Seattle PI Endorses Public Financing for Judges

This last election cycle in Washington State pointed out the vulnerability of our state judicial system to special interest money. One group, the BIAW (Building Industry Association), made a play for buying several seats on the Washington State Supreme Court to represent their special interests - interests like getting rid of growth management and zoning laws and environmental laws they didn't like.

The BIAW's raw power play pointed out the dangers of special interest money intent on winning no matter what the cost. The campaigning became a slug fest and saw spending records broken. It woke many people up to the reality that while the BIAW didn't succeed this time, they or some other group could next time.

That is why there is a sudden urgent swelling of support for a solution to reduce the impact of money in elections. A grassroots citizens organization, Washington Public Campaigns, has been working for several years on public financing of campaigns and it seems it's in the right place at the right time.

Washington Public Campaigns has 3 legislative bills they are pushing in the Legislative session starting in January in Olympia. One is to allow a local option for public campaign financing. The second is for public financing of judicial races. And the third is for public financing of all local legislative and state wide races.

Today the Seattle PI endorsed public financing of judicial races. Governor Gregoire has added $4.4 million dollars in her proposed budget to do just that. And House Majority Leader Frank Chopp has said that it is a priority of his and fellow Democrats to pass a bill. He also supports and believes that a local option for public financing will pass.

The more comprehensive bill covering state and legislative races is more of a long shot, even though both Maine and Arizona have enacted such legislation with good results. North Carolina enacted legislation for public financing of judicial races in 2002.

Its time for Washington State to take the first step and support public financing of State Supreme Court and Appellate races. The Judiciary needs to independent for it to be fair and impartial. It can not be so if court seats go to the biggest spenders.

Rossi Starts Run for Governor 2008

Republican Dino Rossi has started his re-match campaign against Democrat Christine Gregoire for Washington State Governor in 2008. But he is hiding it behind a 501(c)(4) he has formed so that he can conceal the names and amounts of contributions supporting his efforts.

The Rossi for Governor campaign website is now not just promoting Rossi's book by Forward Books, LLC but also Rossi's latest effort to promote himself. It is called the Forward Washington Foundation. The Foundation claims to be "a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to increasing public awareness of issues affecting the future of Washington state, its citizens and its economy."

The funny thing is that the Home Page looks like a campaign website with a picture of of the Washington State Capitol and a big headline saying "A Message from Dino Rossi" and his signature at the bottom of the page.

Clicking on the About Us page you come up with a picture of none other than Dino Rossi who quickly introduces himself by saying he "is the President of the Forward Washington Foundation." The next sentence -" Dino was the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Washington's 2004 election," You would think that if he was trying to head up a nonpartisan organization he would have left out the word "Republican."

The About Us page also tells us that former legislator Dan McDonald is the only other Board Member. No mention is made that he is also a Republican. Dan McDonald doesn't rate a picture or even an office like VP. He is just a Board Member. No other Board members are mentioned.

But guess what is the background and experience of the Campaign Manager Executive Director of Forward Washington. She was "the Assistant Campaign Manager for Mike McGavick's 2006 U.S.Senate campaign and previously worked on Dino Rossi's 2004 gubernatorial campaign."

Rossi's The Foundation's campaign platform mission according to a press release issued on Dec. 20, 2006 is "focused on state-level issues such as improving the business climate-especially for small and medium-sized businesses, responsible state budgeting, accountability in state government and protecting the poor and the vulnerable. "

Any guesses as to who might be funding this new Foundation promoting Rossi for Governor? You probably need to look no further than Rossi's Public Disclosure Commission reports when he ran for Governor.

Cheerleader Bush Yells for Giftmas

Yes Giftmas is upon us. And our intrepid cheerleader Bush not only is trying to rally us to send more troops for sacrifice in Iraq but also to get in the holiday spirit and support Giftmas.

Giftmas is the national holiday that shows support for corporations around the world that are based on ever increasing consumption of goods and materials. In America the Giftmas spirit of worshiping ever increasing consumption levels is tracked closely by watching the up and down gyrations of individual corporations as they report their profits and losses on Wall Street.

As just reported in Marketwatch.com, Bush in his press conference today said "The recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country," Bush said. "And I encourage you all to go shopping more."

After 9-11 Bush you may have remembered also urged people to shop ... and to fly on airplanes.

Bush was a Cheerleader in college. It seems he just can't stop cheerleading for corporate America.

