notes:

"The appearance of favoritism has dogged Hastings from his first day as chairman. Hastert, who is the central figure in the Foley investigation, selected Hastings in early 2005 to replace Chairman Joel Hefley of Utah. He also replaced three Republican members. Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- called it a purge of independent Republicans who might have sanctioned former Majority Leader Tom DeLay."

And what has the Ethics Committee done since then. As the LA Times writes:

" The House Ethics Committee has had little to say as one scandal after another has rocked Capitol Hill since early 2005. Now, can a panel that has been derided as a symbol of congressional dysfunction take up a tough, politically sensitive case a month before an election and produce results within weeks, as promised?
Skeptics abound."We don't have a lot of confidence in the Ethics Committee," said James Benton of the public watchdog group Common Cause."

The Seattle PI also points to the credibility issues in the current investigation.

"I don't trust Doc Hastings," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the public interest group that touched off the Foley scandal by giving transcripts of his e-mails and chats to ABC News.
"Hastings was put in that role (as committee chairman) because he was loyal to the leadership. I have no doubts that the committee's findings will hold Hastert harmless," she said.
Sloan, along with others, has demanded that an independent counsel be named to head the investigation. She notes that independent counsels have been named in the past to investigate former Speakers of the House Newt Gingrich and Jim Wright. Anything short of that, Sloan said, would subject the committee's findings to charges of favoritism.

I agree. The House Republicans have shown that they are unable to police themselves. Any investigation by Republicans of Republicans at this point will only be a whitewash. Citizens need to demand an independent counsel be appointed.

Hastings is being challenged in his reelection campaign by Democrat Richard Wright.

Hastings Says Speaker Hastert Has Done "an Excellent Job."

Rep Doc Hastings knows who his boss is. It's Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. So when your boss asks you to investigate his role in a sex scandal, what do you say?

"I think the Speaker has done an excellent job."

See the video over at Think Progress and Hastings' attempt to take his words back.

So what would you do if your boss asked you to investigate his role in covering up a sex scandal?

Rep Doc Hastings, represents Eastern Washington's 4th Congressional District. Hastings was appointed to Chair the House Ethics Conmmittee in 2005 by Hastert. The Committee has been fairly inactive since Hastings appointment after Hastert removed the previous chair and 3 other Republicans who were critical of Tom DeLay.

Hastings is being challenged in his reelection campaign by Democrat Richard Wright.

Waiting for Republican Sex Predator Attack Ads?

The old perennial Republican sex predator attack ads on Democrats are not likely to show up this year. They've been a favorite here in Washington State by the Republicans.

Last January a number of targeted Democratic districts were hit with such ads. And the Republican leadership shrugged their shoulders. Here's part of an article from the Tri City Herald by Chris Mulick:

OLYMPIA -- State House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt, R-Chehalis, said Tuesday that he had nothing to do with a recent ad campaign in the 16th District and elsewhere accusing Democrats of being soft on sex crimes, but he said he saw nothing wrong with it.

Democrats and even some Republicans are furious, arguing the tactic is politicizing delicate negotiations over appropriate penalties for sex offenses while breeding intense partisanship.

Postcards were arriving as late as Monday in districts where Democrats are likely to be targeted in this year's elections depicting the mug of a registered sex offender and stating that named Democratic lawmakers from those districts "refused to impose life sentences for violent sex predators."

Seems that nationally Republicans also were planning the same strategy. Marianne Means in her column today in the Seattle PI notes:

"Republicans had planned attack ads in October painting Democrats as soft on sexual predators. Guess those ads won't be running now."

Seems Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert with his inaction and coverup on the page scandal with Republican Representative Mark Foley of Florida is going to force the Republicans to ditch that strategy both locally and nationally.

This time I guess its the Republicans who get the October surprise. I sort of keep getting this vision of a grenade with the pin pulled being dropped and Republicans running for cover. Wonder why?

Here's what the New York Times wrote about Foley:

"... other pages had come forward with more blatant instant messages.
“What ya wearing?” Mr. Foley wrote to one, according to the network.
“Tshirt and shorts,” the teenager responded.
"Love to slip them off of you,” Mr. Foley replied. ABC News said it had read him other messages that were far more graphic"

Premature Celebration - Republican Style Iraq Planning.

The Republican controlled Congress, not wanting to be caught unprepared once again, as they were for Hurricane Katrina and post invasion Iraq, has already appropriated $20 million to pay for a celebration of America's success in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only problem is they haven't ended the war yet.

As reported in the New York Times yesterday legislation passed by the Republican Congress empowers

the president to designate "a day of celebration" to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to "issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities."

Whoever originated this splendid act of Republican style planning surely would want to be recognized for their efforts . Yet as the NY Times notes no one has stepped forward.

"A spokesman for the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee said it was protocol not to identify sponsors of such specific legislation, unless they choose to name themselves."

Yes,Yes, please step forward we would all like to give you a round of applause my friend. Finally someone is planning something, even if it is in fantasyland.

As the Seattle PI says in an editorial today "The Iraq War Celebrate! What?"

Republicans used to preach accountability in government. If the concept still had any meaning, Rumsfeld would have been sacked long ago. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert would have paid attention when a key member started harassing pages. But, hey, let's have a party. Just like the one that, as Bob Woodward describes in his new book, the White House held on an aircraft carrier three years ago to declare victory in Iraq.

"Words" Assaulted Vice President Cheney? Arrested Man Sues Secret Service.