"Burn the Books. Who Needs Science?" says Bush to EPA

In Germany in 1933 they burned the books for having "unGerman ideas". Here in America today the Bush Environmental Protection Agency is literally doing the same on behalf of its conservative corporate patrons supporting the Republican Party by closing the Environmental Protection Agency's Libraries and destroying material.

The EPA, under Bush's directive is quietly and rapidly closing the libraries in their national and regional offices without Congressional oversight or approval. The head of the EPA is appointed by Bush and does his bidding.

As the Kansas City Star reports, regional EPA libraries in Kansas City, Chicago, and Dallas have been closed. The National EPA library has closed along with a specialized library on chemicals. Other libraries like in Seattle are on reduced hours and are in imminent danger of being closed.

It is another action by the Bush Imperial Presidency that believes it can do whatever it wants. It is another example of the Bush Administration's blatant hostility toward science and environmental concerns. They are carrying out the anti-environmental agenda of their corporate patrons with the fervor of Nazi Stormtroopers.
The American Library Association reports that:

"the EPA is closing libraries and dispersing resources in accordance with an Administration budget directive that has neither been approved nor formally enacted by Congress. Implementation of the library reorganization is proceeding at a rapid pace. Reports of the library closures, information destruction, and property auctions continue to surface despite the objections to the plan raised by EPA professional staff, EPA employee union representatives and the American Library Association. "

As one after another of the Environmental Protection Agency's regional libraries close, both public access and access by EPA scientists is lost, further hindering the implementation of public policy based on science rather than politics. As books and scientific studies are being boxed up and sent to storage, material is also being destroyed. It is Bush's modern day equivalent to Hitler's "Book Burning."

Ironically this closing of the libraries of the EPA is not hypocritical on the part of the corporate friendly anti-science Bush/Cheney Administration. Most of their decisions have not been based on science anyway but on politics. Global warming is just one example.
Democrats in Congress have tried to stop the library closings but have been ignored by Bush. They have asked that all closing of libraries be stopped immediately. As noted in a November 30th letter to the EPA :

"Eighteen Senators sent a letter on November 3, 2006, to leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee asking them to direct EPA "to restore and maintain public access and onsite library collections and services at EPA's headquarters, regional, laboratory and specialized program libraries while the Agency solicits and considers public input on its plan to drastically cut its library budget and services"(attached). Yet, despite the lack of Congressional approval and the concerns expressed over this plan, your Agency continues to move forward with dismantling the EPA libraries.

The National EPA Library closed on Oct 1, 2006. I know there really wasn't any need for any of the Republican Congress or Bush's cabinet or Presidential staff to really have an environmental library, particularly in Washington, D.C. They never used it. But the EPA library also had been open to the public and of course the EPA staff. But with things changing in Congress Bush doesn't want any facts and science to get into the hands of any incoming Congressional Democrats who might read it and use it as they pass laws. So shut the damn thing down quick before anyone has a chance to stop what's being done. No public input. No budget approval.

Beginning October 1, 2006, the EPA Headquarters Library, located in Room 3340 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, will become one of three EPA repositories for paper copies of EPA documents, reports and publications. The other two repositories will be located at the EPA-RTP Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27711, and at the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268."

Rather than the regional offices having access to scientific information in each of their offices the plan is to box it up and send it to a repository. And probably destroy any duplicates. It's much easier to only have one copy or no copies of a negative pesticide report to hide than multiple reports in offices around the country. And when you close a library you no longer have a need for a librarian to run the library - that's one less person who knows about the reports.

The Bush EPA PR people are saying that the material will be digitized and put on the computer. But wouldn't you do that before you shut everything down? Where is the plan. It's just like Iraq? No plan - shoot first. The Republican scheme of things is box it up, because once it's boxed up, fewer people will have access to deciding what is to be digitized. Its called controlling and denying access to information. Like you can really expect that the reports critical of Bush's position of doing nothing on global warming are going to put up on the internet?

On Dec 13, 2006 ALA President Leslie Burger issued the following:

It is a gross oversimplification to state that everyone benefits when libraries go digital. This is only true when there is a thoughtful digitization plan that ensures valuable information is not lost and public access is retained. We are still waiting for the EPA to disclose its digitization plan and budget," Burger said.

All this is just one more reason to support a Democrat for President in 2008. Bush represents the Republican philosophy of supporting corporations over public health and the environment. He supports controlling access to information over open public libraries that foster a free exchange of information. He doesn't support science or the use of science in making public policy.

Do you hear any Republicans running for President protesting the closing of the EPA libraries? I don't. Things just get worse and worse under Bush, despite the Nov elections because he is not going to listen or act in the behalf of the public interest. Shutting down the EPA libraries has nothing to do with saving money. It has all to do with the continued assault by corporate America on science and putting economic interests of the corporations above public health and the environment.

I urge you to contact your members of Congress and demand the EPA libraries be kept open. Congress needs to hear from us that this assault on science, libraries and the environment is not acceptable. If we don't speak up who will?

Senator Bayh Exits Presidential Race, Edwards Edges Closer

Two weeks ago Indiana Senator Evan Bayh announced that he was forming an exploratory committee to run for President in 2008. I watched him on one of the Sunday news programs and wondered where the fire in the belly was. Well now the fire is definitely out. He has decided not to run according to today's Washington Post.

One reason - after spending two years and raising some $5 million dollars - a trip to New Hampshire netted small crowds while Senator Barack Obama coming to New Hampshire packed in the crowds.

As Bayh said, '"The odds were always going to be very long for a relatively unknown candidate like myself, a little bit like David and Goliath," Bayh said in the statement. He added that beyond the question of "whether there were too many Goliaths or whether I'm just not the right David," his chances were slim.

Democrat Bayh joins two other Democrats, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, in withdrawing from the 2008 Presidential race.

Meanwhile Democrat and former Senator John Edwards says he will make an announcement before the end of the year. When Senator Edwards was in Seattle at the beginning of December he said he had truly not made up his mind. He did a book signing at the University Bookstore on Dec 2, 2006 and acknowledged that he had to make a decision soon.

Edwards acknowledged that it was a mistake when he voted for the Iraq War. I would say that the mistake was voting to give Bush carte blanche, another President might have used the vote more seriously to get international involvement in resolving the situation. He called the present choices bad and worse.

When asked by a precocious 9 year old in the audience what the first thing he would do as President, Edwards noted that there were a lot of important things that needed to be dealt with like energy independence, health care and poverty. But he said the single biggest project was to "restore America's ability to lead the world."

Edwards said we live in a dangerous, chaotic world. He said if we look at the last 6 years it is clear that "raw power alone doesn't make you a leader."

The 9 year old responded that Edwards sounded like Jimmy Carter, who said "make peace, not war".

And this is where I lost Edwards, because Edwards told the boy he was correct but he would add that in order to have the ability to lead the world, the world would have to see us as a moral country. We would have to be a defender of human rights, not an offender. Edwards said America was a light when he was growing up but that is not the case today.

Edwards said the world needs to see our better angels. He said the President needs to travel to other parts of the world and both listen and speak to people - show them that we care. We have an enormous responsibility to the world according to Edwards because we are the richest nation in the world.

Why did I lose Edwards here? Maybe its because it sounded pretty paternalistic and messianic. Was he trying to atone for Bush's mistakes and his when he voted to support Bush on Iraq. Senator Fullbright years ago called it the arrogance of power - that America knows what is best for everyone else. Edwards vision of the President and America leading the world was what got us into Iraq.

I don't support terrorism or the use of violence to achieve political ends. And I don't support what some have distorted the Islamic religion to say, that makes women non-citizens and that kills teachers and doctors and other to further their power. The problems are real and the threats are real. I just don't think we need another foreign policy that makes America a leader.
What we need is a President that respects other nations and their sovereignty. We need to be a nation among nations, not an angel leading others in the world.

We can do more to lead the world by setting a good example and getting our own house in order like by becoming energy self sufficient and not make countries whose internal and external polices we disagree with, wealthy from our money by buying their oil. Bush is making this country economically unstable by both expending our capital and human lives on someone else's civil war and by sending American capital to other nations for products like oil that we could do without if we change our profiligate ways.

The world and the US would be much more secure if instead of spending the billuions we spent in Iraq for war, we had it for energy independence within our own nation. Having higher fuel efficiency standards which Bush opposed would help. Increasing energy efficiency would help. Building green buildings would help. More windmills would help. Solar energy.

Maybe I'm over reacting. You tell me. I know Edwards is a good man and that he cares but I hope Edwards gets a better spin on what he sees the Presidency is about before the next time a 9 year old asks him what the first thing is that he would do as President. The vision thing is important.

Edwards' book unfortunately doesn't help explain Edwards much since it is a book of essays he edited. The book is called "Home: The Blueprints of our Lives" It is not a vision for a future America or the world as seen by John Edwards. It does not tell us how to get out of Iraq or how to end terrorism around the world or how to feed kids or provide for a good education or eradicate disease. And that is what we need to hear about now from someone who wants to be President.