A man arrested in June after he told Vice President Cheney "I think your polices in Iraq are reprehensible" has filed suit in Federal Court saying a Secret Service agent violated his civil rights. It is quite telling that the arrest occurred 10 minutes after the man spoke to Cheney. The agent asked that the man be charged with harrassment but the charges were later dropped.

from the New York Times:

In his suit, filed in Federal District Court in Denver, the man, Steven Howards, an environmental consultant who lives in Golden, Colo., says he stepped up to the vice president to speak his mind in a public place and found himself in handcuffs — in violation, the suit says, of the Constitution’s language about free speech and illegal search and seizure

from the Rocky Mountain News :

Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.

from the Vail Daily on 6/19/2006 - Secret Service Quiet about Man Arrested Near Cheney:

BEAVER CREEK - The U.S.Secret Service is offering no details about the arrest of Steven Howards, who they allege acted strangely around Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday during an economic summit in Beaver Creek.

"His behavior and demeanor wasn't quite right," Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren saidon Friday. "The agents tried to question him, and he was argumentative and combative."

On Monday, another spokesman for the Secret Service refused to say what wasn't quite right" about Howards' demeanor and whether federal charges were brought against Howards.

"No further comment," said the spokesman, Jonathan Cherry.

The New York Times notes two other case of the Bush/Cheney effort to stifle free speech and dissent that are before the courts. In another Colorado case two people are suing for being evicted from a public event because their car had an anti-war sticker. The other case is in West Virginia where two people were arrested for wearing ant-Bush t-shirts.

Last April in a post entitled "Annoy Me, Go to Jail" we discussed this same intolerance of any thing not pleasing to Republican ears and its attempt to stifle free speech on the internet.

Republican hypocrisy crys out to us again and again . The Constitution is a great thing until someone exercises it against them - like the right to free speech.

Initiative 933 - Part of Americans for Limited Government's National Campaign

Americans for Limited Government is running a national effort to repeal state and local zoning laws and environmental protections. These laws and regulations protect individual homeowners and businesses by setting community standards and promoting certainty that inappropriate development will not decrease the value and use of your property.

In Washington State they have contributed over $260,000 toward passing Initiative 933. But Washington State is not alone in Americans for Limited Government's efforts to repeal zoning and growth management protections.

Americans for Limited Government is also behind initiative efforts to overturn zoning, growth management and environmental protection safeguards in Arizona, California, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, as well as Washington State.

Recently a cartoon video showed up at a website in Washington State supporting Initiative 933. www.yeson933.com. (See also PDC complaint by Evergreen Politics) This same video has also shown up on other states' websites. Minor modifications are made to localize each video to each state, like a local freeway and the local initiative. Not surprising when looking up the media creator - Political Media is the fact that its President Larry Ward was involved in working with the US Chamber of Commerce on Bush's re-election. He also was involved with the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation to help turn out the African American Vote for Bush.

The cartoon video is a hideous misrepresentation of the issues and facts involved The video is intent on portraying corrupt politicians in cahoots with Mafia Developers intent on taking away your home and business and church. They are obviously trying to reach Latino voters and black voters and young voters and the conservative Christian Right and are doing so with racial stereotypes.

The appeal is to scare Americans into unjustified fear that the evil politicians are going to kick you out of your home and tear down your church and shut minority businesses down. It is a campaign pandering to fear, intent on creating further racial division and further distrust in government.

Does this racial division get results? Well the California Black Chamber of Commerce must believe it because they issued a press release urging voters to support Prop 90 - the "Protect our Homes Initiative on the Nov. Ballot.

Here is the video on Arizona's site - "Hope for Arizona" which is pushing Prop 207. They even issued a press release, saying it depicted "eminent domain abuse". They make no mention of the fact that the video is also being used in other states and is part of a national effort..

A disclaimer at the bottom of the Arizona ad says "This message is sponsored by the Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort. Neither HBO nor any individuals affiliated with HBO approved, sponsored or endorsed this message." It's also available for iPOD and PSP and a link to MySpace shows it prominently at the top of the page.

Here is the video on Nevada's site for a "Property Owners Bill of Rights. And here is Idaho's site This House is my Home, promoting passage of Prop 2 in Idaho.

And not to leave any stone unturned, this politics of division is also being used to pass their message on to not just black voters and Latino voters and young voters but also through churches. The Americans for Limited Government Foundation has put up a website called "Protect our Homes and Churches

The website says they "are a growing coalition of pastors who are fighting eminent domain abuse.Right now, in many states, local politicians can take homes and churches away from their owners and give them to private developers. Too often, the victims are those who don't have the resources to fight back."

As Bush and Rove found, the politics of division works. And so does building strategic coalitions with unlikely interests whose ultimate goals are very different. Members of the black and Latino community often work in low paying jobs. Americans for Limited Government is not interested in seeing government raise the minimum wage or provide adequate health care or lower the price of subscription drugs.

Americans for Limited Government is interested in just that - limited government. Their goals are very different from those of many of the people they are recruiting to support their causes. Americans for Limited Government's Chairman, Howard Rich, for example also sits on the Boards of the CATO Institute, the Club for Rome and the Rose and Milton Friedman Foundation - all conservative right wing groups. Rich was a prominent former member of the National Libertarian Party. Rich is in fact a multimillionaire real estate developer. Don't you see something phony about their cartoon video?

In Washington State you can viisit the website of those opposed to I-933 at www.noon933.org You can volunteer to help spread the message about the deceitful tactics of the proponents of Initiative 933.

see also these other recent posts on MajorityRulesBlog
-Initiative 933 - Who is Howie Rich?
-A Simple Reason to Oppose Initiative 933

In addition check out these recent posts on DailyKos:
- Yes on 933 is Lying to Rural Property Rights Activists about Eminent Domain by reifman
- http://www.dailykos.com/user/sandlapper
- http://www.dailykos.com/tag/eminent%20domain