We don't need a drinking buddy for President like Bush sold many people on - we need someone willing to lead and propose solutions and answers to real problems facing America and the world.

Some Democratic Holiday Cheer

One of the highlights of the recent King County Democratic Reorganiztion Meeting in Seattle was a speech by King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson in which she regaled the crowd with the following rendition of a popular story rewritten for present day Democrats:

Twas the First Day of Congress -
By King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson & staff

"Twas the first day of Congress when all thru the House (and Senate)
Not a Republican was happy….They just sat and groused.
'Cause Democrats had planned an election with care.
In hopes that a majority soon would be there.
The children were nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of health care FINALLY danced in their heads
And Condoleezza in her kerchif and Bush in his cap
Had just settled down for their election night nap.
When on CNN there arose such a clatter,
Bush sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to his TV he flew like a flash,
Turned up the volume and watched with a gasp.
When what to his wondering eyes should appear,
But poor Denny Hastert with a great look of fear.
'Cause the new House Speaker was lively and noisy.
He knew in a moment it must be Pelosi.

And here in King County, victories came.
We can whistle and shout and call them by name;
Gone Steve Johnson. Gone Shabro. Gone Esser and Nixon.
Gone Finkbeiner. Gone Schmidt. Gone Roach (we were wishin')
To the top of the porch! To the top of the wall!
Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!

And then, in a twinkling, I heard at the door.
The prancing of a man who helped even the score.
As I drew in my hand, and was turning around.
Thru the door, Frank Chopp, came with a bound.
He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;
A bundle of battle scars showed on his back,
And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.
His eyes- how they twinkled! His dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was turned up like a bow,
And the size of his grin did certainly show.
He was happy and dancing, a right jolly old Speaker,
And I laughed when I saw him, 'cause the GOP is now weaker.
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;
He spoke not a word, but went straight to work,
Making each Republican look like a jerk.
And laying a finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, he put on clean clothes.
He sprang to his feet, to his team gave a whistle,
And to Olympia they flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard them exclaim as they drove out of sight,
Thanks to you all, our country is all right. "

A special thank you to Councilwoman Julia Patterson and staff for allowing us to share this with our readers.

Will it Be the Big Chill at the US Supreme Court?

Washington State in 2003 joined with a coalition of other state attorneys general to sue the Bush Administration for its failure to regulate CO2 emissions from automobiles and other sources of CO2 contributing to global warming. The case was heard Wednesday before the US Supreme Court.

The question now is whether the Supreme Court will respond to the almost uniform scientific consensus that global warming is real and agree that the US Government has the authority to act, and needs to act to act now to protect the public, or whether it will instead respond to the political whims of the Bush corporate mantra and dump cold water on the EPA's doing anything.

Democratic Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, speaking in 2003, noted that "Washington State has shown its commitment by investing heavily in clean sources of power and strong pollution controls to provide the healthiest air possible for our citizens, crops and businesses. We need to see the same kind of commitment on a national level." Christine Gregoire is now the Governor of Washington State.

Earlier this year Rob McKenna, the current Republican Attorney General for Washington State choose not to participate in a similar lawsuit with most of the same plaintiffs challenging the EPA's not acting to raise Federal vehicle fuel efficiency standards. I guess he must have consulted with Republican Congressman Dave Reichert first. Reichert in his campaign for re-election this year said he didn't think global warming had been proved. I'll bet neither of them have gone to see Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth".

The current case now before the Supreme Court was the one started by then AG Gregoire.

According to the Environmental News Service

"The (current)case originated in 1999, when various environmental groups filed an administrative rulemaking petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. In August of 2003, the EPA denied the pending rulemaking petition. At that time, EPA also stated that, as a policy matter, it would not set motor vehicle emission standards even if it had authority. In October of 2003, this decision as challenged. On July 15, 2005, the federal appeals court for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to let the EPA's current position on greenhouse gas pollutants stand. In August, the full bench of the appeals court for the D.C. Circuit was asked to hear the case. The court denied that request with a 4-3 decision, paving the way for the Supreme Court appeal."

Nina Totenberg of NPR notes that

The first question facing the justices is whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant at all. The administration claims it isn't, and is backed by the auto and energy industries in that claim..

"We're talking about carbon dioxide," says former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who is representing the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "It's necessary for life. A pollutant is something that fouls the air, a contaminant. No EPA administrator in history has ever considered carbon dioxide a pollutant."

We've commented on this argument before - "CO2 is life." That's why we all love to be in a room full of CO2. Who needs O2. Trace elements are also important to life. So are vitamins. But its all a matter of proportion. Just like injesting too many of some vitamins can be fatal, so can too much CO2 in the atmosphere - which contributes to global warming.

I guess this argument of CO2 is life made sense to Bush. That's probably why he didn't respond very quickly to Hurricane Katrina. I guess someone told him water is necessary for life. If a little is good for you, more is better. So what was the matter with those people in New Orleans? Didn't they know that H2O is life?

Then Olson says it also a question of standing or the right to bring a case. Saying that just because Massachusetts will lose shoreline because of global warming that is not an adequate reason to bring suit.

Again from Totenberg of NPR

"The states contend that they are suffering significant damage because of the EPA's failure to act. They claim they are losing shoreline because of melting ice and rising oceans, that floods and storms are more severe, causing greater damage, and that controlling smog is getting more difficult. And the Western states say their snow pack is melting, jeopardizing their water supply.

Olson says that sort of generalized damage is not adequate to make the legal case: "If it does exist, it is damage to humanity in general, not to Massachusetts," he says. "Courts need concrete particularized cases before they can constitutionally render a decision. Otherwise, anybody with a grievance can say 'Gee, the ocean's too high this year. I think we should have a lawsuit against the EPA.'"

Of course these are these same people that refuse to join with other nations to reduce CO2 pollution. They refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement or seriously explore and work for other international solutions.

These are the Bush people. The Democrats winning control of the House and the Senate is only a first step to bringing sanity back to public policy because the EPA is still run by Bush. And Bush with his Supreme Court appointments has swung the US Supreme Court further to the right. And it seems that many on the right really don't understand what is happening.

USA Today said

"Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservatives questioned whether states' environmental problems truly would be helped if the U.S. government changed its decision not to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks.
Roberts suggested that economic development in China, for example, could produce pollution that would offset whatever "marginal benefit" states hope to win through federal limits on tailpipe emissions. Justice Antonin Scalia also seemed skeptical about warnings of looming harm from so-called greenhouse gases, asking, "When is the predicted cataclysm?"

It is wonderful to have such forward insightful and forward thinking people on the US Supreme Court. I guess if we left it to Scalia to have building codes to protect buildings from falling down during an earthquake we would have no earthquake proof buildings because we can't predict when the next earthquake will come.

Likewise, because any measure we take is only part of fixing the problem, we should do nothing? But what is nothing? The Seattle Times says that "Together, US power plants and vehicles account for some 15% of global CO2 emissions.

As the NY Times aptly argues, the case is rather simple.

"A plain reading of the Clean Air Act shows that the states are right. The act says that the E.P.A."shall" set standards for "any air pollutant" that in its judgment causes or contributes to air pollution that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The word "welfare," the law says, includes "climate" and "weather." The E.P.A. makes an array of specious arguments about why the act does not mean what it expressly says. But it has no right to refuse to do what Congress said it "shall" do."

The Seattle Times in a lengthy article last year entitled "The Truth about Global Warming"summed up part of the reality.

"...atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are increasing at a rate that precisely tracks man's automotive and industrial emissions.
"The process is 1,000 times faster than nature can do it," Battisti said. Climate reconstructions show that average global temperatures for the past 2 million years have never been more than 2 to 4 degrees higher than now. That means if greenhouse emissions continued unchecked, temperatures would likely be higher by the end of the century than any time since the human species evolved."

Why is there still a controversy? In the Seattle Times article Eric Steig of the University of Washington says that

"...a handful of skeptics has dominated public debate.""Many of us have felt our voices are drowned out by the very well-funded industry viewpoint."
He and several colleagues set out this year to bridge the gap between science and popular perception with a Web log called RealClimate.org. Researchers communicate directly with the public and debunk what they see as misinformation and misconceptions. By giving equal coverage to skeptics on the fringe of legitimate science, journalists fuel the perception that the field is racked with disagreement.
"You get the impression it's 50-50, when it's really 99-to-1," Steig said. Over the past decade, coal and oil interests have funneled more than $1 million to about a dozen individual global-warming skeptics as part of an effort to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," according to industry memos first uncovered by former Boston Globe journalist Ross Gelbspan.
From 2001 to 2003, Exxon Mobile donated more than $6.5 million to organizations that attack mainstream climate science and oppose greenhouse-gas controls. These think tanks and advocacy groups issue reports, sponsor briefings and maintain Web sites that reach a far wider audience than scholarly climate journals."